We Aren't Scum. Are We?
- Emile Rposted 10 years ago
0So. There's a thread open now, asking for believers only to chime in. I can respect that. But the thread creeps me out. Why does religion request that you see yourself as an unloveable dog? Could a God really create a species with no saving qualities only to later decide to point this out so it could magnanimously over look the fact and claim to love us? What would be the point of the exercise? Doesn't thinking God sees us as scum open the door wide to hating others? Did Jesus refer to us as scum? Doesn't believing humanity is unloveable scum in God's image imply that God is scum.
And another question. The OP lists transgressions against others, yet God loves the OP. This implies that we can hurt others yet it is possible to not only assuage our guilt but negate it through forgiveness by a higher power. How can this belief help the wronged party? How can it better the conditions for others? It leaves us in scum bag status. What of the mandate to leave the altar, rush to the wronged party and make amends? Why does religion attempt to imply that satisfying God involves no responsibility to others when the writings within that religion clearly show your first responsibility is to your fellow man?
Religion is extremely confusing since it appears to attempt to convince the individual that they are nothing, but if they become one with God they, too, can magnanimously love other nothing...if only that other nothing admits it is unworthy of love. What am I missing?Put another way.....
Religion ..... seeks to attempt to show the individual that in their spiritually dead state they are incapable of a good relationship with God, but if they become one with God they, too, must and will learn to love everyone...but until that other individual realises they are unworthy of Gods love in their unregenerate condition, those individuals can never have a complete relationship with God or those who have elected to allow God to guide their lives.
In the end result we all serve someone, the issue is about who we choose to serve, God or self (which in this instance is Ego and the current world (selfishness) Zeitgeist.Maybe, but the whole exercise appears to be an attempt to build the ego of the religious person. Not to build a relationship with anyone or anything.
It's all a matter of perception and I'm sure there is a better way to perceive the words and actions of the overtly religious. I simply haven't found it yet. As long as all one appears to care about is convincing oneself they are loved by God they appear to ignore their primary obligation while here.
In God's image. We have the unique ability to change perception of reality for the better, but this philosophy does nothing more than hinder that ability for everyone, but self. Imo.
The concept is pretty simple and profitable when it understood for what it is.
You as a human is both the worst of the worse and the best of the best.
Getting one to accept they are the best of the best is never difficult.
But to accept that you are also the worst of the worse is challenging for most.
They would say I am this but not that...I can do this but I cannot do that.
In such an approach, you are in denial of who you truly are, and in that denial you place skeletons in your closet, which you now take great pain to keep hidden.
These skeleton loves the darkness and hates the light, so they are glad to remain hidden in the day but they will roam about in the night. The man to whom the skeletons belong , will not preach what he practises and will not practise what he preaches.
The best solution is to expose your skeletons to the light that all may see. You do so by keeping the closet door wide open. Now the skeletons themselves will seek refuge from the light and abandon the closet altogether. They would seek a more secure closet that will be much more difficult to open.
Thus effectively and permanently locking themselves away and leaving the man totally free.
And with his freedom that man can be the best of the best.I agree. But, the good in you greatly outweighs the bad. As in all of us. It appears that some focus primarily on the bad. The problem I see is that this course of action inhibits our ability to see the good, because the focus is on the bad. No biggie for the individual since they accept the mitigating circumstances in their own actions. Unfortunately, this philosophy refuses to address the mitigating circumstances in the actions of others.
Few people truly believe in their hearts they are unloveable. So, claiming to be a sinner who is unloveable isn't necessarily realistic on the individual level. Claiming to be forgiven for unloveable characteristics comes off (to me) as washing one's hands of responsibility. "hey, I'm a sinner. What can I say?" Kind of thing, as opposed to "what can I do to make amends to the individual I have wronged through my actions."
Is responsibility for our actions truly negated by a higher power?
Well, it is not often you and I agree on anything, but this seems to be one of those times.
The most ironic thing for me is creating a separate thread for only believers and then preaching that we are all god's children.
Step one in brainwashing is to break the individuals will and self esteem. Once that's done they are weak to suggestions. A desperate super-ego will cling to any notion to get what it wants and a weak ego will fall for the lie.
Armies use the very same tactics to produce an army willing to kill without thought.
It makes perfect sense to me.According to many religions, especially the Abrahamic, Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions, humans fall short of the mark to God. In other words, many Abrahamic religions deduce and declare that humankind are sinners who without elected saviors would be damned. Many fundamental religionists still proclaim that the majority of humankind is damned.
However, there are enlightened ones who state that humankind are spiritual beings having a physical experience. They maintain that humankind is inherently good; however, due to negative conditioning, they succumb to the premise that they are inherently evil. Many enlightened spiritualists, particularly New Agers, maintain that humankind is inherently divine and are co-creators but they do not realize this potentiality as of yet. The late Dr. David Hawkins, a psychologist/psychiatrist/spiritualist, maintained that humankind exists at a calibrated consciousness of 200 and/or less. Dr. Hawkins further maintained that at that level and below, humankind needs a savior in order to evolve.
The late Dr. Hawkins assert that humankind with a level of calibrated consciousness below 200 will be attracted to the lower astral realms i.e. hellish worlds while those with calibrated consciouness of 200 and above will be attracted to the higher astral realms i.e. heavenly worlds. In my opinion, humankind HASN'T yet realized its divine potentiality as a result of being steeped in negative religious conditioning for a millenia. Humankind is just waking up from this insidiously negative, religious conditioning.
- Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago0
This gets to me also, Emile. The conviction that we are all just crap, but God loves us anyway because we figured out the code (that much beloved sinners' prayer) to unlock his love. And then we are somehow no longer crap, but those who haven't yet spoken the words still are.
If I believe that God loves me, then it follows that he loves everyone. Whether or not they do or say the right things. The whole concept of being alone and worthless without God invalidates his entire creation, IMO.Yes. The whole idea behind much of religion appears to attempt to separate and lift the individual. By stepping firmly on the backs of others. With really spiky heels. Could a cosmic force truly ask its creation to conduct themselves in this manner? If so, why did it take so long to invent spiky heels? Wouldn't they have been handed out with the loin cloths?
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Dearest Emile,
you are not scum, you are precious. I immediately think of two verses that tell you how God feels about you.
1) Romans 5:8
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Please notice the most important part of that verse. "While we were yet sinners" that is when he chose to give his life for you... not when we submitted to him, but when we were in defiance of him, that is when he gave all he could give to save us.
2) Matthew 18:11
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
His mission, coming to earth, was a mission of love to save you. This is the word of God, not words from a man's mouth. I hope you will consider them because absolute truth is all that matters and you matter to God.Honestly, I see the whole story of Jesus as an attempt to change perception. Not an attempt to change reality. Religion had taught humanity that they were unworthy without ritual. Humanity bought into the idea so much so that even the story of Jesus can't shake the feeling.
Anyway, I've never considered myself to be scum. I don't think others are. I didn't start the thread which stated we are. I was simply wondering why anyone would think a deity expected us to believe that.What a wonderful statement... and so true. And yet that's why Jesus came, to show us that relationship was the goal... ritual and religion was man's misconception.
I think you misunderstood.
Jesus did not exist as far as we can tell, and the very idea of needing to offer up the second best sacrifice for three days out of 4.5 billion years is - at best - amusing. Your religion teaches that we are worthless in need of salvation. The fact that the Invisible Super Being made us worthless is silly. And the fact that he couldn't even be bothered to kill himself properly (or his son depending on which cult you belong to) is even sillier.
It has held us back as a society for too long now.
Wonderful statement?
It's a deeply disturbing statement because it's true.Forgive me for correcting you, but your statement would read more truthfully if:
"And yet [I believe] that's why Jesus came, to show us that relationship was the goal.
If you had written it that way, you would have my full respect.I appreciate that... I do... but I do not seek your full respect, but would rather seek to please my God. I do not ask non-believers to phrase things in such a way that fit my belief system. For example, when Radman said the scripture that I hold in the highest of esteem and apprise as holy - to be crap, I didn't ask him to be considerate of how that might make me feel. I simply assume we don't share common knowledge and move on.
Again for Eric... I will let my yes be yes and my no be no.... I did not report you in any way. As Emile said, when we are banned it is b/c of our own words. I have no idea who reported you, I also have been banned for things I considered to be no more than jokes, but at the end of the day, I have to take the responsibility for it. It is in the past, I think Wilderness's advice to move on and let it go is good.
Phil 3:13-14
"Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."May you please your God by pleasing others
Men like sex, should I please them? Some women like gossip, should I take part? Kids like candy should I buy my children as much as they want? I do not agree with your statement.
"Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Gal 1:10Awesome point. Very well said. I appreciate it. And will meditate on it.
People like to be treated with respect, should you take part?
Matthew 7:12
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”Who are you? http://encephaloidead.hubpages.com/
You are not people yet and therefore you are not due respect. Someone who quotes scripture as an avatar is not credible. Who are you? Why should we give respect to someone who hides their identity??? what foolishness. How can I respect someone who hides?This ridiculous post ensures you lose my respect. The other guy doesn't deserve such a response as the one you offered.
Thank you for your correction of my ways.
Be careful there, Eric. I signed up years ago purely to comment on the forums myself. No profile, no nothing but a few comments on the forums.
It was a month later when I wrote my first hub, just to see what happened. It's grown a wee bit since then.
I for some reason doubt you jumped right in and attacked somebody and wrote a complaint and got them banned in your first 9 days. I am not a careful man -- maybe thoughtful but not careful.
Of course, you don't need to respect me or anyone else. Folks who don't show respect for others will always find reasons to justify their behavior.
John 8:6-9I absolutely do not need to respect and avatar. I do not play video type games. Someone who does not say who they are is not respectable. Period --- end of story --- you expect me to respect a non - person???
Hey Eric, was just reading some of your hubs and noticed that others who did not show their names or even had avatars were being called your "best friend" by you. Funny how you pick and choose who is and who isn't a person. Jesus would appreciate that. Not.
Bull, look closer -- Billybuc to Faith Reaper to Curiad to Graceinus are real. Sir Colin is real Anton is real and MsDora is real.
This is wrongful and you were wrongful to have me banned.
I have no Idea who you are. But I will not bow to your ways. My name is Eric Dierker I live at 908 Parkbrook St. and My phone number is 858-736- 4432
I stand up for what I believe. I am born and bread US American and we stand up for what we believe. We do not use aliases and we do not steal IDs We do not carry concealed weapons, we wear them on our hip for the honest world to see. We say mam and we say sir. And if you ain't into that we don't give a slam.
Merci beaucoupI didn't have you banned, you did that entirely on your own as others have already pointed out.
Stop hijacking the thread with this childish tantrum. We've all been banned. Accept it like an adult and move on. Thanks.
Have we?!
I must be missing something of substance in my personality!??? My comment wasn't directed at you. I have absolutely no idea what caused you to respond with that.
Sorry Emile, my sense of humour - that I have not been banned yet - tongue-in-cheek.
You haven't been banned yet? Goodness. I didn't realize it was possible to post without the occasional ban. I'm going to report you now so you can join the crowd and feel the pain.
Thank you for making my point so vivid and succinct.
Are you really that lame? Well I do not care any more. HP is losing it.
Yup - this is why your religion causes so many fights. Presumably your god wants ill will and hatred to be spread. Or is that the other guy?
I reckon is two scientist disagree that makes science bad? Knock it off
Sorry you don't understand the difference. This is why your religion causes so much ill will and hate. Oh - sorry - love.
"Men like sex, should I please them? Some women like gossip, should I take part? Kids like candy should I buy my children as much as they want? I do not agree with your statement."
Immediately there is a bias. Do you see it?
"Some men like sex...... just as some women like gossip.
Not all men are sexual Don Juan. Not all women are seducers. Not all homosexual men engage in what you might regard as "sin." All of us have prejudice in some circumstances.... we pre-judge. It's can be a scapegoat for our own inner conflict.
Here is a suggestion, Beth. Do you suppose that your viewing your God as masculine hides some part of you which is anti-masculine? Religion and sexuality can both be used to obscure inner conflict. Just a few thoughts for you to contemplate if you wish to.haha... too funny. I stopped and almost considered putting "some men" but in all honesty, I have yet to meet a man who does not enjoy sex... although I'm sure there are some out there. Sorry if me leaving that word out offended you, it was not meant to.
Beth, please don't feel that you offend me. I am simply offering you some other possible ways of looking at the situation.
"I have yet to meet a man who does not enjoy sex." Have you met many who do? More to the point do you actually ask men the question? We have a diverse, beautiful tapestry of a world that would be awful if everything was "the same." Don't you think?Yes... I have met many who do. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
and this is another area where context is important. If you set out looking for something (as you have mentioned several times that you used to do) you are likely to find it. I highly doubt that anyone of any gender would approach a stranger in public and say "hey, I'm thinking about sex, how about you?" If, instead, you are in a chat room or web service designed for that purpose, it's hardly surprising that you're going to find exactly what you yourself are looking for.
Old song says something like "looking for love in all the wrong places". I suppose I might have said your quote in my younger days. Golly gee I sure like growing older.
You are not pleasing God by disrespecting others, and He most certainly knows that if it is obvious to the rest of us. The righteous are not righteous when they are self-righteous.
Did you stop and see what you wrote here. You are judging someone else harshly for judging someone else harshly. OK. OK but at least be aware that you are doing it.
And this would be why your religion causes so many fights. It is all the love.
There are some of us who would like to see our fellow brethren not use their religion to cause fights.
Wonderful. After 2,000 years of not being able to do that - what is your plan?
Not all believers try to cause fights just like not all non-believers try to cause fights. There are small groups on both sides who do, unfortunately.
Sorry, but I cannot control other people's behavior regardless of their faith or lack of faith.
Would you like me to remind or make you aware each time you judge someone? Like your post to me, for example?
I guess you don't notice that you yourself follow suit. Do you think you guys shouldn't help each other get back on the correct path? You should just all just agree with each other?
That "you guys" still just bothers me. I got to tell you it is rude. EncephaloiDead has only just signed up on HP to argue. No content, no profile and yet he is just jumping in to criticize me. He uses just an avatar. I am over it.
Kitchen. Heat. Pot. Kettle.
Not to criticize or judge or anything like that.Publish or Perish http://encephaloidead.hubpages.com/
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
― Kevin Max
“Don’t tell me about your god with your words. Show me about your god with your actions.”
― Steve MaraboliThat first quote is one of my all time favorites....who's Kevin Max? I'm just curious, because the quote is actually from an American priest by the name of Brennan Manning.
Max is a singer/songwriter for a Christian pop group. He may have taken that quote as his own. But, I think your right in that it's attributed to Manning. Thanks.
Is he from DC Talk? I know the song you're talking about...that's where I first heard the quote. Which led me on a hunt to find out who said it.
*I like that song a LOT, btw.
**It is him! And he and I have something in common; we're both Michigan natives.Yes! That's him, front man for DC Talk.
Michigan natives, very cool. He just moved back to his home town a few years ago because his daughter was diagnosed with autism.I just googled him. I didn't know he was connected to Audio Adrenaline as well. I was sorta sad when DC Talk disappeared from the CCM scene.
I never got a chance to see them live, did you?
I saw them live in Tucson. Kevin is the lead singer of AA. Living in Nashville gives you opportunities to meet a lot of neat musicians. Toby is a friend of ours though Ive never met the other two. He is a great man. I have a ton of respect for him and his wife.
You know, it's funny...I don't think I ever even saw him till we all started this conversation about him today. Kevin Max, I mean. There was a LOT of songwriting talent happening in contemporary Christian music when they were around.
Toby Mac is probably the biggest name in Christian music today. I believe that's b/c his music reflects his authentic faith and need for Christ. He also has an amazing talent. He and Nicole Mullens are both friends and I have so much respect for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdxaXSnMq4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj-pZQ_XjyU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpHSGP6U1WsHaven't watched the videos yet...but I will. I miss Rich Mullins. He is among my all time favorite songwriters. I also really love Fernando Ortega and Chris Rice.
Rich Mullins is my favorite ever too. I got to see him in concert once.
Ive met both Fernando and Chris. Both down to earth, nice men.Fernando Ortega is the only one I've ever been able to see live. There are several songs that he's written that have incredible meaning for me. If you run into him anytime soon, please tell him so. They've brought me comfort during really difficult times - losing my mother, our baby.
Im so sorry, I had no idea. I only met him once at one of his concerts and I told him how much the movie The Milagro Beanfield War reminded me of his songs and stories. He said many of his family members were actually in that movie. He is one of my FB friends and we've chatted once or twice though I don't know him personally. I will send you his FB link and you can share your story with him.
Thank you. I would very much appreciate that.
His music was practically a soundtrack to my life for about three years. He's written several songs that touched me as though he had some inside view of my life and family.
Ha, funny. Someone is critical of someone and you in tern are critical of that person being critical and I'm rude.
Oh excuse me my friend I was not referring to the great and wonderful:::: http://rad-man.hubpages.com/
Oh no -- mia culpa. Rad man is --- I believe Christian by name. He writes with zeal and aplomb. I may smack my face into fists but I do not trifle with the excellence in writing that is Rad man. I stand humble.There are one or two hubs about ADHD that you may find interesting and pertinent to your life.
Ever notice what a bully does in a school yard when they are lost for words or caught by someone less ethically challenged?
They attempt to insult others to distract from there own errors.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Beth, but they are indeed the words of men, because it was men who wrote the Bible, not gods.
Truth matters, but there is little if any truth in the Bible, let alone absolute. Truth is in reality, Beth, not an ancient book of myths and superstitions meant to scare little chidren.
- MysticMoonlightposted 10 years ago0
I've also noticed the "for believers only" thread and thought it peculiar, what's up with that anyway? Why the need for such? Is it to purposely offend? Should the non-believers start a thread and state that it's for non-believers only, would then the believers get offended? Are we in back in elementary school now and we are the odd kids that were not invited to the cool kids club? LOL Yes, I'm joking but it IS quite odd.
yes and no !? In on sense , it would be like if in the automotive section, someone started a thread, "for Ford enthusiast?, and that thread got took over with Chevy enthusiast, and all of the ford enthusiast got "Skeared OFF" fr5om posting on it.
but I really do understands both sides of the argument. And agree with-em.
Both the ford vs Chevy and the theist vs Atheist being able to present their case.Personally I see nothing wrong with starting a topic that focusses on one specific type of person.
Why must we all HAVE to be so very 'inclusive'?Exactly, we don't. But why the need separate to support one specific way of thinking only? Just seems kind of odd to me, but that's my opinion, of course.
I see no problem. If the assumption of the topic is beleif in God it just makes sense to have that discussion between people who accept the assumption.
Otherwise is become yet another thread banging on about god versus no god. And we have enough of those.
I see it as no different from having a thread about knitting for knitters.True that. I bet that, no matter who a specific thread is for, someone is going to come along and throw some crunk their way, especially when the thread is about religion or any type of 'way of thinking' aspect. Perhaps that is why I see it odd, I expect that the effort could be futile for them? Yes, that is likely it, I suppose.
Basically, from what I remember when I was visiting the forums, there are always some 'non believers' who see it as their duty to disrupt any discussion on spiritual aspects, in particular Christian discussion.
I have not seen the OP where they call for non believers to stay away, but I guess it's someone who wanted to have a peaceful discussion without planned disruption.
The answer of course is to either avoid the particular topic, or ignore the request and seek to participate either disruptively, or preferably with a desire to engage honestly in the discussion.Indeed. I see it in both directions and it stops discussions from achieving any level of depth or detail.
Perhaps I should start a thread about the absence of God and ask that no believers join. How long do you think it would take before someone showed up with threats of hellfire?
I had this very thought myself, Rad Man. I agree.
If you are willing to respect the request when made by others, sure--why not? Assuming you actually have something worthwhile for us to discuss.
