PDA

View Full Version : For the Bible Tells Me So



DolfinDave
02-22-2008, 02:36 AM
http://www.pajiba.com/for-the-bible-tells-me-so.htm

Found this interesting review on the documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So." The author injects his own personal experience into the review and adds a great scene from The West Wing.

I thought the paradox he points out at the end was a really interesting question which I hadn't heard phrased that way before.

What do you guys think?

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-22-2008, 03:59 AM
I am interested in seeing the movie. Of course I also am interested in anything that shows that man screws up the word of god for their own self interests.

DolfinDave
02-22-2008, 04:30 AM
That's the part I liked about it. Its not the core message of Christianity that is the problem. Sure the OT can be problematic. But its the church's responsibility to teach people that its not meant literally. And the main focus is supposed to be on the NT and what Jesus taught us.

And I think the whole man messing up God's word is the reason we have the 1st Amendment and a secular gov't. Its not a dismisal of the Christian or any religion's message. Its the fear of the men in charge of those entities that are supposed to teach the message *******izing it for their own personal interest.

Mike13
02-22-2008, 12:14 PM
It seems intesting thats for sure.

Da 'Fins
02-22-2008, 12:47 PM
Before we can really talk about any Biblical statements as normative for one's life, one has to come to believe the evidence given for the resurrection of Jesus; and therefore the veracity of his claims and his disciples claims that he is truly the Son of God, the savior of the world. That said...

It's not the OT that is the problem - the use of those passages in Leviticus is misguided on both ends of the spectrum. For the most part, neither believers nor non-believers give the proper focus, imo. But, let me just list a few NT passages on the subject:

Rom. 1:26-27: 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

1Cor. 6:9-11: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1Tim. 1:8   But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

The Greek word for homosexual in these passages is arsenokoitas - referring to sexual contact between males. In some instances it has ritual connotations but not all; it also is used in a broader general sense. There are two words in 1 Cor. 6:10 that relate to homosexuality: effeminate (Gr. malakos - which really refers to the "passive partner in homosexual activity" - see Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon in Semantic Domain); and homosexuality (arsenokoitas - which "in certain contexts refers to the active partner" - again, Louw & Nida Lexicon).

Sometimes it is argued that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. But, Jesus did indicate that the Holy Spirit would guide his disciples into all the truth and no one disputes Paul's writing by inspiration. Further, is Jesus' statement in Matt. 19:9 that fornication is the only reason for divorce; and his view that fornication is a sin clearly argues against homosexuality, since fornication (Gr: porneia) was a broad term in Scripture for sexual activity outside a marriage relationship between a man and a woman - the marriage relationship between a man and a woman is the only place the Bible ever positively justifies sexual intimacy; it is consistent from OT to NT (e.g., Heb. 13:4 - "the marriage bed is undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge").

Now, having noted that, it is equally the case that the NT does not in any way condone violent aggression against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. Jesus loved sinners as all his disciples should. In fact, we all are sinners, according to the NT! However, that doesn't mean that Jesus or his disciples justified sinful practices. There is a difference between loving someone and justifying their lifestyle. I would love my son even if he robbed a bank; it would not mean I justified his action or viewed such actions as appropriate simply because I loved him.

The problem is, that there is violence perpetrated on others in the name of the Bible - so it gives Christianity a bad name. Such actions find no NT justification. But, of course, the homosexual movement is also itself a "power-play" - a metanarrative that seeks power - and homosexual men have acted violently at times - in the name of their cause; in the same way, there are distorted views of Christianity (like the Religious Right) that seek for oppressive political and economic power.

NT Christianity does not condone immoral activity - and that includes homosexuality as well as violence against homosexuals. It never calls on disciples to become oppressive in their cause; it seeks to win people to a new lifestyle through persuasion - and it's argument is via humility: God, through Jesus, giving his life on the cross, that we would turn away from a sinful lifestyle (though still ourselves not being sinless) and find grace in the cross. God's grace saves us from our sin (Eph. 2:8) but that does not justify continuing in it, from a Biblical perspective - "What shall we say, shall we continue in sin that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom. 6:1-2).

Da 'Fins
02-22-2008, 12:50 PM
Btw, a book I would highly recommend for a balanced and very fairminded view of this subject and numerous other issues - from a scholarly perspective - is Richard Hays' Moral Vision of the New Testament.

Hays is a professor of NT Ethics at Duke University.

HansMojo
02-22-2008, 10:47 PM
NT Christianity does not condone immoral activity - and that includes homosexuality as well as violence against homosexuals. It never calls on disciples to become oppressive in their cause; it seeks to win people to a new lifestyle through persuasion - and it's argument is via humility: God, through Jesus, giving his life on the cross, that we would turn away from a sinful lifestyle (though still ourselves not being sinless) and find grace in the cross. God's grace saves us from our sin (Eph. 2:8) but that does not justify continuing in it, from a Biblical perspective - "What shall we say, shall we continue in sin that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom. 6:1-2).
:up:

FINintheMOON
02-23-2008, 03:41 AM
Before I even declare being a christian or not, I want to point out a few things. While I can not quote scriptures without looking into the book, I feel that I understand and live by that book... Be it the OT or NT, I feel the message is the same and the only difference in these books is that 3 books were omitted from the OT in the NT and the messages in the writings are still basically the same. I have read both and I am one that believes that while the thought process was good in developing the NT, it lacked in many other areas...

Just as the compulation of the OT ommitted certain gospels during it's creation, the NT has ommitted certain things as well... If you truly want to know and understand the book, you must first accept that it is NOT a complete book and that many parts of the history of Christianity has been buried or thrown out as being heriacy...

I am a person that thrives on ALL facts need to be included in an argument...

Miamian
02-23-2008, 02:38 PM
From a Jewish perspective, the act of homosexuality is considered an abomination, not being homosexual itself. If this beating were to have happened in Israel, most religious people would be appalled.

DolfinDave
02-23-2008, 02:46 PM
Even if we all come to a consensus that homosexuality or the act of it is wrong that doesn't settle any sort of marriage debate pertaining to the US. I would love for the main argument against gay marriage to be "the Bible says so". And I really don't know what other argument is out there.

ih8brady
02-24-2008, 12:49 AM
Back to the original premise, could any anti-gay people explain to me how homosexuality is immoral or wrong? And even if it is wrong, why should it be the concern of a secular country so long as it doesn't infringe on others?

HansMojo
02-24-2008, 03:25 AM
Even if we all come to a consensus that homosexuality or the act of it is wrong that doesn't settle any sort of marriage debate pertaining to the US. I would love for the main argument against gay marriage to be "the Bible says so". And I really don't know what other argument is out there.
To me, this whole issue just puts up an even larger barrier between secular people and the religious (larger than would already naturally exist). To me, it just pushes even more people away from God and for what?

IMHO, God doesn't recognize gay marriage, but what does that have to do with secular gay people? They are going to live out their homosexual lives whether they have a piece of paper from a secular government recognizing their union or not.

IMHO, when religious people seek to enforce their religious beliefs on secular people it just makes them and others of like mind to be LESS likely to want to hear the Gospel message. Thus, I'm against doing this. If they want to get "married" I say let them. If they care to know what God has to say about homosexuality in the Bible, I'd be glad to share it with them in as humble, as non judgemental, and as loving a way as I possibly can. Other than that, the rest is between them and God.

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 05:04 AM
After reading this thread, the thing that concerns me most is that not many of you seem to understand that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same Word of the same God. How many times did Jesus quote from the Old Testament? Hundreds.
Seeing as how the Old Testament spoke of Christ hundreds of times and Christ was the Living Word, and He came in the volume of the Book...It's all the same Word from the same God.
Do you think God changes His mind? No, His Law is as good today as it was when it was given to Moses.
People can try to twist it to fit them, but it won't fly.

That filmclip is so idiotically wrong scripturally and in context, but it served the hollywood message very well that homosexuality should be accepted and the Law of the Bible and the God of the Bible is very bad. It served the purpose of trying to make it look as if God and His Law had been "put in its place" by an "open minded" progressive.


You ask, what is wrong with homosexuality aside from the fact that God doesn't like it? I will tell you. God is very natural. He created nature. Homosexuality is not "natural" and therefore is a perverted act.
As a Christian, I will not tell you to not do something, but please, please stop trying to twist God's Word into fitting your lifestyle and stop trying to change Christianity to accomodate it.
And you Christians that are weak in the Word, please stop trying to justify it with "Jesus would say it's alright". Jesus was the Father born into flesh and walking amongst us. Don't try to seperate the Old from the New. It is the same. "A virgin shall conceive and you shall call Him Emanuel, which means God with Us". And Hebrews 2:14 tells us this same thing that God Himself was born into the flesh: Hbr 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Are we to judge? No. Only God is judge, and He is THE judge.

Are we to allow God's word to be warped to fit the needs of a small group of people to be politically correct? You better not.
God loves you, He may not like what you are doing, but He does love you. But on the same hand, those that try to change His Word will answer for it. But it's your ship, you sail it the way you see fit....

DolfinDave
02-24-2008, 03:53 PM
After reading this thread, the thing that concerns me most is that not many of you seem to understand that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same Word of the same God. How many times did Jesus quote from the Old Testament? Hundreds.
Seeing as how the Old Testament spoke of Christ hundreds of times and Christ was the Living Word, and He came in the volume of the Book...It's all the same Word from the same God.
Do you think God changes His mind? No, His Law is as good today as it was when it was given to Moses.
People can try to twist it to fit them, but it won't fly.

That filmclip is so idiotically wrong scripturally and in context, but it served the hollywood message very well that homosexuality should be accepted and the Law of the Bible and the God of the Bible is very bad. It served the purpose of trying to make it look as if God and His Law had been "put in its place" by an "open minded" progressive.


You ask, what is wrong with homosexuality aside from the fact that God doesn't like it? I will tell you. God is very natural. He created nature. Homosexuality is not "natural" and therefore is a perverted act.
As a Christian, I will not tell you to not do something, but please, please stop trying to twist God's Word into fitting your lifestyle and stop trying to change Christianity to accomodate it.
And you Christians that are weak in the Word, please stop trying to justify it with "Jesus would say it's alright". Jesus was the Father born into flesh and walking amongst us. Don't try to seperate the Old from the New. It is the same. "A virgin shall conceive and you shall call Him Emanuel, which means God with Us". And Hebrews 2:14 tells us this same thing that God Himself was born into the flesh: Hbr 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Are we to judge? No. Only God is judge, and He is THE judge.

Are we to allow God's word to be warped to fit the needs of a small group of people to be politically correct? You better not.
God loves you, He may not like what you are doing, but He does love you. But on the same hand, those that try to change His Word will answer for it. But it's your ship, you sail it the way you see fit....

No that clip served to show how ridiculous some of the Bible's rules or laws are in the context of our secular society. If you are going by what it says in regard to homosexuals or making holy the Sabbath then why not still make your females your slaves and have other laws that fly in the face of our current ones?

Da 'Fins
02-24-2008, 05:08 PM
Back to the original premise, could any anti-gay people explain to me how homosexuality is immoral or wrong? And even if it is wrong, why should it be the concern of a secular country so long as it doesn't infringe on others?

Right and Wrong, morality ultimately depend on one's standard of morality. If my standard of morality is purely my own concepts (though, it should be noted that no one's perspective is free of cultural influence; we all are impacted by culture - in ways we don't even realize) - then, there really is no right and wrong - there really is no morality.

I'm not "anti-gay" in the way our culture describes it. From a Biblical perspective, homosexuality is viewed as wrong and immoral. The challenge of discussing a specific subject like this is that we haven't gotten on the same page about what our standard is going to be. I believe (based on reasons and evidence) that the Bible is the word of God and I seek to live by that standard. From a Biblical perspective, HS is viewed as an unnatural activity. It doesn't mean some may not have that tendency or be born with such a propensity (in the same way some are born with a greater tendency toward alcoholism). Such is the nature of a fallen world (again, a Biblical perspective).

