100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Starting a LBGT Bible study/home church in walla walla wa | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Mon 05/02/11 07:31 PM
|
|
well, according to cowboy, there is only one way to get into heaven... by following jesus and letting him in... thats the only way, right?.. so he doesn't care if we listen to him, but we have to accept him... maybe i'm confused, but the idea seems confused... According to people, there's only one way (through Jesus). According to the book, belief is not neccesary, but being a good person is... (edit) I want to add that myself, as well as countless others, do believe and have scriptural support that all will be "saved". Just as all will also be chastised. (can you say lake of fire?) (a spiritual cleasing if you will) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, according to cowboy, there is only one way to get into heaven... by following jesus and letting him in... thats the only way, right?.. so he doesn't care if we listen to him, but we have to accept him... maybe i'm confused, but the idea seems confused... According to people, there's only one way (through Jesus). According to the book, belief is not neccesary, but being a good person is... agreed... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats what i said in my very first post. Your objections are to various groups interpretations. Mreply was to your issue of which faith assumption you wish to believe. Which again is not the same as using scince or the bible to prove anything un provable by either
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok first and foremost I am not argueing to prove or disprove anything science or spiritual. After reading all the posts I also see as I have stated before most people resond to specific interpretation of wqhat biblical scripture means. Problem is few, if any, look into all possible interpretaions of the oringinal works in the oringinal lahguage. Sadly most who do come with pre defined answers they want to find. Very few take into account the myriad of factors that should be used to make an interpretation. For example one person here stated God wants you to "save your own butt". And admitidely most christians explain it that way. Sadly thye fail to see that most times when the save the world is used it breaks down to mean the whole of the universe. That in itself changes the true meaning of salvation. Plus the reward is not just saving your butt. There are many other rewards both here and in eternity. Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. For example many say if some one who never has heard of, with the meaning here of had a understanding of not just some words spoiuted at someone, then they are doomed. Not true the bible makes it clear that those who live in the knowledge of God, no matter what name they apply to God, God will have a plan for them to be saved. I understand alot of the hurt and anger most have abput doctrine. Again I am not wanting any one to believe or disbelieve on God or science. I am trying to say that they are NOT exclusively incompatable. What I am saying and trying to convey is God loves you just how he made you. If you are a person who has to tie things together to see how they fit he has a way for you to see him in that. I would much prefer this be a forum to find people in my area who like me are marginalized by most churchs doctrines to see he loves us too. I should have replied privately to the person who has the scientific doubts because I am not one to try to convert people. It is not now nor will it ever be my responsibility. It is completly between them and God and he has a way to be seen by everyone no matter what method they follow. Be it scientific or other wise. I am going to suggest that the guy speak to people of science who are christian for answers to his question because they can explain it in his terms and I can not. As far as the "created" amoeba it did hot "live" ie reproduce and other wise until some already living material was introduced. In other words it had no signs of life even though it did become alive once they added life to it and put it in life. Back to my main reason for this post I am looking for those in Walla Walla wwa area who live an alternate type of life or not who want to begin a bible study/home church open to all as equals. Not to fix anyone of anything more than their brokedness and pains this world has placed on them. I am not trying to avoid all the issue brought up here, but to place them in proper perspective. They are doctrines of men created by their interpretations of what they or those they follow think the bible says. They hold no relevance to what is right. I respect science and as one said admire its search for truth. I am just adding that their may be truths science has no way at this time to measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 05/03/11 12:36 PM
|
|
kimimalia wrote: Ok first and foremost I am not argueing to prove or disprove anything science or spiritual. After reading all the posts I also see as I have stated before most people resond to specific interpretation of wqhat biblical scripture means. Problem is few, if any, look into all possible interpretaions of the oringinal works in the oringinal lahguage. Sadly most who do come with pre defined answers they want to find. Very few take into account the myriad of factors that should be used to make an interpretation. For example one person here stated God wants you to "save your own butt". And admitidely most christians explain it that way. Sadly thye fail to see that most times when the save the world is used it breaks down to mean the whole of the universe. That in itself changes the true meaning of salvation. Plus the reward is not just saving your butt. There are many other rewards both here and in eternity. Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. For example many say if some one who never has heard of, with the meaning here of had a understanding of not just some words spoiuted at someone, then they are doomed. Not true the bible makes it clear that those who live in the knowledge of God, no matter what name they apply to God, God will have a plan for them to be saved. I understand alot of the hurt and anger most have abput doctrine. Again I am not wanting any one to believe or disbelieve on God or science. I am trying to say that they are NOT exclusively incompatable. What I am saying and trying to convey is God loves you just how he made you. If you are a person who has to tie things together to see how they fit he has a way for you to see him in that. I would much prefer this be a forum to find people in my area who like me are marginalized by most churchs doctrines to see he loves us too. I should have replied privately to the person who has the scientific doubts because I am not one to try to convert people. It is not now nor will it ever be my responsibility. It is completly between them and God and he has a way to be seen by everyone no matter what method they follow. Be it scientific or other wise. I am going to suggest that the guy speak to people of science who are christian for answers to his question because they can explain it in his terms and I can not. As far as the "created" amoeba it did hot "live" ie reproduce and other wise until some already living material was introduced. In other words it had no signs of life even though it did become alive once they added life to it and put it in life. Back to my main reason for this post I am looking for those in Walla Walla wwa area who live an alternate type of life or not who want to begin a bible study/home church open to all as equals. Not to fix anyone of anything more than their brokedness and pains this world has placed on them. I am not trying to avoid all the issue brought up here, but to place them in proper perspective. They are doctrines of men created by their interpretations of what they or those they follow think the bible says. They hold no relevance to what is right. I respect science and as one said admire its search for truth. I am just adding that their may be truths science has no way at this time to measure. You have your agenda, and we all have ours.  This is the essence behind a public discussion forum. This particular forum is not designed to be used as advertisement bulletin board. I personally think that it's fine that you posted your endeavor and invite here. However, the very act of doing that automatically OPENED a discussion thread. Because that's what this forum is designed for. The discussion took the following path: 1. You posted your agenda and invite. 2. I congratulated you on your positive approach to what is often a negative religion. 3. I also included that I personally do not support the religion in any form. 4. You invited me to email you if I feel a need for clarification on specific verses. 5. I chose instead to use these public forum to express some of my concerns with the religion as a whole. 6. You returned stating that everyone has their own "Faiths". 7. I agree, and I also point out that everyone has their own "agendas" as well. 8. Your agenda is to start a Christians church that does not use Christianity to belittle or condemn LBGT lifestyle and same-gender relationships. 9. My agenda is to show where the Hebrew stories of a "God" cannot possible be true.  