I think you insulted me twice in that post.
I haven't commented in that forum.
I may not have anything of interest to discuss.The comment was not specifically about you or an insult. It was a statement about reciprocity. That is, excluding threads should have a purpose and be respected regardless of who is included or excluded.
Feel free to report it and see if an objective reader sees an insult in there.
"Why must we all HAVE to be so very 'inclusive'?"
Because much of christianity makes you, them and us EX-clusive.
Mankind has been against God since Adam and Eve.
God has given mankind dominion over the planet and how has mankind dealt with this responsibility? Do we not lie, do we not steal, do we not torture, do we not wage war, are we not greedy, are we not selfish, do we not ignore God's 10 Commandments.
With all the evil mankind does does the rains still come, does the sun still shine, does gravity still work even as we shake our fists at God.
There are those who do not believe in God and probably never will so what would be the point in having them disrupt a forum where there are those who do believe?My name is Eric Dierker and you are speaking of my forum. What is a "believer"? It is you. I hope that you at least believe in you. I do.
I put that in there for a specific reason. Some folks see "believers" and they get all anti religion. I have been preaching for years now --- you know what my religion is? None. I do not buy into that crap. Me and my people get together around noon on Sunday. And we sing cool songs and we hug each other. And we eat together and check in with each other to make sure we be doing fine.
Some of us know Jesus,,,, some do not. We center our discussion on the best selling book of all times. And we talk about how to be better people and help others more. We chip in some money for operations and to help others. We laugh a lot. I do not get paid except in hugs and love.
I teach and preach to young people about how awesome they are. About how much us older people love them and that they should pass that on.
Oh I read the Gospel and can quote verse and passage. But my most fervent prayer is that I serve.
Now God may speak to you. He only speaks to me through the beauty and wonder of life that includes Science and Law and Nature. Or maybe She -- go figure, why would God have a sex? ;-)
I believe in mankind. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow -- though that is illogical. I believe our children will make this place a better place -- again illogical.
I am not a boogy man, although I love to boogie. I hope you get my point. My door is open at 908 Parkbrook street down here a few miles from Tijuana.Not true. You got religion big time Preacher Man.
But - did you just invite believers in reason to your forum? Under the guise of pretending it was not just for believers in god....................Hugs and smiles my friend Mark. Don't you think we should argue. I mean how boring is it we all just love our steaks the same way. BORING!!!
When you and I reach full agreement --- Lordy oh Lordy that would be frightening.
You know damned well my door is always open to your cantakorous rotten self --- hihihihiLOL Didn't understand that answer I'm afraid.
Let me be clear. My name is Eric Dierker. Anyone is welcome anywhere I am. And if someone makes them not welcome. We will deal.
So perhaps I should apologize. Mia Culpa for even suggesting "believers only" --- I no for a fact you believe in logic.No worries. It did seem a little odd to start a thread excluding a group of people to preach that we are all god's children.
Alright alright -- stupid me. thank you for pointing out my mistake 101 times hihihihi
Eric, the best selling book of all time... the Bible... I assume you believe it to be true? So when the Bible refers to God as He and Him and the Father etc... and never in the feminine, is it hard for you to imagine it to be factual that He is of the male persuasion? If you see this very basic thing as a gray area, do you doubt much of God's Word? And if you doubt much of God's word, how do you then trust Him with your soul?
Beth37 -- isn't that strange. I got this Mensa head on my shoulders. I got full degrees in several subjects. I can call out the scientific name of plants and birds and I have touched 2 billion year old rock in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I let doctors beat my cancer, not Jesus. And yet here I am a preacher man. I have lived on four continents and seen the worst depravity of man. The only constant I have found is love. And Jesus is the epitome of that. God is a man???? funny huh. How can God have sex??? crazy. But we call ships "she" and I thought dogs were boys and cats girls until I was 7. Man is limited in language. OK. I do not trust God with my soul. I trust love, and to me God is not a gray haired old man on thrown --- God is in you. And I trust you.
The bible.
Beth, do you believe it to be true?
If you were, then, made in God's image, and you are indeed female, then does God (as spirit) exist as BOTH masculine and feminine?
I didn't have a problem with the title. I found your opening statement disturbing. That's all.
Jonny -- how are we going to get smarter if we do not challenge the make up of our thoughts?
I think Emile is kind of my new hero,, Getting right down to the core of something I may have done wrong. Christians like to say "lift up" well I think "tear down" is just as important. These foundations we build are just as often stumbling blocks.
Religion is not what God is about. If you believe in math. Cool. If you believe in Descartes, power to you. I believe in Love. So silly but I can smash your fist with my face!!!
My point is clear. Love something. I do not even care what. And then we can move from there. But if you cannot even love yourself. I must just breath in and breath out and move on.I'm confused by your reference to me, since your statement supporting it makes absolutely no sense. My primary distaste for your thread was that it came off as if you were lifting yourself up in your own mind by pointing out transgressions against humanity that didn't matter, since you were loved by a higher power; inviting others to join in and share their moments where they've trampled on another human being and been subsequently forgiven by the same higher power.
The problem with this is twofold.
One. Few believe their actions are wrong. They look at wrongs done as reactions to wrongs done. Belief allows the individual to think a higher power agrees with ego driven reasoning. You become a Pontius Pilate. Others are the catalyst for your decisions.
Two. The acceptance of one's status of not being accountable for one's actions rarely, if ever, causes the individual to believe others are not responsible for their actions. By claiming to be a sinner in an attempt to compel others to list their own transgressions we set the stage to judge one another. To weigh and measure, after stating that we have already passed a verdict that they will be found lacking. But, hey, that's the beauty because it doesn't matter what we do since a higher power doesn't care what we do to others.
The whole thing is unrealistic. Our actions matter here and now. Hope of heaven is no excuse for washing one's hands of responsibility. Claiming to love, when not taking steps to rectify actions and mitigate damage caused is paying lip service to the word for everyone but self. You know this somewhere deep inside. So do others. So, all of the claims made are a facade created. A facade only the individual accepts. It causes a disconnect that is unhealthy for the individual and all relationships built on that facade.
All groups gathered in thanks of an unhealthy facade attempt to expand the facade to encompass the group. This, too, is unrealistic because you've already set the stage to judge, and find lacking. Even if you truly overlook the transgressions, you are operating within faulty parameters. It's no one's place to judge. But, if the group succeeds they create a new belief. We now have judge and jury. You guys turn on others. Passing judgment on those outside of the group. Patting each other on the back for not taking responsibility. Feeding on each other's need for redemption, without action.
I would respect religion if it respected the individual. If it compelled the practitioner to honestly evaluate your actions and take an active role in relationships. To ensure each human is treated with respect. That you gave others the same consideration you give yourself. But, although that is its stated goal, it can't. Because it is built on shaky ground. It gives you a free ticket to wash your hands of responsibility from the outset.
That's the way I see it, by reading the posts of the devoutly religious. If this isn't realistic, then the devoutly religious aren't doing a good job of explaining their beliefs.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Romans 3:4
"May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.""
Either the Bible is true or it isn't. If you do not believe the Bible to be inspired word of God, you only preach your own beliefs. You are fallible, you should not tell ppl what you believe is the truth. That's all I have to say.So - as the bible has been proven false on many, many occasions and is obviously fallible, what is your point?
Mark -- you want it both ways --- "you cannot prove anything in the Bible" and then "the Bible has been proven false". Well what is it going to be? Is the Bible provable or not? If it is let us get to work. If it is not, let us wax philosophical. How can the Bible which you claim is not proof be proven false? Come on man -- you sound like the wife who asks her husband if she looks fat in this dress. Or have you stopped beating your wife yet?
What? Please reread what you wrote and see that it make no sense at all. I can prove many things in the bible to be false. What can you prove to be true?
Come on man, you sound like a desperate Preacher Man defending an untenable belief system.
Sorry Beth I must have missed that Sunday School class, where somebody taught us that the Bible is like a text book. "study it and you will be quizzed on Monday and if you get an answer wrong -- detention for you".
Well I just went and checked, nope - out of my twelve hard copies I could not find one that says -- This book is God. My Latin Vulgate seems to say the opposite -- but my wife's Vietnamese seems to come close.
We are not ruled by the written word. We are directed by the Living Word. What is the Word? Nope -- wrong question. Who is the Word? Yep that one works.
The Bible teaches us. It does not rule us. Pontuous Pilate ruled. The King of Kings taught. I have my left hand on a Bible right now and it was hard to type with one hand --- do you get that metaphor? If I carry my Bible around with both hands,,, what hand do I have left to give you water? What hand will carry the child? What hand will feed? The Bible is a servant not the Lord."Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
2 Tim 2:15Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. Timothy 2:11-15
Another hell-bound sinner going against the word of god.I submit to the authority God has placed over me. I am not to submit to false teachers, and I would prefer to use the Bible to share truth as opposed to my own words. Thank you.
Ah - the word of god does not apply to you and you are free to break it. Save me a seat by the fire.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
Rev 12:10I know - the word of god does not apply to you. I got it - no need to keep breaking the word, you have already earned a place in hell. Save me a seat by the fire.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Jn 10:28But - you have snatched yourself out - haven't you?
Oh well.......Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
Is 6:8Interesting - no wonder this religion causes so much ill will and hatred.
Words taken out of context, from writings that you haven't a hope in hell getting to understand.
I get your point but maybe if we try real hard we can understand.
I wonder if that could be considered opinion. Well here I go... spouting off again... everybody talks, everybody talks, everybody talks... too much.
Mark, I gotta tell you. I do not get Bible thumping women -- except my wife who will thump me with anything ;-) I get that and take out the garbage.
But if a woman espouses bible literal ism then she must shut up in public. Old testament - maybe not --- Paul and the New - No question,,, shut up in public.
Personally I think those verses are instructional as to unity of a house. Remember culture at that time made a wife a man's property --- too hard for me to wrap my brain around. I understand that places like Darfur still have such customs and even laws. I do not want to own my children or my wife,,, for sure.
But for a woman to tell us the Bible must be taken literally is just the most oxymoronic thing I can conceive. She must admit to no authority. It simply cannot be both ways.The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)
Beth, how can you sit and post certain pick and choose Bible quotes obviously chosen so that you can victimize yourself when that very Bible tells you that, as a woman, you should be quiet? I do not understand this type of common thinking. WHEN does it ALL apply? This is what perplexes me so much about some Christians. They can quote the Bible all day long when it is strategically meant to put them in a favorable light yet choose to COMPLETELY ignore when someone (in this case Mark Knowles) posts a very Bible quote that also is a Bible "truth" and applies to the situation but it goes totally ignored and then it's followed by that person posting even more pick and choose strategically favorable Biblical quotes! To say that this common practice from some Christians causes much confusion for me is an understatement.
To be fair - it is not just the women who don't practice what they preach, but - the bible is clear. Women are to be silent and not preach or teach at men.
Act 18:26
"He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."
The Bible must be taken as a whole, not dissected into parts that stand alone.In their home with their husbands. Not on the Internet
Deborah and Jael left their homes to do the work of the Lord. Judges 4
Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, now that Ehud was dead. 2 So the Lord sold them into the hands of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. Sisera, the commander of his army, was based in Harosheth Haggoyim. 3 Because he had nine hundred chariots fitted with iron and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the Lord for help.
4 Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading[a] Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided. 6 She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them up to Mount Tabor. 7 I will lead Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.’”
8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”
9 “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh. 10 There Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali, and ten thousand men went up under his command. Deborah also went up with him.
11 Now Heber the Kenite had left the other Kenites, the descendants of Hobab, Moses’ brother-in-law,[b] and pitched his tent by the great tree in Zaanannim near Kedesh.
12 When they told Sisera that Barak son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, 13 Sisera summoned from Harosheth Haggoyim to the Kishon River all his men and his nine hundred chariots fitted with iron.
14 Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the Lord has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the Lord gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, with ten thousand men following him. 15 At Barak’s advance, the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled on foot.
16 Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim, and all Sisera’s troops fell by the sword; not a man was left. 17 Sisera, meanwhile, fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, because there was an alliance between Jabin king of Hazor and the family of Heber the Kenite.
18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come, my lord, come right in. Don’t be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she covered him with a blanket.
19 “I’m thirsty,” he said. “Please give me some water.” She opened a skin of milk, gave him a drink, and covered him up.
20 “Stand in the doorway of the tent,” he told her. “If someone comes by and asks you, ‘Is anyone in there?’ say ‘No.’”
21 But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.
22 Just then Barak came by in pursuit of Sisera, and Jael went out to meet him. “Come,” she said, “I will show you the man you’re looking for.” So he went in with her, and there lay Sisera with the tent peg through his temple—dead.
23 On that day God subdued Jabin king of Canaan before the Israelites. 24 And the hand of the Israelites pressed harder and harder against Jabin king of Canaan until they destroyed him.
Wow, Beth, incredible! Take your own advice?
I read this little snippet someplace like on a Profile page :: ""I'm not where I'm supposed to be, I'm not even where I was, but if I know one thing it's this: God isn't finished with me yet... He's my only hope.""
So I think it right to cut Beth37 some slack.Phil 1:6
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.And so we grow and learn. And that is a good thing. For we must, each one of us evolve. Fully entrenched positions and dogma will cause us to stop growing. A complete knowledge of anything is a fool's errand.
I error and offended by saying in a forum "believers only" for most thought it meant believers in God. I am humbled by that mistake. And it was not a Christian that showed me my error. But an Atheist. This is a good and rightful thing that I will cherish.Funny that term. I still do not get it.Gnostics were a group that participated in the council of Nicaea. They proposed Christ was not a part of a Trinity. Very close to Muslim thought as we know it today or even Jewish. An Agnostic is someone who does not believe Christ is Lord. That is an Atheist. Just a certain type. Actually that is important for a Christian to understand so I am glad you brought it up. Nowadays we use it in PC speak to mean the person is not against Christ but does not believe. That works OK but the Agnostic is still an Atheist by any logic.
Eric - this is drivel. Sorry. Completely wrong.
Atheists do not believe in a god.
Agnostics are atheists that do not believe in a god, but agree they don't know, which probably includes most atheists. lol
No one is "against Christ" because christ did and does not exist.I may be wrong, but I'd like to add that the average agnostic says they don't know, but also believes that they can't possibly know for sure. I had a very agnostic uncle. For him, the question of God was a meaningless one, because he felt that there simply was no answer this side of death.
Alright Mark, here is the problem with that: To many of us Christ said (yes we believe in historic written testimony -- I still think we landed on moon and it was not shot in Hollywood also) That Christ made it clear about love. That He was love and that the final commandments are to love. So in His brilliance He kind of usurped your point.
Because you may not believe in a gray haired bearded man on a throne but you believe in love and indeed practice it. I think it be just fine not to believe in a guy in a big white robe with a staff and cherubs bringing him stuff.
But if you deny that you believe in love. You are an idiot.Christ probably did not exist. Sorry you are not interested in learning the meaning of the words you are using. What does that make you?
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son. 1Jn 2:22
Yeah, this would be why your religion has caused 2,000 years of conflict.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:8
OK Mark, lunar landings have no better record. There is no better record of the American civil war. Absolutely no better record of the Holocaust. Certainly the Crusades are a hoax, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler are more believable than the bible --- because???? The Roman empire is a fairy tale and most assuredly Plato and his buddy Socrates are fiction. OK dude, but if you discount all that, you do not get your free masons and Illuminati either. The councils of Nicaea never happened and the Pilate Pontious dude did not exist. Forget about Mohammed and Buddha and next Cochise is just a fun story.
Get in the game and stop looking so foolishSorry Eric. Misdirection will not help. Jesus was not an actual person. Deal with it.
Revelation 19:12-16
His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Without delving into whether Jesus actually walked the earth, what records are available from either Jesus OR any witness to his life?
We have Aldrin, still claiming to have walked the moon. We have witnesses to the holocaust, writing their personal memoirs and with tattoos on their arms. We have "battlefields", filled with weaponry from the civil war period.
But for Jesus, we have the written words of people hundreds of years later, claiming to be repeating the words of other people that witnessed the man. We have nothing from either Jesus or any eyewitness. "My sister's son's friend's great grandfather" kind of thing. Every physical artifact is either of doubtful nature or shown to be fraud. Not quite the same, and thus the doubt.So Wilderness --- in 3 hundred years Mark and you can just say --- because they are dead we do not accept their accounts. The Gospels were written during the life time of the witnesses. You think it is unreliable. Fine. But it is testimony proof. Was Zimmerman convicted - no. Could he have been - yes. Recorded eye witness testimony is proof. I really do not get that you do not get that. Heck it is on TV with judge judy every day. These have lasted over 2 thousand years. And Wilderness and Mark just come along and say they are liars. Good for you guys.
So - no eyewitnesses then? Why didn't you say so instead of lying at me that there were witnesses?
Eric, no one knows who wrote the gospels. The names were attached one to two hundred years later. Mark's gospel was the first, and it was written after AD 70. Matthew and Luke copy almost all of mark and then add stuff. John's gospel does its own thing entirely, and is placed by biblical scholars as late first or early second century.
It is not possible that they were written by apostles, nor do they claim to be.
If you open your Bible (since you have so many) I bet you could find an introdintroduction to the gospels that state implicitly that authorship is unknown. This is the consensus of both secular and religious biblical scholars, and has been for quite some time. Paul, the man responsible for over half of the new testament (even though a handful of his letters that made it into the canon are now thought to be forgeries as well) never met Jesus, and mentioned nothing of his life except.for his death and resurrection.
There are no extra biblical, contemporary witnesses to the man at all, which is surprising considering the earthquakes, darkness and Jewish zombies roaming Jerusalem at the time of his death, to say the least.You are missing the point, Eric. The gospels, as approved in Nicea, were NOT written by eyewitnesses. The oldest writing we have is the Book of Mary, some 200 years after the crucifixion. The others were all much later.
None of those documents propose to be a copy of the writings of an apostle - they give the impression they are the actual penmanship of the apostle but are not. Some even claim to be the original writing, but written in a manner not appropriate to the time of Jesus and on materials dated to hundreds of years ofter the death of Jesus.
So, at best, we have the writings of someone that is "copying" (and interpreting and putting their own thoughts into) something that an apostle might have written. Far more likely is that they are completely original works, but not by the apostles. And certainly any works approved at Nicea were also changed as appropriate to what those men wanted to give the masses.
Mark there are no eyewitnesses that say He did not exist.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He did not exist, so there were no eye witnesses. Period.
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.Seriously? Find me an eyewitness to the forest to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. If you can't, Bigfoot must be real. You're shifting the burden of proof and moving the goalposts. It doesn't work that way.
We have thousands of documents from first century Judea and Rome. They talk about many Messiahs, but they ALL seem to miss the real one? They miss his miracles birth, his ministry, his miracles, his temper tantrum at the temple, his illegal trial, his crucifixion, the miracles at the crucifixion and his death and resurrection. Completely? Don't you find that strange?You are not sibtain bukhari (I hope!) and are thus not allowed to use such arguments.
Mark it happens 1,000 times a day. People testify that something did not happen. "He did not hit that car" Duh. Under the regime of the time, there should be hundreds of testimonies. Man they had hearings before crucifying. But no idiot ever said, "there was no Jesus"
Now explain why Pilate would not have gotten that testimony. Duh, because He existed!Show me the evidence. Or stop lying at me. I said "there was no Jesus" because I don't think there was. Prove me wrong with some evidence. No wonder this religion causes so many fights.
Sorry JMcFarland -- but it does kind of work that way. If Twelve men saw bigfoot and 100 went looking and could not find him. Well the twelve men trump the 100. It just works that way. Sorry if you do not like that. But the point is that none of the twelve have someone saying "I was there too and there weren't no Jesus dude" Pilate would have documented that. He did not.
