You are right Miles you see I think that it can be dangerous even bringing up the Military in comparrison to a religion. The reason for this is that this relation historically has lead to things like the Crusades which were a bloody tragedy for everyone. I believe the purpose of religion if properly applied is to help one reach enlightenment regardless of what religion you subscribe to. I also believe that each person has their own personal religion in their heart even if they subscribe to the beliefs of a larger group, because there may be minor belief variations. Each person per what I think builds their own personal religion in their mind and heart. the Military has no room for varience or belief in interpretation. They do what they are told with a chain of command, and those in religious sects throughout history did not have a mandate to follow god, but the mandates of their religion or church on pain of death. Even if they spoke for what they viewed as the voice of god if it opposed the teachings of the church representing man they were executed.

My belief in religion lacks space for military thinking. I honor and respect the order of Military organization, but I believe that applying this oranization and lack of varience or understanding to religion is counter productive.

our views of scripture varies I believe. I see scripture as something that in most cases is vulnerable to the mistakes of man in conveyence, translation, and interpretation. Althought original concepts are divine in nature, I believe to claim the men involved in translation or interpretation are to be considered divine representatives of any higher power and incapable of mistakes is likening them to god and worshiping their word rather than the word of "God". I know that this can be a sticky and tricky point. I ask that you understand rather than speaking against concepts conveyed, I am speaking against the belief that every last person involved in the chain of translation, interpretation, and copying of the texts and scriptures was godlike in their perfect implimentation of the scripture.

Think of it this way...Some may believe that a divine presense stood over these men guiding them and controlling them. I believe that the contents of the scripture per their personal understanding inspired them (or in some cases someone paid them for their work in one way or another and even in one case we know of told them to translate works to make them say certain things under pain of death). The difference is between inspriation and possesion or control. I believe the lessons were given by Jesus or men trying to represent the word of "God", then written and translated, and coppied by human beings that were doing the best they could per their belief and ability, but were still men rather than gods or divinely controlled.

Hmmm well so far as The war machine defense is different than invasion. If we had actually been spending money on defense rather than invasion and our defense hadn't been called off duty 911 could have been prevented.

So far as the homeless we have a lot of them here. Last year I spent a lot of time talking to the homeless and i did take one of them into my house briefly. The thing is to keep one in your house they have to be willing to behave in tolerable ways so that you can still call it a home or safe environment.

I fail to see these as spiritual problems but problems spawned by corruption in government and in our society. The spiritual problem is in that people in their fear or ignorance go along with these problems and do not all speak against them.

This is all of course, my personal opinion...

In some ways I can respect your fervent defense of the bible since you obviously consider it a divine work. However, I would encourage you to use accurate claims.

It is heavily researched, and much work has been done to verify it's accuracy using other texts that agree with it rather than dispute it while texts that indicate it is inaccurate have been ignored, lost, destroyed, or disputed.

We established yesterday that your dates or the way you stated these dates are inaccurate. In the interest of making sure your statements are credible please re-post your statements carefully worded in a completely accurate way. I ask you do this in your own interest as well as those that do share your beliefs.

Geo although I think you have started to take a spectacular direction I would like to point out this deviates horribly from the teachings of Christ. I believe that pride per the teachings of the bible is the work of the devil.

For one, If Christ lived today, I think he himself would refuse to be a Christian. Worse yet, I think Christ would be called a non Christian and have a bunch of Christians telling him he was damned to go to hell for not accepting himself because they would not know or recognize him or his true teachings. I have heard Christians say over and over "What would Jesus do". This question is well applied outside of a sunday school childish explaination of the demand that Christ be accepted.

When I ask myself what I think Jesus would say about a faith using his name to propogate a religion that psychologically threatens people, and scares them into submission I think he would weep, or go into another fit of outrage such as he did in the temple.

No matter how many times, or how many ways I explain this it becomes abundently clear that the Christian body of followers as a group just don't understand or care about the teachings of Christ. Did he ever ask that a following be formed in his name and use his name and lessons to threaten, or play psychology games with others trying to force them into submission to a religion?

As an unbiased non Chirstian I know his teachings well and could stand before a group preaching his ways better than most simply because I follow his lessons, rather than attempt to be part of a club, or behave in a wolf pack mentality pattern.