My agenda may seem radical to you and potentially even as an 'attack' on a religion. But from my point of view it's not that at all. It's simply one human's view of why these stories that claim to speak for the "creator" of all humanity are highly suspicious and should indeed be questioned deeply for their actual validity. And from my point of view that is a very legitimate human concern. Especially when, as even you recognize, this religion is often used for discrimination. In your case the concern is discrimination against LBGT. In my case, my concern is discrimination for anyone and everyone who doesn't accept the Hebrew stories as the "Only True Word of God", period. So in a sense we are both concerned with the negative aspects this religion can have on humanity. You limit your concern to only the LBGT that are being condemned in the name of this religion. My concern is for humanity in general. For everyone who is being prejudiced against by religious bigotry simply because they don't worship this religion. Either because they are atheists and are considered 'horrible' for not even believing in a spiritual essence to reality or a "God" at all, or because they believe in God through a 'wrong' and 'false' religious or spiritual faith. Such as Wicca, or Buddhism (two of my personal favorites) So in a sense we both have similar agendas. Your agenda is to stop religious bigotry held against LBGT, my agenda is to stop religious bigotry held against everyone. Even "Christians" turn against "Christians" as we all know that Catholics and Protestants have a history of less than love for one another. And even various Christian denominations often have extremely heated and opposing views. I've always said that if the entire world were converted to "Christianity" that would only be the beginning of the real "Holy Wars" because the very next thing they would do is start turning on each other screaming, "Your interpretations are wrong! Only our denomination has the correct true interpretations of God!" The religious bigotry in the name of Jesus could never end until the last Christian was standing all alone on an empty planet. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to address some of the things that you've mention your post I quoted above. Because this is indeed a discussion forum and you've offered some thoughts that I would like to comment on. It's not intended as a "personal argument with you", I'm just posting on a public forum and will comment on any thoughts that I feel are pertinent to points that I would like to make. ~~~~~~~~~~ kimimalia wrote: There are many other rewards both here and in eternity. Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. For example many say if some one who never has heard of, with the meaning here of had a understanding of not just some words spoiuted at someone, then they are doomed. Not true the bible makes it clear that those who live in the knowledge of God, no matter what name they apply to God, God will have a plan for them to be saved. But here your whole assumption is that people need to be "saved" no matter what religion they are or what they believe. But the whole idea that people need to be "saved" is already a biblical notion. It stems from the story of Adam and Eve and the idea that the whole of the human race are "sinners" who are in dire need of repentance less they be harshly "judged" by some judgmental personified type of Godhead. That already and assumption that the biblical picture of a judgmental God is true. Plus this automatically carries with it that the biblical texts concerning the nature of "God's Commandments and instructions to manking" is a valid Holy Doctrine that does indeed contain the "Word of God". God's instructions and commands of what he expects from humans lest he condemn them to some undesirable fate. In other words, the only thing we need to be "saved" from is from this judgmental God in the first place. So by your very assumption that everyone needs to be saved or even "can" be saved assumes that the Bible is true no matter whether people believe in it or not. But then what else do you hold to be true? kimimalia wrote: Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. Well, do you believe that the Bible is the "Word of a judgmental God" or not?  If it is, then what's this nonsense about men creating doctrines that are at best just confusing? Either the Bible is the "Word of God" or it isn't. If it is the "Word of God" then it should be dependable to not be confusing and it should contain precisely what this God actually expects from us in no uncertain terms. After all if our eternal fate is going to depend upon us doing as he says, we had damn well better know precisely what he wants or we'll be in grave danger of being innocently condemned! So if the assumption is that this is a "Judgmental God" who expects us to obey "His Word" then "His Word" had better be crystal clear, infallible and perfect. You can't very well take the position that there exists a "Judgmental God" who is the "God of the Bible" and simultaneously hold that the Bible is nothing more that "Men created doctrines which are at best just confusing". It's either the infallible word of a judgmental God, or it's not. It makes no sense to try to have it both ways simultaneously. That's my stance on that. Once I've made that stance I believe that I can show precisely what you have already confessed to: it is indeed a "Man-created doctrine which is at best just confusing". And therefore it cannot be the "Infallible commandments and directives of a judgmental God" So who and what do people need to be "saved" from again?  A judgmental God who has been rendered "silenced" because "His Word" has become so contaminated by mankind as to have been rendered; "At best just confusing" - to use your own words. The whole religion has already lost any and all credibility at that point right there, IMHO. Now let's move on,... kimimalia wrote: I am not trying to avoid all the issue brought up here, but to place them in proper perspective. They are doctrines of men created by their interpretations of what they or those they follow think the bible says. They hold no relevance to what is right. Well then what does hold relevance to what's right? You've just basically renounced the entire Bible as being totally undependable in it's current form. Are you suggesting that this "Judgmental God" expects all humans to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew and study the oldest possible doctrines they can find trying to translate them into something meaningful so they can know what's right? With all due respect this whole scenario is just getting too far-fetched for me personally. ~~~~~~~~~ I feel that I have a far better solution: Why don't we just recognize that the Biblical doctrines are indeed grossly contaminated, or potentially totally made up fables to begin with? Why continue to cling to them at all once we have realized that they can hold no value beyond individual interpretations? Why not just recognize that they are indeed extremely fallible and confusing and in many cases outrageously absurd, and just put them on the shelf next to Greek Mythology? What would that mean for you? Would you then need to walk away from that book as a complete "atheist"? Would you feel that you have just given up that last hope of any spiritual essence for reality? Do you really NEED to have a story that is "confusing at best" in order to believe in a "God"? I certainly don't.  I can believe in a spiritual essence of life without any need to have a fairytale to reference. I guess I just have far more FAITH than most religious people. I don't even need a mythological story to believe in the mystical. Quantum Mechanics is "mystical" enough for me. The Big Bang is "mystical" enough for me. The totally unfathomable size of our observable universe is "mystical" enough for me. The absolute beauty of mathematics and delicate simplicity of the atomic structure of physical reality that can evolve into such profoundly marvelous complexity is "mystical" enough for me. I don't need a book or a fairytales to believe in the "mystical". I experience the "mystical" every day of my existence. So I can place the Bible, or any other fairytale book on a shelf and walk away from it and I haven't lost one iota of my faith in spirituality and the mystical. I don't need for Zeus or Yahweh to exist in order to believe in a spiritual essence of reality. I don't need for Jesus to have been the "Only Begotten Son of God" sent to offer "salvation" to save me from his Judgmental Father. I just don't need to believe in any of those things in order to believe that life is "mystical". ~~~~~~~~ Speaking of a "Judgmental Father" let's explore just that one single concept. In the biblical doctrines it clearly states in no uncertain terms: John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That's pretty straight forward and does not leave much room for alternative interpretations. It's either TRUE, or it's WRONG. And if it's wrong then the scriptures are indeed fallible. But then we have Jesus being crucified and the scriptures have Jesus saying: Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Well, with all due respect to the authors of the Bible, which is it? If the father judgeth no man, and all judgment has been committed to the