On a societal level, I personally do not believe that the NT calls on Christians to campaign for laws against gay marriage. I am a devout, though highly flawed, Christian and I believe that the Bible does condemn the practice of homosexuality. But, I've come to change my perspective about all this. The Romans practiced homosexuality freely throughout the empire in the 1st century; but, you just never saw Paul himself, or calling on Christians, to campaign to outlaw homosexuality. Christianity, as Paul and Jesus taught it, was persuasive, not coercive.

My conclusion from my study of the Bible and the above evidence would lead me to this: If the U.S. government chose to allow gay marriage - it would not be an activity I personally approved of. And, I would speak to any friends who are homosexuals to try to convince them to follow Christ and change - but that would be by means of reasonable persuasion about Jesus as the Son of God. I would not campaign for the U.S. government to change the laws. I think that ultimately enters the realm of a "power play."

Richard Bauckham in a great essay in a book entitled The Art of Reading Scripture, wrote the following:

“The Biblical story is a story of God’s repeated choice of the dominated and the wretched, the powerless and the marginal; it also breaks the cycle by which the oppressed become oppressors in their turn. The cross is the event in which the cycle is definitively broken."

"The Christological passage in Philippians 2 means that Jesus’ obedience to the point of identification with the human condition at its most wretched and degraded, the death of the slave or the criminal, is what qualifies him to exercise the divine rule from the cosmic throne of God. Only the human who has thus identified himself irrevocably with the lowest of the low can be entrusted with the power that God exercises characteristically on their behalf. Distortion of the biblical story into an ideology of oppression has to suppress the biblical meaning of the cross.”

I think he is dead on with this. And, I think that the way Christians, and I indict myself in this, have conducted themselves in the political arena, has created a perception that Christians are about oppression and power rather than humble persuasion.

Da 'Fins
02-24-2008, 05:22 PM
If I may, I'd also like to add another thought on the discussion of the OT and NT with respect to homosexuality and other issues. I don't portend to provide here a full theological perspective that answers every question but I think it does touch on the discussion.

The laws in the OT, including the punishments, were given in the context of a Theocracy. That is, Israel was a physical nation essentially operating under God. The principles behind those laws reflected the character of God. All the Law of Moses essentially flowed out of two basic principles: Loving God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength; and loving one's neighbor as himself. The punishments inflicted in the Law of Moses (L of M) were intended to show the heinous nature of the sin and how God regards those sins.

Indeed, God has not changed his character; but he has changed the nature of his covenant with human kind and his people are called to live as a spiritual kingdom - not as a physical, national entity. Several NT passages bring this out (Romans 7; 2 Corinthians 3; Colossians 2; Hebrews 9-10). The basic principles of morality have not changed, but the nature of how his people interact in the world has. We are no longer called as a separate nation but all are called to emulate the life and character of Jesus in the world and seek, by persuasion of Scripture (2 Cor. 5:11; Rom. 16:16-17), to convince others to follow Jesus as well.

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 06:00 PM
No that clip served to show how ridiculous some of the Bible's rules or laws are in the context of our secular society. If you are going by what it says in regard to homosexuals or making holy the Sabbath then why not still make your females your slaves and have other laws that fly in the face of our current ones?

Do you realize what you are saying. You are saying that somehow society has gotten to point that they don't need God or His Laws anymore. That's what you are saying.
If you don't believe what God says about homosexuals, then don't ever call yourself a Christian. You call God a liar.
What do you know about making the Sabbath Holy? Obviously you don't know the difference between Laws, Statutes and Ordinances. If you are keeping a day (lets say Sunday) as the Sabbath Day, you are wrong to keep ANY day as a sabbath day. Have you not read that Christ became our Sabbath. Every day is the Sabbath now, because He paid the price. If you don't have Christ, you have no rest and you never will.
THe preists always work on the sabbath anyway, so mister Sheen's dialogue that was written holds no water.
1Cr 5:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=5&verse=7&version=kjv#7)Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Furthermore, if you think God's Law's fly in the face our current law, you are ignorant of God's Law and so is Martin Sheen.

DolfinDave
02-24-2008, 06:17 PM
Do you realize what you are saying. You are saying that somehow society has gotten to point that they don't need God or His Laws anymore. That's what you are saying.
If you don't believe what God says about homosexuals, then don't ever call yourself a Christian. You call God a liar.
What do you know about making the Sabbath Holy? Obviously you don't know the difference between Laws, Statutes and Ordinances. If you are keeping a day (lets say Sunday) as the Sabbath Day, you are wrong to keep ANY day as a sabbath day. Have you not read that Christ became our Sabbath. Every day is the Sabbath now, because He paid the price. If you don't have Christ, you have no rest and you never will.
THe preists always work on the sabbath anyway, so mister Sheen's dialogue that was written holds no water.
1Cr 5:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=5&verse=7&version=kjv#7)Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Furthermore, if you think God's Law's fly in the face our current law, you are ignorant of God's Law and so is Martin Sheen.

Nowhere in my posts did I say any of what you accuse me of saying. I simply asked a question.

What I was saying is that the laws of the US aren't governed by the Bible or what a Christian church says. Therefore to suggest that they either are or should be in regard to at least the issue of homosexuality/gay marriage is not a logical argument.

Believe what you want to believe about homosexuality. I don't care. But if you are going to say the laws of the US should mirror what the Bible says then you have to do some explaining as to why our laws should come from the Bible and then why should we go by some of the things it says and not the others.

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 06:20 PM
If I may, I'd also like to add another thought on the discussion of the OT and NT with respect to homosexuality and other issues. I don't portend to provide here a full theological perspective that answers every question but I think it does touch on the discussion.

The laws in the OT, including the punishments, were given in the context of a Theocracy. That is, Israel was a physical nation essentially operating under God. The principles behind those laws reflected the character of God. All the Law of Moses essentially flowed out of two basic principles: Loving God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength; and loving one's neighbor as himself. The punishments inflicted in the Law of Moses (L of M) were intended to show the heinous nature of the sin and how God regards those sins.

Indeed, God has not changed his character; but he has changed the nature of his covenant with human kind and his people are called to live as a spiritual kingdom - not as a physical, national entity. Several NT passages bring this out (Romans 7; 2 Corinthians 3; Colossians 2; Hebrews 9-10). The basic principles of morality have not changed, but the nature of how his people interact in the world has. We are no longer called as a separate nation but all are called to emulate the life and character of Jesus in the world and seek, by persuasion of Scripture (2 Cor. 5:11; Rom. 16:16-17), to convince others to follow Jesus as well.

You nailed it! God's laws are for His People (those that follow Him) and those laws define sin. In fact, those that have that law written in their hearts, their minds, will not want to break them. The law has no meaning to those who don't follow them except to serve as the standard by which they will be judged by God Himself.
There are sheep and goats, wheat and tares. One belongs to God, the other is seperated. The wheat gathered and the tares burned.

Some think that the Old Testament Law is somehow not relevant to today. Is it ok to steal? No. Is it ok to murder? No. Is it ok to commit adultery? No.
God's law is good. Man is bad.
This argument about selling your children into slavery just won't fly. God never said do it, people may do it, but God never told them to. In fact, most of this slavery, as it is translated, simply means endentured or bondsman, and it was only between Israelites. It was the same as if you were a farmer and you had several sons, you might enter an agreement with another farmer that your son would work for him for 6 years and he would be taken care of like family, and you received goods or payment for that service. On the 7th year, he was free of the bond.
This was not slavery again ones will as most people think of slavery.

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-24-2008, 06:26 PM
You nailed it! God's laws are for His People (those that follow Him) and those laws define sin. In fact, those that have that law written in their hearts, their minds, will not want to break them. The law has no meaning to those who don't follow them except to serve as the standard by which they will be judged by God Himself.
There are sheep and goats, wheat and tares. One belongs to God, the other is seperated. The wheat gathered and the tares burned.

Some think that the Old Testament Law is somehow not relevant to today. Is it ok to steal? No. Is it ok to murder? No. Is it ok to commit adultery? No.
God's law is good. Man is bad.
This argument about selling your children into slavery just won't fly. God never said do it, people may do it, but God never told them to. In fact, most of this slavery, as it is translated, simply means endentured or bondsman, and it was only between Israelites. It was the same as if you were a farmer and you had several sons, you might enter an agreement with another farmer that your son would work for him for 6 years and he would be taken care of like family, and you received goods or payment for that service. On the 7th year, he was free of the bond.
This was not slavery again ones will as most people think of slavery.

so god created us to be bad?

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 06:45 PM
What I was saying is that the laws of the US aren't governed by the Bible or what a Christian church says. Therefore to suggest that they either are or should be in regard to at least the issue of homosexuality/gay marriage is not a logical argument.

Believe what you want to believe about homosexuality. I don't care. But if you are going to say the laws of the US should mirror what the Bible says then you have to do some explaining as to why our laws should come from the Bible and then why should we go by some of the things it says and not the others.

It is a fact that our constiution was written using the framework of Biblical Law. Now, with that being said, our civil laws have changed to a law of precedent. THe more our civil laws change, it seems the further away we get from Biblical Law.
Jesus said to obey the civil law of the place in which you live. That was so that you didn't end up in jail.
God's law said that a murderer was to be stoned to death by the family member of the victim. U.S. law says that a murderer is to be put to death by lethal injection by the state. That one is pretty much still intact except for a few states.
God's law said that a rapist is to be put to death and when others see what happens, then this will cease to happen among you. In other words, it was to be a deterant. Peronally, I believe that rapists should be put to death, but if the government wants to keep them alive with my tax dollars, I can still accept that...because he hasn't had the REAL trial yet.
God's law stated that if a man and woman were caught together in the act of adultery by at leat two witnesses, they were to be put to death. Once again, this was a deterant. The standard there is pretty high. Think how difficult it would be to have two eye witnesses catch two different married people in the act of sexual intercourse.
However, U.S. law does not provide for the death penalty for this, and we follow that law. God doen't like unfaithfulness. Can you see how many lives are destroyed by adulterous affairs and illegitimate children...everyone is hurt by it.
It is not one of the Ten Commandments that thou shall not be a homosexual. It is written throughout the word that God doesn't like it, and He doesn't approve of it. It is an abomination because it will cause illness and disease and will even cause death. It is also the very same thing that the fallen angels did in Genesis. They engaged in perverted sex with men and with the daughters of Adam. This is why God destroyed Soddom and Gemmorah. Acts of perversion were so rampant that God heard the childrens cries and it brought Him down to take care of it.
God tries to tell us that it will kill us, it is an un-natural act, it is not clean to do what those people do, that is not what that bodily function was made for. It is filthy.

How many have got the fever of aids and died?

Deu 28:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Deu&chapter=28&verse=22&version=kjv#22)The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 06:47 PM
so god created us to be bad?

How in the world could you ever arrive at that conclusion from what I said?
God did not create us to be bad, but the choice is ours. He did give us free will.
He gave us the rules, and he gives us the choice. What will yours be?

DolfinDave
02-24-2008, 07:09 PM
It won't let me quote for some reason so I'll just do it myself.



"It is a fact that our constiution was written using the framework of Biblical Law."


Really? I don't recall any of that mentioned by Madison or the other writers of the Constitution. I don't see the Bible cited anywhere in it. So how is that a fact?

ih8brady
02-24-2008, 07:27 PM
You nailed it! God's laws are for His People (those that follow Him) and those laws define sin. In fact, those that have that law written in their hearts, their minds, will not want to break them. The law has no meaning to those who don't follow them except to serve as the standard by which they will be judged by God Himself.
There are sheep and goats, wheat and tares. One belongs to God, the other is seperated. The wheat gathered and the tares burned.

