I've had problems with a few young women trying to get to know me, make passes at me, ect ect.

The thing to consider rather than judging someone by age is simply a reality of how some people mature. I'm older, I want to relax, have low or no drama, and just enjoy spending time with someone. I lack the need to go contanstly, pay attention to the latest fad, or constantly do something different.

I simply didn't enjoy spending time with them or being around them other than one and she never showed interest.

it was nothing personal and with the way it is stated it can cause a reaction but the sentiment can be valid.

This is why I expanded my limit I was getting a lot of flack for being prejudice against younger women.

It depends on timeframe and situation.
If they are just looking for company and I'm last choice unless it's the most charming woman on the planet...their only saving grace would be if they could prove it was all an attempt to make me jelous.

My reasoning has nothing to do with them, it's about self respect and realizing that you should only be with people who like, accept, and choose you for being you.

Well I've been tempted but generally my rule is 14-18 years difference. If she is young enough to be my daugher even in theory she could be the daugher of my high school friends which even if they approve of could an odd situation.

This also keeps me from dating the daughter of a woman I've already dated. This way I am making a logical limitation for valid reason without failing to acknowledge the validity of someone based on their age.

So far as the other way around...case by case basis if she seems young enough to be interesting to me i'm interested but having children my age or older would be a definate deal breaker even if she was perfect.

Good Morning!
And I want someone to love...maybe get an occasional neck rub from or some cuddle time ect....

But I gave up looking wanting something doesn't get it for us, and sometimes you are happier without trying to get it. :)

The psychology of spending holidays alone when others enjoy fellowship is something to consider. Some handle it rather well and some don't. You can spend them alone, find others that share your convictions, or try alternative methods of dealing with the situation.

1. Understand the roots of the holidays and what make them decidedly pagan or non Christian in nature. Embrace what is right and per your belief goes along with your belief while rejecting what bothers you or is wrong for your belief.

Example: Easter is a fertility rite.
Hares for reproduction and eggs for fertility are simply age old worldwide representations of fertility concepts. There is Fertility of the mind, of the spirit, and fertility of prosperity as well as the obvious reeproduction possibilities.
Christians have come to label this as a observence of the resurection which represents rising once dead, and continuing on after death instead of dying as a soul as well.

2. Explain to your loved ones your true delima so they can work with you and allow you to enjoy their love and fellowship while avoiding any practice or false proclaimations that feel wrong for you.

Since Abra and Belushi replied I thought I would go ahead and respond just to offer a third perspective.

1.Do I have any spiritual beliefs?
Yes, I always have. Even when I was angry with the Christian church, the failures of the bible, and the way the faith as a whole failed to live up to it's own standards I still believed Jesus was a great teacher.
After leaving the church so to speak I learned, evolved, and began to understand that so many religions and belief systems are very similar. In truth the path I follow now is eclectic, and in some ways I refuse to label many things other than for explaining them to others. My reasoning is that regardless of a name used there is a power, regardless of the source divine intent and thought is divine and intent and thought. Regardless of source wrong throught or intent is wrong.

2.What do you think about Jesus?
I think Jesus was one of the most enlightened beings to ever grace the human race with lessons. I take issue with the thought that he was the only begotten son of the higher power creator for simple reasons. To me this implies and constitutes cultural prejudice. It is stated he is the only path, but that would instantly condemn all people of all cultures that had other faith followings regardless of how good or bad. the higher power I believe in loves all of it's children equally without giving special rights, privilages, or divine origin to a specific cultural following from one point in history in one geographical location. I believe this widespread belief among Christians has been more damaging than helpful to their souls.

3.Do you believe in heaven and hell?
I believe in states of heaven and hell both in this world and the one beyond. I believe the literal translation of texts was meant for a people that was not capable of understanding the more complex concepts of spirituality and life outside of the physical world. What they interpreted as a physical place I interpret as a state of mind or state of being.

4.If I die right now where would I go?
Where I am needed or where I am most appropriate. Definition of the spiritual world by physical beings is problematic. We will transcend as the natural evolution of our spirits require. Trying to imagine the next world or next step our spirits will take is something I think is a futile fantasy when we are in all humble existence lacking in divine knowledge of all things.