Son, and Jesus is the Son. Then what would Jesus being asking the Father to forgive these men for when all judgment has been committed to HIM. ~~~~~~~~ A lot of people will become extremely defensive about this and start offering arguments to "defend" the doctrine. But the TRUTH is that there's a grave problem here. Something's wrong and therefore these scriptures do indeed contain errors and/or blatant contradictions. So why not just accept that they are indeed fallible, and cannot be the infallible word of any supposedly all-wise judgmental God from who's wrath everyone must be "saved". ~~~~~~~~ If you want to believe in a mystical spiritual reality of life beyond death, you can still do that. But why not choose a better picture of it. There are better pictures that already exist. Or you can just imagine your own. Why not? It's a matter of FAITH in any case. May as well have faith in your very own dreams. That's what I do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kimimalia wrote: Ok first and foremost I am not argueing to prove or disprove anything science or spiritual. After reading all the posts I also see as I have stated before most people resond to specific interpretation of wqhat biblical scripture means. Problem is few, if any, look into all possible interpretaions of the oringinal works in the oringinal lahguage. Sadly most who do come with pre defined answers they want to find. Very few take into account the myriad of factors that should be used to make an interpretation. For example one person here stated God wants you to "save your own butt". And admitidely most christians explain it that way. Sadly thye fail to see that most times when the save the world is used it breaks down to mean the whole of the universe. That in itself changes the true meaning of salvation. Plus the reward is not just saving your butt. There are many other rewards both here and in eternity. Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. For example many say if some one who never has heard of, with the meaning here of had a understanding of not just some words spoiuted at someone, then they are doomed. Not true the bible makes it clear that those who live in the knowledge of God, no matter what name they apply to God, God will have a plan for them to be saved. I understand alot of the hurt and anger most have abput doctrine. Again I am not wanting any one to believe or disbelieve on God or science. I am trying to say that they are NOT exclusively incompatable. What I am saying and trying to convey is God loves you just how he made you. If you are a person who has to tie things together to see how they fit he has a way for you to see him in that. I would much prefer this be a forum to find people in my area who like me are marginalized by most churchs doctrines to see he loves us too. I should have replied privately to the person who has the scientific doubts because I am not one to try to convert people. It is not now nor will it ever be my responsibility. It is completly between them and God and he has a way to be seen by everyone no matter what method they follow. Be it scientific or other wise. I am going to suggest that the guy speak to people of science who are christian for answers to his question because they can explain it in his terms and I can not. As far as the "created" amoeba it did hot "live" ie reproduce and other wise until some already living material was introduced. In other words it had no signs of life even though it did become alive once they added life to it and put it in life. Back to my main reason for this post I am looking for those in Walla Walla wwa area who live an alternate type of life or not who want to begin a bible study/home church open to all as equals. Not to fix anyone of anything more than their brokedness and pains this world has placed on them. I am not trying to avoid all the issue brought up here, but to place them in proper perspective. They are doctrines of men created by their interpretations of what they or those they follow think the bible says. They hold no relevance to what is right. I respect science and as one said admire its search for truth. I am just adding that their may be truths science has no way at this time to measure. You have your agenda, and we all have ours. This is the essence behind a public discussion forum. This particular forum is not designed to be used as advertisement bulletin board. I personally think that it's fine that you posted your endeavor and invite here. However, the very act of doing that automatically OPENED a discussion thread. Because that's what this forum is designed for. The discussion took the following path: 1. You posted your agenda and invite. 2. I congratulated you on your positive approach to what is often a negative religion. 3. I also included that I personally do not support the religion in any form. 4. You invited me to email you if I feel a need for clarification on specific verses. 5. I chose instead to use these public forum to express some of my concerns with the religion as a whole. 6. You returned stating that everyone has their own "Faiths". 7. I agree, and I also point out that everyone has their own "agendas" as well. 8. Your agenda is to start a Christians church that does not use Christianity to belittle or condemn LBGT lifestyle and same-gender relationships. 9. My agenda is to show where the Hebrew stories of a "God" cannot possible be true. My agenda may seem radical to you and potentially even as an 'attack' on a religion. But from my point of view it's not that at all. It's simply one human's view of why these stories that claim to speak for the "creator" of all humanity are highly suspicious and should indeed be questioned deeply for their actual validity. And from my point of view that is a very legitimate human concern. Especially when, as even you recognize, this religion is often used for discrimination. In your case the concern is discrimination against LBGT. In my case, my concern is discrimination for anyone and everyone who doesn't accept the Hebrew stories as the "Only True Word of God", period. So in a sense we are both concerned with the negative aspects this religion can have on humanity. You limit your concern to only the LBGT that are being condemned in the name of this religion. My concern is for humanity in general. For everyone who is being prejudiced against by religious bigotry simply because they don't worship this religion. Either because they are atheists and are considered 'horrible' for not even believing in a spiritual essence to reality or a "God" at all, or because they believe in God through a 'wrong' and 'false' religious or spiritual faith. Such as Wicca, or Buddhism (two of my personal favorites) So in a sense we both have similar agendas. Your agenda is to stop religious bigotry held against LBGT, my agenda is to stop religious bigotry held against everyone. Even "Christians" turn against "Christians" as we all know that Catholics and Protestants have a history of less than love for one another. And even various Christian denominations often have extremely heated and opposing views. I've always said that if the entire world were converted to "Christianity" that would only be the beginning of the real "Holy Wars" because the very next thing they would do is start turning on each other screaming, "Your interpretations are wrong! Only our denomination has the correct true interpretations of God!" The religious bigotry in the name of Jesus could never end until the last Christian was standing all alone on an empty planet. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to address some of the things that you've mention your post I quoted above. Because this is indeed a discussion forum and you've offered some thoughts that I would like to comment on. It's not intended as a "personal argument with you", I'm just posting on a public forum and will comment on any thoughts that I feel are pertinent to points that I would like to make. ~~~~~~~~~~ kimimalia wrote: There are many other rewards both here and in eternity. Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. For example many say if some one who never has heard of, with the meaning here of had a understanding of not just some words spoiuted at someone, then they are doomed. Not true the bible makes it clear that those who live in the knowledge of God, no matter what name they apply to God, God will have a plan for them to be saved. But here your whole assumption is that people need to be "saved" no matter what religion they are or what they believe. But the whole idea that people need to be "saved" is already a biblical notion. It stems from the story of Adam and Eve and the idea that the whole of the human race are "sinners" who are in dire need of repentance less they be harshly "judged" by some judgmental personified type of Godhead. That already and assumption that the biblical picture of a judgmental God is true. Plus this automatically carries with it that the biblical texts concerning the nature of "God's Commandments and instructions to manking" is a valid Holy Doctrine that does indeed contain the "Word of God". God's instructions and commands of what he expects from humans lest he condemn them to some undesirable fate. In other words, the only thing we need to be "saved" from is from this judgmental God in the first place. So by your very assumption that everyone needs to be saved or even "can" be saved assumes that the Bible is true no matter whether people believe in it or not. But then what else do you hold to be true? kimimalia wrote: Men create doctrines which are at best just confusing. Well, do you believe that the Bible is the "Word of a judgmental God" or not? If it is, then what's this nonsense about men creating doctrines that are at best just confusing? Either the Bible is the "Word of God" or it isn't. If it is the "Word of God" then it should be dependable to not be confusing and it should contain precisely what this God actually expects from us in no uncertain terms. After all if our eternal fate is going to depend upon us doing as he says, we had damn well better know precisely what he wants or we'll be in grave danger of being innocently condemned! So if the assumption is that this is a "Judgmental God" who expects us to obey "His Word" then "His Word" had better be crystal clear, infallible and perfect. You can't very well take the position that there exists a "Judgmental God" who is the "God of the Bible" and simultaneously hold that the Bible is nothing more that "Men created doctrines which are at best just confusing". It's either the infallible word of a judgmental God, or it's not. It makes no sense to try to have it both ways simultaneously. That's my stance on that. Once I've made that stance I believe that I can show precisely what you have already confessed to: it is indeed a "Man-created doctrine which is at best just confusing". And therefore it cannot be the "Infallible commandments and directives of a judgmental God" So who and what do people need to be "saved" from again? A judgmental God who has been rendered "silenced" because "His Word" has become so contaminated by mankind as to have been rendered; "At best just confusing" - to use your own words. The whole religion has already lost any and all credibility at that point right there, IMHO. Now let's move on,... kimimalia wrote: I am not trying to avoid all the issue brought up here, but to place them in proper perspective. They are doctrines of men created by their interpretations of what they or those they follow think the bible says. They hold no relevance to what is right. Well then what does hold relevance to what's right? You've just basically renounced the entire Bible as being totally undependable in it's current form. Are you suggesting that this "Judgmental God" expects all humans to learn ancient Greek and Hebrew and study the oldest possible doctrines they can find trying to translate them into something meaningful so they can know what's right? With all due respect this whole scenario is just getting too far-fetched for me personally. ~~~~~~~~~ I feel that I have a far better solution: Why don't we just recognize that the Biblical doctrines are indeed grossly contaminated, or potentially totally made up fables to begin with? Why continue to cling to them at all once we have realized that they can hold no value beyond individual interpretations? Why not just recognize that they are indeed extremely fallible and confusing and in many cases outrageously absurd, and just put them on the shelf next to Greek Mythology? What would that mean for you? Would you then need to walk away from that book as a complete "atheist"? Would you feel that you have just given up that last hope of any spiritual essence for reality? Do you really NEED to have a story that is "confusing at best" in order to believe in a "God"? I certainly don't. I can believe in a spiritual essence of life without any need to have a fairytale to reference. I guess I just have far more FAITH than most religious people. I don't even need a mythological story to believe in the mystical. Quantum Mechanics is "mystical" enough for me. The Big Bang is "mystical" enough for me. The totally unfathomable size of our observable universe is "mystical" enough for me. The absolute beauty of mathematics and delicate simplicity of the atomic structure of physical reality that can evolve into such profoundly marvelous complexity is "mystical" enough for me. I don't need a book or a fairytales to believe in the "mystical". I experience the "mystical" every day of my existence. So I can place the Bible, or any other fairytale book on a shelf and walk away from it and I haven't lost one iota of my faith in spirituality and the mystical. I don't need for Zeus or Yahweh to exist in order to believe in a spiritual essence of reality. I don't need for Jesus to have been the "Only Begotten Son of God" sent to offer "salvation" to save me from his Judgmental Father. I just don't need to believe in any of those things in order to believe that life is "mystical". ~~~~~~~~ Speaking of a "Judgmental Father" let's explore just that one single concept. In the biblical doctrines it clearly states in no uncertain terms: John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That's pretty straight forward and does not leave much room for alternative interpretations. It's either TRUE, or it's WRONG. And if it's wrong then the scriptures are indeed fallible. But then we have Jesus being crucified and the scriptures have Jesus saying: Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Well, with all due respect to the authors of the Bible, which is it? If the father judgeth no man, and all judgment has been committed to the Son, and Jesus is the Son. Then what would Jesus being asking the Father to forgive these men for when all judgment has been committed to HIM. ~~~~~~~~ A lot of people will become extremely defensive about this and start offering arguments to "defend" the doctrine. But the TRUTH is that there's a grave problem here. Something's wrong and therefore these scriptures do indeed contain errors and/or blatant contradictions. So why not just accept that they are indeed fallible, and cannot be the infallible word of any supposedly all-wise judgmental God from who's wrath everyone must be "saved". ~~~~~~~~ If you want to believe in a mystical spiritual reality of life beyond death, you can still do that. But why not choose a better picture of it. There are better pictures that already exist. Or you can just imagine your own. Why not? It's a matter of FAITH in any case. May as well have faith in your very own dreams. That's what I do. What, no straw-men??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok this is my last attempt at getting the focus off the topics of proving who or what I or anyone believes is true false or in the middle. The orininal post I posted was to start a bible study/ home church in the walla walla wa area open to all who will accept each others as equals, specifically aimed at LBGT because at this time there is not a church or group who supports them here. It is not an attempt to convert anyone change anyone's belief system regardless. I made the mistake of answering someones feeling about science and the bible here I should have done this in private. I tried to explain all of the differences everyone keeps harping on are actually peoples interpretations or those of others they have heard about what the bible says or doesn't say. All that you are arguing, both for science and for the bible are irrevalant to the issue I wanted to address. I have tried to popint out that what ever faith assumption you follow wehter it is God was always here is here now and will always be here, or the same for matter which is the basic science faith assumption, it is still just that a faith assumption. I know science says look we can see back 15 billion years and matter was here. Ok what about 16 billion? can u see or prove it? No, can i see or prove god was here then, no. Pointless to argue either side when no proof exisit for either. Bible seeks spiritual truths and a way for all to find God. Science seeks truth in the physical world. But neither can prove the other wrong or right. They both use different methods of measurements. So let us all agree to disagree. At no point have I attempted to voice my own personal beliefs in either beyond saying I believe they are not exclusive. When I read scienctific things and I do I do not look for spiritual meaning in them, when I read spiritual things I do not seek scientific truths. My goal HERE is to simply provide a place for those who have hurets in their lives, no mater what the source, to have a place to feel loved and accepted without reservation or judgement for who they are. We ALL judge others by what standards we hold true I simply want to remove some of the standards I believe is false and in my own way help others see god loves them. Regardless of race, orientation, intelligence levels, doubts about him or the world or what ever other situation that fits your own status. I would hope that if you want to keep debating who is right or wrong you create your own thread because if not I will create a new one based on what I started this one for. If you do not feel you have any hurts or needs then I am happy for you because most of us do. SO please quit arguing doctines, hypothesis, evolution or creationism etc. To you science guys there is a version of creationism that believes evolution was part of God's grand scheme. Because as i have said when god says he loves the world, he does not mean just earth it would be better translated whole universe.So please help me get on topic again.