Some think that the Old Testament Law is somehow not relevant to today. Is it ok to steal? No. Is it ok to murder? No. Is it ok to commit adultery? No.
God's law is good. Man is bad.
This argument about selling your children into slavery just won't fly. God never said do it, people may do it, but God never told them to. In fact, most of this slavery, as it is translated, simply means endentured or bondsman, and it was only between Israelites. It was the same as if you were a farmer and you had several sons, you might enter an agreement with another farmer that your son would work for him for 6 years and he would be taken care of like family, and you received goods or payment for that service. On the 7th year, he was free of the bond.
This was not slavery again ones will as most people think of slavery.

Legal prohibition of murder and theft existed before Christianity, as did the golden rule(which some seem to ignore). Just look at the Greek Sophists and the teaching of Eastern philosophers such as Confucius. And paternalistic or less brutal slavery is still slavery. And if the Bible is opposed to slavery, why not add it to the Commandments? Besides murder and theft, the Commandments conveniently seem to be constructed to keep the elites and status quos of societies in power(don't question your parents, priesthood, the word of religion).

Honestly, if someone asked you to write a list of ten commandments, would you actually come up with that? If I had to make ten declarations to consider, mine would look like this:
1) Be considerate of others
2) Do not kill
3) Do not assault
4) Do not rape
5) Do not enslave
6) Do not commit incest
7) Do not discriminate based on
8) Do not steal
9) Do not torture
10) Do not act cruelly

Do you honestly think that the Ten Commandments are more reasonable than my list?

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 07:39 PM
Legal prohibition of murder and theft existed before Christianity, as did the golden rule(which some seem to ignore). Just look at the Greek Sophists and the teaching of Eastern philosophers such as Confucius. And paternalistic or less brutal slavery is still slavery. And if the Bible is opposed to slavery, why not add it to the Commandments? Besides murder and theft, the Commandments conveniently seem to be constructed to keep the elites and status quos of societies in power(don't question your parents, priesthood, the word of religion).

Honestly, if someone asked you to write a list of ten commandments, would you actually come up with that? If I had to make ten declarations to consider, mine would look like this:
1) Be considerate of others
2) Do not kill
3) Do not assault
4) Do not rape
5) Do not enslave
6) Do not commit incest
7) Do not discriminate based on
8) Do not steal
9) Do not torture
10) Do not act cruelly

Do you honestly think that the Ten Commandments are more reasonable than my list?

There is one BIG difference. God wrote the commandments in Exodus...not you.
Also, God's law existed before any of the other philosophies. Christianity came about after the crucifixion, but as I have stated before, Christ was and is the same God of the old Testament Eyeh Asher Eyeh, I Am That I AM.

You do the same thing that Lucifer did...you want to set in the judgment seat and make the rules and the law. It is God and God only that sits in that seat.

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 07:41 PM
It won't let me quote for some reason so I'll just do it myself.



Really? I don't recall any of that mentioned by Madison or the other writers of the Constitution. I don't see the Bible cited anywhere in it. So how is that a fact?

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams, October 11, 1798

George Washington: "True religion offers to government its surest support . . . It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

James Madison: "We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind to self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Q. Adams: "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christ?"

Wnat more? I can provide them.

ih8brady
02-24-2008, 07:58 PM
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams, October 11, 1798

George Washington: "True religion offers to government its surest support . . . It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

James Madison: "We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind to self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Q. Adams: "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christ?"

Wnat more? I can provide them.

I think you're mistaking secularism and religiosity. Some of the founding fathers were religious(not GW, he was a deist), but most of them understood the problems involved in Europe over religious persecution and government sanctioned churches. That's why the establishment clause was written. Some of the conservative politicians who were nostalgic for English legality and law, such as Adams and Hamilton, wanted America to have a king, church, and other paralleled institutions. Luckily, they lost out in the creation of our nation and Constitution.
Too bad they didn't actually say this:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington#Misattributed
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison#Unsourced


And John Quincy Adams wasn't a framer or founding father.

DolfinDave
02-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Washington didn't write the Constitution either. Madison did but that quote and the others have nothing to do with the framing of the Contitution. Like ih8brady mentioned, the establisment clause and the no religious test clause make it pretty clear that the Constitution was framed as a secular set of laws to govern this nation by.

The Constitution was framed upon the philosophies of the French Enlightenment and English Common Law. They didn't sit there with their Bibles and and just copy and paste. I don't know where in the hell people get the idea that it was otherwise.

Perfik Season
02-24-2008, 08:13 PM
I think you're mistaking secularism and religiosity.

No, I don't think I am. Those who are opposed to God's Law don't want Him to have any part in their life. They want Him out of the Government, Out of the Schools and Out of their lives.

Pull a coin out of your pocket. What does it say? "In God we trust".

You can't stand the fact that the forefathers were Christians. You can't stand the fact that God has his fingerprints all over this nation. You can't stand God.
Deny Him...He will deny you. Get out of My sight, I never knew you"...that's what Christ is going to say to those who deny Him.

DolfinDave
02-24-2008, 11:01 PM
Having a secular gov't doesn't mean we don't like or even aren't Christian. It means we don't want religion dictating our laws and how people should live their lives. That's not an indictment of the message of Christiany or any religion. Its an indictment of the people who run the churches that teach the message.

The founders were very aware of the history of people who were in charge of religions that either ruled nations or had significant influence over them. One of the basic concepts of our gov't is that power corrupts. That was no different for men who controled churches. History showed that they served their own interests over the people's.

We don't want religions dictating our laws because men, not God, are the ones in charge of the message being preached. If it was God there would only be one message, one church, and one religion. But there are many different sects that have different beliefs. So if you are going to dictate law which one do you choose? And when you choose one how can you be certain their interpretation is more what God wants than the others?

muscle979
02-25-2008, 08:51 AM
There is one BIG difference. God wrote the commandments in Exodus...not you.
Also, God's law existed before any of the other philosophies. Christianity came about after the crucifixion, but as I have stated before, Christ was and is the same God of the old Testament Eyeh Asher Eyeh, I Am That I AM.

You do the same thing that Lucifer did...you want to set in the judgment seat and make the rules and the law. It is God and God only that sits in that seat.

No a man wrote the book of Exodus. A man just like him. God strangely enough doesn't write or say anything. Why is something in the Bible any more real than things written about Zeus or Athena? Because more people believe it is?

Miamian
02-25-2008, 10:11 AM
No a man wrote the book of Exodus. A man just like him. God strangely enough doesn't write or say anything. Why is something in the Bible any more real than things written about Zeus or Athena? Because more people believe it is?
It's interesting that when an individual declares a religious belief as proof that he's labeled as intolerant, but when another individual states that his belief is false according to secular "wisdom" that's supposed to be okay.

Da 'Fins
02-25-2008, 10:31 AM
No a man wrote the book of Exodus. A man just like him. God strangely enough doesn't write or say anything. Why is something in the Bible any more real than things written about Zeus or Athena? Because more people believe it is?

The belief that Exodus is "inspired" (meaning that it ultimately comes from God) may be a blind faith for some, but for thinking Christians, it is not based on just general belief. It is based on evidence. Historical evidence. The argument for reading Exodus as a book from God is that Jesus accepted this book - and the entire OT as inspired. And, the reason for accepting Jesus' words as authoritative are because of the evidence that he was, in a real time and place, raised from the dead three days after he was killed. There is an abundance of strong evidence for this if one wishes to investigate it.

However, I do not believe Christians should seek to make Exodus or the 10 Commandments normative for society. Each society must decide it's own rules and I believe the NT teaches we should allow individuals the freedom to choose to follow God or not - rather than coerce others into doing so. This is why I believe the NT stands in opposition to many of the political views the Religious Right of Robertson, Dobson, et al.

A reasonable, rational mind will look for truth and investigate the various criteria. The difference, to be brief (and books have been written on the subject), between Zeus and Christianity is that the things written about Zeus were always viewed as mythological - by the writers themselves - and never believed or presented as historical. In fact, they were not in historical settings.

However, when one reads the gospels, it is clear that these are in historical settings and investigations into them show solid historical reliability.

If you were really interested in an investigation - I'd recommend Craig Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the Gospels and N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God.

Da 'Fins
02-25-2008, 10:43 AM
Legal prohibition of murder and theft existed before Christianity, as did the golden rule(which some seem to ignore). Just look at the Greek Sophists and the teaching of Eastern philosophers such as Confucius. And paternalistic or less brutal slavery is still slavery. And if the Bible is opposed to slavery, why not add it to the Commandments? Besides murder and theft, the Commandments conveniently seem to be constructed to keep the elites and status quos of societies in power(don't question your parents, priesthood, the word of religion).

Honestly, if someone asked you to write a list of ten commandments, would you actually come up with that? If I had to make ten declarations to consider, mine would look like this:
1) Be considerate of others
2) Do not kill
3) Do not assault
4) Do not rape
5) Do not enslave
6) Do not commit incest
7) Do not discriminate based on
8) Do not steal
9) Do not torture
10) Do not act cruelly

Do you honestly think that the Ten Commandments are more reasonable than my list?

I'm not trying to defend another argument going on here - but I would like to offer a couple of comments on this:

1) This is a good list and, depending on how you define some of these points, they are all Biblical in one sense or another. There is no doubt that men have a moral sense ingrained within them; there are also reasonable arguments that can be made that this is evidence of God's hand in humanity. And, the Bible itself recognizes that men do have a sense of right and wrong within them, "when Gentiles who do not have the Law (Moses) do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves in that they show the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or defending them" (Rom. 2:15).

2) It is also true that the laws in Exodus in many ways reflected to some degree the laws around them. There certainly were law codes in effect that were very similar to what was in Exodus prior to its writing. And, Exodus' laws were not and are not intended for every culture. They were written for Israel.

3) The specific laws of Moses in the OT were in many respects not an attempt (except at the highest level of principle - such as the 10 commandments) to reveal God's full nature - but many of the laws were an attempt to temper some of the harsher penalties in the surrounding cultures. When one looks, for example, at the law code of Hammurabi, one sees that the punishments often were well beyond the "eye for eye" penalty. When the L of M taught "eye for an eye" it was actually tempering many of the penalty laws in the surrounding cultures.

Dolphan7
02-25-2008, 05:30 PM
I can't control things that are out of my control, like whether or not this country allows gay marriage or not. My faith in God is a personal relationship, a personal journey and I can only control my end of that relationship, and the world that is close around me.

I trust in God and I follow His laws for me and my family. God says homosexuality is not something that I need to be involved in, so I don't. What another man does is between him and God.

However.......if I am presented with an opportunity to vote on a law supporting or denying gay marriage, which in my state has happened, then I have an obligation in my relationship with God to follow God on this.

muscle979
02-25-2008, 07:56 PM
It's interesting that when an individual declares a religious belief as proof that he's labeled as intolerant, but when another individual states that his belief is false according to secular "wisdom" that's supposed to be okay.

Not even close to a legitimate comparison. I'm not telling people how to live their lives or saying that they're going to burn eternally for doing one thing or another. I'm also not comparing people to the devil.

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-25-2008, 08:54 PM
I can't control things that are out of my control, like whether or not this country allows gay marriage or not. My faith in God is a personal relationship, a personal journey and I can only control my end of that relationship, and the world that is close around me.

I trust in God and I follow His laws for me and my family. God says homosexuality is not something that I need to be involved in, so I don't. What another man does is between him and God.

However.......if I am presented with an opportunity to vote on a law supporting or denying gay marriage, which in my state has happened, then I have an obligation in my relationship with God to follow God on this.

