100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: This may Get A Tad Heated | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/24/08 11:41 AM
|
|
This might help illustrate it better. According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested.
Day 1-Created light (without the sun) Day 2-Firmanent-I am interpreting that word as the sky but you can correct me if needed. Day 3-Dry land, seas, plants Day 4-Sun, Moon, and presumably the stars because the sun is a star in the solar system Day 5-Fish, birds Day 6-Cattle, things that "creepeth" and man (Genesis 2:4 In the DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…) This is in direct contrast with the later version of Genesis where wam, bam, thank you mam, god does everthing in ONE day. What gives? Its not "past tense". Its two seperate versions experiencing extreme internal conflict. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is permissible for me to use the actual text to support my assertion that there are indeed two contradictory versions of Genesis. Why would that not be allowed? Do tell? Actually there were more accounts written of the creation, here is one written allegedly by Flavius Josephus, alleged historian, which may have been a pen name for the plagiarizer Piso. Antiquities of the Jews Chapter 1 - THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=1&chapter=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/24/08 11:24 AM
|
|
All I meant by that comment JB is its easier for me to read the scriptures and attempt to process them at face value based on what they actually say. I’m sure there are probably even more accounts than these two but I’m focusing on the contradictions found here primarily because it helps to further illustrate the agenda found within Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is their any christian here that can say that they came to believe what they believe and how they believe the book, without the use of outside theological and dogmatic sectarian writings of others who's agendas of there sectarian beliefs are for the soul purpose of trying to gain converts to their teachings and not what is understandable without them?
Anyone? - i think few if any who read on there own will come up with what any religious teachings of "MAN" say the words mean. i had to give that all up just to try and see what is actually said without others trying to influece what was meant. I don't care if many say - "this is the truth" i only care if i can read and see if its truth!! i say its not. i say its man making up what fits his agenda by use of a human like being to do so. The god in the book has an agenda, unlike any god free of mans treachery to create without rules and regulations - a god free of emtions and revenge, a god free of baby sitting the wicked children that he creared. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was the OP question regarding incest and how this would have impacted on the genetic development of humankind going to be addressed or are we simply glossing over this “minor detail”? No - but i think a valid point was made as to the more perfect the genes statement. Sorry K, I still cant get past the first few chpts. of genesis yet alone to thinking of the gene pool - i do stand by what I've read as there being man and woman prior to A&E - this makes more sense to me that the fundies view of two stories of the same creation , and now that I've read about B.G., also believing that, though i still don't know if he holds to that or not - just confirms it to me even more. B.G. changes his mind a lot over the years so who knows - but still other "C's" hold onto this train of thought also. It was not until Darby and the rest that followed after him such as Moody, Scoffield etc., that "infallibility" of the >>>book"<<< became the later cry of fundies. It's where they were all at, when they got their butts kicked in the scopes monkey trail, after that they calmed down for awhile but rose up again in full force when hagan and his students brought it back to the fore front of modern Evangelical thinking - the futurist view of Hagan, lindsey, hinn, tbn,700 club and robertson, and a large host of others. This along with the unfounded "re-birth" of speaking in tongues, prophecy, laying on of hands, casting out demons, and the other gifts given to the early church >>for that time only<< - and also the wrongful teachings of the same >name it and claim it< or use of god/jesus as there "private genie's" to give them things, and there incessent cries of "you cant out give god" used by the scammers of the money seeking grubby little pastors that breed more of them on tv every year, has corrupted modern day christianity past anything that would be recognizable by the first or second century followers of christ. When you start getting that "hardcore" in your beliefs, it becomes impossible to see anthing outside of them, a major fault with all sects of "religious" >> beliefs,<< christian or not. When >>man<< is put in charge of the things of god - god is always pushed to the side and selfish interest begin to devour any truth that might have been with in to begin with. So now if one wants to be honest in their search for god especially a "book god" - one has no choice but to look at it on their own and try to understand it as well as they can "on their own" if you have to resort to any outside influences of other mans writing of what god is saying then again your just following an interpretation by >>>others<<< >>> not god. <<< now this does not negate the need for at least a translation of hebrew/greek to english, for basic understanding if your really going to "study it", thats true of anything you read in another language you dont speak. But the >>>theology, sectarian dogma, and all denominational sect beliefs<<< have to be disreguarded if one is to even find a little truth yet all of it. So i say to any that read - trust your heart and mind and common sense and your 6th sense of >>>intuition<<<. Do not listen to anyone that is so locked up on their take on things that they allow no room for compromise or difference of opinion, or logical debate or any that would make you see it's there way or damnation. who of mankind want's to follow after such nonsense? And the other thing i look out for is "agenda's" if one is trying to convince me/you of something by pulling a bunch of verses together, you can be sure thats a secterian agenda. If one can not speak from a general conversation what is being asked, then i become wary, you dont have to - but i do. I'll weigh in on this. the latter part of it anyway. As a believer I have to agree with you - that listening to the Hagens, Hinn's and Olsteens of the "world of christian televangelists" should not be done so with blind admiration. One should never draw conclusions about biblical interpretations from anyone without examining the scriptures for themselves. That's where exegesis comes in - and context examined against pretext. That being said - the same should be done with the writtings of secular humanists who deem their interpretations above that of biblical scholars. Take for example the "Jesus Seminar". How many people watch the expose's on A&E and think their getting "facts" - and don't bother to go to the scriptures for themselves to see if what they're being told is true? They site thse