Pilate did not document anything about Jesus at all, and the way Pilate is portrayed in scripture is nothing like the way history described him at all. Don't you wonder why progressive gospel accounts shift the responsability for Jesus death away from pilate and onto the Jews? It makes sense if the budding Christian church is trying to negate the wrath of Rome.
Once again JMcfarland --- awesome point. Trying to create a divide between Christian and Jew and then Muslim. I do not like it -- but my understanding at the time of adoption of the scriptures,,, this is quite accurate. But by then it had shifted from Rome over to the East.--Byzantine or some such thing.
So are we saying that these men used the authority of the Bible to create conflict? It seems to me that the Boss at the time wanted crosses on the shields of his soldiers and in fact that was great ju ju.
You just bring me back --- the bible is read as rule is a fool. The Bible if read as a tool is cool.
Proof Mr. Truther at least one witness that lived during that time and says there was no Jesus. There are probably 300 thousand people in jail right now based on witness testimony. Show me two witnesses that lived during that time and testified that there was no man named Jesus Christ of Nazarene. And yet I can show you hundreds of accounts of His existence. Sorry bro but you just took yourself out..
No Eric. Please don't be so dishonest. I know that is what "love" is to you, but really.
How about 10 contemporary witnesses that say he did exist? Go! Sorry bro - there ain't any - please stop lying at me. It insults my intelligence. No. I have no idea where that idea comes from. None of the gospels from the current Bible are from people who were born before Jesus is said to have died. Not even close.
How about eleven all dead. Paul in Rome fully documented. Peter Fully documented. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John --- Luke even discloses his research and documentation. Are you just plain daft?
Seriously Eric - not one of these is contemporary. Go on - give me 10 contemporary extra biblical accounts. Guess you don't actually know that Paul never met the man? Really?
I am sorry -- the disciples were not contemporary??? OK Mr. Knowles. Peter was not an eye witness to what he wrote. Mark was just a fly by night historian?? What planet are you from?
But we don't have the writings of Peter. Or Mark or any of the apostles. We have instead the writings of people hundreds of years after His death, sometimes claiming to be Peter or other apostle, (a not uncommon practice of the times as it lends credence even when known to be false), sometimes just giving that appearance.
Indeed, the closest writings I've heard of is the book of Mary, written in the second century. Hardly the work of an eyewitness to Jesus.Planet real life. The new Testament dates from several hundred years after the death of Jesus onwards, and was written in a language not widely used until this time. It was a tradition to use the names of earlier disciples and prophets but the words themselves are clearly not from that era.
OK Wilderness. It is old. All you are arguing is how good the proof is. Fine that is what we do in court. Big deal!!! Who cares? You are the attorney against and I am for,,, So? The proof still exists.
Now it is your turn to rebut my evidence --- not tear it down and create some kind of "reasonable doubt -- this is civil.
Produce one witness from the time that says Christ did not exist and that he never heard of Him and that it was all made up. Just give me one witness ---- just one,,, Please.
And you would have an issue with the dead sea scrolls being forged?The dead sea scrolls do not mention jesus. More misdirection? Or are you genuinely ignorant and have just swallowed the party line?
OK your point is well laid out as is JMcFarland.
So you have my scenario - written by scribes for Apostles and passed down.
Or your scenario - made up fairy tales.
I just have trouble buying your conspiracy theory. If the Council (Istanbul or Constantinople, well any how Nicaea) Wanted to commit a big bad ass fraud --- shouldn't they have made all the stories consistent? I just can't buy into your conspiracy theories --- it just don't fit. They would have just gotten rid of all the love crap. They just would have written new rules for the masses. I mean why go to all that trouble about whores and lepers and blind people?
Your theories just do not add up.So, you have no evidence? Are you being that honest yet?
I didn't say it was a conspiracy, nor did I say that the councils KNEW it to be a lie. No one at the council in the midsecond century met Jesus either. We know that there were dozens of gospels, but four were chosen. Why? Because they fit in with the consensus of the proto-orthodox ideology. They rejected the others as heresy and tried to destroy them. The canon was created in response to someone they labeled a heretic who made his own canon up and edited the books at will to suit his ideology (marcion) there were dozens of christianities in the early centuries, and the orthodox movement (which became Roman catholicism) won. This stuff is all available for study and reading if you look into the history of the early church.
First, it's not my theory. It is a possibility, when looking into the facts - a possibility that gives rise to doubt.
The gospels could have been written by scribes "working" for the apostles and passed down, but there is nothing to indicate that. Indeed, the gospel of John is purported to be his words but is not written in the manner John would have written (or spoken). Same for the letters supposedly from the apostles. There is also the difficulty of "passing down" documents for hundreds of years and not having individual scribes insert their own feelings and beliefs into their work of copying the documents.
Most likely, it appears to me, is that the gospels were first written hundreds of years after the fact, by men that heard the spoken tale passed through dozens of other minds and mouths. They inevitably "padded" the story a bit each time, which is why none of the great miracles were ever recorded in Roman writings of the times. Accepting that there were only a few thousand people that ever saw Jesus (and far fewer that actually interacted with him) some of those things should have been recorded outside of the gospels. The trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection, etc. Even the trip by the wise men. Certainly the destruction at the temple should have been noted.
But none of that was recorded. Probably because it is "padding" from someone writing the "story" of Jesus and adding just a bit to convince readers he was a god. Such miracles were expected at the time and to quietly stick one into an "eyewitness" account would seem quite rational. The purpose, after all, wasn't to present a history but a "story", or "tale" of a messiah that needs worshipped.
Salient. You put great wisdom into your words, Wilderness. Your point is well spoken. I especially like to be reminded that the book is not meant as proof. So we are caught in a place where a reasonable mind may doubt the Bible.
Truth be told, I think that is the right place to be. And then if we have faith we override that doubt. And if not hold on tight to that doubt. If a Christian does not overcome doubt -- what then?? You have set the stage for the believer or not.
Me I am a big old goofy guy who likes my faith -- so be it.No, the bible isn't proof of anything. With all the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods it isn't even very good evidence.
But something was going on back then to even have the Nicaean council set up. Christians were common and becoming a force in the world. That Constantine wanted those people on his side, even without being a Christian himself, is telling.
So, I think that Jesus most likely existed. Maybe as an itinerant preacher, maybe as a god, but he existed. Personally, I doubt (highly doubt) the reports of miracles - it think it far more likely they were added later but others disagree. We don't blink an eye now at the success story of Joseph Smith (who had some ideas even more far out than Jesus ever did) but Jesus apparently accomplished much the same thing, and did it without the communications and travel we have now. I do not believe that a group of 12 men making up a tall tale could do that, but a single, highly charismatic, man very much could and it would not be the first time in humanities history it happened.
We don't see records in Roman history (or anywhere else) because Jesus was strictly local. He didn't cover the world, or even a significant portion of it. He didn't accomplish the miracles the bible records. But he did start a religion that struck a chord with people of the time and that, considering the period, grew very rapidly. In only 300 years (months in our fast paced world today?) it became a political force to be reckoned with and then it was recorded.
Awesome -- I am glad I put off some work to read this. I was just sitting with my youth group the other day --- kind of bored, as I was not teaching. And it just hit me --- "who gives a crap/"? About twenty of us are sitting around checking in with each other, smelling the food to come. And we are just being us. But by golly gingles we were there because of some mythical man that lived 2,000 years ago. And we sang some songs and we held hands and we validated our love for each other.
Maybe He be a Myth. I do not really care. It don't really matter to loveSo - lying and causing fights is OK if you later claim it was all for love? See - you lying at me does not convince me that you love me. Who gives a crap indeed? Why the need to lie about it in that case?
Self righteousness rules I see.
JMcfarland. I posed that issue because I think it has some merit. That bastard Constatine had an agenda and it was not love.
So here is the fun part. We Christians follow what we understand to be Jesus. Religion is kind of like kindergarten -- we move past that but it helps with standing in line and p's and q's and quoting stuff and getting all shiny for church on Sundays. Then we move on.
So we move on. And billions of us swear to know Jesus. OK I understand that college football in the US still has no clear champion each year -- they just do not have a super bowl. (go Chargers and NAU) But millions of Americans declare the champion --- does it make it so? Yikes that is tough. I along with 1 billion others declare Jesus as a savior. Does it make it so? Well it does for us Billion.
So it looks kind of silly for one man to say -- it ain't so. And we are not talking science of law here so in fact public opinion does count. You may not like it,,,, But Jesus Christ is fact and effects more people than corn or TV. Just bust down and deal with that. Way over a billion people alive today think that Jesus is part of their life. Way under a million have degrees in science. Hate it, fight it.... but at least know it. And stop preaching that billions of people are idiots --- it just don't add up.Aww. The MacDonalds argument surfaces at last. Lots of people eat it so it is good.
How self righteous of you. Do you teach your child this garbage as fact? Do you lie to him and tell him there were lots of eyewitnesses? Because that is child abuse.
You should be ashamed of yourself.I guess it makes it okay if you are all delusional together?
Mark -- either offer something cogent or there is a chair for you in the corner. You have not added a spittle to this.
Yes I did. If you offer the lies you offered me as "facts" to you child - that is child abuse. Disgusting to ruin a child's mind with that garbage. How old is your kid that you are feeding him this crap as facts?
Not seeing it Mark -- Offer up something other than tearing down
I've changed my mind about one thing.
I had assumed that you started your believers-only thread for a rational reason.
Now I think that assumption was unwarranted.I had given Eric the benefit of the doubt also. Seems that was a misjudgment on my part. They can still fool me apparently.
Well Rad Man. I just find that over a billion people is kind of more persuasive. I get your point. I once played a basketball game where we were awesome --- huge storm though. Only about 20 fans. I once played down in Phoenix -- we stunk but won to about 12 thousand. I am just saying.
Unfortunately, truth and reality are seldom found by popular vote. Mankind has a truly amazing propensity and ability to rationalize whatever they want to.
Is that more you telling us how great you are for no apparent reason? Seems to be a pattern.
Eric, when Beth cuts us all some slack from all of her spamming scripture out the wazoo and then crying foul and posting self victimizing Bible scripture, I'm sure after that point, slack will be due. But until then, I can speak how I feel just as you and Beth do. Thank you.
God has placed special authority over you that contradicts and supersedes the words of scripture? Or do you just not like Paul? Do you braid your hair and wear jewelry too?
Or is it your position that you can pick and choose which verses you like to follow and just throw the rest out on a whim while blasting other believers that do the same thing for not following the word because they pick different verses than you do?Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Eph 5:22So you choose to submit to your husband (now at least), and that makes it okay to ignore the other rule? you can cherry pick one rule at a time?
It is one of the reasons I rejected this belief system in the first place., None of these believers think the rules apply to them. This one is being just plain rude now. But - that is how this religion works - blast them down with scripture until you are the only one standing. They have no moral guidelines - that is the real issue.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Rev 21:8It probably isn't very ethical to turn to the OT especially when verses from there can be used against you.
In today's society, we don't equate non-believers with murderers, and we certainly don't want to threaten with fire and brimstone. It only makes us theists look like medieval fools.2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.So, you actually do equate non-believers to murderers? You also believe that is good work?
I would like to take the opportunity to apologize to my fellow non-believers. There are always a few rotten apples in the barrel.Rom 1:25
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.I would very much like our theist brethren to chime in here and let Beth know this kind of behavior is barbaric and should not be tolerated, as it is not the way civilized folks treat others anymore.
Certainly, Jesus would not behave in this manner.Somehow, I think Beth is having a little fun here...
I have a sense of humor in nearly every aspect of my life, but when it comes to the love of God for mankind, I speak with all sincerity. I am among those listed below... I am a sinner in need of salvation and I believe, according to God's word, salvation comes from Jesus's sacrificial work on the cross.
TRUTH
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them." (Romans 1:16-32)
HOPE
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." Jn 3:17No you don't (speak with sincerity, that is).
Sincerity comes from within; your thoughts, your mind, your words, all from a basis of what you perceive as truth.
What you are posting here is the words and thoughts of men dead for 1500 years (and words that you know are not accepted as truth by your readers). Nothing at all from you - no thoughts, no words, nothing from your mind.
No sincerity, then. Not to say you don't believe them, just that they are not from you.I have posted my own words ad nauseum. I have seen this crew await them like sharks on chum. It's a waste of time. I post the words of God... if they want to argue, let them argue with Him. At least they cannot say they haven't heard.
2 Timothy 4:2-4
Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.If they're the true words of god, how are you able as a mere human to pick and choose which ones you feel like obeying and which ones you don't? You are ordered to in scripture. 1 Peter
3:15.
1 Thessalonians 5:15 Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
King James Version (KJV)21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Nope, she is truly sincere that you non-believers are the same as murderers. Again, I feel obligated to apologize for that atrocious behavior. A few can sure destroy things for everyone else.
Deuteronomy 5:20
“And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."First, you put a verse equating non-believers to murderers and follow it up with another post indicating your 'sincerity' of those beliefs, and now you put up a verse about bearing false witness.
Folks, this is a person who does not follow Christ, but instead uses the Bible to put down others and make themselves feel superior. These are type of false believers God will deal with in good time.
Encephalo, you've no need to apologize. You are not the one displaying the behavior. There are a few of us here who feel exactly as you do, and have been castigated by our more...fundamental and zealous brothers and sisters. Best we can do is to pray for wisdom an humility for them and ourselves and keep doing the best we can to be kind, loving, and compassionate to one another, no matter our level of belief, or lack of same.
I chose to respond almost solely with the Word of God, allowing ppl to argue with Him, seeing how arguing with me is pointless and endless. My purpose in posting one particular verse had nothing to do with the purpose EncephaloiDead has maintained throughout this thread. He twisted my purpose... he lied, as a matter of fact. I can live with that. I am however, curious as to whether it is the Word of God you seem to despise or just me. If it is me, that's fine... even if you've gushed kindness as to how much you liked me in the past. You should stand by one of your claims though. I would prefer it for you to have a problem with me rather than for you to have a problem with the Word of God.
"Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord's help, they will stand and receive his approval."
Rom 14:4You don't think anyone will criticize words written to keep people in line 2000 years ago?
For instance this last little nugget of scripture warns people to not criticize other peoples slaves. It does not say one should keep slaves. Should we still keep slaves?
You are not helping your cause by posting 2000 year old unethical crap.My "cause" without the inspired, inerrant word of God is meaningless. I'm sorry you don't have a better understanding of it, I wish that you did.
Why would you post what you think is the word of God explaining how to treat slaves? Do you think we should do as God says and keep slaves?
I have explained this to you at length in another thread. It is one of your "go to" arguments. Shall I explain it on every thread every time you bring it up? I have stopped that kind of foolishness. I love to discuss the things of God, even with skeptics, but I wont argue for the sake of arguing. Some ppl prefer that cycle of constant debate. I chose, in this thread, to use not my own words, but God's words. If you reject the opportunity to seek out what is true, I cannot help you and this saddens me, but I must accept it.
Yes, you chose scripture that condones slavery, that's why I brought it up. Do you condone slavery because the bible tells you to?
Odd she rejects god's word when it explicitly forbids women preaching and teaching at a man. Still - that seems to be how these thing go. Discard anything that does not suit and condemn others. This is why this religion causes so many conflicts.
Acts 18
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Judges 4
Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, now that Ehud was dead. 2 So the Lord sold them into the hands of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. Sisera, the commander of his army, was based in Harosheth Haggoyim. 3 Because he had nine hundred chariots fitted with iron and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the Lord for help.
4 Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading[a] Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided. 6 She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them up to Mount Tabor. 7 I will lead Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.’”
8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go.”
9 “Certainly I will go with you,” said Deborah. “But because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.” So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh. 10 There Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali, and ten thousand men went up under his command. Deborah also went up with him.
11 Now Heber the Kenite had left the other Kenites, the descendants of Hobab, Moses’ brother-in-law,[b] and pitched his tent by the great tree in Zaanannim near Kedesh.
12 When they told Sisera that Barak son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, 13 Sisera summoned from Harosheth Haggoyim to the Kishon River all his men and his nine hundred chariots fitted with iron.
14 Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the Lord has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the Lord gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, with ten thousand men following him. 15 At Barak’s advance, the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera got down from his chariot and fled on foot.
16 Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim, and all Sisera’s troops fell by the sword; not a man was left. 17 Sisera, meanwhile, fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, because there was an alliance between Jabin king of Hazor and the family of Heber the Kenite.
18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come, my lord, come right in. Don’t be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she covered him with a blanket.
19 “I’m thirsty,” he said. “Please give me some water.” She opened a skin of milk, gave him a drink, and covered him up.
20 “Stand in the doorway of the tent,” he told her. “If someone comes by and asks you, ‘Is anyone in there?’ say ‘No.’”
21 But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.
22 Just then Barak came by in pursuit of Sisera, and Jael went out to meet him. “Come,” she said, “I will show you the man you’re looking for.” So he went in with her, and there lay Sisera with the tent peg through his temple—dead.
23 On that day God subdued Jabin king of Canaan before the Israelites. 24 And the hand of the Israelites pressed harder and harder against Jabin king of Canaan until they destroyed him.Convenient, isn't it, that you can tell one person that the old testament no longer applies, and then turn around and use it to try to prove one of your points. Which one is it? You don't get to have it both ways. Another example at willful cherry picking at its finest. Its incredibly disingenuous.
Of course. I'm in the market - got somebody you'd like to sell?
Although I'm sure you have treated your slaves well, I'll still ask for maintenance records - doctor's visits, type of food given, oil changes, etc.
If the Bible to you is the inspired, inerrant word of god, how do you get by picking and choosing what parts to follow?
Context.
Just b/c certain parts of the Bible were addressed to an audience of a different era, that doesn't mean I can't pick out the truth that was spoken in that verse. Men were once hanged on gallows. Now the contemporary would be the electric chair... does the act of execution change b/c the means have changed? I know you know about the law and Jesus coming to fulfill it. Im reasonably sure you actually know the answers to most of the questions you ask. As I said, I am not here to participate in foolish arguments for the sake of arguing. I had not wanted to use my own words as it contributes to the cycle. Respectfully, I'll end that here.By posting scripture you are saying that you agree with the posted scripture.
I'm talking about all new testament here, Beth, so your predictable statements about living under the law vs under grace simply do not apply, and you know it. Paul explicitly on more than one occasion talks about the role of women in the church and in society. You ignore it. You accept the part about submitting to your husband, also by the same author. If it is truly the word of god and is timeless and infallible, what gives you the right to cherry pick so wantonly to conform to what you want to do opposed to what you are ordered to do?
1 Cor 10:23
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.So you gave yourself the go ahead to disregard scripture (which you, yourself describe as the inerrant word of god) whenever you feel it is unhelpful? Isn't your god supposed to know best, or do you place yourself above his judgment for verses you don't like? Do you think you're above god himself, or just above his "inerrant" word whenever its convenient for you?
Um, Beth, I'm not sure how you extrapolated from that particular post that I ''despise'' either you or the Bible. It seems to me that for all you go on about not caring if you have affection or respect from the people with whom you interact here, you are awfully concerned about what we think of you. I despise no one - and never have. I do like you, and I think you have a great sense of humor. That doesn't mean I agree with everything you say. Some of what you do is puzzling to me, and frankly, very sad. But I don't despise you. I've said before, in many threads in which you and I have both participated, that I do not find it edifying, productive, or in any way enjoyable when people copy and paste scripture into a forum. There's no need for it.
As to not arguing with you - you're right, it is pointless. But if you think that posting scripture that people refute means that they are then arguing with God, you are mistaken. Are you hoping to start arguments? That's sort of how it sounds.
I don't think you have nefarious intentions. Never have. I don't dislike you. Never have.
Carry on.
