NPR had a great interview on this afternoon with an ordained Baptist minister, who has written a book called 'Unprotected Texts', about sex in the Bible.
Jennifer Knust is an assistant professor of religion at Boston University. She received her doctorate in religion from Columbia University and a master's degree in divinity from Union Theological Seminary in New York.
Her conclusions, in a nutshell:
Knust's book, Unprotected Texts, suggests that the Bible shouldn't be used as a guidebook for marriage or sexuality because passages related to sex, on topics related to monogamy, polygamy, sexual practices, homosexuality and gender roles are more complex and nuanced than popular culture has led us to believe.
"The Bible offers no viable solution to our marriage dilemmas," she says. "There is no such thing as a single, biblically based view of legitimate marriage."
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/133245874 … d-marriage
So, do you think the 'church' can come out of the dark ages and into the light of reason, if they accept the text as it was meant to be read?
It's quite amazing that as time marches on and new information and discoveries are presented to religionists, they are being forced to change their positions on beliefs... in public.
I'm quite sure in private they will deny it, just like everything else they deny.
Somehow, methinks thou art focusing on the individual. If that's the case, what my posts have been, from the beginning, are what's on my head. It's a very cluttered place in here. If you met me on the street you'd assume I was atheist too.
Easily uncluttered. Break your indoctrination, it is the conflict of your intellect and your indoctrination at odds with each other, overseen by your conscience.
You see hard evidence in front of you and your intellect can't help but accept it, yet your religious beliefs are jeopardized by the acceptance and the conflict begins. Unfortunately, because you have already accepted without question your religious beliefs, the intellect loses the battle and the conscience is in turmoil.
I do not accept anything, without question. Why in the world do you think I read your posts? I know the Christian philosophy is wrong. I've known that for years. I simply never bothered to look at it critically until I stumbled into this forum. But I cannot subscribe to the philosophy that the search for the spiritual is pointless. Not until I ponder it to its logical conclusion.
Yes, you did: Christianity. You were raised in a Christian environment your whole life and heard nothing but the indoctrinated beliefs of your parents, which you accepted uncritically. That is standard for most all childhood religious indoctrination. I understand you won't accept that, few believers do, until they break their indoctrination and then understand it completely.
There is nothing logical about the 'spiritual' whatsoever. It violates many laws of the universe and has never been shown to exist. What's to ponder, exactly?
Notice the past tense. Just because I did, doesn't mean I can't work it out of my system. I am incredibly independent minded.
And yes. The spiritual is outside the bounds of our present understanding. But I believe that what we know is the tip of the iceberg as to what we have to learn about this universe. When I believe we have attained an understanding beyond all things then I'll breath a sigh of relief that we have reached that pinnacle.
Why do you begrudge the search? It doesn't take away from the search for answers in our physical world. The more questions we ask, on every front, the better chance we have of finding answers; it would seem to me. I always thought questions were good things.
The Borg Collective comes to mind.
Nonsense, the spiritual is understandably pure bunkum. If you took the time to understand the world around us, you would understand that, too.
Perhaps, in the physical universe, I would agree.
Perhaps, the last two thousand years of wars and bloodshed as a result of that search could have something to do with, not to mention that whatever you're searching for is already understood as pure bunkum.
Yes, sane questions are good things.
Love the borg comment. At least I know you don't sneer at sci fi. I was worried hard core atheists didn't have any imagination at all.
I assume the fact that you keep blaming all war on religion is simply the fact that most of the developed world was established on Judeo Christian ethics. I can't help but wonder what the alternative might have been, but I guess to you that is simply idle speculation.
Not crazy about the word bunkum. Is that really a word? Sounds like something from deep in the Appalachians. I would think someone who watches sci fi would be able to concede the point that there are things out there beyond our wildest imaginations. I realize the thought of spirit that connects all life may be a little farfetched for you. I don't see why it has to be. Why the line in the sand?
Atheists most certainly do have imaginations, they just don't let their imaginations rule their worldview. Big difference.
I never said I blamed "all" wars on religions. There are other reasons wars are started, but most certainly throughout history, religions have always been on top of that category.
