Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

As most of you know, I work in an elementary school, and *your* tax dollars go directly to my imposing my liberal mindedness on your future leaders, and on occasion, even though we’re a public school, the Bible comes into play.

The other day in the 7th grade classroom, there was a discussion going on about the role of women before they were afforded so much as the right to vote. When students were asked why women were not allowed to vote, the answer most of them said aloud was that “Women are inferior.”

No matter what the question was about why women were not allowed to do this or that, the answer was always the same.

FINALLY, I had to pipe in and correct them about what they were saying. Women were never inferior, they were, however, CONSIDERED inferior by men. I explained that in American society, because it was based strongly on Judeo-Christian morality, women were held to their more “biblical” roles of mother and wife.

We talked quite a bit about this, and why it could be. What it boiled down to was that men have wanted, and still want as much power as they can get.

It’s a given. The Bible is a “Goddly” endorsement of their rights to that power.

The Bible was written, and subsequently translated, by men. I doubt very seriously that anyone here has researched the ancient writings, or learned Aramaic so that they could check the accuracy of what we’re *told* is the of God.

Men wanted it to be this way. They wanted to be the king of their castle, and they didn’t want any competition from within their family. Women were to be submissive objects, who live and die on the whims of the men.

Anyone who has experienced multiple churches and different pastors knows that everyone gets something totally different from each and every part of the Bible. It’s like a tool you would expect to find in Ms. Cleo’s psychic hotline HQ. It’s so vague, that you can teach almost anything you want from it. Forget the true meaning! What’s *YOU’RE* agenda? That’s what you preach.

The Bible is nothing more than a sham document created for the purpose of luring the masses to follow people who otherwise would be nothing more than peons in the world.

Remember the “campfire” stories? The ones where it’s never the same when it gets around, either because details were left out or people intentionally changed it?

The Bible’s the same thing. Just a campfire story with a God complex.

[Johnny Canuck]

There was more equality in Ancient Rome, between Men and Women then there was in the the 19th century. Times Change. Views Change. What's acceptable changes, and the pendulum swings.

Culture also dictates way of life. Compare the Middle East to America. Different Values. You have to remember the time period in which the Bible was written (and where). Do we need to follow the Bible to the letter? No. Because our way of Life has changed since the time it was written. Can we use it as a guide? Yes. Because we, as a human race are still fundamentally the same. The morale lessons taught in the Bible, still hold true in today's world.

Does the Bible suck? No, but Peoples interpretations of the Bible, that impose limitations, misconstrue, and misjudge what it is that the Bible is teaching us, does Suck. Organized religion is the culprit, and their shortsightedness.

Perhaps it's these 'Godfearing Men' that also fear Woman for their 'godlike' powers to create Life. Envious for their gift that God bestowed upon them. Feeling inadequate, it is Man that imposed their Will upon Women.

The Bible is not to blame. We are.

[YukonJack]

Im going to have to disagree with most if not all your post. Here goes.

<blockquote><hr>

women were held to their more “biblical” roles of mother and wife.

<hr></blockquote>
Women were not held to this standard that was what was accepted by all including women they did not fight it. It wasnt until the early 70's that women in corporate america really came into the picture and this stems mainly from young women not marrying immediately out of highschool or college. This forces women into a job to support themselves which is fine I dont disagree with women in the workplace and I beleive that most religious groups (save radical muslims) agree with that too. I would also add that according to child developement studies a child raised by a stay at home mother has the upper hand in almost every study compared to those children who were raised by a sitter or child care business.

<blockquote><hr>

It’s a given. The Bible is a “Goddly” endorsement of their rights to that power.


<hr></blockquote>
Godly is the correct spelling
The bible is not a bill of rights. The bible is a spiritual guide to how you should live your life and an example on how to follow in the footsteps of jesus on a daily basis. It is also a source of true history of the world.
If you were to read instead of judge you would know that the bible does not give full undeniable power to "man" over "women" in fact it specifically state to not take advantage of that because it is wrong and to put it matter of factly not very honorable to your wife or women.

<blockquote><hr>

The Bible was written, and subsequently translated, by men. I doubt very seriously that anyone here has researched the ancient writings, or learned Aramaic so that they could check the accuracy of what we’re *told* is the of God.

<hr></blockquote>
The bible was not written by men. It is the pure word of God printed on paper by men. Man did not add or subtract from what God intended the bible to say. There are several translations out there most common one being the King James version. It is the closest translation from hebrew to english that you will find today. I have not researched the ancient writings of God so I can not tell you that everything is exactly as it was originally written in fact I am almost sure it is not, mostly due to the difference in languages and some words just dont have a meaning between the two. Meaning texts have been written to help study the bible including Hebrew to english bibles to show exact meanings as close as possible to original writings as well as greek dictionaries since many of the old languages were very similar and can be cross refrenced with a words base to get the meaning from several different languages helps to attain the asured definition of a word not to mention context. Im sure that the translations of one of the oldest texts on earth was not just translated in a halfa$$ fashion.

<blockquote><hr>

Men wanted it to be this way. They wanted to be the king of their castle, and they didn’t want any competition from within their family. Women were to be submissive objects, who live and die on the whims of the men.

<hr></blockquote>
Again this is incorrect it has nothing to do with what man wants. It may seem to many that when the bible says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Ephesians 5:22, this can be taken out of context lest you read the rest of the passage ... "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." Ephesians 5:23 This makes it clear that husbands are not "over" there wives, as Christ is not "over" the church is more a guide, a teacher, a mentor. This is how the husband is to be towards his wife He is to take full responsibility for all things related to the family. If something bad should happen and it was the result of something the wife may have done (like not paying a bill) this in Gods eyes is the husbands fault as he is responsible for the well being of the family.
Here is another reference "Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them." Collosians 3:19
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

<blockquote><hr>

Remember the “campfire” stories? The ones where it’s never the same when it gets around, either because details were left out or people intentionally changed it?


<hr></blockquote>
These diffrences are due to different religious sects. Just as we have all debated the meaning of the constitution here so have people debated the writings of Christ. This is not the fault of the bible it is the fault of the people.

Some are whacked out of there skulls with the meanings that they pull from the bible just like the Democrat liberals are whacked out of there skulls when they attempt to pull meaning from the constitution.


<blockquote><hr>

The Bible’s the same thing. Just a campfire story with a God complex.

<hr></blockquote>
You my friend will be spending an eternity in hell and im sorry for you. God have mercy on your soul because you are already dead.

Okay. . .but if the Bible weren't the supposed word of God, people would not be able to use it to force their opinions on the weak minded.

These powermongers use the Bible, the ALL POWERFUL "Holy Word", complete with visions of heaven and hell and the swift wrath of God, to coerce people into doing their bidding.

Evangelism is a billion + dollar industry!

Remove the Bible, and it looses the abiltity lure people with promises of a wonderful afterlife, in exchange for doing the bidding of certain "religious leaders" during their life on earth.

It's just sick.

[*Owned by Osi*]

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif you love posting topics like this just to get a rise
so whatever happened to you "claiming" being a Christian?

[ArchieGM]

It was the patriarchal Greco-Roman world that led the Roman Church to its views on the roles of men and women. Early Christians were much more inclusive towards women. The Reformation helped correct some of the false perceptions held by the Roman Church.

Did you also teach your students about ancient Greek and Roman culture, or did you just blame it on the Bible?

[YukonJack]

So to you the bible is just a peice of ancient litrature written by some old guy and all the hundreds of thousands and millions of Christians worldwide are mindless zombies correct?

[Johnny Canuck]

"Evangelism is a billion + dollar industry! "

"It's just sick. "

You're right that is sick. Stealing money from the sick and the old. The God I believe in, isn't short of cash.
What they've done is a perversion of Faith, Belief, and Religion.

"I have a vision!..........I Have a Vision!!....... TELEVISION!!!"

Okay.

This is Genesis 1:28 from the KJV:

<blockquote><hr>

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

<hr></blockquote>

Replenish. So. . .what was here before Adam and Eve? To "replenish" something means to put back what once was.

In Genesis 9:1 in the KJV, it says:

<blockquote><hr>

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

<hr></blockquote>

Replenish again, but this time, talking to Noah and refering to recreating the civilization he had just wiped out.

Now, is one word a mistranslation? Both words? Neither word? What was here before Adam and Eve then, and how did it get here and what happened to it?

It's just rubbish.

A few points,

<blockquote><hr>

It is also a source of true history of the world

<hr></blockquote>

I really have to disagree with this. Many of the events described in the bible are taken from many other religions (et al) which have an older history (I taking the start date as the birth of Christ, so please don't mention about Genesis). I would agree that the bible is a very good starting point in which to investigatre ancient history, just that's it's not all true. Many stories are parables (sp) and not supposed to be taken literally.

<blockquote><hr>

The bible was not written by men. It is the pure word of God printed on paper by men. Man did not add or subtract from what God intended the bible to say. There are several translations out there most common one being the King James version. It is the closest translation from hebrew to english that you will find today

<hr></blockquote>

The OT and NT was compiled by MAN. It was decided that certain books were "influenced" by God, whereas others were not (for the NT). I most certainly do not believe that it is the "pure word of God". As for language, it wasn't just in Hewbrew (at least for the NT). Also, the translation of old Hewbrew texts is a subject for much debate since it is a language that does not use vowels. The problem from translating old text comes from interpreting the "world" at the time it was written. For example, there are English words used today that had a completely different meaning as little as fifty years ago.

<blockquote><hr>

These diffrences are due to different religious sects. Just as we have all debated the meaning of the constitution here so have people debated the writings of Christ. This is not the fault of the bible it is the fault of the people.

<hr></blockquote>

I agree with this, although as I said before, I would go further and say there are also debates concerning the translation. Just to illustrate, it's a popular perception that the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" (words like that at any rate), whereas it should be "thou shalt not murder". Many similar debates occur with the Qu'ran (which at least has the advantage it is in its original language).

<blockquote><hr>

Remove the Bible, and it looses the abiltity lure people with promises of a wonderful afterlife, in exchange for doing the bidding of certain "religious leaders" during their life on earth.

<hr></blockquote>

To be fair, it does seem that you have seen too many of the tele-evangelist-money-grabbing-lieing-self-publicists, and as such tar everyone with the same brush. Which is just as bad as the people you critcise.

[*Owned by Osi*]

<font color=blue>Replenish. So. . .what was here before Adam and Eve? To "replenish" something means to put back what once was.</font color=blue>

in hebrew its much deeper than what you read in kjv

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary:
1961. hayah ... to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass.
8414. tohuw ... to lie waste; a desolation (of surface).

the world became waste and desolation he didnt create that way at that time
its a much deeper study to understand why it became like this and you would have to reseach the earth ages

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

it wasnt formless and empty in hebrew its clear, it became desolation

just because your frustrated doesnt means its rubish

Show me an honest man or woman of god.

Please.

Look at the wealth aquired by the Catholic Church alone. Not tele-evangelists.

These people poses world "treasures" that they won't show anyone. If we had them in our bedroom closet, the government would take them away because they "belong to the world" and should be shared. They're doing that in Iraq right now!

Look at how the Catholic church uses the Bible to keep women from the priesthood.

It's not looking at specific cases. It's taking in all of it that makes it so bad.

You're proving my point.

Why should anyone read the Bible, or listen to anyone who does, when it obviously is completely irrelevent compared to the original writings?

Are you saying that I should go to church, and listen to someone preach to me about something in the Bible that, because he hasn't studied the ancient writing themselves, is not what God really said?

I'm not debating the ancient writings that the Bible is loosly based on. I'm debating the usefullness of a document that has been tainted by psuedo-intelectuals who have a specific agenda and plan to use God to make it happen.

Everything you just said reinforces my point.

The Bible is CRAP!

The Catholic Church is a political force created by the Emporer Constantine. An organisation with numerous faults, and a construct of man, does not necessarily negate or condemn all who follow it.

<blockquote><hr>

Look at how the Catholic church uses the Bible to keep women from the priesthood

<hr></blockquote>

Which is not the fault of the Bible. It is an example of how an institution uses the Bible.

[*Owned by Osi*]

if it wasnt for the kjv and the excellent concordance wrote by Strong i would have very little understanding of the word so its far from irrelevent

<font color=blue>Are you saying that I should go to church, and listen to someone preach to me about something in the Bible that, because he hasn't studied the ancient writing themselves, is not what God really said?</font color=blue>

its like anything in life, when researching on a subject do you go to one man for your only source? no
why would anyone expect anything different from obtaining the Truth, its not gonna fall in your lap like anything you need to study

<font color=blue>I'm not debating the ancient writings that the Bible is loosly based on. I'm debating the usefullness of a document that has been tainted by psuedo-intelectuals who have a specific agenda and plan to use God to make it happen.

Everything you just said reinforces my point</font color=blue>

i cant disagree with that and even some of those so called scholars have been used by another person with his own agenda to distort the bible and he been at work on that agenda for several generations and he is the best in the business
but to throw out the whole translation and say it sucks would be going way to far

[Bethusda]

Before you expounded upon your biblical opinion to your class - did they say specifically why they thought women were inferior? Was this just boys giving you some jank as it were - or did the girls think this too?

When I was in school, some of the boys did not think women should get equal rights because they could not die for their country like the boys could. It had more to do with politics than questions of inferiority. Right or wrong, at least that is a specific example. Pose this question to your class again and see what they say.

It deeply concerns me that these students seem to be totally ignorant of the struggle women went through to gain equal representation under the law - particularly your female students. Do they not know why? How would they like to live in a world where your husband owns everything of yours and gets all rights to the kids? If they cannot defend their sex in a simply classroom discussion, how will they handle the workplace - marriage, and so forth?

For example, a male could say to me - "Women can't drive - they're stupid, always talking, and putting on makeup when their eyes should be on the road."

I'd respond to this accusation of inferiority, "Really? then please tell me why is is that insurance companies generaly charge more for male drivers because they are more reckless?"

It also concerns me that the modern feminism movement has lost touch with the common man and woman. Well meaning PC nonsense doesn't help.

Don't forget the Bible gets re-interpreted by almost every church and culture. For example, a Catholic woman in the US enjoys more equal privilages than in the Catholic Spanish flavored machismo countries of Central and South America.

Problem is with the Bible and other religious documents, people tend to focus on more literal aspects - or societal aspects that really have little to do with the message or intent. Also, I figure some chapters (Deuteronomy for instance) was not meant to be taken as holy dogma. And yes, males have long used the Bible as a crutch to suppress women. And Christians are not the only ones - Muslims and Hindus are masters of this.

[YukonJack]

Thats funny I just recently read somewhere that this exact example is used all the time by those that doubt the scripture in order to cast badlight on the bible give me some time to find the documents I need to explain this Ill get back to you on it

[YukonJack]

Thank you for that most complete agrument for the word replenish and how it is mistranslated into english

[YukonJack]

its not completely irrelevent to the original writings. Again this is not a stupid text book from one of your worthless moronic students backpack (moronic and stupid because you teach them)

The Bible is for deep immersive study not light reading to pass a test. Its like most teachers to believe that its just a book and all its good for is to read and take literally

<blockquote><hr>

The Bible is for deep immersive study not light reading to pass a test

<hr></blockquote>

Spot on. You could spend years on the first few books of the OT.....

Actually, it was JUST the girls saying it.

<blockquote><hr>

Don't forget the Bible gets re-interpreted by almost every church and culture.

<hr></blockquote>

Agreed. But this isn't Shakespere. It's (supposedly) the Word of God, and isn't really open to interpretation.

When I was growing up, I was told that the Bible was written on a sixth grade level, so that it was easy to understand. Whether or not this is true, it just goes to the point of how people pull things out of their butt and say it's the truth, and we should respect it's holyness!

Why do we have so many different faiths within the Christian belief if everyone is reading the same Bible?

Why do some worship on Saturday instead of Sunday? Why is dancing okay in some religions and bad in others? The list of differences goes on and on. It's supposedly one Bible, but someone somewhere has some sort of research to support their "belief".

Who exactly do I believe?

Do I believe what the Bible says about keeping the Sabbath holy, and do my worshipping on Saturday? Do I do what the majority of Christians do, which is worship on Sunday? Does baptism require total immersion? Should communion be wine or grape juice?

What happens to us when we die?

I have never me two people that have exactly the same opinion on what happens when we die!

All of these differences can be attributed to the vaguery of the Bible.

Is it an accurate translation and God just didn't feel like being clear? Did the biases (to use a statistics phrase), either known or unknown, lend to the distortion of the TRUE word of God?

Too many questions.

<blockquote><hr>

(moronic and stupid because you teach them)

<hr></blockquote>

lol! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

[*edit*] Where do people keep getting the idea that I'm a teacher? /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif

<blockquote><hr>

The Bible is CRAP!

<hr></blockquote>

Its odd, im not religious but this statement really struck me as rude. My wife is christian and my two school age children are being raised with that belief system more or less. I say more or less because they know that even though I have the same beliefs as to what is right and wrong, I dont determine right and wrong based on what the bible says. I would hope that you keep your opinions about the bible out of the classroom. In your original post it almost sounded like you might not. Religion is a personal choice and I wouldnt want a teacher telling my kids it was crap anymore than I would want them saying everything in it was fact.

[YukonJack]

A. God wasnt born he just was.

B.Please give an example of something that happened before the creation of the world as we know it?

C.I agree with you not everythign you read in the bible is true Christ on many occasions uses parables as a means to teach people the meanings behind some of his teachings. But the you cannot say that the bible itself is not a Historical document of past event because it is but its also the story of jesus' life.

D.Yes it was all compiled by MAN thats not What I was saying The Lord God put those words in the writers hands or it was as history played both are acceptable some parts of the bible are actual Written Letters Corinthians for example are the letters written by paul to the church in Corinth Lots of teachings in corithians on how to be a good christian.

E.I agree with your statements on translation as MMII has pointed out with the word replenish however that is why you are to study Gods word and find out what the meanings of today are compared to what the were when it was written

F.I agree with your statements on the kill vs. murder many people use this to get out of war saying that god forbids them to kill Which is not at all right God does not forbid people to go to war in fact he has told armies to go to war and then assisted them in winning. Goto revelations when he speaks of his great return and the Battle of Armageddon(sp) This battle will be God and the Christians against The Anti-Christ and his followers. The end of the Anti-Christ and the begining of Gods 1000 year reign on earth begins with the battle of all battles. A battle to shame all wars.

I'm a Christian, and so are my wife and kids.

If one of the requirements to being a Christian is to not think the Bible is crap, then maybe I need to rethink my affiliation.

The Bible is a good read, and it's interesting, but it's filled with obvious, and some not so obvious, mistakes.

I consider the Bible to be a loose guideline as to what Christianity is. If I want a more stingint guide, I'll do what Owned By OSI (dude you need a nickname) said, and learn the ancient languages and consult the original texts.

You could say the Bible is Cliff Notes for God.

Taking it too literally is simply ridiculous.

[*Owned by Osi*]

(dude you need a nickname)

just call me Owned i dont mind lol

[Madrak]

Biblical roles?
When did the Bhagavad Gita and the Koran become integrated into judeo-christian-westernism?

It seems to me that damn near any religion, philosophy or idealogy can and has been used to justify the hierarchy-du-jour. That does not mean that the texts naturally privilege any particular structure, any particular class, race or gender: The fact that these texts have been used by damn near every kind of person in everykind of civilization to justify and pursue disproportionate authority demonstrates the wide interpretability of the texts. You might as well hate your physics book because some people use the words in it to make atomic bombs.

How about GED for genetically enhanced donut? Sweet nick for you GED.

As for the bible being crap....have you read anything by Robert Jordan? Now that is a bunch of crap.

[Lady from Hell]

<blockquote><hr>

Remove the Bible, and it looses the abiltity lure people with promises of a wonderful afterlife, in exchange for doing the bidding of certain "religious leaders" during their life on earth.

It's just sick.


<hr></blockquote>

Do you even read the Bible? It doesn't say any of that anywhere in it.
Do yourself a flavor and read it why don'tcha?

What it DOES say though, is to question everything, including those losers that say to give them money in exchange for your afterlife mansion. Jesus Christ Himself went up against those ppl. Did ya know that? Read that one, it's a great 'campfire story'.

In fact, why don't you just read the stuff that Jesus said (usually highlighted in red) if the whole collection of canonical books is too overwhelming for ya.
And if knowing it's the Bible you're reading that bothers you, then slap a cover on it and call it "The Ultimate Chicken Soup for the Soul" hehe pun intended /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif


*edit-- oops forgot a word lol*

[DumpsterDan]

LOL Kudos to you for pointing that out about replenishing. I mentioned that to Magdalene the other evening.

You're forgetting something Major, the bards Arthurian legends and chivalry having tremendous influence on how the West has perceived male/female relationships. Pre-Christian Europaganism has a whole lot more to do with
chauvinism than Judeo-Christian theology. You're also forgetting Deborah Ruth Esther Priscilla etc.

The New Testament commands that husbands love their wives as Christ loved the Church cherising nourishing and giving himself up for her. Women are merely commanded to respect their husbands.

You're correct to be bent but you're bent in the wrong direction. Good topic btw.

[imported_Queen Mum]

I agree that organized religion has turned more spirits away from the path of righteousness then to it.

"I work in an elementary school, and *your* tax dollars go directly to my imposing my liberal mindedness on your future leaders"
Are we to assume that you take pride in "imposing" your personal ideologies on our children? Thankfully after 25 years of teaching high school seniors my husband does not feel the same "obligation." He teaches (helps) them to learn and decide for themselves.