people as "experts" and blindly accept their "false context" cleverly disquising their agenda filled pretexts. The rally and cry here is that the bible is there for anyone to interpret it as they wish. Non-sense. The bible has obvious themes that cannot be explained away by citing a mere scripture or two out of context. That is not rightly dividing the text, any more than reading only the first chapter of Algebra-1 qualifies someone as an expert in Calculous, or taking a pre-med course qualifies one to argue intelligently with a physician. It puzzles me that you claim to have not been able to get beyond the first few chapters of Genesis - yet adamently refuse to consider the explinations of those who have read it - numerous times, and know how it fits into the text as a whole. And whether or not one knows greek or aramaic does not preclude one from understanding what the major themes of scripture are. Heck - even Abra has a grasp of those - as much as he may disagree with them. Here - lets take this issue of A&E and extrapolate this against this discussion of Incest. First of all - The bible does not describe an account of man being created on two different occasions. Man was created once - it was Adam, and Eve from Adam's rib. That is the correct exegesis of the creation account. Any supposition of a creation before A&E has no textual proof using the scriptures to support it. Given that pretext - it is known - scripturally, that aside from Cain, Abel, and Seth - sons of A&E by name - that A&E had other children. We know that Seth was born to Adam when Adam was 130 years old. For all we know, they could have had an addition 150 children previous to this. Cain could have married a sister when he was 50 and she was 20 - who is to say. WHO CARES! Over a period of the time that Cain and Abel were born - until Seth - there could have been up to a thousand people in the extended family of Adam and Eve. Adam lived to be 930 years old - he could have fathered a small COUNTRY before he passed away. It is one thing to have questions about what is written in scripture - but to try and assess what ISN'T there... to what purpose does that serve? As to this idea that incest is wrong - where does this come from? Leviticus of course. We're already WAY-Y-Y past the flood, and up until this time, there is no mention of incest having any consequence. Why? Well - Spider reasons out that it is the purity of the gene pool up until them. Well - he may be right. It is a well thought out and resoned proposition. Is he right? Who knows. Who cares? What he IS right about - is that from the time of the giving of the Law - there will be consequences to it. That's it. Any presuppostition about what happens today in society - extrapolated back to the ancients shows a serious lack of understanding of biblical exegesis, as well as scientific study. This could very easily be explained by simply using Evolution theory if one had to. Why is evolution theory of "adapting to environental changes" thrown out the window when a biblical concept is extrapolated back a few thousand years, but a matter of fact when you go back a few billion years in evolution? Please - attempt to make THAT sound logical! The fact of the matter is that from Genesis to Leviticus - incest is just not an issue. And it is very specific about what is at issue in Leviticus - AND this was mandated to ONLY the Jewish population. There's no account ANYWHERE where incest was an issue anywhere outside of the Jewish population, and the ONLY reason why it is a part of our Law today, is because of the biblical account in the first place! So - when it comes to sources - be they pro, or anti-christian, not examining the scriptures for oneselves to see who's misleading whom - is "just taking someone's elses opinion and making it your own" - no matter where your belief stands on the issue. ELJAY: First of all - The bible does not describe an account of man being created on two different occasions. Man was created once - it was Adam, and Eve from Adam's rib. That is the correct exegesis of the creation account. Any supposition of a creation before A&E has no textual proof using the scriptures to support it. TRIBO: And why would all their childern leave everyone and everything they knew and go to the land of nod? .[wandering] Was that a custom taught them by their parents? if so it sure didn't stick for very long according to whats later seen of jewish/isrealite life historically.[wandering] i think it does support two creations of mankind, i think that god created man and women in gen. 1 and then created adam and eve in gen. 2 - i think all the races were created in gen 1, >>>BUT<<< the race that would eventually be the people of the rest of the story for the remainder of the jewish books. The first or bulk of mankind IMO, were created because it states that they were made as all the other animals and life were - by god >> speaking them into existence<< "let us make man in our image" - with what were to become his >>>chosen people<<< - he made them from the earth. it states very clearly that adam and eve were made a certain way - from first the elements of the earth and then from a rib - again in 1 it states he made them by >>speaking them into existence<< as he made the heavens and earth and all else. The purpose? to seperate the extras from the main players in his desires to save mankind. first he populates with extras - all the races outside of what will become israel, then he crates from the earth and the rib of adam eve who will be them which will bring forth the savior. You leave out IMO - the ""pretext"" of GOD HAVING PUT INTO AFFECT a theme of a >>"chosen people"<< A people unto himself! this theme starts with god making his chosen ones to start telling / building the rest of the story around - pretty common in all stories is a main theme and main characters. In this instance it was a particular people which god created for the purpose of being the ones who would eventually give rise to jesus. The rest of mankind are what today would be concidered "EXTRAS" i use this analogy for you larry, since i know your into theatre. Funny how outside man/gen. >1< man - is not mentioned here, but to me it is not surprising there is no need for all the others and types and races to be mentioned till the need arises and that need did not arise till after cain killed Abel, then he must leave to a land of wanderings. Now we have a reason to bring the others into the scenario. Now Cain the killer needs a wife - and he finds one among the non necessary [for christ sake] Genesis > 1 < woman, the rest of the type 1 disposable extras, that god brought forth to eventually use for his purposes of destruction as the book unravels its purpose of bringing god/jesus on the scene in act 2 scene 1. After all what is the main purpose of A&E? to bring forth a race that will eventually produce a virgin who will be imprenated by a spirit that will bring forth a man/god correct? Now i'm sure you will raise the question of original sin and how its been put upon all by A&E's disobedience correct? well again as you keep trtying to make your point it was for the jews only, not the rest of creation - the whole thing is about the jews and god, the other players are only as i said extras. you keep taking the bible to be universal - i don't i see it as having context only within