If you want to be technical all you can do is control your personal journey and relationship with God.

You have absolutely zero control of the world close around you. Your power to influence is greater in the world around you yet the amount of control you have is zero. Due to one of god's greatests gifts on humanity which is free will.

I also see the world "obligation" as a denying of personal responsiblity. If you do not have to take choices for yourself then it is God who is hateful and intollerant of two people just trying to live a life they feel is the best to their ability. Their lives having a personal journey and their own relationship with God. It isn't your obligation to do anything. It is your choice. You make your choice with the information that you have been given about god and maybe even some soul searching that it is the right thing to do to deny people joy and happiness.

Dolphan7
02-25-2008, 09:21 PM
If you want to be technical all you can do is control your personal journey and relationship with God.

You have absolutely zero control of the world close around you. Your power to influence is greater in the world around you yet the amount of control you have is zero. Due to one of god's greatests gifts on humanity which is free will.

I also see the world "obligation" as a denying of personal responsiblity. If you do not have to take choices for yourself then it is God who is hateful and intollerant of two people just trying to live a life they feel is the best to their ability. Their lives having a personal journey and their own relationship with God. It isn't your obligation to do anything. It is your choice. You make your choice with the information that you have been given about god and maybe even some soul searching that it is the right thing to do to deny people joy and happiness.
You don't understand the christian faith then, and maybe you shouldn't be commenting on something that you don't quite understand fully. I am a christian. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try to live my life according to God's word. That is part of that faith. It is inherent in my faith. It isn't something that I can choose to follow or not based on the whims and trends of a materialistic and progressive society.

It isn't what I believe about gay marriage. My opinion doesn't matter. What matters is what does God say about it through the bible. Whether I like or agree with the bible is irrelevant. I choose to be a christian, excersizing my free will to do so, but once a christian I don't have the choice of not following God. It can't work like that. I trust God is right, and will do the right thing. That is part of faith.

It is like you are married, but you still want to fool around with the ladies. I am sure your wife wouldn't agree with that. Your wife expects you to be faithful to her. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't matter, you made vows to her that you would behave and she expects that from you, and you her and you trust each other that you will both hold to your vows. That is how a honest trusting relationship works. It is the same with God.

God expects his followers to follow his laws. Now you can accept him or deny him. You can reject him and call him hatefull and intolerant. That is your free will.

What you can't do is tell a christian that he has a choice to follow God or not. We don't have that choice.

Pagan
02-25-2008, 10:21 PM
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams, October 11, 1798

George Washington: "True religion offers to government its surest support . . . It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

James Madison: "We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind to self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Q. Adams: "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christ?"

Wnat more? I can provide them.

Those men also owned slaves. Is owning slaves hunky dory in the eyes of the Bible?

FINintheMOON
02-25-2008, 11:23 PM
If you want to be technical all you can do is control your personal journey and relationship with God.

You have absolutely zero control of the world close around you. Your power to influence is greater in the world around you yet the amount of control you have is zero. Due to one of god's greatests gifts on humanity which is free will.

I also see the world "obligation" as a denying of personal responsiblity. If you do not have to take choices for yourself then it is God who is hateful and intollerant of two people just trying to live a life they feel is the best to their ability. Their lives having a personal journey and their own relationship with God. It isn't your obligation to do anything. It is your choice. You make your choice with the information that you have been given about god and maybe even some soul searching that it is the right thing to do to deny people joy and happiness.

I commend you on your argument bro... Even though I disagree with it, you made a VERY VALID POINT!!!:up:

FINintheMOON
02-25-2008, 11:29 PM
You don't understand the christian faith then, and maybe you shouldn't be commenting on something that you don't quite understand fully. I am a christian. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try to live my life according to God's word. That is part of that faith. It is inherent in my faith. It isn't something that I can choose to follow or not based on the whims and trends of a materialistic and progressive society.

It isn't what I believe about gay marriage. My opinion doesn't matter. What matters is what does God say about it through the bible. Whether I like or agree with the bible is irrelevant. I choose to be a christian, excersizing my free will to do so, but once a christian I don't have the choice of not following God. It can't work like that. I trust God is right, and will do the right thing. That is part of faith.

It is like you are married, but you still want to fool around with the ladies. I am sure your wife wouldn't agree with that. Your wife expects you to be faithful to her. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't matter, you made vows to her that you would behave and she expects that from you, and you her and you trust each other that you will both hold to your vows. That is how a honest trusting relationship works. It is the same with God.

God expects his followers to follow his laws. Now you can accept him or deny him. You can reject him and call him hatefull and intolerant. That is your free will.

What you can't do is tell a christian that he has a choice to follow God or not. We don't have that choice.

D7... I don't think DUP is saying that you have a choice to follow GOD or not... I think he is saying that depending on our religion we have a choice to forgive the sins of others or continue to persecute them for their sins. This has nothing to do with the belief in GOD or Jesus, it does however identify whether or not you will forgive or continue to pursecute them... THAT IS YOUR CHOICE!

Sethdaddy8
02-26-2008, 12:35 AM
That was a great west wing scene.

Dolphan7
02-26-2008, 01:22 AM
D7... I don't think DUP is saying that you have a choice to follow GOD or not... I think he is saying that depending on our religion we have a choice to forgive the sins of others or continue to persecute them for their sins. This has nothing to do with the belief in GOD or Jesus, it does however identify whether or not you will forgive or continue to pursecute them... THAT IS YOUR CHOICE!No I don't think that is what he meant. Let's let him respond.

To your point though - in Christianity it is not up to us to forgive the sins of others unless they first repent and ask for that forgiveness, and it must be a sin against us directly, then we are to forgive them. Then we have no choice. And by not forgiving (meaning they have not asked for it), that does not equate to persecution. The bible is very clear on this.



LK 17:3 " Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
LK 17:4 "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him."
This verse describes "when" to forgive.


MT 18:22 Jesus *said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
This verse describes how "often".

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-26-2008, 03:14 AM
You don't understand the christian faith then, and maybe you shouldn't be commenting on something that you don't quite understand fully. I am a christian. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I try to live my life according to God's word. That is part of that faith. It is inherent in my faith. It isn't something that I can choose to follow or not based on the whims and trends of a materialistic and progressive society.

It isn't what I believe about gay marriage. My opinion doesn't matter. What matters is what does God say about it through the bible. Whether I like or agree with the bible is irrelevant. I choose to be a christian, excersizing my free will to do so, but once a christian I don't have the choice of not following God. It can't work like that. I trust God is right, and will do the right thing. That is part of faith.

It is like you are married, but you still want to fool around with the ladies. I am sure your wife wouldn't agree with that. Your wife expects you to be faithful to her. Whether you agree with that or not doesn't matter, you made vows to her that you would behave and she expects that from you, and you her and you trust each other that you will both hold to your vows. That is how a honest trusting relationship works. It is the same with God.

God expects his followers to follow his laws. Now you can accept him or deny him. You can reject him and call him hatefull and intolerant. That is your free will.

What you can't do is tell a christian that he has a choice to follow God or not. We don't have that choice.

I don't need to understand the christian faith to understand choice. You have a choice to have a faith in God. Faith is a choice. If you have choice to have faith in God you have a choice to follow god. It is the simple transitive property. A = B, and then B = C, then A = C.

Faith in God = Choice
Faith in God = Following God

Therefore

Following God = Choice.

It is all choice.

It is like you are married. The vow you gave your wife is a choice. Your decision to keep the vow is your choice. Your responsiblity is what you do with your choices. You do not bang your secretary because you made a vow with your wife. You do not bang your secretary because of what that means to YOU and the choices you make.

Life is nothing but choices. Constant choices. Constant decisons. Constant mistakes. Constant change. It doesn't matter if you are a christain, a monk, a buddist, an athiest or an alien. Unless of course you are a Borg and please Hue doens't count for this part of the discussion.

That is the thing. It seems like people who blame god have a strong desire to give your power away. To go, "Well I don't really believe this way, however god told me so." The fact that there are so many different Christians out there, and if you are someone who believes as I do, there is a different form of Christianity for every Christian as I have had religious discussions before and I have yet to find two people with the same exact Christian God.

I may not know much about religion, yet I do know that every second of everyday is nothing but choices.

I do not reject God. I just reject the version of him that takes away personal responsibility. To me, that is one of the signs of a dangerious cult.

nuttie_buddie
02-26-2008, 12:21 PM
God gave us free will, so that would invovle choices to be made but God also gave us princilbles to follow.God doesnt force anyone to service him he wants us all to choose to service him. the would mean following the two greatest commandments of all and thats:

to love god with our whole heart mind and soul

and love(or treat) our neighbor as we do ourselfs

and if you look at those two commandments that jesus gave does it not cover the ten commandment..

Dolphan7
02-26-2008, 12:36 PM
Ok I understand where you are coming from now.



[quote=Dol-Fan Dupree;1062344650]I don't need to understand the christian faith to understand choice. You have a choice to have a faith in God. Faith is a choice. If you have choice to have faith in God you have a choice to follow god. It is the simple transitive property. A = B, and then B = C, then A = C.

Faith in God = Choice
Faith in God = Following God

Therefore

Following God = Choice.

It is all choice.
No doubt faith in God is a choice. We all have free will to choose to accept God, or not, to follow God, or not. No argument there.



It is like you are married. The vow you gave your wife is a choice. Your decision to keep the vow is your choice. Your responsiblity is what you do with your choices. You do not bang your secretary because you made a vow with your wife. You do not bang your secretary because of what that means to YOU and the choices you make.

Life is nothing but choices. Constant choices. Constant decisons. Constant mistakes. Constant change. It doesn't matter if you are a christain, a monk, a buddist, an athiest or an alien. Unless of course you are a Borg and please Hue doens't count for this part of the discussion.
No argument here either - life is nothing but choices and decisions.


That is the thing. It seems like people who blame god have a strong desire to give your power away. To go, "Well I don't really believe this way, however god told me so." The fact that there are so many different Christians out there, and if you are someone who believes as I do, there is a different form of Christianity for every Christian as I have had religious discussions before and I have yet to find two people with the same exact Christian God. There are not that many different Christians out there when it comes down to the core values of Christianity. On those core values you will find wide spread agreement. But there are those cults and offshoots that decide they have the correct version of God. Can't stop that, we live in a freedom of religion country. All I can say is buyer beware and check against the bible to find out which ones are real and which ones are not. That is another topic for another thread no doubt.




I may not know much about religion, yet I do know that every second of everyday is nothing but choices.

I do not reject God. I just reject the version of him that takes away personal responsibility. To me, that is one of the signs of a dangerious cult.
I think I know what you are trying to say here, but I could be wrong. I think you are saying that when it comes to following God, after accepting God and believing in God etc...., we have a choice to continue to follow God. No argument there. Every relationship is a choice to be committed to that relationship based on the agreement between the two parties whether that be wedding vows, employer, or a relationship with God through Jesus.

Where I disagree with you, and the bible does too, is where you think that following God takes away your personal responsibility. It sounds to me that you are accepting God, but in such and such issue you are rejecting God because it does not agree with what you call your personal responsibility, or your own personal beliefs. This is called picking and choosing what and when you will honor and follow God. It does not work that way. It does not work that way in a marriage relationship. It does not work that way in a employer/employee relationship. It does not work with God, not the God of the bible anyway.



Pr 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-26-2008, 03:37 PM
Ok I understand where you are coming from now.



Where I disagree with you, and the bible does too, is where you think that following God takes away your personal responsibility. It sounds to me that you are accepting God, but in such and such issue you are rejecting God because it does not agree with what you call your personal responsibility, or your own personal beliefs. This is called picking and choosing what and when you will honor and follow God. It does not work that way. It does not work that way in a marriage relationship. It does not work that way in a employer/employee relationship. It does not work with God, not the God of the bible anyway.


