Introduction...

[Kuroikaze]

- Paul went to Jerusalem first, then to Arabia, and finally back to Damascus, after he was cured of his blindness. Compared to other trips, he didn't stay too long in any of these three places, and they were the first three he visited after his blindness was cured. There were records from each place that documented his visit to them, but they didn't always have ways of sharing information that were fast or reliable.

 

Then perhaps you can explain this passage.

 

Galatians 1:16-17

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

[Angel of Hope]

Kuroikaze:

Then perhaps you can explain this passage.

 

QUOTE

Galatians 1:16-17

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

So, like I thought, Paul did go to all three places at first. These were, indeed, the first three places he went to. Luke has a way of generalizing his accounts. For some, it can lead to great confusion.

 

 

Justin:

Did you put that laughing smiley at the end of that because you reread it before posting it and saw how fucking idiotic it is? GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

 

Actually, I put it there because I thought the topic could stand a little bit of a light-hearted flare. Why did you put yours there?

 

If you don't like them, I'll stop putting them on. It's no big deal, really.

 

Antlerman:

You know, I'm almost wishing you would have answered, "It's allegorical". I can see some value in looking at these things symbolically, as a way of abstractly looking at the world. But once you try to make them "fit", you've now stepped outside the, how shall I put it, the more abstract "spiritual" way of looking at things, and under the surgical lights of rational scrutiny? Bad move when it comes to finding value in myth.

 

No, no, no. smile.gif Let "light" be revelation of divine knowledge, if you will, not so many lumen value of photons!! GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif These are not symbols of science. Oh why do I try to help? Let's see if you can go this one yourself. smile.gif

 

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

Evolution_beyond:

QUOTE (Angel of Hope @ Jul 7 2008, 05:50 AM) *

- Jesus, the man, was the person chosen by God to do His work. Jesus, as God, was the only person who could do the work, anyway.

 

 

And yet when Jesus is addressed as "good teacher" he says "why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10 v 18)

 

And Jesus also says "the father is greater than I" (John 14 v 28)

 

Paul says "Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15 vv 27-28)

 

This is what I mean. The Bible says or implies that Jesus is God - but then it contradicts itself and makes it quite clear that Jesus does not equal God.

 

QUOTE

- There were two angels at the tomb. No less than one, and no more than two. They were angels, in the form of men, which is why it says that they were both angels and men: manly angels, as it were.

 

 

So how come Matthew and Mark both say that there was only one?

 

QUOTE

- Paul went to Jerusalem first, then to Arabia, and finally back to Damascus, after he was cured of his blindness. Compared to other trips, he didn't stay too long in any of these three places, and they were the first three he visited after his blindness was cured. There were records from each place that documented his visit to them, but they didn't always have ways of sharing information that were fast or reliable.

 

 

So how come Paul himself says that "I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem... but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem." (Galatians 1 vv 17-18)

 

Was Paul lying? Or was it Luke who didn't have the correct information?

 

QUOTE

- Adam was created first, the plants and animals were created for him (before he was, as a provisionary measure, like how light was created before it was pulled into points like the stars for the plants to get light before the stars were formed). Since Eve was part of Adam from the beginning, Adam and Eve both existed after the plants and animals were created. Then, Eve was formed out of Adam.

 

 

lmao_99.gif I think this is over-explaining at its finest. So we have two accounts do we? One of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and one that describes Adam when he existed as a spirit before he was actually created in physical form. That is such an obviously invented explanation! lmao_99.gif

 

If that is the case then why is the Bible not clearer about what it actually means? Why does it say that Adam is in the garden of Eden, watered by those four rivers, when in fact it is describing Adam in some kind of spiritual before time?

 

The Father is greater than Jesus the Man. He is also the part that is inherent in the Holy Spirit, and the Son. That makes Him greater. However, it doesn't negate Christ's value. Also, notice that when Christ is correcting someone on a false doctrine, He almost never uses a question to start His replies. That tells me that Christ just wanted to know what motivated the man to call Him "Good", and He wanted the man to think about it himself.

 

Jesus is God, but Jesus is a lesser aspect of the greater Being Himself.

 

Matthew and Mark only knew of one, because they were only told of one. Luke was told of two by eyewitnesses. There was also the account of a young man, which could be the form used by the angels to make themselves identifiable to the humans. This is why it is necessary to search the entire Bible for the answer, instead of picking out several verses and isolating them as being separate and sovereign messages all to themselves.

 

As I said earlier, Luke has a way of condensing the message that can confuse some people.

 

It may seem invented to you, but you can't prove it wasn't.

 

To clarify: Adam existed in a spiritual form, before his body was formed in the Garden. Then, God breathed that spirit into him, and brought the body to life. Eve, being part of Adam, was derived from him afterward.

 

HanSolo:

That brings up another point. Jesus supposedly said:

 

QUOTE

John 17:20-23

20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

 

Or to make a bit more clear, the whole bunch of contradictory denominations creates this problem: Jesus said that the proof that all this came from God would be that all "Christians" would be united. There would be a unity.

 

We don't see this unity, and as you say, there are denominations that get things wrong, and you also have a lot of conflicts and fights between them.

 

To take Jesus's words seriously, this means Christianity isn't from God.

 

QUOTE

As to the question of why I believe, there are the main two factors that Huston Smith provides in his book, "The Religions of Man": logic/meaning, and experience. The Bible seems to me to have the only plausible conclusion, and Christ has proven himself every time I have prayed to God for help in His name.

 

What conclusion? As you said, there are many different denominations, so there are many different conclusions. If there's only "one conclusion", then your earlier statement have no foundation; our experience of a particular denomination and theology shouldn't be any different than yours. I think the explanation is rather that you apply and modify (unconsciously) the Bible to fit you, than the opposite. You pick the verses, and make a conclusion that is perfect for what you want to believe, and you disregard the verses and parts or theology that doesn't attract you.

 

 

QUOTE

Who says that you can't be deceived by Satan, and still be a good peson? In Acts 17, Paul was talking to a group of people whose hearts were in the right place, but who were deceived by various devils into worshipping them. God put up with the fact that they were deceived, until they learned the truth.

 

Which means, you don't have to be a Christian, or religious, or believe in the Bible, or follow God, or anything of all that stuff, to be a moral person. This means that you have to agree that morality is not a divine attribute, not is it only achieved through supernatural influence, but morality is something we, as humans, can do and know without God. Agreed?

 

Are not Christians united in the desire to follow the teachings and lifestyle of Christ?

 

The only divisions come from their adherence to human teachings above those of Christ, instead of simply as a way of understanding Christ's teachings. The Catholic church's adherence to Tradition along with the Bible is a good example: they put Tradition on a par with the Bible.

 

You say that this means Christianity isn't from God. The apostles tell us that it means the people promoting these denominations over the Biblical form of Christianity are the ones who aren't from God. "By their fruits shall ye know them."