the people who wrote it and were called and made and believe they are the chosen people of god. not until part 2 act 1 scene one does it begin to deal with anything other than gods chosen people and really not till much later are ones outside the jews even mentioned til then even jesus recognizes them >>dogs<< correct? Now do you have to agree with my opinion? nope - but it makes more biblical sense to me than interbreeding ever will. To interbreeding You say nope, it was only for the jews - i say yep because the jews were Adam and Eves decendents or in every way jews/isrealites, what was wrong at the beginning as to incest would have to be all along otherwise god knew he was letting sin abound by not telling them it was wrong. you can't use leviticus to say it was wrong for the israelites as to incest then and not have to wonder why? if incest is wrong its wrong always, be it for them or others. sin does not have a starting point that one can say - no it was not sin then because - blash, blah - either sin is sin or its not! if god put upon them in leviticus that it was sin always! god knew from the beginning it was sin -IMO. Whether A&E had other children besides the 3 mentioned in the first chapters of GEN. can not explain away the word replenish as to re-populating the earth, repopulating means just that - populate again. In that sense i take it that others were their before adam and Eve. it's only those who follow after futurist theology and and other man made theology to CTA, that one can agree with changing or making it believed that Fill - is the right choice for replenish. though god made mankind twice it does not state how many were made the first time - i believe there were probably few - enough to represent the different races at most and they were scattered on the land - thus - nod- a place of wandering - nomads - un-necessary in gods plan of salvation except to show his judgement to those he chose - A&E and their decendents - sound bigoted? - dont blame me i did not not write it! if anyones to blame blame god and moses or the real authors of the words. I think everyone can see he thought little of the rest of mankind except for those that fit his plan and purposes. i will be more than happy to continue if you like but it will not solve anything nor get me past where i am - you will believe as you will and i also. but i'll defend your right to be wrong larry -  As to the idea of two creations - I point you to Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and earth were complete in all their vast array." I can't see how Genesis 2 is now a creation story, as opposed to the account - in a little more detail (or close-up) if you will of Genesis 1. Two creations would be a direct contradiction to this verse - even if attempting to take it allegorically instead of literally. As to the cast of "extra's" - the belief that they are the "unrecorded" people of the creation account of Genesis 1, as opposed to the unrecorded offspring of A&E is a matter of perception I suppose. It's likely any contrary discussion on this matter will get us anywhere - let's just agree that Cain had to get a wife somewhere. I couldn't disprove a premise from Jeannie if she said his wife arrived on a flying saucer for that matter. But that doesn't assume I'm likely to go along with it. As to the matter of incest - and "was it not a sin, then it was a sin - it should be an all or nothing thing"... I was merely reporting the account of what can be concluded from scripture. The fact that it is not brought up as "a sin" until Leviticus (and it even isn't described in the manner that we know incest to be what it is today) doesn't necessarily translate back to it always having been a sin. As with the circumstance of any of the 10 commandments (of which we know there were really many more) there are accounts which preceed Leviticus where we know that there are consequesnces for the actions thereof. The consequesnces of the serpent decieving Eve (lying) Cain murdering Able (ummm... murder or killing for those who are KJV adherants) Worshopping false Gods (idol worship) etc... all were "sins" before Moses came down off the mountain with the tablets. However - this does not mean that all of the laws of Leviticus were all sin tracing back to Genesis. Certainly the idea of all of the different sacrifices were not present from Genesis on. Some, sure - but in such detail? There's just no evidence of it. Then - upon the arrival and resurection of Jesus - these "sins" were no longer. Even unto the requirement of circumcision. I tend not to have the perception of "sin" that I see so often described here. My view of the OT "Laws" were not the same as we view "Law" in our judicial system today. The Law was given in the OT as a demonstration of the acts that would bring with them the consequences of making a wrong choice of action. Some more severe than others. They were a "warning" - more so, than a standard by which to meet out punishment, as we clearly see the laws of today are. They were a standard by which the "chosen people" were to assess their rightiousness before God. For that is the central theme of scripture. Rightiousness. It encomapasses all that is perfection. The laws of the OT were given for this purpose. This cannot be argued for all of the laws we have today. It can be demonstrated that thousands of laws on the books have nothing to do with rightiousness. So - bringing it back full circle - it can just as easily be demonstrated that the issue of incest could have been brought about by a lack of necessity - as opposed to a demonstration of an "unrightious action" from the beginning of time. I leave this conclusion up to you. As to considering the bible - universal - I'm not sure how to adress this. In terms of the idea of Intelligent Creation as an explination for an origin of the species and it's subsequent prolifration, yes - I chose this idea over that of Darwinism. As to an all encompassing account of man on earth - no. It starts off quite broad - giving mere snapshots of the "main characters" as it were - but once we get to Genesis 10 - it becomes evident that following the account of each tribe of the sons of Noah are just not going to be there. At this point, yes - it does become an account of the nation that will eventually give us the "Savior". It is headed towards the end of the means established in the first chapters of Genesis. However - when it comes to detailed discussion about biblical concepts - which is what is being discussed here - than it must remain universal to the "argument". How can the concepts of ancient Egyptians be measured up to the themes of scripture to consider the validity of it? It makes no sense to draw conclusions about the validity of the scriptures because it fails to mention anything about the possibilities of UFO's. We could explain away every concept known to man by "blaming it on the aliens" - as it were. so too with ancient mythologies. They have no place in discussing biblical concepts. The idea of incest being wrong is born out of a biblical concept - not DNA. Now, DNA ay have it's place in substanciating the claim that there are consequences to incest - but where in history do we find incest being "wrong" outside of a biblical reference? I know of none. So any claim outside of a biblical reference is subjective at best. As to this idea of "original sin" (our Catholicism is showing) we can get lost in subjective perception of what this means. Do I think that we "inherit" this sin? No. I do - however, think that we inherited the propensity to sin. Surely. And I don't need the bible to demonstrate that to me. I have life experience to bear this truth out. On the matter of "wandering". Is this a contradiction of "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth." (Gen 9:1) or a fullfillment of it? We know that Cain was doomed to wander - thus Nod - and it isn't unreasonable to consider that his "tribe" would not follow him there - for pure survival reasons. But I don't see why this would be extrapolated to considering that any of the nations who spread out weer also wandering aimlessly about. Had the population of the children of Noah grown expodentially (since he too also lived a number of hundreds of years) they had no choice but to "wander off" to new lands to plant, tend to live stock, etc. Surely you wouldn't think that the thousands of off spring all live in the same house? So - I just see these things as reasonable observations of biblical accounts and themes. In the long run - it matters not whether the biblical account is one that is representative of absolute truth. Determination of such is never going to progress beyond that of faith. However - it does matter when considering biblical themes - that they not be accepted or rejected due to false exegesis. Here the opportunity to "get it right" lies not with the text itself - but with understanding the themes of it. Distorting the themes as a means of supporting the pretext of their falsehood - is only deception as it most damanging use. Understanding the bible and rejecting it is one thing - rejecting through ignorance is an entirely different matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
***Just believe in yourself, that is all you need.**** Remember the bible is written by man and has been changed over the years. Could you supply a detailed account of the changes from the present version we have to the texts found - say - just from the dead sea scrolls? There are theologians all over the world awaiting this new revelation - because they haven't seemed to have discovered them. Not possible, my friend. guesswork is all that mere beliefs represent. Knowledge of God is by direct communication. If truth were sought, I know that those that believe in the guesses suppositioned upon scriptural truths would have come to that reality already. But then, belief without revelation of truth is always a guess, at best. Revisionism of scriptural truth would require a revelation of the truth in order to taint the truth and revise it in presentation through machinating contrivances upon it. They cannot do that without the truth, which would prevent such audacity. The truth remains intact for all while they continue to guess. I would like to know why they are motivated to believe in their guesses too, as do you. Do inquiring minds wish to know the truth, or just fabricate excuses for not pursuing truth? It remains to be seen of those hazarding guesses while the clock ticks out the available time given each man to know.  Actually it's quite possible. We have manuscipts that date to the first century (ish) in the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. These are universaly acknowledged as representative of the text of scripture. Then we have a bible you could walk down to the store and purchase today. It should be quite easy to demonstrate all of the "changes" that the OP premises. A mere comparison would bear this fact out. It matters not what the relevant truth of the context is - which you seem to have superfluously introduced into the discussion. We could do the same thing with Homers "Iliad" is we wished. The relative reality of that manuscript would be irrelivant to demonstrating how it may or may not have changed through man's copying it over the past milleniums. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sun 08/24/08 12:04 PM
|
|
Is their any christian here that can say that they came to believe what they believe and how they believe the book, without the use of outside theological and dogmatic sectarian writings of others who's agendas of there sectarian beliefs are for the soul purpose of trying to gain converts to their teachings and not what is understandable without them? Anyone? - i think few if any who read on there own will come up with what any religious teachings of "MAN" say the words mean. i had to give that all up just to try and see what is actually said without others trying to influece what was meant. I don't care if many say - "this is the truth" i only care if i can read and see if its truth!! i say its not. i say its man making up what fits his agenda by use of a human like being to do so. The god in the book has an agenda, unlike any god free of mans treachery to create without rules and regulations - a god free of emtions and revenge, a god free of baby sitting the wicked children that he creared. I agree. You are looking in the right place to find that 'god'. Jesus Christ is whom you seek, after all. He is quoted as saying to the Creator, in John 17:9. " I pray for them : not for the world, but for them which you have given me ; for they are yours." He does not babysit the wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is permissible for me to use the actual text to support my assertion that there are indeed two contradictory versions of Genesis. Why would that not be allowed? Do tell? The first account of genesis explains the Earth was created in 6 days, with a day of rest on the 7th. The second account or later version of the two clearly states that the Earth and the universe were created in ONE day. God did both at the same time on one day. How do you account for this exactly? Once again, as with Leviticus, I am asking you to LOOK at what is actually written not what you think might explain it in your own head. Why would there even need to be two versions? That alone is understandably a little suspicious. (Genesis 2:4 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…) You are clearly off on the creation of man and woman. That is a big problem there. The creation of man and woman. According to Genesis 1:27 man and woman were created simultaneously. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then later, when presumably this concept that man and woman were in some respect to be considered egalitarian, would not further the interest of Christianity as a whole, we now have this new version written: Genesis 2:20-22 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman She is to be a rib taken from Adam which of course implies that man was created first. BIG CHANGE HERE. Then we get into Lilith also but I’m sure you won’t dare attempt to explain the actual first wife of Adam. You must keep in mind here that the advent of Christianity was during a period of time where humans were Pagan and had been observing Earth/Goddess oriented spirituality dating as far back as the Neolithic. In order for these new stories to have some kind of impact on these people, these early writers of the scriptures would have HAD to stay in line with the already existent beliefs of the time. They would have gone along with the idea that man and woman were created as equals. They would have taken issue with the idea that one is to be considered superior to the other. Or a “handmaiden” in some respect. However if this religion was to take control of the people successfully, certain concepts would need to be driven home and one would be we are DONE with any mention of Earth as mother or female as giver of life. It’s now to be this male god up in the clouds who gets credit for the creating of life. Get used to it or it will be enforced by the blade as needed. Since we are discussing the biblical concept of the creation of man - than we are surely limited to the references of scripture to establish our premises. I know of no reference in scripture to "Lilith" so where does she fit into the biblical account. So too with the idea that there was ever a period of time known as "Neolithic" as accounted for in Pagan accounts - as they were not in existance at the time of Genesis. You are taking later non-biblical accounts and interjecting them into your pretext of explaining the account of Genesis 1 and 2. These premises are unacceptable to explain what is written in Genesis. If you wish to introduce this as an alternative theory to Genesis - that is a topic for another thread - but the issue here is whether or not the bible is describing two distinctly different accounts of the creation of man. You are ignoring the issue of Genesis 2:1 as a contradiction of your interpretation. As to the idea of simultanious creation of man and woman - you are interjecting this on the sentence because they appear to have occured together. If I say that I left work and went to the store and home yesterday - you would be telling me that I did these two things simultaniously. You could subjectively believe this - but you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that I did these things at the same time. I could - however have done both within the time frame of one day - as is evident of the account in Genesis 1 and the account in Genesis 2. Where I could draw the analogy of having left work - went to the store and bought a few things. Went to my car, took a shot nap and went home. These are two different accounts of the same events in time. So your pretext of having proved there were two accounts are not born out to be representative of the truth until you can justify the interpretation of Genesis 2:1 in light of your claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sun 08/24/08 12:37 PM
|
|
Jessee wrote: In one fatal scene, Will Smith is behind a glass shield. He is pleading with these people. I can SAVE you. I have the cure in my blood. LISTEN to me. But they only become more and more enraged. They begin throwing themselves again and again against the shield causing themselves further harm. They have become quite insensible. They are unreachable. They are consumed with hatred for both the message and the messenger... Those who reject christ remind me of this scene. To compare Christ to this movie is to suggest that Christ is a completely inept idiot. Incapable of communicating to anyone. Therein lies the problem. In order for this picture to hold you must assume that God is incapable of communicating with the objects of his creation. You're trying to claim that people are infected by a disease that drives them insane and they can't think clearly. Well, duh! If that's the truth then they aren't evil people purposefully and knowingly choosing to reject God by their own sane free will. They would be desperately sick individuals who need help. If God refuses to help them then who's fault is that? You can't have this God sending those people to hell and call that "righteous". That would be a totally inept God who had absolutely no control over anything. A God who would be unable to save his own creation even by the lame (and clearly desperate) attempt of having his Son nailed to a pole. This is a picture of a God who has completely lost control over anything at all. If it is to be claimed that people are choosing to reject God of their own free will knowledge. Then it must be so. But your scenario here suggests that the people are sick, and insane, and not thinking clearly. Obviously they are not choosing to reject God by their own free will knowledge, but rather they are being blinded to the truth through no fault of their own. But that flies in the face of a righteous judgmental God and the idea that people are knowingly rejecting him. So I'm afraid that your scenario here totally breaks down and cannot apply. This suggests that totally innocent people are being sent to hell through no fault of their own, and certainly not by their own free will choice. There is no way that you can even invent a scenario where non-believers are guilty of anything. The only way they could be guilty is if they fully understood and knew precisely what they were rejecting, and then rejected it. The idea that they are merely 'lost sheep' doesn't fly can can't apply because 'lost sheep' aren't guilty of anything but being lost. That's not the same as rejecting their owner. Salvation cannot depend on believing in something. Especially when the "something" that needs to be believed in is so full of inconsistencies and absurdities (like this moot scenario that you just gave) In order to believe that the Bible is the word of God, I must believe that God told people to stone each other to death. I must believe that God is a male-chuavanist. I must believe that God is very unwise and always solves problems using violent methods. If I chose to believe that God would never stoop to such a sick demented actions, then I go to hell for thinking that God is good when in truth, God is not good. Does that even make sense to you? A person being rejected by God because that person thought God was better than he actually is? Is that a good reason to send someone to hell? Clearly the Biblical stories cannot be about God. They were written by men who had sick demented minds. The stories are quite simply too stupid to be from an all-wise supreme being. I know this. But you are suggesting that I'll go to hell now because I can never believe that God is a crude demented fool. All I can say is that if this is truth then the most compassionate and wise people who ever lived must be in hell. The biblical picture simply cannot be true. It's impossible. The biblical God would need to be completely inept, powerless, and very un-wise. He would also need to be sending perfectly wise and compassionate people to hell just because they couldn't blieve in the insanities described in the Bible. Such a picture of God is not even close to being righteous. It's a picture of a totally inept God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest to all those using the English language to interpret the bible and its meanings to remember that you are working off various translations s well as The King James VERSION... the exact texts from which modern scripture is based on were written in hebrew, greek and translated into latin. Not to mention that many of the ancient illustrated manuscripts were "copied" by illiterate monks, who were actually "drawing" the letters they saw ..leaving the possibilities of typos and other errors wide open.. The words you are using to interpret, are in themselves interpretation of other MEN and not really the LORDS words..it would appear god didnt speak english... thus rendering these types of "debates" an exercise in futility, at least in my humble opinion. While this is certainly worth noting - it would be amis to think that the monks would lose the central themes of the bible in their transferance. This would mean they would have chosen to go out of there way to chance central themes of scripture, and wouldn't this just be contradictory to the omniscience of God to think this could be done, and gotten away with without his being aware of it? It would seem to be more logical to conclude that God was aware there would eventually be english, and somehow founf it capable of motivating the translaters to get it right. Else - if we conclude that men could change the main themes of scripture, it would render God rather moot - would it not? And if so, why not make things like Adultery and murdering those people that we do not like a commandment rather than a sin? If left to man to interpret what the bible says - why not just eliminate half of it. Would make life easier, and the book less complicated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/24/08 12:40 PM