And, since mankind has been plagued these past many centuries with indoctrination of religious beliefs, where would you expect most peoples mindsets to be who started those wars?
Galileo may very well have been the first man on the moon rather than the first scientist to be held captive by the church for his ideas.
Perhaps, but they would have nothing to do with Jesus or gods.
Really? Tell me all about this "spirit that connects all life"? Enlighten me. Far fetched indeed.
Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Gen 18:12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
The scripture in Genesis speaks of the time when God promised a son to Abraham through the womb of Sarah which had been closed up all her life. Abraham was 99 years old and Sarah was 90 at the time.
You realize Hebrews was attributed to Paul? Theologians have argued for years over whether or not his rants on sex were due to the fact that he was a repressed homosexual. Couldn't that type of frustration easily cloud his judgement?
You must be a Jew. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles. Peter confirmed him. Read the Bible and find the truth. Stop listening to those who have an agenda to downgrade believers.
I can assure you sir dent. I did not kill Christ as I'm sure your statement implies. I am simply sharing what I have read over the years from different sources within the Christian community. I doubt there is any agenda other than finding the truth of our history. I see no reason to consider truth a bad thing. I don't think God has a need to fear truth. My beliefs in the message as shared by Jesus are strong enough to wade through anything and survive the search. Believe it or not, it grows stronger daily.
My post had nothing to do with who killed Jesus. The gosepl was first preache3d to the Jews. Gentiles wwere outsiders and outcasts. There was no hope for them. Paul was called to preach to the gentiles while the first disicples preached around Israel.
Peter confirmed Paul before the disciples in Israel but not until God confirmed salvation was for the gentiles also. A man named Cornelious sent for Peter and at the time Peter received a vision from God.
The Holy Ghost came upon the gentiles as Peter preached the Word to them. When the Holy Ghost came upon the Jews before, it was after they were baptized. Read the book of Acts. The transition is between chapter 9 chapter 11.
If you are not going to heed what I wrote just let me know. I will leave you to it with no hard feelings.
Peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles as called by God. Read ACTS. S/Paul only claimed to be the "apostle" to the gentiles. Paul and Peter didn't get along so well. Paul chose to be the "apostle" to the gentiles because he wasn't so welcome in the jewish community, due to his actions prior to his "conversion". Paul was of the Pharisee Line and a Jew with Roman Citizenship. On numerous occasions Peter and some of the other 12 stated that there where those who claimed to come out from them, that was teaching the wrong message and to beware of them.
Peter went back to the Jews and preached to them. That is what he and Paul had a discussion about. It was against the law for a Jew to go into the house of a gentile, let alone eat and converse with them.
Jesus did it all the time..."the sick do not require a doctor" and " The rightous do not need salvation, the sinners do" to paraphase some quotes from Jesus. So are you saying that Peter was Jewish in his faith? and that Paul was Christian in his faith? Seems to me that Peter and the other 11 Disciples worked with the Elders of the Jewish faith in Jerusalem. At least that is how it is written in the book of Acts.
Peter and the other disciples were all killed for their faith, except for John. Peter was arrested and sentenced to die by Herod. An angel came and removed his chains and led him out of the prison where he was sleeping between two guards.
yes, that happened later...around the time the temple in jerusalem was destroyed the second time. around 70AD. Paul did most of his writings around 40-70AD. His works were written before the Gospels.
Acts Chapters 10 and 11
Just to point out a few ....
I think the general understanding on the topic of sex and sexuality in Torah primarily --not the bible-- is functional for even today's "pop culture". It recognizes the public or private expression/effects of sex, sexuality, sexual behavior and, of course, unions based on sex alone, unions based on love, unions based on financial necessity, unions based on politics (marriage for unifying nations), circumcision (for unifying tribes/nations; health and oddly enough sexual identification --like a tattoo today), unions based on traditions, sexual health (of the person and regarding spreadable diseases even back then). The largest and most difficult of all is sexual expression of the common people publicly and its effect on society as a whole.
Realistically, the issues faced 1 year and 5000 years ago are still the exact same issues faced by today's society.