 

Perhaps, instead, the people who control these other denominations are the ones who modify and disregard the Bible's teachings. I do the best I can to find all the Bible's teachings on the subject at hand, and put them together to come up with the definite answer.

 

The question isn't whether or not you can be moral. Sure, you can: God gave us all that ability. The question is whether or not you're willing to change your life, so that the things you do that have ill effects on the rest of Creation are no longer done by you, and so you want to make things better... especially on the highest level: that of God.

 

Tapophilia:

I left my abusive ex-husband in the middle of the night. I had three small children. I was technically homeless. I didn't know where my next meal was coming from. Where I would sleep and had to confront drug addicts, gang member and worst of all deal with the arrogant workers who were supposed to help me who treated me like I was no better than the gang members and drug addicts.

 

If you want to say that god answers your prayers, fine. You are either delusional or immature. I was a Christian when I had to go through all this and I know it wasn't god. I did it all myself and with the help of kind and loving people. To say it was god only discredits yourself and the others who were there for you.

 

Believe what you want, but why do you have to convince everyone else.

 

I can tell you this: your ex-husband wasn't a real Christian. He was, if he said he was one, hiding behind a smoke-screen that he probably thought he could manipulate to justify his actions. A real Christian wouldn't do that kind of thing in the first place: and, even if they did, they would do everything in their power to rectify the situation.

 

Believe me when I say I know where you're coming from (except for the raising 3 kids part). But, think about this: isn't it possible - even probable, - that God put those people that helped you into your life, to get you through the Devil's sick, twisted game? Isn't it even more possible, or even probable, that God gave you the strength to keep going? In fact, isn't it possible that God gave you your kids to give you something to fight for? Between you and me, there were times when I thought about ending it... if it weren't for my little brother, and how it would affect him, I might have. God put him into my life, and gave him all the problems he has (severe autism, separate diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome, mild mental retardation, developmentally delayed in all areas at various levels, and seizure disorders), among other reasons, to give me hope that I can share with others. His problems give him a child-like and innocent mind, which is an inspiration to everyone he meets.

 

You ask why I "have to convince everyone else"? That isn't my goal on here. However, if it happens, I won't cry over it. It is my sincere belief that God's Way is the key to a better way of life, and true happiness. If I can help others achieve that kind of happiness, and help them live better lives - lives with meaning and purpose, lives that bring peace and prosperity, lives that can weather the toughest of storms, - if I can show them that there is something to hope for... that's my life's goal. I do what I do because this world is dying, and the people in it are all on their death-bed. I am the one delivering medicine to them. I am here to help. This isn't something I chose, and it isn't something designed for my own benefit. I would give, and have given, my last cent to help people in need. I'm starting a ministry for the glory of God and the service of humanity. I really want to make this world someplace Christ could be proud of... a place that everyone actually wants to live in: not just because it's the only alternative they can see to death, but because it's a good place to live, and life is good.

 

God bless you all,

 

~AOH~

[Kuroikaze]

Kuroikaze:

Then perhaps you can explain this passage.

 

QUOTE

Galatians 1:16-17

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

So, like I thought, Paul did go to all three places at first. These were, indeed, the first three places he went to. Luke has a way of generalizing his accounts. For some, it can lead to great confusion.

 

 

Sorry, but I think you are the one that is confused.

 

Paul says "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me," Paul specifically says he DIDN'T go to Jerusalem first. Luke says he DID go to Jerusalem.

 

So which is it? Stop dodging the question with this nonsense.

 

Either you have extremely poor reading skills or you think I'm an idiot. Please answer the question in a way that isn't an insult to everyone's intelligence.

[Deva]

Either you have extremely poor reading skills or you think I'm an idiot. Please answer the question in a way that isn't an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

I somehow doubt that's possible.

 

My comment on the "source of information" was completely ignored. But then again, that's the crux of the problem with trying to prove anything by a 2,000 year old writing.

[Justin]

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

[Angel of Hope]

Kuroikaze:

Then perhaps you can explain this passage.

 

QUOTE

Galatians 1:16-17

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

So, like I thought, Paul did go to all three places at first. These were, indeed, the first three places he went to. Luke has a way of generalizing his accounts. For some, it can lead to great confusion.

 

 

Sorry, but I think you are the one that is confused.

 

Paul says "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me," Paul specifically says he DIDN'T go to Jerusalem first. Luke says he DID go to Jerusalem.

 

So which is it? Stop dodging the question with this nonsense.

 

Either you have extremely poor reading skills or you think I'm an idiot. Please answer the question in a way that isn't an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

WOW! Kuroikaze, tell me, is everyone on here this bitter?

 

Sorry if you decided to take my straight-forward answer to be an insult.

 

Now, onto the answer... again.

 

You recognize that Paul said he didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST. You also recognize that Luke says he did go to Jerusalem, but didn't say that he went there FIRST. In those points, you are right. Where you are wrong, as it looks to me, is in claiming that the idea that Paul didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST contradicts the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem at all. That is just an argument you can't make. It doesn't fit. Just because Paul didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST, doesn't mean he couldn't go to Jerusalem AT ALL.

 

I'd like to bring up another point, while we're at it. It seems to me that many of you are bitter. Rather than being the happier, better-rounded people that you claim leaving Christianity made you, you are angry and bitter, and just looking for a fight. It's understandable that, if you've had bad experiences with other "Christians", you would be bitter and angry at them, but why do you switch those feelings to other Christians? Not everyone who uses the title of Christian is corrupt, or crazy, and certainly no real Christian will deliberately cause you any trouble. I know I wouldn't. I happen to believe that Christ taught, "Inasmuch as you would have others do unto you, do ye even so unto them". I wouldn't want any of you to treat me like dirt, so I don't treat anyone on here like that, either. I wouldn't want anyone to look down their nose at me, like I'm some sort of 2nd or 3rd-class citizen, so I won't do that, either. I wouldn't even think of deliberately hurting anyone for no reason... especially if it's because they're non-Christian! All I ask is that we all remember the rules of this part of the board: basically, act like grown-ups, no insults, no flaming, and no off-topic arguments.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

[Angel of Hope]

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

 

It's not really up to interpretation, because there is more than one right answer. For something to be up to interpretation, it can only have one right answer, which is yet unknown.

[Neon Genesis]

I'd like to bring up another point, while we're at it. It seems to me that many of you are bitter. Rather than being the happier, better-rounded people that you claim leaving Christianity made you, you are angry and bitter, and just looking for a fight.

Last I checked, you're the one coming here and telling us that you have the truth and everyone else is wrong. If anyone's just looking for a fight, it's you.

 

It's understandable that, if you've had bad experiences with other "Christians", you would be bitter and angry at them, but why do you switch those feelings to other Christians?

Why are you so bitter and angry that you just can't accept the fact that we don't believe in your god?