|
|
I would suggest to all those using the English language to interpret the bible and its meanings to remember that you are working off various translations s well as The King James VERSION... the exact texts from which modern scripture is based on were written in hebrew, greek and translated into latin. Not to mention that many of the ancient illustrated manuscripts were "copied" by illiterate monks, who were actually "drawing" the letters they saw ..leaving the possibilities of typos and other errors wide open.. The words you are using to interpret, are in themselves interpretation of other MEN and not really the LORDS words..it would appear god didnt speak english... thus rendering these types of "debates" an exercise in futility, at least in my humble opinion. exactly. God must be sought directly to know the truth. everything else about belief alone is guesses up to that point. One can know that Jesus is the LORD. Or just believe it without doing what the LORD gave us to which is to be born again. That is the only truth to be known. All beliefs stopping short of the personal responsibility given man to know is but guesses and conjecture. In English, Hebrew or Greek or any other language, the truth can be known or it can be suspended in belief which in fact is supension of belief if faith is not applied from the heart to be inviting of the truth through a revelation of truth which only comes one way, and that way is through Jesus Christ alone by way of being born of His Spirit only. Ridiculous. If it were not for scripture you would not have ever heard of Jesus. If it were not for the teaching of Christianity from the New Testament you would never have heard of Jesus. If it were not for the plagiarized writings of a master con man and his fictional the New Testament, you would not have ever been exposed to the dogma that is Christianity and you would never have heard of or believed in Jesus as Lord. Your entire belief system teeters precariously on whether the writings of the New Testament were true or not. But you, along with many others, refuse to question the authorship and motive of those gospels because you fear the wrath of the Lord and others. Rome had motive and opportunity. They had captured the Jewish general, they may have simply used him to forge the history of the Jewish war alleged to have been written by Flavius Josephus, a fictional pen name. Rome wanted a new religion of passive obedient followers. They hated the Jews, just as Hitler did. Rome created Christianity, Hitler used it to slaughter Jews and to escape his fate. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As to the idea of two creations - I point you to Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and earth were complete in all their vast array."
I can't see how Genesis 2 is now a creation story, as opposed to the account - in a little more detail (or close-up) if you will of Genesis 1. Two creations would be a direct contradiction to this verse - even if attempting to take it allegorically instead of literally." Eljay Eljay you do realize that the idea that two contradictory versions of Genesis appear is not some random observation but actually addressed by biblical scholars and theologians alike? I wasn't certain just based on some of your assertions you are attempting to make here: Genesis has been subjected to any number of interpretations, none of them satisfactory to the modern mind. Though the intent of the story is clear, as a narrative it lacks sense. Even the literalists who want to read it as straight fact find themselves following pretzel-like paths of explanation. Apart from such knotty and awkward questions as from whence came evil in a new world God proclaimed as "good," and the incestuous situation which must have prevailed for the human race to continue (by whom did Cain father children?), a fundamental problem is the fact that the story has two different accounts of the creation of man. The first is told briefly in Genesis 1:27: God "created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The term "man" in this instance is to be understood in the collective sense as meaning mankind. This plural or inclusive use of the word "man" is made clear in Genesis 5:2 where it is again stated that "Male and female he created them and blessed them and called their name man on the day of their creation." The passage therefore may be interpreted to mean that men and women were created in one act, both sexes together, equally and at the same time. The second, much lengthier account is given in Genesis 2 and 3. Instead of simultaneous creation, the story tells first of God forming man out of the dust, breathing life into his nostrils, and setting him down in the garden of Eden. Only after the first act of creation does the story go on to recount the making of a woman from the man's rib, the story of the serpent's temptation of the woman, and the subsequent expulsion of the man and the woman from the garden into our world. Biblical scholars currently believe that the first account given in Genesis 1:27 was written much later than the second story, having been composed according to the "P" source or "Priestly Code" (so called because of its cultic interests and regulations for priests) probably by Jewish theologians around 500-400 BCE. The longer second story, related more in the language of folklore, is derived from the "J" or "Yahwist" source (so called because it used the name Yahweh [Jehovah] for God) and was probably written down by members of Hebrew tribes around 1000-900 BCE during the time of King Solomon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: Evolution not a religion? Right. Belief in a system of events based on a book of fairytales (Origin of the species I believe it's called) with nothing but subjective proof to support it. Sounds like a religion to me. If you genuinely believe that, then you truly are still living in the Dark Ages. What you just said above isn't even close to being remotely true. Today evolution has been proven as well as anything we know. To believe otherwise is to live in a world of pretense. As to Hitler being a Christian. Not. He was heavily into the New Age and based his beliefs on "Survival of the fittest" Again, this is entirely moot. It doesn't matter