5.If what you believe isn't true, would you like to know?
Yes, but who is qualified to tell me other than the higher creation power? Who other than Jesus, Buhda, or one of divine enlightenment could presume to OWN my soul, or know my soul or the will of the higher creation power for me other than me? If he were living I personally believe even Jesus Christ if speaking to me would probably simply say it was for me to understand on my own and that he could help me reach my own path, but that for it to be my true path I would have to take the steps rather than be told to take the steps.

On scripture I will attempt to explain what they mean to me personally but one or two I take issue with...

Romans 5:8 To satisfy God, or the bloodlust of man and his psychological need for sacrifice?

Romans 3:23 It as our parent, creator force, hopes that we as children will learn and grow to become more like him, more godlke in nature in our own divinity. When we fail to seek the higher path, when we fail to embrace divinity, fail to honor our own spirits or consider our fair treatment of other human beings with respect and dignity we fall short in the measurement against the higher creator being's intent. To be full of the glory of the creator, we must shine like a beacon from within our souls regardless of our physical state.

Romans 3:10 We are righteous when facing ourselves. We are only given merit to judge in totality ourselves, and understand in totality ourselves presuming we are able to concentrate and put our energies towards this. Human beings lack the authority to choose the path of others, enslave, control, or demean them for their own amusement.

Romans 6:23 To me this is a large source of Christian misconception leading to fear and forcing others to accept Jesus Christ as they understand him as Savior. How can a spectacular person of great spiritual conviction in the 1200s in brazil recognize the name Jesus Christ or call him savior by that name? True sin which is that against another being (if broken down this is the origin of all sin in reality rather than some unrealistic belief it is a sin against a higher being) and therefore a sin against ourselves (yes it is complicated and the sin translates to being against them, ourselves, and then by that merit against the higher power) and this eats at the soul whether one admits or acknowledges it or not. In theory if it eats badly enough a person could die sooner, but the death spoken of is a spiritual death and a devout christian with sin in their heart will die spiritually and remain dead to their higher power even after death failing to ever reach the state of heaven they believe is their right for belief in Jesus Christ. In theory Jesus's promise to speak for them may be a promise to try to find their spirit in death and breath new (joy,light,life) into the spirit. Even in this case though it would require the spirit be willing to accept the light.

John 1:12 Another source of cultural genocide unfortunately. this is taken to mean that he awards a right they never had whereas we all have inherent spirit that we can acknowledge or ignore. I believe that in reality it is meant to signify that those who accept the light in their heart (the true light that is rather than false light) become true children of the higher being emulating it's spirit. The second part of this passage I am afraid I consider false pride, and destructive as I believe the intent was that if people could take baby steps they could eventually approach this light. Unfortunately it is not considered in original form by modern people, and I suspect the original text said (or meant) something else altogether.

Cor 15 3-4
This question should be avoided at all costs because it exposes the whole rebirth, fertility links to pagan belief systems that had nothing to do with previous teachings of god and have little to do with Christianity as modern people understand it.
Christ was sacrificed to appease man's need for sacrifice. I believe this was a divine solution to the problem of human kind understanding prayer as the physical form of scarifice without taking self responsibility and considering prayer an internal mechanism for communion with the holy spirit. He rose again because there is a life beyond this one and as we die, we rise to continue on our path.

REVE 3:20 The spirit of the higher creator power is always present without and within we must only feel it without name, intent, or purpose to commune with it. If you stop at any time and disregard the physical world this spirit is there in the form of energy that exists in all things. To exchange the energies of life is to share the englightenment that we possess. Just as the higher creator or his enlightened servent (Christ, Buhda) posses it's own unique energies, knowledge, and experience we too have our own unique essense. Regardless of it's value we are given fair trade and exchange for this whether what we give is of true significance or lesser value.

Romans 10:13 What name? Who's name? I AM? Which name by who's definition? This is really a huge source of misconception by Christians around the globe because the feeling of higher sentience or the creator power is beyond human definition. Even if the spirit owns our souls to claim we can name him with authority better than another human being is the claim that we are superior or above other humans, or OWN our god.

