thats not the same quote and by "that God" I mean that interpretation of God. When I say "my God" and "your God" I'm not actually insinuating that there are two God's. I'm just saying my opinion of God vs yours.

Jesus did refute the old testament views of a mean God. That is why he was so controversial. Jesus went strongly against established beliefs of how one should serve God.

7/27/2011 9:02:49 PM

The last couple pages have turned into a monument to the ridiculousness of Christianity.

7/27/2011 9:07:08 PM

Quote :

"Jesus did refute the old testament views of a mean God. That is why he was so controversial."

I'm fairly certain the reason he was "so controversal" as you put it was because he recognized the corruption of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He also claimed that he was going to tear down the temple of Solomon, and finally they recognized that he was the Son of God. Obviously, they didn't believe this. I'd like to see your scriptural evidence of Jesus disputing God.

Pharisees and Sadducees:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"

Matthew 21:12

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Matt 23:13

The temple and the Son of God:

" 55And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. 56For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. 57And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. 59But neither so did their witness agree together. 60And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death."

Mark 14



Let's look at one of the more coherent parts of your AMAZING Gospel of Thomas:

"12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Verse 12

Directly conflicts with

"24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25And he said to them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority on them are called benefactors. 26But you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve. 27For whether is greater, he that sits at meat, or he that serves? is not he that sits at meat? but I am among you as he that serves."

Luke 22

Certain things in it I recognize. I would say it is analogous to when a Shakespearean actor attempted to recreated and publish a play from memory, and there were many different mistakes. Thus, who would claim it to be the Word of God?


As for the Gospel of Mary, not only does it read like the Kabbalah, it was also not a recognized Gospel in the early church, we know this because all of the recognized gospels and epistles were widely known by the early assemblies long before a printed version of the Bible ever existed.

I mean if you'd like to attempt to explain how the Gospel of Mary is relevant to salvation through Jesus Christ and can be explained through scripture located somewhere else in Biblical writings, I would certainly listen.

[Edited on July 27, 2011 at 9:58 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2011 9:58:42 PM

watching a movie but chew on this until i get back

Quote :

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. "

-mathhew

7/27/2011 10:09:00 PM

Quote :

"An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles."

Easy to answer that one.

Exodus 21:24

"Eye for eye - The execution of this law is not put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it. But magistrates had an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured."

The eye for an eye law, was not meant to be taken up by every person, it was like most of the law applied strictly to the Hebrew nation and to those who oversaw judgements. Another writer writes this about the difficulty with which this law can be executed:

"Saadiah Gaon (e) observes, if a man should smite the eye of his neighbour, and the third part of the sight of his eye should depart, how will he order it to strike such a stroke as that, without adding or lessening? and if a man that has but one eye, or one hand, or one foot, should damage another man in those parts, and must lose his other eye, or hand, or foot, he would be in a worse case and condition than the man he injured; since he would still have one eye, or hand, or foot; wherefore a like law of Charondas among the Thurians is complained of, since it might be the case, that a man with one eye might have that struck out, and so be utterly deprived of sight; whereas the man that struck it out, though he loses one for it, yet has another, and so not deprived of sight utterly, and therefore thought not to be sufficiently punished; and that it was most correct that he should have both his eyes put out for it: and hence Diodorus Siculus (f) reports of a one-eyed man who lost his eye, that he complained of this law to the people, and advised to have it altered: this "lex talionis" was among the Roman laws of the "twelve tables" (g). "


Solomon was aware that most of those who were put in places of power over the law were corrupted by that power:

"And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there."

Ecc 3:16

And as I stated before Christ knew that the Pharisees and Sadducees were corrupt, thus being incapable of carrying out this law.

What you are implying fundamentally destroys Christianity, lays waste to the prophecy of Christ, and makes God either a sinner or a liar.

Here is what Christ says about the Law:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Matthew 5:17

Here is how Christ completed the law.

"In a word, Christ completed the law:

1st. In itself, it [the law] was only the shadow, the typical representation, of good things to come; and he added to it that which was necessary to make it perfect, His Own Sacrifice, without which it could neither satisfy God, nor sanctify men.

2dly. He completed it in himself by submitting to its types with an exact obedience, and verifying them by his death upon the cross.

3dly. He completes this law, and the sayings of his prophets, in his members, by giving them grace to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbor as themselves; for this is all the law and the prophets.

It is worthy of observation, that the word ??? gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfill, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. "


"19Now we know that what things soever the law said, it said to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. [/b]20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without[as in outside of the law] the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. [b]By what law? of works? No: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish the law."

Romans 3


"1. By law here we may understand the whole of the Mosaic law, in its rites and ceremonies; of which Jesus Christ was the subject and the end. All that law had respect to him; and the doctrine of faith in Christ Jesus, which the Christian religion proclaimed, established the very claims and demands of that law, by showing that all was accomplished in the passion and death of Christ, for, without shedding of blood, the law would allow of no remission; and Jesus was that Lamb of God which was slain from the foundation of the world, in whose blood we have redemption, even the remission of sins.

2. We may understand, also, the moral law, that which relates to the regulation of the manners or conduct of men. This law also was established by the doctrine of salvation by faith; because this faith works by love, and love is the principle of obedience: and whosoever receives salvation through faith in Christ, receives power to live in holy obedience to every moral precept; for such are God's workmanship, created anew in Christ Jesus, unto good works; in which they find it their duty and their interest incessantly to live."

7/27/2011 10:48:46 PM

Quote :

"I don't read the English version of the Bible literally. Actually, it is pretty much impossible to do that. I refer to a biblical dictionary type thing (concordance) with the Hebrew to English translations (and the other original biblical languages like Greek) of the original individual words and go from there. "

What you don't trust God to protect the translation? How weak your God must be...