As for the rhetoric over superiority. Read a little further what the Creator spoke about this subject.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

Could this mean equalization of/to both man and woman? Personally, that is how it is in our home. My husband and I love each other the way we want to be loved. Works out rather well because we realize everyone loves in thier own way.

"It’s a given. The Bible is a “Goddly” endorsement of their rights to that power."
Oh, really? Where, pray tell us, is that in any biblical translation?

I would agree that most "man wants to be king of thier castle". That goal appears to be a "man"kind of thing. However, it is not the way it is suppose to be for "man"kind. We are not the "king". Man nor Woman.

As for the interpretation of the ("bible") Word, it is suppose to be heard (translated) as our soul "hears" it from His Spirit. That is why we are all different, yet we all are the same. The Word does have a thread that is never broken or frayed. It is for us to read and use as a personal tool. Hopefully to help our constant interpretations of "life."

"Forget the true meaning!"
I would like to know what you think the true meaning is, it might help me understand where you are coming from in your "liberal mindedness."

I sincerely hope that it isn't that: "The Bible is nothing more than a sham document created for the purpose of luring the masses to follow people who otherwise would be nothing more than peons in the world"

For me, a child of our Creator is more than a peon with or without the "bible". I am created in the image of our Creator. And that makes me pretty darn special /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif -- hehhee just ask my family, they will be happy to tell you!!!

"Just a campfire story with a God complex." I had to chuckle a little at this statement. God is complexed. Once I realized that, the the rest became simple for me. Order in a Chaos world.

"Show me an honest man or woman of god. Please."

Major Minor II, please read Proverbs 31
Pro 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies.
Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
I am proud to say that I try every blessed second of my life to be such a woman!

I do feel sorrow and pity for souls who try to seduce others into doubtful wickedness. He ask us to speak the truth, not to force the truth. His truth needs no force. Truth releases all mankinds hearts free. I pray He comes soon to judge such idleness and that you shall know the peace that His Grace gives.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Not a bad way of life I think! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

Now I wonder Major Minor II do you also "impose" this side of "mindedness"?

Peace Be With You ... Always &lt;+&gt;&lt;

[imported_Eladamry]

YukonJack declares that Major Minor II is dead at 04/30/03 02:28PM. “God have mercy on your soul because you are already dead.”
Major Minor II marks his presence at 04/30/03 02:43 PM, and numerous occasions there after.

I have developed several hypotheses to address this apparent contradiction.

1) YukonJack has the 1.21 gigawatts needed to activate the DeLorean’s Flux Capacitor, or has some other time stream tampering device (against the DMCA).
2) Major Minor II is actually dead and it is a double posting/pretending as Major Minor II (Major Minor III?).
3) Major Minor II was resurrected and is now Major Minor Christ II.
4) YukonJack doesn’t know what he is talking as he doesn’t know the difference between being dead and being alive. This puts into question everything YukonJack said up to this point and everything else he might say after.
5) YukonJack got confused and tried to pull an April’s Fool prank on the last day of April instead of the first.
6) YukonJack is simply a liar. Him being a liar puts into question everything he said up to this point, and everything he might say after.

Well, maybe I am wrong, This could be a “God is dead”-Nietzsche “Nietzsche is dead”-God thing. In any case, this anomaly either renders YukonJack’s arguments infertile or prevents us from acting on them due to the danger of disrupting the space-time continuum.

<font color=blue>It seems to me that damn near any religion, philosophy or idealogy can and has been used to justify the hierarchy-du-jour.</font color=blue>

I agree, and following the "logic" I can't really articulate, I'd say that that should help to rationalize how and why they came about.

[Lady_Adriana]

*** It is also a source of true history of the world. ***

lol. the bible is biased veiw from a very HUMAN follower of the original Christian religion. Like it or now, it was a MAN (not genderspecific) That wrote that book. And men are weak, fallable creatures. So sure, you could probably get some true history out of it, after to pick it apart and compare it to all the other records of that time

It is against my beliefs to actually say that the bible is crap. Lets just say it smells a little funky. And NO i'm not Christian. I would probabaly be as offended as any of you would here if someone called you a pagan, if someone called me a christian.

Originally, i'm sure Christianity was a lovely peace-loving, serene productive belief, i mean Hey, he's a new religion that wouldn't want to make you sacrifice your cattle or crops or anything! Great! But you want to know what happened to warp it? We did. Men got involved and were big headed enough to say they were "Ordained by God" And of course when men get involved, so does money and we all know how well bringing money into a situation works.

1. Adam and Eve: two humans...make from clay..yea sure.
2. Original Sin: Why is it always the woman's fault? And if you think about it, it took the evil snake to confince Eve...all it took for Adam to mow down was a look from eve. So remind me who the weaker sex is...
3. THE CRUSADES...yes, lovely peace loving religion..lets slaughter the pagans, just because they're aren't mindless drones and don't think exactly the way we do.
4. Library of Alexandria: There my friend would you have found the true histories of the world, and remind me again who burnt it to the ground
5. Salem Mass. : .....burning women at the stake, can you feel the love?
6. Joan of Arc: If it had been a man that said he heard god telling him to fight in a war, become the leader. He not only would have been made a Saint 100 years earlier than the catholic church apologized...he wouldn't have been set on fire and probably would have made pope.

9. The world was created in seven days: K i don't have a bible in reach so i don't know exactly what was done which day, but exactly where do dinosaurs fit in there? Animals were made right before man, but we have scientific proof that man was NOT around when the dinosaurs were. And don't give me that crap about "How long is a day to a god?" We wouldn't have the seven days the world was made, if the days were different than what we know them now. We would have, "It took a long friggan time to create world, and some stuff happened when god wasn't looking..like ice ages, dinosaurs, some metours ran into us..took a few thousand years to recover from that...but yea, eventually he got around to finishing the job and made those clay people"
10. Moses (my favorite) lovely story really, one i actually belive most of it. Cept for this part about god doing all those miracles. So if god worked through Moses in doing magical acts. That means any power Moses had came from God. Right? So...why are we supposed to burn witches? Arn't techically they supposed to be getting their *powers* from the original source? oh, right, they get theirs from the devil...forgot. Cuz God doesn't share with women..that would be just wrong. I belive and always will belive in this, Moses was a mage..big stick, water's parting ..yea he was a mage.
11. How many times has the bible been reinterperated? In how many different languages? Are you try to tell me NOTHING has been lost in the translation?? I can barely understand the Asian's that come into my shop when they want something wrapped, and your trying to tell me that something that was written in a dead language (or almost dead) has been written into modern speak with it's point intact?
12. How does a King become ordained by god? What qualities have any of the kings of history possessed that the benevolent and viceless creator decided he could oversee the rest of humanity? I've never read about a good king, or a really good leader.. so I've come to the conclusion that God is a really bad judge of character.

and regardless of what anyone belives, i'm not going to hell because i don't think exactly like you. I refuse. I lead a pretty clean life imho. I don't drink, i don't lie, I don't intentionally cause people pain, and except for this post, i usually don't threaten anothers religious beliefs. I help people out whenever i can, and i recycle... But i don't remember who it was above, but someone said that that Miner was going to hell for his opinion, it kinda ticked me off, because people like you were at the head of every hanging trial, and witch trial. Omg your skin is darker than mine! your different! Omg, you don't follow my beliefs to the letter! Your different! Now that is CRAP.

[lancell87]

yes as her daughter i agree she is a very special woman no one out there like her well i think im the closes you can get hehehehe

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

Adam and Eve: two humans...make from clay..yea sure.

<hr></blockquote>
The human body is made of the same elements as dirt. Wonder how the author of Genesis knew that.

I like quotes so thought id share some on religion:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."Thomas Jefferson

"There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies."
Rabbi Sherwin Wine


We will be a better country when each religious group can trust its members to obey the dictates of their own religious faith without assistance from the legal structure of their country. Margaret Mead


Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? James Madison


When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion. Abraham Lincoln


What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life. Albert Einstein


"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin


Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. Don Hirschberg


"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."
Emo Philips.



In the begining there was nothing and God said 'Let there be light', and there was still nothing but everybody could see it."
Dave Thomas.


What do I believe? As an American I believe in generosity, in liberty, in the rights of man. These are social and political faiths that are part of me, as they are, I suppose, part of all of us. Such beliefs are easy to express. But part of me too is my relation to all life, my religion. And this is not so easy to talk about. Religious experience is highly intimate and, for me, ready words are not at hand.
Adlai E. Stevenson

[Johnny Canuck]

2. Original Sin: Why is it always the woman's fault? And if you think about it, it took the evil snake to confince Eve...all it took for Adam to mow down was a look from eve. So remind me who the weaker sex is...


The Original Sin was Pride. And that was Satan's shortcoming.

Eve is very reminiscent of Pandora of Greek fame. (unleashing the world's sorrows and troubles from a tiny box. or in Eve's case an apple from the tree of Knowledge)

The Lesson taught in the story of Pandora, is that the last thing to come out of the box was Hope. and the Bible teaches the same for us. It gives us Hope.

Through all of our shortcomings and failures, through our pain and suffering, we are given Hope.

[Lady from Hell]

<blockquote><hr>

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."
Emo Philips.


<hr></blockquote>

omg RFLMAO!!!

<blockquote><hr>

The human body is made of the same elements as dirt. Wonder how the author of Genesis knew that.

<hr></blockquote>

oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, iron, fluorine, zinc, silicon, rubidium, strontium, bromine, lead, copper, aluminum, cadmium, cerium, barium, iodine, tin, titanium, boron, nickel, selenium, chromium, manganese, arsenic, lithium, cesium, mercury, germanium, molybdenum, cobalt, antimony, silver, niobium, zirconium, lanthanum, gallium, tellurium, yttrium, bismuth, thallium, indium, gold, scandium, tantalum, vanadium, thorium, uranium, samarium, beryllium, tungsten

These are the elements (http://www.tjclarkinc.com/humanbodyelements.htm) that make up the human body. Its a little more than potting soil. a person with limited observation skills could watch a body decompose,and basically become dirt. "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return"

[DumpsterDan]

Hmm I see. So it was a really good guess. Kinda like the guess that life started when lightning hit the Primordial Ooze. Any links to show why no one has been able to recreate that?

Im not saying it was a really good guess nor am I saying that life started by an electrical strike in primordial ooze(so no I dont have any links). I am saying that there is nothing in that statement that isnt something one can observe, then or now. Also about the primordial ooze thing I would say the elemental make-up of the human body is more similar to sea water (primordail ooze?) than dust.

[Wisty]

I dunno what Christians you're listening to, but the pastor and his son whom I listen to fairly regularly, frequently state "Women are the strongest gender" and other lofty appraisals. I'm also Christian and I surely have never thought women were inferior. And Jesus surely didn't think females were inferior, otherwise he would have ignored them in favor of the men, but the bible states time after time that he treated all equally, and stating they are all God's children, each and every one. Though there are parts in the bible people can and do latch onto to support their own selfish purposes, for one reason or another. And it depends upon O.T. or N.T. and which bible. And which country and or background. They haven't caught up with the rest of the world... still think women are lesser because they must "cover their heads" (which in fact, covering heads has nothing to do with sin but for protection when the giant evil angels come again to earth and try to seduce and mate with mortal females -- in other words, "Keep the veil of Christ over your head = protection.")

[Wisty]

&gt;Evangelism is a billion + dollar industry!

I agree with that! Which is why I enjoy watching the pastors whose every word or every other word does NOT precede and end with $'s. What is that evangelist who is still on, Tiltman or Titterman (I almost typed Titman) or Thomas somebody or other? (I think I purposely block out his name, he is so disagreeable to me!) Every time I happen to find him on TV late at night he is ALWAYS ALWAYS <font color=red>ALWAYS</font color=red> asking for money, threatening people if they want to improve in life they MUST pick up phone and call in their <font color=red>MONEY</font color=red>. He makes me utterly sick. I growl and snort and glower and am furious that men like him still hang on to ruin the good name of Christianity -- and then I surf by, to someone better. I honestly get the feeling the man is "possessed" -- by what, I'm not sure -- but that's the feeling I get. I could be wrong, and if I am, I will apologize to him. However, he gives me the creeps!!!!

[*Owned by Osi*]

GED /php-bin/shared/images/icons/uhoh.gif funny stuff lol careful man nick names like that can stick

but for me its more like Genetic Freak or "Freakzilla" you know like Big Papa Pump
WHos Yo Daddy !?

[Wisty]

Note: We've all been scattered into the lands of "Babble" -- scattered, confused, unable to understand one another. Open your heart and listen. It'll translate that of those who have likewise opened and listen. Many of the most important things in life go beyond words.

[Johnny Canuck]

"Women are the strongest gender"

In the Beginning when God was creating you'll notice that each creation was greater and more magnificent than the one that preceded it..... Like an artist creating a master piece, not quite satisfied until He gets it just right.

The last thing He created was Woman. She is the Pinnacle of God's creation.

[Wisty]

&gt;The last thing He created was Woman. She is the Pinnacle of God's creation.

Which would explain, why woman can love man in spite of how man has mistreated womankind.

Yeah, and I want a piece of rib tonight... Hmm.../php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

[GannonCM]

Major Minor -

My comments are mainly directed to you. I do not have time to read all of the post right now. I am a Seminary student and it is close to 1 am. I have Genesis class in the morning.

I think the problem is that you are generalizing everyone who believes the Bible into a particular group of people. I am part of the United Methodist Church, who firmly believes in God's preferential option for the poor, oppressed and outcasted - and that the mission of Jesus Christ was to break the powers of the status quo and to strive for the equality between woman and man as God intended for them to be.

I agree that there are statements in the Bible themselves that seem to be against women "leadership" within the church. However, there are only two places in the whole Bible where this takes place. In the whole context of the Bible, women are commended for their ministry and service to the communities in which they live.

I also agree with you that the Bible CAN be used to support power and dominance, but that does not mean this is the INTENT of the Word of God. All of us can relate to situations in what we INTEND to mean or do is not always perceived correctly.

Have hope Major- there are few of us out there who do not believe that people are inferior on the basis of gender. There are few of us who honestly believe in their hearts and minds that the mission of the Word of God, exemplified in Jesus Christ, is to destroy these "power mongering" mindsets of religion.

I do not believe the Bible teaches that women are inferior. I believe that the two times the Apostle Paul mentions this, you have to look behind the social context. In the Greco-Roman society, women were in charge of the private sphere and men in charge of the public sphere. Somehow, in the history of America, this has become twisted in the idea that women should be "barefoot and pregnant cookin' in the kitchen" mindset. But when women in the ancient Greco-Roman society were in charge of the private sphere, it was a lot more than that. They were in charge of the household finances. They were in charge of the use of the house - if the wife was a Christian but her husband wasn't and she wanted to use the house for the gathering of believers- the husband had no say in the matter. The house was HERS literally. She could do as she pleased with it.

If you read the Gospels carefully, over 80% of Jesus' ministry were directed toward women. If you pay careful attention to all the epistles, not just two verses in all 66 books of the Bible, women are commended for their leadership ability and their ministry.

So I believe that any interpretation of the Bible that seeks to suppress others based on their own power mongering mindset is an invalid and unholy interpretation of what God has intended the Word to be. I agree that there are still principles of morality and ethics we must uphold, but intellectual and spiritual leadership abilities do not fall under morality. What I am trying to say, there, is that a person's intellectual and spiritual leadership abilities are not based on gender - women and men have different gifts and abilities, and some women are more effective leaders within the church than some men. I believe once one commits to being a spiritual leader in the church there are high moral standards to abide by, but gifts of spiritual leadership is, in no way, dependant on gender.

The whole Genesis story in relation to the Fall is not about women being inferior to men. This is not what God intended. However, I really believe that because of pride and self-sufficiency as movement away from Divine Love, these barriers fuel the need to make others feel inferior. I firmly believe that the "curses" that are recorded in the book of Genesis from God onto humanity is descriptive, not judgmental. It is descriptive in the sense that this is the way reality is going to be now, since humanity has naturally moved away from Divine love.

Now I agree that people take the story and say "See, women are inferior." But to do that is to make the Bible a mockery to the whole witness of faith, as well as destroy the mission of Jesus Christ sent into the world.

What people choose to believe and what God intends are completely two different things. We need to remember that. Now to read some more posts /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

[GannonCM]

I need to respond to this real quick Major...

---
Remove the Bible, and it looses the abiltity lure people with promises of a wonderful afterlife, in exchange for doing the bidding of certain "religious leaders" during their life on earth.

It's just sick.
---

Well, you have Jesus who condemns the religious elite (Pharisees and Chief Priests in Israel) for their religious stringency. As an example, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." (Mt. 23.23-24)

Anyone who uses the rules and regulations of religion as the way of salvation, they are grossly misinterpreting Scripture. Though I believe morality is important, grace and mercy are more important - for God expects us to grow in grace. Once we follow the example of Christ, it is not about going to church and bible studies and doing things. Although once one becomes a believer in Jesus, I do believe that Divine Love will so move an individual to have fruits of the Spirit. But to adhere to the "rules and regulations of religion" is NOT what saves. If any of that makes sense.

[GannonCM]

I want to point out to not take the Bible literally. There is a feminist theologian by the name of Mary Daily who states that it is a grave mistake to believe that the creation story in Genesis 1 is a progression of creation in which woman is the pinnacle of the creation and the most "perfect" of all creations. You do have TWO mythical (by mythical I mean a classical definition of the term) accounts of Creation. In Genesis 2, the Creation account is anthropocentric - where God creates humanity (male and female), and then surrounds humanity with the rest of creation.

For those who are curious, Scholars of the Hebrew Bible have pointed out that there are two different sources for these two different creation stories. In Genesis 1, it is called the "Priestly" account. As a simple description, any time you find a structure or order of the way things ought to be done in the Penteteuch (Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers and Deutoronomy) it is ascribed to the Priestly source. Since the structure of 7 days made sense to the author of this Priestly account, the structure of 7 days was used to explain creation.

However, the other account of the Creation Story (Genesis 2) is ascribed to what is commonly called the Yahwist source. Authors of this source are more concerned not with the structure of how things work, but are more concerned about the ways that God is involved within the lives of humanity and with all of creation.

In summary, the pinnacle of all creation is humanity in relationships. God never created us to be hermits (contrary to the popular belief of the monastic movement). We are created to be in a loving relationship with God, and in true compassion and relationship with each other.

There is a lot that is not known because of our finiteness. But all will be known when we shall see God face to face. We'll have all of eternity to ask God these things.

It makes me sick that people have used the Bible in their own oppressive ways and as an instrument of fear. But keep in mind this is how people have used it, this is not what was intended.

[GBob]

Long before the bible Men claimed dominion over other people. For the most part there was only one doctrine that applied “Might makes right”. Indeed Men controlled women in a similar fashion. Since the printing press and the dreaded spread of the bible have things gotten worse or better for women and mankind in general? Do you vote and have a job? Many of the most outspoken for the oppressed have been religious leaders attacking among other things slavery, poverty and hunger. Of course there were also clergymen like Phillips and Beecher who helped lead the charge for women’s suffrage.

Certainly your discussion with the children seems flawed. School is a place to express as well as question beliefs. No doubt they were asked to figure out what was behind women’s lack of suffrage. There were men who did claim women were inferior and therefore should not vote. While many people in the education system prefer the “Wrong do it again approach”, I prefer the idea of asking people to think. Wouldn’t a simple question to break the “Women are inferior” statement? Ask them what changed? Why would an “inferior” women suddenly be worthy of voting?
Another thoughtful question -if women didn’t have the right to vote how did they possibly get that right? I guess the people who could vote (a.k.a men) must have given them that right. So it is possible that a lot of men thought women were not inferior. That would lead to the possibility many Christian men didn’t think the bible said women were inferior?

Do you really think that if the bible didn’t exist that the unjust and immoral would not find some other avenue to take advantage of the weak minded?

You know, I wish women weren't allowed to vote.

[Lost Dutchman]

*wanders into the thread*
*looks around*
"Umm, nevermind. I will just go check out the 'Hit Yourself on the Head' thread. It looks less dangerous."

[Bethusda]

<blockquote><hr>

Actually, it was JUST the girls saying it.

<hr></blockquote>

I wonder if this attitude has anything to do with the onset of puberty. Girls change from being just kids - to being kids with sometimes traumatic physiological changes. This might have something to do with their outlook.

BTW - is there a particular ethnic/cultural dominance in your classroom (Hispanic for example whioch places more value on male children)?

[Mother Zub]

<blockquote><hr>

A. God wasnt born he just was.

<hr></blockquote>

an infinite being right? He knows the past present and future. He has always been in all times and he is the creator of all times.

<blockquote><hr>

B.Please give an example of something that happened before the creation of the world as we know it?

<hr></blockquote>

I dont know what youre getting at, but angels are an example.

Normally I would say "the formless void" as well... but someone called to attention that in hebrew the meaning is "clear... and it became desolation"
Which begs the question, if it was first null and became "desolation" before it was fully formed, this implies that "desolation" is a transition period.

Interesting. To me that would argue for guided evolution, that the creation of the earth was BOUND to the laws of nature and physics (other wise he would have just "poofed" the earth from nothing in complete form).

Which leasts to one of 2 possibilities:
1) God is himself bound to the laws of nature
2) God created the laws of nature *before* "the first day" in Genesis.

<blockquote><hr>

But the you cannot say that the bible itself is not a Historical document of past event because it is but its also the story of jesus' life.