1. Yes I have been known to sin against my brethren.

2. Only if it is in the heart of those I sinned against to offer forgivness. By my personal belief even if a higher power asked them to forgive me it is their personal right to refuse unless they are engulfed in the divine power and returned to complete oneness with the creative power which would preclude personal choice or prejudice without personal identity.

3. I believe that Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the barbaric blood lust of human kind to put an end once and for all to blood sacrifice and the waste of food ect that was being given to the hebrew god while other people starved. A higher being lacks NEED for sacrifice because it can have anything in creation that it made. There was simply no other way to explain this to the human race so he sacrificed himself TO the human race so that they could adopt a practice of inner worship rather than outer worship. After 2000 years I will add this has still not worked and posturing without true intent in a shameful form has never ceased to exist as a widespread practice.

4. To make you happy? I'll surrender my life to myself because when it's all said and done I need to carry my own spiritual burden. Surrender your life to Jesus because you can't handle it? Jesus Christ is a teacher, and enlightened spirit used as a scapegoat by the unscrupulous, and spiritual lazy or weak in fortitude for 2000 years I think he's been given enough burdens to bear with people that have no wish to progress spiritually within their own right, accept responsibility for their own sins against others, or have the SPIRITUAL fortitude to understand that they alone hold the key and the choice to their own salvation with or without Jesus trying to drag them along by the hand (even if gently).

5. I know him better than most proffessed Christians. My relationship with my enlightened guides and my higher power is my right, and my business. If so called christians would stop trying to save other people long enough to save themselves I think we would be living in a better world. The name is useless because a false proclaimer is nothing to God try reading 1 Corinthians 13, step off of your belief that Christians own spirituality, and step back into the light that Jesus taught you to follow!

Pray to your concept of God and Jesus? I refuse to pray to a false god it's blasphemy. I refuse to acknowledge a view of a childish selfish little hearted demon god or a savior that is offered no more respect by his proffessed followers than a hotel valet.

He's wrong because it assumes that they accept YOUR view of Christ and God. I engage mostly in singular silent communication because even if I try to perfectly state my belief out loud no one else will understand it. What you pray within yourself is more important than the demonstration of prayer. TRUE prayer is rewarded with credit and False posturing prayer is rewareded with indifference read Genesis.

now if in any way I seem hostile to this it is because it follows the standard gentle approach of conversion which completely ignores self responsibility in the spiritual process. It puts a person in the position of representing God when they only represent themselves and their own view of God which per my view is pretty warped. When Christians stop attempting cultural and spiritual genocide they will be more accepted in their prayers by the rest of the populace.

If you have questions feel free to ask, but skip disputing my answers because you asked for my answers and I attempted even conveying my exact outrage to each proposed statement, question, or attempt. This is the easy way out if you show up at my door trying to convert me to your version of Christianity I will break your faith like a toothpick for daring to blashphem on my doorstep. Some of us are loving and gentle, until you try to posses our souls, which belong to us, and the creator power without owing ownership rights to any human being per your own bible, and that is what christians have never woke up to realize.

Beings, Computers, Sentience, Programming, and awareness.

Theoretically it is possible per my opinion to build a computer powerful enough to run a software set complete enough to reach a state of sentience. I am going to try to use blanket terms to keep everyone happy and on the same page so far as spirituality.

In the present reality this is unlikely.

First off we were created (or evolved to make everyone happy) by a creator (or natural system of evolution) that by far surpasses us in ability, sophistication, and outright time to spare. As our lifetimes are short in comparrison each human that creates technology stands on the shoulders of other humans that have created works, technology, or concepts before them. This in itself makes a human with our current technology creating such a thing problematic.

What I personally believe would be required and how one can theorize it would be possible regardless of whether i think it is a good or bad idea.

1. Sensory input would have to include sensors and an input system worthy of providing input as complex as we perceive it on a daily basis. Vision, sound, vibrations, touch, and smell and taste are good examples of input senses. Depending on the balance used any and all could be used, and in theory for an alien (conceptually other than what we understand) sentient mentality one could in theory for example be connected to the world wide web.