And what DOES the Bible say about Heaven? Naked angels on clouds with harps?

[Edited on July 29, 2011 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

7/29/2011 12:24:33 AM

Quote :

"What you don't trust God to protect the translation? How weak your God must be... And what DOES the Bible say about Heaven? Naked angels on clouds with harps?"

Why are you being so incendiary, there is no call for this.


The qualities of Heaven are mentioned in the Bible as something which man could perceive as are the visions of Hell. I do not understand why this needs to be explained further.

Quote :

"What you don't trust God to protect the translation? How weak your God must be..."

God has kept the Word. But man continually seeks to add meaning where there is none, but that is a different story (i.e. by omitting words, and creating "contemporary translations" such as "The Message"). That isn't to say that these versions have nothing to offer, though I am wary of them.

Now I realize this will not make sense, and will give everyone something to call me mad or whatever you'd like, but I will relay how I often discern things from scripture. Often when reading I can pass over things or come to things which I do not fully understand. Later on, that day, week, etc I often come to a sudden realization of how that scripture can be applied to my life, or the meaning of a passage. It is only through discernment from the Holy Spirit, a free gift of God granted through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that I am able to discern these things.

"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us."

1 Cor 1:27

That's all I can write at the moment.

7/29/2011 2:25:53 AM

His point is that if your god is powerful enough to create everything and do anything, and if the purpose of his book is to convey a message, then why is he powerless to prevent humans from corrupting the message? Or why does he choose not to? Here's AronRa's take on the Bible and pretty much every holy book and I agree wholeheartedly:

Quote :

"If there really was one true god, it should be a singular composite of every religion’s gods, an uber-galactic super-genius, and the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos. If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it. And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity. It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that. "

[Edited on July 29, 2011 at 9:07 AM. Reason : .]

7/29/2011 9:07:05 AM

Well that may be an interesting claim, but I'm unsure why he would believe this. The idea though, is that the fundamental message of Christianity can still be understood, no matter which version is being read. To exemplify this I will use one of the more recent versions:


"And that message is the very message about faith that we preach: 9If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. 11As the Scriptures tell us, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be disgraced.”e 12Jew and Gentilef are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him. 13For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”"

Romans 10 NLT

I'd say that message is still very clear.

I'd also like to point out several flaws in Aron's ideas behind God.

Quote :

"And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity."

This is an interesting claim as that is what the Bible does, as evidenced by your own admissions. You do not understand the morality, thus it is beyond human capacity, only through the spirit do we understand the lessons taught, and even then we must first grow in faith.

I find that claim to be interesting, he's claiming you wouldn't need faith to believe it, but then saying it is beyond human capacity. How would you know what morality is beyond human capacity, if all you have known is the morality of the world. What are you going to say, "Oh this sounds like profound morality and wisdom and I like it." God reveals profound morality and wisdom but the world does not understand.

The discerning Spirit:
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.'

1 Cor 2:12

The wisdom and might of the worldly:
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"

1 Cor 1:27

How the worldly accepts this wisdom:
"But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

1 Cor 2:14

Quote :

"If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God."

Would he control the free will of those who sought to use or corrupt it? Is his claim that if a "true God" existed his book would be so great, that everyone would believe the wisdom and morality that they could not perceive, and not a living soul would seek to corrupt it. But what if instead one man corrupts it and creates something which appeals to basic human morality, and not this new message. He claims that the book still supports this basic human morality and does not allow anyone to read it. Wouldn't some be led astray by the appeal to a previous standard of living?

Quote :

"And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it"

Well this is just this man's opinion, why should it be this way? What then shall save a man? Shall his works? Shall his charity? Who then brings his works into judgement? If the just are not saved by faith then what are they saved by? To me it sounds like Aron's God would infringe upon human free will. I'm not sure what he bases his post off of, is it just the way he feels?

7/29/2011 10:23:04 AM

You are completely missing the point because you're speaking from assumptions like "we need to be saved at all".

A supreme being would know that personal revelation and ancient texts are nearly the worst way to convey a message. You're essentially admitting that God is purposefully being misleading solely to test us.

7/29/2011 10:33:25 AM

Quote :

"A supreme being would know that personal revelation and ancient texts are nearly the worst way to convey a message. You're essentially admitting that God is purposefully being misleading solely to test us."

How would you suggest he revealed a message?


He is not being misleading, if he offers forth his infallible word. The problem is that often people do not understand, or they apply their own sense of morality to it, and if it offends them on that account then they no longer pursue it. I mean let's face it your "Skeptic's Bible" has some decent claims about things that may go against the sense of human morality. But there are other claims they give that are a baseless confounding/ or worse omission of scripture, to "attempt to prove their point."


He is testing in the fact that use do have a choice. He will not infringe on your free will to make a decision. If you "had" to believe what was written, then wouldn't you be a slave to his will and have none of your own?

Quote :

"You are completely missing the point because you're speaking from assumptions like "we need to be saved at all"."

I could make the same claim about him because he is assuming we do not. If you have no conviction about doing wrong, then I could see how this might bean issue.

And how does one enter the presence of Aron's perfect God? If he kills someone does he not? What are the stipulations for entering his presence? Or is there merely nothing after death with Aron's God?

7/29/2011 10:46:29 AM

Quote :

""A supreme being would know that personal revelation and ancient texts are nearly the worst way to convey a message. You're essentially admitting that God is purposefully being misleading solely to test us." How would you suggest he revealed a message? "

'Thats why he has installed it inside all every human soul via the holy spirit. This is why killing a person is such a terrible thing because you are also killing part of God.