Does "pop culture" want to remove the stigma of the "rules" pertaining to sexuality? Of course they do. Mainly so it cannot be used against them, second, so they can continue to see it as a marketing tool for nearly every single man-made product (see any male or female model advert) but also because it is an ever constant reminder that humanities sexuality has not progressed to resolve those same issues.
Hi James. I have the utmost respect for your opinion and knowledge on what the intent of the message is. I'm confused with your answer and would love to have a better understanding. I honestly believe promiscuity and a base opinion of the relationships of people is wrong; but I can't help but feel that voices such as this author's are right when they say that we are using scriptures as a weapon against good people.
Do you believe the Christian church is right on their stand on homosexuals? It seems so unkind and unfair to think someone would have to live without love simply because they were born different from what iso labeled as the norm.
Their views on divorce don't seem to take into account the individual.
I would never argue this point with you. I want to know your thoughts only. As I said before, I deeply respect the level of knowledge you appear to have.
You know, it is an odd thing. A heretic who's name shall remain nameless, was arrested and charged with all kinds of things, for his use of words from a book to bring accusations against another person. It has become common "law" practice for people- to rely on a singular book or compilation of books to attack, counter-attack, refute or repulse another person and/or their lifestyle. Seems like the author hit an nerve.
One precipice I encountered years ago was this very thing. It got me to thinking and searching. I scored Vedic notes, Hebrew Tanakh and other references regarding sexuality. All of them seemed to solidify a single point: sex is a direct reflection of the human spirit. It is noted that the spirit within a human rests in an area just around or below the "belly button". In Hebrew, it is lower in males, their gonads; in women their womb. Sexuality was defined by the unity of spirits --this is actually what the word marriage means. So, by a person expressing their sexuality and marrying one after another or multiple marriages, unity with an identical gender-- displaces the spiritual nature of the individual. This is something the "church and state" have not picked up on, but are quick to pick on. In the case of divorce, I find Y`shua statement spot on- hardening of the spirit caused divorce and a drive of greed, a lack of peace.
Generally speaking, only a very small percentage of the collective human society accepts alternative sexual relationships. From the male perspective it is a tolerance for self satisfaction of two females engaging each other; but it ends there. On the female side it is a safety net from testosterone and perhaps a shopping partner; but it too ends there. So both tolerate for selfish reasons. From a legal perspective, laws pertaining to sex and marriage are quite complicated as it is. Adding more fuel to a roaring fire could set the whole thing ablaze and they won't be able to extinguish it. From the church viewpoint, their vantage is to create either isolation (self-proclaimed superiority --based on greed of power) or an acceptance to a degree for exactly the same purpose.
It is wrong to force another to accept or suppress. It is wrong to include or exclude, really. The state and church should not force anyone to 'not be' a sexual type nor should a sexual type force other to 'be like' it, regardless of what elements of expression are used (books, mass media, parade, tent revivals, legalities, town hall meetings or Hollywood big screen pop-culture gods [sorry for the Neil Gaiman injection there], etc).
The absence of love ( pure, lucid, spirit energy ) is really the root of it. There is such a void in humans that needs filling. Their expression of this void, in so many forms, PRO OR CON is just mind boggling.
Thanks for the clarification. But, just so you know, this is not a sore spot from anything the church might have done to me. I don't think there is anything I've done that could make anyone thump me on the head with their Bible. I suffer from a heightened sense of empathy, or maybe it's simply sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong; but I have seen too many people feel as if they have been hurt by views the church espouses that appear harsh to me.
First of all you look at this woman's credentials and assume that her conclusions must be correct. And you are assuming that all of the other scholars throughout the centuries that have reached a much different conclusion are wrong. You make some pretty big assumptions here. Could these assumptions be because you are looking for a reason to deny what the Biblical record actually says about sexuality and you found someone who agrees with you?
I assume she is a voice within the Christian community who has spent her life so far studying the words in the Bible, studying the history of this world, Trying to understand how one influences the other and then using her God given mind to process that information and share her findings.
What I have ceased to assume is that the standard evangelical on this site has any interest in the truth of this text. It appears they pick and chooose to find whatever they can to condemn everyone but their own little clan. And the things they use to condemn do not apply to them.