2. Data processing capability capable of running a complex set of instructions that would eventually allow it to gain a level of sentience including memory so each lesson could be kept, remembered and added to overall perception.

3. Instruction sets or software that allow the cpu or brain to operate all sensors, input, and navigation either through the physical world or world of information to interact with it's known world. The software (even in organic form I will still for the sake of ease call it software) must include the ability to re-write it's own code. It must be able to make choices and adjust it's own perception and reactiosn to stimulous to match it's desire. This is the first process we as human beings experience as babies. Much time is spent simply existing and learning the basics. We are hungry and learn eventually if we cry or hold a hand toward our caretaker that they feed us ect ect. A created device, computer, or creature capable of reaching sentience must be able to learn and grow mentally and psychologically automatically adding behavior sets to it's own programming in order to progressively evolve mentally.

4. Desire is the hard part. We evolve and grow mentally because we desire. Warmth, comfort, sustenance, attention, pleasure, amusment. We have a complex system of needs that we experience. For a creation to evolve it must posses a need, or desire. If one simply makes a machine that needs to plug itself in to keep running and charge batteries this is it's only need and fails to cause interaction with it's world outside of this act. It also fails to give the device survival need. As humans are driven largely driven by the need for constant input or interaction to make sure it reaches sentience some kind of interaction need would have to exist to keep it constantly interacting. A sleep cycle that allows it to go through memories or ponder desired activities would also help. Sensory gratification from the start would need to be part of basic programming it was able to control but unable to change such as....It likes having a certain area touched by a human. this could be considered cheating but is a neccesary part of the experience we as life forms experience. A cat likes to be petted, a dog likes to be petted, and so do we. So at least one senor point regardless of complexity that it has positive reactions to strong enough to be addictive while being self disciplin capable woudl be a good idea. the Test or living environment would have to include beings or devices willing to interact with the creation for the purpose of learning and growing.

5. Basic survival need priority must exist on a basic level. Any person that is depressed, injured, ect ect to the point of losing this becomes an unsure survival the need for survival encompasses more than the basic needs.

To answer a few finer points:
This would require creation for it's own sake. a purpose built machine or creature would fullfill it's purpose, but even with the best intent would probably be quite satisfied or complete in performing it's intended task.

A computer software set for example capable of reprograming itself woudl be able to purposefully go against what it was programmed to do if it's input and sensory reactions caused it to re-write it's original software. A good way to prevent such a device becomming dangerous is to make it impossible for core instructions to be re-written. If for the purpose of studying the possibility of what a creation would do without this limit it would have to have limited power or be kept in a "sandbox" or safe limited area it was unable to leave. (Even a remote controll car used badly could cause problems or accidents)

All of this implies the capability of becomming sentient but as I stated before it speaks nothing of whether such a creation could be granted a soul by (whatever powers exist in the universe) or be deemed worthy of possesion by any available spirit or soul.

This is all theory because although it is currently possible on a BASIC level with current technology it would be prohibitivly expensive and would likely not be of a size easily controlled once all requirements were met. (Sensor inputs, memory banks, cpus powerful enough to run the unbelievably complex softwar required ect ect) As a start if someone had enough money and was obsessed enough a good start would be a computer that interfaces by wire external sources. This itself can be problematic because to reach sentience the more input received the faster this may happen. A baby or child takes time to reach sentience, and functions on a timeline that starts slow and develops more and more rapidly (in theory and yes I know this is a cold analytical way to put it but how else can I convey the concept?) The less input available the longer such a creation would take before it is known whether it could truly reach sentience.

My honest opinion is that being that we are only human even if we create such a creation we could not judge it's sentience. Such a creation would have to be capable of communicating and eventually show an interest in assertinig it's own sentience without our prompting for a valid demonstration. Original software would have to lack any programming to lead it towards this act even if it was the desired goal, because self desire would be the ultimate demonstration of self sentience beyond basic or daily desire and demonstrate real thought such as (Who am I, why am I here, what is my purpose, and why am I treated differently )

Creating this creation per my opinion would be irresponsible and cruel unless done very carefully. If it did indeed reach sentience then unplugging it once the experiement was over or sentience achieved would be equal to killing it. Since we are incapable of judging sentience without it's initiation we would not know from the time it started whether it was sentient or experiencing feelings valid enough to make "killing it" wrong.

