THE QUESTION

[scotter]

I was catching up with the thread a little bit.

 

Quote Amanda: Post #75

Could you tell me when the idea of a 'conscience' came into being, as far as you know? The conscience is "different" than an alliance to integrity for the sake of respect, or an alliance to a belief system. It is more of a coperception, a higher actualized part speaking to us to guide us into decisions simply for the sake of having inner peace, nothing else. If you know, I'd appreciate any info you could give me.

-----

 

Somewhere in other posts Amanda you use another term “higher actualized self” .

 

Although you never mentioned the (spiritual) words “I AM”, or “I AM Presence”, I think I know where you are coming from.

[Christopher Carrion]

OOOOOHHHHH BOY... the army is coming, and I'm here to defend myself, by myself!    I suppose that's the nature of the sight, and the price to pay to be in excellent company. 

 

I really like you guys A LOT... yet, y'all do put the pressure on for immediate, simple formed answers.  That's not so easy to do.... since it took many years of research to come to my conclusions. Here we go....

 

"No man comes to the Father but by me"... I have two theories that are included here... but I'll start with the main concept for the purpose now...

 

That's my concern over the conscience, as I think the Spirit of Jesus is the hidden man of the heart... Truth (Father) comes by way of the conscience, not anything else.  If one learns to rely on their conscience, we will all eventually end in the same place... no matter which path one takes... it doesn't matter.

 

That's my belief..    I can see you all now...    Yet that's the reason I don't care if you believe me, I don't care that you have chosen another path, I'm glad that its not 'my' responsibility to convert you... ALL I get to do is ENJOY you ALL, just the way you are!

 

Even if you all are  ,  , or    in response to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Amanda,

 

Apologies for the lateness of my reply: internet access is rather limited for me at the moment.

 

I believe we did get a little side-tracked from the original question, and eventually descended into a sort of tit for tat "I think this, you think that" which really isn't helpful. Again, my apologies.

 

I still find your preconception that ALL religions and spiritual beliefs can be reconciled through the behaviours and perceptions promoted by Christ. What about my own Ancient Celtic ancestors? Their belief systems were not only all but eradicated via a concerted effort by Christian invaders to stamp out what they considered a "heathen" (RE: "People of the Heath") culture, but even the historical record of what they believed and what they practiced was wiped out because it quite clearly did not coincide with the tenets of the bible.

 

Forgive me for saying so, but I believe that the claim that ALL religious beliefs might be reconciled within the bible is as much a cop-out as that time-honoured Christian proclamation that jesus, god or whatever cares about you whether you care about him or not; it is a means of absolving the adherent of critically considering that there are ways of life, ideologies, perspectives and belif systems out there which are NOT reconcilable with biblical tenet, which in fact function entirely outside of it, yet still manage to function legitimately, as the acknowledgement that such a thing can be so blows great, whacking holes in the belief system by which they have come to define themselves. I can think of countless instances throughout both New and Old testaments in which it is quite cleraly stated that the only way to salvation is via adherence to what the book itself dictates, and that all ways of life that exist outside of that are evil, and worthy of contempt. I am having trouble finding any that support your claims that all religious beliefs are somehow not only tolerated but accounted for. Forgive me if this sounds somewhat harsh or judgemental, but I am trying to get down to the core of your argument, and to measure rationally whether it has any legitimacy.

[Amanda]

Amanda,

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

You are saying that it doesn't matter if we accept your beliefs or not but then you turn around and in effect are saying (and this is what sends my blood pressure up)... Whether you accept my way or not doesn't matter.  Whether you accept Jesus or not doesn't matter.............you still have him anyway.

 

I do not want Jesus and you're telling me that whether I believe it or not,  I've got Jesus regardless.  That is absurd!

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, please don't get upset at my beliefs! It's ONLY a belief and does not make it so! Why would it bother you any more than if I said I believe in pink unicorns? It's JUST a personal opinion... just as yours is too. My opinion of Jesus is different than your opinion of him. I ASSURE you that I am NOT intentionally wishing, commanding, creating anything bad on you... in fact quite the contrary. I LIKE you, even if you don't agree with one word I say! It would be almost like if you said to me that it doesn't matter how I believe, I don't have Jesus because he doesn't exist! It's ALL just our opinions...

 

Whatever... ANYONE says about spirituality doesn't make it so... its a personal journey/perspective that I think all are allowed to have, and the purpose of this site is to share them. Actually, I think you said that to me once when I got upset with something... the purpose of this site is to debate... remember?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thankful, please don't get upset at my beliefs! It's ONLY a belief and does not make it so! Why would it bother you any more than if I said I believe in pink unicorns? It's JUST a personal opinion... just as yours is too. My opinion of Jesus is different than your opinion of him. I ASSURE you that I am NOT intentionally wishing, commanding, creating anything bad on you... in fact quite the contrary. I LIKE you, even if you don't agree with one word I say!    It would be almost like if you said to me that it doesn't matter how I believe, I don't have Jesus because he doesn't exist! It's ALL just our opinions...