 

All I ask is that we all remember the rules of this part of the board: basically, act like grown-ups, no insults, no flaming, and no off-topic arguments.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

I'll ask you to remember the rules, too. Why aren't you acting like a grown up and making false accusations of us? Why are you insulting and flaming us by calling us bitter and angry? And why are you making this off-topic argument to make false accusations of us being angry and bitter? By your own admission, aren't you breaking the forum rules?

[Ouroboros]

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

 

It's not really up to interpretation, because there is more than one right answer. For something to be up to interpretation, it can only have one right answer, which is yet unknown.

No, no, no.... where the heck did you learn English?

 

Interpretation means there are multiple answers, but the person doing the interpretation consider, based on his own opinion or maybe even supported by arguments, one (or possible more) to be the more likely one(s).

 

I don't think interpretation requires there to be just one single right unknown answer. Sometimes, the answer is more complex that just a straight one. Right? Sometimes it involves multiple interconnected parts. Take a question like: "what is a car?" Is there only one answer?

 

Lets ask this question: "what is a true and good Christian?"

[Antlerman]

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

 

It's not really up to interpretation, because there is more than one right answer. For something to be up to interpretation, it can only have one right answer, which is yet unknown.

Since the first part of this is a response to me, I'll address that then talk to the other points following.

 

May I ask you when you say "God's Word", what you mean? I ask because there are a lot of ways that various Christians mean that. Some say the Bible is God's Word to mean they are directly dictated or inspired words from God's mouth so they are therefore without error. Other Christians mean it's God's Word, in that the inspiration of God, inspired men to write with what they were opened to, but that it is not perfect as what came through, but rather just "inspired" like a good poet or musician who spontaneously creates through a vision of some aesthetic ideal, or tapping into their more abstract vision of the heart? In the latter, matters of history and science are irrelevant questions or factors, and "errors" and contradictions are besides the point. So exactly how literally do you take the term "God's Word" to mean?

 

Second point: Justin brings up the point of "reliability". He questions how are to "place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?" I hear your response, but I don't think it quite addresses the underlying criteria the he brought up. You're saying its nature is such that it is a more 'interpretative', but would you care to try to explain how that is something that, as he says you can "place total reliance" on? I know how I would address that point in the context of epistemology, but I'd like to hear you respond to that. I'm asking because I want to hear how well you understand that sort of question that many have today and how it relates to how you see the world.

 

P.S. Even if some experience frustration with certain types of responses, your tone has been respectful and I recognize that. I try to let tempers settle themselves without stepping in, but will if I see things degrade outside the rules of this forum. The purpose of the forum is to debate/discuss points, not personalities.

[Justin]

QUOTE (Justin @ Jul 9 2008, 06:31 PM)

QUOTE

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

 

 

 

It's not really up to interpretation, because there is more than one right answer. For something to be up to interpretation, it can only have one right answer, which is yet unknown.

 

Er, no. If something is allegorical then that part of it is not "one of the right answers". But it helps what i was trying to get across to you in my last post. Why would you life your entire life around something that is purely allegorical? Also, think about this. This is supposed to be GOD'S word, why in the world would he have umpteen ways to interrpret his holy word? He has allegories mixed in with supposed "truths" and yet you christians buy into it and want all us to buy into it too.

[Kuroikaze]

WOW! Kuroikaze, tell me, is everyone on here this bitter?

 

Wow and ad hominem....I so...surprised. For your information I'm not bitter just exasperated at your ability pretend two contradicting statements don't contradict.

 

Sorry if you decided to take my straight-forward answer to be an insult.

 

Your answer is insulting because you clearly do no know anything about first century history.

 

Now, onto the answer... again.

 

You recognize that Paul said he didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST. You also recognize that Luke says he did go to Jerusalem, but didn't say that he went there FIRST. In those points, you are right. Where you are wrong, as it looks to me, is in claiming that the idea that Paul didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST contradicts the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem at all. That is just an argument you can't make. It doesn't fit. Just because Paul didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST, doesn't mean he couldn't go to Jerusalem AT ALL.

 

No, in the narrative in Acts, while is does not directly say "Paul went to Jerusalem first," does places that as his first stop after leaving. This argument of yours is VERY weak, though I suppose technically possible, it is by far the less likely than other more reasonable explanations. That is, of course, assuming that one has not made up their mind a-priori that the bible is true. This is why apologetics bothers me so much, you aren't interested in the truth, but just ANY explanation that will justify your belief no matter how flimsy the explanation is.

 

The reality is that Paul didn't seem to like the apostles, He specifically says he didn't go to Jerusalem first because he felt he was the equal of all the other apostles. Read Paul's letters carefully and you will see that he disagreed with Peter in particular. He wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem because he didn't see any need to consult with the apostles there, he thought they were wrong on many things, like circumcision for instance. He publicly attacks Peter for refusing to associate with Gentiles, according to his own hand. His letter are full of constant warnings about "false teachers" who will tell his churches they need to be circumcised.

 

On as side note, Galatians was not only the first letter written by Paul, but the first book in the new testament to be written

 

However, by the time Acts was written (70-100 C.E.) Paul was dead, and many people questioned his authenticity as an apostle because he had not been with Jesus directly.

The writer of Acts attempts to improve Paul's reputation by trying to make it look like he was buddies with the other apostles, and that they agreed with Paul about the need to do away with Jewish law, including Circumcision.

 

If you read the bible with out being guided by your a-priori notions, you will see that this explanation fits the available facts much better.

 

I'd like to bring up another point, while we're at it. It seems to me that many of you are bitter. Rather than being the happier, better-rounded people that you claim leaving Christianity made you, you are angry and bitter, and just looking for a fight.

 

This is a personal attack, clear and simple. It is also presumptuous of you, who I have only interacted with on a message board, to assume you know everything about my personality. To be clear, you don't, My life does not revolve around this message board, and I don't spend all my time debating with believers.

Actually, I currently fix computers for a living. Some of my Hobbies are watching Anime, playing guitar, building computers. I am also moving to Japan in August to teach English.

 

So you see, you really don't know jack squat about me, so please quit acting like you do.

 

It's understandable that, if you've had bad experiences with other "Christians", you would be bitter and angry at them, but why do you switch those feelings to other Christians? Not everyone who uses the title of Christian is corrupt, or crazy, and certainly no real Christian will deliberately cause you any trouble.

 

Well, I'm sure you think you are one of those "good Christians," but from my end, you seem arrogant, judgmental, ignorant, quick to pass judgment. Of course, I'll admit my interaction with you is limited to this message board, so I could be off base, but at least now you understand why I am a bit short with you. No, I haven't been angry, you would know if I got angry, just because I don't sugar coat what I say doesn't mean I'm pissed off at you.

 

I know I wouldn't. I happen to believe that Christ taught, "Inasmuch as you would have others do unto you, do ye even so unto them". I wouldn't want any of you to treat me like dirt, so I don't treat anyone on here like that, either. I wouldn't want anyone to look down their nose at me, like I'm some sort of 2nd or 3rd-class citizen, so I won't do that, either.