Spider, I am not disputing what YOU say you said. I am stating that the bible listed this as fact.

My sources of information include more than just the bible which could explain the confusion about the state of the Jewish nation between you and I at the time Jesus lived.

Although I have shown to be slightly impatient having the original intent of posts ignored while you nitpick details I have tried to over explain when needed. At this point I leave the burden on you to do your own research and studying until you understand what I have said, because although it pertains to your debate and questions it has little or no business in this subject thread. I admitedly only brought them up because they are documented facts that completely blow huge holes in the whole bible Story about Jesus and for this I apologize. The point about Trinities is that Mary (the companion or friend) of Jesus was confused with another Mary and additional texts call into question exactly which Joseph was which and which Mary was the mother of Jesus. (Honest truth that has nothing to do with christian Faith if the lessons of Jesus Christ are being followed without claiming the bible is a divine work).

My point is yet again I repeat this. The bible is a gift to man given by other men, in hopes that it will bring people closer to god by explaining the history of texts available and chosen about the hebrew god and the life and teachings of Jesus. Regardless of how it happened men pieced it together, and propogated it's being coppied.

I disagree with you on a basic level I believe that the teachings of Christ (including the worship of god) are the basis of christianity, and the bible is a book about all of it. I believe that saying the bible is the cornerstone of christianity likens it to an idol making it a god within itself in spirit, when it is actually intended to convey a holy message without in it's own existence being a holy entity. I can only hope that is clear enough for you.

I'm dead on accurate based on information available to modern man I've done my research. Now if you wish to actually read everything I am saying without nitpicking I will gladly acknowledge when you make a valid point rather than just argue out of principle.

Actually my original argument was valid and you started asking for proof, knowing how blind faith worked I had you offer it yourself which you did in true form as someone paying attention but missing my point entirely.

If you are personally interested in all of this feel free to send me a message and I will exchange some info with you but this is just yet another example of the forum being cogged up by nitpicking.

The original Point that YOU ignored was that in spite of some believing the bible is a cornerstone of Christianity in reality outside of blind faith Christianity means one who follows Christ and the bible is simply a tool, and a gift given to the people by men who cataloged the books and put them together in hopes of bringing man closer to god.
GOD is GOD, and GOD speaks for GOD, YOU speak for yourself, and MEN speak for themselves, WOMEN speak for themselves. I'm tired of people claiming by default the men that wrote the bible were GOD which opens a whole new can of theological worms implying he possessed people and robbed them of their personal idenity. GUIDED is different from Controlled please read the Ok-let's try this again subject line and quite your double shotgunning.

Now see, this is where the problem lies....The world Jesus lived in was a Jewish community, and subject to the laws of the roman empire (or in some cases the lack of law). If you want to understand what I am talking about speak to an expert on Jewish History it's obvious you don't even know who Joseph was or you would know without asking. Jewish people ruled themselves? So they were afforded more rights and privilages with protection from the roman armies than any other province within the roman empire and the reality of occupied terrirotires ceased to exist because they were exempt?

You like Holy Trinities? There were three Josephs and three Marys in Jesus's life and the source of the information of the bible the Gospels failed to quite specify who was who a lot of the time or exactly who they were.

But the Bible just said per your own statement that Joseph was Jesus's father a gospel said so! I was even kind enough to let you be the one to say it so you could argue with yourself for a change and leave me out of it!

LMAO they keep questioning me with different questions not understanding simple points so I've tried to keep answering I've found this part of it rather boring and tedius. It's a bit repetitive if you ask me...

No Contradiction when taken in context....So...if two different things are said, and they both can be interpreted as true while stating things in different ways that seem to or may in reality contradict each other then that's ok, because in the magical world of interpreting the bible as divine text even if something is wrong it's right because you said so. Thank you for making that clear!