I maybe a little harsh in my posts and if I do I apologize.


I am sorry however it is always picking and choosing. It always works that way in a marriage relationship and it works that way in a employer/employee relationship as well. It is impossible to not pick and choose. We are beings of choice. Without choice we die. There is no reason for being or for living. In fact the mortality rates of old folks homes drop dramatically if they just give the people the choices of what they want for dinner.


Pr 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

With this quote you might as well ask me to find the easter bunny and give santa a wedgie. That might be lame, it is just the best examples of impossible things I could think of in five seconds. It is impossible to not "lean" towards your own understand, due to the fact that is all you know. In your heart and in your brain is your interpretations of your lords words and the people who tell them to you.

You say you get your knowledge about your lord from the Bible. Which is a book based of understandings of people who followed Jesus. Which is then translated over and over again by different translators with different understandings. Which is then read by scholars who make different understandings.

So for me reading that quote from the bible, tells me to not read the bible for that is just understanding and through prayer and openning my heart I would learn what is right.

I guess that is where we totally disagree. To me it is impossible to not have your own understandings. That no matter how you "understand" it, it is still your own. We are interpretational beings. Everything we hear is an interpretation. It is like listening to your voice on the tape. It sounds completely different than what you hear when you speak. However both vibrations of your voice are truth, even though they sound completely different. I get from what you are saying there is a way to just know without interpretation. Other than meditation/prayer I do not see how that is even possible. If that is what you are talking about, then God told us completely different things.

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-26-2008, 03:40 PM
God gave us free will, so that would invovle choices to be made but God also gave us princilbles to follow.God doesnt force anyone to service him he wants us all to choose to service him. the would mean following the two greatest commandments of all and thats:

to love god with our whole heart mind and soul

and love(or treat) our neighbor as we do ourselfs

and if you look at those two commandments that jesus gave does it not cover the ten commandment..

yea I also heard that jesus said, "You can do anything I can do and more" or something like that.

Honestly sometimes I feel is that people tend to try to live too much like a Christian instead of Christ-like. That is just my opinion overall.

Dolphan7
02-26-2008, 05:25 PM
I maybe a little harsh in my posts and if I do I apologize.


I am sorry however it is always picking and choosing. It always works that way in a marriage relationship and it works that way in a employer/employee relationship as well. It is impossible to not pick and choose. We are beings of choice. Without choice we die. There is no reason for being or for living. In fact the mortality rates of old folks homes drop dramatically if they just give the people the choices of what they want for dinner.



With this quote you might as well ask me to find the easter bunny and give santa a wedgie. That might be lame, it is just the best examples of impossible things I could think of in five seconds. It is impossible to not "lean" towards your own understand, due to the fact that is all you know. In your heart and in your brain is your interpretations of your lords words and the people who tell them to you.

You say you get your knowledge about your lord from the Bible. Which is a book based of understandings of people who followed Jesus. Which is then translated over and over again by different translators with different understandings. Which is then read by scholars who make different understandings.

So for me reading that quote from the bible, tells me to not read the bible for that is just understanding and through prayer and openning my heart I would learn what is right.

I guess that is where we totally disagree. To me it is impossible to not have your own understandings. That no matter how you "understand" it, it is still your own. We are interpretational beings. Everything we hear is an interpretation. It is like listening to your voice on the tape. It sounds completely different than what you hear when you speak. However both vibrations of your voice are truth, even though they sound completely different. I get from what you are saying there is a way to just know without interpretation. Other than meditation/prayer I do not see how that is even possible. If that is what you are talking about, then God told us completely different things.I see the source of the problem. You don't believe in the bible. Gotcha - now I understand your posts.

With nothing else available to learn about God and Jesus, you are left with your own understanding. Unfortunately it isn't something that is up to individual interpretation - that would be existentialism. That just leads to moral relativism and once that happens we have no basis for determining right and wrong.

You say the bible has been interpreted, translated over and over and each time has been altered and changed based on the individual (s) doing the interpreting, translating etc...so that it cannot be trusted as a source document. How do you know this? It is obvious that there is no way for you to know this personally. So you must be basing your reasoning on what "others" have concluded. Which extneds the same question to them - how do they know? etc....

Here is what we do know.


The OT was completed 400 years before Jesus time on earth. The process for copying the OT was very strict and controlled.



1. A Synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals.

2. They must be prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew.

3. These must be fastened together with strings from clean animals.

4. Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex.

5. The length of each column must not extend less than 48 or more than 60 lines, and the breadth must consist of 30 letters.

6. The whole copy must be first lined; and if three words were written without a line, it is worthless.

7. The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe.

8. An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least to deviate.

9. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him.

10. Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene.

11. Between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants.

12. Between every book, three lines.

13. The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so.

14. Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress.

15. Wash his whole body.

16. Not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink.

17. And should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him.

Manuscripts not copied following these rules were immediately burned. This method of copying was so stringent, manuscripts were given equal authority with the original immediately.


The testament to the accuracy of this quality control process was in 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These copies of the OT were dated 1000 years before the oldest manuscripts known to exist at that time. And the accuracy was 99.9% pure, and the errors noted were not contextual, but were things like punctuation and letter spacing. Amazing accuracy.



The NT was written by the Apostles, who were eyewitness to Jesus, as in Matthew and John and Paul, or one of the companions to the Apostles, as in Luke and Mark, or one of his relatives like James or Jude. So every NT author either had first hand knowledge or learned from one who had first hand knowledge. The NT was completed in the first century, most of it before AD65. This is key because the eyewitnesses were still alive at that time. If there was any funny copy business going on one could easily confirm it with the ones who were there as eyewitnesses! Not only that but people were encouraged to seek out these eyewitnesses for confirmation of the Gospel message they they were hearing. Based on this, and the fact that there are over 27,000 copies of the NT manuscripts, there is no doubt that what was recorded then is what we have now. Bible Scholars agree with this. The ones who don't are obviously not religious and/or have an agenda to discredit the bible. Be careful who you listen to.


Let me give you a real world example of why we beleive the NT accuracy.


In WWII we witnessed the terrible reality of the Holocaust. We have eyewitnesses, pictures, movies, documents etc....But the leader or IRan wants us to believe that it didn't happen. So we go back to the source of our info, the eyewitnesses, photos etc.... and we can confirm that it indeed did happen and this guy is kookoo.


Same back then, although they obviously didn't have the technology of film. but they did have people, and parchment.


Now we know that people will die for something they believe in. That we know. But people don't die for something that they know for a fact is false.


11 of the 12 Apostles died for their belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That in and of itself is an amazing testamant to the historocity and accuracy and truth of the Gospels.

Pagan
02-26-2008, 06:26 PM
11 of the 12 Apostles died for their belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That in and of itself is an amazing testamant to the historocity and accuracy and truth of the Gospels.
I can see what you're trying to say, but this statement is poor at best.

Hitler's generals died for their belief in him. Doesn't mean what he was preaching was truth.

Dol-Fan Dupree
02-26-2008, 06:27 PM
I see the source of the problem. You don't believe in the bible. Gotcha - now I understand your posts.

With nothing else available to learn about God and Jesus, you are left with your own understanding. Unfortunately it isn't something that is up to individual interpretation - that would be existentialism. That just leads to moral relativism and once that happens we have no basis for determining right and wrong.

You say the bible has been interpreted, translated over and over and each time has been altered and changed based on the individual (s) doing the interpreting, translating etc...so that it cannot be trusted as a source document. How do you know this? It is obvious that there is no way for you to know this personally. So you must be basing your reasoning on what "others" have concluded. Which extneds the same question to them - how do they know? etc....

Here is what we do know.


The OT was completed 400 years before Jesus time on earth. The process for copying the OT was very strict and controlled.
The testament to the accuracy of this quality control process was in 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These copies of the OT were dated 1000 years before the oldest manuscripts known to exist at that time. And the accuracy was 99.9% pure, and the errors noted were not contextual, but were things like punctuation and letter spacing. Amazing accuracy.



The NT was written by the Apostles, who were eyewitness to Jesus, as in Matthew and John and Paul, or one of the companions to the Apostles, as in Luke and Mark, or one of his relatives like James or Jude. So every NT author either had first hand knowledge or learned from one who had first hand knowledge. The NT was completed in the first century, most of it before AD65. This is key because the eyewitnesses were still alive at that time. If there was any funny copy business going on one could easily confirm it with the ones who were there as eyewitnesses! Not only that but people were encouraged to seek out these eyewitnesses for confirmation of the Gospel message they they were hearing. Based on this, and the fact that there are over 27,000 copies of the NT manuscripts, there is no doubt that what was recorded then is what we have now. Bible Scholars agree with this. The ones who don't are obviously not religious and/or have an agenda to discredit the bible. Be careful who you listen to.


Let me give you a real world example of why we beleive the NT accuracy.


In WWII we witnessed the terrible reality of the Holocaust. We have eyewitnesses, pictures, movies, documents etc....But the leader or IRan wants us to believe that it didn't happen. So we go back to the source of our info, the eyewitnesses, photos etc.... and we can confirm that it indeed did happen and this guy is kookoo.


Same back then, although they obviously didn't have the technology of film. but they did have people, and parchment.


Now we know that people will die for something they believe in. That we know. But people don't die for something that they know for a fact is false.


11 of the 12 Apostles died for their belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That in and of itself is an amazing testamant to the historocity and accuracy and truth of the Gospels.

It is not that I do not believe in the Bible it is that I do not believe that there can only be on interpretation of the bible. If there was ONE christian faith with ONE set rules then yes, I would see that you have an excellent point. However there are many, including the amount of non demoninational christians that I have met in my life with each having their own rules and bylaws that they go by. Some say homosexuality is wrong, some say homosexuality is right, hell I see little difference with the homosexuality with the bible being used to justfiy slavery of the blacks.

I know this because there are different versions of the bible and the bible isn't written in english. I also know that ancient words tend to be misintepreted or even have a meaning that means something else then what we think it means. I have heard many different translations of the word sin from it being a horrible thing that makes us evil to being just missing the mark.

A beautiful example of this is a version of Star Wars that I watched. It basically was one of the funniest things I have ever read. It was a copy of the third movie (sixth movie by our times) that was translated from our language to another language and then used a direct translation to translate it back into english. It was very far from what the movie actually was to the point of being laughable. I still chuckle thinking of Vader yelling "I DO NOT WANT!!!" at the end of the movie.

It is also not the bible. Two people watch the same movie and come out with totally different interpretations. This happened to me watching Schilder's List. I got into a huge arguement because I saw this movie as an amazing story of the human spirit and others saw it as a movie that showed the horrors of the Holocaust. The thing is, which one is correct? The answer to that is both of them are totally correct and both of them are completely wrong.

Also the thing about eyewitnesses is that is also an interpretation. Even if they were flooded with Jesus's teachings and lived with him for 100 years, they are still looking at Jesus and what he did with their eyes, listening to it with their ears, which is going through their brain and having their ideas of what they think Jesus meant.

Hell in modern time eye witness accounts are exactly 100%

Plus if you want to go by dying for what you believe in, so did the hijackers in 9/11.

Even without that example there are many examples of many people who write many religious texts and live for a religious teaching about God.

I guess my personal view is this. The main mistakes Christians make is the belief that the Bible is the only way to get to god. It in my opinion is a sense of hubris. I do not understand how such a complex being has such a narrow small view on how to follow him. I have had many conversations with Christians about it and I do not believe there can be an explaination that makes a lick of sense, especially if they use the Bible. I guess it is the catch 22 of the situation. I believe the Bible is one of many ways to get close to god. You believe it is the only.

We both won't know for sure until we die. I do know that if I am right everyone is happy. If you are right, then only a few are going to be enjoying themselves.