what Hitler might have actually believed. The fact is that he referred to Christianity in his speeches to inspire Christian followers. He "used" the sheep mentality of Christianity to his advantage. Whether he believed in it himself is totally irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This might help illustrate it better. According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. Day 1-Created light (without the sun) Day 2-Firmanent-I am interpreting that word as the sky but you can correct me if needed. Day 3-Dry land, seas, plants Day 4-Sun, Moon, and presumably the stars because the sun is a star in the solar system Day 5-Fish, birds Day 6-Cattle, things that "creepeth" and man (Genesis 2:4 In the DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…) This is in direct contrast with the later version of Genesis where wam, bam, thank you mam, god does everthing in ONE day. What gives? Its not "past tense". Its two seperate versions experiencing extreme internal conflict. Having inserted Genesis 2:1 into your list you would have Creation ending there, then an account of it following. Thus the "in the generations" that you have omitted from your Genesis 2:4 refrence. You are extablishing Pretext and searching for context to support it. This will always change interpretation. Here it is used to equate the "day" of Genesis 1 with the "day" of Genesis 2:4 - ignoring the important context of Genesis 2:1. That's where the conflict lies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote: Ridiculous. If it were not for scripture you would not have ever heard of Jesus. If it were not for the teaching of Christianity from the New Testament you would never have heard of Jesus. Well, not only that, but the very idea of Jesus being a 'savior' makes no sense unless you believe in the Old Testament God and the idea that man fell from grace, and that the Old Testament God demands blood sacrifices to appease him for you disobedience, then the idea of Jesus being the sacrificial lamb of God has no meaning. There's no way that a person can point to Jesus without pointing to the entire Bible from beginning to end. Jesus has no meaning without a belief in the God of Abraham. Jesus cannot stand on his own. He has no substance on his own. It's meaningless to claim to believe in Jesus, and not believe that the God of Abraham demanded blood sacrifices as atonements for sin. They go hand-in-hand. Jesus has no meaning outside of this context. You can't have Jesus 'paying' for your sins with his blood, if there is no God who is demanding to be appeased with blood for your disobedience in the first place! You can't strip the Old Testament away from Jesus and still claim that he is the sacrificial lamb of God. Jesus is nailed more firmly to the Old Testament than he is to the cross. You must believe in the Old Testament before you can believe in Jesus. If you think that you can believe in Jesus without believing in the Old Testament you are fooling yourself. Such a 'belief' is not a belief at all. It's a total delusion that if you pretend to believe in something you don't understand somehow you will be miraculously 'saved'. I hold that you can't even claim to 'believe' the biblical picture until you've fully understood. To claim to believe in something that you don't even understand is absurd and meaningless. How can a person believe in something when they don't even understand what it is that they are claiming to believe? It's impossible to 'believe' in Jesus without fully understanding what that means. And that requires a fully understanding (and belief) in the Old Testament as well. It truly is all-or-nothing. Jesus is meaningless on his own. He is nothing without the God of Abraham. A person must believe in the God of Abraham and the Old Testament before they can believe in Jesus, otherwise they're just kidding themselves. It makes no sense to believe in Jesus and reject the rest of the biblical story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sun 08/24/08 01:17 PM
|
|
Is their any christian here that can say that they came to believe what they believe and how they believe the book, without the use of outside theological and dogmatic sectarian writings of others who's agendas of there sectarian beliefs are for the soul purpose of trying to gain converts to their teachings and not what is understandable without them? Anyone? - i think few if any who read on there own will come up with what any religious teachings of "MAN" say the words mean. i had to give that all up just to try and see what is actually said without others trying to influece what was meant. I don't care if many say - "this is the truth" i only care if i can read and see if its truth!! i say its not. i say its man making up what fits his agenda by use of a human like being to do so. The god in the book has an agenda, unlike any god free of mans treachery to create without rules and regulations - a god free of emtions and revenge, a god free of baby sitting the wicked children that he creared. I formulated my understanding of scripture by reading the New Testament in it's entirety. I read no other books by anyone pre-determining what I was reading. Made a "decision for christ" as they say - then joined a Cult. Neat - huh! You can be sure I learned the proper way to mis-interpret the scriptures! I am quite adept at taking passages of scripture and twisting their meaning to say whatever I want them to - which is why it comes easy for me to see it when it's done here. It's like learning to ride a bike. Once you know how to do it - it's not hard to see how other people do it. And I've learned from some of the best scripture twisters on the planet. Of course God has an agenda in scripture. The salvation of man. Isn't this obvious? Are we in disagreement that man - as a whole has the insatiable ability to commit evil asks? Where would Hollywood be without this obvious truth? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 08/24/08 01:24 PM
|
|
This might help illustrate it better. According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. Day 1-Created light (without the sun) Day 2-Firmanent-I am interpreting that word as the sky but you can correct me if needed. Day 3-Dry land, seas, plants Day 4-Sun, Moon, and presumably the stars because the sun is a star in the solar system Day 5-Fish, birds Day 6-Cattle, things that "creepeth" and man (Genesis 2:4 In the DAY that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…) This is in direct contrast with the later version of Genesis where wam, bam, thank you mam, god does everthing in ONE day. What gives? Its not "past tense". Its two seperate versions experiencing extreme internal conflict. Having inserted Genesis 2:1 into your list you would have Creation ending there, then an account of it following. Thus the "in the generations" that you have omitted from your Genesis 2:4 refrence. You are extablishing Pretext and searching for context to support it. This will always change interpretation. Here it is used to equate the "day" of Genesis 1 with the "day" of Genesis 2:4 - ignoring the important context of Genesis 2:1. That's where the conflict lies. Okay then sir, feel free to clarify these contradictions. The floor is yours. While you are at it, explain the man and woman created at the same time vs. woman made from a rib while Adam is asleep later on. Why did it need to be a rib anyway? Could it have been a tooth? That would have still carried Adam's DNA (dental pulp is a rich source of the material) and a tooth would have not left him crippled and doubled over in pain. There is no good reason to be messing with someone's skeletal system! Okay we needed some comic relief. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sun 08/24/08 01:36 PM