 

Well, you have treated me pretty poorly, but for the sake of discussion.

 

Perhaps you can tell me what you think of gay marriage? Teaching creationism in science class rooms? Would you allow an atheist or a homosexual to adopt a child? Vote for them if they ran for public office and had good ideas?

 

I am actually curious what your answers are, I have met many Christians who DO actually support gay marriage, and realize that creationism is not science. I am asking you to put your money where you mouth is however. If you, for instance, do NOT support the right of gay couples to marry, then I think your previous statement is just lip service.

 

 

I wouldn't even think of deliberately hurting anyone for no reason... especially if it's because they're non-Christian! All I ask is that we all remember the rules of this part of the board: basically, act like grown-ups, no insults, no flaming, and no off-topic arguments.

 

Neither would I hurt someone for no reason, for the record I have not insulted you, and I have acted like a grownup, you need to learn the difference between insulting a person, and questioning the validity of their arguments. Being polite does not mean I no longer have the right to tell you when you are wrong, to me that is just political correctness run amok. Society will never improve if we cannot openly debate ideas for fear someone might get their feelings hurt.

[godlessgrrl]

Greetings, AOH. Some thoughts on your response to me. I hope you will forgive my snipping some of your response in order to streamline my own.

 

Hi, Gwenmead (Celtic, right?)

 

Not exactly. Sounds Celtic, but is actually an anagram.

 

<...> The text is important, because that's how the message is conveyed. However, the message is just as important: without it, there would be no need for, or significance to, the text. This was the moderate sect, and that is the way I believe and practice.

 

Okay. Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you feel that the text has a deeper meaning or message than its apparent, literal translation.

 

I believe this because, like much of the Bible's message, I have experienced it in real life. <...>

 

How?

 

I guess another way of putting it would be this: when I was in middle school, my teacher did two exercises with us. In the first, we sat in a circle. He whispered something to the first kid in the circle, and didn't repeat it clearly. <...>

 

I'm a bit confused as to the relevance of this anecdote, although I'm guessing that you probably aren't trying to imply that biblical translation is a lot like a game of Telephone. Could you clarify what you're trying to illustrate using this story?

 

The other experiment was that he went around the room, and showed us something he wrote on a piece of paper. <...> The moral: if you read between the lines of two "conflicting" texts that are in the same collection, it will reveal the original message. In fact, this was the kind of thing Jesus was trying to teach the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Herodians.

 

It's interesting that that's the particular moral you got out of those exercises. There are other conclusions one might draw from the same experience: that oral communication is not reliable, or that the same text is open to multiple interpretations, for instance. How exactly did you arrive at the "moral" that you did?

 

Additionally, how do you know when you've correctly ascertained the "deeper meaning" of a given text?

 

What is the difference, if any, between a "seeming" contradiction and an "actual" contradiction?

 

Who says that you can't be deceived by Satan, and still be a good person?

 

Could you recognize the difference between a good person deceived by Satan and a good person led by god?

 

If so, how?

 

If not, then how is the distinction relevant in anything but an academic way?

 

See, from the posts I've read so far, it seems that most of the people on here only think of Christianity, and thus the teachings of Christ, from the perspective of one denomination or another. I have learned from experience that there are some things denominations get right, and there are some things they all get wrong in one way or another. That's why I don't subscribe to any one denomination's beliefs or interpretations.

 

What exactly do differing denominations get "right" or "wrong", and how do you know?

 

As to the question of why I believe, there are the main two factors that Huston Smith provides in his book, "The Religions of Man": logic/meaning, and experience. The Bible seems to me to have the only plausible conclusion, and Christ has proven himself every time I have prayed to God for help in His name.

 

Conclusion to what?

 

How exactly has Christ proven himself to you?

 

Oh, I think I see some of the answer to this here:

 

<...> Every time I needed help, I asked for it from God in Christ's name, and every time the answer was presented to me. <...> God has shown me, time and again, in dealing with the problems sent my way, that the Bible does show us the right way to deal with our problems. God has also shown me that the consequences for certain sins are the same in real life, as they are in the Bible.

 

It sounds as if you have had some difficult times in your life, and I am glad that you were able to pull through them. What about your healing or recovery process tells you that it was god helping you, specifically?

 

And besides that, wouldn't you agree with me that the best way to learn is to learn from your elders? What source of information would, then, be better than that given from over 2,000 years ago, by men from all kinds of lifestyles and circumstances; from kings to beggars, and from fishermen to prophets and priests? It is, literally, the best collection of experience I have seen. Granted, I'm no expert in world religions, but it has yet to be proven wrong in my life... and really, isn't that the only experience I can speak from: my own?

 

No. I don't agree at all, that the best way to learn is from one's elders. Learning from more experienced people is one way to learn, but I have learned best when I've been able to do or experience something myself. You note yourself that the only experience from which you can speak is your own. I agree there.

 

Also: what exactly makes 2000-year-old information "better" than other sources?

 

I look forward to your thoughts on this. Thank you kindly.

[Purple]

And besides that, wouldn't you agree with me that the best way to learn is to learn from your elders?

 

Just a quick note on this. No, you see people do not all learn best the same way, and what you learn fomr your elders is only as good as the information they have. Sometiems it is good information, time tested and all, but sometimes it's outdated information that no longer works at all.

 

I have more than one learning disability, as does my husband. I can have a VERY difficult time reading if I have to do so in what my "elders" called a good reading environment. This may not be exactly the kind of thing you were suggesting with this, perhaps you were thinking more along the lines of getting the best information from those who came before. I think we do need to hear from our elders, but I also think we need to be open to new ideas, and even ways of thinking.

 

I am also going to ask you, in this place, to be a little more sensitive about words and lables such as bitter. I am not nearly as angry as I once was, but there was a time I was. The word "bitter" denotes something that is bad, and a way to not be. Many here have very legit reasons to be angry with the xian community. To say "That was not real Christians" is to only side step the issue and displace the blame. Every xian I know admits fully that they are not perfect, this being the case then you do not know if the xians we've dealt with were very real xians who behaved badly, or maybe they were just lying about their beliefs for reasons unknown to any of us. The thing is there is no way to know, so it makes going about saying this is a real xian this is not irrelevent. I am well aware not all xians do the kinds of things that made me angry, but those that did, did so in the name of this religion. If someone hurts me, it isn't fair to jump to the thought that everyone who is a memeber of some group they belong to is the same. Yet if someone hurts me, and uses a group, and it's beliefs as justification for said hurt, then, at the very least I have the right to question the group, and its beliefs as a whole. If in investigating if this was a one time, one person thing or I not, I find others in the same group that agree they would have done the same thing that was hurtful, and justify it the same way, well how much has to jive before I can hold the group in question at fault?

[Angel of Hope]

QUOTE (Justin @ Jul 9 2008, 06:31 PM)

QUOTE

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

 

 

 

It's not really up to interpretation, because there is more than one right answer. For something to be up to interpretation, it can only have one right answer, which is yet unknown.