<hr></blockquote>

It is silly IMO to say that you "cannot say that."
You can say it quite easily.
No proof of the existance of jesus has EVER been found. Yes, I know all the apoligetic arguments of proof, they have all been proven false or highly in question in the least.
Bear in mind that the biblical jesus wasnt just a man, he was a man with a reasonably large following who proportedly has a long "history" with the roman's in jerusalem and was crucified. When he died the sky was accounted to have gone dark, the curtains of the temple ripped, and the roman's guilty of crucifying him said "surely this was the son of god." Yet NO record, outside of the bible exists for these major historical accounts, though other period records exist.

In fact... SHORTLY (I forget the number of years, but I recall it as 30-40, I could be mistaken in that detail) after his reported death, during the very begining of the first christian churches there is RECORD of the rabbis of Jerusalem mocking the christians saying that they "worship a phantom" and themselves asserting that, though they lived During the time that is accounted as when he lived, they NEVER heard a word about him until the time of the first churches. Despite that he was supposedly causing a stir.
I'll find the referance to that if someone requests it.


<blockquote><hr>

D.Yes it was all compiled by MAN thats not What I was saying The Lord God put those words in the writers hands or it was as history played both are acceptable some parts of the bible are actual Written Letters Corinthians for example are the letters written by paul to the church in Corinth Lots of teachings in corithians on how to be a good christian.

<hr></blockquote>

funny that you should give paul's letters as a good example of the guided word of god.
What about the verse that says *whips out the bible she keeps on her desk for such occasions*

Let your women keep silence in churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

What? Came the word of God from you? Or came it unto you only?
I Cor 14:34-36

To make matters WORSE the previous verse says For God is not the author of confusion, but the author of peace, as in all the churches of the saints

Let there be no mistake as to the EXPRESSED intent of this verse. Just incase you are confused about the previous verse, this verse will reinforce it.
Let there be no confusion that god is the author of peace (and quiet)and freedom from annoying high pitched voice of the inferior woman who is not ONLY physically and legally inferior but ALSO and MORE-SO spiritually inferior, as one of our good christian friends pointed out:

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.
Collosians 3:19

The woman is not even soley responsible for her own soul and own actions. The MAN must give an account for her actions. Like an underage child, unable to make decisions for herself.
I am not quite sure why poster used this verse to argue For the bible, when it in an insulting example of the idea that women are spiritually inferior. Inferiority of the worst sort if you ask me.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Tim. 2:11-12

More of the Apostle Paul's lovely letters to the churches.

You intend to use the bible as a moral guide?
Dont forget that verse when youre in the voting booth, or looking for someone to promote in your business, or trying to find a good school for your son.



<blockquote><hr>

E.I agree with your statements on translation as MMII has pointed out with the word replenish however that is why you are to study Gods word and find out what the meanings of today are compared to what the were when it was written

<hr></blockquote>
A new phenomena and slow catching. The masses arent educated in this way.
only possible for more than a tiny elite relatively recently anyway. What were people "supposed to do" before?

The word


<blockquote><hr>

Goto revelations when he speaks of his great return and the Battle of Armageddon(sp) This battle will be God and the Christians against The Anti-Christ and his followers. The end of the Anti-Christ and the begining of Gods 1000 year reign on earth begins with the battle of all battles. A battle to shame all wars.

<hr></blockquote>

I laugh, given your previous statement, it doesnt appear that you have studied Revelations and related it to origional meaning an intentent.
Revelations has a present (the the time it was written) meaning. Only if you believe that the word of god is True in the past True in the present and True in the future can you bring this interpretation of Revelations at all.

if you truely believe in the timelessness of the word of god, then you cannot at the same time assert that you can "weed out" things that are no longer relevant or brush them off as useful "historical accounts."
NOR have their meanings changed. It was true then, it is true now, and it was true forever.
Such is a timeless god who "just was"

the very FOUNDER of the church and christianity, the apostle paul, wrote some of the most specific and insulting verses against women of all.
He was telling them how to be "good christians" as you say, and that is part of what he said.
How do you brush aside those remarks? Should you not strive to be a good christian... or do you not truely believe the truth of the word?

[YukonJack]

Without making light of everything I said let me laugh at your post Ha Ha Ha haha

Now Let me say that when I say dead you ,as MMII reads the bible, are reading this as literally when in fact he is not physically dead but Spirtiually dead.

Christ wants no part of MMII blasphemous babble

<blockquote><hr>

And Jesus surely didn't think females were inferior, otherwise he would have ignored them in favor of the men. . .

<hr></blockquote>

So remind me. How many female disciples did Jesus have?

[YukonJack]

Again with literal horse crap excuses
Im done arguing about it believe what you want. Read it as novel bedtime story. I dont care the world its self is ripping its self apart because of the lack godliness in our everyday lives this is what will bring the wrath of God back on the earth. I feel for those of you that make light of his teaching as just stories from the past and that jesus was just a man with a large following. These are things for which you will be judged the full intent of misleading people and using Gods word to do so is unforgiveable by me. You can certainly thank the Lord that God is an Always forgiving being and no matter what you do in your life he will take you in and forgive you for the things you have done. You may still get your chance at forgiveness less you totally deny him. Mother Zub Im sorry for you specifically because you seem to actually be play against what you really believe. Make note now that the messiah of of the jewish past is in fact the Lord Jesus and he will come again.
God be with you all

<blockquote><hr>

Christ wants no part of MMII blasphemous babble

<hr></blockquote>

Pray tell. How would you know.

[Mother Zub]

<blockquote><hr>

Christ wants no part of MMII blasphemous babble

<hr></blockquote>

Youre the one claiming to be a christian, and in the next breath claiming that the word of god is not true.

Last time I checked, what you have done is blasphemy of the highest degree.

Unless you want to assert as a whitness before us and before your god that women should not talk in church and that it is a shame for women to teach men or hold a position of authority that traditionally is the rhelm of the man.

*cock crows 2x in the distance*

Im waiting.

You know, people always say that saying things like "godda*n it" is blasphemy, but I disagree.

I believe that taking the Lord's name in vain means that you take God's name, and tell people the must do this, or they must do that.

This is what you're doing.

Now tell me.

Except for the fact that people have told you that the Bible is the defacto word of God, what makes you actually believe it?

You're faith is based on what flawed humans have told you over your life.

Not on what God has told you.

This is why the Bible is crap. It gives these humans a place from which to speak their blasphemous preachings.

[imported_Queen Mum]

Lost Dutchman, thanks for the double chuckle /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
'Hit Yourself on the Head' thread. It looks less dangerous."
"Nil Illegitimo Carborundum" The Philosopher Didactylos

Om - "Ephebe's known for its philosophers. It's better than street theater."

Just a quick question for those of you who feel you know the Bible quite well and seem to take it as the perfect word of God.

When Saul of Tarsus was on the road to Damascus to persecute some Christians, and received his vision of the resurrected Christ which kind of caused him to chang his mind, did those who travel with him hear something but see nothing . . .

<font color=red>"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."</font color=red>Acts 9:7

. . . or hear nothing but indeed saw something?

<font color=red>"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."</font color=red>Acts 22:9

BTW, Yukon, I see you've gone ahead and judged and condemned MMII to hell. Perhaps your Bible is missing Luke 6:37:

<font color=red>"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:"</font color=red>

You might want to check and see if a page is torn out or something.

[imported_Eladamry]

<blockquote><hr>

You my friend will be spending an eternity in hell and im sorry for you. God have mercy on your soul because you are already dead.

<hr></blockquote><blockquote><hr>

Christ wants no part of MMII blasphemous babble

<hr></blockquote>Are you passing Judgment on Major Minor II? Maybe you don’t have a functioning Flux Capacitor, maybe you are God.

PS. I am glad you found my post amusing, I hope everyone else found it so as well.

[YukonJack]

This entire argument is crap because it basicly comes down to Yes I beleive in God or Yes I am god or Yes I am an aethiest bag /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

So you have no faith and you suck.

I beleive in God not because I've been told to but Ive seen events in my life occur that in no way could have been just a coincidence or luck. I guess you could call them signs from god as Im sure every true christian on this board will agree with me they have had sometype of assistance from God.
You have to Im certain you have because God loves us all no matter what the thing here is you didnt recognize it as assistance from God you took credit for it yourself or pushed it off as luck or coincidence.
The difference here is you are trying to fight against what you know deep inside is the truth and I've already found it and your jealous. Just accept it and quit thinking your weak because of it.

Imagine how you will feel standing in front of an almighty God and have him ask you, Why should I let you into heaven? What will you say?

Wont you feel so stupid. How could you have been so deaf to everything you've read or been told. You thumbed your nose at everything related to Christ.

If you were to die right now what would you say when Christ asks you why?

[imported_Queen Mum]

Acts 22:6-9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Acts 9:7 says: `And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.'

Is this a contradiction? No. The Greek usage in 9:7 indicates the men with Paul heard a noise. But in 22:9, Paul used the Greek word `phonea', to indicate that the men with him heard no words.

As for Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" You are correct we are not to be the judge of mankind.
I think what Yukon is trying to express is addressed in Ezekiel 3:18-21 and 33:8-9.
Eze 3:18 When I say ..., Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn ..., to save his life; the same ... shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
(Edited to save space /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif - you can read the two chapters for reference.)
Note, The ministry of the word is concerning matters of life and death, for those are the things it sets before us, the blessing and the curse, so that we may escape the curse and inherit the blessing.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Note, I think Yukon is following what he believes is Truth and it remains the free will of us all to choose to believe in what we will.
Now, I wonder where did free will to choose come from? Just wondering.

Peace Be With You...Always &lt;+&gt;&lt;

I don't understand. Why are people arguing about something that is completely personal, that has little to nothing to do with anyone else?

So tell me. . .what exactly makes you believe in God? What is the basis for your faith if not for the flawed Bible?

<blockquote><hr>

Wont you feel so stupid. How could you have been so deaf to everything you've read or been told.

<hr></blockquote>

Isn't that the point? What I've been told, I've been told by people promoting their own agenda. What I've read is a book written by people with an agenda.

Think about it. When something good happens, people are quick to say that it's the work of God. They have no idea if this is true or not, but they're so brainwashed, they believe it.

Then, when something bad happens, they come up with "God works in mysterious ways" BS.

I'm a Christian. Born and raised. I have a healthy mistrust of anything we humans do. This is why I'll use the Bible as a guideline, but that's about it.

Children's minds are being poisoned right and left by the so called "teachings" of this book.

For centuries it has been the source of death and destruction.

Today, people use the Bible to oppress people.

If the Bible were tossed out today, society would begin to grow in ways it has never imagined.

Without the restraints that bind us to our illegitimate beliefs, we could be an awesome species.

Maybe the Bible is just a test. Maybe God's true test is to see that we learn to rise above these types of restrictions, and become who we need to be.

<blockquote><hr>

If you were to die right now what would you say when Christ asks you why?

<hr></blockquote>

I'd ask him why, if he really is all powerful, he couldn't have been a little more clear, or guided the hands of the translators a bit better.

[imported_Eladamry]

<blockquote><hr>

I don't understand. Why are people arguing about something that is completely personal, that has little to nothing to do with anyone else?

<hr></blockquote>Faith may be personal, but The Bible, and its validity is not, especially when it affects others. Major Minor II brought up his dislike of the Bible because from his experience the Bible led people of the past to discriminate against women, something that still carries over into today. If faith is so personal, tell those Bible wielding wackos to stay out of our bedrooms and don’t attempt anymore crusades to liberate the “Holy Land” or fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When “faith” of others influences us in detrimental ways we have to strike back.

[YukonJack]

I at no time said the word of God was untrue
...get off the crack pipe

<blockquote><hr>


Acts 22:6-9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Acts 9:7 says: `And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.'

Is this a contradiction? No. The Greek usage in 9:7 indicates the men with Paul heard a noise. But in 22:9, Paul used the Greek word `phonea', to indicate that the men with him heard no words.

<hr></blockquote>

Forgive me, my Koine is a tad weak, but I was under the impression that phonea comes from the root phone which means "voice" or "sound." It seems to me that if Paul said phonea that would indicate they either a) heard no sound, or b) heard no voice, not "heard a voice with no words" or "heard a sound with no words." I would assume Paul was not an idiot and if he meant to say "words" he would have used logos or something along those lines.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that. It seems to me that in this case, the KJV is a much more accurate translation than whatever the source is you decided to use.

[Mother Zub]

<blockquote><hr>

I at no time said the word of God was untrue
...get off the crack pipe

<hr></blockquote>

yes you did. Not directly but you are DENYING some verses.
You would never deny god?... even though You refuse to say that those verses are true? Are you ashamed of what they say?

I am challenging you to affirm your belief in the word of god as it applies to these specific scriptures.

Do you or do you not believe that these SPECIFIC scriptures, written by the apostile paul to the first christian churches in the letters of corinthians and timothy as instructions on how to be a good christian, are true?



it's mutiple choice:

a) I think women should be silent in church and wait till they get home and ask their husbands if they have a question as CLEARLY asserted in Corintians 14. I also think that it is shameful for women to teach men and it is shameful for women to hold positions of authority over men and/or be in a position of authority that once belonged to a man, as CLEARLY asserted in Timothy.

b) I do not believe that these verses are true. Times have changed and this popular political/social movement has replaced the word of god and caused it to be no longer true.

c) Get behind me servant satan and tempt and begile me not with thy forked tounge of wickedness!!


There are no other options.
Either the bible is true and women have no right to their place in modern society.
The bible is unture
or
you refuse to say and you are just going to deny the word of god.

Here's one for you and Owned and anyone else who hold to the idea that the Bible *isn't* crap.

Explain why there is such a HUGE controversy over Daniel 8:14.

These are supposed theologians who study the so called "word of God" and yet, people have had their careers ended over their position on this one verse.

Is that what God intended?

[GannonCM]

Mother Hub -

You are forgetting a third possibility...

3. An omnipotent and omniscient Being can choose to self-limit its own power. God is not bound by any external factors, but may choose to internally limit God's own power because of the Divine virtues of perfect love and complete goodness. Because God is love, God allows humanity the freedom of choice. Freedom is an intrinsic value that makes all of humanity unique, and to destroy that virtue of one's creatureliness is to not portray the aspect of love.

[imported_Queen Mum]

Thank you for bringing to light my error. Don¡¦t want to get that wrong on the test ƒº
I am glad that we both agree on the KJV as being 'a much more accurate translation than whatever the source is you decided to use.' Which is what was used in the post to site the scripture passages.
Now for the correction, I perhaps should have used enneos instead. I will ask professor for clarification
Lexicon Results for enneos (Strong's 1769) Greek for 1769 Pronunciation Guide enneos {en-neh-os'}
TDNT Reference from 1770 Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage
1) dumb, mute, destitute of power of speech
2) unable to speak for terror, struck dumb, astounded

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count Total: 1 AV - speechless 1; 1
KJV English Concordance for "speechless* enneos (Strong's 1769) "
Strong's Number 1769 matches the Greek enneos


There is one verse containing the words speechless* enneos (Strong's 1769) . It is not an exact phrase match:

Act 9:7 And 1161 the men 435 which 3588 journeyed 4922 with him 846 stood 2476 speechless 1769, hearing 191 3303 a voice 5456, but 1161 seeing 2334 no man 3367.

Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words
Speechless:
1 Strong's Number: 1769 Greek: eneos
"dumb, speechless," occurs in Act 9:7. In the Sept., Pro 17:28; Isa 56:10.
2 Strong's Number: 2974 Greek: kophos
which means either "deaf" or "dumb" (see DEAF), is translated "speechless" in Luk 1:22. Note: For phimoo, translated "he was speechless" in Mat 22:12, see MUZZLE, SILENCE.
Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words

v. 7 The men with Saul could hear the sound of a voice but couldn't distinguish the words.

the men . . . stood speechless
Personal thought: This may mean merely that they remained so; but if the standing posture be intended, we have only to suppose that though at first they "all fell to the earth" ( Act 26:14 ), they arose of their own accord while Saul yet lay prostrate.

hearing a--rather "the"
voice--Paul himself says, "they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me" ( Act 22:9 ). But just as "the people that stood by heard" the voice that saluted our Lord with recorded words of consolation and assurance, and yet heard not the articulate words, but thought "it thundered" or that some "angel spake to Him" (Jhn 12:28, 29 ) --so these men heard the voice that spake to Saul, but heard not the articulate words.

Apparent discrepancies like these, in the different narratives of the same scene in one and the same book of Acts, furnish strong confirmation both of the facts themselves and of the book which records them.

After thought on my post, I am still wondering where Free Will comes from. Any reflections Cynewulf would be greatly appreciated.

Peace Be With You...Always &lt;+&gt;&lt;

<blockquote><hr>

3. An omnipotent and omniscient Being can choose to self-limit its own power.

<hr></blockquote>

I saw that episode of the Next Generation!

I loved the small part Corbin Bernsen played! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

[GannonCM]

A couple of responses here...

MMII, you're my first "victim" /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

1. Jesus had many female disciples /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif. All a disciple means is a student or a pupil

2. Why do I believe in God besides the Bible? Because I know there is more to life than just being a mere machine that is resucitated (sp?) for 70+ years. Also, there is more to life than believing "To Hell with everyone else, I will look out for myself!"

Zin-Carla -

Because religion in general does have to do with all people. I am responsible before God and before people I come in contact with, when appropriate, to teach the truth (and if necessary use words - a famous quote from St. Francis Asissi). I am responsible for telling others about the good news of God's grace.

Something about the language issue in relation to speaking and preaching...

The word preach is not present in I Corinthians in relation to women, nor is it present in the I Timothy text.

I Corinthians 14.34 uses the word "laleo" - meaning "to utter a voice or emit a sound." Paul was writing to the earliest communion of saints - the word "Christian" does not appear until the 16th century. In retrospect, it is a fairly recent term. People who were part of being followers of Christ and gathered for worship were normally called the communion of saints (as the Nicene Creed puts it), or the fellowship of the saints. In context of I Corinthians 14, Paul is talking about keeping Order within the church, because one cannot truly worship God in a chaotic setting - for God is one of Order, not of Chaos. We have had a whole discussion in Genesis class on the Order / Chaos motif, that God is the one who either fences in the Chaos to contain it, or can be portrayed as the one who fences out the Chaos to protect. For example, in Genesis, the seas are "contained" by the land - water has always been a symbolic form for chaos in ancient near eastern myths. So the whole idea of "uttering" refers more to keeping order during worship.

The I Timothy text uses the word "didasko." This is where we get our English word "didactic" from. It means to dialogue or hold discourse with others. It really has the impression of argument or philosophical inquiry. It does not mean verbal proclamation, nor is it ever used in relationship to being an overseer in the church.

The word used for the specific task of preaching is "kerusso." This means "to be a herald, to officiate." It also means "to publish, to proclaim openly." It is used, for example, in II Timothy 4.2. This word is never used in relation to separating the gifts of being clergy into gender specific roles.

As far as the Daniel 8.14 passage - again, grossly misinterpreted. Numerology is not the appropriate way to go about Biblical interpretation.

[GannonCM]

MMII -

There's some truth to Q /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

<blockquote><hr>

2. Why do I believe in God besides the Bible? Because I know there is more to life than just being a mere machine that is resucitated (sp?) for 70+ years.

<hr></blockquote>

Agreed. But doesn't that make us agnostics?

This belief is why I have been reluctant to toss my faith out the window.

I'm like Mulder! I WANT to believe!

I'm just not getting answers here about why I should trust the Bible (other than the generic "it's the word of God" BS), or what I *should* trust instead.

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

[Baker|NV]

I was planning to keep my ten foot pole far away from this thread, however I have to address this.
<blockquote><hr>

An omnipotent and omniscient Being can choose to self-limit its own power. God is not bound by any external factors, but may choose to internally limit God's own power because of the Divine virtues of perfect love and complete goodness. Because God is love, God allows humanity the freedom of choice. Freedom is an intrinsic value that makes all of humanity unique, and to destroy that virtue of one's creatureliness is to not portray the aspect of love.

<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too here.

There are two possibilities. As Socrates asks of Euthyphro:

"The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods."

Is something something good because it is loved by God or is something loved by God because it is good? You seem to be adopting both interpretations here. God gives us free will because it is good to do so, but God is omnipotent and thus determines what is good?

Either there is some higher virtuous standard by which God's actions are defined (he is not omnipotent) or things are merely "good or bad" because of God's omnipotence and morality is no more than slavish adherence to God's arbitrary will; in which case there is no "intrinsic good" of "intrinsic value".

[GBob]

Well for the most part I have seen you question the bible not for what it says but for what others have done with it. You also have no faith in people as well as no faith in the bible. I would start with what do you have faith in - Do you have faith in yourself? Do you trust your own judgement? It's really impossible for someone else to give you faith in the bible -you need to find it yourself. What do YOU think the bible says?

The truth is you are very close minded about the good the bible has done. It is all around you but you only want to see the bad things people have done in its name. I think tolerance, love, charity are some of the strongest ideas put forward in the New Testament. You talk of children in school and never consider where those children would be 100 years ago or the station of women at that same time. Those things did not change by magic. They were changed by good men and women, many of whom took their cues from the bible.

As for me I'm a pretty simple guy - I was told "you’re a Christian”. So I said “hmm this if I'm a Christian then this Christ guy must be important”. The things he did and said I felt had particular importance. They also seemed to make a lot of sense to me and felt right. Be nice, help people, don't be greedy, accept others...I also think that the teachings of Christ are valuable for those who don’t even believe in god – particularly if you believe in a society that works together to improve everyone's life where people live together in harmony.