 

Whatever...  ANYONE says about spirituality doesn't make it so... its a personal journey/perspective that I think all are allowed to have, and the purpose of this site is to share them.    Actually, I think you said that to me once when I got upset with something... the purpose of this site is to debate...     remember?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that I don't have to breath to live. That the harder the drug the more vitamins it has. That I can fly like superman. My opinions are just as good as anyone elses. I think I'll encourage kids to jump off a building with me so we can fly like superman. After all reason plays no part in understanding reality. The very fabric of reality is my personal opinion. Excuse me while I put corn flakes and milk in my ears that I may commune with elvis. hehe.

[Cerise]

Thankful, please don't get upset at my beliefs! It's ONLY a belief and does not make it so! Why would it bother you any more than if I said I believe in pink unicorns? It's JUST a personal opinion... just as yours is too. My opinion of Jesus is different than your opinion of him. I ASSURE you that I am NOT intentionally wishing, commanding, creating anything bad on you... in fact quite the contrary. I LIKE you, even if you don't agree with one word I say!    It would be almost like if you said to me that it doesn't matter how I believe, I don't have Jesus because he doesn't exist! It's ALL just our opinions...

 

Whatever...  ANYONE says about spirituality doesn't make it so... its a personal journey/perspective that I think all are allowed to have, and the purpose of this site is to share them.    Actually, I think you said that to me once when I got upset with something... the purpose of this site is to debate...    remember?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, not to nitpick or anything but saying opinions and debating is not the same thing.

 

When you debate, there is an assumption being made that the views you are supporting have reason to be supported over someone else's views.

 

If it's just a case of "hey guys listen to my opinion and we'll agree to disagree and be hunky dorey" then that's really not a debate. It's more of a book club.

[Amanda]

I still find your preconception that ALL religions and spiritual beliefs can be reconciled through the behaviours and perceptions promoted by Christ. What about my own Ancient Celtic ancestors? Their belief systems were not only all but eradicated via a concerted effort by Christian invaders to stamp out what they considered a "heathen" (RE: "People of the Heath") culture, but even the historical record of what they believed and what they practiced was wiped out because it quite clearly did not coincide with the tenets of the bible.

 

Forgive me for saying so, but I believe that the claim that ALL religious beliefs might be reconciled within the bible is as much a cop-out as that time-honoured Christian proclamation that jesus, god or whatever cares about you whether you care about him or not; it is a means of absolving the adherent of critically considering that there are ways of life, ideologies, perspectives and belif systems out there which are NOT reconcilable with biblical tenet, which in fact function entirely outside of it, yet still manage to function legitimately, as the acknowledgement that such a thing can be so blows great, whacking holes in the belief system by which they have come to define themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Christopher! I was wondering what happened to you... although I assumed that our interests no longer brought us to the same topics. I was also gone for a long weekend, and had NO internet access. Glad to see you back!

 

I use to think like all of you giving me great contention over this inclusive policy I have of the Bible... particularly the NT. I use to be afraid to study other religions because I was afraid that the demons would reach out and get me!!!

 

Spending almost three years in seminary, I began to feel secure in my beliefs, brave enough to go out and convert the Buddhist and all the rest, to the Christianity I had come to know! Nothing could be possibly better, I thought!

 

I started studying how these other religions believed, so that I could show them that Christ had a better way.... but, I found they virtually believed the same way! Additionally, I found that in studying these other spiritual beliefs, they helped me understand much more of what Jesus was saying! I've read at least some of Madeline O'Hare (Atheist), the Satanic Bible, Shamanism, Buddhism, Suffis, Wicca (spelling?), and others, yet it seems to me they are saying much of the same thing I had learned from the 'book', maybe from a little different perspective/emphasis.

 

Christopher, what do you think is so totally oppositional in regards to comparing most spiritual beliefs as presented by their original proponents?

 

BTW, so sorry to hear about the Celtic religion. I agree that is terrible what man has done deceitfully in the name of his religion! I've purchased Celtic CDs and enjoy their music! The music seems very spiritual... the ones I have.

[Mythra]

Amanda: to add just a little to what Thankful said:

 

It isn't your beliefs that we are attacking. We could care less what's in your head. What comes under attack is when you say that the bible says something that we damn well know it doesn't say.

 

Or when you constantly refer to "the original texts", when we know that no original texts exist.

 

If you want to say "in the Greek text", we'll give you that. But you shouldn't be under any misconception that because it's the greek words, it's exactly as it was originally written. It was subject to several hundred years of revision before we get to the greek words we read today. It was sorted and modified, and any christian writings that didn't exactly match up to the accepted creeds were destroyed.

 

You should do a little study of "textual variants" within the known oldest manuscripts of the new testament. (and even these date back to the 4th and 5th centuries) There's tons of passages that don't match up, there's complete chapters that suspiciously showed up in later editions, etc.

 

There are no original texts, Amanda. And many of the second through fourth century christians did not believe that honesty was the best policy. They believed in advancing the cause of christ, no matter how it had to be done.