PS I am sure if you read this you can find any number of things to argue that in one way of another you believe or disbelieve that is the easy part. The hard part is to look beyond the words to what the idea is which is simply I see God as loving us all regardless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: What, no straw-men??? When discussing the Bible there's never any need for any straw-men. The contradictions are vivid. You had previously posted: Abra wrote: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. So there we have it. Jesus himself proclaiming that he will not judge those who do not believe his words. Peter Pan replied: I've been telling you this for over a year and you just recently admit this truth, yet deny it at the same time.... go figure... whoa But contrary to what you say I have never denied this at any point in time. My position has always been consistent. My position is quite simple. The Biblical Scriptures are riddled with contradictions. That is a major part of my position. You are then trying to turn that back onto me suggesting that I'm the one who is being inconsistent. But I'm not being inconsistent. I'm just pointing out the absurdities and contradictions that exist in these texts. For example, in the above case, I recognize that these scriptures can indeed be used to support BOTH ideals. We have Jesus saying: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. This clearly indicates that Jesus himself does not deem it important to believe in him directly. Yet here we have a contradicting view from the very same author of this very same scripture: John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So in one place we have Jesus proclaiming that he will not judge those who do not believe in him. Yet in other place we have John proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is already condemned. And then we have this too boot: John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: So we have contradictions galore. Jesus says in 12:47 that he will not judge anyone for not believing in him. In 5:22 we have John stating that all judgment has been committed to the son. In 3:18 we have John proclaiming that anyone who does not believe in Jesus is condemned already. Condemned by who? If the Father judgeth no man, and all judgment has been committed to the Son (which is supposed to be Jesus), and Jesus said that he will not judge a man for not believing in him, then who's going to condemn those who do not believe in the name of the Son of God? John? That doesn't make any sense. So does the Bible say that it's not important to believe in Jesus? Yes! John quotes Jesus as stating this himself in John 12:47 Does the Bible say that it is important to believe in Jesus? Yes! John states this as his own commentary opinion in John 3:18. So the Bible says BOTH. It's the Bible that is being inconsistent and contradiction. I'm just pointing these things out. And I've been trying to tell you this for over a year now but you still don't seem to understand. YES I KNOW the bible is riddled with contradictions and can basically be used to support whichever contradiction you prefer to support.  Is it important to believe in Jesus? Well, what does the Bible have to say? The Bibles says YES AND NO simultaneously. So we didn't gain much insight there. If I were even going to bother trying to support the Bible in any way, I would then need to argue it on a case-by-case per verse. So I would argue that since the verse that Jesus will not judge people who don't believe in him is written as a "quote" attributed directly too Jesus himself then that's the verse that should carry more merit. The other verse is merely a personal commentary by John and thus has far lesser value than a supposed actual quote from Jesus. So in that sense I would say that Jesus should trump John and we should accept that it's not important to believe in Jesus. But that's just a hypothetical argument. In truth I'd rather just toss the whole book aside and say that the whole thing is most likely nothing more than exaggerated rumors. We have no clue what Jesus might have actually said, of any of the quotes in the Bible that have been attributed to him can be trusted at all. Like I pointed out in the earlier post, what would be the point in Jesus asking the Father to forgive people if all judgment had been committed to him? There's clearly some inconsistencies and ERRORS in these stories. So which parts should we believe and which parts should we discard? A Holy Book that contains such convoluted stories is basically useless. Who can possibly know what to believe from such undependable texts? That's all I'm saying Peter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kimimalia wrote: The orininal post I posted was to start a bible study/ home church in the walla walla wa area open to all who will accept each others as equals, specifically aimed at LBGT because at this time there is not a church or group who supports them here. It is not an attempt to convert anyone change anyone's belief system We understand that. It's just that these forums aren't intended as "Classified Ads". These are discussion forums. You simply posted your "Ad" in the wrong venue is all. People on these forums are here to discuss things. It seems to me that your best bet would be to place your ad in various places in walla walla wa. Maybe even on bulletin boards at local churches? Do you think they would allow you to post a description of your church on their community board? That would be interesting to see how that works out. If I were you I would create a really pretty eye-catching posters that describes the church or fellowship that you would like to create. Then have a bunch of nice color copies made, and just go around posting them locally anywhere you can find a public bulletin board. Make it pretty. Put CHRISTIAN across the top to catch the eye, and LBGT in smaller but still large print underneath that, and then describe what you are seeking to achieve in the main text. Surely if you put up enough posters you're bound to get some calls or emails. If you're looking for people to actually attend your church they are going to need to be that local to you anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are the chances that Jesus was gay? I felt I needed to ask this since the poster is specifically trying to open a church for gays and lesbians. I mean I am sure it is irrelevant, but I am wondering out of curiousity?