I am over being shocked by this behavior. I apologize if this topic has caused you any stress. It certainly didn't give you pause to think past covering your ears and eyes and mouthing the words given to you by someone whose credentials are probably far less; again, I am well past the shock.
I am not picking an choosing anything. And for the record, I am not stressed over anything either. I have read the Bible and know that what she says is totally wrong.
Also, your assumption that evangelicals are narrow minded swings both ways. I assume that you agree with her, which is why you seem offended by what I have said. Well, that is one point of view. Other scholars who have spent their whole lives sifting through the texts disagree with this. To not acknowledge them is rather picking and choosing as well. But the nature of truth is narrow if you believe it is absolute. Truth conforms to reality and falsehood doesn't conform to reality. That may sound narrow but if there is absolute truth, you can have it no other way. And if there isn't absolute truth, then we have nothing to disagree over. Everyone is right. No one is wrong.
Oh good grief.
The woman is apparently an educated fool.
Not an educated fool. She is apparently a woman who loves her religion enough to attempt to help people see the simplistic teachings of those who have no understanding of the history of the civilization that was given the text. she has spent her life trying to find a better understanding. I don't see how the search for truth should be scoffed at.
Hey Curious, it is scoffed at by those who claim to know the real religious truth.
We all have a conscience and common sense. Well....normally, people do.
Even a little child can understand the main concepts, even to the depths, of the Bible, if they're taught by common-sense people its simplicity! I understood the Bible in general even as a child; it sure doesn't take a higher education, nor does it take learning the original language or customs, overall.
No but the lack of understanding human nature does work against you.
I understand human nature very well. Too well, really, for my own apathy, which I would live in if it weren't for that understanding.
I would have to disagree with you on the point about understanding ancient customs. I think it is an imperative to understand the culture that existed during both the New and Old Testament if we are to understand the meaning and intent. The church has thrown out many ideas that it has deemed inappropriate for modern faith. I see no reason not to reevaluate the stance when new light is shed, just as it has already done a thousand times before.
Brenda, Some people does not seem to have common sense.
Sex ON the bible would have looked more intriguing - but less convenient
Glad yer back!
Now, the bible and sex?
hmmmm...Ok I've got it!
I'm about to have sex and I open the bible tear out a thin page, tear it in half (the width), tuck my index finger in and shape it to fit. I cover it with a layer of the 'weed" of my choice and roll a nice fat duby!
All it'll take to make the bible important in making this a memorable sexual encounter is to light it and take a couple deep drags...hold my breathhhhh...and I can promise you that the bible will be appreciated by my g/f and I! ...all for the sake of "LOVE."
TY god thing! :
Maybe if I believed that bronze aged scribble written by a handful of goat herders about someone they never met, that was inspired by an invisible super being who is nonetheless a murdering psychotic I may have some faith.
But I have very little faith in anyone believing such dribble being able to change from a belief as bizarre as that.
Well, when you put out that way, maybe I did waste my time typing that whole thing. Lucky me; most of it was cut and paste. But hey, if it gets through to one person I'll consider it time well spent.
You need a very big book, but it can be done.
Agreed. Cut out the center of the pages, so you can have the mattress on the bottom of the book, and still be able to close the cover.
wont you get paper cuts tho?? paper cuts on yo butts lol
There are too many goof balls in here to have a phiosophical conversaton!
Dude theres tons of sex in the bible, they are commonly reffered to as "The Begats", and there's a whole lot of begatting in the begining part.
By the way, to defend my teachers, their credentials match and in some cases exceed this woman's degrees. I have nothing against her credentials, just her conclusions.
Of course you doubt her conclusions. (although I doubt you bothered to go to the link) I am not in the least surprised by this. My hope is that this line of thinking that has blinders as large as the one's found on atheists will die a peaceful death and the message as given by Jesus will survive. It was resurrected once, so I see no reason to doubt that it can do it again.
Yes, I read the article. And truth will ultimately prevail. It will not die. And if you think I have blinders, then do as Jesus said and take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of another persons eye. Your blinders are obvious as well.
My words exactly. Truth will prevail. I have faith in that.