[Amanda]

The bible says what it says and you make it all rosy by twisting scriptures and making your own religion.  This is an ExC site and we want people to see the bible for what it really is....period.  That is why I debate and treat your posts the way I do, in hopes of sparring people the pain of Christianity.  If one person can be helped not to turn back to it or visit this site as an unbeliever and have a reason "why" not to be a Christian, it is worth it to me to debate you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Thankful, I agree with a lot of what you say about 'traditional' Christianity! Do you think I go to church! Sure, I think that much of 'religion' has an agenda that I'm in conflict with also! It seems they often do more harm than good, and it's a shame they have the Truths of the Bible hostage IMO, and have compounded the suggestions of their own agendas using the guise of being in accordance with something good... which is a lie. IMO.

 

I do not think that I am twisting scriptures, as it has taken me years to learn a technique that allows me to search this particular resource. Apparently you seem to know nothing about this technique, and perhaps because of what seems to be your 'agenda'... you do not want to recognize it. I happen to find beneficial answers to life's situations this way!

 

We are probably both against the same disparaging tactics of the 'traditional' church. It's just that I feel I can use their own resource to prove them wrong! It seems to me that for many, getting away from Christianity, stepping back to look critically at what they have been taught, and perhaps getting rid of a lot of what was endoctorinated into them... is a GOOD thing! It seems to me that a message can be shared, it can be debated, and let it stand on its own. It seems to me that just because the terrorist happen to be Muslims... we don't just hate all Muslims and deem ALL their teachings are evil. Let each person say what they believe... maybe the WHOLE belief systems of Muslims are not all that bad.

 

You MAY think the Bible is all bad... do you feel it is your responsibility that EVERYONE that visits this site thinks that? Don't you think that from all these wonderful perspectives shared on this site, that many who visit this site are smart enough to choose what best applies to their own life? Do you want to be their saviour?

 

I've changed my thinking a lot from the views I've read on here. Isn't it wonderful to have a broad perspective from which to choose freely? Do we ALL have to think alike, or can we be uniquely different? The ONLY point I was making to you is that nothing anyone says should upset anyone else... because someone says something doesn't make it so. I think that other people can read and judge for themself, and it is no one's responsibility for how someone else believes... then that would be the ilk of what is referred to on this site as a 'fundie', wouldn't it? Further, considering the magnitude of the depth and intelligence of people on this site, on your side, I don't think that I get that much recognition... but maybe I add to the diversity of ideas... that's all.

 

You have admitted that you haven't studied the OT, nor have you looked at it through the eyes of the Jewish or even just as a person capable of reading and seeing for yourself. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, I have read the OT. What I've said is that I have placed more emphasis and time on the NT. Maybe its too bad that you didn't give more credit to the NT, rather than your focus on the OT... yet somehow, I don't think it would of made much difference anyway. BTW, I think you are a wonderful person and mean nothing derrogatory by that remark.

 

Sorry if that is offensive to you but that is the "why" on why I personally attack the methods you use to come to your beliefs.  If you don't want your methods  attacked then don't post in this area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, you can attack all you want! I hope it allows you to feel better! You may want to attack... I just want to debate. It is interesting, to me, to exchange ideas with an open mind... and to challenge the precepts and the extent one goes to form a conclusion, yet I don't want to attack anyone... and certainly NOT you! I really have no other agenda... as you know, I don't care how anyone believes, it is up to them.

[Amanda]

It isn't your beliefs that we are attacking.  We could care less what's in your head.  What comes under attack is when you say that the bible says something that we damn well know it doesn't say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mythra, isn't that just your opinions versus my opinion? How could you KNOW you are right and someone else is wrong?

Or when you constantly refer to "the original texts", when we know that no original texts exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Granted Mythra, I've conceded that quite some time ago... and if you've noticed in my more recent posts, I now refer to it as the manuscript from which the KJV was translated. I readily admit that I can, and have learned much from many of you... you in particular... yet, does that mean I have to believe the way you think I should?

[Mythra]

Mythra, isn't that just your opinions versus my opinion? How could you KNOW you are right and someone else is wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bullshit, Amanda. When you say that christianity is inclusive of other religions, and that all religions basically say the same things, that is a hell of a lot more than one person's opinion vs. another person's.

 

It's simply not what is indicated in any way in the New Testament. It's a completely inaccurate representation. That's the kind of stuff we argue against.

[Amanda]

Bullshit, Amanda.  When you say that christianity is inclusive of other religions, and that all religions basically say the same things, that is a hell of a lot more than one person's opinion vs. another person's.

 

It's simply not what is indicated in any way in the New Testament.  It's a completely inaccurate representation.  That's the kind of stuff we argue against.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK Mythra, could you give me an 'example' where there are two very opposing ideas between the NT and another spiritual teaching (religion)? And more importantly, if we were to compare these two teachings, do you think there would be far more that were in agreement, or far more in disagreement? (This would seem to allow consideration for the margin of error in our interpretations)

[Mythra]

OK Mythra, could you give me an 'example' where there are two very opposing ideas between the NT and another spiritual teaching (religion)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"For it is appointed for man to die once, and then comes the judgment" (paraphrased) Christian

VS

Karma and Reincarnation (Hindu, Buddhist)

 

I'd say that the concept of what happens to you after you die is a pretty substantial tenet to any religion.