Beth37 did you get me banned on Hubpages --- simple yes or no?
No sir, I did not. I didn't know you were banned or even that you had said something worthy of being banned. It's interesting that you view me as your adversary.
Beth37 I ask again -- did you get me banned from this forum??
She answered that 16 posts back and besides, it seems pretty obvious that the one who got you banned is you.
I apologize --- For even asking. So I will ask it again -- who here complained anonymously to get me banned??? Are you a full coward?
Rad man --- look into it,,, I was banned for a day. Someone here complained, it was from this forum. But who it was will not own it. HP does not do banning unless someone complains --- I think I would like to know who it was, but more importantly why it was done so anonymously. I do not think atheists and agnostics work that way.
I've had bannes from time to time. I never found out who did it and demanding to know only makes one appear like a bully. Watch what you say and move on.
Actually, I think HP does ban without complaints. Forum moderators pick it up and the ban is on.
Either way, though, best to simply move on. I've been banned twice now, both times for things I thought very simple and not in any way worthy of a ban. Forget it and move on.
Great --- it is just OK?
We just move on when someone does wrong.. NO HP does not do it without a complaint.
Death is a society that does not stand up for something
Sure, if you want to behave like Reverend Fred Phelps.
"All non-Christian entities, non-Protestant Christian churches, and all Protestant Christian churches that do not strongly condemn homosexuality or align their beliefs and practices exactly with that of the Westboro Baptist Church are said to be sending their members to Hell."
?? There are lots of moral guidelines, starting with Beth's verse Eph 5:22-24.
Exodus 22:3 explains selling a thief into slavery.
Deut. 21:18-21 explains stoning a rebellious child to death
Genesis has the story of destroying whole cities because the people weren't generous enough towards strangers.
Lots of morals in the bible; we just don't accept them much today as being "moral" at all. "Barbaric" comes to mind, as does "evil".2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.Certainly can't argue with that one. There always seem to be those that will distort the truth. Reading 2 Timothy 3:16-17, for instance, and declaring that the 7 days of creation was actually a billion years. Or that only a small portion of the earth was covered by Noah's flood. Or that Eph 5:22 means it's OK to argue with a husband but never God.
Lots of distortion, indeed, of God's breath of truth in scriptures.
"You are fallible, you should not tell ppl what you believe is the truth. That's all I have to say."
I know it's taken out of context, but just heed your own words, Beth! What's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Mt 5:1-11
And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. - Beth37posted 10 years ago0
I need to do the dishes now. I'll catch up to you later.
"...to be busy at home [or workers at home], to be kind [or good], and to be submissive to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.” Titus 2:5 - Emile Rposted 10 years ago0
Read through the thread. What's up Beth? I've never seen you cut and paste so much. Don't make me start cutting and pasting from my favorite book in response.
So, which is a better world to live in? One where we are all sinners not worthy of anything or one in which we all try to find the good in one another and treat people as if they are worthy of something.
I would choose the latter.- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
1 John 2:1-2
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.?? Why do you keep repeating words...words that were a compromise between a group of men reading other words written by other men claiming to have heard the story through a half dozen other generations? A group that, in their compromise efforts, changed the words to be acceptable to everyone there and then either included them in their book or, if they could not compromise or find a translation that everyone could accept, refused to include it?
Would not the words of Nicodemus (which are actually his own penmanship) be more appropriate? Or Socrates?Wilderness,,,,,,
I do not get literalness. Maybe i am daft but what you say is true. Only intent can be garnered.I'm always hesitant to assign even intent of the speaker. Even if I go to the same bible (with so many translations being used today) and examine it for context I still won't know what the speaker thinks their quote means.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
2 Peter 1:21
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...
Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Ps. 119:11
I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. I hope some will take notice that there are theists here who don't resort to posting verses from the Bible to insult and disrespect others who don't share our beliefs in order to inflate their own egos, looking down on people with disdain and hatred. It is very unfortunate these so-called Christians have to ruin things for everyone else and provide ample ammunition for the non-believers arsenal.
There are few atheists that will take a biblical verse as insulting (except to the person quoting nonsense). As they are words from people 1500 years dead, and never did have much connection to reality, there isn't much reason to take offense at them. About all they are good for is proving in an open forum that theists are quite open to using scripture as a bludgeon, but not as a guide to live by.
Of course, the reason for posting such quotes can be a different story...
I doubt Beth means to be insulting, but others sometimes do.I, also. don't see Beth's writings/quotes as offensive, just sad. Sad because that "god" she worships is so, so limited, constrained, by her own limited view of the world. I could never give so much credence to a pathetic "god" that excludes me from my rightful place in the wonderful tapestry of this world.
There is a hymn sung in the christian churches, "Just As I Am, Without One Plea." Beth, when are you and all christians of all denominations going to accept me, Just As I Am, without placing some kind of judgment on me first? If you think that "God" (upper case intended) can accept me, just as I am, how can you start placing conditions upon your acceptance of me? If you do indeed insist upon applying such conditions, then cut that hymn from the book and question your own motives.
Any one who sits in judgment must be in possession of all the facts. The only person in possession of all the facts regarding my life is my self. Thus, when I go into my secret "self," and face my "self," (my life), honestly and fully, then I can come to face a true judgment. I see THIS as the center and focus of all that is written in that "gospel." It is not there for me to judge you, or for you to judge me. Hence my rejection of the christian religion in favour of using deeper and more honest paths like that of Buddhism and the true, deep following of a spiritual practice on the Christ, which is synonymous with what the Buddha taught.
If anything can be understood from that story of people hanging a man up and killing him, it was because he was directing them to look inside their selves and face their hypocrisy. That was something they were unwilling to do.... so kill him instead!The behavior of someone who quotes those verses is terrible, they are meant to insult whether people take them as insulting or not. The words may be old, but the use of them is current. I see no difference in that behavior and Fred Phelps.
One wonders if Fred Phelps has ever examined his own conscience deeply and honestly, without shying away from his truth.
Think hard. Fred is not someone who thinks only lightly. So we appreciate it. We must not hold deep resentment toward anyone who thinks and publishes. These are the true warriors. As are you Jonny and you Encephalodead. This here is as good as it gets. Rise up and stay up. You folks are the juice that feeds our lives.
You think a man who pickets the funerals of soldiers and crime victims is a deep thinker worthy of respect?
I disagree. He is scum.I know who the bastard is and if he walked into my house i would soon kill him as talk to him.
Is that clear enough.
But he adds to my thoughts. At least he adds to our thoughts ---- 99.9 do not.Don't take this the wrong way, but are you capable of voicing a firm opinion? You defend the guy as if all opinions have merit, then you claim the person you have just defended as a person with an opinion of merit would be murdered (by you) if he walked in your house. That appears to be deep resentment you claim no one should feel.
You say no one should hold deep resentment toward someone who thinks and publishes. Everyone thinks. And, in the broadest sense, pretty much everyone publishes... yet you claim 99.9% don't. Ignoring the arrogance of the statement, do you actually know what you think, or are you scrambling to say whatever you think might be accepted by everyone you run across? Either way, your side of that exchange lacks substance.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Never to insult. Thank you Wilderness.
His words are simply better than mine. I love the Bible. It is full of truth, love, wisdom and history. If I never spoke another word, but only quoted scripture, I would be a better person... of course only if my intents were good. If I used the Bible as a weapon to hurt, I would be a fool. Say whatever you want about me. I will always be open and honest with you. If you choose to see me as a villain for loving God and His word with all my heart and having no doubt in His goodness... that is your prerogative. I do not control you, nor do I wish to. You are free to think, do and speak as you wish.
"If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don’t love, I’m nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate."
I Cor 13:1No, it is not nice. It sounds like it is, but it's not.
Beth, while you find solace, comfort and love in scripture, the people you are speaking to do not. They find cold, empty words from an old, old book, compiled by politicians in an effort to spread their power and today mostly used to evangelize and brow beat people with.
Your own words, from the heart, are worth ten times what those empty quotations are. Once in a while the emotion comes through (the one given here from I Cor 13:1 for instance) but mostly your own thoughts from you are worth far, far more.
Using that verse does not make you a better person and they are not full of truth, love and wisdom, they are full of hatred and disdain for the "unbelieving" - do you not see that word there? Are you blind? Only someone with the intent to hurt would quote that verse on a public forum.
- good grief! Now you know a smidgeon of what Jesus felt, Beth. If he can endure what he did, so can those who believe in what he taught.
...which was salvation for all.
- Jesus would add, " for those have ears to hear," ( which to me, meant the willingness to accept the information he was delivering from God, who respects each individual's free will, ((whether they believe that or not!))
- and for those who have "eyes to read" the bible...
and trying-to-be-helpful-comments in HubPages forum discussions.Actually - you were the one playing the persecution card. Little wonder this religion causes so many fights.
I am playing the persecution card because it seems to me you are unjustifiably persecuting someone of good intent. What has she said that was so terrible exactly? How did she lump anyone with anyone? She was defending herself. I do not think she was on the offense.
Quotes please. She is not one to be a creaking gate. (I take that to be her point.)
Right, Beth?Thanks for asking. Here is the quote to refresh your short memory. Emphasis mine to show the lumping.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremonger, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Rev 21:8- your issue is with the Bible.
Don't tell me my memory is short. I will not respond to rudeness from you in the future. Why would I? Why would anyone.That's just too sad to be funny. The issue is with folks who quote verses from the Bible in order to put others down and boost their own egos.
What Beth doesn't know, and obviously you don't know, either, is how others feel when they are being lumped together with murderers and rapists just because they don't share Beth's beliefs.
One thing is for sure though, I have learned that the "unbelievers" here have the integrity to turn the other cheek when they are attacked that way from those whose intent is to hurt others.
There is nothing helpful in quoting that verse here on these forums, it was intended to hurt others. Period.
Beth should openly retract that verse and apologize to our "unbelieving" colleagues.She owes nothing to your allies who refuse accept the verification of what she believes to be real.
Nothing.Then, I can only assume you too lump together non-believers with rapists and murderers, yes?
My ally is God. Whether or not He is accepted by folks does not give you or Beth the right to be accusers and usurpers.
"Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone"
So, stop throwing boulders at good, upstanding people who have more morals and ethics in their pinky fingers than you two put together.If I had known it would cause people to start dropping boulders on each other I don't think I would have started the thread. Beth has always appeared to have good intentions. I'm not sure what the point is of all the scripture quoting, but she doesn't appear to be the type who insults. I'm sure she simply doesn't get your point. Not sure why, but it happens. I'm not certain what purpose might be served by the insults you've offered, but I doubt they will have the effect you hoped. Unless you are simply attempting to hurt someone's feelings with an insult you couldn't possibly know to be true. If that's what you are going for. Well done. I'd say you've put yourself into the same category you are acting as if you are offended by.
You can't be serious, you're defending her now???
You seem to be an intelligent person and I like what I've read of your posts. But, someone quoting what they consider to be scripture shouldn't cause someone else who considers the same words to be scripture to react so vehemently with unfounded insults. Why, if one is being unkind, should another be unkind? Both actions reflect the same callous disregard for the feelings of others. If both cite belief as justification and both imply the other isn't as good a believer as the offended party, it reflects back onto the base of belief first, the individual second. What is the outcome?
Questions for EncephaloiDead:
* Your ally is God? (You come across as someone who does not believe in God. No one is throwing boulders at you or atheists, however.)
* What am I accusing or usurping directly or even indirectly?
* How did I accuse you of not having morals and ethics?
* " " " " " " not being upstanding?
( If you believe in God, you are very confused/confusing) Atheists, as everyone knows, have a code of common sense ethics and morals as these do not come only from religion. No one here alluded to what you are indicating and accusing them of. No one.
Apparently, you are jumping to conclusions.
What is your actual dilemma?...do you believe in God, but not the Bible? perhaps you are Muslim?
Are you somewhat confused that I don't behave like you and Beth, that I don't lump together other people with murderers and rapists, that I don't quote verses from the Bible and then dishonestly tell others they should deal with God?
I will address this accusation... It seemed a ploy to instigate an argument... which I still believe it is. But so that you might be able to move on, I will answer. My point was that you were lying about me. Insinuating things I had never said nor intended to say. If you want to know whom I group in the category of murderers, liars and whore-mongers, etc... that would be the group of mankind, of which I am a part. I believe we are all represented in that group whether it be that we are liars or perverted in our quest to fulfill our desires. So disagree if you will, but because we are all sinners, I believe that is why we all need Christ.
Rm 5:12-15
"12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"If my intent was to instigate an argument, I wouldn't be asking you to apologize for posting that verse on a public forum. It is one believer in God asking another believer in God to be respectful to others here, because it is exactly those kinds of verses which offend. It doesn't matter one iota how much you believe it to be true in your own little world, it is something kept to oneself as it is obviously disrespectful to our non-believer colleagues here. We do not tell these fine folks here openly on a public forum that they are the scum of the earth.
Does that make any sense to you at all? Do you understand why it isn't a ploy to instigate an argument?
Is that so? In other words, there is no way, no how, no verse you posted that didn't place non-believers in the same category as murderers and rapists? And, I did not ask you to retract and apologize for that behavior? Should anyone have had to ask you in the first place to apologize? Is that how we should behave?
Let's see what you say next...
And, there you have it, you do indeed believe we are all in the same category as murderers and rapists, the only difference is that you're now saying you also belong in the same group. It looks like I wasn't lying about anything. You just admitted exactly what I said.
In reality, most people are the furthest thing from being murderers and rapists, many are sickened by violence and want nothing to do with it, myself and yourself included, yes? Most if not everyone you know or have known are also not murderers or rapists, yah? So, why would you believe we should all be placed in that same category? None of us do those things and probably never will.
That's fine and dandy, go ahead and stand on a soap box and proclaim we are all sinners who need to be saved by Christ. Preach all you want about that. But, that is something totally different than posting a verse comparing us all to murderers and rapists. What did you think you'd accomplish by doing that other than offending people?
If that isn't a "Duh", then I don't know what is.
Those are much better verses for a public forum, they don't target anyone here as being equivalent to scum. No problem. Could you please be as considerate next time and I promise not to say a word. I'll just nod reassuringly.Hey.. You are new here, so I'm gonna help you out here.. You will find that there are some believers on HP who aren't here for friendly or respectful discussion. They are only here to discuss God. As such they aren't concerned with how their message comes across to others as long as they spread their message. Ironically, some of these same aforementioned believers want the respect that they aren't here for and cry foul and play victim when they aren't given the respect that they aren't here for in the first place.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Thanks Emile, I appreciate it. I do not respond to statements that are simply designed to create drama. Ppl twist words and meaning constantly on these threads which is why I chose to quote scripture... that way if someone wants to twist, they can take God on. I am but a vessel, flawed and sinful. Some days I am the person I want to be... the person God wants me to be, sometimes I fall miserably short. Bring up my past... I am forgiven. Bring up my future, I am assured. Malign my character, I aim to share the truth. I believe we are all alike... we suffer, we hurt, we have joys and great loss. I choose God as my hope. I am allowed, and I am allowed to say it. Thanks for allowing me to share all that.
YOU are the one who posted that verse, not God. Try taking responsibility for YOUR actions and apologize to those whom you have attacked for no reason at all other than to start fights.
No, we are nothing like you. You share no truths.If you keyboard like that to me, I, for one, will not keyboard back. Simple as that.
Don't be mistaken. I understand where the insult lies and I have been hurt, on occasion, when the scripture is offered up in my face. But, I think I understand why you don't see how unkind it is. If you don't mean it as insult, don't understand it is insult, then I can't reasonably be offended by your actions.
I do think, being the kind person you appear to be, there will come a day when you will open your mind and heart to be able to understand how the insinuation of that passage is not in line with the true meaning of the spirit of the Christian concept and you might come to regret so easily throwing it about.Beth, I'm not sure you quite see that when you say you quote scripture in the forum so that the people you directing the scriptures toward has to then take on God, you do understand that is not actually true, right? How is it you feel comfortable in doing this? With all due respect to you, if you are posting it, you are responsible for saying it. When you do this, you as a human then, are taking the word of God and placing it in a strategic for you situation and then you, as a human, are then accusing people of arguing with God? God did not post all the scriptures in the forum, you did. So how could/would anyone be arguing with God? I don't think God would appreciate that, actually. Scripture was not meant (in my opinion) to be something that one can hide behind just so you can feel free to offend, duck behind what the Bible says, and use it against others when it suits you.
While I think I understand that you may not quite see how you sometimes come across to others, maybe it is time that you try else people may continue to think that you may be posting scripture just to instigate arguments. It comes across as pompous and judgmental when scripture is posted to simply point out how, in your opinion, others fall short of God's word. Frankly, everyone falls short. If you are directing scripture toward others just to make them see their wrongs, to hurt, and/or offend, it is YOU that has to take responsibility for using scripture in that way, not God.
Oh God, terrible music is creeping into this thread, too. I'll have to counteract this plague with some actual good music:
Fate/Zero OST II - You are My King-when I walk my dogs, certain other dogs in their yards bark ferociously at my dogs as we walk by. My dogs respond in the same way. I mean ferociously! But, if all these same dogs see each other in the dog park, they will sniff each other and be friendly! What inspires that fierce barking in their yards and on their leashes, do you suppose?
- Deepes Mindposted 10 years ago0
Oh wow.. I popped in here to see what's going on in this thread and see a royal rumble free for all argument among my fellow believers.. Scriptures being thrown all about (a lot used out of context or hidden behind masking what others really want to say).. OOH I wanna take a shot at this and throw out my own scriptures. It's rare that I quote scriptures in this manner, but in this case I think it fits.. Coming from the Amplified Bible. And if we believe all of the Bible, then we must also believe this scripture and hopefully we can start to change our approach some.. Now this is strictly from the bible, cut and pasted (no water)
2 Timothy 2:23-25 (Amplified version)
23 But refuse (shut your mind against, have nothing to do with) trifling (ill-informed, unedifying, stupid) controversies over ignorant questionings, for you know that they foster strife and breed quarrels.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome (fighting and contending). Instead, he must be kindly to everyone and mild-tempered [preserving the bond of peace] ; he must be a skilled and suitable teacher, patient and forbearing and willing to suffer wrong.
25 He must correct his opponents with courtesy and gentleness, in the hope that God may grant that they will repent and come to know the Truth [that they will perceive and recognize and become accurately acquainted with and acknowledge it],
In short, we shouldn't be arguing with or attacking one another (nor the atheists for that matter). We must be nice to all regardless of how they act and when we offer correction do it with gentleness..
In short.. Respect others regardless of their actions.
Please remember this: We cannot control what others do and how they act. We CAN control how we respond to their actions and at the end of the day, we have to take responsibility for ourselves.We cannot control the actions of others. How true! And to not be quarrelsome. Wouldn't that make things so much nicer? We're all working on it, I think.
Good thoughts, Deepes.I try.. I don't always get it right myself.. But I try, Mo
Same, same. We're all learning together, I think.
Dear Sir Deepes, I profusely apologize for my conduct here, it is not the kind of behavior I wish to portray, but it saddens me deeply when our brethren friends say and do things that only give reason to offend those we wish to show a lot of respect, our non-believer friends. If we, as someone mentioned earlier, used the Bible to bludgeon others over the head instead of showing respect for both the Bible and our non-believer friends, then we should expect they will place a mirror before us and call us hypocrites who cause fights.
Is that what we want?You owe me no apologies. You didn't offend me personally. I just saw what was going on with all of the posted scripture and posted some of my own. If you want to apologize to anyone, apologize to God as well as the fellow believers that you may have offended and the nonbelievers that you might have offended as well.
Then don't. Nobody can make you angry. You choose how you wish to respond to what others say. But remember this: How others act is between them and God. How you respond is between you and God. None of us here will be there when you go in front of him (If.... out of respect).