|
|
Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, “I don’t care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I’m not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more what like the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I’m interested in is leading a good life. I’m going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.” God says, Seek ye first the kingdom of God & HIS righteousness & ALL these things will be added unto you. I'm thinking that the "dogma" many refer to benefits BOTH...the non believer as well as the believer. So "dogma" does have it's rewards whether believed or not. ALL benefit from it. Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. This is the sad result of turning away from God. For sure... As a matter of fact, I don’t believe any of you have really lost that desire. Agreed here. I think people want to know if God really does exist. They just haven't experienced His divinity yet. What hit me today was the "HOLY" spirit of God. Holy..meaning totally...one with God, in His spirit. Total agreement with Him. Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all. Oh man do I agree with this one. Many know the truth because it's in their heart. Unfortunately there is too much info out there that is totally void of any reality or truth that people believe other than what they grew up to know & love. It's caused alot of confusion as well as consequences for humanity. As soon as we have realised this, we realise something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don’t should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can’t both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction. With the best will in the world ... then it won’t be his fault. Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him. The question before each of us is not “Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?” The question is, “Can I?” We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn’t believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If there intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can’t read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, “Can’t I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn’t heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, “Need I bother about it?” Mayn’t I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good”? Aren’t good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn’t someone inside?” To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being “good” before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately “forgets” to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won’t look at his bank account because he’s afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won’t go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor might tell him. The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—“Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.” 1 But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven’t noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand. But still—for intellectual honour has sunk very low in our age—I hear someone whimpering on with his question, “Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I’d be better if I became a Christian?” Well, if you must have it, my answer is “Yes.” But I don’t like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that’s true or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal “sell” on record. Isn’t it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed “moral development”? All right, Christianity will do you good—a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won’t enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called “good”—all that about “leading a decent life” and “being kind”—isn’t quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. The "dogma" of it all is that these blessings come without trouble as a result of our FAITH in God...not because we are anything great. God gives & He can also take away. That's why the Bible, God's very word says apart from Jesus we can do nothing. Our own righteousness is as filthy rags. It will teach you that in fact you can’t be “good” (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn’t have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that. AMEN to that!  J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn’t know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can’t lead a decent life without Christ, don’t know what life is about; if they did they would know that “a decent life” is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy. {b]For sure...this is the link everyone wants but too afriad to go there for fear of disappointment. A big lie of the enemy who comes to kill steal & destroy our very lives. God's very divine nature that trumps every question, calms every fear... destroys all unbelief. Fairy tales to some but life to others. “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” 2 The idea of reaching “a good life” without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up “a good life” as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are “done away” and the rest is a matter of flying. AMEN! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 08/24/08 01:37 PM
|
|
Jesus is nailed more firmly to the Old Testament than he is to the cross.  You have quite a way with words. I am trying to picture Jesus nailed to the Bible. Huummmmmmmmmmmm........       |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sun 08/24/08 01:53 PM
|
|
I always want to be fair. As I assume do you. I never throw around wild accusations. Show me just one accusation, and I will apologize. Lets both be fair. I do make statements though, hopefully factual ones. These statements are open to criticism. Show me any error in my thinking and I will correct it. So...... I maintain that one of us is in error. The issue at hand, the issue you dispute with me, is an either/or issue. Where was I wrong or unfair. I simply said one of us is in error. I am not offended that you evidently, by both your replies and your tone, have implied that I am the one in the wrong, have I? Nor should you be offended. No offense is intended. We are adults. And we are all here to decide what the truth of the matter is. This is both fair and clear, level headed thinking. So.....friends? Ok...being new ...here's a clue. They want all matters to be open to all sorts of other spiritual thoughts & ideas or be criticized for having sound faith in your God. That is exactly what kris et al think. They HATE to an obsession that Christianity says the only way to the Father is through Jesus His Son. They also reject His divinity to justify their atheistic POV. That's to the point, their mindset. Expect the double standard of being called a meanie or insulting ( a biggie kry baby kris likes to use alot) when you disagree with them. ...and that's the short of it. |
|
|
|
|