[Wisty]

&gt;So tell me. . .what exactly makes you believe in God? What is the basis for your faith if not for the flawed Bible?

In my case, personal experiences, many, and upon what has happened and happens to me and my life when I am without God (turning away from all possibility, doing things my way, joining those who disbelieve, becoming cynical and selfish and ridiculing and cold-hearted and egotistical and basically shallow as the rest) v. with God (it just slowly and naturally changes my inner workings, and for the better, even without my trying very hard.) I also very much enjoy being around the people who sincerely believe in the Christian God (they are very thoughtful and compassionate and in tune to others, not wanting to ridicule them, hurt them, use, abuse, nor manipulate them, allowing the live and let live, being trustworthy and upfront at all times, with a softness about the eyes due to the absence of baggage, grudge, hate; also with a special joy, and inner laughter that comes forth even during the most trying of times); however I cannot stand being around the Christians who think they are above all, who see no other way than exactly what is written in the bible (not leaving room for the difference in language, era, culture, symbolisms), who have no sympathy or tolerance or even kindness for those who are struggling to learn/believe or who for one reason or another cannot learn/believe, who cluster closely in their particular groups as if they are the whole world and the rest are just creatures already doomed to die -- never mind that no one really knows what God will decide when each person faces Him, since so much is taken into account at the time, the crimes, the condition of the heart, and whether the person(s) feel sorry at all for what they did or if they really didn't even know what or why they did it, on and on.

You can curse the bible or throw it at me and demand "Prove your stance!" Doesn't matter. I know what I know. And even if I pointed out each and every passage to prove my stance, you'd still say "Bullpucky!" On down to my knowing that Jesus considered women equal with man, better at some things, men better at others, but all equal as far as deservingness and possibilities and love -- assessed only on how each man or woman treats or mistreats, purposely or by accident, God, self, others, the earth, and so on and so on.

I don't bible thump. It never wins any debates, I have found. And in cases such as here on OT, even quoting passages don't matter.

I speak from my heart, my experiences, my spirit, my instincts, my compassion, my love, my acquired and innate wisdoms, my hope, and my patience -- the latter of which wears quickly thinner than fortunately do the rest, 'for even this I know won't matter and you will come back at me with a "Nyah nyah" or "Bull pucky" or "Prove it!"

It's up to you alone. Or between you and God. Your choice. Your free will. In the end, you will have your answers, good or bad.

And, no, I don't have all the answers myself, either. I'm searching, too. Except I have made some decisions, based on all of the above -- and I'm sticking to them. There is no other way. This is it for me.

Meanwhile, if you want biblical passages or answers, read KJ, and any others that catch your fancy, join a bible study group(s), and draw your own conclusions. As I and others have said, it's a personal choice, not something any of us can browbeat someone in or out of. Allow others that same personal choice. The only time I get really snippy about religion is when others refuse to allow any respect due to differing opinions, nor to allow them that personal choice. And though none of you were around in thos years, nevertheless I publicly apologize for all those years I myself didn't allow -- and was such an anti-religion jerk -- doing my best to convince people that the bible was a bunch of pro-male, anti-female wrongly deciphered man-written gobbledegook which I could neither make heads nor tails of, and didn't care to do so. Yeah, MMII, I recognize you quite well -- like looking into my own mirror. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif But it takes all kinds to make up this world, even those who switch sides, and more than once (as I did). /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif I ain't switching again. My experiences have convinced me. My only lament is needing to become even stronger, wiser, and purer in what I now believe.

[Wisty]

This is not a cut. This is an observation, ok?

In all the posts you have posted on OT concerning the bible, not one, not one have you ever supported anything in the bible, as being factual or true. Any time you jump into the conversation is to do your best to disprove the bible.

So, do you consider *everything* in the bible to be *in error*? If not, what do you consider to be true? And why are you trying to disprove other parts? Just wondering where you're coming from, and why it's so important to you to take people to task on the things they express, state, or quote from the bible. Or would that require too long of a post to explain? If so, never mind.

Oh, and while I'm here, how is your current project coming along -- the one about the bible? Is it a humorous, philosophical, or factual piece? Is it hard to write? Do you think it's a project you will complete? Will we be able to read the finished product one day, even if you don't get it published?

[imported_Arla]

Not just to you, Baker - to the whole thread...

I too was going to keep away with a 10 foot pole, until I again see MEN trying to justify the misogynist ranting of the self-appointed "apostle" Saul from Tarsus.

A perfect god would not allow it's (sorry, I don't believe Deity has gender) "holy and inspired word" to become corrupted via translation. If it has been corrupted via translation, then one must assume that the possiblity exists that it has also been corrupted via inscription.

If god is in fact, omnicient, then it also knew when it "inspired" it's word that MEN would use it to subjugate and abuse women. Therefore, the word is flawed. But if god is perfect, and it is the word that is flawed, then the word must NOT be the one true and inspired word of god.

To those who say "oh, it is only one or 2 verses" that Saul of Tarsus uses to denigrate women - think again. I have at least 20 examples of what I believe to be his overwhelming desire to punish his wife (and all women in a guilt-by-association tactic) for leaving him when he allegedly embraced Christianity (it is said she sat shiva for him).

What do I mean by allegedly? You will note that prior to his "conversion", christianity was a loving, caring, religion for all - men and women both taught and prophesied. Saul, who was charged by the Sanhedrin to eliminate christians/christianity - could easily have decided to attack from within - convert, become the "driving force for christ" among the gentiles, thereby assuring that the Sanhedrin's hate-filled agenda was brought back into the church.

For 1000's of years illiterate and gullible christians have bought into the discrepancies and contradictions of the bible. Those who dared to question these issues were burned or tortured or killed for "heresy". Those who dared to use the brains that god gave them were destroyed for their disbelief.

Now when more and more people are literate and able to see for themselves what a mass of misinformation, contradiction and superstitious or racist/sexist nonsense is included therein, suddenly we are once again battered with "well, you have to go back to the greek/latin/hebrew/aramaic....". HOGWASH - if god is perfect, then no doubt it can speak english as well as latin.

I do not believe because someone told me. I do not believe because a book that has been through numerous translations/revisions has said something. I believe only that which has had relevance and truth in my life.

Saul of Tarsus can go suck dirty gym socks.

I don't want you to prove the Bible. I want to know what in the world makes you believe that something so flawed is actually the Word of God.

At one point, perhaps the writing that became the Bible *were* the word of God. I just don't believe it's that way anymore.

As for things people experience, I don't think I'll ever get that.

Unless all good is the work of God, in which case, people who don't believe in God should never experience good, then how can you attribute certain things to God and others to random fate? Doesn't it bother you to think that, if this is true, then your efforts to effect changes and growth in your life is completely out of your hands, and subject to the whim of a "supreme being?"

You talk about all of the good the Bible has done, but if you want me to accept the argument that all of the bad the Bible has done was done by men who simply use the Bible to promote a personal agenda, then how can we not know that the same can be said for those who have done good things with the Bible.

People are much more apt to pay attention to someone who uses the Bible and says their work is that of God. Why wouldn't someone who otherwise would never be able to do great things, not see the Bible as a tool to help them achieve greatness?

Ms. Cleo has helped people do great things with their lives. That doesn't make her some sort of diety.

As I've said, I can accept the Bible for a guideline. But it's too flawed to accept as the word of God.

I'm not trying to argue virtue or Christianity or specific verses with you. I'm trying to find out how anyone can have faith in something that has noticable flaws. Don't you wonder how many flaws there are that we haven't noticed?

Also, look at Daniel 8:14. This is a very controversial verse, and people have been defrocked over their views on this one verse.

Is that what God wanted when he supposedly had this written?

Good, God fearing men and women, pushed away from the church and condemned for their interpretation of a single verse?

[Lady_Adriana]

****I also agree with you that the Bible CAN be used to support power and dominance, but that does not mean this is the INTENT of the Word of God. All of us can relate to situations in what we INTEND to mean or do is not always perceived correctly. Gannon CM****

No it's not the books intent. A book can't have an intent, it's an inanamate object regardless of what some people think. Its the writers and the numerous interperators that warp it..

*****The whole Genesis story in relation to the Fall is not about women being inferior to men. This is not what God intended. Gannon CM
It makes me sick that people have used the Bible in their own oppressive ways and as an instrument of fear. But keep in mind this is how people have used it, this is not what was intended. Gannon CM****

How do you know this isn't what HE intended? Did he tell you?

****Because religion in general does have to do with all people. I am responsible before God and before people I come in contact with, when appropriate, to teach the truth Gannon cm****

Teach the truth? Teach your opinion and beliefs you mean. Perception is reality my friend and if i don't perceive that to be the way of it, then it isn't.

*****For 1000's of years illiterate and gullible christians have bought into the discrepancies and contradictions of the bible. Those who dared to question these issues were burned or tortured or killed for "heresy". Those who dared to use the brains that god gave them were destroyed for their disbelief. Arla*****

Agreed

****HOGWASH - if god is perfect, then no doubt it can speak english as well as latin. Arla****

Very good point

****Also, look at Daniel 8:14. This is a very controversial verse, and people have been defrocked over their views on this one verse.
MM11***

I forgot which table my bible is holding up can someone post this Scripture i'd like to see it.

****Imagine how you will feel standing in front of an almighty God and have him ask you, Why should I let you into heaven? What will you say?
Wont you feel so stupid. How could you have been so deaf to everything you've read or been told. You thumbed your nose at everything related to Christ. YkonJack****

You bug me. When i die, and if i find my self standing infront of this god, and i learn that all of his ways were the "True" ways. Then i will not be afraid. Because my god, the one i belive in, would not be angry with me for not belive everything that humans long dead have told me. He will be proud of how i've lived my life and that i've questioned everything before accepting. That it was important enough to me, to wonder and study. And actually care that what i belived was right and true. Not just because it was easier just to be a good little girl and go to church, belive who everyone told me to belive. Religion is not something i take lightly. I have dedicated most of my life on decided what i felt was the right path. And i'm proud of my progress, that i didn't take the easy way out and just become a lacky.

To MMII...is this a public school? If so you really shouldn't be haveing religious discussions anyways.

Here is a good link (http://www.christage.com/2300days.htm) to one explanation of Daniel 8:14.

It also give you a good idea of how people interpret the Bible. And by people, I mean theologians, not Joe Schmoe.

<blockquote><hr>

The 2300 Days of Daniel 8:14

Then I heard a holy one speaking: and another holy one said to the one that spoke, "For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" And he said to him, "For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state." Daniel 8:13,14 RSV

In order to understand this prophecy fully, it is important to remember a few basic principles:

1. in prophecy, a day is symbolic of a year Ezekiel 4:6

2. to the Hebrew mind, an evening and a morning equaled one day Genesis 1:5,8 (thus the Sabbath is kept from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday [Leviticus 23:32; Mark 1:32])

3. the evenings and mornings referred to by Daniel cannot refer to literal offerings in the temple, because these are referred to as "morning and evening" offerings, not "evening and morning" (literally "evening-morning") see 2 Chronicles 13:11; 31:3; Ezra 3:3

In 457 BC, Artaxerxes I Lonimanus issued a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. (Ezra 7:11-26) This was the beginning of the 2300 days. (Daniel 9:25) Adding 49 years to this for the seven weeks (7 days x 7) of Daniel 9:25, we come to 408 BC. There are then 62 weeks until the prince is anointed.

The prince, one who is anointed, refers to Jesus, who is called Christ (literally "anointed", from the Greek christos "to anoint"). Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38) at His baptism (Luke 3:21,22). Four hundred and thirty-four years from 408 BC puts us at 27 AD, the date of Jesus’ baptism.

Sometime after the sixty-second week, the Messiah is cut off. (Daniel 9:26) In the middle of the seventieth week, the prince causes sacrifices and oblations to cease. (Daniel 9:27)

The middle of this seventieth week would be 3 ½ years from Christ’s baptism. This would put us in the year 31 AD, the year Christ was crucified. When Christ was crucified, there was no more need for the sacrifices, since He had become our sacrifice (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7)

This leaves 3 ½ years left to complete the seventieth week. In the year 34 AD, Stephen was stoned (3 ½ years after the crucifixion). The year 34 AD, therefore, completes the seventieth week.

Twenty-three hundred minus seventy equals one thousand eight hundred and ten. The 2300 days, therefore must end 1810 years after 34 AD, bringing us to the years 1844 AD.

<hr></blockquote>

And I do work for a public school. The discussion in question had to do specifically with the influences that have perpetrated certain behaviors in the evolution of the country.

The Bible played an integral role. To refuse to discuss the good and bad it has played in our growth would be akin to the political correctness that people (especially the conservative right) continue to decry.

[Roscoe]

a) I think women should be silent in church and wait till they get home and ask their husbands if they have a question as CLEARLY asserted in Corintians 14. I also think that it is shameful for women to teach men and it is shameful for women to hold positions of authority over men and/or be in a position of authority that once belonged to a man, as CLEARLY asserted in Timothy.

b) I do not believe that these verses are true. Times have changed and this popular political/social movement has replaced the word of god and caused it to be no longer true.

c) Get behind me servant satan and tempt and begile me not with thy forked tounge of wickedness!!

d) He was not laying down a universal truth but was working to restore peace and unity to a specific group of believers in context of their social framwork.

[Roscoe]

I believe that taking the Lord's name in vain means that you take God's name, and tell people the must do this, or they must do that.

I agree and disagree. I believe that people claim to do things in the name of God and are doing so illegitimately. That is taking God's name in vain. But I also believe that the derivation of the slang 'GD' comes from the desire that God would damn something. It's is a complete and cohesive thought and I always wonder if, when someone utters it, if they truly want God to damn whatever it is which ultimately means to cast it into outer darkness or hell. Either way it seems to me to be frivolously calling upon God vainly.

[Roscoe]

Cyne - a friend of mine was killed in a wreck by a police car which was travelling on a narrow country road at a great rate of speed. Some nearby neighbors said they saw the police car with lights on, others said they did not see lights. Some said they heard sirens and then the crash while others said they did not hear the crash. The truth of the matter is that the credibility of the story is very real. My friend is still dead even if the actual details of the story are inaccurate. Was Paul converted? Yes? Did it happen exactly as they say? No. Is the intent of the story still achieved? Yes. Is the Word of God perfect? It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is apparently.

[Roscoe]

So remind me. How many female disciples did Jesus have?

Counting Mary and Martha? Or do you mean 'Apostles'?

[Roscoe]

FYI - Biblical archeology is more often than not a secular endeavor with little to no intent upon proving the Bible to be Word of God. Instead it is a term used to describe the incredibil level of credibility the Bible has gained in the past 100 years in helping to identify the local of many ancient cities, trade routes and cultures.

To get hung up on the more fantastic parts of the Bible and declare it all hogwash means you must do the same with innumerable other ancient texts. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Roscoe]

It seems to me that damn near any religion, philosophy or idealogy can and has been used to justify the hierarchy-du-jour.

I think that's an important observation. First - from my vantage point - God has always asked us to submit ourselves to His will. His will is paramount. Being created in the image of God and in a fallen state it does not surprise me that, people being people, we have seen your observation proven out time and again. It's one of the unavoidable issues of having humanity involved in anything be it religion or secular government.

[Roscoe]

No proof of the existance of jesus has EVER been found.

*stands agape* ummm... you're serious aren't you?

[Roscoe]

the very FOUNDER of the church and christianity, the apostle paul, wrote some of the most specific and insulting verses against women of all.

(I'm almost through with this thread - then I'll start posting my real thoughts. In the mean time...)

We can certainly take them in context of the culture they were writtin. If we do that then Paul's writings make more sense. However it's the PC notions of what 'liberation' truly means for women that have distorted Paul's writings to say something they didn't then and don't now. 'Insulting' indeed.

[Roscoe]

ok - I'm done - have I killed this thread yet?

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[GannonCM]

"A book cannot have an intent."

OK - let me be as technical as can be. People write books. The books that people write propose one's intent. Therefore, a book has a specific intent - the intent of the people who wrote it. But there is a factor that is different. The Bible is written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 1). I am not trying to prove the Bible here. All I am saying is yes, a book CAN have an intent - by implication, a book's intent is the actual person's or groups intent of what they have written. If I write "The day is sunny - I hate it!" - you can "perceive" my intent several ways. But I have wrote those words, and those words have a specific intent. How you interpret it may or may not be the intent of my words. You may assume that I hate sunny days. That is not the case at all. The day is sunny, which produces heat, and I hate it because of the production of heat that I consider unbearable. So yes, books can have intent because, by implication, they were written by people. They are words transcribed to communicate a specific intent.

Secondly, you ask that God - I assume you mean God by the term HE, for God is neither male nor female, but is Spirit (John 4.24) - has told me that the intent of the Bible is not fear? Well, yes God has told me...

2 Timothy 1:7 God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but the Spirit of power and love and self-control.

Lastly, you said that perception is reality. Well, even the schools of philosophy believe that reality has no rightness or wrongness to it. I am afraid to use any examples because I do not want to offend anyone. In the study of Epistemology, for example, reality itself has no rightness or wrongness to it. It is the perception that has a rightness or wrongness.

Now perception can change into the rightness of reality. Here is an example. One thousand years ago, the world was considered flat. But even then, the world was still round. Our newly discovered perception that the world is round did not suddenly make the world shape into roundness. The reality of the matter is that the world has been, is, and always will be round. That has always been the reality of our Earth. However, it is the wrong perception to have considered it flat. It is now the right perception to consider it round. But the reality of its roundness has not changed one iota. To say perception is reality is to make many logical flaws and inconsistencies. If the world was perceived flat at one time, that means the world really was flat at that time - but we know that not to be the case. The world did not become round by virtue of us discovering it to be round. The world always was round - it was the perception that was wrong.

***The Bible is written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit***

Prove it, Give me one shred of proof, that some all powerfull being told them what to write in that book.

[Roscoe]

Arguing the Bible's stance on homosexuality from an Old Testament perspective only would justify such a response. But Homosexuality is identified as an act of immorality in the New Testament as well.

1 Corinthians 6

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

[GannonCM]

Mishkam -

I cannot prove it. Only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes to believe this. I am not God - I cannot show you concrete evidence. All I can do, though, is show you the meaning of true Divine Love if that is what you want. But I cannot PROVE to you the Holy Spirit. You must be willing to accept this grace in your own time, for God will always stand at the door of your heart and knock to enter into it.

Baker -

I feel the need to reply to you, too. What you said is exactly the problem of our finiteness trying to comprehend the infinite and eternal. God is simply good, period. See, we tend to view goodness as simply a value judgment dependant on acts / consequences. But if this is all goodness means, then that would make God less than perfect, for God will have to depend on goodness.

I was going to write coherently, but a thought just crossed my mind that applies very concretely to this particular discussion of goodness. The movie A.I. proves this point perfectly. The cyborg child was able to only express good emotion. That is all he was programmed to do. But then you had the OTHER human son, who used the perception of goodness to convince the cyborg child that he needed a locket of his mother's hair. So he grabs a pair of scissors to get some of her hair. However, when the mother wakes up, she is startled and thinks the cyborg child's INTENT was to do something evil to her.

Even the Greek Philosophers believed that Zeus was simply an expression of goodness by nature. God is simply Good by God's own being. Who is the "creator" of free will? God is - since we are made in God's image and freedom is a virtue of existance. But God also determines what is good - for when God created female and male, "God SAW that all things were very good."

You are operating from a modernistic scientific level that believes, "Either...or...not both." Yet in our postmodern world, studies in Quantum Physics show that molecules can be two things at one time. Therefore, the either/or model of logic is being constantly questioned and slowly disproven by scientists and philosophers alike. A thing can be two things at one time. Therefore, God can both be good and determine what is good. God is good by virtue of just Being - but also determines what is good because by virtue of God Being good, anything that God creates must, by definition, be good as well. But humanity has not chosen this goodness - and seeks pride and self-sufficiency unless they accept the goodness of Divine Love in their lives.

Therefore, because post-modern scientists and philosophers are highly skeptical of the modernistic "either / or not both" model, the answer to the age-old question of "Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something to be good" can be "YES." Goodness is not something God is dependant on, nor is it something God can deny while creating some thing. God's being is just simply good, and nothing but goodness flows forth.

The problem of evil is a different question not suited, yet, for this topic.

[GannonCM]

Roscoe -

You are wrong about something. The passage in I Corinthians 6.9 is not "nor homosexuals." The actual word is "nor sodomites."

Going back to the Genesis story. The sins of Sodom included homosexuality, but it ALSO included the lack of hospitality. It included not being hospitable to foreigners in a strange place. Don't forget that there is a whole LIST of sins in the story of Sodom - and it is not limited ONLY to one sin. The Bible is clear that any person who claims to be a follower of Christ will open their hearts to the poor, the oppressed, the outcasts of society and those who are the least. See James 2 for a further explanation.

[Roscoe]

The seat of the issue you're debating can be answered in a philosophical argument.

First - we have the existence of man. Man is a personal being in that he can communicate and socialize and ask the question 'why am I here'. There is no other creature that does this. Yes, there is social order among various creatures but to date I do not know of any that stand around wondering 'why'. This personal nature came from somewhere - can the personal come from the impersonal? If not then it means that the personal nature of who we are is not a byproduct of evolution but is instead a direct result of being fashioned after its make which is also personal. That's argument number one for the existence of God. It's an oversimplification mind you.

Second - have you ever read a record of history? An ancient manuscript that clues us in to the past? Or maybe you've read some classic work that communicates some fantastic notion about humanity but it was written centuries ago. The point is that being personal as we are it is in our nature and by deduction, if there is a God and we are created in His image, then communication is in his nature too. Therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe in times past that God spoke to men and they recorded what they heard.