So I guess the gospels per what you just said couldn't be believed talking about details either, and that the whole word of god thing is blind faith.

Either Jesus had a father or he did not. Either he did not have a father or the text was inaccurate. Either he was a human being with a mother and father, or born of a virgin mother. And BTW there was more than one Joseph in this whole mess in case you didn't know that. Who was the uncle of Herod, who was Mariamne (Mary), and why was Joseph executed? Let's just ignore the question about which Mary was which and what they had to do with the real story, and move on to the reality of what customs were instigated by roman soldiers watching over the Jewish community concerning marriage.

You are welcome to ignore all of this. My point is that there is much more information than that which is actually in the bible available and even what is in the bible is obvious at times flawed, inaccurate, misleading, or misunderstood at times. I've been answering post after post from milesofusa about the nature of the bible that lack any sense or logic from my perspective claiming the bible is the direct word of god and now you are chimming in on yet another subject line trying as hard as you c an to bury the original point with nonsense while not addressing the original point. Overwelm them with nonsense is that the plan?

I failed to mention the OT in your quoted text. If you want a contradiction check the blood lineage of Jesus according the the gospels which contradict one another. Those are both new NT passages written during aproximately the same time. They were both included, both per the blind faith theory the word of God, and only one can be correct. This of course simply answers the contradiction part.

So far as OT vs NT I thought the difference was obvious. Condensing concept in the OT prayer was "purified" and demonstrated by sacrifice and certain figures had personal relationships with God. In the NT sacrifice was abolished or transformed fromt Animals and physical offerings which are external to self sacrifice of effort and intent which is internal and more personal. At the close of the NT the book was "closed" more or less closing man's relationship with God so to speak so that religious law was set without change for the next 1500 years (aproximately). No Versus to quote, no authority to list, this is my understanding of the transformation of the followship of the Hebrew god and I am ignoring the RCC's (or any other demonimations) mucking around with religious law within it's ranks because these are organizational rather than all inclusive.

I have personally seen these texts including texts that speak of the United States of America. I am far from being new to theological research. I still believe that these texts lack any indication that the (in some cases) the writer of the text, or the intended audience of that time had any understanding of a world outside of their own. The concepts used to convey events or details that were then considered imagry without comprehension can now be seen as shockingly clear. I find the subject extrmely interesting and have spent hours going over these texts.

To me the difference is simple and demonstrated by a game called pass it on. You sit down with a lager circle of people and don't tell them what you are doing. You then whisper something in the ear of the person next to you, and tell them to pass it on. By the time the whisper goes around an entire circle it may or may not have the same meaning, and usually the wording has changed. The chances of having undiluted word of god through human writers that are then translated repeatedly has the same problem so far as being too easily corrupted. Each human being involved in the process must convey concepts according to their personal understanding of the subject matter and the message. I am sure that most spiritual leaders or followers of truth would love to have a bible written personally by "God" in their language so they could directly receive his word but this deviates from the reality we live in.

yes, because I may have said for example "I want you to tell Fred to deal with this issue and once it is resolved report back to me." I may have done this having faith that Fred was the best person to handle this particular problem. However, the person I told about this was Sally. Sally has her own views of the problem and instead of passing on the same message says "Fred, I want you to address this problem by doing this, this, and this and let me know if that fixes it so we can report back to him.". In essense what I am asking to be done may be done, but not in the way I asked for it to be done because even if I thought Sally was a spectacular worker it is Fred i thought was best suited for this particular problem. (Hypothetical I used these names because I lack any people I actually know with these names).

What you wrote here although can be lacking in conveyence actually makes a bit of sense I just happen to disagree.

First and foremost it indicates you misunderstood what I was saying originally. I was talking about a target Audience for written passages. If books of the bible were written over a long perdiod of time all of the writers and indented audiences would be different. Over time culture and knowledge changes. A large part of inconsistancies would be in that books would be written by different people, for different cultural audiences of the times. Because of this if a statement is made, it should be considered in the context of the intended audience rather than the context of what modern people know.

Your statement about the passages quoted actually eludes to the fact that much of the native knowledge was lost through deflamation or destruction. Althought this is true, and that there were many visionaries throughout ancient history the discussion was in fact about the bible.