The bible gets distorted through translations and is vulnerable to free will but the holy spirit in our heart is always there.

7/29/2011 11:06:09 AM

Quote :

"How would you suggest he revealed a message?"

In a falsifiable and demonstrable way, like everything else.

Quote :

"He is not being misleading, if he offers forth his infallible word. The problem is that often people do not understand, or they apply their own sense of morality to it, and if it offends them on that account then they no longer pursue it. I mean let's face it your "Skeptic's Bible" has some decent claims about things that may go against the sense of human morality. But there are other claims they give that are a baseless confounding/ or worse omission of scripture, to "attempt to prove their point.""

You've admitted yourself that the words have changed. There are entire books missing. Mankind chose which books to include. Mankind has changed the words completely.

Quote :

"He is testing in the fact that use do have a choice. He will not infringe on your free will to make a decision. If you "had" to believe what was written, then wouldn't you be a slave to his will and have none of your own?"

The misleading part is suggesting that I should choose to believe something which has absolutely no reasonable justification to believe it. To require faith is the misleading part. If God presented a sound scientific basis for belief and I then chose to believe or not believe it, that would be a choice. To choose to believe something on faith alone is for reasonable people impossible.

Quote :

"And how does one enter the presence of Aron's perfect God? If he kills someone does he not? What are the stipulations for entering his presence? Or is there merely nothing after death with Aron's God?"

AronRa makes no claims about anything besides holy books in his imagined god. Who cares about nonsensical things like "entering the presence of"? His point is that if God is as Christians generally describe him (omnipotent and omniscient and cares in the least whether we believe in him) then the methods that he's currently using do not make sense.

Quote :

"'Thats why he has installed it inside all every human soul via the holy spirit. This is why killing a person is such a terrible thing because you are also killing part of God. The bible gets distorted through translations and is vulnerable to free will but the holy spirit in our heart is always there."

There is no evidence of a soul, or the holy spirit. I'm not even going to address your killing point because it's tangential to the conversation and opens up a ton questions.

What if I were to say that the Theogony is the accurate description of the divine, but you must let the power of Zeus infuse within you to understand it accurately, despite mistranslations and modifications. Why would you not believe me?

7/29/2011 11:54:34 AM

^that is my faith. If there was proof then it wouldn't be faith. You are free to believe in your zues faith.

Faith can never be "proven undeniable truth" .

My purpose in this thread is to explain how Christianity makes sense because the evangelicals have distorted any logic in it by taking the bible word for word.

Leonpro is a beast with the bible though and I cannot beat him because he believes the bible is 100% fact. He knows it well and will refute most of the things I say with a passage from the bible. Our differing philosophies allow debate to be nearly impossible and if the bible is indeed 100% word for word of God, then he is the only one right.

7/29/2011 12:06:18 PM

Quote :

"'Thats why he has installed it inside all every human soul via the holy spirit. This is why killing a person is such a terrible thing because you are also killing part of God. "

The latter end of this seems valid, I would only say that you are destroying his creation, not Him. The first part I can also agree with to a degree. All do not have the Holy Spirit, but all do have life and souls from God.


"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Gen 2:7


"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Gen 3:10



"See, this only have I found, that God has made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

Eccl 7:29

Thus it is established as The E Man said that God had initially made man and woman to only know good, and be innocent and perfect before him. This would mean that they had the exact moral standard of God, which would mean they would innately know what was good, and whatever they did that was evil they would have naturally been able to learn that it was so.


Man would have eventually naturally come to the knowledge of good and evil, but by breaking the strict command of God, they worked evil knowingly thus making themselves the guilty party.

God gave man full freedom to live within his freewill and naturally come to a knowledge of good and evil, but instead they broke the command of God which led to their shame and expulsion.


Through the Holy Spirit we can see the truth of scripture, which I believe is what The E Man is saying. My only question is why believe what others tell you is the truth in that case?


You don't even have to believe what I tell you, read the scripture and you shall discern it for yourself, "ask and you shall receive."

This is why we should always test what others have said through the scripture and if it finds itself in conflict, then we should correct them. The Holy Spirit allows for great understanding, and this understanding comes from the Word of God.

7/29/2011 12:07:18 PM

Quote :

"Faith can never be "proven undeniable truth" . My purpose in this thread is to explain how Christianity makes sense because the evangelicals have distorted any logic in it by taking the bible word for word. "

Nothing can ever be "proven undeniable truth." The question is whether you should believe a claim. I may be free to believe that Zeus is real, but I'm asking why you do not. The answer to that question is also the answer to whether you should believe the Christian god is real.

7/29/2011 12:10:42 PM

Quote :

"Faith can never be "proven undeniable truth" . My purpose in this thread is to explain how Christianity makes sense because the evangelicals have distorted any logic in it by taking the bible word for word. "

But how am I distorting logic in it?

All I'm saying is that I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, you cannot take it word for word without missing the whole point. This does not mean that study and learning of scripture while discerning through the Holy Spirit cannot lead one to the greater truths contained within. You made good points before that were in-line with Genesis, just because you don't believe Genesis didn't happen 100% doesn't change your state of salvation. My problem is not with you, it's with the idea that the Catholic church needs to be the intermediary for the Word of God. You want the truth, go find it yourself, don't let me or anyone else tell you what it is.


The Bible can still make sense in line with the OT. The law is one step in the process of the life of Christ. Christ's crucifixion is supposed to represent each of the sacrifices within the law and those fulfill them in completeness. Salvation has never changed, the law never "saved" anyone, it was merely a natural step in the process towards salvation. The law made it known that man could sin so that he could repent and keep himself from evil. If he believed in the Word of God, meaning what God said, and in the promise of redemption than he was saved, being reckoned to righteousness.