But I've not offered proof as of yet. As for the proof - I point to all of creation. You may argue that creation can be explained through the 'big bang' theory and through evolution but that brings us back to the problem of man and his personal nature. Not to mention the problem of morality as well as the problem of knowledge.

If you do not accept nature as evidence then all that remains is to perceive God. And to do that requires the utilization of a spiritual 6th sense called faith. If you define faith as a 'blind acceptance' devoid of any evidence then you'll struggle here. If you define 'faith' as the seeing eye of religion then you'll fare much better.

I cannot prove it. Only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes to believe this. I am not God - I cannot show you concrete evidence. All I can do, though, is show you the meaning of true Divine Love if that is what you want. But I cannot PROVE to you the Holy Spirit. You must be willing to accept this grace in your own time, for God will always stand at the door of your heart and knock to enter into it.

You could have stopped at the first sentance, I didnt need the flowery fertilizer that most "religious people" will mask thier total lack of evidence for thier "beliefs".

Virtually every religion can be traced back to a point at which someone, somewhere claimed ... " God " told me... yada yada yada. And never is there a shred of evidence that anything of the sort happened. But because the world is and always has been, laden with weak minded people willing to believe what ever they are told, religion continues to prosper without an ounce of proof to back any of it up.

<blockquote><hr>

God has always asked us to submit ourselves to His will. His will is paramount.

<hr></blockquote>

Just out of curiousity, what is God's Will?

And as for creation, here's my personal belief.

I think that there is, by far, too much evidence supporting evolution to simply dismiss it out of hand.

I believe that God created the Earth (whether it was through the Big Bang or not, I don't know) and allowed life to evolve on the planet.

At some point, God decided that he didn't like how things were going, and he used an Ice Age to wipe things out, and started over again, creating things the way he wanted them to be.

This is why we haven't found a missing link, because there isn't one.

It also explains the word "replenish" used in Genesis to Adam and Eve.

[Roscoe]

Gannon - if I need to go through and give you all the details here I'll be happy to do so. But a couple of things. In context of what Paul's saying here there is no question that homosexual activity is one aspect of being a sodomite. Paul is listing a number of sexual activities and transitions into non-sexual immoral behavior on the word translated in my verse as 'homosexual'. The roots of the word itself come from 'arrhen' or 'arsen' (phonetical markers left out) which means 'male' and 'koite' (koytay) which means 'male sperm' or 'chambering'. The implication of the word here is one that clearly refers to sexual relations between men.

There's no question that the behavior of the sodomites was that of rudeness but to exclude the sin of homosexuality from the behavior of the sodomites belies a personal social agenda as opposed to objective interpretation. Didn't you say you were at a methodist seminary?

[Roscoe]

Just out of curiousity, what is God's Will?

That's a very individual question for the most part. Generally his will can be summed up in the answer to the qustion 'What is the greatest commandment?' The answer to which is 'Love the Lord your God with your entire being and love your neighbor as yourself'.

I think that there is, by far, too much evidence supporting evolution to simply dismiss it out of hand.

Evolution is a proven fact at certain levels. But as a method of explaining the diversity of flora/fauna I don't buy it. Even with an ice age there would be a fossil record and the amount of time, number of variants and much more is not sustained by the fossile record. There are too many missing links for me to accept the theory of evolution as it has been presented to me.

[the great bob]

You know what's interesting me the most? Ok, let's say for arguement, that God is real, that God is omnipotent. So...

1) Other Dieties, were they too real? Did they get wipped out by the Catholic take over? What's Allah doing? Is Buddah getting high or something? How come there are no other omnipotent beings?

2) If God is the only one, then why the freaken-a did he make us? Was he THAT bored with the universe?

3) Where are the Angels? You know, the ones that smite sinners with their blades of fire or what have you.

4) Where's that big hand? Why didn't it stop those planes from crashing into the Twin Towers? Why didn't it crush Rosie O'Donnell's annoying head?

<blockquote><hr>

That's a very individual question for the most part.

<hr></blockquote>

Is it really? It would seem that God's Will is God's Will.

How it affects us personally might be personal, but the basic drive should be toward one single goal that God has.

Do we exist solely for the purpose of worshipping God?

If so, that seems a little vain to me.

[Roscoe]

Is it really? It would seem that God's Will is God's Will.

How it affects us personally might be personal, but the basic drive should be toward one single goal that God has.

Do we exist solely for the purpose of worshipping God?

If so, that seems a little vain to me.

It depends upon how you define worship.

Let me go further then. In Genesis we see that God created man 'in his image'. We later see that God paraded all the animals of creation before Adam and they did not find a suitable partner for him. God said 'it is not good that man dwell alone'.

Now, if being created in the image of God then to me that last statement I quoted there tells me A LOT. I believe that God is self sufficient but I believe this quotes gives us insight that God somehow desires, in a God-like fashion, to have fellowship with 'kind of his kind'. God further portrays this cosmic relationship through the creation of Eve. He puts Adam in a deep sleep, opens his side and takes out a rib and creates Eve. She is flesh of Adams flesh and bone of his bone.

Next we have Adam and Eve sinning and violating that relationship. This is considered the fall of man. God at that point could have wiped the slate clean and started over but I think it's significant that he chose to instead provide a way for the relationship to be restored.

This 'way' culminated in the crucifixion of Christ. 'This is eternal life - to know God and his son whome he sent' Jesus was put upon a cross and when he died (fell into a deep sleep) his ide was pierced and where a rib was taken from Adam blood and water issued forth from Jesus. This is significant. The blood represents sanctification (there is no remission of sins except for the shedding of blood) and the water represents the Holy Spirit through whom we are sealed in God.

Essentially it comes down to this. God created mankind in his image because God desired to have fellowship with kind of his kind. He already had the angels. Why not 'fellowship' with them. Well - they aren't kind of his kind - they are a step lower (in the grand scheme of things) than humanity. Man offended God and God, had every right to wipe us out. Instead he provided a way to restore humanity to himself and he left the choice up to each individual to accept or reject that way.

As for worshiping God - yes, I believe we were created to worship God. But like I said in the beginning it all depends upon how you define 'worship'. I did a word study on the word 'worship' in the Old and New Testaments some years back. To keep this short - in the OT worship was portrayed as a very religious and symbolix event. In the New Testament there are several words that we translate into worship and they have very personal meaning. One describes that of a lover gazing upon the face of the object of its affection. Another means to 'kiss towards'. Another means 'minister to'. And another means to bow down before. I'd have to look up more but to go back to your question.

The will of God is that our relationship be restored with him and that, yes, we worship him.

[Roscoe]

1) Other Dieties, were they too real? Did they get wipped out by the Catholic take over? What's Allah doing? Is Buddah getting high or something? How come there are no other omnipotent beings?

Well, we God, the one true God. And then we have these 'posers'. They aren't really Gods they are simply a perversion of the truht.

2) If God is the only one, then why the freaken-a did he make us? Was he THAT bored with the universe?

See my post to MMII about this very thing. He made us to have fellowship with 'kind of his kind'.

3) Where are the Angels? You know, the ones that smite sinners with their blades of fire or what have you.

They're there. So are the demons that one guy was talking about a few months ago on this forum.

4) Where's that big hand? Why didn't it stop those planes from crashing into the Twin Towers?

Free will - he could run us all like marbles in a rut or he can let us choose our own paths. Sometimes our choices are wrong ones and sometimes they are horribly wrong ones. Utlimately it comes down to the condition of 'Sin' (capital S is important here).

Why didn't it crush Rosie O'Donnell's annoying head?

I would make a joke but in light of the seriousness of this thread I'll just suggest that you ask him the next time you see him. Although at that point I don't think the question will be so important to you. I know it won't be to me.

***First - we have the existence of man. Man is a personal being in that he can communicate and socialize and ask the question 'why am I here'. There is no other creature that does this. Yes, there is social order among various creatures but to date I do not know of any that stand around wondering 'why'. This personal nature came from somewhere - can the personal come from the impersonal? If not then it means that the personal nature of who we are is not a byproduct of evolution but is instead a direct result of being fashioned after its make which is also personal. That's argument number one for the existence of God.***

I didnt ask for an argument, and I didnt ask for you to make statements such as "There is no other creature that does this" where again you have absolutely no proof to substantiate such a claim. Many animals across the globe show more than an intuitive congnitive function, many of them showing highly adapted reasoning capabilites. To simply state " they dont ask why" because we havent learned to observe their cognitive capability, is as gross a generalization as "God Says so"
What I did ask for is Proof, and in your first statement, there is not a shred of anything that is not more easily explained by our good friend Mr Darwin.


***Second - have you ever read a record of history? An ancient manuscript that clues us in to the past? Or maybe you've read some classic work that communicates some fantastic notion about humanity but it was written centuries ago. The point is that being personal as we are it is in our nature and by deduction, if there is a God and we are created in His image, then communication is in his nature too. ***

I dont even get what your trying to say here... but yes I have read history, andn no where in any of the histories that I have read, has anyone brought forth proof of god.


***Therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe in times past that God spoke to men and they recorded what they heard***

I dont doubt that you belive it.. I think your cracked if you do, but I dont doubt it. Please stop equating "believing in something" and "Proving it"


***But I've not offered proof as of yet. As for the proof - I point to all of creation. You may argue that creation can be explained through the 'big bang' theory and through evolution but that brings us back to the problem of man and his personal nature. Not to mention the problem of morality as well as the problem of knowledge. ***

Again... no Proof. You have no evidence to back up that God put man on Earth, therefore you cant use the fact that Man is on Earth as Proof of God.
It just doesnt work that way.


***If you do not accept nature as evidence then all that remains is to perceive God. And to do that requires the utilization of a spiritual 6th sense called faith. If you define faith as a 'blind acceptance' devoid of any evidence then you'll struggle here. If you define 'faith' as the seeing eye of religion then you'll fare much better. ***

Believing in something, I dont care how strongly you believe, doesnt necesarily make it so, and "Faith" is just a colorful way of saying belive.

[Roscoe]

You're reacting and being hostile. Calm down.

All I offered you was a logical (or my attempt at one) thought process and told you quite clearly that my first two paragraphs were not proof. Second - let me know the next time you get in a philosophical debate with a whale, dolphin, monkey or pig.

As for proof - let me try this - what parameters would you put forward as a condition for proof?

Okay. I liked that. But here are my questions.

First, anyone who studies the Bible knows that we were created in "His image." The question is, how do we take that? Does it refer to corporeal form? Having a free will? Possessing desire and drive to become more than we are? There are too many ways to take it, which is why I distrust the Bible. Vaguery is not the way to inspire devotion.

Is it moral for a supreme being to create other sentient beings with the sole purpose of following their teachings and worshipping it, to the point that you are greatly rewarded or greatly punished depending on your choice?

Could you have a strong, meaningful relationship with a one year old child. Not a son or daughter, but as a semi-equal? This is a very crude example of what the relationship between God and humans must be like. We actually put people in jail who "fall in love" with a small child.

And I accept what you say about worship, but this goes back to the overall vagueness of the Bible.

As far as I know, "trying" to be a Christian isn't enough. Trying to live a moral life isn't enough.

The reason we have so many different denominations within the Christain faith is because so many theologians disagree to some extent, and often completely, on what the Bible means.

How can we, the layman, trust this book if even the pundits can't decide the truth? You're argument about the multiple meanings of worship supports this.

I am by no means being hostile, as for reacting... yes I am.

My orriginal statement was wanting proof that God told man what to write in the bible.

I followed that statement with:
"Virtually every religion can be traced back to a point at which someone, somewhere claimed ... " God " told me... yada yada yada. And never is there a shred of evidence that anything of the sort happened."

What proof do I want.

I want Proof that God spoke to him, without using his writings as proof.

Just because I write down that what I say is right, doesnt mean that I can say Im right because my own book says so. It doesnt work that way.

[Roscoe]

Okay. I liked that. But here are my questions.

First, anyone who studies the Bible knows that we were created in "His image." The question is, how do we take that? Does it refer to corporeal form? Having a free will? Possessing desire and drive to become more than we are? There are too many ways to take it, which is why I distrust the Bible. Vaguery is not the way to inspire devotion.

Well - first, from the Bible we know that 'God is spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit...'. I don't believe that God is corporeal and I think you're over thinking on that point. Simply put being created in his image is best defined as a spiritual image.

Is it moral for a supreme being to create other sentient beings with the sole purpose of following their teachings and worshipping it, to the point that you are greatly rewarded or greatly punished depending on your choice?

It's a foreign thought in this day and age of individual rights but submission and accountability to authority is not a bad thing and doesn't make one an autonomaton. In the garden Adam and Eve were given free run of everything before they sinned. And even after they sinned they had free reign up until they were cast out of the garden.

Could you have a strong, meaningful relationship with a one year old child. Not a son or daughter, but as a semi-equal? This is a very crude example of what the relationship between God and humans must be like. We actually put people in jail who "fall in love" with a small child.

You put to great a disparity between God and humanity. Being created in his image is no small thing. It is indicative of the nobility of who we are.

And I accept what you say about worship, but this goes back to the overall vagueness of the Bible.

You're ascribing far more importance to the Bible than even I am. The Bible is a means to an end - it is no the end itself.

As far as I know, "trying" to be a Christian isn't enough. Trying to live a moral life isn't enough.

It's not but that's a huge discussion.

The reason we have so many different denominations within the Christain faith is because so many theologians disagree to some extent, and often completely, on what the Bible means.

Yup - it's bothersome to me too.. well, it used to be. Anymore I've found that it's what we share in common that allows me to attend most any church. The traditions and what not are all inconsequential and is nothing new. It's our propensity to institutionalize things that has caused more problems for us as humans since the time of Noah.

How can we, the layman, trust this book if even the pundits can't decide the truth? You're argument about the multiple meanings of worship supports this.

I don't trust the book. Trite answer I know but it seems really appropriate.

[Roscoe]

I want Proof that God spoke to him, without using his writings as proof.

Would you not then agree that in order to prove that we need to discuss the existence of God? How can I prove to you that God spoke in the past if you don't believe he ever existed?

You cant, And thats what Im am trying to get you to say. There is nothing that can prove that god spoke to the writer of the bible. People took his word for it, and it stuck. Thats it.

<font color=blue>It seems to me that damn near any religion, philosophy or idealogy can and has been used to justify the hierarchy-du-jour.

I think that's an important observation.</font color=blue>

To be precise, the credit for that observation should go to Madrak.

What I find important in the observation is the fact that religion, philosophy and ideology alike have been used and have been useful for the hierarchy.

I’d like to go a step further and insinuate that the implicit separation between the hierarchy and the “systems of beliefs” in that statement may be misleading. In order to spread and become “mainstream” and to maintain itself, these systems of belief need the power associated with the hierarchy at least as much (if not more) as the latter need the former to justify its existence. I’d say that there is always a rational explanation as to why and how a system of beliefs, including religion, comes about and establishes itself; apart from the outlandish and irrational reasons such as right divine being conveying the right book at the right time, invariably – in order to do nothing less than save the humankind.

<font color=blue>Being created in the image of God and in a fallen state it does not surprise me that, people being people, we have seen your observation proven out time and again. It's one of the unavoidable issues of having humanity involved in anything be it religion or secular government.</font color=blue>

*grins* Yes, yes -- exactly the argument used to establish and maintain hierarchy –- a human being is a depraved fallen creature, born in sin, and the salvation is only by and thru the mercy of God.

Of course, less the now archaic and laughable “rationalization” of assuming the role or the control of hierarchy -- because of his low and wicked nature, a human has to be guided (ruled) by those knowing the path to salvation, the God's chosen church...

[Roscoe]

apart from the outlandish and irrational reasons such as right divine being conveying the right book at the right time, invariably – in order to do nothing less than save the humankind.

I agree - that's irrational and outlandish and has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. I can't speak for any other religions.

Of course, less the now archaic and laughable “rationalization” of assuming the role or the control of hierarchy -- because of his low and wicked nature, a human has to be guided (ruled) by those knowing the path to salvation, the God's chosen church...

spoken like a true anarchist. (don't know if you are one) heaven forbid there be a hierarchy in life. You know - leaders and followers and stuff. The wise teaching the young... you know - all that mentoring stuff.

[Roscoe]

So then back to my question - what would you accept as viable evidence. I gotcha that the Bible's out. Would deductive reasoning based on a logical examination of various points of reality be acceptable?

<font color=blue>apart from the outlandish and irrational reasons such as right divine being conveying the right book at the right time, invariably – in order to do nothing less than save the humankind.

I agree - that's irrational and outlandish and has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. I can't speak for any other religions.</font color=blue>

How so? That is pretty much the essence of at least two of the monotheist religions craving to have the temple on the same infamous mountain, including the Christianity; both before and after it was forced to start reinventing itself.

<font color=blue>spoken like a true anarchist. (don't know if you are one) heaven forbid there be a hierarchy in life. You know - leaders and followers and stuff. The wise teaching the young... you know - all that mentoring stuff.</font color=blue>

Spoken like a woolly mammal ready to accept just about any hierarchy, despite having lived in the land for freedom and democracy whole (or most of the) life /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif.

Just because Mr. President makes presupposing and unsubstantiated assertions about freedom being a gift from a phantom, doesn't mean that both the hierarchy and the church preached that all along.

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

I feel the need to reply to you, too. What you said is exactly the problem of our finiteness trying to comprehend the infinite and eternal. God is simply good, period. See, we tend to view goodness as simply a value judgment dependant on acts / consequences. But if this is all goodness means, then that would make God less than perfect, for God will have to depend on goodness.

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif It seems that you're adopting the "it is good because it is loved by God" model as opposed to "God loves it because it is good" model, although you seem to be waffling a bit. In this case, good is arbitratily defined by God because he is omnipotent, but it's logically consistent at least.
<blockquote><hr>

You are operating from a modernistic scientific level that believes, "Either...or...not both." Yet in our postmodern world, studies in Quantum Physics show that molecules can be two things at one time. Therefore, the either/or model of logic is being constantly questioned and slowly disproven by scientists and philosophers alike. A thing can be two things at one time.

<hr></blockquote>
Quantum physics don't show that molecules can be two things at the same time /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif, that's a tremendous oversimplification. Quantum physics generally indicates that a probabilistic interpretation of physics is actually a fundamental interpretation. So in a way, yes, a particle (generally smaller than a molecule) behaves as based on probabilities of many different paths or states it may be in. It's not really, two things at the same time, it's more a smear of probability that behaves as a wave.

Quantum physics, however, doesn't really related to logical/philosophical arguments. Mutually exclusive ideas are still mutually exclusive.
<blockquote><hr>

Therefore, God can both be good and determine what is good. God is good by virtue of just Being - but also determines what is good because by virtue of God Being good, anything that God creates must, by definition, be good as well. But humanity has not chosen this goodness - and seeks pride and self-sufficiency unless they accept the goodness of Divine Love in their lives.

<hr></blockquote>
Now you're moving back to having your cake and eating it to. Either God is good, as defined by some external standard or God defines good and goodness is merely an arbitrary set of values determined by God.

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

<hr></blockquote> I suggest eBay and start the bidding at $50.00 if she has good teeth.

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

There's no question that the behavior of the sodomites was that of rudeness but to exclude the sin of homosexuality from the behavior of the sodomites belies a personal social agenda as opposed to objective interpretation. Didn't you say you were at a methodist seminary?

<hr></blockquote>
Figures.

[Wisty]

&gt;As I've said, I can accept the Bible for a guideline. But it's too flawed to accept as the word of God.

Then if that is your decision, so be it. Why argue the point(s)? You believe the bible is too flawed. Fine. I accept that. Allow others to believe otherwise. Meanwhile, I've stated before that I have problems with parts of the bible. Which is why I'm studying it, and doing it from many angles. But the bible itself is not the main or only reason I believe in God and believe Jesus existed and believe all the things I've posted. It's something I have trouble putting into words so that the skeptics, disbelievers, and or those who've never experienced what I have, can understand more than just the surface of the words. I try. I take time, now and then, to tell my stories and my experiences and my feelings. But they always get thwacked by the skeptics, disbelievers, those who have never experienced, and or those who are staunch bible thumpers. So I come back to, again, it's a personal search. That begins inside you (each and every person). You can search or you can forget it. You can forget it forever, or put it on hold. You can believe and still question. You can believe and still not fully understand it all. It's your choice. Though if you're looking for someone to rekindle your faith and reteach you to believe in the bible, I'm not the one. There are those far better educated in this than I. So don't pick on me when I cannot proffer what you think I should or what you need.

[Roscoe]

Figures.

huh?

[Wisty]

&gt;9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

Which I bet, everyone in this thread over the age of 18 has flunked, and maybe more than once, me included! But I have asked forgiveness, and am trying to do better even though I am still of the unChristian frame of mind that believes one does not have to be "married" in order to be involved with someone, live with someone, and have sex with someone -- except that in my case, as I've posted before, I don't do recreational or casual sex -- my relationship would be like a married one but without the actual legal document. Perhaps I would not be sinning since in my heart I would be committed and moral as a wife, but just not "documented" in the eyes of Christian society/government, and thus sinning. I'm also open-minded about other things, which is why I say I do not make a very good Christian in the biblical sense; though in the sense of the condition of one's heart and motives, I'm probably very Christian/biblical. Still debating with myself about those things.