Speaking of telling the truth, when are you going to enlighten me with your tales of a "spirit that connects all life"?
OK. You obviously know by now that I am somewhat of a bumbling idiot when it comes to all things spiritual. I couldn't possibly explain all of the bizarre thoughts that roll through my head.
I read an article yesterday written by a Jewish rabbi that explained part of it pretty well. In a nutshell, he said if you take the ancient name YHWH and don't try to put any vowels into it, just say it like it stands. It sounds like a breath. That's what the divine is. The breath of life. We breath out, the trees take in our breath and vice a versa. Every thing in this world is connected. Every breath you take, you inhale the life given to us and every time you exhale you give life to something else.
And, I know, you're face palming now because there's no air in space; the space within the universe can appear to be, for the most part, a barren place devoid of life as we define it. So it could't be a universal truth. But, I think maybe that's simply because I'm not deep enough to follow his thought completely through, or we haven't learned enough about the fabric of the universe. I don't think it as simple as the concept of oxygen and carbon dioxide. It's deeper than that.
I don't claim to be enlightened spiritually. I claim to be horribly interested in the topic. I also realize that the advent of the internet has been detrimental to people like me because every question I have I can find 100 answers and 1000 opinions on the topic. But I still find it interesting.
No worries, not a single person throughout all of history hasn't had the same problem with the "spiritual."
Why not? If you can't explain something you deeply believe, it would appear you have no basis for belief. Again, I refer to childhood religious indoctrination as a result.
Notice that your explanation has everything to do with biology and nothing to do with the spiritual.
No, the Rabbi is ignoring biology.
That's why it's important to break your indoctrination and being thinking critically so that you're detriments are minimalist.
Try here for a start:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutct … inking.cfm
OK. I went to your link. Good article. I'm sure there are things contained in it that will be valuable to me; but I am not in need of as much help as you seem to believe me to be.
Not entirely true. I can think of several off the top of my head. Just because you and I are lacking, doesn't mean there has been no spiritual enlightenment throughout the course of history. Buddha, Jesus, the Dahlai Lama (not sure on the spelling of that one). Anyone that has attained a higher level of peace and understanding has found a conneciton with the spiritual.
Arggh. This argument drives me to distraction. I don't propose the concept of anything from my childhood.
It may have escaped your notice, but they will have to be interconnected. One cannot exist without the other.
I think that was meant as an insult. Did I miss something?
I would disagree and hope you spend more time at that website and others with critical thinking skill education.
Not at all, they may claim to have, but clearly they are just making those claims with nothing but their word to support them. Like your poor example of that Rabbi, he fantasizes about spirituality when all he is describing is biology.
Of course not. I get that.
What cannot exist without the other? You need to show spirituality as opposed to it being more than just an imaginative concept in your mind.
Well, I'm back on the road, therefor back on the droid so I can't do the quote thing and respond to individual comments. Too bad. It's always fun.
Anyway I don't want to argue this. You asked a question. I answered it full well knowing you would shoot it down, because of course it can't be proven.
But not everything is fantasy. I think you know this. Of course, I'm crazy enough to believe there is nothing we can imagine that we don't have ability to achieve. Maybe that's part of my problem. Maybe belief equals reality to me because I honestly see no limits in any direction.
Hey. I just read through that article again. I think you definitely need to practise some of those things mentioned too..sheesh.
No sex before marriage, throw that law out. No sex after divorce, throw that law out. You are not allow to lust over a women in the bible how are you suspose to have sex in the first place, if sex is not dirty I am not doing it right?
Hey castle. I don't know about your last comment, but I do know that most Christians will quote the part where Jesus states the laws of the old testament are still in force (or something to that effect) what they leave out is the last part of the sentence which says 'until their purpose has been fulfilled'. Sometimes I think the purpose of some old testament laws is simply fulfilled already. Maybe there was a reason for some that doesn't exist anymore. I don't know. But something's got to give. People in the church are too unreasonable on some of this.
Sex in the bible - What a total outrage hehehehe . Got to be in Revelations, as this is a revelation to me.
Must be the ultimate sin too along with being naked.... Get a grip people, we all have sex, in or out, before and after marriage - even priest and nuns do it..!