Quote :

"He knows it well and will refute most of the things I say with a passage from the bible."

I'm not trying to incite anything or take things out of context to confound you, I'm just trying to explain the folly of following an organization when your personal relationship with God through Christ is enough. This is the basic message of the Bible, that those who are saved are saved through their personal relationship with Christ. If good works "saved" a man then how could this be of God? Good works would be man saving man, without any need for God's intervention. This is why we are saved by faith, the same faith which you stated. But it is not a faith to blindly follow anyone. God gives us the evidence and "proof" we need within scripture. We begin to see how Christ fulfills the entire law, how God works, how God continues in his perfection and always keeps the promises he makes to show his love for us.

Without this we are at the mercy of men to tell us how God works, and at the mercy of men to tell us the meaning behind salvation, and why should we need this when all the evidence we need is right in front of us.

7/29/2011 12:22:25 PM

Quote :

" Why are you being so incendiary, there is no call for this. The qualities of Heaven are mentioned in the Bible as something which man could perceive as are the visions of Hell. I do not understand why this needs to be explained further. "

Where was i being incendiary? irreverent maybe, but i honestly wasn't trying to be incendiary.

And i'm genuinely curious about what the Bible has to say about heaven. There are surprisingly few cited resources on this topic, and you seem to know stuff in the Bible.

Quote :

"Now I realize this will not make sense, and will give everyone something to call me mad or whatever you'd like, but I will relay how I often discern things from scripture. Often when reading I can pass over things or come to things which I do not fully understand. Later on, that day, week, etc I often come to a sudden realization of how that scripture can be applied to my life, or the meaning of a passage. It is only through discernment from the Holy Spirit, a free gift of God granted through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that I am able to discern these things. "

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't get 100% what you're trying to say.

Are you saying this realization later on in the week is the Holy Spirit?

Do you realize that this type of thing happens to everyone all the time? It's like when you buy a new car (or a friend buys a new car) you start to see that car more than before. It's not because more people bought that car at the same time, it's because your brain is more "primed" to recognize that car. This is a neurological property, not a religious one.

Consider savant syndrome. These people have amazing memories and perceptive abilities in a very narrow area, but it's thought to be due to their brains' lack of ability to filter information. Everyone's brain has a part that perceives this unfiltered information, this is what we have over the years come to call our "subconscious." Meditation helps us tap into our subconscious (it's also why you can have wonky dreams, it's just information your subconscious/autistic brain has assembled). They've studied transcendental meditation under an fMRI and found that meditation does actually convey an ability to "learn" things you wouldn't know. Prayer is a form of mediation.

Prayer does have power in this way, but you are simply divining your own subconscious thoughts. Every religion (and every society, throughout history, has had prayer-- so the neurological model makes perfect sense).

7/29/2011 12:45:41 PM

so, LeonIsPro. Do you eat shellfish?

7/29/2011 1:44:09 PM

I was told yesterday that long term evolution can be disproven mathematically and only short term evolution can be possible by a guy taught at a christian school... seemed like there was some selective logic and assumptions applied for this "math" to work out.

7/29/2011 1:48:32 PM

Oh the creationists and their "logic". They concede that populations can change over time just not speciate. Which makes absolutely no sense. The agreed definition of speciation is when the new population can no longer successfully reproduce with the old population.

The traits which allow an organism to reproduce with another organism are physical traits. Why would these traits not also be allowed to change over time?

Nevermind that we've observed speciation in the lab and in the wild. What in the hell is wrong with these people?

7/29/2011 1:53:53 PM

"4Why, my brothers, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death. 6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Romans 7

"11Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.

15Then answered Peter and said to him, Declare to us this parable. 16And Jesus said, Are you also yet without understanding? 17Do not you yet understand, that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man."

Matthew 15


Christ death was the fulfillment of the law, abstaining from meats was a ceremonial law, as was the animal sacrifice. As both I an the E Man have said Christ's fulfillment of the law allowed us to be dead to the ceremonial law, but alive to the law of Grace from Jesus Christ.

7/29/2011 1:56:07 PM

I just don't get it. I really don't. I can perhaps fathom and entertain the idea that a supernatural force kicked off this whole Universe with a big bang, but to think that there is a personal God out there who interacts and influences the world is just absurd and almost obscenely egotistical.

For example, when you pray for something and it happens, you probably attribute the event to God. Now, consider this... I am sure at some point in recent time a Christian has been raped. And during that rape, the victim prayed for the torment to stop. Yet, no salvation came. How do you interpret that event? How would you console that victim?

IMO, people thanking God for his personal assistance is very disturbing if you consider how awful this world can be for the unlucky.

Leonispro, didn't you say that a man with the will to corrupt God's message will not be stopped by God. Or something along those lines.... So, how can you, in good faith, take the passages of the bible so overtly? What if those scriptures have been corrupted?

[Edited on July 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ;]

7/29/2011 2:52:08 PM

It's the Holy Spirit man. The actual words don't matter. They could read a restaurant menu and as long as they have the Holy Spirit inspiring them they'll have their inspiration. Which makes pointing out the absolute fallibility of the Bible, the obvious and intentional manipulation of the Bible by men with nefarious purposes and the clearly human scripted book an effort in near futility. As always, instead of actually explaining anything, they go "goddidit" and move on.

7/29/2011 3:19:06 PM

After Leon's response about shellfish, I was going to ask about the 10 commandments, but apparently he already explained himself on that one.

Quote :

"Jesus allowed us to live by rule of Grace instead of under the law, so I guess in a manner of speaking he "trumps" the Ten Commandments, but that does not mean that the law is void, through the law we are still aware of sin, it is just that the structure of the law and manner of the law has no place in the rule of Grace."

This sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. But if I were to attempt to analyze it, the implication is that you know eating shellfish is a sin, but fuck it, cuz Jesus.

7/29/2011 3:26:32 PM

Quote :

"So, how can you, in good faith, take the passages of the bible so overtly? What if those scriptures have been corrupted?"

My intention was saying that people can confound scripture by taking it out of context. The reason why I can use these passages is because I see there relation throughout the entire Bible, not just certain parts, which is my when reading the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Thomas, I do not understand things put forth, as I do not see how they relate to other parts of scripture. Paul says in his epistles to test his words against scripture and the Gospel and to ensure that he is indeed teaching sound doctrine, because even Paul did not want people to blindly follow everything he said.

Quote :

"I can perhaps fathom and entertain the idea that a supernatural force kicked off this whole Universe with a big bang, but to think that there is a personal God out there who interacts and influences the world is just absurd and almost obscenely egotistical."

How is this egotistical? It is the knowledge of God on a personal level, the endowment of Holy Spirit on the personal level and the relationship to Christ on a personal level. These factors are shared by all the saints, I fail to see how it is egotistical.

Quote :

"For example, when you pray for something and it happens, you probably attribute the event to God. Now, consider this... I am sure at some point in recent time a Christian has been raped. And during that rape, the victim prayed for the torment to stop. Yet, no salvation came. How do you interpret that event? How would you console that victim?"

God has the ability to work good from great evil.

"20But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it to good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. "

Gen 50:20

"18Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to whip, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again."

Matt 20

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34

The ultimate sacrifice for the will of the Father was the Son's. And through this sacrifice the greatest good was finally accomplished.

Quote :

"IMO, people thanking God for his personal assistance is very disturbing if you consider how awful this world can be for the unlucky."

That may be so, which is why Christ taught people to pray in line with the will of God. Thus when the saint's petition God they should always pray for His will to be done.

Quote :

"The actual words don't matter. "

The actual words do matter, just because your Skeptic's Bible confounds them (quite poorly I might add) does not take away from their meaning. Just because we discern through the spirit doesn't mean we don't use our minds to establish the connections and understand God's plan.

Quote :

"clearly human scripted book an effort in near futility."

Are you saying that the manner of writing is of man?

7/29/2011 3:34:15 PM

Quote :

"This sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. But if I were to attempt to analyze it, the implication is that you know eating shellfish is a sin, but fuck it, cuz Jesus."

Did you just disregard this post:

Quote :

"Christ death was the fulfillment of the law, abstaining from meats was a ceremonial law, as was the animal sacrifice. As both I an the E Man have said Christ's fulfillment of the law allowed us to be dead to the ceremonial law, but alive to the law of Grace from Jesus Christ."

Also read the scripture there as well as the clear example of God allowing Peter to eat meats.

My meaning is that through the law man came to realize sin, repentance and the need for a propitiation and Christ served as propitiation and fulfilled the law.

"16And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation to him; and his righteousness, it sustained him."

Isaiah 59

7/29/2011 3:45:22 PM

Quote :

"The actual words do matter, just because your Skeptic's Bible confounds them (quite poorly I might add) does not take away from their meaning. Just because we discern through the spirit doesn't mean we don't use our minds to establish the connections and understand God's plan."

Hey guy, when I quote the Skeptics Annotated I never quote the annotations. I just source it in case anyone else would like to read them. I only post the passages.

And "discerning through the spirit" does exactly mean "not using your mind." If you used just your mind, there'd be no reason to imagine a holy spirit influencing you. You'd have you know, your mind.

Quote :

"That may be so, which is why Christ taught people to pray in line with the will of God. Thus when the saint's petition God they should always pray for His will to be done."

To quote George Carlin, that's fine, but if his will is going to be done anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place?

Quote :

"Are you saying that the manner of writing is of man?"

Yes. Humans wrote the Bible. Was this a trick question?

7/29/2011 4:46:40 PM

Quote :

"And "discerning through the spirit" does exactly mean "not using your mind.""

So when you discern something you cannot think about it? Does it have to be a separate process?

7/29/2011 4:55:30 PM

LeonisPro -

Were you born in to Christianity?

Do you think if you were born in to a Muslim or Hindu family you would follow those religions? Or, would you convert to Christianity, because it has more evidence?


Also, you seem to quote the bible incessantly. How do you handle the scripture that condones slavery, mysogyny and violence, condems homosexuals, and the handful of contradictions littered through out?

Have you ever questioned your faith? If no, why not? If yes, what convinced you otherwise?

7/29/2011 4:58:57 PM

Quote :

"Were you born in to Christianity?"

No. I was saved a little more than a year ago.

Quote :

"Do you think if you were born in to a Muslim or Hindu family you would follow those religions? Or, would you convert to Christianity, because it has more evidence?"

Of course if I was born into those situations I would follow the will of my parents as would most others. But they have no power to save in them, in them you must always save yourself. I cannot speculate on if it would except Christ because I cannot think of being separated from him.

Quote :

"Also, you seem to quote the bible incessantly. How do you handle the scripture that condones slavery, mysogyny and violence, condems homosexuals, and the handful of contradictions littered through out?"

Much of what you quote is within the law of the OT and the history of the OT. What we have to understand is that at the time for the formation of the nation of Israel and due to the abomination of the surrounding nations, and that initially God choose Israel as his saved congregation (though outsiders could always come in), often times countries were destroyed for their wickedness and for turning against God. This doesn't seem as bad when we consider the story of Noah and how the entire population of the world, other than Noah and his family were destroyed for their wickedness. The Bible is also clear in it's condemnation of homosexuality, but contemporary Christians have no right to go about proclaiming homosexuals are going to hell. All who are not saved will go before judgement and be imperfect, I see no reason why homosexuals are the population that is hated.