 

All animals have been placed on the earth for mankind's use (christian)

All life is sacred. (Hindu, Buddhist)

 

One God (Christian)

Many Gods (Hinduism, Shintoism)

 

Believe in Jesus to be saved (Christian)

Follow the eightfold path to achieve enlightenment (Buddhist)

 

Hell, the list never ends.

[Christopher Carrion]

Hi Christopher! I was wondering what happened to you... although I assumed that our interests no longer brought us to the same topics. I was also gone for a long weekend, and had NO internet access. Glad to see you back!

 

I use to think like all of you giving me great contention over this inclusive policy I have of the Bible... particularly the NT. I use to be afraid to study other religions because I was afraid that the demons would reach out and get me!!! 

 

Spending almost three years in seminary, I began to feel secure in my beliefs, brave enough to go out and convert the Buddhist and all the rest, to the Christianity I had come to know! Nothing could be possibly better, I thought!

 

I started studying how these other religions believed, so that I could show them that Christ had a better way.... but, I found they virtually believed the same way!    Additionally, I found that in studying these other spiritual beliefs, they helped me understand much more of what Jesus was saying! I've read at least some of Madeline O'Hare (Atheist), the Satanic Bible, Shamanism, Buddhism, Suffis, Wicca (spelling?), and others, yet it seems to me they are saying much of the same thing I had learned from the 'book', maybe from a little different perspective/emphasis.

 

Christopher, what do you think is so totally oppositional in regards to comparing most spiritual beliefs as presented by their original proponents?

 

BTW, so sorry to hear about the Celtic religion. I agree that is terrible what man has done deceitfully in the name of his religion!    I've purchased Celtic CDs and enjoy their music! The music seems very spiritual... the ones I have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again my apologies Amanda; my current internet access is limited to what little time I have outside of trying to balance work, social obligations plus the novella and various short-stories I am currently working on.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by "I used to think like all of you." Could you elaborate?

 

My experience of religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccanism etc demonstrate quite conclusively that they most certainly do not believe or function along the same dynamic as monotheistic faith such as Christianity or Islam. Now, if you were to say that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all basically the same then I'd have a hard time denying it, since not only do they ALL stem from the same basic historical root, they all also promote very, very similar attitudes, perspectives and behaviours. Many of the Eastern (and far Western) religions you make reference to function on the basis of a mythological, narrative dynamic; they consist largely of stories which make ideological reference to the societies and cultures from which they arose, as a means of maintaining social stability and coherence. The difference between, say, Hinduism and Christianity is that hinduism makes no reference to peoples of other faiths, beliefs or cultures, other than to quite explicitly promote an integral respect and tolerance thereof. the same can be said of Buddhism, and as for the Ancient Celtic beliefs of my Ancestors, they largely didn't care one way or the other what others believed so long as they kept their distance. Christianity is most certainly not the same in this regard, because like all biblically inspired faith it quite clearly promotes itself as the fundamental measure of absolute truth, whilst simultaneously denegrating any ideology which exists outside of it as false and worthy of contempt. I do not see how you have reached the conclusions you have, although I admit to finding your particular strain of Christianity much more productive and pleasant than its common manifestation.

 

Much of the reason many religions outside of biblical claim and tenet seem to have resonance with stories and beliefs promoted withgin the bible is because the books of the bible were directly inspired by them; if you study Ancient Mesopotomian mythology it is pretty much evident that almost every story, concept, character and event in Genesis and many of its successors is derived therefrom, including the biblical "Creator God" established therein.

[Amanda]

"For it is appointed for man to die once, and then comes the judgment" (paraphrased)  Christian

VS

Karma and Reincarnation  (Hindu, Buddhist)

 

I'd say that the concept of what happens to you after you die is a pretty substantial tenet to any religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Die once, and then there's judgment doesn't mean we aren't coming back... Read Eccliesiastes 1:5-11... as there is NO new thing under the sun... we have been here before... there is no remembrance of these times...

 

Also when the disciples asked Jesus about if he is the messiah, why didn't Elijah come back and announce his coming, and Jesus said he did and they did whatever they would, then the disciples knew he was talking about John the Baptist. Many other references too...

 

All animals have been placed on the earth for mankind's use (christian)

All life is sacred.  (Hindu, Buddhist)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the contradiction? All life is sacred. I don't think that animals are here for our use, yet we have been given dominion over them. Christianity's way of leadership is to serve. As we attend to our environment, all religion want to give respect to life.

One God (Christian)

Many Gods (Hinduism, Shintoism)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All these Gods are expressions of the same God. The Bible says that ye too are gods.

Believe in Jesus to be saved (Christian)

Follow the eightfold path to achieve enlightenment (Buddhist)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Believe in the way, the truth, and the life Jesus taught and demonstrated... is this so different to the eightfold path? It's basically the same wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental development.

[Amanda]

I don't really understand what you mean by "I used to think like all of you." Could you elaborate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christopher, I'll explain what I meant. I use to think like many here did when they were a Christian... that many, if not most are going to hell for eternity... and even concerned for myself. I had many rules and regulations that I thought I had to live, which I could never meet ALL of them. I use to think Revelation and the end of time was a time I wanted to miss. I thought if you asked for things by saying 'in the name of Jesus', I was suppose to get it.... etc...