Oh, but just follow that chick dude, then you can sin all you want, all you have to do is turn to Jesus before you die and everything will be ok, it doesn't matter if you're molested an entire Kindergarden.

[Roscoe]

is there any kind of thread you won't troll? even 'religious' threads are fair game to you eh?

How exactly is that NOT on topic?, Jack Chick is a fine example of religious nutcases.

The only one posting off topic of the thread is you, who don't have any reason to the post other than to take a swipe at me, and you're an ex-admin...LOL

[Roscoe]

funny, my dog's name is Jack.

"educate" yourself:

http://www.chick.com/

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5024/5024_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

<hr></blockquote>
Interesting how so many professing Christians denounce D&amp;D as Satanic and then play UO full of witchcraft necromancy spells deamons pentagrams etc.

[Roscoe]

I have read every Chick comic there is. When I was a kid they fascinated me. I still see them every so often in churches that I visit.

[Roscoe]

Interesting how so many professing Christians denounce D&amp;D as Satanic and then play UO full of witchcraft necromancy spells deamons pentagrams etc.

I used to play Might and Magic and a very close friend of mine chastised me to no end. He grabbed teh spell book that came with it and swore up and down you could cast spells on people with it.

[Wisty]

&gt;all you have to do is turn to Jesus before you die and everything will be ok, it doesn't matter if you're molested an entire Kindergarden.

I never said that. People who murder and rape deserve the death penalty. I'm not as forgiving as some. I don't believe that we can do all kinds of harm and damage to others in this life and expect to die and be totally forgiven and life a happy life afterwards. But it's not for me to judge what happens to those after they die. I can only go by the laws of this life.

[Roscoe]

I cannot say that I know for certain that anyone went to hell when they died. I simply do not know what eternity holds for any individual. Can a death row inmate be redeemed even though they were sent to death row for murdering the spouse and 4 kids or for murder 12 people over a number of years? Yes, I believe they can. Son of Sam.

[Wisty]

&gt;Interesting how so many professing Christians denounce D&amp;D as Satanic and then play UO full of witchcraft necromancy spells deamons pentagrams etc.

Yes, I've heard of that. My JW friends were very leery of D&amp;D. I never played it, but did have a board game for little kids which was somehow related to D&amp;D with kobolts and trolls, etc. My JW friends cautioned me, but I didn't find anything bad about the game.

As for UO, a person can play any part they want, they don't have to participate in anything so-called satanic/evil. And there is so-called satanic/evil and witches/benign or otherwise in real life, too, but Christians still go about living their lives in the world.

There was also a thing about black being demonic. But black is just another color created by God (or for the evolutionists, arrived along with the Big Bang).

It's what you do WITH things that really determines their purpose, goodness or badness.

This has nothing to do with Christianity, but one thing that bothered me about UO was peeps training to be thieves and or it being an honorable profession. Because I just don't like thievery and stealing is not part of my personality, AND quite a bit of that has gone on in my real life here. ( stealing from me or swapping older similar items for my newer ones.) Also, killing animals every which-a-way, even pets, seemed to be kind of teaching people how to be insensitive in general. And destroying other peeps, on down to making them so miserable they have no fun playing anymore, even when they do not consent to it, even when it's not supposed to be part of the game and yet peep find ways to do it to others. All that stuff went against my grain and my preferences; hence, more reasons why I quit UO. I'm really more a PvM. Or games that teach compassion and morals. Or, at the very least, pit good guys against the bad/evil turdoes.

Thats what chick says, not you.

<blockquote><hr>

But black is just another color

<hr></blockquote>

Black is not a color. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Mother Zub]

<blockquote><hr>

d) He was not laying down a universal truth but was working to restore peace and unity to a specific group of believers in context of their social framwork.

<hr></blockquote>

Sweethart, I hate to tell you, but that is the SAME thing as answer "B"

also...
It doesnt say "women be silent in this church"
it says "let the women be silent in the churches"

Who has the right to say that One verse is ment for all and IS universal truth, and others are directed at specific people?
Particularly in this case where the language suggests that it is NOT ment to be only directed at one church.


Why does social framework make a difference to god?
Is there no REAL right and wrong?
How is the bible of any use if it does not contain universal truth (or if we are free to pick and choose about what is and what is not ment for us?)

The obvious argument (I would think) would be to say that the universal laws are the 10 commandments and the universal command is belief in God and jesus as his risen son. The rest is just "FYI"?

That is good, but why then do christians believe that the bible is penned by God through man?? Would god not be aware of the future compilation of the bible and would the word of god not be universal truth?
If it is specific advice to one church (though evidence shows that that is NOT the intended case) then does not the rest of the books of paul fall under the same "throw away" category as they are all, in reality, written to specific churches?
If so much of the bible is not ment for us... and even contains MISLEADING information such as these verses, how can you say that the compilation is guided by god?

The verse before the "silence in the churches" verse says that god is not the author of confusion
Obviously this is ANOTHER verse that is not ment for us since if god is the author of the bible he is indeed the author of confusion.


even the 10 commandments have women listed as "property" of the husband: (paraphrase from memory) Thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife, nor his ox nor his as or anything that is thy neighbor's (emphasis origional to king james if I remeber correctly.)


How could god, who knows the past present and future be so careless when "dictating" the books of the bible which are supposed to be ment for ALL people, not just the people of one specific era.


<blockquote><hr>

However it's the PC notions of what 'liberation' truly means for women that have distorted Paul's writings to say something they didn't then and don't now. 'Insulting' indeed.

<hr></blockquote>

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT???

I didnt distort anything... those are the very words of the book.
To me their meaning is obvious. What other possible interpretation is there... pray tell?

you are calling being free to speak a "PC notion of liberation?" Teaching men or having a position of athority go to a female is a "PC notion of liberation??"


It is either No longer true or it is horridly sexist. There are no 2 ways about it.

It seems that you have chosen to rephrase "option b"
I had no Idea that the Bible was not universal truth! I have never heard a christian say that the letters of paul are not ment for us and that their contents are no longer true!! I was taught that the bible is true in the past, it's true in the present and it will be true in the future.

Now you are telling me that because I took the bible as true I have distorted its meaning?
God forbid I should give any credit to the word of God.


I assure you that in the future I will no longer "distort" the bible by assuming that it contains true words.
If I feel that something is wrong I will sleep soundly knowing that most of it is no longer true.

[Baker|NV]

MoZub pwns! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh2.gif

Roscoe:
Perhaps I should ask you what I've asked Gannon. Is "good" something external to God or is it defined by God? You seem reluctant to accept that your God is sexist, despite the undeniable sexism in the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God. So tell me, what is it tugging at your conscience that tells you sexism is wrong and should not be ascribed to the Bible? What is that moral sense, apparently seperate from the Bible, which drives you to separate your theology from sexism? If "good" is defined by God, wouldn't it make sense to simply say women should not speak in church and that's just the way it is?

[Vio]

<blockquote><hr>

black ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blk)
adj. black·er, black·est
Being of the color black, producing or reflecting comparatively little light and having no predominant hue.

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

It's what you do WITH things that really determines their purpose, goodness or badness.

<hr></blockquote>

Awww I see. So I could open a Christian brothel and use the money to feed the poor?

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


Okay. The Bible SUCKS!


<hr></blockquote>

Ok this is a blatant lie. I spilt some water on the kitchen floor so I threw a Bible on it and it didnt suck anything. The puddle just stayed there.

You get two claps though for trolling so many.

Oh once a walkin' on the green enjoyin' Ireland sun
Me Gran'ther came across something he thought was mighty odd
At first he thought it was a bird because it was so small
Turned out to be a Leprechaun a standing two feet tall

Turned out to be a Leprechaun a standing two feet tall

Me Gran'ther was a crafty man and reached and grabbed it quick
Say give to me your pot of gold and mind you try no tricks
The Leprechaun he said instead I'll give you wishes three
But first I'll have to tell the rules so listen carefully

But first he has to tell the rules so listen carefully

The first rule is you cannot wish for more than wishes three
You cannot wish for anything stretched to infinity
You cannot wish the English out before the end of War
And one of the things whatever you wish your Mother-in-Law gets more

And one of the things whatever you wish your Mother-in-Law gets more

So if you want a brand new house your Mother-in-Law gets two
You can wish yourself a wealthy man but she'll have more than you
Oh you can wish for anything t'would surely be so nice
but whatever it is your wishin' for the old bag gets it twice

but whatever it is your wishin' for the old bag gets it twice

Me Gran'ther he thought long and hard considered carefully
And when he spoke his eyes lit up with some eternal glee
Me first is wealth me second is fame and then he took a breath
And for my third and final wiiiiiiiiiiiiish

Please beat me half to death

[Devin MacGregor]

Yes but dictionary.com is confusing...

<blockquote><hr>


color

\Col"or\, n. [Written also colour.] [OF. color, colur, colour, F. couleur, L. color; prob. akin to celare to conceal (the color taken as that which covers). See Helmet.] 1. A property depending on the relations of light to the eye, by which individual and specific differences in the hues and tints of objects are apprehended in vision; as, gay colors; sad colors, etc.

Note: The sensation of color depends upon a peculiar function of the retina or optic nerve, in consequence of which rays of light produce different effects according to the length of their waves or undulations, waves of a certain length producing the sensation of red, shorter waves green, and those still shorter blue, etc. White, or ordinary, light consists of waves of various lengths so blended as to produce no effect of color, and the color of objects depends upon their power to absorb or reflect a greater or less proportion of the rays which fall upon them.

2. Any hue distinguished from white or black.


<hr></blockquote>

We have three primary colors(red, blue, and yellow) which produce our secondary colors(purple, green, and orange) and so on and so on. White and Black lighten or darken respectively the hues of colors. But what else are people going to call them? Shades? Some still say oh my printer prints in black and white. *blinks*

Black is a simple lack of color, your monitor is Red, Green and Blue, it cannot make a true black color, what it does is simply display NO color (which is why black is always 0 of all 3 colors).

We were always taught in art class that black is not a color, but it is often just called so to avoid confusion.

Its much like number 0 in math...its the freak thats neither here nor there.

[GannonCM]

MMII

Something crossed my mind as I read most of the things you have posted so far, and that you distrust the Bible. You seem like a fairly intelligent person, and I want to encourage you to read a book called NOT EVERY SPIRIT: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief. This is an excellent text that we had to read for Systematic Theology.

But what crossed my mind after reading most of your post is that you distrust the Bible as absolute truth, or as the Word of God. Your statement here is somewhat vague. How do you define the Bible as the Word of God?

It seems like what you are challenging is the traditional view that the Word of God is compeltely, exhaustively and contains fully the exact dictation of the Word of God to humanity and portrays every single absolute truth that is necessary for our existence.

I disagree with that definition of the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible expresses truth only that which is necessary and sufficient for salvation. The Bible CONTAINS aspects of the Word of God that we ought to pay attention to in relation to salvation, but the "Word" of God itself cannot fully contained by anything finite. The Greek term used for "Word" in this context (John 1.1-5) is LOGOS - which can also be translated as Reason. Nothing in this finite world can fully and exhaustively contain the Infinite Reason of God (cf. John 21.25). Though I believe there is truth contained in the Bible - I believe that truth is organic and dynamic- it is truth only in the sense that we have the ability to interpret it for our time. We have to remember our finiteness - a century from now many things will change that will both affirm and deny our current ability to understand what the Bible says for our time. If God just gave us all the answers in one book fully and comprehensively - where is the grace that allows us to grow in the Love of God? If we knew all the answers absolutely now, what would be the meaning of our finiteness?

So I join you in disagreeing with the idea that the Word of God is completely, fully and exhaustively contained in the Bible alone. But I do believe that the Bible contains elements of spiritual truth that is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.

MMII - you would thoroughly enjoy that book I mentioned. The author is Christopher Morse.

[GannonCM]

Roscoe

At some point you need to go through and read again EXACTLY what I wrote.

First of all, you misquote Scripture. The word that is actually used is "sodomites." Period.

Secondly, I did NOT say that homosexuality was NOT a sin. I said that it is listed as one of many sins in the Sodom and Gomorrah story. There are at least 5 sins mentioned in the story - not being hospitable to strangers, homosexuality, rage, forced sexual desires and anger. I did not exclude homosexuality from the list.

But each of those "sins" are listed. And if a true follower of Christ exhibits any of those sins, they cannot be a true follower of Christ. For more on this see Richard Gagnon's book on The Bible and Homosexuality - a scholar and teacher00 from Pittsburg Theological Seminary who is against the polemic to approve homosexuals as ordained clergy within the church.

[Roscoe]

Let me apologize to you, Mo Zub, and say that when I first hit the thread I was trying crank out posts as fast as I could wanting to fill an entire page. I was working from the latest threads to the earliest and was typing away taking issue with what I could not putting much thought. 2 things happened. One - I'm a terrible troll and should stop doing it. Two - I started writing longer and more serious answers because that's more natural to me. So my post to you was fairly trite and I knew I'd get hammered when I wrote it. My apologies. Here are my thoughts:

------------------

<font color=blue>That is good, but why then do Christians believe that the bible is penned by God through man?? Would god not be aware of the future compilation of the bible and would the word of god not be universal truth?
If it is specific advice to one church (though evidence shows that that is NOT the intended case) then does not the rest of the books of paul fall under the same "throw away" category as they are all, in reality, written to specific churches?
If so much of the bible is not ment for us... and even contains MISLEADING information such as these verses, how can you say that the compilation is guided by god? </font color=blue>

I can best answer that by explaining my view of the Bible: I believe:

1. the Bible is inspired by God
2. it's played too huge of a role in the modern church and has evolved into something that I'm not sure it was intended to be

The short answer is that by modern standards Paul’s writings are sexist. Does that make them wrong? I don’t think so. Does that mean that women should not speak in church? Maybe it does and we have strayed. Are we going to hell for it? Nope. Does that render the Bible wrong? Nope – it just means that thousands upon thousands of people in and out of Church are failing to abide by God’s law. That is if you take it that Paul was writing a mandate.

The problem that I’m having with this argument is that we’re approaching the Bible just as so many conservative Christians do and making it into a code or law. We have rendered the Christian faith to a system of measurements with the Bible as the score keeper and I don’t believe that’s what the Bible’s for or that is what Christianity is about.

If we want to argue in terms of absolutes it seems to me that there are some important considerations. The first is that God is the only absolute. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a ‘conveyance’ of truths but these truths are limited by one important thing – they are finite in their ability to convey the one Absolute which is God.

The key, in my mind, to understand Paul is to read what he says in context of all that he has written. Paul is a proponent of a system of Grace that says ‘all things are permissible but not everything is beneficial’. Paul rebukes Peter and others for falling back into legalism in their approach to their faith and tells Timothy 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So – back to the short answer. By today’s standards Paul’s writings can be defined as sexist but there’s nothing to apologize for in them. If we are failing to subscribe to Paul’s teachings adequately that doesn’t render God or the Bible as wrong. It doesn’t undue the fabric of the cosmos it just means we are off the mark. If people have issues with that well tell me something new! lol

===baker===
<font color=blue>Baker said: Perhaps I should ask you what I've asked Gannon. Is "good" something external to God or is it defined by God?</font color=blue>

I believe without question that God is good and therefore good is defined by God.

<font color=blue>You seem reluctant to accept that your God is sexist, despite the undeniable sexism in the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God. </font color=blue>

By modern standards, yes, the writings of Paul are sexist.

<font color=blue>So tell me, what is it tugging at your conscience that tells you sexism is wrong and should not be ascribed to the Bible? What is that moral sense, apparently seperate from the Bible, which drives you to separate your theology from sexism? If "good" is defined by God, wouldn't it make sense to simply say women should not speak in church and that's just the way it is? </font color=blue>

Actually nothing’s tugging at my conscience. I don’t subscribe to the same line of thought about the Bible that you are describing. Read my response to MZ above.

[GannonCM]

MMII -

Man you have some great potential! You should take some courses with me at Seminary. One theory that has existed for over 1.5 millenia in Christianity is the theory that "image of God" refers to, what St. Augustine calls, memory, understanding and will. He states this argument in thorough detail in his classic book THE TRINITY. I am not saying this is the only correct theory, but St. Augustine - who is only "famous" to religious people for writing The Confessions - also wrote very intellectually stimulating theories on things like the Image of God and how that image is implanted in us.

[Roscoe]

I'm not sure what you're arguing about then. I listed that verse to demonstrate that Paul clearly lists homosexuality as a sin. Yes, the word 'sodomite' is used but the use of the word does not in any way remove the practice of homosexual sex from its meaning. In fact in context of the verse its comes right after a list of immoral behavior that is sexual in nature and servers as a perfect transitory point to the non-sexual yet immoral behavior that is described afterwards. The term 'sodomite' includes homosexual behavior so I'm not sure what your issue with me is. Helpe me understand.

[GannonCM]

DumpsterDan -

LOL

The nice thing about EBay is that you can opt to not accept the highest bid if it does not reach what you think your product is worth /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

LOL

[GannonCM]

Wistaria said, "People who murder and rape deserve the death penalty."

Sorry, I have to greatly disagree with this. It operates on the old theory that capital punishment serves as a deterrant to crime. However, the state of Texas who stringently enforces capital punishment is the third highest in rape, violence and gunshot related deaths and violence in the country. Advocates for capital punishment as a deterrant to crime refuse to see that it really does produce more violence in a community than deters.

The death penalty is nothing but personal vindication to justify more violence, more bloodshed and more needless death. It's the only purpose it serves.

People in our own society engage in murder every day - when we neglect the needs of people who are starving in our own streets and just make some blatant statement of saying "That's too bad for her or him" and go on our way without doing something to help! &gt;&gt;Sorry, this is my "methodism" coming out in me now!&lt;&lt; But it is true - everytime we neglect compassion for the poor, we are neglecting the mission of Christ to the world.

[Roscoe]

The death penalty played an important role in the founding of Christianity.

[GannonCM]

But Roscoe -

The OLD TESTAMENT was foundational for worshiping God before the Incarnate Word in Jesus Christ.

How do you justify the death penalty when Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek? How do you justify bloodshed for wrongdoing when Jesus told the Apostle Peter to put away his sword - and then healed the one who Peter assaulted? How do you justify the death penalty as an act of mercy when the Pharisees gathered around a prostitute and Jesus says, "Anyone who is without sin, let them cast the first stone."

Sure, Jesus does tell the same woman, "Neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more." God meets us where we are, but once we accept Divine Love in our hearts, we must change our thinking about reality (hence the term "repentance" means a change of mind and heart).

All of human life has value, regardless if you are a homeless person or Bill Gates. Hear me clear - ALL PEOPLE have value.

It does sicken me that the church has failed in its ministry to the poor. But people can help change this trend - yet most Christians are not willing. If you (general you here) are not involved in doing good in the name of Christ - if you are a Christian - then you are allowing evil to continue to happen. Being a "good person" does not sit around ignore the cries of the needy.

I do not think homosexuality is morally justifyable in a Christian witness. However, it is disgusting to see people who call themselves "Christians" post up web sites approving of the violent acts that have lead to the death of some homosexuals. There is a website some "Christian" church postetd that applauded the violent acts against a 17 year old homosexual that led to his death. That is ungodly.

[Roscoe]

<font color=blue>The OLD TESTAMENT was foundational for worshiping God before the Incarnate Word in Jesus Christ. </font color=blue>

I agree - it was.

<font color=blue>How do you justify the death penalty when Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek? How do you justify bloodshed for wrongdoing when Jesus told the Apostle Peter to put away his sword - and then healed the one who Peter assaulted? How do you justify the death penalty as an act of mercy when the Pharisees gathered around a prostitute and Jesus says, "Anyone who is without sin, let them cast the first stone." </font color=blue>

In all of those instances Jesus was not commenting on the death penalty. He was clearly stating that violence against flesh and blood will not be used to advance the agenda of the Kingdom. The words of Jesus are neutral on the death penalty. In fact, he says render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. This was stated in context of taxation but there is a broader principle that can be applied there. Particularly when you consider that he allowed the death penalty to be instrumental in providing salvation to those who believe.

I see it like this - the OT allows for the penalty of the death. Jesus is silent on the issue but was willing to submit to it. There are other social issues that are not railed against by Jesus because his agenda was not a social issue driven platform. His sole purpose was to restore men unto God.

Ultimately there are consequences for actions and if a certain government allows for the death penalty understand that Jesus may forgive you but that doesn't mean Caesar will.

<font color=blue>I do not think homosexuality is morally justifyable in a Christian witness. However, it is disgusting to see people who call themselves "Christians" post up web sites approving of the violent acts that have lead to the death of some homosexuals. There is a website some "Christian" church postetd that applauded the violent acts against a 17 year old homosexual that led to his death. That is ungodly. </font color=blue>

Is this what we call a non-sequiter (sp?). I'm not sure why you're throwing this out. I certainly did not bring it up nor do I advocate it. I'm just pointing out that the Bible is not neutral or silent on the issue of homosexuality.

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

I believe without question that God is good and therefore good is defined by God.

<hr></blockquote>
But to say that 'God is good' is meaningless if good is defined by God. God could simply reverse his positions on every issue. God could advocate homosexuality, murder, violence, and they would simply be good if good is defined by God. The phrase "God is good" is meaningless unless there is some external standard by which God himself is compared.
<blockquote><hr>

By modern standards, yes, the writings of Paul are sexist.

<hr></blockquote>
No. By rational standards the writings of Paul are sexist. They clearly place women in a subserviant position to men. By modern standards, the writings of Paul are more sexist than is socially acceptable.
<blockquote><hr>

Actually nothing’s tugging at my conscience. I don’t subscribe to the same line of thought about the Bible that you are describing. Read my response to MZ above.