The contradictions can always be explained, normally by looking at several author's commentary or just taking a glance at the concordance.

7/29/2011 5:09:45 PM

Do you not understand how cherry picking details based on your interpretation of what may or may not have happened a couple thousand years ago makes your claims for incredible.

And, for the record, you think that every single one of us is a descendent of noah? That all animals that are here today come from the pair on the arc? Do you not see how ridiculous this notion is?

What is your explanation of dinosaurs? Were they on the arc?

7/29/2011 5:27:56 PM

Quote :

"Do you not understand how cherry picking details based on your interpretation of what may or may not have happened a couple thousand years ago makes your claims for incredible."

How am I cherry picking details if I testify that the entire OT can be justified?

Quote :

"And, for the record, you think that every single one of us is a descendent of noah? That all animals that are here today come from the pair on the arc? Do you not see how ridiculous this notion is? "

15And God spoke to Noah, saying, 16Go forth of the ark, you, and your wife, and your sons, and your sons' wives with you. 17Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creeps on the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the earth.

Gen 7

8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creeps on the earth, 9There went in two and two to Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

you know it never specifies the animals that go on the ark, just that all animals are included.

[Edited on July 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2011 5:44:09 PM

Quote :

"Did you just disregard this post:"

No. However, I'm confused at how the laws of the OT are "dead" to you, yet you specifically cite the ten commandments to dispute denominations other than your own.

Quote :

"The contradictions can always be explained, normally by looking at several author's commentary or just taking a glance at the concordance."

Facepalm. Yes, of course, given 2000 years of constant work people can generally come up with pretty convincing explanations for anything.

7/29/2011 6:45:26 PM

Quote :

"No. However, I'm confused at how the laws of the OT are "dead" to you, yet you specifically cite the ten commandments to dispute denominations other than your own."

Just because we are dead to the law does not mean that we do whatever we want, though. We were not redeemed by Christ, so that we could murder, steal, or be adulterers, I see no reason why we should be idolators.

The idea of being dead to the law is that we no longer hold the consequence of go against the law. So before we were against the law, and the consequence of this was death, because we were aware of our sin through the law. Now we trust in one who has served as a full propitiation for our sins, and he has freed us from the penalty incurred from sin and breaking the law.

"15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Romans 6:15

7/29/2011 8:01:26 PM

^
I see. So you should follow OT laws; there just happens to be no consequence for breaking them. Is that right?

7/29/2011 9:42:20 PM

Quote :

"I see. So you should follow OT laws; there just happens to be no consequence for breaking them."

Ceremonial and other laws pertaining directly to the Hebrews and their justice system needn't be followed any longer, but to a degree the latter part of that is correct. But if someone does break OT law,as in the Ten Commandments or something to that extent then they should feel the hatred for the sin they committed.

To be honest, this aspect of scripture is not always easy to fully understand, I would say that they have become more of a guide and knowledge of what is sin.

7/29/2011 10:06:18 PM

Quote :

"But they have no power to save in them, in them you must always save yourself."

Wait, how does a Muslim or Hindu guy save himself, again?

7/30/2011 4:18:35 PM

Quote :

"Wait, how does a Muslim or Hindu guy save himself, again?"

By works.

Quote :

"The Pillars of Islam (arkan al-Islam; also arkan ad-din, "pillars of religion") are five basic acts in Islam, considered obligatory for all believers. The Quran presents them as a framework for worship and a sign of commitment to the faith. They are (1) the shahadah (creed), (2) daily prayers (salat), (3) almsgiving (zakah), (4) fasting during Ramadan and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a lifetime. The Shia and Sunni sects both agree on the essential details for the performance of these acts.[47]"

7/30/2011 6:49:47 PM

The implication being that a Christian does not have to save himself/herself by works? That's convenient. What was so bad about works = heaven, no works = hell? That seems pretty straight forward, and doesn't require a Christ.

7/30/2011 7:20:44 PM

Who judges the works? How do you compare completely separate works?


What qualifies as a good work versus a bad work?

How many bad works can one do if they do certain good works?

If someone is helping people merely because they think they are going to get something from it, are they doing good works in the first place?

7/30/2011 10:38:19 PM

Quote :

"And since you missed it before: Would you find it just if you end up in Hades because you didn't worship Zeus?"

Well yes I would find it unjust if I ended up in Hades if I did not worship Zeus. There is nothing to leads me to believe that Zeus exists, whereas the Bible gives compelling evidence of the existence of Jesus.

I think the real question is if you could try out all the religions in the world, which would you choose? (Atheism—may not be a religion but it requires a level of faith to claim there is no God) I believe not all other religions are entirely bad, but have lots of rules that you must follow and just maybe if you do everything right you will end up ok (except Atheism—you do whatever you want as long as it is justifiable to yourself. I would be this way too if I didn’t think there was a god.).

However Christianity is very simple and as I’ve stated before, it is not a baseless belief. It is not about the good and bad things you have done in life. All you have to do is: sincerely approach God just the way you are (through prayer), accept that you are a sinner, and ask for forgiveness of your sins and God’s gift of salvation. If you do that, then you are a Christian (there is no mention of belonging to a certain denomination in the bible—the church is comprised of Christians in the way I have just defined them). Christians continue to sin, but God looks past it because they’ve been forgiven. Does this mean that as a Christian you should not care about your actions? of course not. After someone decided to pay the debt for sin in your place, why wouldn’t you try to live a good life?