Dolphan7
02-26-2008, 08:24 PM
It is not that I do not believe in the Bible it is that I do not believe that there can only be on interpretation of the bible. If there was ONE christian faith with ONE set rules then yes, I would see that you have an excellent point. However there are many, including the amount of non demoninational christians that I have met in my life with each having their own rules and bylaws that they go by. Some say homosexuality is wrong, some say homosexuality is right, hell I see little difference with the homosexuality with the bible being used to justfiy slavery of the blacks.
I know this because there are different versions of the bible and the bible isn't written in english. I also know that ancient words tend to be misintepreted or even have a meaning that means something else then what we think it means. I have heard many different translations of the word sin from it being a horrible thing that makes us evil to being just missing the mark.
There is only one Christian Faith. Now we do have different branches or denominations that practice this faith in different ways , but there is still only one Christian Faith. Every Branch or denomination must hold to the core beliefs of Christianity. Otherwise they are not considered Christian. Take for instance the NFL. There is only one NFL. But we have 32 teams that run similar but different football schemes in a game. But they all follow the same core rules of the sport. Yet each is unique. But they are all NFL teams.

Within Christianity we have essential beliefs, meaning matters of salvation. For instance Christianity believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is part of the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That he died on the cross and was resurrected in three days and appeared to many before he ascended to heaven. His death burial and resurrection signify the ultimate perfect sacrifice for all our sins so that we now can re-connect with God after being seperated from him since the fall. Jesus is the only way to heaven and accepting him as our savior assures us of our salvation. He is the bridge. There is little wiggle room on the core values of Chistianity.

Now there are also non-essential beliefs that various Christian groups practice, for instance some claim worship on Saturday is a must. Others claim to certain dietary restrictions. Still others say music in church is forbidden, while others rock out (like in my church). These are not issues of salvation. There is freedom on the non-essentials.

Now the concept of what is a sin is an interesting one. We are all sinners. There is no excpetion to this. No matter how moral we feel we are, all have fell short of the glory of God. Even the smallest of sins seperates us from God. So the issue of homosexuality as a sin is really a moot point because the homosexual is still a sinner no matter if he is gay or straight. He still requires the blood of Jesus to cover whatever his sins are.The same for him as it is for me, and you.


A beautiful example of this is a version of Star Wars that I watched. It basically was one of the funniest things I have ever read. It was a copy of the third movie (sixth movie by our times) that was translated from our language to another language and then used a direct translation to translate it back into english. It was very far from what the movie actually was to the point of being laughable. I still chuckle thinking of Vader yelling "I DO NOT WANT!!!" at the end of the movie. Well I can assure you that bible translators take precise care in translating the bible into different languages. Much more care than a meaningless hollywood movie.


It is also not the bible. Two people watch the same movie and come out with totally different interpretations. This happened to me watching Schilder's List. I got into a huge arguement because I saw this movie as an amazing story of the human spirit and others saw it as a movie that showed the horrors of the Holocaust. The thing is, which one is correct? The answer to that is both of them are totally correct and both of them are completely wrong.They would be both correct. There is different viewpoints between the four Gospels as well, but they all are recording the same event.


Also the thing about eyewitnesses is that is also an interpretation. Even if they were flooded with Jesus's teachings and lived with him for 100 years, they are still looking at Jesus and what he did with their eyes, listening to it with their ears, which is going through their brain and having their ideas of what they think Jesus meant. And you also forget that they all had each other to help remember and complete the story. I can understand if it was one guy, but there were dozens of authors all helping each other.


Hell in modern time eye witness accounts are exactly 100%
Did you mean to say "aren't"?

Plus if you want to go by dying for what you believe in, so did the hijackers in 9/11. The point wasn't that they died for what they believe in, although that is a strong testimony even for the hijackers. The argument has been made that Jesus never existed, miracles didn't happen, and the apostles basically made all this up etc....and so the response is that these men would not die for something they knew to be false. Every one of them but one died a horrible death.



Even without that example there are many examples of many people who write many religious texts and live for a religious teaching about God.

I guess my personal view is this. The main mistakes Christians make is the belief that the Bible is the only way to get to god. It in my opinion is a sense of hubris. I do not understand how such a complex being has such a narrow small view on how to follow him. I have had many conversations with Christians about it and I do not believe there can be an explaination that makes a lick of sense, especially if they use the Bible. I guess it is the catch 22 of the situation. I believe the Bible is one of many ways to get close to god. You believe it is the only.
That is what is called universalism - all paths lead to God. While you may believe in that, as many do, it doesn't fly. You are telling me that terrorists who think they are getting 72 virgins by committing genocide/suicide will be in heaven with you. Universalism doesn't work. All religions reflect differing attributes about God. They are either all wrong, or only one is right, but they all can't be right.





We both won't know for sure until we die. I do know that if I am right everyone is happy. If you are right, then only a few are going to be enjoying themselves.Hey speak for yourself. I know without a doubt where I will be when I die. No question. If you don't know for sure, I hope and pray that you live a long enough life to find the answer.

ih8brady
02-27-2008, 02:47 AM
No, I don't think I am. Those who are opposed to God's Law don't want Him to have any part in their life. They want Him out of the Government, Out of the Schools and Out of their lives.


In America we have a secular government and religious freedom: I'm not a Christian, so I don't have to have Christianity in my life if I don't want to or in government operations.



Pull a coin out of your pocket. What does it say? "In God we trust".

When did that get started? The 1950s during the climate of McCarthy's Red Scare. Not during the times of the founding fathers.

ps check out the new bronze $1


You can't stand the fact that the forefathers were Christians.


I said it once, I'll say it again: many of the founding fathers were Christians, but they believed in a secular government.



You can't stand the fact that God has his fingerprints all over this nation. You can't stand God.
Deny Him...He will deny you. Get out of My sight, I never knew you"...that's what Christ is going to say to those who deny Him.

I am an atheist and if you want to act hysterical about it, fine. But if you're going to take the bible literally, can I recommend a passage? 2 Corinthians 6:14


nice chatting with you, bro! :up::hi5::beer1:

Stitches
02-27-2008, 11:08 AM
There is only one Christian Faith. Now we do have different branches or denominations that practice this faith in different ways , but there is still only one Christian Faith. Every Branch or denomination must hold to the core beliefs of Christianity. Otherwise they are not considered Christian. Take for instance the NFL. There is only one NFL. But we have 32 teams that run similar but different football schemes in a game. But they all follow the same core rules of the sport. Yet each is unique. But they are all NFL teams.

Within Christianity we have essential beliefs, meaning matters of salvation. For instance Christianity believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is part of the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That he died on the cross and was resurrected in three days and appeared to many before he ascended to heaven. His death burial and resurrection signify the ultimate perfect sacrifice for all our sins so that we now can re-connect with God after being seperated from him since the fall. Jesus is the only way to heaven and accepting him as our savior assures us of our salvation. He is the bridge. There is little wiggle room on the core values of Chistianity.

Now there are also non-essential beliefs that various Christian groups practice, for instance some claim worship on Saturday is a must. Others claim to certain dietary restrictions. Still others say music in church is forbidden, while others rock out (like in my church). These are not issues of salvation. There is freedom on the non-essentials.

Now the concept of what is a sin is an interesting one. We are all sinners. There is no excpetion to this. No matter how moral we feel we are, all have fell short of the glory of God. Even the smallest of sins seperates us from God. So the issue of homosexuality as a sin is really a moot point because the homosexual is still a sinner no matter if he is gay or straight. He still requires the blood of Jesus to cover whatever his sins are.The same for him as it is for me, and you.

Well I can assure you that bible translators take precise care in translating the bible into different languages. Much more care than a meaningless hollywood movie.

They would be both correct. There is different viewpoints between the four Gospels as well, but they all are recording the same event.

And you also forget that they all had each other to help remember and complete the story. I can understand if it was one guy, but there were dozens of authors all helping each other.


Did you mean to say "aren't"?
The point wasn't that they died for what they believe in, although that is a strong testimony even for the hijackers. The argument has been made that Jesus never existed, miracles didn't happen, and the apostles basically made all this up etc....and so the response is that these men would not die for something they knew to be false. Every one of them but one died a horrible death.

That is what is called universalism - all paths lead to God. While you may believe in that, as many do, it doesn't fly. You are telling me that terrorists who think they are getting 72 virgins by committing genocide/suicide will be in heaven with you. Universalism doesn't work. All religions reflect differing attributes about God. They are either all wrong, or only one is right, but they all can't be right.


Hey speak for yourself. I know without a doubt where I will be when I die. No question. If you don't know for sure, I hope and pray that you live a long enough life to find the answer.

How can you be so sure?

You weren't present at either one. You can't "assure" anyone of anything. You can only believe that more care is taken in the regards to the thing you hold more sacred. And to many people, that isn't some meaningless hollywood movie.

Dolphan7
02-27-2008, 12:38 PM
How can you be so sure?

You weren't present at either one. You can't "assure" anyone of anything. You can only believe that more care is taken in the regards to the thing you hold more sacred. And to many people, that isn't some meaningless hollywood movie.

It isn't easy to translate into various languages. Serious translators take great measures to make sure they get it right.

I can assure you that great care is taken in translating such an important work as the bible.

I have already demonstrated that the copying process of the Old and New Testament has proven to be sound.

What we have today is what they had back then.

I think that anyone who says they don't believe in the bible because they don't "feel" that it has been translated properly, really hasn't done their homework. I also believe that people who feel this way are not interested in doing that homework, but instead just sounding off against Christianity. That has been my experience anyway - if that isn't you I apologize.

Stitches
02-27-2008, 02:22 PM
It isn't easy to translate into various languages. Serious translators take great measures to make sure they get it right.

I can assure you that great care is taken in translating such an important work as the bible.

I have already demonstrated that the copying process of the Old and New Testament has proven to be sound.

What we have today is what they had back then.

I think that anyone who says they don't believe in the bible because they don't "feel" that it has been translated properly, really hasn't done their homework. I also believe that people who feel this way are not interested in doing that homework, but instead just sounding off against Christianity. That has been my experience anyway - if that isn't you I apologize.

I don't believe in the bible, but not just because I feel it has been translated improperly. I'm sure it was translated as closely as they could get it each time, but that doesn't mean the interpretation holds the same meaning each time.

Like if I say "boy, I sure could go for a *** right now."

While I may be talking about a cigarette, someone might read and interpret that differently.

And again, you can't really prove that the bible was translated any more accurately than the Star Wars: Episode III that Dupree brought up. Something is always lost in translation, even if not intentional. Always.

Dolphan7
02-27-2008, 02:54 PM
I don't believe in the bible, but not just because I feel it has been translated improperly. I'm sure it was translated as closely as they could get it each time, but that doesn't mean the interpretation holds the same meaning each time.

Like if I say "boy, I sure could go for a *** right now."

While I may be talking about a cigarette, someone might read and interpret that differently.

And again, you can't really prove that the bible was translated any more accurately than the Star Wars: Episode III that Dupree brought up. Something is always lost in translation, even if not intentional. Always.You have no idea how the bible is translated do you? This is what I mean by not doing your homework. More than likely you are basing your opinion on what you have heard, not what you have researched and learned for your self. I doubt you have done any serious study on the subject you are making such bold claims about.


I used to be an atheist too. I can prove to you many things about my journey, but would it really matter? Would you ever be open to things of a spiritual nature?

Stitches
02-27-2008, 03:40 PM
You have no idea how the bible is translated do you? This is what I mean by not doing your homework. More than likely you are basing your opinion on what you have heard, not what you have researched and learned for your self. I doubt you have done any serious study on the subject you are making such bold claims about.


I used to be an atheist too. I can prove to you many things about my journey, but would it really matter? Would you ever be open to things of a spiritual nature?