<hr></blockquote>
Either the Bible is the word of God or it's not. It seems initially the post above that you're somewhat moving away from the 'absolute word of God stance, which is perfectly acceptable logically however I somewhat question how you can know anything of God without the Bible.

Later in the post you seem to accept that we've moved away from morality, however, in gender equality. This is also logically acceptable, although decidedly unpalatable. I'm just wondering, why is it unpalatable if the only basis for morality or goodness is God?

God told me to tell you all to shush! Youre disturbing Her nap.

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif


www.witchvox.com (http://www.witchvox.com)

[GannonCM]

The reason I "throw it out there" Roscoe is because most people who say homosexuality is wrong are silent or advocate the violence that some homosexuals face because of that choice of lifestyle. In fact, I would argue that those who remain silent on this violence towards them do advocate that violence. It's one thing to say "People shouldn't be treated like that." It's quite another to be actively involved in acts of mercy and reconciliation.

If you aren't actively involved, do you truly follow Christ? That is a soul searching question every Christian should ask themselves. Someone once said that if we took a tenth percent of all the military spending and put it to feed the poor, we would not have poverty...

I think to go one step further is appropriate. If every person who confessed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior were willing to provide for the basic needs of one person in poverty within this country, we would not have the problem of poverty anymore in our country. Is this radical? Yes, I agree it is. But we have stories of early Christians who did just that. We have stories of many people who have given up all of their worldly wealth for the poor and the needy and to follow God's calling in their lives. Where has that type of radical Christianity gone? I sure don't see it...

Then why am I in training for ministry? Because I believe God can use me to help change people's hearts and minds to see that true Christian witness is to act rightly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. The worst thing a "good person" can do is sit back and do nothing - yet this type of complacant faith is exactly what we are facing in our churches today.

[Roscoe]

<font color=blue>But to say that 'God is good' is meaningless if good is defined by God. God could simply reverse his positions on every issue. God could advocate homosexuality, murder, violence, and they would simply be good if good is defined by God. The phrase "God is good" is meaningless unless there is some external standard by which God himself is compared. </font color=blue>

God is good is meaningless unless it is understood that God, by his very nature, is not capable of the immoral or the sinful. He is more than just a good behaving person - he is the embodiment of good. I'd say that makes goodness less of an ideal and more divine in nature.

<font color=blue>No. By rational standards the writings of Paul are sexist. They clearly place women in a subserviant position to men. By modern standards, the writings of Paul are more sexist than is socially acceptable. </font color=blue>

So you say. We're all entitled to opinions. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

<font color=blue>Either the Bible is the word of God or it's not. It seems initially the post above that you're somewhat moving away from the 'absolute word of God stance, which is perfectly acceptable logically however I somewhat question how you can know anything of God without the Bible. </font color=blue>

I believe that the Bible is the word (small 'w') and that Jesus is the Word (big 'w'). The bible is complete for what it was intended but Jesus is the fullness of the revelation of God. The issue here is one of revelation and you've touched upon the very crux of the issue for me. If all I'm doing is following a set of rules based upon written legacy then big whoop - I'll become a buddhist. The Bible speaks of a personal, real and present reality as for as a relationship with God is concerned.

<font color=blue>Later in the post you seem to accept that we've moved away from morality, however, in gender equality. This is also logically acceptable, although decidedly unpalatable. I'm just wondering, why is it unpalatable if the only basis for morality or goodness is God? </font color=blue>

There is a way to man that seems to be right but the end there of leads to death. That's a quote from Proverbs which speaks of the depravity of man. Paul says in the book of Romans that there are none who seek after God and that each man has gone his own way. We can certainly believe that things are right when they're wrong and wrong when they're right. Human emotion should never be a guage for measurement.

[Roscoe]

<font color=blue>The reason I "throw it out there" Roscoe is because most people who say...</font color=blue>

First - that's a generalization and I could espouse many that carry no more weight than yours (and I often do!).

Second - my sister's a lesbian and is raising my niece with her SO (also a female to be clear). My niece is a fired up Christian and has the radicalness of youth. She and I both love my sister dearly. On another note as an art major I had many homosexual friends in college. I can only think of 3 of the guys that I knew at that time who are alive today. I watched one of my friends die in his hospital room a little over 12 years ago.

Your generalization sux and you seem to be going way off into lala land here.

<font color=blue>If you aren't actively involved, do you truly follow Christ? That is a soul searching question every Christian should ask themselves. Someone once said that if we took a tenth percent of all the military spending and put it to feed the poor, we would not have poverty... </font color=blue>

Paul says For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work , then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.

I pastored a church in the inner city of Houston for almost 2 years. We worked in conjunction with 12 other churches in the area to support a food pantry for the under-priveledged. We had a strict policy, however, to NEVER hand out money in the church office. We would hear the same stories over and over agin about how 'my car died about 5 blocks from here and my wife and 4 kids are in it - could you spare some money for gas?' There were some others. There was one night where I was setting up for a wedding (I preached 4 weddings and a funeral during that time BTW) and a guy approached me on the street asking for a few bucks. I told him about our policy and he said he'd just gotten out of jail and was needing a meal. I again turned him down and he said that he'd walk over and meet me at the taco stand and eat the tacos in front of me. At that point it was pretty obvious this guy was being truthful. It's a shame but you know why we both had to do go through that exercise? Because Paul's right. People take advantage. You have some keen ideals about ministry but you need to hit the streets and deal with the real world. Seminary is a nursery.

<font color=blue>Then why am I in training for ministry? Because I believe God can use me to help change people's hearts and minds to see that true Christian witness is to act rightly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. The worst thing a "good person" can do is sit back and do nothing - yet this type of complacant faith is exactly what we are facing in our churches today. </font color=blue>

Ok - so we're in agreement that the Bible does say that homosexuality is immoral? Isn't that where we started?

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

God is good is meaningless unless it is understood that God, by his very nature, is not capable of the immoral or the sinful.

<hr></blockquote>
Yes, God certainly is incapable of the immoral or the sinful because God defines what is moral and sinful. If God decides homosexual is the way to be, then that's what's moral and to be heterosexual is immoral. By definition, all God must do to be moral is be omnipotent. It's meaningless however to say "God is good" because good is defined by God (in this view). It's like saying "God is God".

[Roscoe]

I completely disagree. You're anthropomorphizing God by implying that he's going to, on a whim, change his view and it's not going to happen. It would be to redefine who he is and God is immutable. I fully understand the problem you're having by saying that God is good and if it helps you to say that Good is defined apart from God then great. It's no skin off my back. But I still maintain that good is divine in its origin. We recognize 'goodness' by virtue of being created in the image of God and that goodness is an expression of who he is. And God is not good because he follows some ruleset that exists apart from him. If I can think of a better way to express I'll let you know.

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


Black is a simple lack of color, your monitor is Red, Green and Blue, it cannot make a true black color, what it does is simply display NO color (which is why black is always 0 of all 3 colors).

We were always taught in art class that black is not a color, but it is often just called so to avoid confusion.

Its much like number 0 in math...its the freak thats neither here nor there.


<hr></blockquote>

My Dad is an artist. I grew up with paint tubes and easels all over the place. Ahhh the smell of oil based paint. Black and White are not colors. I was saying that. Black absorbs all light while white reflects but blends(blurs) all color "White, or ordinary, light consists of waves of various lengths so blended as to produce no effect of color." Both are used for shading. To darken or lighten a color(hue). Hence why some artists call them shades because it is what they are used for. Want a darker purple? Add some black. Want a lighter purple? Add some white. Want to create purple? Add red to blue. Want to create orange? Add red and yellow. Want to create orange-red add more red than yellow. What is amazing is how millions of colors can come from just 3 colors and 2 shades or non-colors.

I was saying that dictionary.com was confusing because his def he used appears to have come from them. Hence why I made the dictionary.com reference to color which states they arent colors and walla the confusing part. People have to call them something.

Here is Encarta's def of color:

3. not black or white: a color such as red or green, as opposed to black, white, or gray.

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

I completely disagree. You're anthropomorphizing God by implying that he's going to, on a whim, change his view and it's not going to happen.

<hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying he would. I'm saying he could if he wanted to.

Start from scratch. God's sitting around, thinking about how he's gonna create earth. There's no such thing as morality yet, as God defines morality. So, what does he define as moral? It necessarily must be arbitrary and even whimsical what he defines as moral. For if there's reasons outside of God for what he chooses, he's not omnipotent.

Certainly God could change morality, hypothetically, to some other arbitrary ruleset and it would be equally moral, yes?

[Roscoe]

There's no such thing as morality yet...

and that's the problem. Morality is the term we use to try and describe that nature that compells us to identify something as good.

Are you familiar with Plato's forms? It's been a while so hopefully I'll get this right but let me put it this way.

<pre>
God = higher
----------------------
morality = lower</pre>

Morality is our finite definition. But it in no way fully expresses the fullness of the ideal of morality. Good is how we express that which is... well... good. But it is not adequate to express the fullness of that which is good. God is the expression of Good. All we can really know is good with a little g and morality with a little m. God is Good.

Therefore morality existed prior to the creation of the human experience. It was not created to support human experience.

edited to answer question: no - God could not change it arbitrarily - it violate who he is.

[Roscoe]

God told me to tell you all to shush! Youre disturbing Her nap.

they have pills for that - and God's a him - not a her. *runs*

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Are you familiar with Plato's forms? It's been a while so hopefully I'll get this right but let me put it this way.

God = higher
----------------------
morality = lower

<hr></blockquote>
Well... Plato is a classic Greek philosopher. I don't believe he was familiar with any "God", rather he would have spoke of "the gods". Also greek gods were very anthropomorphic, they were not necessarily moral, omnipotent, or omniscient. They were simply immortal. So I would have to assume that this is someone's (your?) argument which is an extention of Plato's forms.

This is an interesting application, however, and is very illustrative of your take on morality. If I understand you correctly here, you actually view human morality as an imperfect manifestation of God?

[Roscoe]

I view morality as being a result of being created in the image of God and a Godly characteristic.

[Roscoe]

Oh - and yes, that's my argument. I understand all that you said about Plato - just felt that it would help clarify my view of God and Goodness.

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Oh - and yes, that's my argument. I understand all that you said about Plato - just felt that it would help clarify my view of God and Goodness.

<hr></blockquote>
It certainly does. In fact I would consider your extension of Plato's argument to be quite natural. It is very illustrative of your view, which I find very interesting. I don't quite agree, of course, but I won't pester you any longer. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

Hey now. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif Maybe your god is a "He" but mine happens to be both a "She" and a "He".

**dons her flame resistant undies**

[Wisty]

I don't know if you like Christian music. Generally I'm fussy about it. I don't usually listen to it unless something catches my fancy. Tonight I was surfing for some cello music, and wound up on this page, not paying much attention, just clicking samples. At first I thought it was a love song by a man to his woman (since it showed a guy hugging a woman). But then I realized he was singing to God.

Re, the attached link. There are 2 free mp3s on a CD up for sale. Though I don't know how to download the 2 free ones because it doesn't ask whether I want to play or save like other sites ask. So I assume there is no way to download and save it? Anyhow, his voice in the first song (called "I Fall Into Your Arms") isn't as perfect as in the second (at the bottom of the list) song "To The Lamb Who Reigns", nevertheless both songs are so pretty -- heard through the settings I have selected. There is cello and guitar and a nice sound in general. They aren't gospelish. Rather gentle and sweet. Though you haters of religion, move along, there's nothing here for you to hear. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif Too bad on you!

Songs by Don Newmeyer:
http://www.cdstreet.com/cgi-bin/artist_products.cgi?1239731&amp;12365027&amp;

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Wistaria said, "People who murder and rape deserve the death penalty."

Sorry, I have to greatly disagree with this. It operates on the old theory that capital punishment serves as a deterrant to crime. However, the state of Texas who stringently enforces capital punishment is the third highest in rape, violence and gunshot related deaths and violence in the country. Advocates for capital punishment as a deterrant to crime refuse to see that it really does produce more violence in a community than deters. </font color=blue>

Thats a sign that the system needs to be reworked, not that it is not warrented or uneffective. The 'save any life' is killing this country. Personal opinion.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;The death penalty is nothing but personal vindication to justify more violence, more bloodshed and more needless death. It's the only purpose it serves. </font color=blue>

Really? I suggest looking at what I have to say after I quote your next response to this subject.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;People in our own society engage in murder every day - when we neglect the needs of people who are starving in our own streets and just make some blatant statement of saying "That's too bad for her or him" and go on our way without doing something to help! &gt;&gt;Sorry, this is my "methodism" coming out in me now!&lt;&lt; But it is true - everytime we neglect compassion for the poor, we are neglecting the mission of Christ to the world. </font color=blue>

Alright, but think on this. Those who kill, rape, or molest for malicious reasons are in prison because it was proven that they did so. These people, in my mind, are undeserving of life. Those people you speak of above are, or at least are much more probable.

What is it? Seven cents a day to feed a child? I wonder how much it costs a day to keep a person in prison alive... How many children do you think that will feed? Even God killed those who sinned. Just a thought...

[Wisty]

&gt;Black is not a color.

There are two kinds of black. The absence of light (as in total blackness or otherwise known as darkness such as at night); or using a whole box of crayons, scribbling with each one upon the same place, you wind up with black.

At least that's what I learned.

So what are you talking about?

[Wisty]

&gt;Awww I see. So I could open a Christian brothel and use the money to feed the poor?

Don't you ever get tired of trolling or taking things so whackily out of the realm of discussion or reality? Must I *really* explain the stupidity of your quote? Don't you know how "boring" comments like yours become? They confuse the issue and break the flow of intellegent and meaningful discussion. You are forever trying to make people look like the fool. Ever wonder why? Instead of participating with worthwhile responces, you just troll. Why not add some decent comments? Though if it's just your form of bizarre sense of humor, sometimes it's hard to detect that in a post.

But, dropping to your level a bit, Yes, you really could "open a Christian brothel and use the money to feed the poor" if Christians intervened and freed the enslaved, corrupted, wounded, and or confused ex-Christian *****s and brought them back to the flock, at which time the building was then opened as a soup kitchen to feed and house the needy and poor. :P Nyuck-nyuck-nyuck, whaunk-whaunk, whppwhppwhppwhpp... OT reminds me of the Three Stooges going at each other -- fortunately not all the time. Three Stooges begin to bore me after about 10 minutes.

[Wisty]

re, colors

Sorry, somehow didn't see this post of yours. Now I'm confused about colors! I was taught there is a difference between light and dark (white and black) in relation to how much light there is in a room either by artificial light or outside via the sun; white being of light, dark or black being without light. And then there are the colors you find in paints and crayons and pencils, white being of the pigments obtained from Titanium or some such, black being a blend of many colors. My husband worked for a paint company -- he used to talk about how much trouble they were in when they couldn't get a shipment of white (Titanium or whatever). Hence, in that case, "white" wasn't a color but instead a metalic element? Even more confused am I now.

[Baker|NV]

Ok. Light.

I don't want to completely Hijack the thread, but I'll give you a brief crash course.

Visible light is simply electromagnetic radiation within a certain range of wavelengths which the human eye can detect. Within this spectrum (range), the eye sees different 'colors'. Namely Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. Each color has an associated wavelength of light (red has the largest wavelength, lowest energy, violet has smallest wavelength and highest energy). White light is merely light with equal distribution of all colors in the visible spectrum. Black is absence of light in the visible spectrum.

[Moonglum]

Light Sucks.

[Baker|NV]

God Sucks.

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


And then there are the colors you find in paints and crayons and pencils, white being of the pigments obtained from Titanium or some such, black being a blend of many colors.


<hr></blockquote>

You are talking about pigments. Pigments allow certain light to be seen which is being reflected off of the surface of the object. Change the pigment around and you get a different reflection from the spectrum. Blending all the colors simply hides the actual colors so nothing is reflected. There is a reason why some combat aircraft are painted black as opposed to air superiority grey.

pig·ment
n.

1. A substance used as coloring.
2. Dry coloring matter, usually an insoluble powder, to be mixed with water, oil, or another base to produce paint and similar products.
3. A substance, such as chlorophyll or melanin, that produces a characteristic color in plant or animal tissue.

[DumpsterDan]

<center><blockquote><hr>

Don't you ever get tired of trolling or taking things so whackily out of the realm of discussion or reality?

<hr></blockquote>Nope. </center>

[GannonCM]

Before I give a rationale for ending my contribution to this post, I want to clear something up REAL QUICK about what many mainline denominations believe. Mostly every mainline denomination has Articles of Religion - Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, United Methodists, Episcopalians (Baptists, to my knowledge, do not). The First Article is always about Faith in the Holy Trinity. This is the language found in the United Methodist Church about God's Being - and it comes from an Anglican tradition, which would include Episcopalians and Roman Catholics.

Article I states

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, WITHOUT BODY OR PARTS, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity - The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.

-----

All "Father" means is the Origin of all things created. You can use Mother or Parent - as long as you communicate that there are three persons in one substance. I'm not going to go in depth to this argument.

My point of this is that GOD IS NEITHER HIM NOR HER! God is Spirit. Period. Jesus only referred to God as "Father" relationship-wise, not substance-wise. God never denies our concrete reality. It would be very awkward for Jesus to have called God "Mother" since Mary was his mother. Hear me clear - mostly every religion believes that nothing in this corporeal world can fully and exhaustively explain that which is incorporeal.

I think I am leaving this conversation, because it has become a discussion that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. There are times we have to realize that a dead horse is being beaten- I am not saying Christians do not have a responsibility to defend the truth, but there comes a point in time where one must realize that one has said as much as possible, and then pray that the Holy Spirit will work.

[Roscoe]

I think I am leaving this conversation, because it has become a discussion that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. There are times we have to realize that a dead horse is being beaten- I am not saying Christians do not have a responsibility to defend the truth, but there comes a point in time where one must realize that one has said as much as possible, and then pray that the Holy Spirit will work.

lol - welcome to OT

Discussion of religion is rather pointless, because even if you have a good arguement, it can be brushed aside with that we do not understand the will of God.

[DumpsterDan]

<blockquote><hr>

I think I am leaving this conversation, because it has become a discussion that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. There are times we have to realize that a dead horse is being beaten

<hr></blockquote>
Bite your tongue man! If everyone stopped straining gnats and beating horse corpses forums would cease to exist! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/shocked.gif Just look at how many posts it took to decide where Panama was, it's art!

[Darus Grey]

I read this quote:

<blockquote><hr>

The bible was not written by men. It is the pure word of God printed on paper by men. Man did not add or subtract from what God intended the bible to say

<hr></blockquote>

First off..Im a devot christan..and a accomplished theologist..and my main response is.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahaha.


The bible has been altered so many times, sure..we have some versions that are "More accurate" then others....
I should also point out..many of the books wern't written until WELL after thier authors death...

The bible is the word of god, as INTERUPTED by man. Not Written, im sorry..but if anyone really believes its never been altered..your so full of it..because theres plenty of proof that states otherwise.

Personally, I don't trust man.



*Hit "Enter" a few times &amp; removed excess "haha"

[Roscoe]

No it can't.

[Roscoe]

*posts sign*

Don't feed the trolls. Even if they are an 'accomplished theologian'. lol

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Discussion of religion is rather pointless, because even if you have a good arguement, it can be brushed aside with that we do not understand the will of God. </font color=blue>

&lt;nods&gt;

Blind faith is a wonderful thing, when its not corrupted by those who use it for personal gain. Careful, sheep can be deadly when led by the wolf.

<blockquote><hr>

Allow others to believe otherwise.

<hr></blockquote>

Did I say something like "give up the Bible or I'll kill you?"

I could care less who believes what. I just want to know why they believe it.

<blockquote><hr>

I don't believe that we can do all kinds of harm and damage to others in this life and expect to die and be totally forgiven and life a happy life afterwards.

<hr></blockquote>

Why not? Isn't that what the Bible says?

John 3:16-18

<blockquote><hr>

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

<hr></blockquote>

LC, you're talking two different types of color theory though.

In addative color theory, like your monitor or TV, you're sort of correct. Black isn't really the absence of color, it's, in this case, the abesense of light.

In subtractive color theory, you use color to make black. In the printing world, when you create something that is black, you use "rich black", which is a mixture of CMYK, not just K.

[Pirate Wench]

and God's a him - not a her. *runs*


There's one good reason to distrust Christianity....

Ok.........

4 cars approach a four way stop at the same time, in the middle of the intersection is a 100 dollar bill, driving one car is God, the second driver is the Easter Bunny, the third car is driven by Santa Clause, and I am driving the fourth car. Who will pick up the 100bucks in the intersection first......


I will, because the other three ARE FIGMENTS OF MANKINDS IMAGINEATION!!!!!!!!!!!

So your saying Man invented god?

Black is the absence of color, and white is the combonation of all colors. The way it works its this: When we see color, we're actually seeing the light that is reflected off of it. If something is blue, it will absorbe all colors except blue. The blue is reflected, and so that's what we see. If you combine all colors, everything is reflected, and we see white, which is what you get when you have an equal mix of all colors. If you have no colors, everything is absorbed, nothing is reflected, and so we see black.

[Roscoe]

In subtractive color theory, you use color to make black. In the printing world, when you create something that is black, you use "rich black", which is a mixture of CMYK, not just K.

Actually - you can use just K to create a black it will just look terrible. I have some pieces in my portfolio from about 13 years ago to prove it! lol

[Budner]

"So your saying Man invented god?"