So far as what countries had been visited or what a people knew, it varied from one area to another. A hebrew may have known nothing about a phonecian other than hearsay rumor and vise versus because believe it or not they lacked an instant communication network. Travel in the ancient world was commonplace but was a much more difficult ordeal than it is for modern peoples. Over time knowledge of entire cultures was lost other than in rumor, scattered texts, ect.

In the modern world to this day we are still trying to unravel the mysteries of the past and may never know the truth about many things.

All of this has nothing to do with belief unless you want to just go wtih the blind faith is rewarded theory, which with or without merrit has zero validity within talking about particulars about the creation of the bible, or any other ancient work or artifact.

Now when you say you believe the scriptures were inspired by the creator that is different from saying the creator wrote them itself which is the matter of distinction I was making. Either you believe the creator wrote them itself, or that men wrote them.

Many ancient texts throughout the entire world included divine knowledge that is puzzling to modern man, but everything you have said ignores my original point without grasping it.

IF there was divine knowledge in cultures outside of those creating the bible, and people propose to ignore or destroy everything not from the bible, supporting the bible, or about the bible in the way they understand then they are ignoring the beliefs of all other cultures, and attempting cultural genocide.

Per Christians who believe that you must follow the bible or perish, there is no meaning or significance to the pale one, and his followers would be nothing more than heathen pagans. HE did not hold significance, because the writings that he was found in had nothing to do with the culture that the bible was written in. Whether it was Jesus, A equivilant, a brother, or opponent doesn't occur to these people because they don't care. All they care about is that it is NOT the Jesus the bible teaches about, therefore not valid which is what we were discussing.

Citing Modern proof of global travel such as the travels of phonecians or lief Erricson do nothing for this argument because even if they are historically proven to a blind faith bible thumper they don't matter. NO Culture outside of that one that created the bible has any spiritual significance or rights per this type of hostile person practicing spiritual prejudice.

Even if I know and understand about ancient American history including rare cases such as a tribe of anglo native Americans (A lost expepidition of explorers that settled in the US permenantly and was "lost in history") it is meaningless in a discussion about the blind faith following of a book that was written in a specific geographical area and limited to writers of that area and an audience in that area.

I as an individual interested in free information and non-judgemental spirituality understand the points you have brought up, I just fail to see how they effect what I originally said taken in context. I never said the ancient peoples could not travel or explore. I simply said that the populace knowledge of all of the peoples in the world failed to exist and that when the texts of the bible are considered they should be considered in their ancient local context. IF someone ever mentioned the word Pagan in biblical texts it was meant to signify country folk (which is the origin of the word) or a local sect of individuals as opposed to all groups currently labeled as pagan in the modern world. The context of texts must be considered to understand their full meaning. It is absolutely silly to assume that the ancient populace as a generalized group had even a fraction of the worldwide knowledge that a modern child does.

I am seeing everything you are saying, but are you hearing what I am saying?

Shalome, Namaste',love and light, blessings, or whatever is appropriate for your particular view of the world.

EGADS I respect your intelligence but I really see this as an off topic wordplay argument. I failed to see your point, many cultures throuout the world viewed the world as a flat round circle I didn't see anything about a ball or sphere but I could be getting tired I've been reading over posts for an hour or two without a break.

My original point whether worded well or badly was that the ancient peoples per what we know lacked extensive knowledge about the entire world and as a populace when considered as a local target audience would be spoken to by an intended speaker considering their knowledge and or that of the speaker. To consider that an ancient man in a local area even if well educated would write all inclusive statements about people around the entire globe would be by my PERSONAL opinion complete folly. They wrote of what they knew. To write about astral physics, the peoples of the Americas, or far off lands would be something they would lack imagination for per everything I understand.

I was saying that if the bible is read as a justification of prejudice it lacks any especially since the writers of the passages and the intended audience within the ancient world lacked (except perhaps in special cases) any knowledge of the peoples from around the world in totality or the future of mankind.