My experience of religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccanism etc demonstrate quite conclusively that they most certainly do not believe or function along the same dynamic as monotheistic faith such as Christianity or Islam.

-------------------------------------- The difference between, say, Hinduism and Christianity is that hinduism makes no reference to peoples of other faiths, beliefs or cultures, other than to quite explicitly promote an integral respect and tolerance thereof. the same can be said of Buddhism, and as for the Ancient Celtic beliefs of my Ancestors, they largely didn't care one way or the other what others believed so long as they kept their distance. Christianity is most certainly not the same in this regard, because like all biblically inspired faith it quite clearly promotes itself as the fundamental measure of absolute truth, whilst simultaneously denegrating any ideology which exists outside of it as false and worthy of contempt. I do not see how you have reached the conclusions you have, although I admit to finding your particular strain of Christianity much more productive and pleasant than its common manifestation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Christopher, it seems to me they appear to be different because of their cultural perspective in which they are presented. Buddhism and Christianity seems to have a lot of similarities. I'd almost say that Jesus was a Buddhist! Even Jesus claimed that the way, the truth, and the life will come like lightening from the east to the west. As the OT seems to incorporate the beliefs of the existing outside faiths... I think Christianity does too. Jesus declared, to his disciples, about the others they mention that have the same teachings yet do not follow Christ... and Jesus said to leave them alone for if they are not against us, they are for us.

[Guest Dragonblade]

Jesus declared, to his disciples, about the others they mention that have the same teachings yet do not follow Christ... and Jesus said to leave them alone for if they are not against us, they are for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Matthew 12:30

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

 

 

 

God Loves

Jesus Saves

Satan Rules

 

Hail Satan!

[Christopher Carrion]

Christopher, I'll explain what I meant. I use to think like many here did when they were a Christian... that many, if not most are going to hell for eternity... and even concerned for myself. I had many rules and regulations that I thought I had to live, which I could never meet ALL of them. I use to think Revelation and the end of time was a time I wanted to miss. I thought if you asked for things by saying 'in the name of Jesus', I was suppose to get it.... etc...

Christopher, it seems to me they appear to be different because of their cultural perspective in which they are presented. Buddhism and Christianity seems to have a lot of similarities. I'd almost say that Jesus was a Buddhist! Even Jesus claimed that the way, the truth, and the life will come like lightening from the east to the west. As the OT seems to incorporate the beliefs of the existing outside faiths... I think Christianity does too. Jesus declared, to his disciples, about the others they mention that have the same teachings yet do not follow Christ... and Jesus said to leave them alone for if they are not against us, they are for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I can see why you thought like that; the bible, which is the literary core of the religion and the primary text from which the very concepts of Jesus, God, salvation etc are derived explicitly states that you should. Like I said before, read Leviticus then tell me again that Christianity has no overtly "proscribed" behaviours.

 

The very fact that you adhere to the notion of an absolute truth, and that you choose to define yourself as "Christian" as opposed to "Buddhist" or "Shintoist" or more productively, doing away with religious labels altogether demonstrates that you have a very definite idea of what is "correct" and what is not. Therefore, there must be elements of these other religions which you claim can be assimilated and reconciled within "Christianity" which quite clearly can not. Otherwise, why would you choose to reject the "Shintoist" or "Buddhist" label in preference for the "Christian" one? Besides which, you still haven't really tackled my claim earlier that your preconception that all religious belief can be reconciled within the teachings and proclamations of Christ is simply a less hostile incarnation of the general Christian attitude that all things are conducted with reference to biblical religion regardless of cultural origin or religious disparity. It is an easy way out; a means of avoiding the rather unpleasant but undeniably prevalent issue that there are certain beliefs, attitudes and perspectives which most certainly can not be reconciled within Christianity or biblical faith, which in fact stand outside of it entirely, yet function perfectly well. I feel as if we're going around in circles here.

 

By the way, just out of curiosity, what is your attitude with regards to homosexuals, witches, pagans, etc?

[Amanda]

Matthew 12:30

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

God Loves

Jesus Saves

Satan Rules

 

Hail Satan!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good one Dragonblade!

 

Seriously, I think that the point Jesus is making here is that there will be a gathering in embracing the spirit of what is sacred, a divine respect for the spirit of all living things. Condemning or disrespecting a divine nature in another is what goes against Jesus, since ALL have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. I don't think Satan even does this, condemns the HS, he just tests to see how strong ones' alliances are in this direction... receiving the repercussions of their responses, eventually driving them into the respectfulness of all things.

 

Matthew

12:30

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

12:31

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

12:32

And whosoever * * speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever * * speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

[Amanda]

Like I said before, read Leviticus then tell me again that Christianity has no overtly "proscribed" behaviours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The OT is about obedience to the law. The NT is about a desire to fulfill the law. The NT looks at the meaning and purpose of the law... and fulfilling that.