 

Er, no. If something is allegorical then that part of it is not "one of the right answers". But it helps what i was trying to get across to you in my last post. Why would you life your entire life around something that is purely allegorical? Also, think about this. This is supposed to be GOD'S word, why in the world would he have umpteen ways to interrpret his holy word? He has allegories mixed in with supposed "truths" and yet you christians buy into it and want all us to buy into it too.

 

The reason there are so many possibilities is because, that way, God's Word never changes. If something new were to pop up every day, then there would be need for a different revelation... something you could expect in a godless world, or a pantheonic world, where evolution might rule the day. However, nothing really is new under the sun. The details might be different, but we're going through the same exact problems people have gone through thousands of years ago, and might go through thousands of years from now. Even so, there are still nearly infinite possibilities. For that reason, God's Word is just flexible enough to fit every possible scenario, but just concrete enough to hold the answers to every question that has come before, which was common to mankind.

 

~AOH~

[Angel of Hope]

I'd like to bring up another point, while we're at it. It seems to me that many of you are bitter. Rather than being the happier, better-rounded people that you claim leaving Christianity made you, you are angry and bitter, and just looking for a fight.

Last I checked, you're the one coming here and telling us that you have the truth and everyone else is wrong. If anyone's just looking for a fight, it's you.

 

It's understandable that, if you've had bad experiences with other "Christians", you would be bitter and angry at them, but why do you switch those feelings to other Christians?

Why are you so bitter and angry that you just can't accept the fact that we don't believe in your god?

 

All I ask is that we all remember the rules of this part of the board: basically, act like grown-ups, no insults, no flaming, and no off-topic arguments.

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

I'll ask you to remember the rules, too. Why aren't you acting like a grown up and making false accusations of us? Why are you insulting and flaming us by calling us bitter and angry? And why are you making this off-topic argument to make false accusations of us being angry and bitter? By your own admission, aren't you breaking the forum rules?

 

How have I tried to convert anyone? I stated my point on here, and I thought I would receive some responses, rather than questions. I answer what questions come my way, as best I can. Whether you believe either you, or I, am right or wrong makes no difference to me. I initially came on here to find out why someone would turn away from what they understood to be Christianity (if it were indeed actual Christianity). Thus, I am most definitely not looking for a fight. I'm looking to understand things. I'm not one to back down from a fight, but I am certainly not one to start a fight, either.

 

I am not bitter, or angry, with any of you. I have been hurt by non-Christians before, but I have been hurt by "Christians", as well. I have no reason to be angry or bitter with any of you, nor am I. Perhaps, some of us can even overcome our ideological differences and become friends, or at least acquaintances.

 

Who says my "accusations" against any of you are false? I've done some looking on this site, and I've seen some of you just verbally tear chunks out of other Christians, for nothing more than basically saying "hi, I'm a Christian. What's going on here?"... Doesn't that constitute being bitter, and/or angry? Note, also, I didn't say all of you are that way, or point out anyone in particular (except you, and then only from my observation of your post to me). As for flaming... I don't know about any of you, but I think I tried pretty hard to make my posts as unoffensive as possible, while still getting my point across. As for my posts being off-topic... I made an observation. It was very much on-topic, because it pertained to a post you had posted to me, which was of a very prejudicial tone. You, indeed, do seem to be bitter and angry. Is that an insult to your character? You may think it was, but it actually isn't. It's more a comment about your attitude, than your personality. Surely, you can see the difference between the two.

 

Take my posts at face-value, because I have nothing deeper to say than what I say. If you can't understand what I mean about something, by all means, ask away. I have problems expressing myself (among others), and I will try to explain as best I can. Don't go assuming I mean to do, say, think, or feel something, just because you have a question about something I post and you don't want to get the answer from me.

 

God bless you,

 

~AOH~

[Justin]

The reason there are so many possibilities is because, that way, God's Word never changes. If something new were to pop up every day, then there would be need for a different revelation... something you could expect in a godless world, or a pantheonic world, where evolution might rule the day. However, nothing really is new under the sun. The details might be different, but we're going through the same exact problems people have gone through thousands of years ago, and might go through thousands of years from now. Even so, there are still nearly infinite possibilities. For that reason, God's Word is just flexible enough to fit every possible scenario, but just concrete enough to hold the answers to every question that has come before, which was common to mankind.

 

All religions could say that about their holy books, the bible isn't unique in this. Allah's word is flexible enough to fit every possible scenario. And, if one twists things around so that it fits what they want it to, then yes, you would be right. It's precisly for this reason that so many denominations of denominations sprang up from the same book that, according to the christian fundamentalists and even the bible itself, should be perfectly clear in what it means. No denomination agrees on very much and at the end of the day all you have is a jumbled up mess. Any outsider wouldn't have the first clue as to how to sort through it to find the truth. But, this is all from just ONE book. You still have many more holy books out there to sort through. One doesn't have a single shred of proof to validate any of them.

 

May i suggest to you a website? Read over this and tell me what you think. http://www.godvsthebible.com/tableofcontents

[Antlerman]

The details might be different, but we're going through the same exact problems people have gone through thousands of years ago, and might go through thousands of years from now. Even so, there are still nearly infinite possibilities. For that reason, God's Word is just flexible enough to fit every possible scenario, but just concrete enough to hold the answers to every question that has come before, which was common to mankind.

 

~AOH~

I know you haven't addressed the things I've brought up yet, but I wanted to respond to this. What you've just described is the power of a good mythology. Do you realize that those answers emanate from within us? That these sorts of stories, if you will, are essentially agents? The power isn't in the "revelation", but the spirit of humanity?

 

I'm waiting for your response to see if you in fact recognize this....

[Angel of Hope]

It can be allegorical as well. Why not? The possibilities are endless, when it comes to God's Word, as long as it's for a good purpose.

 

LOL, so we are to place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?

 

It's not really up to interpretation, because there is more than one right answer. For something to be up to interpretation, it can only have one right answer, which is yet unknown.

Since the first part of this is a response to me, I'll address that then talk to the other points following.

 

May I ask you when you say "God's Word", what you mean? I ask because there are a lot of ways that various Christians mean that. Some say the Bible is God's Word to mean they are directly dictated or inspired words from God's mouth so they are therefore without error. Other Christians mean it's God's Word, in that the inspiration of God, inspired men to write with what they were opened to, but that it is not perfect as what came through, but rather just "inspired" like a good poet or musician who spontaneously creates through a vision of some aesthetic ideal, or tapping into their more abstract vision of the heart? In the latter, matters of history and science are irrelevant questions or factors, and "errors" and contradictions are besides the point. So exactly how literally do you take the term "God's Word" to mean?