The very concept of seperatism or that people be bludggeoned psychologically into accepting Christ or christianity goes against his teachings! The church as an organized body has been preaching his lessons while ignoring their meaning for 1500 years and you sit there and can not recognize this simple fact?

If you want to truly spread the teachings of Christ then you must follow the teachings of Christ first and foremost. Make people want to be a christian based on their respect for who you are. Following the conversion methods of the church, the seperatism attitudes of judgement or claims that only he has the right to make ect only serve to advertise against christianity. Who said "If you turn away the least of men, you turn away me"? (this is of course paraphrased)

When I say Christ or Jesus I always try to capitalize out of respect for a concept of what we call him even though it was not his name. When I say christianity much of the time I leave it lower case, because I have seen it demonstrated over and over to be an abomination against Christ, and I believe a good Christian would agree with all of this after reading these threads. Now notice I state I BELIEVE because I know that my belief is just that, and to claim to know what Christ or the creator wants is blashpemy and a claim to be a false god. Even a child in a church can tell you worshiping a bible or the words of man is idol worship placing an idol before God.

I am a Pagan, Shamanistic, Wiccan. I follow any and all good teachings in my heart that mirror the lessons of Christ I was taught as a child. I believe that the claim of ownership of the one true path by christianity is similar to claiming you OWN GOD, but it is the other way around per your own bible. I know my views aren't accepted among blind faith followers, born again Christians, or fundamentalists...but they should be per my opinion because all of those people claim to follow Christ.

Again read 1 Corinthians 13. What you claim as a child is a childish claim. An evolved view of religion, the following of teachings, and a stressed personal path rather than trying to buy your way into heaven by converting others or professing belief per my personal opinion is a worthy path of someone who accepts Christ in their heart truly.

Until you take all of the threats, negativity, and the psychological ploys out of your conversion tactics you are likely to turn more people away from christianity than you will convert by my own personal opinion.

The thing to consider is that all of these methods were developed by a primative church to convert primative man. They disregard true enlightenment, true intelligence, and even the respect of your brethren. Religious reform begins with the individual. I believe the only way christianity will survive as a religion for the next "1000" years is by engaging in serious reform.

Who am I? Not anyone important...
What is my authority? I'm just someone that loves you.
Bless, Shalome, Namaste', and Love and Light

Actually, if Christianity is on a decline (which I am not convinced of) it speaks to reality. The reason is simple. The laws state that we have religious freedom. So when people with good hearts see Christians attacking non christians or discriminating against them based on belief in spite of this going against the teachings of Christ I think people consider it to be a soiling of the church so to speak. Perhaps an indication that the church or congregation is NOT christian so even if they follow Christ they are more likely to walk away from the Church just as Christ taught them to....

This is only my thought and opinion...

Christian by default because they aren't brave enough to be honest about what they really are or really think and face the discrimination from hateful anti Christ chrsitians like we do?

Well although I take issue with the lack of fortitude in this act I will say that this forum throughout the subject lines has definately made a case for these pretenders.

Judgement and proclaimation about who can or can not be loved by Christ is anti christian per what I was taught. This doesn't mean anyone has ever stopped or been considered against god or Christ by a church...food for thought...

Sin is sin...labeling groups is specifically against the teachings Christians profess to follow.

Oh and Abra I think Desire is more complicated than one might think.

A basic survival desire such as eating, needing power, fuel, ect would be a survival instinct rather than desire. If any creation was created basic self survival hard wired programming should be considered instinct rather than desire.

Desire would be for things wanted rather than needed. For instance if the creation came to feel such as Frankenstein did, decided it had no place in the world because it was different, and wrote programming to overide it's instinct and stop plugging itself in THAT could be considered personal desire.

Just my thoughts...

I have long had debates with vegans about that with their better than thou attitudes which can be likened to unscrupulous bible thumpers.

All living things possess life. To survive, we kill. Exceptions would be drinking milk ect but even then are we stealing that milk from a newborn that needs it?

To assume that it is more acceptable to kill a plant because it's blood (juice or sap) is different, or because it is unable to scream, squeel, or run away is presumptious.

As a joke a vegan once brutally ate a carrot with her mouth open showing the crushing of the carrot as if it was fagile flesh and it made a rather appropriate demonstration.

Life is life, to survive we take life. That is it, end of story.

Gentelmen....If I may...