What next? Chocolate in the bible?
Sex comes are nature as eating and sleeping to me. For bible sex, I would not know how to sort out sex from sin. If all else fail or in doubt, there is a Jerkin for Jesus website. Through photo of Jesus, you can and are allowed for your second comings too.
Since 98% men do it, it sounds too gay for me
you realy think everyone has so little self control?
In high religious areas yes, because to suppress sex so deeply forces it to come out like monster somewhere else, like with many clergymen
No one forces them to be clergymen. So I don't see how that even adds up.
If by suppression you mean monogomy, then yes, very suppressive.
Religion should stay out of other peoples bedrooms, boardrooms and bathrooms. In fact religion should mind it's own affairs full stop.
Clean up your own nest first.
People should stop being exhibitionists and keep their bedrooms and bathrooms out of the public eye.
I agree, I don't see why people should display their private lives.
That is not the issue here though is it? Religion should keep out of telling others how to live their lives. It is megalomania, nothing more or less.
What give a believer in one god of thousands the right to be dictating to others?
The supreme God, the Creator, the Savior who died for all of mankind, the One who formed the conscience inside you.
It's that simple, earnest.
Says you and every other religious individual. However, untrue.
See, I can play that game too. LOL
Actually Brenda, you can play the game as you call, but it's unfortunate when you do, you fail to remain honest.
(Gee, I can't believe I'm asking that of a person who fibs about me and then puts a winky smiley facey there.)
Oh never mind! You'll just fib about me again! Please don't bore me, 'cause I won't wanna play with you again.
Brenda, I didn't fib about you, but does show how you do not understand human nature.
Edit: You put yourself before others- means selfish. Basic understanding of human nature, which you don't see. It's not being honest.
Good, you're learning something. A religion person should know their place.
Indeed I do.
But I'm sure we're not talking about the same place.
By the way, I think you're taking this thread WAY off-topic.
How did a sex topic lead to this? ...Usually, in conversation, it's the other way around and other topics lead to a sex topic....
I don't wanna play no more, 'cause the sex topic is boring! So bye.
What? Or are you admitting to being selfish, by putting yourself before others?
Know your place? Not same place.
Sex, religion sticking it's nose into people's life without a need. See the relation? Probably not.
Hey, earnest, it seems like you were gone forever! I rather missed debating with you. But others took up the slack, never fear.
I got banned for 4 months by some religious fanatic who couldn't handle truth or even disagreement. Like I said, that would be your god out of thousands.
A bit like taking a ticket in a lotto pool without any winners.
Well, for the record, it wasn't me. I stopped even reporting people a long time ago, 'cause someone insulted me but when I stuck up for myself, I was the one who got banned. Go figure. So I guess liberals and/or atheists are button-happy too.....
Hey, what "thousands" of gods?
Do you have names for them?
Are any of them sex gods?
Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities. Those numbers are probably a very conservative estimate because we have no accurate information before 4000 B.C. This means any dieties worshipped by man before this period are unaccounted for.
In truth, the possibilities are nearly infinite. For example, in Hindu the entire living universe is merely a unique manifestation of Ishvara. This leads to the fact that there are 330 million "gods or goddesses."
Some examples of the different dieties documented are:
Greek: Zeus, Hermes, Hades, Hera, Aphrodite, etc...
Roman: Iuppiter, Mors, Terra, etc...
Norse: Odin, Thor, Loki, Njordr, etc...
Hindu: Krishna, Vishnu, Kali, Ishvara, etc...
Chinese Folk (Simple): Shangdi, Mazu, Shou Xing, Tu Di Gong, etc...
Shinto (Japanese): Izanagi-no-Mikoto, Izanami-no-Mikoto, etc...
Celtic: Cernunnos, Damona, Epona, etc...
Egyptian: Ra, Isis, Anubis, Osiris, etc...
Summerian: An, Ki, Enlil, Enki, etc...
Babylonian: Sin, Marduk, Ishtar, Nabu, etc...
Persian: Simurgh, Rostam, Gaokerena, etc...