Me as well. This is a respectable statement, IMO
Not me.. This is why I'm as careful as possible when I respond here. I may not always get it right, but I never intend to be blantantly rude when I am initiating the exchange. I'm not excusing my responses if they are less than respectful, but sometimes it happens.I have no problem apologizing to anyone I have offended, although, my request was meant to ask someone else to apologize for openly offending others. Their refusal to do so and the fact they stand by the verses they post is what is so infuriating.
If people want to preach the gospel here, that is their prerogative, but to openly offend others with verses that are posted with the intent to offend, that is something completely different.
But, from now on, I'll let those who wish to offend others openly do so and bite my tongue.
It's kind of like the vast majority of Muslims remaining quiet and passive when their fundamentalist brethren kill innocent people. Why shouldn't the vast majority be infuriated with their actions and do something about it?Is the Past Tense of "I think," "I thunk?"
You don't have to bite your tongue, but there are ways of responding without going against your nature. You don't have to join people who are being harsh by being harsh back to them Like the scripture says be gentel in correction.
Should we then use gentle correction on folks like Fred Phelps when he behaves harshly? I don't see that at all.
I understand what you mean, however, if we believe in the God and the bible and we are to be doers as well as hearers of the word then this scripture applies to dealing with all peoples. Now of course the bible also makes mention of shaking the dust from your sandals when your attempts are rejected. But as according to 2 Timothy, it should all still be done in gentleness.
Let me ask you this.. would it not be contradictory (my preferred word rather than using the harsh H-word) if we choose when and where we are to apply this scripture? We apply it in some cases (such as a rational discussion) but throw it out in heated debate where we feel insulted by the person we are debating?The point is 'if' we believe in the bible, which is part of the problem here. You and I both know, hopefully, that we can't believe that everything written in the bible is true, which presents it's own issue in that we are hypocrites if we do and hypocrites if we don't. If we do, then we must believe in such verses as the one in question, but we both know that verse is not true, that those who are non-believers do not behave like murderers and rapists, so we are forced to reject that verse as not being true. There are other verses we also cannot believe that talk about slavery or killing others. Atheists are quick to point these out to us and they have every right to do so. We are obliged to respond in kind and explain ourselves, but I rarely if ever see any honest responses. I certainly can't come up with any kind reasonable response to such verses that so obviously contradict reality.
If Beth were indeed a good person talking from the heart, she too would never believe such a verse had any merit or validity, and would never post it anywhere. But instead, she stands by those words, which means she believes them, even though they are not valid in any way. Atheists soon chime in with other verses that are obviously not true, but Beth is suddenly silent because she knows only too well she would never behave as the verse commands her to behave.
So again, why post that verse in the first place if not for the intent to attack others?But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Rev 21:8
Where does it say in this verse that non-believers behave like those mentioned? This is why it is good to have a knowledgeable teacher to help you understand the Bible, such as a preacher or someone who has studied the Bible extensively and understands interpretation.
Moses murdered. He loved God and made a rash, horrible decision. Many men who love God have slept with women of ill repute. Their desire became too great and they did not submit to God in that moment. As I have told you already... mankind belongs to this list of sinners, because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I said that, do you remember? Do you remember me clarifying this point a dozen pages ago? Do you remember me saying *I* was one of these sinners and that's why I need Jesus? I cannot be forgiven of my sin without asking for God's forgiveness. This is another biblical truth.
Now... you will do one of two things I suspect. You will either continue on this ridiculous claim that neither I, nor the Bible makes. Or you will find a new attack and begin on that. It is never ending because you do not seek discussion, you only seek to ridicule. When I see that tactic from any believer or non believer, I simply don't respond. I love discussion. I detest foolish debates designed to encourage insult, argument and ill will. I would like to take my leave as I have seen very little discussion on these threads and that saddens me.Beth, I believe he's asking you think for yourself. By posting scripture as you are doing you are letting people know that you believe that the scripture is valid.
In the case of Rev 21:8 do you think that all these things have the same weight. Why would being fearful be as bad as murdering people?
Why would a loving God cast people into fire for being afraid or not believing in what they don't see?
Be honest and truthful with your answer as your scripture says a lie will get you in the fire.This is the kind of statement that makes having an adult conversation difficult. I would have addressed your question with less reservation had you just dropped the childish poke at the end.
Without having studied this verse or done any kind of research on the original meaning, (so forgive me if Im off base) I believe the word "fearful" is talking about cowards. Soldiers who abandon their friends in battle, women who can't take the stresses of motherhood and abandon or kill their children, those in authority who don't stand up for those being abused or taken advantage of... but again, that would just be my guess. If I were not going to work now, I'd have more time.
Please keep in mind, hell is not reserved for Hitler and Jack the Ripper. It is simply an alternate. We all, no matter who we are, have the choice to accept Christ, or deny Him. He came to *save* us all from hell. If we reject his help... why should the scriptures bother us?So you think God wants his soldiers brave so they can continue killing others? You would think that's something the leaders of the army might tell their soldiers, but not something a loving God would say.
Again, why would a loving God care if we believe in him or not?
Or perhaps you don't think your God is a loving God as that scripture doesn't look like something a loving God would say. It sounds for like something a general would say.
Well Beth, being a murderer or a rapist is not a state of mind or a pill we can swallow, it is based entirely on how someone behaves, because to murder or to rape is an action, it requires someone to do something to someone else, in these cases, it's violence that is the action.
But, where is the action in being a non-believer? What has someone done to someone else using violence? Where is the behavior?
So, where is the logic in lumping together non-believers with murderers and rapists? What then is the logic in having them experience the same punishment, one in which there were no actions and no harm done to anyone else and one in which violence caused suffering or death?
That isn't the point here. We could argue that either one of us has had more teachings regarding the Bible. Can you honestly say that is true or relevant? What if it turns out that it is I who have had much more extensive teachings of the Bible? I've read other posts here from members who say they've got degrees in theology, but are now non-believers, and who promptly and accurately correct the believers in such matters. Who cares? This is a discussion between you and me and what both of us can bring to the table.
What I am asking is that you have a good hard look at reality and the behavior of the people around you. And while, you may believe they all fall short of being the Christian you want them to be, we certainly don't need to remind them of a verse in the Bible that states they're going to fry alongside murderers and rapists. Where is the reasoning in that? What could anyone possibly gain by doing that?
The problem with that can be taken directly from your words...
"understands interpretation"
Understanding interpretation is subjective at best for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons the interpretation contained in any scriptures, whether it be the author interpreting Gods word or the scholar interpreting the author, we will sometimes find passages that are...
"eisegesis - The interpretation of a word or passage by reading into it one's own ideas."
Moses did what he was commanded to do by God. It wasn't his decision to make.
Many? Are you sure about that?
Of course, I remember all that, it's written right there in your posts. But, you just did it again. You called upon Moses and "many men who love God have slept with women of ill repute", two specious claims to support your argument that "mankind belongs to this list of sinners."
Perhaps, if you can show that all non-believers have slept with women of ill repute and no Christians ever have, I'll begin to take your argument seriously. As it sits, you haven't given any reason to stand by that verse.
No one has a problem with that, you can think of yourself as you see fit. That is perfectly fine. I applaud your decision and wish you the very best of luck with that. Sincerely.
But again, that doesn't mean we assume the rest of the world is going to hold our personal views of ourselves and act the same way. That is absurd. It is their decision and they are the ones who must deal with their decisions, not us.
Telling them they are going to fry alongside murderers and rapists if they don't act exactly the same way is trying to manipulate their decisions with unreasonable and illogical means, and behavior patterns that just don't apply in the real world anymore.
Then, we both agree."Telling them they are going to fry alongside murderers and rapists if they don't act exactly the same way is trying to manipulate their decisions with unreasonable and illogical means, and behavior patterns that just don't apply in the real world anymore."
Maybe not to YOUR worldview, possibly not to the majority zeitgeists prevailing, but to God, unrepented sin is what causes the problem, and like you have already been told, we ALL are sinners, so the tipping point is whether we recognize that sin and repent (turn away from it) or self justify ourselves and continue?
Sin is basically stealing, the murderer steals life from their victim, a father/mother or child from the family, the rapist steals consent and innocence from their victim, the liar steals the truth from a situation.
If one has ever stolen anything, we are sinners, and like I said the ONLY point remaining between acceptance by God or self rejection of God is whether we repent for stealing what is not ours to take.
Anyone here not stolen something in their life?Stealing? Like stealing a cookie or a pack of gum?
To your point, from the verse below, please point out which of the categories you or anyone else here belongs? Are you a murderer? Are you a rapist? Are you a non-believer? Are you a liar? Are you a sorcerer? If so, do you behave like that all the time? Do members of your family behave that way? Is this the "WORLDVIEW" in which you participate and live?
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Rev 21:8"
If you or your family members don't behave that way, how can you use it as a reason that all of us are sinners? What exactly do you need to repent, then?A cookie or a pack of gum, unconfessed and not repented from is sufficient to qualify....
But in any case...
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Rev 21:8"
Yes, prior to my coming to faith, I met all those conditions in sufficient levels to qualify.
When we look at scripture, we look at a spiritual guidance manual which any spiritually awakened person can follow and understand.
In 1978 I organised an assassination for my (then) boss, I never completed the killing, but planning and condoning it (in my heart) was sufficient to convict me, in Gods eyes.
Sin though is sin, the quantity and quality is irrespective, ALL sin is sufficient to qualify us for eternal separation from God.
Thankfully God provided a solution, IF we choose to accept it.
Did you steal cookies or a pack of gum?- Burn for an eternity for stealing a cookie? So, you were sufficiently a murderer, a rapist, a liar and a sorcerer amongst the others?
Very funny jokes.
But, you never actually murdered anyone, you never went through with it, yes?
FYI, that doesn't qualify as a murderer.
That's your argument. First, you say you committed all those acts, a murderer, a rapist, etc. Those are your words. Then, you tell us a story about how you never murdered someone.
Seriously, this isn't even a discussion.
Repenting is such a joke. You steal something from your neighbour, privately tell God how sorry you are and you think you are good while you continue to use your neighbours stuff? Kind of gives someone an out to steal.
A person of character wouldn't steal, however if they did the right thing to do would be to apologies to the victim and repay the victim for what was taken.
Repent?Everyone does things they are not proud of. To imply otherwise tends to appear as if you don't honestly evaluate your actions. Repenting would involve understanding what was done wrong, why it was wrong and making amends. If you consider that to be a joke, I'm glad we aren't neighbors.
I don't think you're understanding. I didn't say I've never done anything wrong. However which one of the two do you feel shows better character?
1. Guy steals his neighbours edge trimer, repents to God privately and thinks he's been forgiven.
2. Guy steals his neighbours edge timer, apologies to the neighbour and either gives it back the same as he got it or gives him the money to buy a new one.
or
1. Guy murders someone and repents and feels he is forgives and guilt free.
2. Guy murders someone and turns himself in and shows the police where the body to help the family grieve.They're not exclusive. One is dealing with your relationship with man, the other with God. Both are required, and appropriate.
I suppose we are caught between your definition of repentance and mine. You can't repent to God by mine. God may be able to forgive if someone repents, but if you don't attempt to right the wrong, how repentant are you? The only way to truly repent is alleviate the suffering caused by your actions and strive to never make the same mistake again.
+1
Sin is sin whether one commits it or stops short of the sinful act, and the fact that it appears many folk cannot comprehend that simple fact, explains why our world is becoming ever more debased as morality and values deteriorate.
All sin starts with acceptance of sinful actions, which normally commences with sinful thoughts.
Spiritually aware people know this, that every though and word has power to create for good or bad energies and actions.
The witches invocation has the same spiritual power as a believers prayer, only the results are differentiated by the outcome desired or achieved.So - as you seem to think things were much better in the past - can you point to a time when you considered our morals and values to be less debased than today?
Mark, even when I grew up there were better moral values.
Obscenity is now accepted on broadcast media, when I was a kid, it was banned, now it is flaunted.
When I was involved in gang fights as a kid (1960's) when a guy went down, he was not kicked or stabbed, he was just out of the fight unless he got back up and into it again.
My generation witnessed and expounded the ideology of ´free love´ (permissiveness) and the increase of sexual disease, abandoned mothers and children, with lust not love as a motivation.
Crime has become more frequent and violent, wanton killing a regular event and in general iniquity abounds.
The descent into lawlessness has been gradual, but the decline is rapidly speeding things up.
We are living in Matthew 24 and seeing the beginnings of the birth pains, if one cannot see that from even a cursory scan of the worlds events these last 100 years, then there is a spiritual blindness in place that obscures the truth.Feel free to back up your claims with evidence rather than quoting biblical nonsense. Any one who does not agree with you is spiritually blind huh? Odd you cannot have a discussion without constantly claiming to be superior to anyone who does not agree with you. This would be why your religion causes so many fights.
Can't claim to have ever been in a gang, but when I was mixed up with them - as they do like to go after loners - don't you? I was invariably on my own, so when I put one down I made sure he stayed down.
Now please answer the question instead of claiming superiority over me. At what point in time should I look to see your vaunted "morals"?So you seem to assume that any spiritually aware person is superior to yourself?.... how strange, I would have assumed that those who decried spiritually aware people would considered that they were of a higher level, having dispensed with spiritual matters in favour of logic and reason.
Mark, I will not feed your obsessions, I answered your question by citing just 50 years ago as being a time when moral values were superior and more observed by the majority than today.
Secularism has eroded what previously held the fabric of society together, which is fine, because our society gets the conditions it demands.
When society demands tolerance of all things, then all things are tolerated and excused, and abused as the boundaries of 'acceptable' behavior are extended to ever more liberal levels in the search of total inclusiveness.
This topic started with the assumption that scripture held non believers to be 'scum', which is not fact, scripture simply illustrates that those who commit sin are incapable of relationship with God for as long as the sin has not been confessed (to God, not some priest), and repented from (chosen to turn away from committing that sin again if at all possible, and with Gods strength, it is possible).
The assumptions made by those who choose to attack scripture are astounding, and revealing of their mindset and fears.
I only joined in this topic as it seemed to be veering widely off topic and denigrating into a slinging mud match.
The descent into depravity always precedes the fall of a 'civilization' - this decline may only differ if it is the last civilization to fail.Ah - nice attack, well done. Spiritually blind is not claiming to see where others cannot . Right.
The last 50 years huh? OK - lets go back 50 years from 1960 as that is the only mention I can see of a date. See what the morals of the day were?
Not looking good John, I can tell you.
Just found out about WW1, which - by some accounts killed 65,000,000 people to satisfy the ego of a very small group of royals (as you want to talk about inequity).
Oh gosh - the Americans were still segregating colored people from non-colored. Nothing inequitable about that - is there?
My, my - WW2 - Ouch! Look at all them Jews being marched into gas chambers by a man claiming to be doing God's work.
Let me see......
Dirty words in the media vs WW1. I know which one I prefer to live through - how about you? Still want to go back to the 50 years preceding 1960?You went back further than my 50 years Mark, my dad had just finished killing some of those 65,000,000 people killed in WW2, and like many others was a shattered man, and like many others rejected religion as a result of seeing the effects of what our common enemy had conspired to subject humanity to.
I am no Royalist, so that barb is wasted on me, I lament for the power elite who seek to control and dominate this world, be they royals, traditional churchmen, greedy trillion-airs or puppet politicians, or spiritually dead clones of their masters.
But they have made their play, demonstrated their choice, and although it has nothing to do with me, I will still sound the clarion when I choose to do so against their behaviours.
It still all comes down to the simple fact that sin is the problem.
Some see sin one way, their way, others see sin from Gods perspective, we all get to choose how we deal with sin, but Gods perspective is how I choose to view it.
Not from fear, from choice and experience in what works in my life and those I deal with.
Now I will leave you all to continue as you may choose to do so.Ah - semantics. The simple fact is - I have showed you that the morals of the preceding 50 years are at least as bad, if not worse than the last 50 years to today. Thus your lament is worthless. The problem is people in denial of reality hoping for armageddon. The royalist barb was to demonstrate the nonsense of your claim that inequity has gotten worse.
50 years from 1963 huh? OK then - how about the Great Depression?
So - what is your point again? That you want to return to the morals of 1929? Which would you rather live through? The Great Depression or naughty words in the media?You seem to have confusion between the 'power elite' morality (which has always been defunct) and the common morality of the normal human being.... the power elite managed to destroy whole generations in the last two wars due to a moral code that meant men felt obliged to defend what they felt was worth defending, their family lifestyle and way of life.
Retrospectively we can see that the 'friends brigades' who died senselessly in WW1 were defending a power elite who held them in contempt, and subjection; but the basic moral codes ( of the average non power elitist) were scriptural based, and afforded protection to their fellow man and woman from each other.
Nothing humans can do provides protection from the power elites plans to destroy humanity and society and especially to displace religion from their world.
If you cannot consider and understand those distinctions, then we converse in futility.
Adios 'amigo'Right. No basis for your argument then. It is all an anti-religion conspiracy and you have no way of demonstrating that there has been any sort of moral decline, because slavery, segregation and world wars are not morality based, they were scripturally based, yet the power elite who used these scripturally based codes of conduct to manipulate the masses are actually trying to eradicate this control?
If you cannot speak proper English and simply posit drivel to defend an untenable, outdated, irrational belief system that you feel raises you up above others then - yes, we do converse in futility.
I leave you to your fantasy world. ciaoYou are not qualified to correct my English.
Look the word up if you don't understand it.so now instead of just posting bible verses, you're taking it as your personal responsibility to correct the posts of other people that you disagree with - even when there's nothing to correct? LOL that's hilarious.
Posit is an actual word. I'm sure that if Mark wanted to say "post" he would have.
Is there a Bible verse about correcting other people's spelling? I must have missed that one.haha. He had said to the other poster that "unless he could speak proper English..." that they conversed in futility. I don't like to see ppl get picked on. It's the mom in me. I'm in a mood. I need to take my leave before I say things I shouldn't. See ya.
Yet here you are, Beth, doing exactly what you say you don't like seeing. You say you don't like seeing people being picked on, but aren't you picking on Mark? I believe that by sitting there correcting his grammar/spelling, to which I saw no issue with myself, you are indeed picking on Mark. One might think that you are just waiting on an opportunity to start something and pick a fight on the forums...certainly appears that way. Immaturity speaks volumes. You hang around just long enough to pick on someone then take your leave. If that's not instigating, what is? Treat others as you wish to be treated...
Don't forget to remind everyone they are equivalent to murderers and rapists. That isn't picking on anyone at all.
So you retired ATM for a while? Exactly how many accounts do you have?
I'm not a bank machine, I'm a person. Is that yet another response to instigate another fight?
If it's now a sin to misspell, me and my dyslexic brain are doomed screwed. e.g. spellchecker helped me with three words in this post.
so when the bible says "treat others like you want to be treated" I suppose that means that I will be on the lookout for any words that Beth misuses or misspells in the future - since that's clearly what she wants to be done to her.
There was nothing wrong with Mark's use of English. I don't give a crap about capitalization - but he didn't actually misspell any words.But then, JMcFarland, you would be accused of picking on a Christian because you aren't one, not because you called that person out on something that anyone, Christian or not, knows is instigating plain and simple. Then others may rush to this person's defense and say that person's heart was in the right place when they said/did it, and that YOU must have just misinterpreted their meaning altogether and that's then your fault not theirs so pay no mind to the offense. Person continues to play clueless to how they are actually responsible for what they post, ignores that they often use their religion when it suits them strategically, they then may bust out some chastising scripture all up over the place directed toward everyone that disagrees with them but claims they are just here for conversation. They then will soon take their leave from the conversation having achieved the goal of which they set out to accomplish which one may perhaps assume to them is proving just how much of a good Christian they are. *Sigh*
Rad Man, only those who think themselves perfect and/or superior would point out the humanness in others. Sad isn't it?