There's no question about that.

Grag and Uluk are sitting 'round the campfire. Suddenly lightening strikes, thunder rolls. Grag and Uluk are scared and do not yet understand what makes weather. So they ascribe these terrors to a superpowerful being. This theory develops, evolves, and is perverted over time and eventually man begins to write. Religious folks compile a bunch of made-up stories, call it the "Bible" (not knowing it would become a best-seller) or the "Koran" or the "Baghvad-gita" or the "Teachings of Buddha" or the (insert name of your religion's fictional holy book here "_______"). Then those books and their related teachings are used to do all sorts of good and evil things:

1) heal wrongs
2) teach morals
3) start wars
4) justify genocide
5) steal from the ignorant
6) create community
7) build and destroy governments

Religion can be a great thing but you're kidding yourself if you think god exists anywhere except in your mind.

Man also invented Science and Mathematics, does that make them any less true?

Well Said.

Wrong. Man did not invent science and math, he discovered them. There's a difference.

Man also creates movies.. not everyone of those are true.

[Budner]

"Man also invented Science and Mathematics, does that make them any less true?"

Those things were discovered, like fire. They exist in the universe as objective truths. Math anyway. Science is less objective and some science is real, some B.S.

Math, real. God, not real. Simple.

While I (mostly) agree with what you said, I don't think buddhism belongs on that list. Buddhism is vastly different from christianity and it's ilk in that it has no supreme being, and much less dogmatic BS. Buddhism isn't overly complicated, it's simply about achieving enlightenment through meditation and leading a good, simple life. Of all the religions I've looked at, I like buddhism the best, in that I think it makes the most sense.

No, all science is real. If it's BS, then it's not actually science.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Wrong. Man did not invent science and math, he discovered them. There's a difference. </font color=blue>

You're correct there is... But then wouldn't the Religions of the world say god always existed? And man 'discovered' him/her when man was ready to accept his/her presence?

Edited to be politically correct in wording

Good point, although it wouldn't work. Math and science can be proven (math at least, science is more failible), whereas you can find mistakes and loopholes in any religion.

Unfortunately mathematics and science have laws and principles that can be proven, whereas there is not one single shred of proof that any "supreme being" exists.

I have to go shortly so I won't be able to continue this further until tonight, but there is one truth in Science or Math.

Something cannot come from nothing. So, where did we come from? I'll keep asking that until someone says it 'just is'.

Then I'll say 'so is god'

Blind faith works in both directions. Science, and Religion.

Ah ha, but I can answer that question! But not now, as I don't have time. So tune in to the 9:00 show for the answer!

Of course you can, I'll be back in about 6 hours.

If I have nothing in my bank account, and I go cash a check for $15 at the local market, I get $15 from nothing!

Anyway, it's not a valid argument. If nothing comes from nothing, then where did God come from?

[Roscoe]

You're now placing God in context of a space-time continuum when he is beyond that.

[Lady from Hell]

<blockquote><hr>

I'm a Christian. Born and raised. I have a healthy mistrust of anything we humans do. This is why I'll use the Bible as a guideline, but that's about it.

Children's minds are being poisoned right and left by the so called "teachings" of this book.

For centuries it has been the source of death and destruction.

Today, people use the Bible to oppress people.

If the Bible were tossed out today, society would begin to grow in ways it has never imagined.

Without the restraints that bind us to our illegitimate beliefs, we could be an awesome species.

Maybe the Bible is just a test. Maybe God's true test is to see that we learn to rise above these types of restrictions, and become who we need to be.


<hr></blockquote>

Bet Lucifer used something similar to this with his fellow angels.

[Wisty]

<blockquote><hr>

LC, you're talking two different types of color theory though.

In addative color theory, like your monitor or TV, you're sort of correct. Black isn't really the absence of color, it's, in this case, the abesense of light.

In subtractive color theory, you use color to make black. In the printing world, when you create something that is black, you use "rich black", which is a mixture of CMYK, not just K.

<hr></blockquote>

Isn't that what I said, minus the technical names, but which L.C. and Dev said I was wrong?? Though Dev did explain about the various waves of different colors, reflection and whatnot. One day I need to get a book or a good url and study from scratch -- then I can unstick myself, and finally learn everything is not black and white, nor grey, or purple, green, blue...morning, noon, night... umm... hmmm... *sigh* It sucks being stupid. Heh

This thread reminded me of something dave barry wrote called "God needs the money". Here's part of it:

Here are three types of people you should not trust:
People who tell you God told them to tell you to send them money. You know the guys I mean. They get on television and say: "God told me He want's you to send me some money, say $100, or even just $10, if that's all you can afford, but in all honesty I must point out that God is less likely to give you some horrible disease if your gift is in the $100 range."
The theory here seems to be that God talks only to the guys on television. I always thought that if God needed money all that badly, He would get in touch with us directly.
My wife gets a lot of letters from people who say God told them to tell her to send them money. She got a great one recently from Brother Leroy Jenkins, who is evidently one of the people God geos to when He needs a lot of money. Leroy is very straitforward:
The Lord spoke to me to have you send a one-time large gift. Will you send me $1,000, $500, or $100, or even $5,000 . . . If you are not able to send all of the $1,000, $500, $100, or $5,000 now, send as much as you can, and make a vow to the Lord that you will send an offering of $20 (or at lease $10) each month.
Notice you make the vow to the Lord, but you send the money to Leroy. Leroy doesn't specify what he plans to do with it, but he does tell you to send it to him at the Walden Correctional Institution in South Carolina, where he is serving a twelve-year term for cirminal conspiracy. I imagine God advised him to get a good lawyer.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;If I have nothing in my bank account, and I go cash a check for $15 at the local market, I get $15 from nothing! </font color=blue>

Your signature and writing made that piece of paper called a check worth $15. You are still paying that $15, just in another form. Where I'm from that $15 check would end up being $30 because of stupidity.

But you're right, I should have taken that further for people who don't get the general idea of what the statement was supposed to mean.

Tangible objects cannot come from nothing. No, we'll take that even further for you to make sure you get the point.

Anything that has mass cannot come from nothing.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Anyway, it's not a valid argument. If nothing comes from nothing, then where did God come from? </font color=blue>

If you do not believe in god you would have to explain where we began, you might say with the big bang... I would ask, "What went 'bang'?" According the the laws of science, something went 'bang'... Where did that come from?
Blind faith that it was always there? Science cannot explain it.

God, is supernatural.

su·per·nat·u·ral (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.


That means God is outside science, I couldn't explain it to you if I wanted to. Blind faith that he has always been there.

Ok. Let's get into this. *cracks knuckles*


Here's where everything came from (I assume you're talking about the universe and whatnot): This deals mostly with quantum physics and theory. There are quantum quirks called vacuum fluctuations, in which, in a pure vacuum, things can randomly pop into existence, and then usually disappear very quickly. Usually 1 x 10^-21 seconds later. Most likely, the things that pop into existence are pairs of subatomic particles, a positive and a negitive, so conservation laws aren't violated. However, theory holds that literally anything can pop into existence, such as a dog, or house, or whatever. However, the more complex the item, the less likely it is to happen. Anyway, the predominant theory is that before the universe was around, one of these vacuum fluctuations was a false vacuum, which is a strange form of matter predicted to exist by several partical theorists. A false vacuum is charactorized by a repulsive gravatational field, which is so strong it can explode into a universe. Another property of a false vacuum is that it does not "thin out" during expansion as, say, a gas does. The density of the energy within it remains constant even as it grows. So the false vacuum's expansion, which was accelerating exponentially as its repulsive force compounded, actually created extreme quantities of ever-doubling energy, which decayed into a seething plasma of particles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. The electrons, positrons, and neutrinos neutralized to form simple atoms, which were ripped apart and crushed together to form complex, heavier atoms inside atoms, and the rest, as they say, is history. And what about the law of conservation of energy that you metioned? Well, according to Einstien, the energy of a gravatational field is negative, and the energy of matter is positive. Therefore, all the matter of in the universe, the negative gravitational energy and the positive matter energy could add up to 0. This is more than theory, too. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to be precisely counterbalanced. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, essentially, nothing. You can check me here. (http://www.discover.com/recent_issue/index.html) Oh, and it's the april '02 issue, cover story. "Guth's Grand Guess"

<blockquote><hr>

Anything that has mass cannot come from nothing.

<hr></blockquote>This isn't right. You need to bone up on your quantum physics/theory. They're called vacuum fluctuations, which I just explained.

ROFL, key words quantum physics and theory

They are theories, unproven. You can't use unproven science to prove science. Its a oxymoron.

And its quark, not quirk or whatever you said. They are also looking into sub-quarks, the things that make up quarks, they are of course unproven. But something has to make them up./php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

No, I meant quirk. I wasn't talking about quarks, I meant quirk, as in an odd little thing that happens. You should read the full article. Yes, it's just theory. But you would be surprised how much of "science" is theory. This is the most powerful theory there is right now, it has vanquished every other theory out there, and makes the most sense. Also, all avalible data that we have right now agrees with and supports this theory.

Oh, and btw, using unproven science to prove science isn't an oxymoron.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. So don't make it sound like this is some crazy nonsese I just made up off the top of my head.

[Baker|NV]

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif

I'm sorry, but all this from the person who's asked for proofs of pool ball collisions and basic trigonometry for your mom? /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

Actually Worm is mostly right here, with the exception of a few details which won't make a difference to the average reader anyway.

Things can pop in and out of exhistence from vacuum. Basically it has to do with the uncertainty principle. Energy conservation can be violated over a period of time inversely proportional to the amount of energy violation. So say two particles can pop into existence for a short period of time, however they annihilate one another once that time has expired under most circumstances.

HEY! That was my dad! And they're two different fields. Anyway, It's not the fact that they're destroyed that allows them to "violate" conservation of energy laws, it's the fact that it's one positive, one negative. I suggest you read the article, it goes much more in depth.

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

HEY! That was my dad! And they're two different fields. Anyway, It's not the fact that they're destroyed that allows them to "violate" conservation of energy laws, it's the fact that it's one positive, one negative. I suggest you read the article, it goes much more in depth.

<hr></blockquote>
No... First "one's positive and one's negative" is a misleading statement. The two particles don't have to necessarily have a quantity associated with them that would need to be conserved. If say, an electron, however were to be created a positron would also have to be created. This would be due to the conservation of charge, however, not energy. Basically you have to have a particle and an antiparticle, but "positive" and "negative" imply charge which isn't necessarily the case.

To create two particles from vacuum does violate conservation of energy. Basically because any mass created has an associated potential energy because of Einstein's relativity. Like I said, however, energy conservation can be violated over short time periods (dependent on mass of particles produced) because of the uncertainty principles, namely:

^E^t &gt; h/2 (I've used ^ instead of the customary delta, which means change in the value and h instead of h-bar, which is a constant)

I could get into the uncertainty principles, but I dunno if that may be too involved for the God thread. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

If you say so, I'm just going by what the article said.

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

It doesn't really matter, everything is made up of something. This is dancing around what I was originally saying. Science has yet to classify what it is that makes everything up, or how it is made. So things seem to pop in and out of existence, as we perceive it, but until we know how that happens its unproven theory. Until it does so god is just as a reliable a explanation as anything else.

Edit: And just to add some irony to this subject there is such thing as "Cristian Science"/php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

Ah, no. You said that you wanted to know where everything came from. I just explained it. And just because it's unproven, doesn't make it something you can just disregard. It's a theory. Did you read the definition of theory? It's not just some random thing some guy thought up. It has a scientific basis.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Ah, no. You said that you wanted to know where everything came from. I just explained it. </font color=blue>

Really? I missed it. Where did everything come from?

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt; And just because it's unproven, doesn't make it something you can just disregard. It's a theory.</font color=blue>

God is a theory, just because it can't prove it doesn't mean you can disregard it. Its a theory.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;It's not just some random thing some guy thought up. It has a scientific basis. </font color=blue>

It still has yet to explain the origins of life. Was it always so? Everything just was?/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

Ok. Let's get into this. *cracks knuckles*/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;However, theory holds that literally anything can pop into existence, such as a dog, or house, or whatever. </font color=blue>

An seemingly omnipotent being with the ability to transcend space and time to effect the growth of a species? Otherwise known as God?

I love the irony/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif

[Moonglum]

Im partial to the theory that:

In an infinite universe, extending forever in all directions, that everything, no matter how improbable, must exist somewhere in the universe.

It would have to going by worms theory. Everything would exist sooner or later going by the laws of probability.

<font color=blue>...most common one being the King James version...</font color=blue>

<font color=blue>Im sure that the translations of one of the oldest texts on earth was not just translated in a halfa$$ fashion.</font color=blue>


If the following can be trusted, then indeed -- it was not.<blockquote><hr>

The language of light (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1714714)

King James I wanted a Bible that would unite his fractured realm. A new book recounts how this great work was made

NO BOOK has influenced English as profoundly as the King James Bible of 1611. Its phrases and rhythms have been as vital to the growth of the language as blood to the body. Even in the age of text-messaging and e-mail, its sonorities speak to mind and heart with a vigorous immediacy that takes the breath away.

As Adam Nicolson points out in his engaging and moving account, this was not ordinary English even when it was written. William Tyndale in the 1520s hoped that ploughboys would read his Bible, and Martin Luther in the 1530s wanted the gospels written in a language that butchers and cobblers could understand. But the King James was composed in an English that had never been spoken in the street. This was the language of deliberate godliness, yet grounded in easy words and simple things: able to swoop in one verse from the sublimity of the eternal to the clumsiness of a fisherman jumping from a boat.

There was a political purpose in this. James I, baptised a Catholic but brought up by Scottish Presbyterians, dreamed of bridging in this Bible his kingdom's religious divides. The translators were drawn both from the established Church of England, episcopal and ceremonious, and from among the Puritans, fiercely iconoclastic spirits who wanted no truck with crosses, candles or genuflections, to bishop or to king. The Puritan impulse, to let in light and to live by the Word alone, had to co-exist with the murkier sumptuousness of the Jacobean church-court elite. Clearly James himself leaned to the episcopal side; but his Bible was intended first of all as an irenicon, a thing of peace.

Very little is known about how it was made. The men were grouped into six teams, or “companies”, and were based at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. The translated text was written in the left-hand column only of a large ledger, the right-hand kept blank for comments and improvements. In this fashion, working more like a team of accountants than the devisers of a national treasure, the translators painstakingly put the new text together.

Their lives, too, are scarcely recorded, though Mr Nicolson reconstructs a few of them to marvellous effect. We now know that Laurence Chaderton, a Puritan who translated the “Song of Songs”, may have been moved by memories of the lovely boy he had wished to “embosom” as a student at Cambridge; and that among the translators of Genesis was a man who had been to the West Indies, colouring his descriptions of Eden with memories of the parrots and forests of Dominica.

One translator, Samuel Ward, left a diary. It was not of his labours on the Bible, but of his struggles with sin. As a Puritan fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, he was bound to a regime of sermons and chapel-going. But his thoughts wandered rather to adultery and gluttony. “My longing after damsens”, he wrote in his diary on August 8th 1596. “...Oh that I could so long after Godes graces.” As he worked on God's word, his mind was tormented by sweet surfeits of plums and pears.

A mere 39 pages survive of one team's arguments over language. They wondered whether God should “upbraid” someone or “twit” them, and whether the beauty of a flower should be expressed as its “goodliness and sightliness” or, far better, its “grace and fashion”. For all of them, the tiniest touches made a difference. The Calvinist Geneva Bible of the 1550s had rendered the second verse of Genesis:

And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters.

King James's translators gave it thus:

And the earth was without form, and void, and the darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The comma after “form” and the colon after “deep” both heighten the drama of the empty stage on which creation is about to occur. But the masterstroke lies in “the face of the deep” and “the face of the waters”, phrases by which the almost human elements appear to be responding to the touch of God.

When the newly translated texts arrived, each team would sit and listen as the words were read to them. Their child-like attention was vitally important. This Bible was meant, above all, to be read out and heard; euphony, its governing principle, is also the secret of its abiding power. [my emphasis]

<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote><hr>

Really? I missed it. Where did everything come from?

<hr></blockquote> A small piece of a false vacuum that came into existence through a vacuum fluctuation. <blockquote><hr>

God is a theory, just because it can't prove it doesn't mean you can disregard it. Its a theory.

<hr></blockquote> No, god is not a theory. God is simply something humans made up to explain the things that they couldn't. Please, go reread the definition of theory. I assure you god does not fit, if only becuase theory refers to science, which god is not. And as to where life came from? I don't know. But that doesn't mean God did it. You can't take everything science can't explain and say, "See? If science can't explain it, God must have done it!". Our science isn't perfect. But we continue to refine it. So far it's the system that works the best.

<blockquote><hr>

I work in an elementary school, and *your* tax dollars go directly to my imposing my liberal mindedness on your future leaders

<hr></blockquote>

one more reason public schools should be privatized and the teachers union should be dismantled...la

I agree about the teachers union, but not the privatization. And once again. . . I'M NOT A TEACHER!!!!

*sigh*

Y'all need to pay more attention.

First off, the little I know about current scientific theory says that a photon at rest has no mass. Once it begins moving, it attains mass, so it is possible to create something out of nothing.

What you're trying to do here is prove that God is an absolute by disproving the applicability of scientific theory.

The fact is, without proof, both God and scientific theory remain nothing more than. . .a theory.

With science, people use what they know as fact, and combine it with conjecture to form a reasonable understanding of how things work. Is it all true? Nope. Scientific theories have been disprooven time and time again.

With religion, people use information they have been told by others or the written word of strangers to form opinions. The rationale behind these opinions and beliefs is based on emotion, and their interpretation of events.

In the end, it all boils down to this:

Theories are not fact. As far as we know, anything is possible from the obvious to the surreal.

"If you eliminate everything that can be disproven, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

It can go either way.

And yes, I realize I just quoted a fictional person. Who knows! Maybe all of the religious people in the world are doing that too! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

[GBob]

Only objects without mass can travel at the speed of light. Objects with mass must travel at slower speeds, and nothing can travel at speeds faster than the speed of light. Photons have no mass. However photons do have momentum - a little odd for something without mass. Of course we can turn light into matter but that is not exactly turning nothing into someting. It's converting energy to mass.

Added-
Oh this doesn't mean you can't create particles traveling faster than the speed of light though.

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;"If you eliminate everything that can be disproven, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

It can go either way.

And yes, I realize I just quoted a fictional person. Who knows! Maybe all of the religious people in the world are doing that too!</font color=blue>

Agreed/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

[Kalidor]

<blockquote><hr>


It would have to going by worms theory. Everything would exist sooner or later going by the laws of probability.

<hr></blockquote>
I think that this is only partially what he is trying to say.

Under the assumption that the universe is infinite and the basic axiom of physics is that everything has to follow the same rules, God has to exist. In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means. Thus the rules of logic dictate that God exists under the assumption that the universe is infinite.

Which, of course, no one can prove, as this cannot be possibly measured. After all, there is not even proof that you, or anyone else who responded here exists, since it is just a matter of how my brain interprets what the sensors of my body percieve.

That last part follows the argument that God does not exist because there is no proof. But under these assumptions Buddha, Allah, Zeus and all the others have to exist as well, just differently percepted by other cultures.

And "it" (I do not assert a gender here, since I certainly do not believe that this planet is the pinnacle of anyone's creation, considering what is going on here) indeed is above everything else, because the whole is more than the sum of its part. This principle is based on a solid foundation. I think no one here will dispute that a human (while "alive") is more than just the elements the body consists of. Any number of humans together are more than each individual, too... they are a society, which has its own dynamics. Which means, that alone by these two examples the universe has to be more than the sum of its parts.

Bottom line, to say something does not exist, simply because there is no proof (in that individual's limited perception and imagination) is as stupid as following someone else because you were told to do so and never asked why.

*edit*
Which all reminds of a quote from Werner Heisenberg (the founder of the Uncertainty Principle): "The first sip out of Nature's Cup leads to atheism, but on the bottom there is God."

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;Bottom line, to say something does not exist, simply because there is no proof (in that individual's limited perception and imagination) is as stupid as following someone else because you were told to do so and never asked why. </font color=blue>

Agreed/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

<font color=blue>Under the assumption that the universe is infinite and the basic axiom of physics is that everything has to follow the same rules, God has to exist.</font color=blue>

Hold it, hold it... Without specifying whether actual or potential infinity of the universe is assumed, are you asserting that the God had no role in *errm* causing it to exist? If so, what is God then (in relation to the universe)?

<font color=blue>In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means.</font color=blue>

Excluding mental capabilities of organism from the nature physics is trying to describe in no way affects the universe itself; or I'm simply don’t understand what you are saying; or the universe needs to be defined first...

<font color=blue>Thus the rules of logic dictate that God exists under the assumption that the universe is infinite.</font color=blue>

Forgive me for being dense, but I do not see how that follows from the assumption; in fact, exactly the opposite conclusion can be drawn, if God is a Creator. The "basic axiom of physics" seems to play no role at all...

[Budner]

I agree with that sentiment but only to a certain extent.

I can't PROVE that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but I'm pretty comfortable believing that he doesn't.

Whereas when I was a kid, adults swore up and down that Santa Claus existed, and I believed them, until I finally figured out that they were....well......lying. (now I do the same to my kids)

To me, God's existence is about as likely as Santa Claus' existence. Both "beings" were created by mankind, both are based on myth, both are the subject of fiction.

But Santa Claus has more TV specials. Go figure THAT out.