Wait ....does it first say anything about condemning gays in the bible? Who has this information? Maybe this will answer this for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a good thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a good thing I do too. And I did acknowledge that at the beginning of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: What, no straw-men??? When discussing the Bible there's never any need for any straw-men. The contradictions are vivid. You had previously posted: Abra wrote: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. So there we have it. Jesus himself proclaiming that he will not judge those who do not believe his words. Peter Pan replied: I've been telling you this for over a year and you just recently admit this truth, yet deny it at the same time.... go figure... whoa But contrary to what you say I have never denied this at any point in time. My position has always been consistent. My position is quite simple. The Biblical Scriptures are riddled with contradictions. That is a major part of my position. You are then trying to turn that back onto me suggesting that I'm the one who is being inconsistent. But I'm not being inconsistent. I'm just pointing out the absurdities and contradictions that exist in these texts. For example, in the above case, I recognize that these scriptures can indeed be used to support BOTH ideals. We have Jesus saying: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. This clearly indicates that Jesus himself does not deem it important to believe in him directly. Yet here we have a contradicting view from the very same author of this very same scripture: John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So in one place we have Jesus proclaiming that he will not judge those who do not believe in him. Yet in other place we have John proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is already condemned. And then we have this too boot: John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: So we have contradictions galore. Jesus says in 12:47 that he will not judge anyone for not believing in him. In 5:22 we have John stating that all judgment has been committed to the son. In 3:18 we have John proclaiming that anyone who does not believe in Jesus is condemned already. Condemned by who? If the Father judgeth no man, and all judgment has been committed to the Son (which is supposed to be Jesus), and Jesus said that he will not judge a man for not believing in him, then who's going to condemn those who do not believe in the name of the Son of God? John? That doesn't make any sense. So does the Bible say that it's not important to believe in Jesus? Yes! John quotes Jesus as stating this himself in John 12:47 Does the Bible say that it is important to believe in Jesus? Yes! John states this as his own commentary opinion in John 3:18. So the Bible says BOTH. It's the Bible that is being inconsistent and contradiction. I'm just pointing these things out. And I've been trying to tell you this for over a year now but you still don't seem to understand. YES I KNOW the bible is riddled with contradictions and can basically be used to support whichever contradiction you prefer to support. Is it important to believe in Jesus? Well, what does the Bible have to say? The Bibles says YES AND NO simultaneously. So we didn't gain much insight there. If I were even going to bother trying to support the Bible in any way, I would then need to argue it on a case-by-case per verse. So I would argue that since the verse that Jesus will not judge people who don't believe in him is written as a "quote" attributed directly too Jesus himself then that's the verse that should carry more merit. The other verse is merely a personal commentary by John and thus has far lesser value than a supposed actual quote from Jesus. So in that sense I would say that Jesus should trump John and we should accept that it's not important to believe in Jesus. But that's just a hypothetical argument. In truth I'd rather just toss the whole book aside and say that the whole thing is most likely nothing more than exaggerated rumors. We have no clue what Jesus might have actually said, of any of the quotes in the Bible that have been attributed to him can be trusted at all. Like I pointed out in the earlier post, what would be the point in Jesus asking the Father to forgive people if all judgment had been committed to him? There's clearly some inconsistencies and ERRORS in these stories. So which parts should we believe and which parts should we discard? A Holy Book that contains such convoluted stories is basically useless. Who can possibly know what to believe from such undependable texts? That's all I'm saying Peter. John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. This clearly indicates that Jesus himself does not deem it important to believe in him directly. Yet here we have a contradicting view from the very same author of this very same scripture: John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. In court and or at a judgment does one not have the ability to defend them self? Does one not have the opportunity to show their side of the story and possibly prove them self innocent? Sure they do. Jesus will come to "judge" us, that infers we will be able to defend ourselves. Jesus isn't coming back to "condemn" the world, he's coming back to "judge" the world. So what is being said here, is that one whom does not believe in Jesus and or the words he has spoken, doesn't get a "judgment" for their fate is already told to us. No need to walk through their lives judging their actions and seeing if they have earned heaven. For they have already made their choice with rejecting Jesus and or what Jesus has taught us. Their is but one judgment for that person(s), so again, no need to walk through their lives judging every aspect of it. So no, there's no contradiction and or error in anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan wrote: What, no straw-men??? When discussing the Bible there's never any need for any straw-men. The contradictions are vivid. You had previously posted: Abra wrote: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. So there we have it. Jesus himself proclaiming that he will not judge those who do not believe his words. Peter Pan replied: I've been telling you this for over a year and you just recently admit this truth, yet deny it at the same time.... go figure... whoa But contrary to what you say I have never denied this at any point in time. My position has always been consistent. My position is quite simple. The Biblical Scriptures are riddled with contradictions. That is a major part of my position. You are then trying to turn that back onto me suggesting that I'm the one who is being inconsistent. But I'm not being inconsistent. I'm just pointing out the absurdities and contradictions that exist in these texts. For example, in the above case, I recognize that these scriptures can indeed be used to support BOTH ideals. We have Jesus saying: John.12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. This clearly indicates that Jesus himself does not deem it important to believe in him directly. Yet here we have a contradicting view from the very same author of this very same scripture: John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So in one place we have Jesus proclaiming that he will not judge those who do not believe in him. Yet in other place we have John proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is already condemned. And then we have this too boot: John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: So we have contradictions galore. Jesus says in 12:47 that he will not judge anyone for not believing in him. In 5:22 we have John stating that all judgment has been committed to the son. In 3:18 we have John proclaiming that anyone who does not believe in Jesus is condemned already. Condemned by who? If the Father judgeth no man, and all judgment has been committed to the Son (which is supposed to be Jesus), and Jesus said that he will not judge a man for not believing in him, then who's going to condemn those who do not believe in the name of the Son of God? John? That doesn't make any sense. So does the Bible say that it's not important to believe in Jesus? Yes! John quotes Jesus as stating this himself in John 12:47 Does the Bible say that it is important to believe in Jesus? Yes! John states