Actually, it's only those who think all will be forgiven when they repent to their imagination without making things right in the real world that would point out the humanness in others.
Need to look no further than aguasilver's assassination attempt to see how repenting works. Wonder who he is planing to kill next? All he has to do is repent to God and he's forgiven so why not?
They are trying to eradicate humanity actually, but in order to do that FIRST they need to persuade humanity that they have no need for God in their lives.
People who are believers in Christ, have the full authority of God through Christ to command the enemy to desist from attacking them, the power of God defeats the power of the enemy.
Once they are free from attack, they can proceed to bring down the enemies empire brick by brick (or setting each individual free one at a time) as such changing the lives of others who in turn can reach more people to set free, and eventually winning whole areas back from the enemy and bringing them under the authority of Christ.
Traditional religion has long been subverted to the enemies cause, and mainly spends it´s time trying to stop ordinary folk gaining the authority in Christ that is ours by right of Christ´s victory over the enemy.
So yes, mainstream religion is leading people into worthless worship of their doctrines and beliefs in order to divert them from the real authority that Christ empowers us with.
The power elite are simply trying to discredit Christ´s authority and power by persuading the sheeple that they alone can control their world and lives, which is a fallacy that most people buy into having been subjected to the constant manipulation that the power elite exert on humanity.
Anyhow, enough time wasted here, adios Mark, ´til next time.
You see happenings that conflict with your religiously-based "morality."
Your logic says that the happenings are a result of people not adopting that religion, and therefore that "morality."
Because you cannot (or do not wish to ) see outside of your religious bias, you probably cannot conceive any other cause.
The syndrome you describe is most likely the result of over-population and all the social aberrations that just come along when there is over-population.
The solution to the problems you describe is not more religion. It's more down-to-earth than that.Religion, for all of it's faults, provides a moral framework that does restrain our behaviour.
It may be that we refrain from these acts from fear of our (individual) religions penalties, ranging from dis-association in the community to the threat of damnation, and at that level of understanding the religionist obeying is clearly not significantly spiritually aware.
As folk develop spiritually, fear is no longer required to restrain their behaviour, and the nearer someone gets to understanding Gods spiritual kingdom, by abstaining from the empowerment of spirit forces which control the world, the less inclined one would be to sin in the scriptural sense indicated.
In other words, when one finally sees things as God views them, sin becomes abhorrent to the spiritually aware person, equally if the spiritually aware person sees sin from a world view perspective, sin becomes more liberally acceptable.
Population surely does affect things negatively, especially as most people are being born into spiritually devoid families where no hope is offered or moral codes adhered to.
I am not speaking of our generation, most of we Hubbers are mature, but the generations being born now to many of our generations children... those who have no moral compass to guide them, are suffering for the decline of moral values we have clearly experienced and continue to see happening.
"After World War II, crime rates increased in the United States, peaking from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property crime more than doubled over the same period. Since the 1990s, however, crime in the United States has declined steeply."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Aquasilver, I trust that you are free enough in your belief to allow me not to believe as you do.
Your beliefs are obviously deeply entrenched in that christian faith. Your choice which I respect.
The beliefs themselves are not for me. Hopefully you will respect my choice as well, and refrain from judging me.Of course Jonny.... we all must make and stand on our own beliefs.
I think sin starts with assumption of sin. It is only sin if we perceive it as such. The lack of consideration for the needs and feelings of others causes each of us to view behavior patterns and label sin.
I'm sure you disagree. But, our selfishness and greed has escalated the problem over the years. Our ever widening communication network allows us to view the effect of our actions on a greater percentage of the world. Our continuing refusal to place the needs of others above our wants ensures that we justify more and more anti social behavior patterns displayed by ourselves and condemn behavior patterns displayed by others; in order to hide from the need to act to help attempt to correct the inequities. Nothing will change for the better until we look to ourselves first and stop blaming others for the woes in this world.In 1978 you organized the assignation of your boss. Did you repent?
Do you feel God has forgiven you?
Did you apologies to the man you were about to murder?
Did you bring yourself to the authorities with your plan?Not my Boss, someone who stole from my boss, yes I repented (successfully, as I´ve never plotted to kill others since)
Yes
Never saw him again, so no apology possible, besides he knew nothing about it.
No, it happened several years before I came to faith, the authorities involved were Indonesian and had I returned there to confess 7 years later they would have laughed like drains and used it purely to try and extract a bribe from me, because in world terms I had not committed the offence and there would have been no evidence I could have provided apart from self confession.
We are told to ´humour´ the authorities, and that is a good guideline, especially when the authorities are notably corrupt in the first place.
What the authorities think and do is temporal, what God does is eternal, God is who counts confessions wise.
The reason my boss decided to have him killed was because when I took it to lawyers to bring it to court, our lawyer told us we were in luck, because he had found a judge that would agree to take our ´bribe´ and not hold the court open to an auction. The person who paid the best bribe in effect won the case. I have found this in many countries, had much the same bribe request in the Philippines eighteen months ago, both the police and judge wanted heavy payments before they would process a theft case. We walked away from the issue.
I have confessed to various stuff that I did before I came to faith, "brought myself to the authorities" as you say, frankly they view you as some sort of nutter and cannot be bothered to process the issue, but that was in the UK and Spain.
When I went back to a hotel where I had stolen a towel, they were bemused by my confession and offer to pay, and gave (and forgave) me the towel as their gift.
In supermarkets when given wrong change it´s nice to see the surprise on the checkout cashiers face when you tell them, these things are the joys of self confession and personal transparency, I recommend it to all and sundry.
God sees things differently than the world does, that´s all there is to it.That's what I thought. Conspiracy to commit murder is punishable to life in prison in at least my country. I'm pretty sure it's frowned upon the bible as well.
But here you are guilt free because you repented to your God and you feel he forgave you.
Funny how the human minds works. If you had gone through with it would you still be here guilt free thanks to your faith?Not thanks to my faith, but thanks to Gods forgiveness.
Sin is sin, though there are degrees of sin, all un-dealt with sin carries the same penalty.
The world judges humanity by severity, seems the more that a sin is societal condoned, the less consequential it becomes in the worlds opinion, and the sinners conscience.
200 years ago they hung children for stealing a crust of bread, today they allow rapists and murderers to walk freely after a short period of detention.
Society has a shifting sand approach to sin, God does not change His opinion one iota, sin is sin and the ONLY redemption to the penalty for sin is Christ.
That may rile you, you may consider it wrong, it matters not one jot, for ultimately God is the only judge we face who has power over eternity and cannot be bribed or coerced.Yup, this is what I was attempting to show Emile. You feel that you can ask God for forgiveness and get it because you ask. This helps your ego travel through life guilt free while you still get to do anything you want. It's your faith that allows you a guilt free life, you have no idea what any God thinks. If there was a God you would have no way of knowing if he forgives you, but the mind can do wonders to help you get through life. Even invent a God that instantly resolves you of any wrong doing. And then to make matters worse some of you have the nerve to tell us we are going to hell for merely not being gullible enough to believe the same nonsense. Thanks, but I won't be taking any life advice from anyone who planed an assassination because his boss asked him to. Good thing your boss didn't tell you to go through with it...
EncephaloiDead is correct, you didn't directly address the questions posed to you?
It seems you are seeing the world quite differently than the world does. Now, you talk about stealing towels and returning change wrongly given, hugely different from murdering and raping.
God may see things differently than you or me, but He should know the difference between murdering someone and not murdering someone, something you don't seem to know.It does not address the questions posed to you, it is a cop out and more stuff you just made up, like you did in your other posts. You're not even trying to have a discussion here.
Murderers are murderers because they murder people, not because they have thoughts of murdering people. Some folk cannot comprehend that simple fact.
Beth, forgive me for coming in a bit late in response to your posts. We here are more than 12 hours in advance of you people in USA (presuming that is where you are located).
Your suggestion of having a preacher help one understand the scriptural interpretations does not really stand true.
Is a "preacher" likely to be broad minded in his/her interpretation, or even precise? His/her knowledge and understanding will be indelibly coloured by education and deeply held beliefs. If you listen to them too closely, and without critical analysis from your own mind, you will continue in their beliefs. Your own intelligence will not be brought to play in the argument.
It makes life very easy when you do take on the beliefs of others, without question. It takes a bit more personal courage ("intestinal fortitude") if you want to advance in your knowledge.
You chose to be offended and see her words as an attack. You should take your percentage of the responsibility and stop attacking her in response. Those words can be seen as an insult, yes. But, the passage does not imply that unbelievers are rapists, murderers or whoremongers. It simply says that their end fate will be the same. I have to pay taxes, as do hookers, stock brockers and lawyers. That doesn't make me any of the other things. It simply means I have to pay taxes.
And, I'm afraid you don't have to believe everything written in that book is the word as handed down by God. Some may, some may not. Nowhere does it imply that anything written after the end of the Old Testament is to be taken as scripture. Some chose to, some do not.
You've been beating a dead horse for, probably, long enough. Move on. Beth doesn't mean what you want that passage to mean. She has already explained this to you. You can't browbeat her into apologizing for your interpretation. This is beginning to look as if you are a Hubber who has simply changed their name and have come back in with a bone to pick already in your craw.I have always appreciated your level headedness... even if headedness isn't a word.
Thanks again.Do you not see this as childish and a hindrance to good communication?
When I first met you, I saw you as someone who was able to rise above these levels. Why can't we just have discussion minus the insults? Im off to work. I hope you'll all have a good day.Hypocrisy has always been my downfall.
But, seriously. What purpose does any of it serve at this point?The purpose is to try to help Beth understand how nonsensical some of her scripture.
Emile, we have adults telling other adults to do and think as they do or they will be punished. Children would get in trouble for doing that and yet we have adults spouting stuff they appear to have not thought about."The purpose is to try to help Beth understand how nonsensical some of her [personal interpretation of] scripture." (brackets added)
Not your interpretation, hers. Don't you think you might ask for that interpretation before taking her comment as so offensive?Ahhh. I did an her response was...
I didn't take her comment as offensive at all. Ignorant yes, offensive no. I was simply asking her if she thinks being fearful and or not believing is as bad a murder.Please understand from a biblical perspective, there are no "50 shades of gray". Either your a sinner, or your not, (and we all are). James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Many will disagree, just seeking to clarify the perspective.
No. What I see going on here is that some want her to interpret that passage in the same manner they do. Beth doesn't have to agree with anyone. She has made it clear that she does not. Insulting her for not agreeing is childish. Kids would be punished for that. Right? Yet, we have adults doing just that.
?? That's what I said. Rad man and others are interpreting the passage to mean what they think the meaning is, not what Beth thinks it means. Presumable it is quite offensive (although I don't see it that way, either), but as Beth did not intend a meaning they assign to the passage she did not intend offense, either.
Sorry. You are correct. I started a reply, got side tracked, finished, didn't bother to read anything else. Just came back in. I could delete it, but rad man could take that to mean I thought he was right after all. The shock might kill him. Wouldn't want that now, would we?
I sitting here trying to find the right way of wording this without insulting anyone. Hmmmm. Let me start by saying once again that I didn't take any offence as I know the threat is empty, but when is ignorance an excuse? I've asked her what she thinks it means and it appears she has no problem lumping the fearful with murderers and gave me her interpretation of what she thinks is fearful which includes soldiers being afraid. She appears to not see the irony in a God punishing a soldier because he is afraid of killing or being himself killed after being given instructions to not kill.
In short, I must BE the change the I want to happen.
(Then stop the pressure.... let it happen if it will.....my opinion here)
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
EncephaloiDead
"If people want to preach the gospel here, that is their prerogative, but to openly offend others with verses that are posted with the intent to offend, that is something completely different."
The Bible is beautiful, it also carries with it history which is gut wrenching, truths that are sometimes hard to take and stories of ppl both good and evil. I never once intended to offend. I didn't even intend to stir up waves. I thought surely if I only spoke the word of God your only argument could be with God. I was actually trying to get out of the way and let the scripture speak for itself, not inject my own opinions. It is interesting to me how ppl (Believer or non) interpret others intents and words and criticize to the point that these threads always come to no matter what the intentions of the poster. If you have found a way to be offended, I submit that it was your desire to be offended and if that is your quest then there is no room for discussion. Therefore, once again, I will bow out and leave you all to it.About a dozen posts back is a very good explanation from MysticMoonlight about taking responsibility for what you post here. Please read it.
I understand the Bible has some very beautiful literature. However, we can seriously argue about what are truths and history written there. Most certainly that which is highly debatable in truth is the verse in question that you posted.
Surely, you can't be serious to tell me you weren't trying to stir things up or not offend someone by posting it? There would be no other plausible reason to post such a verse other than to stir things up. Shifting your responsibility for posting it onto God's shoulders just adds insult to injury.EncephaloiDead, I am not criticizing you for any postings you are placing here.... they stand to be judged along with any other posts from any other person.
However, I see you have only been here in HubPages for a short time. As yet you have not chosen to disclose yourself, your agenda or anything of substance.
You accuse Beth of various things in her posts. I don't agree with her opinions, quite often. However, one attribute she has it to speak from her heart. In that I support her 100% regardless of agreement/disagreement with whatever she says.
You are being particularly adversarial in relation to her so far. Any chance of you changing that? Would you be prepared to "bare" yourself a little? Before lambasting Beth any further?Sorry, I'm afraid I don't agree posting that verse was from the heart.
Beth and I may have a difference of approach when it comes to the Bible, but I will say that her heart is genuinely in the right place when it comes to her expression of her beliefs as well as the Bible. The trouble that we all face is that at times, our approach does not always match our intentions (based on the perception and values of others). It is this perceived difference between our approach and our intentions that leads to misunderstandings as well as potential conflicts that can either be ironed out or blown out of proportion.
Beth is good people though. Just like anyone here though, she gets tired of some of the stuff that goes on in the forums. You are new here and you were upset about what you had seen yourself, remember?
No it's not.
Its English translations are all stiff and convoluted, and its subject matter regardless of language is comprised of encouraging genocide, the celebration of slavery, mandatory segregation based on arbitrary things like race and nationality, condoning murder and rape in the name of a deity, and deceptive double-speak designed to keep those foolish enough to follow its doctrine eternally paralyzed with fear and paranoia.
Wow, I have such a boring life for a Christian.
No enemy ever attacks me, so I don't guess I've ever needed any power of God to defeat anybody.
Then again, I've never plotted an assassination attempt
There are no empires that I feel an overwhelming desire to bring down brick by brick.
Then again, I've had no need to converse with "Indonesian Authorities"
You see, I actually control my own life for the most part. Christians can do that. At least ones that don't involve themselves with bribing officials in the Philippines. You seem to control your own life, which seems fraught with Agent 007 type dangers and righteous struggles on some spiritual plain, as well.
Let me know when Jesus pulls up in his jet-pack for the battle against the great dark lord. I'll bake him some muffins or something.
Edit: This didn't post as a response to aquasilvers post even though it obviously is. My fault I'm sure.Hi Melissa,
"No enemy ever attacks me," - I would guess that´s a pleasant thing, but it possibly means that you represent no threat to ´the enemy´? - which is also OK, most Christians are no threat because they do not do what we are commanded to do.... bring Gods Kingdom to bear on the earth.
We do that by bringing ourselves and others to the ´fullness of Christ´ which means not just helping others to gain their Kingdom authority in Christ, but to heal the sick, free those ensnared by the enemy, and also oppose the spiritual forces that seek to destroy humanity.
If you feel no need to participate, so be it.
The assassination plotted was before my coming to faith, about 1979 I think, when things were a mite bit ´confused´down in SE Asia, at least for me. I mentioned it purely to illustrate that in scripture even thinking about doing something wrong is equal (in Gods eyes) to committing the sin.
Christ said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone" which seems to encompass the situation I was illustrating.
If you have "no empires that I feel an overwhelming desire to bring down brick by brick." I again say bravo! - live a long and peaceful life, when you represent no threat to the enemy, he is well prepared to leave us be in our complacency.
"You see, I actually control my own life for the most part. Christians can do that. "
Yes they can, Gods permissive will allows us to run things as we wish, and if that works for you, so be it. My life seems to have been arranged differently.
"At least ones that don't involve themselves with bribing officials in the Philippines. "
I was not "bribing officials in the Philippines" please read more carefully, I was refusing to bribe officials in the Philippines, hence we walked away from a costly piece of machinery that had been stolen from the company I represented.
"You seem to control your own life, which seems fraught with Agent 007 type dangers and righteous struggles on some spiritual plain, as well. "
Contrarily, my life is not in my control, but whenever it has been in my control, I have needed Christ to rescue me from the mess that follows, not on some 'jet-pack for the battle against the great dark lord´ but in power and strength in the spiritual realm to defeat the power of the enemy.
I´m sure the muffins will be appreciated, if only we knew when to start baking them?The problem is that the rest of us don't wish to participate on the receiving end of what you're commanded to do. It is actually those Christians who don't "bring Gods Kingdom to bear on the earth" are the ones respected by the rest of us. In your own words, they are " no threat".
Glad you recognize that fact: they are " no threat". ´- it clearly shows the difference between those who understand the enemies ways and those who don´t or choose to ignore them.
Of course "the rest of us don't wish to participate on the receiving end of what you're commanded to do." for it signals the eventual end of the world system that ´the rest of us´want to maintain.
I personally have no need for respect from a world system that is opposed to the Kingdom of God, and indeed as scripture tells us that: "The world would love you if you belonged to it; but you don’t—for I chose you to come out of the world, and so it hates you." John 15:17-19
I really start to be concerned if and when the world finds me acceptable to them, for we cannot serve two masters...What it shows is that those who attempt to "bring Gods Kingdom to bear on the earth" are a threat to us all.
Those that attempt to " bring Gods Kingdom to bear on the earth" is what will be end of the world system.
And, that is why folks who believe such things will be the end of us all.Correctly observed, and now that you recognize that clearly, you have accepted that whatever the enemy does, Christ will defeat his efforts, and what is prophesied will happen exactly as stated.
Glad we have clarity and agreement on that.The enemy are those who consider themselves spiritual soldiers at war with invisible super enemies. They are the ones who do nothing but cause conflict in the world.
Those who consider themselves "above" the rest of the world by virtue of their perceived relationship to their "god," I see as "up themselves." Sorry if that is a bit too colloquial for you, but it's the best description I can find right now.
Don't worry Jonny he's just compensating for something that makes him feel small.
Hi Jonny,
No way I consider myself: "above" the rest of the world by virtue of their perceived relationship to their "god,"
The relationship with God actually requires that one adopts a servant attitude.... possibly what is causing you to react is the fact that Christ has all authority over the enemy, and those who belong to Him have been given the commandment to exert His (not their) authority over the enemy and those in the enemies clutches.
This confounds Churchianity members as much as it does secular folk.
The fact that God could empower the least of His people to command authority over the power of the enemy makes no logical sense to the spiritually unawakened of humanity.
Note that is power over the enemy.
Humanity is NOT the enemy, the spiritual forces that blight human life are the enemy, so no one (except Christ over those who choose to come under His authority) has any Lordship over another human being, and nobody is ´·above ´ another, and to consider that this could be so is in itself accepting a false premise.
We all (humans) have our calling to follow, some are called to hospitality, others to teach or provide care for those less able to compete, others to do warfare (some physically, others spiritually) to protect those who cannot or will not defend themselves.
The soldier is no more or less significant than the home maker, so, to start judging people by degrees of imagined merit or viewed standing is a futile effort that compounds the problems we face, rather than defeats them.
We enter this world naked and with nothing, we leave the same way.
The relevant part is how we handle this ´soul school´experience.I've gotta say. I attempt to understand where both the theist and atheist are coming from, but some of your posts really creep me out. Imagining an enemy exists, in order to claim authority over others helps me see how incredibly dangerous religion can be.