What bold claims?

I don't think anything I claimed was bold. All i said was there is no way for you to prove that the bible was translated more accurately then SW: E-III.

The meanings of certain words change over time, and similar words have different meanings in different languages. How is that a bold concept or claim?

Now if I were to try and "attack" the bible by saying you can't believe those "first hand" accounts because you never see everything as clearly your mind thinks you do, and you never manage to see everything that is there to be seen either. That is much more "bold" than anything I have said so far, and still not that bold of a claim IMO.

DolfinDave
02-27-2008, 04:54 PM
Just take the word liberal. This was a word that until recently described the philosophy our country was founded upon. Now its a derrogatory word for people who are left of center in today's politics. Many people despise others they think are liberals. But in fact all Americans are liberals in the way the word used to mean.

I'm no Bible scholar so I can't give you specifics. But I think Stitches has a point. And even if he doesn't this was a book that was written 2000 years ago. The basic messages are great no matter how long ago you are talking about. But when you start getting into specifics of how things were back then you start to tread shaky ground even if you have the most nobel of intentions. I've been reading a lot about America's founding generation. That was about 200 years ago and even then things aren't as clear as you would like.

Pagan
02-28-2008, 08:17 AM
It's amusing - now that D7 has obviously blocked or is just ignoring me - to actually just sit back and watch others attempt to speak reason.

Break out the popcorn! :lol:

Dolphan7
02-28-2008, 11:50 AM
I am not going to post to this site until the servers are fixed. Frustrating!

SCall13
02-29-2008, 01:50 PM
After reading this thread, the thing that concerns me most is that not many of you seem to understand that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same Word of the same God. How many times did Jesus quote from the Old Testament? Hundreds.
Seeing as how the Old Testament spoke of Christ hundreds of times and Christ was the Living Word, and He came in the volume of the Book...It's all the same Word from the same God.
Do you think God changes His mind? No, His Law is as good today as it was when it was given to Moses.
People can try to twist it to fit them, but it won't fly.

That filmclip is so idiotically wrong scripturally and in context, but it served the hollywood message very well that homosexuality should be accepted and the Law of the Bible and the God of the Bible is very bad. It served the purpose of trying to make it look as if God and His Law had been "put in its place" by an "open minded" progressive.


You ask, what is wrong with homosexuality aside from the fact that God doesn't like it? I will tell you. God is very natural. He created nature. Homosexuality is not "natural" and therefore is a perverted act.
As a Christian, I will not tell you to not do something, but please, please stop trying to twist God's Word into fitting your lifestyle and stop trying to change Christianity to accomodate it.
And you Christians that are weak in the Word, please stop trying to justify it with "Jesus would say it's alright". Jesus was the Father born into flesh and walking amongst us. Don't try to seperate the Old from the New. It is the same. "A virgin shall conceive and you shall call Him Emanuel, which means God with Us". And Hebrews 2:14 tells us this same thing that God Himself was born into the flesh: Hbr 2:14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Are we to judge? No. Only God is judge, and He is THE judge.

Are we to allow God's word to be warped to fit the needs of a small group of people to be politically correct? You better not.
God loves you, He may not like what you are doing, but He does love you. But on the same hand, those that try to change His Word will answer for it. But it's your ship, you sail it the way you see fit....

Right on.


Revelations 22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


Revelations 22:19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

DolfinDave
02-29-2008, 04:14 PM
If the tv show clip is so stupid address why its wrong. Why shouldn't we stone adulterers or sell our daughters into slavery or touch the dead skin of a pig? Why aren't we abiding by those laws anymore (setting aside the fact we have a secular gov't for a second)?

Dolphan7
03-02-2008, 11:50 PM
If the tv show clip is so stupid address why its wrong. Why shouldn't we stone adulterers or sell our daughters into slavery or touch the dead skin of a pig? Why aren't we abiding by those laws anymore (setting aside the fact we have a secular gov't for a second)?Are you really interested in the answer?

Dolphan7
03-03-2008, 12:09 AM
What bold claims?

I don't think anything I claimed was bold. All i said was there is no way for you to prove that the bible was translated more accurately then SW: E-III.

The meanings of certain words change over time, and similar words have different meanings in different languages. How is that a bold concept or claim?

Now if I were to try and "attack" the bible by saying you can't believe those "first hand" accounts because you never see everything as clearly your mind thinks you do, and you never manage to see everything that is there to be seen either. That is much more "bold" than anything I have said so far, and still not that bold of a claim IMO.
You are correct - there is no way I can compare the accuracy of the bible against the SWEIII into said language - Simply because I have no statistics for SWEIII stating how acurate their translation is.

What we do know is that the bible is 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% represent spelling and punctuation and does not effect meaning or content.

I stated that the bible translators take great care in their work, more care than translating a hollywood movie into spanish. I stand by that statement.

DolfinDave
03-03-2008, 05:11 AM
Are you really interested in the answer?

The point of the thing is to ask why are some things seen as so obviously right to keep as law and some aren't. That's the answer I am interested in.

Dolphan7
03-03-2008, 11:40 AM
The point of the thing is to ask why are some things seen as so obviously right to keep as law and some aren't. That's the answer I am interested in.The OT laws are categorized into three areas.
1. Moral Laws - like the Ten Commandments.

2. Civic Laws - Like how to run a country/nation.

3. Religious Laws - specifically worship and the strict guidelines in running and administering the Jewish Temple.

Now Judaism was the religion of the Jews until the time of Christ and followed all three areas of OT Law. Jesus was the Messiah and fulfulled the OT prophesies about him. This created the new covenant in Him and started what we call Christianity.

Now the Jews still follow Judasim today, or as much as they can without the Temple, which was destroyed in 70 AD.

But Christians follow Jesus. Christianity is open to all peoples, all over the world, in every country.

Therefore there is no need to follow the religious laws because that died in Jesus time.

There is no need to follow the civic laws because that only applied to the Jewish Nation.

What we are left with is the moral laws, which Jesus quoted from and preached on regularly.

This is just off the top of my head. I hope this helped answer your question.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-03-2008, 01:33 PM
There is only one Christian Faith. Now we do have different branches or denominations that practice this faith in different ways , but there is still only one Christian Faith. Every Branch or denomination must hold to the core beliefs of Christianity. Otherwise they are not considered Christian. Take for instance the NFL. There is only one NFL. But we have 32 teams that run similar but different football schemes in a game. But they all follow the same core rules of the sport. Yet each is unique. But they are all NFL teams.

Within Christianity we have essential beliefs, meaning matters of salvation. For instance Christianity believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is part of the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That he died on the cross and was resurrected in three days and appeared to many before he ascended to heaven. His death burial and resurrection signify the ultimate perfect sacrifice for all our sins so that we now can re-connect with God after being seperated from him since the fall. Jesus is the only way to heaven and accepting him as our savior assures us of our salvation. He is the bridge. There is little wiggle room on the core values of Chistianity.

Now there are also non-essential beliefs that various Christian groups practice, for instance some claim worship on Saturday is a must. Others claim to certain dietary restrictions. Still others say music in church is forbidden, while others rock out (like in my church). These are not issues of salvation. There is freedom on the non-essentials.

Some accept homosexuality and use the bible as a reference. Some think you are going to hell if you eat a shrimp. I spoke with many of them over my lifetime. They all seem very different. They all have the whole Jesus is the only way to heaven. It is how following Jesus and what you can actually do or not that will get you to heaven.


Now the concept of what is a sin is an interesting one. We are all sinners. There is no excpetion to this. No matter how moral we feel we are, all have fell short of the glory of God. Even the smallest of sins seperates us from God. So the issue of homosexuality as a sin is really a moot point because the homosexual is still a sinner no matter if he is gay or straight. He still requires the blood of Jesus to cover whatever his sins are.The same for him as it is for me, and you.

Then why are we here? That does not make sense to me. It seems to me, sinning is the reason why we are here. Why would souls leave the glory of heaven to come down to a sinful place and risk non existance or hell. Unless you believe that souls just pop into existance.


Well I can assure you that bible translators take precise care in translating the bible into different languages. Much more care than a meaningless hollywood movie.

It doesn't matter the precise care that they take if the language is dead. It is still a guessing game. Maybe a educated guessing game, but a guessing game none the less.


They would be both correct. There is different viewpoints between the four Gospels as well, but they all are recording the same event.

And you also forget that they all had each other to help remember and complete the story. I can understand if it was one guy, but there were dozens of authors all helping each other.

They would all have the same vibrational translation problem. It is still not a direct word of God. It is a word of God being translated by many different people into one book. Which is many books and some books do not even make it into the big book. Well that also depends on which version of the Bible you read.


Did you mean to say "aren't"?

I did. We are all humans. We will always make mistakes.


The point wasn't that they died for what they believe in, although that is a strong testimony even for the hijackers. The argument has been made that Jesus never existed, miracles didn't happen, and the apostles basically made all this up etc....and so the response is that these men would not die for something they knew to be false. Every one of them but one died a horrible death.

Millions of "witches" died horrible deaths for what they believed in. Even if it was just healing the sick with "potions". I guess those miricles happened and the faires do exist.

honestly speaking, if I was of the idea that they were just 12 whack jobs, the 12 whack jobs dying horrible deaths would not sway me. I have seen whack jobs die horrible deaths for things I have no idea could be true. Hell Mormanism has a lot of horrible deaths including John Smith.


That is what is called universalism - all paths lead to God. While you may believe in that, as many do, it doesn't fly. You are telling me that terrorists who think they are getting 72 virgins by committing genocide/suicide will be in heaven with you. Universalism doesn't work. All religions reflect differing attributes about God. They are either all wrong, or only one is right, but they all can't be right.

That is if you have a narrow viewpoint on God and believe that man can have a full understanding of what God is. Also one would also have to believe in Divine Justice, which is something I do not believe in as it doesn't make sense well at all.

And all honesty I do not see very much difference between the terrorists and you condemming homosexuality. In fact if this conversation was possible 100 years ago, you could be telling me why you are voting for Slavery of the Blacks in America with the same exact arguement.


Hey speak for yourself. I know without a doubt where I will be when I die. No question. If you don't know for sure, I hope and pray that you live a long enough life to find the answer.

You say that, however there are many different people who know without a doubt, who pray. Some are right, some are wrong, yet just like you they do not have a doubt where they will be.

The only thing I do know without a doubt is that I am already there.

Dolphan7
03-03-2008, 04:14 PM
Some accept homosexuality and use the bible as a reference. Some think you are going to hell if you eat a shrimp. I spoke with many of them over my lifetime. They all seem very different. They all have the whole Jesus is the only way to heaven. It is how following Jesus and what you can actually do or not that will get you to heaven. But the bible only has one meaning, one truth when it comes to homosexuality, or eating food, using your two examples. It cannot mean two different things. It cannot mean one thing to this group, and another opposite meaning to another group. Many have sought to make the bible say what they personally believe, regardless if the bible agrees with them or not.

One viewpoint or the other fail under closer scrutiny. I would welcome a debate with anyone that says that the bible considers homosexuality is not a sin. I would also welcome the debate that what we eat is all that important to ones salvation.






Then why are we here? That does not make sense to me. It seems to me, sinning is the reason why we are here. Why would souls leave the glory of heaven to come down to a sinful place and risk non existance or hell. Unless you believe that souls just pop into existance. Why would souls come down from heaven to a sinful place and risk hell? That is a great question. We would have to ask Satan and his minions that question. Becasue that is exactly what he did, and many followed him. But they didn't leave heaven to come to a sinful earth. They sinned, were banned from heaven and ended up on earth, which to that point was not sinful. We were/are created beings in the image of God. We were created by God. We were created to have fellowship with God. We were also given the exact same free will that Satan and his demons were given. We see what they chose. And we also see what man chose. Adam and Eve chose to sin over obeying God. Plain and simple according to the bible.