The very fact that you adhere to the notion of an absolute truth, and that you choose to define yourself as "Christian" as opposed to "Buddhist" or "Shintoist" or more productively, doing away with religious labels altogether demonstrates that you have a very definite idea of what is "correct" and what is not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I've said, there are many paths to truths! I just happened to find the way for me through following Christ. I should, would, have changed my label more to a 'follower of Christ' instead of Christian, or maybe just 'heretic'... due to the conflict I have with what has come to be known as the definition associated with the 'traditional' meaning of 'Christian'... which, in a sense 'could' make me an ExChristian , yet I DO try and FOLLOW the perception I have of JESUS CHRIST! IMHO. I do embrace other religions as well, as I think Jesus did also. What specific aspects of other spiritual beliefs do you feel are in great conflict with the teachings of Jesus?

By the way, just out of curiosity, what is your attitude with regards to homosexuals, witches, pagans, etc?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have absolutely NOTHING against homosexuals! Many of my best friends are homosexuals, and great friends too!

 

Witches and pagans, I have nothing against them either. I have had friends that were into Wicca, which seemed interesting and they seemed to have ideas and beliefs that were enlightening to me. Otherwise I don't know much about it. Pagans, I don't know much about this either... I assume they are about being hedonistic... which I find that to be what life is about, only done with respect for all things. What's wrong with that?

[Amanda]

What do you mean by "desire to fulfill" the law?  The meaning and purpose of the law is clearly stated in the OT, along with ridiculous punishments for disobeying it. 

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

You would not believe the hurt and pain that I and my family and loved ones went through because I tried to be obedient to god. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, Jesus said that the laws of the OT were written on tablets of stone, but that he came to write them on our hearts and in our minds. Jesus said that he didn't come to do away with the laws, but to fulfill the laws.

 

Yes, the OT was about obedience to the literal interpretation of the law. This gave us hearts of stone. That is why Jesus said that the letter of the law kills, but he came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.

 

Jesus came to fulfill the purpose and meaning of the law, and THAT is what is important. Jesus was persecuted for healing someone on the Sabbath, and he even questioned his persecuters if they wouldn't even get their oxen out of the ditch?! He corrected them by saying that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. This goes directly to understanding of the law to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Take the laws, yes, and look and see what the meaning and purpose it has... THAT is what needs to be held in reverence, not literal legaistic interpretations! Sure, abiding to the letter of the law is unbearable! It kills us.

 

1 Corinthians 5

 

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. WITH SUCH A MAN DON'T EVEN EAT.

 

    12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankful, this sexually immoral reference stems from verse 1, IMO...

5:1

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

 

I'm just hoping his father's wife wasn't his mother! I believe these were people that were being addressed that were not that strong to stubbornly withstrain themselves from what seems to be common blatant disrespectful practice, so they are advised to stay away from people like this. Would you suggest that to your child?

 

These verses you've presented continue to say that we are NOT to judge these people... we are to judge ourself, and if we judge.. this wicked part of ourself should be expelled. His first letter says it is ok to associate with others (sexually immoral, slanderers, drunkards, greedy, etc) though, yet now says if these people call themselves your brother, intimately attached to you... and do these things... stay away from them too! Don't even eat with them!

 

He goes on to remind us that it is NOT our place to judge them, we judge within ourself, and the wicked man inside us must be expelled!

 

Now these other verses, you did not include a chapter with them. This is a lot of homework for me... just work with me on this, please...

 

Hey Thankful, I like your new avatar! I wish I was computer literate enough to figure that out! Yours is really a nice one!

[Christopher Carrion]

The OT is about obedience to the law. The NT is about a desire to fulfill the law. The NT looks at the meaning and purpose of the law... and fulfilling that.

 

As I've said, there are many paths to truths! I just happened to find the way for me through following Christ. I should, would, have changed my label more to a 'follower of Christ' instead of Christian, or maybe just 'heretic'... due to the conflict I have with what has come to be known as the definition associated with the 'traditional' meaning of 'Christian'... which, in a sense 'could' make me an ExChristian  , yet I DO try and FOLLOW the perception I have of JESUS CHRIST! IMHO. I do embrace other religions as well, as I think Jesus did also. What specific aspects of other spiritual beliefs do you feel are in great conflict with the teachings of Jesus?

 

I have absolutely NOTHING against homosexuals! Many of my best friends are homosexuals, and great friends too! 

 

Witches and pagans, I have nothing against them either. I have had friends that were into Wicca, which seemed interesting and they seemed to have ideas and beliefs that were enlightening to me. Otherwise I don't know much about it. Pagans, I don't know much about this either... I assume they are about being hedonistic... which I find that to be what life is about, only done with respect for all things. What's wrong with that? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yet the basis for Jesus's apparent divinity, and therefore the very quality that renders him worthy of worship is constituted by claims and concepts derived directly from the books of the Old Testament, which quite clearly in turn promote the perspective that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, that anyone who stands outside of biblical faith is damned, and that all other faiths are demon-worshipping cults worthy of nothing but contempt and destruction. Without the vengeful tyrant-god of the Old Testament, "Jesus Christ" would not have been born, or at least not born as what he is regarded as by most Christians. Therefore to attempt to separate the two into separate and unrelated scriptures is disingenuous, not to mention impossible. Furthermore, if Jesus's position as semi-divinity or prophet of truth is based entirely upon his status as the son/avatar/messenger of god, you cannot possibly ignore the many, many actions and attitudes of said God recorded in the Old Testament which are tyrannical and murderous in the extreme. If you adhere to the faith, in any shape or form, then you have a responsibility to justify it, particularly if you regard and promote said faith as a "universal" measure of "truth". Picking and choosing those parts you consider palatable and productive is laudible, and I have no problem with this, but the very fact that you clearly do not adhere to the religion word for word or tenet for tenet renders your arguments in its defence somewhat flimsy, since I am not critically considering your personal faith, but rather the generally accepted incarnation of Christianity as constituted by adherence to the many rules and regulations established in both New and Old testaments.