I don't think chalking your attitude up as 'spiritually awakened' does justice to the problem.So what I say ´creeps you out´ on occasion, sorry, cannot apologize for that, what I state is what Christ told us, so if His message creeps you out..... think on that point?
Matthew 6:9-13
“Pray along these lines: ‘Our Father in heaven, we honor your holy name. We ask that your kingdom will come now. May your will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven.
Notice those words.... "as it is in heaven" they are indicative that if it´s not that way in heaven, then it has no right to be that way on earth.
Matthew 10:1
Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to cast out evil spirits and to heal every kind of sickness and disease.
That authority has carried forth to ALL of His disciples.
John 17:1-3
........For you have given him authority over every man and woman in all the earth. He gives eternal life to each one you have given him. And this is the way to have eternal life—by knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth!
John 14:12-13
“In solemn truth I tell you, anyone believing in me shall do the same miracles I have done, and even greater ones, because I am going to be with the Father. You can ask him for anything, using my name, and I will do it, for this will bring praise to the Father because of what I, the Son, will do for you.
Those verses are largely ignored by church members, they, like the secular world find that they ´creep them out´ but Christ gave them to us, they are literally the Gospel, we choose to either let the world have authority over us, or exert Christs authority over the world.
The times dictate that we (believers) must start bringing the world under Christ´s authority, at least where we are and with those who will listen.
We ask that your kingdom will come now. May your will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven.
Those words I cannot apologize for believing, and if it creeps anyone out, they should think long and hard on just what the gospel message actually is, and whether they want to stay under the worlds (enemies) authority, or be under Christs authority.
If spiritually demonic enemy forces are beyond our imagination, it´s because they wish to stay that way, and will stay that way unless and until someone awakens spiritually.
At that point the spiritual world will seek to draw one to whichever side appeals to the true spiritual nature of the individual.
Yes religion is dangerous, it´s dangerous to the ´enemies´ world system, which itself is dangerous to humanity.
Only those who love the world have anything to fear from God.
Are we clear now?Operating under the premise that the accounts, as documented in the New Testament, are true; let's think about it.
Everyone saw people possessed, everyone agreed they were possessed and they agreed that the demons were removed. Fast forward to today. You can't produce one example of a documented demon possessing a person. This may not mean it didn't happen then. It may simply mean it doesn't happen now.
The disciples may have moved mountains. For all I know Ararat was shifted by a few feet during an experiment by them. You cannot produce one verifiable incident where a mountain has been moved, or a miracle performed, by anyone today.
You can imagine anything which lends itself to support your illusions of grandeur; but, you can't provide evidence which will give me cause to agree that these illusions aren't simply that. This, to the impartial observer is clear.
So, what is going on here? To someone open to the idea of a Creator, what does this tell me? Basically, times change. Circumstances change. You are looking in the wrong places, for the wrong things at the wrong time and in your zeal you make claims which cannot be supported. Had Jesus wandered around preaching and making ridiculous claims that were not backed up by action no one would remember his name. He would have been mocked wherever he went. What purpose is served by claims which cause him to be mocked today?Those claims are just as valid today as they were then, the fact that you have not witnessed them relates more to the distraction that traditional Churchianity has been deceived into by the enemy, than from what is happening all over the world as we speak.
Demons are ´cast out´wherever they are found, infirmity is stopped, these things happen, perhaps if secular observers attended they would be documented, however secular humanity seems to always seek to discredit any event that they cannot understand.
God is mocked only when we deny His power and authority.My cousins' seven year old boy died of cancer a few days ago. Tens of thousands of Christians of all denominations prayed relentlessly for his recovery, but unfortunately he died a rather sad and painful death in his parents arms.
So please don't lie about evidence that doesn't exist. Prayer can't move a mountain and can't heal cancer if it could we wouldn't need hospitals or construction equipment.
No God is mocked as no God exists.Im so sorry Radman. I prayed for him myself. I believe he is with God now. I do not bring this up to debate, only to wish your family love and recovery.
I am sorry to hear of your loss.
I also previously prayed for people, which is always good, however a lesson I learned from active believers is stop praying, start commanding.
We (believers) do have the authority to command the enemy to leave someone alone, for infirmity and disease to leave, in the name of Jesus/Yeshua.
No it will not always work, because often there are spiritual obstructions that cannot be removed unless the person is near to you, when you can observe and be led by the Holy Spirit to deal with the spiritual problem.
It´s also possible that God simply does not want the person healed as it is their time to pass.
That may seem harsh when a young person is involved, however God alone knows the number of our days, and some souls need less time here than others.
I am still in the ´putting it into practice`stage of this faith walk, but already we have seen a friends 67 year old brother who fell two storeys and was airlifted to hospital with back and head injuries, who was in a coma and had a brain hemorrhage and possible spinal damage, awaken after three days speaking clearly and wiggling his toes on one foot.
We are standing in faith for a complete restoration.
This man was not a believer, and I have thought that the coma may have helped in his restoration, as his logical mind could not be led to accept what the enemy had planned for him whilst he was unconscious, whereas God can work in any circumstance.
I can only report what I have seen and experienced, if others cannot accept that, so be it, I hold no opinion on what people believe or disbelieve, that is each our own decision.It's interesting when people like you make such claims without evidence to back up anything you say and bring a bunch of excuses along for the ride incase you fail.
I reply out of courtesy.
To the secular world, there is no proof that would be acceptable.
To those who have witnessed these things, there is no further need for proof.
I will leave you in your secular mindset and hope that one day you will see the evidence for yourself.Courtesy?
No, you have not witnessed anything, you are just making stuff up to pick fights and defend your irrational beliefs. Courtesy would demand you apologize for all fabrications.If those things could be witnessed then all would believe. I'll that you for finding the courtesy.
Did the psychological phenomenon of "being born again" begin in the United States of America? I seem to think so. It is now seen as a hall-mark of Americanism. Obviously not everyone in that nation, because it's multii-cultural, but at least in the arena of church-based dialogue.
The born again thing isn't really all that prevalent... it's just excessively LOUD. According to every study I've ever read (please don't make me go googling tonight) they really are the minority.
Most Christians are happy to be born just that one time.
I always thought the whole thing was just a trifle silly, but if you really must stand up in front of a bunch of people and say some specific speech to make yourself feel like you are a real Christian, then I guess have at it.
It's a few verses that could be interpreted a thousand different ways that started all of it. But I guess wars have been started for even less...
When I was much younger, I worked for an elderly man (in his 90's) that had farmed all his life and still did. He even hired me to re-roof his barn and then climbed up there and helped!
One day he was thrown off the back of the tractor he was operating, and the disc set he was pulling ran over him. Undeterred, he jumped up, chased down the tractor and brought it home before heading for the doctor.
My point? I don't have one - did you have one for the tale of the accident victim? Was it intended to convince a reader that a god "obviously" healed the injured person because it is impossible to heal without God's direct influence? Because it is unusual to heal from such injuries at all?You reminded me of another story without a point. When I was in high school a fellow student told me he healed his ill cousin. When I asked how he said she had been sic for a while so he held onto her tightly and prayed and within a few days she got better.
What are the odds that she would get better from the flu?- I wonder if that student has seen the light yet!
B-B-But I thought the flu was permanent and you could never get better if you had it!
WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?!
My condolences to you and your family, Rad Man.
Rad Man, I tend to concentrate on replies to my own posts, and therefore missed this post from you... sorry for that, not meant to be uncaring.
My condolences too, and wishing you and the family peace and strength in your time of sorrow.
Most of the comments in opposition to your claims should not be perceived as mocking God. They don't appear that way to me. If they appear that way to you, you might double check to ensure you understand God's nickname isn't aquasilver.
Thank you for explaining to us your beliefs, Aquasilver. I'm just glad that those beliefs are not part of my life.
One fear I have had for some time is that when enough people "believe" a certain mental construction, then they all agree with one another, it's like they have found the proof they are seeking.... then it becomes a concerted effort to convert as many people as possible. Regardless of whether that collective belief system is proven to be applicable to all or not. A group of individuals all holding the same beliefs can suddenly turn on a minority group and inflict very cruel judgments. I suspect that was part of what the community of individuals were doing 2000 years ago.... agreeing amongst themselves that a particular "weirdo" was making them feel uncomfortable so they hung him on a cross.
Anyway, of course you are free to continue in your beliefs. It matters not to me. Just as long I am afforded the same freedom to discard all that you believe.Of course you can ignore what Christ stated, that is your prerogative and free choice.
Unfortunately, no one knows what Christ stated (or even if the man existed at all). Only what you ascribe to him; words that others will deny, change and/or add to.
I'm really not sure how to respond to that...
I can tell you that you do seem to have a flare for creative writing, fiction especially.
I just don't have the ability to suspend reality enough to bite onto the story line here. Of course, I never did like spy vs. spy stories.
Keep fighting the good fight though. I would imagine battles with unseen entities would liven up a boring life.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
I know how dangerous it is to share something personal here. It usually gets torn apart and dissected in an ugly way, but I remembered another special thing that happened to me concerning my daughter that for me, was more proof of God's presence in our lives.
When we decided to adopt in 2001, I went to a Bible study and shared with my friends one night. They were all happy for us. My closest friend wanted to share her own news. She was pregnant and told us all that night too. Every one said we were "pregnant together." Well, 9 or 10 mos later, her baby was born. We however, waited... and waited. First it was 911, then SARS... (travel to China was blocked) then there was a bottle neck of adoptions that had to go thru because of those two events. It was now 2003 and my friends baby had been in her mothers arms for nearly a year already. After a while I started to feel hopeless. I was sad that we weren't really "pregnant together". I had been very stoic about the whole thing, but finally one day it hit me. I loved this little girl and I wanted her home in my arms. I cried out to God and begged Him to bring her home. I realized what a good thing this was. It helped me see that I wasn't just obeying God's call to adopt this little girl. I *wanted* her. I *loved* her. He wanted to show me she was a gift to me and fulfilled a longing in my heart I didn't even know I had.
Finally I got the call in July of 2003. They had my little girl. We could come get her and bring her home. They didn't tell me anything about her. They only emailed or faxed me a pic. and told me her birthday. It wasn't until I called my friend with the news that I realized... my daughter had been born on the exact same morning as my friends baby, in Nov. of 2002. We were pregnant together after all.Strange, every time you see a coincidence you attribute it to your God as if a coincidence was evidence of his existence.
Every time you see God move, you attribute it to coincidence.
And every time something coincidental happens that pleases you, you attribute it to god. Hard to see the difference, except that coincidence does happen but there is no indication that god interacts with the world outside of a desire that it be so.
I spose you missed radmans comment? Mine was simply a retort.
Quite possibly; you and he have been going at it back and forth for some time without little of any value being offered by either side. Not being interested in that, I likely missed the opening salvo in the current battle.
Oh. Well, speaking only for myself and not Radman, I thank you for your kind words.
You must have me confused with someone else. I've had very few interactions with Beth lately on this or any other forum.
So, God with his infinite power and knowledge lined up two birthdays to reenforce his existence for you while allowing millions of children to die a painful death every year?
Yes.
We will all die.
Every. Last. One. Of. Us.
Some will die old, some will die young. Some rich, some poor. Some gloriously, some tragically.
I've tried so many to explain that this is not Heaven, nor is it God's realm. It is a flawed place. It is not only a planet dying, but it is a planet full of people dying. Every thing is in a state of decline... decay. From the day we are born, we are on the path to death. (Please understand, I am sharing none of this in relation to your loss. This is just absolute truth as I see it.)
I pray, I ask God to intervene. Does He always do as I wish? No. And that's good b/c I do not see things thru eternal eyes. I don't know how one event will cosmically affect another. So above all, I trust Him and I try to submit and obey."This is not God's realm"? Have you forgotten that He created it, created it specifically to grow the people He wants on?
I think you do a great disservice to God in deciding that He has made an imperfect world. If there is decay and evil (and there most certainly is) then it is because He desired it so and He has planned and constructed it to be that way. If God has put someone here that will exist in torment and tragedy for a handful of years and move on to Hell then that is what He wants to happen.
Nor is anyone on a path to death; only to a pit stop just long enough to remove the layer of clothing we call a body.
At least that is my (objective) interpretation of what others describe as attributes and details of God.To address your first statement:
Eph 2:1-2
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
To address your second:
Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Surely, Beth, this is cherry picking verses from the bible? One would need to know and understand the exact conditions and situation that were being address to the people of that era in order to apply such writings accurately.
If you were to respond (and I don't know if you would) to this suggestion of mine, by saying "God gave us instructions in these verses, because He inspired the bible," then you would be interpreting the writings to fit your understanding..... and who is to say your interpretations would be correct for all to hear?
I cannot see how such ancient writings can be effectively transported to our modern age. Surely you can talk in terms of what we know in our own lives.I just did that, and you told me to keep it to myself.
But you think that those words are applicable to us today? How can you imagine that one man, an ex-tax collector of those times, could possibly feel he was speaking to people living 2000 years in the future?
So when I answer, you will say, "Oh I see. That's why you believe that. Ok." Or will you just continue to argue? I get that you don't agree. I accept it.
And yet, your doom and gloom perspective of the world is the furthest thing from reality. What's worse, it is your religion that causes you to believe such nonsense, that's why it's rejected by folks who live in reality and see it for what it really is.
Your story is touching and will probably reinforce a belief in god for those that already believe. For those that will read your story with only the good parts, ignoring the hurt and pain. That will twist what happened to fit their beliefs and will assign cause without having the slightest idea if that cause was even present.
Others will feel sorrow that you suffered emotionally for months or years before finding your daughter. They will feel happiness that your pain has ended, and that your daughter finally has a loving family instead of simple physical support. They will also look a little askance when you declare that an invisible god gave you that daughter after forcing you to live in pain and sorrow for all that time, and that you love him for that.
People very often (usually) "interpret" real actions is such a manner as to make them happy. They forget the bad parts, they change them just a little, they make up things that aren't there. This is not necessarily a bad thing and it helps us lead a happier life, but when you present past events in that manner publicly you can expect them to be dissected and examined. Others, not having suffered through your pain, aren't going to set it aside and forget it about it; it is an integral part of the tale to them. They also aren't going to feel the depth of happiness you are and aren't necessarily going to attribute it to anything that didn't cause it. More dissection, which you take as an attack on your belief system, but really isn't. It may be an attack on the reasoning used to produce your conclusions (god loves me and gave me a baby), but not on the belief in god (although some people will make such an attack).A personal, touching account, beautifully related to us, thanks Beth. Again, I honour your beliefs in regard to that story, totally valid for you and so valuable in your understanding of life.
However, there is a real need for you to let it stop there....don't extrapolate what you feel about/through the story with what or how anyone else will perceive it. Keep it personal, then share in other people's stories, without having to take those on board yourself.
I know you will not wish to do as I suggest, because this empathy with others is something genetically inherent with our species, as with many other species. Not something we choose to do, just something that happens.
(I am still reading "In Search of the Bonobo and the Atheist," by Franz de Waal. A most enlightening book, I find.)Because that is what you would do? So if I am more like you, I will be in the right? Or is it ok for me to be genuine and allow you to accept or reject me? Since I have become an adult, I find it increasingly harder to not be authentic. If it is all the same to you, I will sing from the highest rooftops of what my God has done for me and know that I mean no disrespect when I say, 'Feel free to plug your ears.' I am friends with many saved and unsaved ppl. It is quite comfortable for me to love them all... they seem to love me despite, or for who I am as well. I believe this to be a good thing.
Yes, that is what I would do, and it's basically what I do do. I don't insist that you become atheist in your thinking, simply because that's the way I see it. All I do is ask you, and anyone else who has a deep and passionate belief, don't presume that what's right for you in your beliefs is right for others.
The presumption that the christian view of God, Jesus, Eternity, Sin, Forgiveness, Retribution, Fear of What might happen as a consequence of our actions......( all these and more, ) are the Truth of the world that we ALL need to understand..... well this is I think what you are saying, and it goes against MY freedom of thought. It is also the basis on which many well-intended folk interfere in the lives of others, in numerous countries and societies all over the world. And the basis for them judging anyone who is in the slightest bit different.
I am not saying that you are "guilty" of all these things, Beth. You sound a much more accommodating christian than most.....You can ALWAYS do and think as you please. I would have to stop believing the Bible were I to *not believe that salvation was necessary for *all mankind. If you feel like Im cherry picking, I would be willing to provide you with every single verse that speaks of God offering salvation for all, (and it's necessity) or please feel free to look them up, which ever you would prefer.You don't have to agree with me... or the Bible should you prefer not to, but why should that change my core belief? I don't have to do that for you. It does not dishonor you in any way... it is simply God (and His word) as I know Him.
The problem with your statement is that verses from the Bible show that you don't believe in everything written there, that you are cherry picking. You can't toss out verses from the Bible telling everyone they need salvation when you yourself won't even adhere to other verses. It's outright hypocrisy. Your core belief is NOT based entirely on the Bible.
You are incorrect.
You are wrong.
You are not right.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You are off base.
I don't know how many ways or times I can say this, but you making a statement like that doesn't make it true. I don't believe in cherry picking so keep saying it till you're blue in the face, it still wont be correct. The Bible must be taken as a whole and in context. You must understand the events that affect the writings of the old testament and the new testament while simultaneously understanding they are both vital and imperative for understanding God. You must read it, understanding history, the situations at the time, you must be able to apply it to current life situations and know the difference between principle or promise. You must have an understanding of actual events and parables. You must KNOW GOD. You must be seeking Him to understand His word. If you are actively rejecting Him, you cannot grasp the Bible's meaning.You have never shown that.
But, it is true, I have already shown that by placing verses from the Bible here that you certainly wouldn't follow through.
But, you don't take the Bible as a whole and in context, you cherry pick.
You must stop being hypocritical. It is you who is rejecting Him. That has already been proven.“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
Do you hate your father, your mother and your kids, Beth?Beth's silence is deafeningly speaking volumes.
So... this is a perfect example of taking the Bible as a whole. We know that God doesn't want us to hate anyone. We know that he wants us to respect our parents and treasure our children and raise them gently. So how could it be He wants us to hate them? Well that is where we consider all of the Bible. What could He be saying here?
He tells Abraham to take his son up on a mount to sacrifice him. Yet does God want him to take his sons life? No. He provides a sacrifice for Abraham. What He is saying to us is that in comparison for the people we love most in the world, our love for our maker should be unparalleled. No one and nothing should come before Him. This aligns itself with the first commandment to love God and to have no other gods before Him. Many people make many things into their gods and God wants us to know that there is to be nothing greater than our love for Him. The amazing thing is that when we hold God in the greatest esteem, every thing else in our lives falls into place and we end up loving everyone else in the best way possible. We tend not to divorce as quickly. We tend to teach our children right from wrong instead of spoiling them. Loving God first means loving others best because we learn to love them as He loves us which is with a generous, unselfish love.Demanding to be loved above all others is rather narcissistic and needy don't you think? How would you treat someone if they made that request of you? Imagine one of your children demanding to be loved above all others and asking you to prove it by sacrificing another sibling.
I'll let you in on a little secret, I've been happily married for 23 years now and I can tell you my wife comes first, so I'll have to ignore your marital advice. If my religion asked me to do anything other than that I'd find another religion.No Beth, that is not the same thing. You are also falling back on the Old Testament, which is something you accused me of doing earlier. This is not about Abraham and his son.
If Jesus wanted us to make Him our priority, He would not have used the word "hate", especially in the context of hating our own families. But, that is the cost of being a disciple, which is what that verse is all about.
Since you've now opened to the door to the Old Testament, there are plenty of verses there that you would never follow and would be lying if you said you did.