Among other things...I have enjoyed photography over the years. Among my archived I have some pictures of a double rainbow. I took them when I was visiting a friend, and when I arrived she was going nuts over the rainbow so I photographed it. To this day I limit my use of these pictures and they are labled in my archive as Deidre's Rainbow because to me it was hers, and she wanted the pictures rather than me.

Any supreme being or benign spirit could tell a follower this is YOUR rainbow to remind you, and from this point on when you see a rainbow I want you to remember this.

It is reasonable in my humble opinion to consider that a rainbow could have been created by a higher power without claim that none had ever existed before. If this claim was in the bible that there was no such thing as a rainbow before that time I missed it. Was there no such thing as rain before then perhaps?

I appreciate input from both points of view because it is all very interesting. I do agree that it is unreasonable to believe that Christians own everything on earth including everything in nature and existense. I personally believe that the Christian God would call Christians trying to take everything from it's other children if indeed it was the creator theft. This is only my opinion though. I encourage all people to follow their faith at will, until they claim they are superior to all others, claim to have the right to condemn all others, or believe that the world belongs to them and only them. "The Meek shall inheret the earth" means the MEEK people, which means if you claim to own the whole thing it could well be taken from you....To teach me this as a child when I didn't want to share my crayons my father threw them away.

I believe the information is competely outlandish.

It is accurate however to say that the bible is the oldest mass produced Volume although it's authenticity was called into question rather than people from other faiths, but by the church that propogated it...long story nothing against Christianity here just a problem with RCC methods.

What made the Bible Significant? The Guttenberg Press. False statements lead to false revelation, and myth that can blow up in your face.

The Bible is one of the most significant books outside of Faith, because it was so loved that someone mass printed it as the first mass printed Volume.

Actually in light of recent discussions or problems with recent discussions for those Christians still interested and reading I have a challenge for you. Since the Bible is such an icon of the Christian faith followed, maybe it's a good time for anyone who has not done so to guinely study the history of the bible, how it was pieced together, propogated, and even if you don't remember take a look at the number of versions.

Since it's your spiritual herritage it may make for an interesting history lesson for some of you.

lmao tell me about it....

Actually I have failed to meet any women my age recently that have aged as well as me...Maybe it's a matter of skin, or the women I am meeting I have no idea. I do know that most of the women paying attention to me for the last couple of years have been younger does that indicate anything I should be worried about?

But has anyone polled the Chrsitian congregation in order to get new numbers on whether they are thinking same way or more openly than they were let's say about 5 years ago?

No change, increase in spiritual opinion difference, back to the norm for pre-2002, or reduction in free thought within the church?

If I myself have been silly or bad in any way I apologize I'm tired today...so I may not be keeping up...

Well how do you feel about non christian religeous billboards being posted in your area? Would that be ok or offensiver per your personal view?

The churches definately currently have a strong followship, but do you think it will continue without changes being made?

Can you blame a populace for abandoning a church with behavior that has been well illustrated here?

Can you blame someone from walking away from a faith that has remained unchanged for 2000 years without evolving in spite of modern man and especially modern women realizing what it has done to them and their ancestors?

Can you blame someone for wanting to leave a religion that offers no true understanding path to enlightenment (as a mob mentality while disregarding the personal value we all understand of following lessons of a enlightened one in a personal and private way)?

Does anyone see billboards as the beginning of the end of believable integrity?

I do like your posts!

Equality, freedom, and civil rights are determined by the current society in in any geographical region or culture at any given time. In addition to the scales always having been tipped away from the rights of Religious minorities in the U.S. we must consider the ramifications of the post nine eleven media being pushed to again speak out against cultural diversity, foreigners, and religious freedom pushing us back in time by a good 100 years from the breakthrough position we had reached.

If I see those signs my question is that since the church obviously DOES profit why is it that they can steal a slogan from a legitimate add campaign but because it is religious do so without problems?

yet another thought, is...does this cheapen the religion, disgrace it, or in some way deflame it from it's divine nature by likening religion to a commodity such as fast food, dairy products, seagrams, or things of dubious value? (I love milk but some hate it, and it is a food product put out by a major company if you see a billboard it's likely for standard milk rather than organic.(

Yes, Tribo pointed that out earlier and I am human and I do make mistakes at times. It was far from being my original point thought, which was burried with the "debate".

Now THAT is a truly interesting story, thank you for sharing!