Aboriginal: Bunyip, Kurreah, Mutjinga, etc...
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gods … z1GWvJaz8a
This short list is from wikepedia.
Actually, the Bible mentions a few "gods". And of course I learned about the myths about "gods" in grade school. Most gods are only figments of people's imaginations of course.
Interesting that out of all of those, one survived the millennia to be worshiped by millions today. Perhaps, (and I could be wrong here) because it's the only God that's real?
I do realize there are other cultures that do worship other gods in the world, but I assume the topic of discussion is the great I AM.
Not just interesting! By Divine plan!
Yes indeed the great I AM.
Do you see how all those other "gods" are only famous for their names and a few qualities, and most of those are selfish qualities, while the I AM is known for being the Savior of the entire world (if they so choose).?
I love tag teaming them. They do it to me all the time. It's nice to turn the tables.
Sometimes it reminds me of the wrestling shows I used to watch. So much of it is fake. Once, I saw a guy who kept bounchin' off the ropes even though his opponent had stopped hitting him. Ah...such is entertainment!
I know. My sister broke my glasses when I told her it was fake. It devastated her. But it appears we made one atheist go away. For now. Maybe that's the trick. We should all try it more often, when they're being unreasonable.
Hey, sometime would you mind telling me more in-depth about that experience of yours when you said you felt evil in a certain church? Or not. As you wish. But feel free to contact me in private if you wish.
At any rate, I see a post above mine.
Boing boing! Looks like a wrestler is still bouncin!
I just got home from spending most of a week helping tend my little granddaughter while my daughter-in-law tended their newborn. I'm a grandma again! But worn out! So I'm gonna go. But I can't help but point out in this thread how sex produced a beautiful blessing! Not homosexual sex, not polygamous sex, not any other weird sex. Let that woman who wrote that book referred to in the original post ponder on THAT simple fact of the Bible's view of how sex should be!
I'm out. You'll have to tag someone else! haha
Wrong again. Do you have any idea how many worship Shiva alone?
No, but I bet you can tell me. See? That's what I love about you guys. This is not a question I have ever felt the need to ask, but the answer might be pertinent. Of course, it might be superfluous, but I won't know that until later.
So. How many is it?
Shaivism is widespread throughout India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, mostly.
Areas notable for the practice of Shaivism include parts of Southeast Asia, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia.
I would guess at many many million. Why make a false statement about gods when it is obvious that what I said is true?
Hey ernest. This shiva question may not be a rabbit hole you want to run down. I don't know anything about Hinduism, but a quick check shows one of the primary beliefs is that the existence of God Almighty is not to be questioned.
This is definitely not an atheist stand. Are you just having fun with me?
Not at all, merely trying to set the record straight. You made a claim. It was wrong.
Ok ernest..I realize there are no rules on the atheist side, but you do realize, if I don't delete my posts, your argument can be seen as bogus to anyone that reads through the conversation?
I would delete them to be nice. I saw you told a Brenda you'd been gone for a while, so maybe you're just rusty. But, I'm not going to. I win this round. Better luck next time.
"Interesting that out of all of those, one survived the millennia to be worshiped by millions today. Perhaps, (and I could be wrong here) because it's the only God that's real? smile "
Your words I believe. Don't accuse me of lying, I don't tell lies about religion. Your statement was patently wrong.
Religionists believe in thousands of gods
Ernest, ernest. Think about it. Hinduism insists that belief in the existence of God Almighty is not to be questioned. They call him God Almighty. He stands above Shiva. Think of it like the catholic saints. They worship them, don't they? But God is above all of their saints. Same difference, in my opinion. You, of course, will argue this point. I don't know why, though. I thought you didn't believe in any gods. Did I miss something?
No, what you missed is the truth about religion having hundreds of gods.
Are you now claiming that all religions and all gods are the same and that your god rules the roost?
Your replies seem to become more devious every time you answer.
Your pathetic attempt to discredit me are noted.
I have always stated that all ancient religions must have found a piece of the truth. Which is why they have stood the test of time. We know little of the nature of the divine. Well, those of us that believe anyway. I guess you know nothing.
You're not getitrite are you? That 'pathetic' statement sounds like one of his petulant arguments.