If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
We could do this all day, Beth. There are all kinds of verses in the Bible that are not relevant anymore, so it would behoove you to apologize for posting the verse you did.Beth, within this statement I feel lies the answer to all the argument.
Almost 50 years ago now, I got involved with a christian group. They were evangelical. They sang loud and clear and with great enthusiasm. And because they welcomed me, I felt wanted, a sense of belonging which was my greatest need then as it is now. So I "joined the club." I became "born again." Why? Because that was what one needed to do in order to belong to that "club."
I was homosexual then as I am now; always was and always will be. Yet, if I had declared that to the "club" I would have been disowned! I heard what they were saying about people like me. And that drove me away. This indicates the hypocrisy of christian churches. They claim a relationship with "god," whom they say is "unconditional love," and then immediately set up the boundaries and become the exclusive club. They exclude anyone who does not believe as they do. The act of exclusion IS THE ANTI-CHRIST !
The Christ is One-ness; All inclusive. Totally unconditional. Loving the murderer, the adulterer, the thief, the prostitute, the ugly, the beggar, the one with long hair, the bald-headed bikie. I cannot know that Nature unless I pull aside the long hair; give my last crust to the beggar; welcome the ugly; embrace the bikie, cast no judgment on the prostitute or the murderer and embrace the Nature inside. The same Nature resides in me, regardless of my sexual orientation. If anyone puts a label on me and excludes me, they can never know that Nature.
The Anti-Christ says, "NO! They make me feel uncomfortable, I don't want to be one of them and they are contagious, so lock them out." You can twist and colour the answers about Loving the person but hating the action," as much as you like. It is only self-serving to deepen the exclusivity. It is US humans who do all the judging, not some ethereal, imaginary, magical "god."
The Christ Nature can be likened to an egg. Beautiful smooth integrated shape, pure white, easily admired. It's inside is full of fertility, nourishing, contains the potential for infinite life. Yet the selfish and ignorant Anti-Christ of the churches has sucked the innards out, used them for supporting the ego, and left just an empty shell, bouncing around on the water's surface to be seen by all and admired. Worshiped. But empty of true substance!
In my loneliness, which sometimes comes on most in the early hours of the morning, like as of right now, at least it allows me to see the christianity-myths for what they are worth..... worthless. Because where I see the potential for friendship, it is poisoned by that demand to "believe as we do." It is NOT the unconditional love of the Christ Nature.
Therefore I reject christianity.But...but...to be a "real Christian", one MUST lock out evil. Not allow evil into your life, not at all.
Lock out the devil worshiping gay people, the long hair, the bikes. Keep away the evil inherent in the prostitute, the beggar, the thief and the ugly. All the evil must be kept out of the lives of a "real" Christian that loves God and fellow man.
Nice post, JCL, very nice. If only the religious would listen once in a while before making up new rules that God has given them personally to spread throughout the world.Back to bed now I have had my say. Thanks Wilderness.
This sounds as though you do recognize the difference between a believer , and a religious person who professes to be a Christian. Does a believer need to be religious? Are all religious people believers?
I think NO to both questions.
The funny thing is that what drew you to Christianity (in all probability) was the promise of acceptance and love. A hard thing to do, yet something we desperately want to believe can be done. You didn't find it in others, didn't find it in yourself, so rejected the reality you found. I wonder if, instead of throwing our hands up and rejecting the reality found many wouldn't have been better served to stay and show the love they came to find in others. Again and again, until the fear of rejection fell away and others followed suit.
We don't. It's easier to judge in the face of judgment.That was the attitude which finally won out during the civil rights movement. Keep standing up till they get tired of knocking ya down.
Sometimes it is more like sticking our arm in a bees hive until the bees run out of stingers,
It can be done; but who has that much patience.Who has that much patience? No one I know. But, that's the point. We know what perfection is. We just can't achieve it. None of us. We don't have any problem pointing it out. In others.
We're told the things of God are spiritually discerned, and therefore foolishness to the natural man, so it is no surprise that posting bible verses in a public forum can cause so much confusion. Why do it then, knowing those who don't or won't get it, aren't going to, no matter what you do, and may instead lash out with their misunderstanding? If you don't mind the fallout, your postings could benefit those who are spiritually aware and searching, or young (not a chronological differentiation), believers. If a believer knows their only audience is unbelievers, their actually encouraged not to, but who knows who will read it in a public forum?
Even in consideration of the previous paragraph, however, much can be understood by any who seriously try to, even if they are not yet believers. This is why I find it so peculiar that you are straining so hard at this particular gnat. Anyone familiar with the body of teaching from Jesus should know He would not, in the common sense of the word, instruct anyone to "hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life." So what then can the verse in question mean? Does it not clearly say "hate"? The word translated hate:"Misew" = from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less.
So by considering the possible meanings and uses of the original word, as well as the context of Christ's teachings, it's not hard to understand the verse merely tells us we are to love Jesus more than anything. Some have protested they should love their children or spouse more, but if aware of Jesus teachings they would know, following Him we will love our spouses as Christ loves the church, including to the point of sacrifice. If we love Jesus first and foremost, we will love and cherish our children, and love and respect our parents.
You rarely see me post, as I currently have precious little time to spend here, and no I am not interested in getting into a tit for tat on individual verses, particularly when it seems either you can't or won't understand them. I have only responded because I felt you should be able to see how you were wrong with the verse you cited. After basically taunting and jeering Beth for not responding quickly regarding a verse you chose as a great example, but clearly didn't even understand, I thought perhaps you would want to give her an apology.Clearly the scripture in question was intended to maintain control over the believer and make sure he/she responds to the churches wishes first and foremost regardless of what his loved ones desire.
I believe your explanation to be a rationalization of the text and as such I believe you owe ENCEPHALOIDEAD and apology.Does scripture state that Jesus ever said to respect the church more than family. I understand his teachings telling us to look out for false Prophets (religions). That there will be many false teachers.
We are never to worship a person even when they say they are a Prophet.
To turn our back on family and/or friends following the words of any man is not following Christ.“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
It's right there."To hate yourself" should be our first indication as to the real meaning of what was said.
It is written that Jesus said something which the person hearing it wrote it down the way he understood it.
The word used has several meanings. To love less is one of those meanings.
Let me ask you a question. Even if the word used is to mean HATE. How much Hate is necessary?
Does that verse mean that we are to hate ourselves "TOTALLY" to the fullest extent? Or do we only have to hate ourselves a little bit.If you "hate" yourself, or your "life," and then give it away, what sort of value has that gift? It was second-hand goods, not wanted, cast out. Certainly not a sacrifice.
However, if you "love" yourself, and your "life," then give it away, surely this is something of value! Something you intend to do without in consideration of another person's greater need. This would be a real sacrifice.
You know the bible wasn't written in english, right?
Que JMcF....Even if we change the translation to mean "love less than" we are still left with scripture stating that Jesus said to respect the church more than family as he is the church. Clearly this was another way of controlling the masses.
But do you really love Jesus? Or do you love what is written about him which was preserved and canonized and declared scripture by. .. wait for it. .. the church? If not for the church (albeit the ancient, proto-orthodox version) what would you know about Jesus at all?
Yes, I love Jesus. Based on what I have seen in the forums, this will not make sense to you or those who are vocal here, but since you asked, I will answer.
Take away knowledge of and exposure to the scriptures entirely. I would know, (yes know, even if I can't hand you evidence you will accept), that there is a God. I would know I was not right with Him. I would seek to know Him and remedy that. Those who seek, will find, so yes, I would still come to know Him. Even without the bible. Even without seminary.
Academically I knew a good deal about the bible long before I knew Christ. Knowing about Christ, and knowing Christ, are not at all the same thing, although for years I didn't know that myself. I fancied my knowledge of Him, to be what being a christian was. Not until that experience, much maligned and mocked, both in the world and here in the forums, of being born again, did I learn the huge difference.
Many are as I was. Proud of themselves, and their knowledge, and mistaking that for a relationship with Christ. Perhaps one day, they will be humbled as I was and come to the realization that knowing about Christ is not enough. They must humbly and genuinely recognize and accept their need and His remedy. Perhaps they will become even more proud and determined that they don't need Him and perhaps work hard to convince themselves that He doesn't even exist. Humor me as I pray for the first outcome.just because a lot of different cultures have posited gods to explain things that they don't understand does not mean that popularity is a good basis for belief. Christianity is still in its infancy in the scheme of religions. They had their birth, had their stubborn, rebel stage (read: crusades, inquisition) and have now matured into something more palpable (on large scale) for the masses. Christianity had to evolve or die. Now they're the "love" crusade - well, as long as you fit into their box. Christianity is a little over 2000 years old. Zeus has been around for 6000. Sin is a Christian construct. Most indigenous cultures know nothing about it - at least until the missionaries show up and tell them how bad they are. So how do you deem to posit that yours is the "right" one with just as much proof as followers of Zeus have?
I have a relationship I am not going to attempt to explain to you in this forum. I have a peace and understanding from that I also could not convey adequately to you. Nothing for you to grab onto there, I agree. My relationship with God is irrelevant to you and other readers here. Each has themselves to be concerned with, not me or any other.
Everyone knows guilt, and yes, those consciences come from God. The very word "conscience" means "with knowledge." Knowing there is a creator and we are not in a right relationship with Him is not a "christian construct." How long have people been trying by their own works, to appease a god? They know they are beholden to their creator. Our pride and knowledge have been useful tools in quelling that conscience in our attempt to fool ourselves. Even though it can be seared quite effectively, it cannot be eliminated altogether. This may leave a doubter with a haunting desire to seek reinforcement, acknowledgement and support in their disbelief. It is rare, the soul that can nearly silence that conscience and knowledge of God.
Perhaps those with the most tenuous grip on their denial express themselves the loudest. Admittedly that is speculation on my part, based on an understanding of human nature.con·science
noun
1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.Very good, and what do you find when investigating the etymology of the word?
conscience (n.) early 13c., from Old French conscience "conscience, innermost thoughts, desires, intentions; feelings"
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the "conscience" comes from god. It's just another assertion. And no...not everyone just assumes that they're "beholden" to any creator. The conscience comes from evolution and nothing more. Humans are a social species. We feel empathy for others of our species - even for other species. Nor are we the only animals that display empathy or compassion. I've seen dogs run out into the street to drag another dog that was struck by a car to safety - at great risk to their own lives. Are you then asserting that these dogs are beholden to a dog creator and that what gives them empathy?
It's simple really. Humans are not gazelles or wildebeasts. We are not born with the ability to get up and run within a few moments. Human infants are virtually helpless. If we did not feel empathy for our young, they would starve to death - and the species would die out. Other animal species do not have that social construct because they are born more independent and they are capable of surviving on their own from a very young age. therefore, the empathy is less relevant.
Just deciding that you want to believe in something and attributing everything to your beliefs does not make those beliefs true. Humans before Christianity thought that sacrificing virgins in volcanoes would keep them safe - and hey, sometimes I'm sure it even worked. Does that mean we should keep doing it?Compassion, empathy and conscience are bestowed upon us by evolution? According to the theory, in order for a trait to be perpetuated must it not benefit the survival of the individual possessing it? How does empathy, compassion or conscience enhance the survival of the individual possessing them? Not the group, or even the family, but the individual whose genes must be passed on to perpetuate the trait? How does feeling guilty over a misdeed, or being willing to sacrifice oneself for another benefit their individual survival?
I can thoroughly recommend the book, "The Bonobo and the Atheist," by Frans de Waal. Your questions regarding evolution, the beneficial traits, etc., and how they can enhance the survival of a species, are all dealt with at length in this book.
I bought it for my Kindle from Amazon.Thank you for the recommendation Jonny. I have seen you reference it many times before and will add it to a list of possible resources when researching those issues in the future. Not realistically something I would have time to read now, but it has clearly spoken to you and would merit a look when possible. I do find it intriguing when science attempts to deal with emotions, sentience, moral and philosophical issues.
Science is being used to give much insight to those otherwise abstract qualities you mention. Authentic science never declares something absolutely and leaves room for further observation. It also has to be honest about negative findings. Frans de Waal gives me an enhanced sense of wonder and awe, certainly not a rigid "no creator" outlook. I can more and more see the magnificence of the Creation, regardless of how it all started/formed.
Haven't you seen ants?
Compassion begets compassion.no, in order for a species to survive, it must benefit the species - not necessarily the individual. That is the way things work in social species. We care for our young because we pass on our genes to them, and it is in our best interest to see those genes thrive.
Feeding you, changing your diapers and cleaning up after you was necessary for you to be healthy. If you laid there as an infant and cried and no one fed you, you would have died. You could not have survived by yourself. You were completely dependent on someone else.
I'm going to ignore your "theory" reference, since we've discussed the definition of theory before in the scientific world and you seem disinclined to understand the concept at all.Altruism is the result of the brain realizing that, in order to receive Reward, sometimes you must do something Good, because people like Good and they give you Reward for Good, but when you do Bad, people don't like Bad and so you don't get Reward. Your brain really, really wants Reward, and so it has hard-wired you to do whatever it takes to get Reward, and if that means doing Good for Reward, then so be it. And if you say you don't want Reward, you get more Reward. More Reward makes your brain happy.
Based on your twisted version of hate, you should probably change that to read...
"We are "to hate less" Jesus first.You also know the bible wasn't written in english, right?
Why yes, thank you for asking. At the risk of being redundant I will rephrase it. Frequently, semantic ranges do not match exactly between words in different languages. Sometimes the closest word is not close enough. You seem to understand what "hate" means in english. "Misew" on the other hand means "to have a strong aversion to, hate, detest or to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment." So only in contrast to the love one is to have for Jesus, would it appear as "hate."
You're just re-defining the word hate to suit an agenda. It doesn't fly. Hate does not mean "to love less" no matter how you try to spin it.
You can't seriously still be missing this. "Hate" is not the word whose definition you need be concerned with. English is not the original language the verse was written in. Get over your obsession with "hate".
Yes, it is the word I'm concerned with, because it is used in the Bible. You can't seriously still be missing this.
Use any lame excuse you want, it is still a lame excuse.
That's all well and good when the words were first translated. But here we are in the 21st century - and all of us know that the word "hate" does not mean "love less". Why do you think it hasn't been translated to be more accurate? It sounds like a backwards apologetic excuse to me. How many years did you spend studying Greek again?
Here is a NT Greek student's take on Misew:
I absolutely agree with you that usage determines meaning in language. I did not clarify that in my previous post. What I consider the lexical meaning of a word is how it is most commonly used in a given language. We have to look at how MISEW was used in that language in that time to determine what its semantic range actually was. As far as I can tell, there isn't really enough data to warrant positing that MISEW could actually denote "to love less" at the time Luke (or whoever) wrote the gospel. That is the value of figures of speech like hyperbole. The harshness of the saying guarantees that a. it will catch the attention of Jesus' hearers and b. make them really think about what he's saying. What did he mean by the statement that his disciples must hate their families and lives? To say that "love less" falls within the normal range of meanings for MISEW takes the teeth out of Jesus' saying. Of course, if we think that Jesus was speaking Aramaic in this instance, the real question to ask could be what Aramaic word did he use and what is the range of meaning for THAT word? A question that's probably out of place in this list. I still don't think it's linguistically proper to say that MISEW means "love less." I haven't seen the data to warrant that conclusion.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr … 50899.html
and yay - there's more:
Hi Antonio,
I don't have a Strong's Concordance, so I couldn't really refer to his entry on MISEW, but I did look over the BAG Lexicon's entry. It gives meanings like "hate", "detest", and "abhor", so it is obviously a very strong word. The word itself (as far as I can tell) doesn't mean "to love less". If Luke paraphrased or quoted Jesus correctly, then Jesus really did say that his disciples must hate their families and their own lives. The question is, what did Jesus mean by that, and that's a question that really can't be answered any better by the Greek than by the English. I think there are good answers, but IMO they fall outside the parameters of this list since they involve issues of interpretation. Perhaps I'm wrong on that point. I would caution against using Strong's overmuch for this very reason. Strong's gives you one or two glosses for a word, which doesn't really give one an idea of the full range of meaning that a word can have in various contexts. A lexicon like
BAGD (I have BAG, which I stole from my Dad several years ago!) actually gives a much better idea of what a word can mean in various contexts, which is far more helpful and accurate.
Good Luck,
http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/ … RyesW7vzHNSorry, I missed your response earlier. I was surprised I hadn't seen one, since you rarely miss such an opportunity. We can both google away and find arguments for both sides, I suppose. Those who want to believe there is a contradiction will take yours and those who don't see one will take mine. Once again, it isn't about either you or I changing our perspective as the likelihood of that is nil, it is about the others reading, and we have adequately presented both sides for them to render a decision if searching, or to bolster their view if already decided. If not, they can google away and find much more on either side.
hate
[heyt] Show IPA verb, hat·ed, hat·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2.
to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
verb (used without object)
3.
to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
noun
4.
intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5.
the object of extreme aversion or hostility.
I would be very happy if someone could show me in this definition anything remotely associated with "to love less"? Thanks.The books were written after the fact. You can't guarantee any specific words attributed to Jesus are his exact words. If he had been sharing a message of hate, that would permeate all of the memories recorded. Since he wasn't, you have misunderstood something along the way. Bberean appears to be attempting to fit the words to the example of the man. It makes sense. You might listen, instead of attempting to make him/her see things your way, which is obviously wrong anyway.
You're saying that I've misunderstood the meaning of the word 'hate' and that I'm wrong because of that? LOL.
I remember when I was a kid we had to read 'The Sun Also Rises'. I didn't get the meaning. How was I to know the guy was impotent? I was a kid.
The point is, the example of the man doesn't match what you believe. Sometimes we take words at face value without attempting to understand what the speaker is really saying.It seems as if words are being re-defined to suit an agenda.
I don't think so, but maybe. I simply think those words, as understood by you, don't match up to who the guy was. Which means one of two things to me. Either he didn't say it, or we don't understand what he meant. It couldn't mean what you think it means.
If true (and I would tend to believe what you say here), then there can be no reason to quote a single verse or even small set of verses.
At a minimum a biblical quotation should include most of the chapter it comes from, along with pertinent comments as to the history behind the words and the circumstances in which the words were spoken.
Yes?
That would be twisting the definition of hate to something completely different. If Jesus meant to say "love less" then He would said it. The word used is "hate"
The verse is meant to be shown as the cost of being a disciple of Jesus and does say "hate" it does not say to love and cherish our children or to love and respect our parents.
That's a joke, right? Apologize to Beth? You must therefore be Beth with another userid.- Beth37posted 10 years ago0
Holy cow. Three pages. I don't have time for that tonight. I'll see if I can catch up later.
Related Discussions
- 50
non-believers..what would it take to convince you
by janesix 10 years ago
That Jesus is Real?Please, only serious answers. I'd really like to know.
- 155
Why do people insist on attacking Christianity?
by Mmargie1966 11 years ago
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in everything the "Church" teaches, but I don't bash other religions, and frankly,...
- 634
If you don't believe in God, why does it matter to you if others do?
by Jenna Ditsch 3 years ago
I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid answers--not attacks or arguments. I just want to understand the...
- 32
Who are the enemies of Christians?
by capncrunch 7 years ago
Who are the enemies of Christians?
- 46
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believ
by Gabriel Wilson 3 years ago
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believe?Why is it that atheists (not all, some) continuously question believers about their belief and vice versa; why do believers (not all, some) feel they have to justify their belief? Surely if you don't believe in God...
- 13
How is it that Others who come in here into the Christian forums,
by DaKingsKid 11 years ago
How is it that Others who come in here into the Christian forums,think they can tell us(Christians) that How and What we believe is wrong? I know that I can admit when I am wrong, and that I don't know somethings. Have they shared in any of the experiences that a majority of US, have had in...