 

Like I've said before, I think that the personal faith you have constructed using certain elements of biblical religion (not to mention others) as a basis is entirely laudible, much more so in fact than that which naturally derives from adhereing to the behavioural and perceptual tenets of the bible word for word. However, you cannot reasonably use your own intensely personal (and far from widely held) interpretations of said scripture as a basis for defending biblical faith and Christianity as a whole from the criticisms I and others on this site level against it. Your tolerance for other faiths and spiritual perspectives is entirely laudible, yet you still seem to adhere to the notion that they are all simply separate paths to the same fundamental "truth", a "truth" which you obviously regard as most eloquently and consummately evidenced by the claims, perspectives and attitudes recorded in the bible. Personally, I find this no different from the more fundamentalist claim that "All other Gods are false; there is only one God, one Truth," since it is simply a less hostile incarnation of the same basic attitude.

 

Rather, it would be more intellectually viable to state that there are simply as many "truths" as there are heads to entertain them, and that the various religions, perspectives, ideologies etc that exist are most certainly not means towards a common end.

[Amanda]

"The" law is "the" law made with the Israelites. The law was to last forever, so apparently the NT writers screwed with the Jewish laws. 

How could it give us hearts of stone when we weren't the people in which the laws and the covenant were made?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankful, the letter of the law means to go by the literal interpretation. We don't even do that in America any more. Of course the literal meaning has a lot of merit, yet it is the meaning and intent of the law that must be broken to ACTUALLY break the law.

 

Example: Since you live in Florida too, you can probably relate to this. I have a dog. It is against the law in Florida to leave your dog in the car when one goes into the store or whatever. Now I know the meaning and intent of this law is because it gets VERY hot in Florida, and especially with the window nearly closed... it becomes an oven and therefore animal cruelty! Yet, when the weather is, let's say 40 degrees outside... I take my dog with me to the store because I KNOW my dog would rather come with me and hang out in the car for a half hour while I shop. OK, I broke the law... I never have been reported, warned, even talked to about it! Why? Because I was NOT going against the meaning or intent of the law. That is basically what Jesus is saying also. The literal alliance can get to be rediculous, limits life, and Jesus was showing us how to have life more abundantly.

He had every right to be persecuted by the Jews if he did exist.  Every right because Jesus disregarded the laws YHWH gave the Jews.  The Jews were taught everlasting laws, so it's only normal that the Jews were upset. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankful, many barbarians broke the laws all the time, Jews as well, and the Jews didn't care. These were no threat to them. The reason the Jews got upset with Jesus is because Jesus was upseting their status quo. The Jews had self elitist strategies that piously held themselves in higher esteem than others, by their adherence to the laws... and they liked it that way. They had speech full of condemnation, had a lot of self elitist power in doing so, and Jesus' contention to this kind of behavior was a thorn in their side to say the least!

 

Jesus' principles such as being humble, no one is better or less than anyone else... being meek, to have one's power under a gentle nature... and having a servant's disposition, as in to lead one must serve. These were in direct conflict with the Jews! They didn't want to lead by struggling to empower others! NO! They wanted everyone else to struggle to empower them, for their legalistic pious nature... that was much better for them as they saw it. Jesus was a powerful social revolutionist, and the Jews did not like that! IMO

Yes, stems from vs. 1 and it is about incest. 

No he said it is not the business of believers to judge those who don't believe.  He then says it is the responsibility of the Christian to judge inside the church and EXPEL the wicked.  Here are his list of qualifications to fit the wicked category...

 

11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, as I've said, I'm not too computer literate... so I don't know how to bring another quote from another post so here is what the Bible verse said...

 

"1 Corinthians 5

 

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. WITH SUCH A MAN DON'T EVEN EAT.

 

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

 

Again, he isn't saying to not associate with ANY of these people at any time... just when they want to consider themselves intimately, as a brother, one of your family, then don't associate with them... don't even eat with them. What do you find so repulsive about that?

 

As far as judging, the verse 12, 13 I get from the KJV is this:

5:12

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

5:13

But them that are without God judgeth . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

And I think that it is still talking about putting away the wicked person who judges unto condemnation (James 3), and says to either put away the wicked person inside ourselves and/or to raise, elevate the one amongst us in the church so that they are no longer like that. The word 'away' comes from to rise or elevate.

The scripture I forgot to give reference is Matthew Chapter 15. 

 

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

    8" 'These people honor me with their lips,

      but their hearts are far from me.