this as his own commentary opinion in John 3:18. So the Bible says BOTH. It's the Bible that is being inconsistent and contradiction. I'm just pointing these things out. And I've been trying to tell you this for over a year now but you still don't seem to understand. YES I KNOW the bible is riddled with contradictions and can basically be used to support whichever contradiction you prefer to support. Is it important to believe in Jesus? Well, what does the Bible have to say? The Bibles says YES AND NO simultaneously. So we didn't gain much insight there. If I were even going to bother trying to support the Bible in any way, I would then need to argue it on a case-by-case per verse. So I would argue that since the verse that Jesus will not judge people who don't believe in him is written as a "quote" attributed directly too Jesus himself then that's the verse that should carry more merit. The other verse is merely a personal commentary by John and thus has far lesser value than a supposed actual quote from Jesus. So in that sense I would say that Jesus should trump John and we should accept that it's not important to believe in Jesus. But that's just a hypothetical argument. In truth I'd rather just toss the whole book aside and say that the whole thing is most likely nothing more than exaggerated rumors. We have no clue what Jesus might have actually said, of any of the quotes in the Bible that have been attributed to him can be trusted at all. Like I pointed out in the earlier post, what would be the point in Jesus asking the Father to forgive people if all judgment had been committed to him? There's clearly some inconsistencies and ERRORS in these stories. So which parts should we believe and which parts should we discard? A Holy Book that contains such convoluted stories is basically useless. Who can possibly know what to believe from such undependable texts? That's all I'm saying Peter. If the Father judgeth no man, and all judgment has been committed to the Son (which is supposed to be Jesus), and Jesus said that he will not judge a man for not believing in him, then who's going to condemn those who do not believe in the name of the Son of God? Again, cause their would be no point in judging every aspect of their life they lived. Matthew 10:33 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. So again, there would be absolutely no reason to walk through one's life and judge each and every aspect of the different things one did or didn't do through their life. Their fate is already spelt out, it's already been judged. Eg., judged by the word Jesus has spoken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorry to but in, but you might wanna take a look at this article...kimi wrote In fact to date science has not been able to creat life in a laborotory with out using some living matter to give it that spark I would say sience has failed to disprove the bible as a spiritual guide this might be a surprise to you... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece bacterium is living matter So also is the Abyss... From which god created 'creation'... there is a minor planet orbiting one of the gas giants near our local star that contains the 'primordial soup' necessary to 'create' life... Needs but the right influx of energy to start the ball rolling. Do you think... 1. that we have the technology to make that 'spark' happen? 2. That we have the moral 'right' to do such a thing (if the technology exists)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: In court and or at a judgment does one not have the ability to defend them self? Does one not have the opportunity to show their side of the story and possibly prove them self innocent? Sure they do. Jesus will come to "judge" us, that infers we will be able to defend ourselves. Jesus isn't coming back to "condemn" the world, he's coming back to "judge" the world. So what is being said here, is that one whom does not believe in Jesus and or the words he has spoken, doesn't get a "judgment" for their fate is already told to us. No need to walk through their lives judging their actions and seeing if they have earned heaven. For they have already made their choice with rejecting Jesus and or what Jesus has taught us. Their is but one judgment for that person(s), so again, no need to walk through their lives judging every aspect of it. So no, there's no contradiction and or error in anyway. Harsh and ignorant interpretations are always possible. I don't think anyone will deny that Cowboy. But why use this religion for such negativity? What's the point to it? In the end when Jesus is being crucified he supposedly cries, "Forgive them for they know not what they do!" Well, is someone doesn't believe in these stories, then they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. Therefore "They know not what they do" And these stories already have Jesus forgiving people for actions when they know not what they do. Therefore, I would argue that your harsh and ignorant interpretations are not in harmony with the character being portrayed as Jesus. Your interpretations are "ignorant" because you are "ignoring" the fact that Jesus was intelligent enough to recognize that people who know not what they do cannot be blamed for their actions. So I would disagree with you. Your interpretations don't hold water in the context of these stories, whether the stories are true or false makes no difference. Your interpretations don't fit the story of Jesus because in the end Jesus asks God to forgive people who "Know not what they do", and if someone does not believe that someone is the "son of God", then clearly they cannot know what they do, because if the ONLY way they could know that what they had done was "incorrect" was if they had actually known that Jesus was God and denied him anyway. In fact that brings me to your next interpretation: Cowboy wrote: Again, cause their would be no point in judging every aspect of their life they lived. Matthew 10:33 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. So again, there would be absolutely no reason to walk through one's life and judge each and every aspect of the different things one did or didn't do through their life. Their fate is already spelt out, it's already been judged. Eg., judged by the word Jesus has spoken. I say hogwash. To not believe in something is not the same as 'denying it', all you're saying is that you see no reason to believe it, or perhaps you even see reasons why you feel it's unbelievable. Either way you are not "denying" anything, but rather you are simply being HONEST. You would have Jesus condemning HONEST people for being HONEST. And even Jesus refused to do that. He was forgiving people who were actually crucifying him claiming that even they don't know what they do. So you're hardcore religious fundamentalism trying to used these scriptures to condemn people in Jesus name if they refuse to believe in him is your own doing. You're the one who is CHOOSING to create such hatred in the name of Jesus. There's just no milder way to put it Cowboy. You seem to LOVE to use Jesus as an excuse to condemn anyone who refuses to cower down to Christianity. You would have made a perfect "Crusader". A "soldier" for Christ condemning everyone who refuses to confess that Jesus is LORD. It's people like you who make the religion so disgusting. Truly it is. All you can do is constantly try to find ways to use these scriptures to claim that Jesus would condemn people. By the way, a "Judgment" would indeed have been made. Even if Jesus was merely "Judging" those people to be unworthy of "Judging". That in itself would be a "Judgment". You can't have a God who condemns people and try to weasel out of the fact that this God would indeed be totally responsible for the condemnation of those people. If it was HIS DESIGN that non-believers should be condemned for "not believing" then he made that "Judgment" when he devised his perverted plan in the first place. So there's no getting around it Cowboy. You can't have any God "condemning people" and claim that it's not the God's doing. That simply cannot work. If you want to believe in a God who condemns people then so be it. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. That simply cannot fly. Preaching hate for Jesus' sake is such an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that your best bet would be to place your ad in various places in walla walla wa.