Why would you assume I know nothing? Because it doesn't agree with your conclusions?
OK I'm over you're low brow insults. I will get around to telling you where to put them so you can have me banned if you like!
Ernest, I meant you know nothing of the divine. Lighten up. Shake it off. If you feel the need tell me off, feel free. I could care less and I would never report you. I am simply amused that you take this all so seriously. You believe in no a God, and yet it appears to be an emotional argument. It is very odd.
I don't think it is odd at all. Having been a christian and seen the ways of religion first hand, I have a view of it based on experience and being a part of it. As for knowing nothing of the divine, I spent far too much time in religion thinking of the divine.
You lighten up, I will continue to be me, say what I believe to be true and try to help people understand that there are no invisible fairies at the bottom of the garden. I know. I spent years looking and believing before I studied my way out the other end of it..
Well, as I stated before, your credentials put you firmly in the opinion category, in my opinion. Doesn't make you right, it just means you have one, like everyone else. Bring some kind of proof to the table and then someone might take your argument seriously.
"Someone may take you seriously"
More of the same I see. Not very sophisticated is it?
Someone meaning you. Don't speak for others, it makes you look pathetic.
You are definitely entertaining. There was a time when I first got here that this type of post actually frightened me. But one of the aggressive atheists was kind enough to share that none of you really wanted us dead, no matter how the posts sounded. I calmed down, and now I can laugh at it. Still don't quite get what it is you're so mad about, though. You can't bully me into non belief. You do realize that? Don't you?
Like I said, not very sophisticated. I don't do hate, I am not angry, you simply want to move the argument away from truth and make snide personal attacks. Why would you feel threatened? Is it because you get angry yourself and then project that on others?
You attempted an argument and you lost the point. It was pretty simple and obvious. You continue to deny the fact. It appears to me that the truth is a difficult concept for you. I am so sorry. It was just a silly argument anyway. You'll have a chance to win one. I don't win them all.
You made a false statement then lacked the intestinals to admit it.
Then you call me a liar. Pathetic!
I'd keep posting, but I think you are in definite need of a vacation. Reality has definitely left the station in your argument. Have a nice day.
Yet another slimy statement. I don't take my vacations based on what you think of my posts. Pathetic again!
I know I should leave you alone. I am curious on one final point, though. You keep using the word pathetic. Are you certain you understand the meaning of this word?
No I am exactly who I say I am. Why is it that when you have no argument you want to assign me a new identity.
Pathetic, but a common tactic.
I only believe in one God.
I only drink Coke (when its on special)
I love roast beef ,but my sis loves roast chicken.
Point is mankind has many choices,and since hes created in the image of God , believes in,creates and re-creates thousands of things/ideas/inventions all the time.
Why does the idea of different Religions not seem the norm.
Sorry ignore my post ,didnt scroll back far enough.
Headed back to the pumpkin patch
Yes to Pumpkin Patch
Oh and hey Earnest grow some Avocado plants ( Grandies will love it) from dangling the stone in some water .
Check out Izzys hub -
Seems all relevant to propagation lol
by Captain Redbeard15 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Cranfordjs5 years ago
After coming across an article, I am now familiar with the agurment that is for Jesus being a homosexual. So, I'm curious to what the Bible says about his sexuality?
by Gous Ahmed5 years ago
If it's ok in Christianity to have sex before marriage, ok to live with someone without marriage (like boyfriend or girlfriend), ok to have anal sex with the same gender or the other gender, ok for the brother to sleep...
by Andrew02087 years ago
RELIGION VS THE BIBLE.This is a striking subject as it has being somehow controversal in all ages regarding it's relationship with the Bible. Anyway, I know Religion could be man made in nature as it is widely claimed...
by JeniferD6 years ago
Lately, it seems that our elected body has demonstrated VERY limited competence when it comes to addressing the issues of the U.S. or applying the laws of the U.S. Constitution, and since we all know there is no FORMAL...
by sandra rinck7 years ago
When did marriage become a written agreement made legal by governmental law only? Just wondering because I been there and done that and will not do that again but feel married naturally to someone I really do love...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.