 

Second point: Justin brings up the point of "reliability". He questions how are to "place total reliance and build our whole lives around something as "up for interpretation" as this?" I hear your response, but I don't think it quite addresses the underlying criteria the he brought up. You're saying its nature is such that it is a more 'interpretative', but would you care to try to explain how that is something that, as he says you can "place total reliance" on? I know how I would address that point in the context of epistemology, but I'd like to hear you respond to that. I'm asking because I want to hear how well you understand that sort of question that many have today and how it relates to how you see the world.

 

P.S. Even if some experience frustration with certain types of responses, your tone has been respectful and I recognize that. I try to let tempers settle themselves without stepping in, but will if I see things degrade outside the rules of this forum. The purpose of the forum is to debate/discuss points, not personalities.

 

I tip my hat to you, Antlerman *tips hat I don't actually have, cause I'm poor*...

 

This is what I mean when I refer to God's Word...

 

Thousands of years ago, God impressed ideas on various peoples' minds and hearts. They expressed these ideals as best as they knew how. God inspired it in just such a way that each part is a perfect revelation of His Way, but also so that it appeals to certain people that can identify with the author or main character. Of course, since different people wrote it over thousands of years' time, each one from a different walk of life, each person had a kind of piece to the greater puzzles. It's like God mailed them all boxes with different pieces to various puzzles. Some fit together nicely, but they were eventually left behind to be collected together by people who could take a piece from each package, and put all the puzzles together... then, the puzzles all link together into one big puzzle.

 

Another way of putting it: Existence (as in all time,) is like a play. Material existence is the set and the props. There is an area behind the curtain, where the actors go after they're done with their parts. There is a director (God), a script-writer (Jesus), and a Producer (Holy Ghost). All three can be the same being, of course, just like some productions have a producer who happens to be the director and the script-writer. In any case, we are the characters. The angels are the stagehands, and the ones holding the cue-cards. The script starts out as an idea, and is then copied down into a paper format (by a team of writers working under the executive script-writer). There is a former stagehand, who wanted to be the boss over the whole production. He led other angels and characters into doing improv, when the entire cast was supposed to follow the script. If the production is screwed up, then everyone suffers. For the good of the production, they are fired. They end up in the basement, under the "care" of the rebellious stagehands. For a while, some of the actors were entrusted to teach the script to the others. Then, when the time was right, the executive script-writer Himself took a part in the play, to help people understand the motivation of their characters in the script. He was fired, and rescued some of the people who believed in following the script, taking them to the after-party behind the curtain. His understudies picked up where He left off, teaching the motivation of the script, and trusting in the executive script-writer.

 

Basically, in a colorful nut-shell, that's what I believe about the Bible.

 

While the different interpretations provide clues to the entire truth, none of them are as important by themselves as they are together... on the other hand, some interpretations don't work, and should not be put in the same "melting pot" as the others. It's like one of those paintings made up of little dots. Each of the dots is different, but they all fit together. If you don't take them all together, but instead try to make a painting out of just one or a few of them, it won't work no matter what. However, you can't expect to add solid lines to a painting made up of little dots.

 

~AOH~

 

P.S. - Excuse me, if my explanations are a little unrefined. I go with my gut when I explain things.

[Antlerman]

P.S. - Excuse me, if my explanations are a little unrefined. I go with my gut when I explain things.

Not a problem. I'll ponder your perceptions and get back to you after I process them....

[Angel of Hope]

WOW! Kuroikaze, tell me, is everyone on here this bitter?

 

Wow and ad hominem....I so...surprised. For your information I'm not bitter just exasperated at your ability pretend two contradicting statements don't contradict.

 

Sorry if you decided to take my straight-forward answer to be an insult.

 

Your answer is insulting because you clearly do no know anything about first century history.

 

Now, onto the answer... again.

 

You recognize that Paul said he didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST. You also recognize that Luke says he did go to Jerusalem, but didn't say that he went there FIRST. In those points, you are right. Where you are wrong, as it looks to me, is in claiming that the idea that Paul didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST contradicts the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem at all. That is just an argument you can't make. It doesn't fit. Just because Paul didn't go to Jerusalem FIRST, doesn't mean he couldn't go to Jerusalem AT ALL.

 

No, in the narrative in Acts, while is does not directly say "Paul went to Jerusalem first," does places that as his first stop after leaving. This argument of yours is VERY weak, though I suppose technically possible, it is by far the less likely than other more reasonable explanations. That is, of course, assuming that one has not made up their mind a-priori that the bible is true. This is why apologetics bothers me so much, you aren't interested in the truth, but just ANY explanation that will justify your belief no matter how flimsy the explanation is.

 

The reality is that Paul didn't seem to like the apostles, He specifically says he didn't go to Jerusalem first because he felt he was the equal of all the other apostles. Read Paul's letters carefully and you will see that he disagreed with Peter in particular. He wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem because he didn't see any need to consult with the apostles there, he thought they were wrong on many things, like circumcision for instance. He publicly attacks Peter for refusing to associate with Gentiles, according to his own hand. His letter are full of constant warnings about "false teachers" who will tell his churches they need to be circumcised.

 

On as side note, Galatians was not only the first letter written by Paul, but the first book in the new testament to be written

 

However, by the time Acts was written (70-100 C.E.) Paul was dead, and many people questioned his authenticity as an apostle because he had not been with Jesus directly.

The writer of Acts attempts to improve Paul's reputation by trying to make it look like he was buddies with the other apostles, and that they agreed with Paul about the need to do away with Jewish law, including Circumcision.

 

If you read the bible with out being guided by your a-priori notions, you will see that this explanation fits the available facts much better.

 

I'd like to bring up another point, while we're at it. It seems to me that many of you are bitter. Rather than being the happier, better-rounded people that you claim leaving Christianity made you, you are angry and bitter, and just looking for a fight.

 

This is a personal attack, clear and simple. It is also presumptuous of you, who I have only interacted with on a message board, to assume you know everything about my personality. To be clear, you don't, My life does not revolve around this message board, and I don't spend all my time debating with believers.

Actually, I currently fix computers for a living. Some of my Hobbies are watching Anime, playing guitar, building computers. I am also moving to Japan in August to teach English.

 

So you see, you really don't know jack squat about me, so please quit acting like you do.

 

It's understandable that, if you've had bad experiences with other "Christians", you would be bitter and angry at them, but why do you switch those feelings to other Christians? Not everyone who uses the title of Christian is corrupt, or crazy, and certainly no real Christian will deliberately cause you any trouble.

 

Well, I'm sure you think you are one of those "good Christians," but from my end, you seem arrogant, judgmental, ignorant, quick to pass judgment. Of course, I'll admit my interaction with you is limited to this message board, so I could be off base, but at least now you understand why I am a bit short with you. No, I haven't been angry, you would know if I got angry, just because I don't sugar coat what I say doesn't mean I'm pissed off at you.

 

I know I wouldn't. I happen to believe that Christ taught, "Inasmuch as you would have others do unto you, do ye even so unto them". I wouldn't want any of you to treat me like dirt, so I don't treat anyone on here like that, either. I wouldn't want anyone to look down their nose at me, like I'm some sort of 2nd or 3rd-class citizen, so I won't do that, either.