Quote :

"The OT and the NT are flush with references on how slaves and slave-owners should act. No where in the entire book does God, or Jesus or anyone condemn slavery. Why not?"

First of all this is simply not true. Just because slavery is in the bible it doesn’t mean that it is of God. All the references you gave me in the Skeptics Bible that were from the OT and were a record of Jewish law. Also the bible was not written to reform society. It was meant to show people that they need a savior. Furthermore, God actually demanded that Egypt set the Israelites free from slavery. Keeping that in mind, the Jewish law protected servants in the Old Testament and were to be treated as fellow human beings—not property. This institution gave those who were in debt or without a home a place to live and have their expenses covered in exchange for work. People sold themselves into slavery to have expenses covered. There was also a law written so that servants could not be kept for more than 6 yrs to pay their debt.

On a side note, you have to be careful when you compare how God deals with certain instances in the OT to instances in the NT. God had a Covenant with humanity to deal with sin before Jesus, which was different from how sin could be dealt with after Jesus.

From the references in the New Testament, it was also a bondservant-type institution. Paul explains how servants should act in the context of the Church. He was addressing a problem that because servant and master were both fellow Christians, they developed a friendship. Paul wanted servants to make sure that they were not taking advantage of this friendship to not do anything in return for how their master helped them pay their debt.

Just to be clear, I think the mentality that having a group of people kidnapped and forced to become slaves for no reason other than their race or they are disliked/not considered equal is completely wrong. All people are created equally. Many of the apostles in the bible refer to themselves as bondservants to Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel to all people. The word servant did not have the bad connotation that it has today. The Jewish law, and the apostles in the Bible do condemn this behavior: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

Quote :

"And 1 Corinthians and Ephesians have lovely passages such as these: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Which are commonly cited in modern times as an excuse for men to subjugate their wives."

Yes, I can see how this seems like misogyny. However, if you look up the original Greek word that was written, it was a Greek military term, but also had a non-military use. The military use meant to arrange troops in order under a leader. However, the word was not used in a military context, so it refers to the non-military use of the word. The non-military use means a voluntary attitude of cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden. In the bible, marriage is a representation of order:

1. In creation order: Man was created first. Man needed a companion and a helper—not to be in charge of someone—so woman was created. If you take the actual Greek meaning into account in the context of marriage, the woman’s role in marriage is as a voluntary helper and reflects creation order. It is not saying that women should be subjugated by their husbands, but that they should volunteer to help carry the burden of life’s affairs.

2. In church order: Church order is symbolized by a body. Marriage also reflects this order. In church order, Jesus is the head of the Church. The church is the rest of the body. Both function as one (a body needs a head to function, and a head needs the rest of the body to function). In marriage, man represents the head of the church, the women represents the body (other Christians). Again, it is a representation of order. If marriage is a representation of this order, which is symbolized by a body, by your interpretation it would be the same as saying A is more important than B because it comes first in the alphabet—or someone trying to repress one of their body parts from functioning. However, that is not the case. The body is necessary to carry out the functions intended in the brain, and is necessary for processes to get accomplished. There is no inequality—both work together.

Quote :

"What you don't trust God to protect the translation? How weak your God must be... And what DOES the Bible say about Heaven? Naked angels on clouds with harps?"

The purpose of the Bible is to explain the problem of sin and show the plan of redemption. This is crystal clear in English. It does serve its purpose. The texts people here are concerned with are background information to support this. Also, the bible has survived since around 2000 BC and exists not only in its entirety, but in a well-preserved form, with its original language (Can look up what individual words mean in English), format and wording, despite many efforts to destroy it. Almost all other documents this old have not survived, and are not in as good a condition. Also, it has been translated into over 1400 languages—no other book comes close.

And No to the last question.



[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 11:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/30/2011 11:33:31 PM

Quote :

"If someone is helping people merely because they think they are going to get something from it, are they doing good works in the first place?"

I'm afraid the same argument applies to salvation through grace: only believing something to get something.

7/31/2011 9:45:31 AM

Quote :

"I'm afraid the same argument applies to salvation through grace: only believing something to get something."

But we are saved by faith, not works.

If you are speaking of salvation by faith, only believing in something to get something sounds like a twisting of true faith. Those who believe are called to be bondservants of Christ, and to devote their lives to the Gospel. We have faith in God and can no longer turn away, because to do so would be to know good and choose evil. To say that we have faith in Christ only because we believe we will get something is a vanity. It devolves faith in Christ to nothing more than Pascal's wager. We don't have faith in Christ because of we are afraid of Hell, we have faith in Christ because we recognize we have sinned and recognize the plan God put forth, so that we could be with him and serve him.

7/31/2011 12:28:21 PM

What else can I say, but

You know how common Pascal's wager is as a theistic argument? Are you trying to tell me all saints are 100% selflessly motivated? That the concept of heaven and hell has absolutely no impact on conversion rates?

7/31/2011 1:20:16 PM

Quote :

"Are you trying to tell me all saints are 100% selflessly motivated? That the concept of heaven and hell has absolutely no impact on conversion rates?"

Conversion rates are something that man attempts to measure something that they cannot, only the individual can know the state of their salvation.

I would say that to use Pascal's Wager is to attempt to subjugate people by fear, instead of opening their minds to truth.

7/31/2011 4:31:36 PM

Quote :

"Conversion rates are something that man attempts to measure something that they cannot, only the individual can know the state of their salvation. "

That's silly.

You're implying that being converted has no measurable effect on someone's life or behavior.

7/31/2011 4:37:10 PM

Quote :

"I would say that to use Pascal's Wager is to attempt to subjugate people by fear, instead of opening their minds to truth."

I totally agree.