    9They worship me in vain;

      their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[d]"

 

I know what the whole chapter reads but this still stands out.  Jesus says they dishonor god by NOT obeying gods laws.  To add to the whole clean/unclean issue the disciples were not eating "unclean" meat but their hands didn't meat Talmud cleanliness standards, hence "rules taught by men".  So indeed Jesus condemns them for not carrying out punishment for dishonoring one's parents - death but instead carrying out "rules" taught by men - improper washing of hands.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankful, I don't want to take up too much more space here, so I'll just list some verses that I think justify these sayings... and we can do smaller posts in reference to it, if need be... ok?

 

They dishonor God by disobeying God's law, mainly the most crucial law... (1)to love God with all their heart and soul... which is the same as the second most crucial law, (2)to love their neighbor as themself. These are the laws they dishonored... IMO.

 

Condemning people, do you think that is part of the solution Thankful?

 

Death is spiritual death...

Ro 8:6

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

 

15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

15:20

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

Jesus was saying that the Jews were concerned about what they ate was against the law, but Jesus was pointing out that what came out of their mouth was more important... and the law to wash hands is not so defiling as the judgemental ways of the Pharisees in which they condemned everyone but themselves.

[Amanda]

Rather, it would be more intellectually viable to state that there are simply as many "truths" as there are heads to entertain them, and that the various religions, perspectives, ideologies etc that exist are most certainly not means towards a common end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Christopher! What other common end does a spiritual belief system have than to attain peace and joy? There may be many truths, I just don't know how truth can contradict another truth? I can see how there are different paths...

 

Christopher, I know you come from a Celtic heritage, what spiritual beliefs do you lean towards?

[Christopher Carrion]

Hi Christopher! What other common end does a spiritual belief system have than to attain peace and joy? There may be many truths, I just don't know how truth can contradict another truth? I can see how there are different paths...

 

Christopher, I know you come from a Celtic heritage, what spiritual beliefs do you lean towards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Personally Amanda, I find the very notion of "faith" (or if you prefer, "belief") utterly perverse and self-serving. When most people proclaim "I believe such and such to be true," what they actually mean is "These are concepts which I find palatable and desirable, therefore I will adhere to them and promote them as being fundamental in the hope that my raw desire will render them as such." "Faith" is the adherence to concepts or ideals for which there is no quantifiable basis, and is demonstrative of a profound psychologically self-interested myopia on behalf of the adherent. You only have to wander this sight to witness the structures of justification and delusion adherents of any particular belief system wrap around themselves in the interests of defending it, since it and the ideals, perspectives and behavioural tenets it promotes have become the primary means by which the subject in questiond defines themselves psychologically. As a direct result, any questionning of said belief system, or even any ideology which promotes an alternative perspective is automatically interpreted as an attack upon the individual, which leads to the kind of neurotic defensism which I believe Americans term "apologetics".

 

I have no spiritual beliefs, because I have no basis for belief. The raw fact of the matter is historical evaluation of most belief structures, mythologies, religions and superstitions reveals physically quantifiable bases for how and why they were formed in the first place. The Noahic flood myth for example derives from Ancient Mesopotmia, a series of inter-related civilisations sprung up on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Every year those rivers would flood, decimating a goodly part of said civilisations. This is from whence we derive the basic notion of the global flood, although we know indisputably from geographical/archaeological evidence (plus raw common sense) that such an event did not and could never occur.

 

I describe myself as open minded; I will critically consider and evaluate any claim or perspective that is brought to my attention. However, my analysis of most religions and proscribed belief-structures reveals nothing but a host of historical fallacies, physical impossibilities and psychological self-fulfiment. The ntertainment of an "absolute truth" I also find insane; human beings do not inhabit a common reality beyond a particular point of mutual cooperation; we occupy intensely worlds that orbit our own heads, constituted by the perceptions our physical experience of the world have conditioned us with. "Meaning" or significance is not derived from particular events; it is applied, based upon what preconceptions we bring to our individual interpretations, and that's before we even begin to consider the notion of intention. This is why the concept of deriving an absolute truth from literature is ridiculous. Even if people can agree on certain superficial elements their individual interpretations or the emphasis they place on particular aspects will ultimately differ and in some instances dramatically so.

[Amanda]

I have no spiritual beliefs, because I have no basis for belief.

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

I describe myself as open minded; I will critically consider and evaluate any claim or perspective that is brought to my attention. However, my analysis of most religions and proscribed belief-structures reveals nothing but a host of historical fallacies, physical impossibilities and psychological self-fulfiment. The ntertainment of an "absolute truth" I also find insane; human beings do not inhabit a common reality beyond a particular point of mutual cooperation; we occupy intensely worlds that orbit our own heads, constituted by the perceptions our physical experience of the world have conditioned us with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Christopher, I do not like 'religion'. I consider 'spirituality' something sacred, different than religion... IMHO.

 

I am curious to know, do you have anything you consider sacred? How about protecting a child from abuse? ...an animal? ...a fellow human? ...rain forests? ...a mutual respect for life? HOW do you make those decisions?

 

I think spirituality and these teachings from many diverse and great prophets contribute wisdom to making those decisions... and pursuing the expansive ramifications involved in making them.

 

IMO, Atheism is kind of like a religion too... kind of like a wonderful belief that we too are gods. That is an important and admireable concept... an emphasis on SELF can contributes a lot to integrity from what I've seen.