 

Well, you have treated me pretty poorly, but for the sake of discussion.

 

Perhaps you can tell me what you think of gay marriage? Teaching creationism in science class rooms? Would you allow an atheist or a homosexual to adopt a child? Vote for them if they ran for public office and had good ideas?

 

I am actually curious what your answers are, I have met many Christians who DO actually support gay marriage, and realize that creationism is not science. I am asking you to put your money where you mouth is however. If you, for instance, do NOT support the right of gay couples to marry, then I think your previous statement is just lip service.

 

 

I wouldn't even think of deliberately hurting anyone for no reason... especially if it's because they're non-Christian! All I ask is that we all remember the rules of this part of the board: basically, act like grown-ups, no insults, no flaming, and no off-topic arguments.

 

Neither would I hurt someone for no reason, for the record I have not insulted you, and I have acted like a grownup, you need to learn the difference between insulting a person, and questioning the validity of their arguments. Being polite does not mean I no longer have the right to tell you when you are wrong, to me that is just political correctness run amok. Society will never improve if we cannot openly debate ideas for fear someone might get their feelings hurt.

 

Gay marriage: I believe that the whole reason for sex is to produce children, draw a household together (especially the spouses), and provide a well-balanced upbringing for the children. Personally, I just don't see how two people of the same gender can accomplish the last part, as they have too much in common, and would thus only promote one set of reasons, leading to a child whose values are placed on an imbalanced reasoning. However, technically, Biblical marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of a couple's love, fidelity, and solidarity with each-other. So, while possible, I don't think it's logical for a man or woman to marry what basically amounts to a friend, with too much emotional emphasis placed on that friend. The fact, from my observations, is that homosexual people don't tend to have many - in some cases, none, - long-lasting relationships, because it's like dating yourself. No man is an island unto himself, true enough; however, it's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces together that don't fit, just because they're both pretty, and the designs compliment each-other. Now, you may call me closed-minded, but the fact is that, while I don't see anything really constructive about homosexual marriage, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, there are certain aspects of the lifestyle and community that I happen to find admirable and commendable. We simply disagree on whether or not emotions and impulses should rule the people to whom they were given.

 

What are my ideas about teaching creation in the classroom? Personally, I am an avid believer in the idea of creation over Darwinian evolution. Without personal opinion being injected into the subject, science is all about being fair and balanced in experimentation and hypothesis. I think it should be taught as a possibility, as should evolution. The evidence - both for, and against, - both should be presented in a fair and balanced way to the class, and each individual should be allowed to come to their own conclusions and attempt to provide support for them in an open forum. May the best idea win...

 

I don't care who adopts the child, as long as they don't manipulate, neglect, or abuse the child in any way. Should a child be raised around homosexuality, without heterosexuality being present in the child's life? No, because it presents the child with a form of peer/authority pressure. I have known many kids who turned gay, because they thought that was what their parents wanted. In fact, one of my cousins came close, and still has a bias against men (of course, there are other reasons for her distaste for men, as is true with my aunt, but living with a lesbian mother and her lover surely didn't help her prejudice against men). In short, the child must have a well-rounded upbringing. If a gay parent or an atheist parent can provide that, and not force their prejudice on their children, why would God object?

 

If they didn't inject their own personal prejudices, biases and discriminations into their decisions, and none of the other candidates were right for the job, I might vote for a gay or atheist ruler (of course, when I say prejudice, bias and discrimination, I don't mean it necessarily in the negative way. I just mean their belief that their opinions are more important than others, and that their lifestyle is more important than the people. In other words, if they wanted to make the entire city a gay city, or an atheist city, and cause pain and suffering for those who disagreed, I wouldn't consider them: if they were going to be fair, and allow disagreements to a certain extent, I might). I think God cares more about how the lifestyle and/or action affects His creations, and the reason behind it, than the act itself. Hence, though there were prescribed sacrifices, God said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice".

 

As for you... I have no problem with honesty. When people go out of their way to insult and be generally abrasive just to prove their point, however, I do have a problem with that. Of course, I can't help you take my posts at face-value, if you're not willing to, so I doubt you will take this one at face-value, either.

 

In fact, you take the same tone with other Christians on the board, but not with other non-Christians... even when they might disagree with you. It's almost like you go out of your way to avoid confrontation with other non-Christians, but you deliberately try to confront and attack Christians. Sure, some may deserve it, for being rude and abrasive... but do they all, regardless of their attitude? Ask yourself: isn't the idea of being rude and abrasive against someone, just because they disagree with your beliefs, a reason you left what you consider to be Christianity? I don't assume to know anything more about you than what you show me with your posts...

 

~AOH~

[Evolution_beyond]

Gay marriage: I believe that the whole reason for sex is to produce children, draw a household together (especially the spouses), and provide a well-balanced upbringing for the children. Personally, I just don't see how two people of the same gender can accomplish the last part, as they have too much in common, and would thus only promote one set of reasons, leading to a child whose values are placed on an imbalanced reasoning.

 

You assume much about people's nature re. their gender. Not everyone is stereotypical in their expression of their gender. Some men have a lot of feminine traits - and I'm not just talking about being camp. Some men have feminine traits that are more naturalistic - eg. sensitive, nurturing men. Also many women have masculine traits - and can be very determined and (for want of a better word) ballsy.

 

This means that a child raised by a gay or lesbian couple will not necessarily be unbalanced.

 

However, technically, Biblical marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of a couple's love, fidelity, and solidarity with each-other. So, while possible, I don't think it's logical for a man or woman to marry what basically amounts to a friend, with too much emotional emphasis placed on that friend. The fact, from my observations, is that homosexual people don't tend to have many - in some cases, none, - long-lasting relationships, because it's like dating yourself. No man is an island unto himself, true enough; however, it's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces together that don't fit, just because they're both pretty, and the designs compliment each-other.

 

A common misconception made by people who don't know any gay people and base their opinions by what they see on the gay scene. Judging homosexuality by the gay scene is like judging heterosexuality by night clubs. Night clubs are by their nature promiscuous places. On the gay scene of gay bars and gay clubs, all you see is the promiscuous, wild side of gay life.

 

But I know many gay couples who have stayed together for a long time. It's no different to heterosexuality in terms of length of relationships.

 

What are my ideas about teaching creation in the classroom? Personally, I am an avid believer in the idea of creation over Darwinian evolution. Without personal opinion being injected into the subject, science is all about being fair and balanced in experimentation and hypothesis. I think it should be taught as a possibility, as should evolution. The evidence - both for, and against, - both should be presented in a fair and balanced way to the class, and each individual should be allowed to come to their own conclusions and attempt to provide support for them in an open forum. May the best idea win...

 

Should other creation myths be taught also. Should astrology be taught as science? Should ghosts and ESP be taught in science class? UFO studies as part of science? So-called scientific theorising about fairies and angels?