7/31/2011 4:57:40 PM

Quote :

"That's silly. You're implying that being converted has no measurable effect on someone's life or behavior."

I wasn't implying behavior at all, I was merely saying that I do not care for "conversion rates" as they are not an accurate representation of the saints. What I was claiming was that the individual knows the state of their individual salvation based on their relationship with the Lord, Biblically this is what matters, not conversion rates.

That is not to say that being saved does not come along with a change in attitude and works, but the motivation is not to "escape Hell" but rather to serve God and because since God saved us, we owe it to everyone to give them the best because they deserve better. Needless to say everyone may feel different, but I for one am not in fear of Hell, and will continue to impart everyone the forgiveness and grace that I received. Obviously, I do not always follow this, but normally I regret when I do not work good.

Many churches "enforce" good works instead of allowing it to be voluntary. This is not sound. I'll work on that description of Heaven as well, I need to find the relevant passages from Daniel and Revelation. It may take a while for me to come to an understanding on these things.

7/31/2011 5:05:11 PM

Holy hell, Fun fun fun, there is so much wrong in your post I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start at the top.

Quote :

"Well yes I would find it unjust if I ended up in Hades if I did not worship Zeus."

Awesome. Now surely you see why it would be unjust to punish non-believers of Yahweh with the Christian Hell (whatever that is).

Quote :

"There is nothing to leads me to believe that Zeus exists, whereas the Bible gives compelling evidence of the existence of Jesus. "

Whoops! Guess not. Still missing the point. There is no more compelling evidence for Jesus than there is for Zeus. Have you read the Theogony? Every single religion has it's scripture. None of them can be considered evidence.

Quote :

"I think the real question is if you could try out all the religions in the world, which would you choose? (Atheism—may not be a religion but it requires a level of faith to claim there is no God)"

You are mischaracterizing Atheism and I think you're doing it on purpose because it makes you feel good. Atheism is the lack of belief in all gods, and no honest atheist would make a positive claim that there is no God. Even the great Richard Dawkins will only say that there is almost certainly no god.

Quote :

"I believe not all other religions are entirely bad, but have lots of rules that you must follow and just maybe if you do everything right you will end up ok (except Atheism—you do whatever you want as long as it is justifiable to yourself. I would be this way too if I didn’t think there was a god.). "

So you'd be a sociopath if you didn't think that there is some eternal punishment waiting for you? Remind me not to ever be alone with you.

Quote :

"However Christianity is very simple and as I’ve stated before, it is not a baseless belief."

It's the most complex religion currently practiced on this planet with more denominations and infighting than any other. It is a baseless belief. The only evidence you've provided thus far is the Bible, which has been proven fallible and unreliable. It is obviously not a factual retelling of events that happened on this planet, any more than the Theogony or any other holy book. To believe something with not other evidence than the Bible is exactly the definition of baseless.

Quote :

"Does this mean that as a Christian you should not care about your actions? of course not. After someone decided to pay the debt for sin in your place, why wouldn’t you try to live a good life? "

Because you can just ask for forgiveness later? It doesn't make sense that you can't, because then it wouldn't make sense that you could ask for it in the first place. Why weren't you just good to begin with?

Quote :

"Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10)"

I'm fully aware of your concept of the new covenant, and you're welcome to say Jews were slavers but Christians knew better, but where are you backing it up Biblically? You claim that 1 Timothy 1:8-10 is, but here's what it says in my Bible.

Quote :

"1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

So does menstealer mean 'slave-trader'? Or is it just convenient for you to lump the entire slave-trade in with kidnapping? The fact of the matter is slavery continued on our planet with Biblical support for nearly 2000 years after Christ. While modern Christians were pivotal in abolishing it, they weren't motivated by the Bible. They were motivated by the secular ideals promoted by our country, namely that all people should be counted equally.

And even after we go that right, they still didn't treat women equally for another 50 years. (and honestly we have some work to do here too) If the Bible really was about slavery being wrong and women being equal to men, does it make sense that it took so long for us to get it right?

Quote :

"Yes, I can see how this seems like misogyny. However, if you look up the original Greek word that was written, it was a Greek military term, but also had a non-military use. The military use meant to arrange troops in order under a leader. However, the word was not used in a military context, so it refers to the non-military use of the word. The non-military use means a voluntary attitude of cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden. In the bible, marriage is a representation of order: 1. In creation order: Man was created first. Man needed a companion and a helper—not to be in charge of someone—so woman was created. If you take the actual Greek meaning into account in the context of marriage, the woman’s role in marriage is as a voluntary helper and reflects creation order. It is not saying that women should be subjugated by their husbands, but that they should volunteer to help carry the burden of life’s affairs. 2. In church order: Church order is symbolized by a body. Marriage also reflects this order. In church order, Jesus is the head of the Church. The church is the rest of the body. Both function as one (a body needs a head to function, and a head needs the rest of the body to function). In marriage, man represents the head of the church, the women represents the body (other Christians). Again, it is a representation of order. If marriage is a representation of this order, which is symbolized by a body, by your interpretation it would be the same as saying A is more important than B because it comes first in the alphabet—or someone trying to repress one of their body parts from functioning. However, that is not the case. The body is necessary to carry out the functions intended in the brain, and is necessary for processes to get accomplished. There is no inequality—both work together."

I really wish women would post in this thread. What you posted was no less misogynistic than the bible passage. Voluntary helper? hahahahahha

It doesn't matter what the word submit meant in Greek originally, it clearly states Christ : Church, Man : Woman. It boggles me that you can call your beliefs simple, when you have to do linguistic gymnastics to make it fit with your modern secular sensibilities.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2011 9:42:02 AM