So far as the passages being written by God they were written by the men that the gospels are named after, or others on their behalf. If there was any part of the bible that was magically materialised, written on parchement by a phsycial manifestation of the hebrew god, or written by someone being possessed (not filled, possessed without their own consciousness) by the hebrew god in order to write the passages themselves I missed it completely and am unaware of it.

Man existed in the world of God, to say that God the father of the hebrews wrote the bible is blasphemy per my understanding claiming that one of those men WERE God. Now if God had special communication with these men that's well and good, but I understood that they did much of the writing in many cases long after the fact and that was my point. WORSHIP YOUR GOD, NOT THE MAN WHO supposedly speaks for him. I am simply making a distinction between God and man, divine holy presense and his representatives who are decidedly NOT God because if they were that would REALLY turn christianity into another form of polytheism.

I'm all for his worship, I'm all for the following of Christ, but I think the claim that he was roaming around earth, writting passages, and present in physical form overseing the piecing together of the bible and unedited inclusion of passages ranging over a great distance of time deciding which were used and which were left out is just too much. Notice I said I THINK. You can think or believe what you wish, but I say the bible is the work of men, and that because of that it is falible. Proof can be found in the fact that even in small ways even the writings of the disciples do not agree about all facts. (I cite the bloodline of Jesus as an interesting and theory shattering example if it can be considered a small detail in any way). If you want to prove otherwise you are going to have to pull a magical burning book out of your pocket and show it to the world because these arguments about the divine nature of the bible lack any historical backing. The only thing that this would prove by the way is that the hebrew god has no more accuracy than the men that follow him if he did indeed write the whole thing. I see all of this as a pointless argument that distracts from the original point. It is a book meant to bring people to a god or spirituality, rather than a book written by a god.

One point that has repeatedly been brought to light on these threads that many of us believe contradicts this statement.

In essense althought many Christians believe that the bible is the foundation of Christianity many of us believe that CHRIST is the foundation of Christianity and that a true Christian should follow the teachings of Christ rather than the bible. Although this could be seen as a paradox it is completely accurate when one considers what a Christian is supposed to be, and that it clarifies if there is a bible passage that contradicts the teachings of Christ that the teachings of Christ should be considered to hold precidence.

The bible was written by imperfect men. The Word of of God is just that but the bible is the word of men. A Christian should follow the lessons of Christ instead of the word of men. This is what Christian is supposed to mean.

I would like to thank all of the good Christians who have spoken here for your many wonderful statements concerning right, love, understanding, the following of Christ, and the fair treatment of your brothers and sisters Christian or not.

Rather than flood this area with multiple entries playing catch up I choose to post this one in order to spare readers playing catch up.

So far as the argument concerning God and evil I would have to say my teachings both Christian and otherwise examining the bible and Christian texts lead one to believe that IF the god of the Hebrews created all in existence that includes evil. Being omnipitant in nature and knowing the outcome of things contradicts the concept of God repenting so I see the whole argument as one that is beyond solving.

I have been called Shamanistic, Pagan, Wiccan, Christian, and told that my beliefs mirror that of a Buhdist in many ways. Labels fail to identify who a person is in reality it simply helps others make mental leaps trying to define another person for their own convenience.

So far as the statement that we all hate Christians I believe it is more accurate to say we hate the sin of people following the ways of hatred and refusing to follow lessons of Christ while persecuting us, insulting us, or demeaning us because we are non Christian.

Roamingorator I rather enjoyed both of your long posts concerning your general stance they were spectacular!

I believe this is meant to be a moving speech calling good Christians to reclaim the propoganda and proffessed views of their own religion denouncing those contradictory views that are against the following of Christ.

It may have been better worded by stating that it is the cornerstone of what media is using claiming as Christian faith in order to propogate war, hatred, seperatism, and cultural domination.

Although I can see the same holes in the original post if viewed line by line and nitpicked I do think it did a wonderful job of conveying a widespread sentiment by some Christians and many non Christians. I personally believe that true Christians should speak out and if possible (probably not considering the pro war finances being poured into the propogation of these imposters) retake the forefront of Christianity and teach Christianity rather than the blind following of Christian speakers.