 

Science is not just about giving a fair and balanced hearing to different ideas. It is about ideas that have been tested by experimentation, or that are based on observations and measurements. The only ideas that should be presented as science are those which are based on very real evidence that has been rigorously tested to see if it holds true.

 

Ideas that are not based on the scientific method should be taught in other classes, such as humanities subjects (history, relgious studies etc).

 

 

I don't care who adopts the child, as long as they don't manipulate, neglect, or abuse the child in any way. Should a child be raised around homosexuality, without heterosexuality being present in the child's life? No, because it presents the child with a form of peer/authority pressure. I have known many kids who turned gay, because they thought that was what their parents wanted. In fact, one of my cousins came close, and still has a bias against men (of course, there are other reasons for her distaste for men, as is true with my aunt, but living with a lesbian mother and her lover surely didn't help her prejudice against men). In short, the child must have a well-rounded upbringing. If a gay parent or an atheist parent can provide that, and not force their prejudice on their children, why would God object?

 

What about the prejudice towards heterosexuality and against homosexuality that is provided by heterosexual parents? Many children of heterosexual parents turn out to be heterosexual themselves - some even turn out to be homophobic!

 

Does gay parenting restore the balance then?

 

If they didn't inject their own personal prejudices, biases and discriminations into their decisions, and none of the other candidates were right for the job, I might vote for a gay or atheist ruler (of course, when I say prejudice, bias and discrimination, I don't mean it necessarily in the negative way. I just mean their belief that their opinions are more important than others, and that their lifestyle is more important than the people. In other words, if they wanted to make the entire city a gay city, or an atheist city, and cause pain and suffering for those who disagreed, I wouldn't consider them: if they were going to be fair, and allow disagreements to a certain extent, I might). I think God cares more about how the lifestyle and/or action affects His creations, and the reason behind it, than the act itself. Hence, though there were prescribed sacrifices, God said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice".

 

 

I don't know any gay person that would want to turn an entire city into a gay city. Gay people just want a normal life and to be allowed to live a normal life. They are not interested in turning straight people gay. They know it would be impossible because it was impossible for them to be turned straight.

 

I doubt very much that a gay leader would want to turn the whole city into some extravagant, ultra-camp place either (although that would be pretty funny).

 

Most atheists would be content to lead fairly also.

[Evolution_beyond]

Evolution_beyond:

 

The Father is greater than Jesus the Man. He is also the part that is inherent in the Holy Spirit, and the Son. That makes Him greater. However, it doesn't negate Christ's value. Also, notice that when Christ is correcting someone on a false doctrine, He almost never uses a question to start His replies. That tells me that Christ just wanted to know what motivated the man to call Him "Good", and He wanted the man to think about it himself.

 

Jesus is God, but Jesus is a lesser aspect of the greater Being Himself.

 

So Jesus the man is a channel for God the Son? Or the trinity is not perfectly balanced - and God the father is the most powerful, greatest part of the trio?

 

It's all part of this doctrine that they are the same, and yet they're different.

 

It just seems like confusing nonsense to me.

 

Matthew and Mark only knew of one, because they were only told of one. Luke was told of two by eyewitnesses. There was also the account of a young man, which could be the form used by the angels to make themselves identifiable to the humans. This is why it is necessary to search the entire Bible for the answer, instead of picking out several verses and isolating them as being separate and sovereign messages all to themselves.

 

So Luke was right - and Matthew and Mark were wrong because they didn't have the correct information?

 

Oh, and do you realise you've changed your tune about the Galatians v Acts thing?

 

At first you were saying that Paul went to Jerusalem first.

 

Now you seem to be saying that Paul went to Arabia first and then to Jerusalem - and that Luke just missed out the Arabia part and skipped straight to Jerusalem, not saying that Paul went to Jerusalem first but just that he went to Jerusalem. (This is fair because Acts does actually say "when he came to Jerusalem...").

 

But you seem to be saying something different to what you were saying at first. Changed your mind?

 

The point I think is that the Bible was written by human beings - and they didn't always get things right. And sometimes they do seem to contradict one another. You can try to argue it away - but there are glaring contradictions in the text.

 

Maybe God inspired the authors, but being flawed human beings they still made mistakes. But you can't claim that it must have been inspired by God on the basis of it being consistent - because it's not always consistent. Things that Jesus said conflict with things Paul said, things Paul said conflict with things James said etc. eg. Faith v works? Law v Faith?

[OnceConvinced]

Who says my "accusations" against any of you are false? I've done some looking on this site, and I've seen some of you just verbally tear chunks out of other Christians, for nothing more than basically saying "hi, I'm a Christian. What's going on here?"... Doesn't that constitute being bitter, and/or angry?

You have to realise that many Christians come to this site and they automatically see themselves as superior and more knowledgable than the people here. And for many it comes across very obviously very early on in the things they say. When arrogant and self-righteous Christians come in with the mindset the we were never true Christians and never really knew God then damn right some of us are going to be angry. We get that all the time. It's like a fat person might get angry with people who call him "Fatty" all the time. Many of us here have dedicated large portions of our life to Jesus, studying the bible and living the life. It's very insulting when people come in thinking they are somehow more holy and more knowledgeable. Very insulting. How would you feel if say an eight year old child tried to tell you how to raise your kids? To many people here it's a bit like that. There are many of us here who can spot a person like this from a mile off and our first thoughts are often "oh no, not another one! Here we going again."

 

I don't believe I've ever seen a member here tear chunks out of someone for saying "hi, I'm a Christian. What's going on here?" Sounds to me like you a deliberately misrepresenting us. That too is another thing ex-Christians get tired of are people who have pre-concieved ideas about us. I can't help but feel that you already had that pre-conceived idea when you came here, that ex-Christians are bitter and angry at God and I think you're perhaps attempting to reinforce that belief in your own mind.

[cvd26]

Angel of Hope,

 

I just read this entire thread. One thing really stood out to me in your posts. You said you were poor, homeless, starving at one point correct? It sounded like this was not just you but your whole family. You also said that you prayed and asked God for help and he was always there for you...your loving god.

 

Where was your god in the first place? Why did he allow you and your whole family to starve and become homeless and suffer? Christians believe god is all knowing, always present right? Also that he can do ANYTHING. Hmmm so he couldn't prevent your suffering in the first place? If he has the powers you believe he has then he could have...should have! Instead he made you suffer and starve so you would turn to him and beg for help? What a sweetie he is.

 

I already know the Christian response. "I was put in that situation to teach me a lesson or lead me to my life's purpose". Blah blah blah. Nothing new. It doesn't explain why your god was not there for you in the beginning...let you suffer, starve and have no home. Just like children on the street now and in third world countries. You can see their ribs and they are starving to death..yet where is god? Guess they are supposed to learn a valuable lesson while they pass in and out of consciousness??

 

And this is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Christian. I have learned and realized that humans have more potential to be good and loving than the imaginary man in the sky.

 

Cheers!