Maybe even on bulletin boards at local churches? Do you think they would allow you to post a description of your church on their community board? That would be interesting to see how that works out. Would if I could find any. If you know of one here on some obscure board please let me know. But I did post it here to also discuss starting one here. As to the question was Jesus gay, does it really matter? Per the bible jesus came for all, a word in the greek which indicates no eceptions. But the desire to prove he was or wasn't actually validates my main point that people disagree on doctronal points which men have developed from their or their leaders interpretation of scripture with little head for the meaning of the words in the orininal language, contempory meaning of the time it was writtiem, common usages of those words when written, the historical context of the word before it was written, and much more. Doctrine is just another man's guess at what he thinks God meant when he used the word. Most english words have a nuch broader meaning than the greek, for example there are 4 greek words translated love. each one caries a very different contextual meaning. Eros, physical love, sternos (sp) is familial love, philos is brotherly love and agape God like love. So as I repeatedly state arguing about a persons interpretation of an english word without a clue to the greek word used and its meaning is foolish, to use the said interpretation blindly adds even more to its misunderstanding. To take which ever interpretation you dislike and argue against it without a clue to if the greek words actually support the interpretation is less than wise as well. The whole point is people complicate religion with their own agendas, those for or agaisnt. I actually believe in science accept its truths, recognize its short comings and hope it continues to bring us more truth. I also believe in the bible as a way to spiritual truth. So to me I find it pointless to argue likle one has to be more right than the other. For you science buffs there is a group of scientist that believe in the bible and see the proof of God in science, I do not remember the name of the group. But since they can speak your language and I can't if you would have a serious discussion find them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Wed 05/04/11 01:21 PM
|
|
For you science buffs there is a group of scientist that believe in the bible and see the proof of God in science I've heard tons of those kinds of arguments and have never found any of them to be impressive. The bottom line for me is quite simple. Take science out of the picture altogether. We don't even need it to know that the Bible is not the word of any God. By your very own admission the Bible is false. How so? Well, you state the following: Doctrine is just another man's guess at what he thinks God meant when he used the word. Most english words have a nuch broader meaning than the greek, for example there are 4 greek words translated love. each one caries a very different contextual meaning. Eros, physical love, sternos (sp) is familial love, philos is brotherly love and agape God like love. So as I repeatedly state arguing about a persons interpretation of an english word without a clue to the greek word used and its meaning is foolish, to use the said interpretation blindly adds even more to its misunderstanding. To take which ever interpretation you dislike and argue against it without a clue to if the greek words actually support the interpretation is less than wise as well. But the scriptures claim that they can't be broken. According to you they have been broken to such an extreme that no one even agrees on what they mean anymore. That's pretty broken. How can something that is so extremely dependent upon subjective interpretation claim that it can't be broken? What kind of a supposedly all-wise God would claim that something can't be broken when even that God would surely realize that it could never amount to anything more than subjective interpretations in the first place? No science is required to realize that the claims that have been made in these texts could not have been made by any all-wise God, therefore they can only be the claims of unwise men. ~~~~~ I'm not trying to "knock a religion". As a human being I'm merely commenting on doctrines that make claims about ME! You say: Per the bible jesus came for all, a word in the greek which indicates no eceptions. If you're viewing Jesus as the 'savior', then from your perspective this is a good thing! Because you already 'believe', so from your perspective it's not a problem. However, you need to look at this from the point of view of people who feel they have very good reasons for rejecting these claims. Per the bible Jesus came for all alright. But what does that MEAN? That means, that according to the Bible all men are sinners and in dire need of repentance, etc, etc, etc, and that the only way to get back in good with God is through a belief in the Bible! So this is a direct accusation toward all men. Therefore even the people who don't believe in these religious stories are being accused by the authors of those stories to be at odds with their creator. This gives all humans the right to read, question, and offer reasons why they feel that such stories are completely without merit. After all if a story is accusing "me" (i.e. ALL HUMANS), of being a sinner at odds with my creator, then I should have a right to voice my views on why I believe these stories are utterly absurd and without merit. And the *I* here applies to ALL HUMANS. Non-believers of these accusations and charges, have every much right to state their objections to these stories as believers have in stating why they choose to believe them. And neither party should be viewed as "attacking" the other. They are both simply addressing the original texts. ~~~~~~ Moreover, you need to understand, and should be highly aware, that this particular doctrine and religion are indeed constantly being proselytized AT PEOPLE relentlessly and non-stop. Constantly accusing the non-believers of "rejecting God" simply because they don't believe in these outrageously absurd stories.  Non-believers are constantly being bashed over the head with this idea that they are in dire need of "salvation" in the name of Jesus. Yet if they try to offer their reasons why they feel these accusations have no rational merit then they are accused of having "no respect" for the religion. That's a cop-out. As you point out, these religious doctrines are accusing everyone of being a sinner and needing to accept the salvation offered by Jesus as "The Christ" What did you say again: Per the bible jesus came for all, a word in the greek which indicates no eceptions. And from that it follows that everyone is in dire need of salvation. So basically everyone is being accused of being a sinner, having fallen short of the "Glory of God" and in dire need of salvation. Thus everyone has a right to a rebuttal on these accusations that is being directed at them whether they are a believer or not. And this is why non-believers would like to point out just how utterly absurd and outrageous these doctrines truly are. These doctrines have people walking on water These doctrines have God speaking from burning bushes or a cloud These doctrines have people resurrection from their graves, not just Jesus, but a whole multitude of saints as well. These doctrines have our supposedly benevolent God having his very own son sacrificed to himself just so he can offer "salvation" to mankind. I mean, come on. These are outrageous claims. There are more than enough legitimate reasons for an honest intelligent person to reject this idea of a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices and will condemn anyone who refuses to accept that he had his very own son nailed to a pole just to offer them salvation. In all honesty Kimimalia, I can't understand how anyone could blame anyone for not believing in these utterly absurd tales. Yet, this is what this religion has a whole lot of people DOING. ~~~~~ You're concerned about trying to find a way to have Jesus offering salvation to everyone. But the problem with that is that who would Jesus reject? Well, no one! However, as the hardcore proselytizers would have it, YOU are refusing to truly accept Jesus if you aren't willing to follow the WORDS and COMMANDMENTS of God. And the hardcore proselytizers are going to point out to you that in the Bible it says: Lev 20: [10] And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. [11] And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [12] And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. [13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Now you can't claim to have accepted Jesus as your LORD if you aren't prepared to do His Will and the Will of His Father. So, they will say, YES, we agree with you that Jesus can't for everyone. However, that doesn't mean that everyone has accepted Jesus! Non-believers will be condemned because they do not even believe in the name of God only begotten son. LBGTs will be condemned because they refuse to obey the commandments and directives of God and Jesus! Jesus did not come for people who would like to have salvation but who aren't willing to accept Jesus as their LORD! And that can only be achieved if you are willing to OBEY! According to "God's Word" it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman, and he will surely be put to death.  I don't know about lesbians, maybe God likes lesbians. But according to the biblical text he thinks that gay males are an abomination. ~~~~ Hey, don't look at me, I didn't write this hideous book! I'm just pointing out some of the absurdities that are within in these texts that you are supporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know - there was no need for this thread to be confiscated as it was. Abra you made a great reply but your following actions don't seem to back any sincerity.
If you honestly felt the OP was posted in the wrong place, being that it is specifically an appeal for other Christians, you might have mentioned that she create another post in the strictly Christian section. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE AN LGBT forum of our own on Mingle sorry that was for any Moderators who might have some pull. You, Abra, or anyone else could have opened a new thread and left this one - AT THE VERY LEAST, after Kimimalia, tried the first time to keep the thread from degrading. Have our manners always been this bad here, I didn't think so, expecially not from you Abra. You need to write a song, it does wonders for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Di,
You're right. My apologies to kimimalia. Hope she didn't take anything personal. I wonder how her post would go over in the Christian forums. That's really where it should be posted anyway if it's truly specific to Christianity. Kimimalia? If you're still around you might want to try to post about your church in the Christian Singles Forum here: http://mingle2.com/forum/forum/188 I hope she does post it over there. I'd like to see what kind of responses it gets over there. ~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe I should write her song for her Church. Although I confess that it would be really difficult for me to write a song about Jesus and LBGT without it ending up sounding like came from George Carlin. Sorry. But that's just a fact. I don't know. I guess it should be possible to write something that's praises same-gender love in Jesus' name. It truly is a serious and sincere issue. But it's so easy to turn it into a George Carlin type of thing. Owl see what I can come up with. |
|
|
|
|