It doesn't matter the precise care that they take if the language is dead. It is still a guessing game. Maybe a educated guessing game, but a guessing game none the less.
Language that is not spoken any longer does not exclude it from being translated properly. We know what the language is. If we wanted to start speaking it again today we could, we know that much about it.





They would all have the same vibrational translation problem. It is still not a direct word of God. It is a word of God being translated by many different people into one book. Which is many books and some books do not even make it into the big book. Well that also depends on which version of the Bible you read.
This just points more to the existance of God more than anything - the fact that:



The Bible took about 1600 years to write. . It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout.
i. It was written on three continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe.
ii. It was written by a variety of people: prophets, priest, cupbearer, a king, judges, fishermen, etc.

Left alone man would not have been able to create such a book that speaks to hundreds of issues yet with harmony and consistancy. There is no way these writers could have collaborated with each other without the use of a time machine. Indeed God had his hand in it, selecting certain men to handle the word of God.



I did. We are all humans. We will always make mistakes. Which again points to a designer, a creator who is overseeing the work.








Millions of "witches" died horrible deaths for what they believed in. Even if it was just healing the sick with "potions". I guess those miricles happened and the faires do exist.

honestly speaking, if I was of the idea that they were just 12 whack jobs, the 12 whack jobs dying horrible deaths would not sway me. I have seen whack jobs die horrible deaths for things I have no idea could be true. Hell Mormanism has a lot of horrible deaths including John Smith.

You are still not getting it. People dying for what they believe in isn't the point. We know this happens. But people don't die a horrible death for something that "they" know is false. It doesn't matter what we think, but what they thought.





That is if you have a narrow viewpoint on God and believe that man can have a full understanding of what God is. Also one would also have to believe in Divine Justice, which is something I do not believe in as it doesn't make sense well at all. The finite mind of man cannot fully comprehend the infinite mind of God. All we have is the bible, our own personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and the world we can see, touch, smell, hear and taste. God makes himself evident in the physical world, the spiritual world and the written word.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it can't be true. You don't believe in Divine Justice because you don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to you, so you reject it. That doean't mean it doesn't exist. This is existentialism again.



And all honesty I do not see very much difference between the terrorists and you condemming homosexuality. In fact if this conversation was possible 100 years ago, you could be telling me why you are voting for Slavery of the Blacks in America with the same exact arguement. First off I don't condemn homosexuality, the bible does. The bible calls it a sin. It doesn't matter what I think.

Calling a behavior a sin verses killing innocent people. Huge difference. I hope I have helped you see the difference. If you still feel that they are equal then maybe we shoudn't discuss this anymore.






You say that, however there are many different people who know without a doubt, who pray. Some are right, some are wrong, yet just like you they do not have a doubt where they will be.

The issue isn't them, it is you. If you are not sure, then I hope and pray that you live a long and prosperous life, long enough to find the truth.



The only thing I do know without a doubt is that I am already there. Ummm........ where exactly is "there"?

DolfinDave
03-03-2008, 04:48 PM
The OT laws are categorized into three areas.
1. Moral Laws - like the Ten Commandments.

2. Civic Laws - Like how to run a country/nation.

3. Religious Laws - specifically worship and the strict guidelines in running and administering the Jewish Temple.

Now Judaism was the religion of the Jews until the time of Christ and followed all three areas of OT Law. Jesus was the Messiah and fulfulled the OT prophesies about him. This created the new covenant in Him and started what we call Christianity.

Now the Jews still follow Judasim today, or as much as they can without the Temple, which was destroyed in 70 AD.

But Christians follow Jesus. Christianity is open to all peoples, all over the world, in every country.

Therefore there is no need to follow the religious laws because that died in Jesus time.

There is no need to follow the civic laws because that only applied to the Jewish Nation.

What we are left with is the moral laws, which Jesus quoted from and preached on regularly.

This is just off the top of my head. I hope this helped answer your question.

It kind of answers it. Let me see if I can clarify some of my confusion. For some reason I either don't remember this from my 12 years of Catholic schooling or they never taught it to me.

Are you essentially saying that what Jesus quoted from and taught are the only things Christians are or should be concerned with?

Frankly that is how I always (and still) view it. Like in the Catholic mass you get a reading from the OT first. I forget if the second reading if from only the NT or not. But after that you get a reading from the Gospels. The OT passage is usually related to through the Gospel passage and however else the priest chooses. Its like Jesus is clarifying/shedding new light on some of the OT stuff and giving you some new stuff. Is that what you are saying?

Dolphan7
03-03-2008, 09:13 PM
It kind of answers it. Let me see if I can clarify some of my confusion. For some reason I either don't remember this from my 12 years of Catholic schooling or they never taught it to me. My guess is they didn't teach it.



Are you essentially saying that what Jesus quoted from and taught are the only things Christians are or should be concerned with?
No that is not what I am saying. Jesus couldn't have covered the whole OT, but he did cover some of it.But the important thing is that He fullfilled the OT. The OT pointed toward the Messiah, the Savior. Jesus was the Messiah. He completed the OT. The OT covenant expired when Jesus died, was resurrected after 3 days. He became the New Testament, the New Covenant of Grace.


Frankly that is how I always (and still) view it. Like in the Catholic mass you get a reading from the OT first. I forget if the second reading if from only the NT or not. But after that you get a reading from the Gospels. The OT passage is usually related to through the Gospel passage and however else the priest chooses. Its like Jesus is clarifying/shedding new light on some of the OT stuff and giving you some new stuff. Is that what you are saying?Jesus did indeed clarify some things, especially in the Sermon on the Mount.

Remember that there was a period of about 400 years between the OT and the NT. In those 400 years, the oral law crept into Jewish culture and worship. The oral law was established during this time and maintained by the Pharisees, the religious rulers of the day. The oral law was adding or modifying the OT Law. The only problem what it contradicted the Law. The pharisees were being hypocrits, Jesus knew this and had to expose them as what they were. They were teaching the people that they could be good enough for God if they followed their teachings. He also had to get the people back on the right track, pointing them to Himself in order to get them to re-connect with God. He was the Messiah.

The whole point of the SOTM was to do two things, expose the hypocrisy of the oral tradition and to basically clarify some OT Laws, and at the same time explaining that it was harder to follow - the meaning of it all being that unless we can do this perfectly like God, we need me/Jesus, which was the second thing.

For example in Mat chapter 5 v 43 it says You have heard it said (this is referring to the oral law of the Pharisees being taught) You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. This is referring to Leviticus 19:18, which the Pharisees taught that you should love only those who love you back. Jesus goes on to say But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.......... Well this is nice, but how many of us do that, really? It is hard and we all fail at it sometimes. We are not perfect.

And then in verse 48, the clincher, Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.

What? We are to be perfect? There is no way we can do that. We are all sinners - all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is no way we can do this.......and that was Jesus' point. We need him. He was perfect and sacrificed his life for our salvation. Only he was acceptable or good enough for God. His death burial and resurrection washed us all of our sins, if only we accept that gift, called grace.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-04-2008, 04:08 PM
But the bible only has one meaning, one truth when it comes to homosexuality, or eating food, using your two examples. It cannot mean two different things. It cannot mean one thing to this group, and another opposite meaning to another group. Many have sought to make the bible say what they personally believe, regardless if the bible agrees with them or not.

Those truths are different in comparison to the people who are relating those truths. It is the nature of humanity. My main point basically is that it is impossible to not have a vibrational translation of the Bible even if the Bible is a direct word of god. It still has to pass through a few vibrational translations before it comes down to me. Be it the person who did the translation of the book or the person who reads the book and finally to me who either reads the book or listens to the person who reads the book.


One viewpoint or the other fail under closer scrutiny. I would welcome a debate with anyone that says that the bible considers homosexuality is not a sin. I would also welcome the debate that what we eat is all that important to ones salvation.

my knowledge of life does not include enough of this for a debate. I have seen others who know more have such a debate.




Why would souls come down from heaven to a sinful place and risk hell? That is a great question. We would have to ask Satan and his minions that question. Becasue that is exactly what he did, and many followed him. But they didn't leave heaven to come to a sinful earth. They sinned, were banned from heaven and ended up on earth, which to that point was not sinful. We were/are created beings in the image of God. We were created by God. We were created to have fellowship with God. We were also given the exact same free will that Satan and his demons were given. We see what they chose. And we also see what man chose. Adam and Eve chose to sin over obeying God. Plain and simple according to the bible.

The question of course is still why? One thing I do know is that my answer is way different than yours

Maybe I do not understand the story of Adam and Eve which does say that incest is ok. However I don't understand what is the point of a story that states that knowledge is a bad thing. Still I am not a bible scholar at all


Language that is not spoken any longer does not exclude it from being translated properly. We know what the language is. If we wanted to start speaking it again today we could, we know that much about it.


This just points more to the existance of God more than anything - the fact that:



The Bible took about 1600 years to write. . It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout.
i. It was written on three continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe.
ii. It was written by a variety of people: prophets, priest, cupbearer, a king, judges, fishermen, etc.

Left alone man would not have been able to create such a book that speaks to hundreds of issues yet with harmony and consistancy. There is no way these writers could have collaborated with each other without the use of a time machine. Indeed God had his hand in it, selecting certain men to handle the word of God.

Which also leads to the points of mistakes and inaccuracies and translational problems.





You are still not getting it. People dying for what they believe in isn't the point. We know this happens. But people don't die a horrible death for something that "they" know is false. It doesn't matter what we think, but what they thought.

Maybe I do not get it. I do get the not mattering what we think. I just know many people die for what they know is true. Some might be false, some might be true.



The finite mind of man cannot fully comprehend the infinite mind of God. All we have is the bible, our own personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and the world we can see, touch, smell, hear and taste. God makes himself evident in the physical world, the spiritual world and the written word.

why not through Mohammad or Zoraster?


Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it can't be true. You don't believe in Divine Justice because you don't understand it, it doesn't make sense to you, so you reject it. That doean't mean it doesn't exist. This is existentialism again.

Well just because you do not believe in faries does not make them not exist. I know people who talk with them.

I do not believe in Divine Justice because it goes against all ideas of a loving god. I believe in a loving god. I do not reject the idea of Divine Justice. The only way I can put it, is in my personal relationship of god he tells me that it doesn't exist. You might consider that Satan talking to me, trying to corrupt my mind or soul or something in this weird battle where God could just wipe Satan from existance, however he doesn't because he probably would be bored.


First off I don't condemn homosexuality, the bible does. The bible calls it a sin. It doesn't matter what I think.

No you condomn homosexuality. You are just using the bible as an excuse for your condomnation and your not wanting to take responsiblity for being intollerent.


Calling a behavior a sin verses killing innocent people. Huge difference. I hope I have helped you see the difference. If you still feel that they are equal then maybe we shoudn't discuss this anymore.

If it was just calling the behavior a sin, then maybe you would have a point. Condemming and making innocent people feel guilty and horrible for what comes "natural" to them is just as bad.

Also, why are Christians so afraid of death? That is something that doesn't make sense. If they believe in heaven so much, why is 9/11 a tragedy? This may be trying to come off as a jerk, however as a lifetime non christian, this has been something that does not logically make sense. For a people who think that they are going to some afterlife that is filled with bliss you certainly fear going there.

Still “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

seems to be a good quote as to why to vote for gay marriage unless you want people to condemn you for marrying a woman.

The issue isn't them, it is you. If you are not sure, then I hope and pray that you live a long and prosperous life, long enough to find the truth.

Actually the issue is always me as it is always you. It is the indivisuals journey in this lifetime. This short lifetime in comparison to forever.


Ummm........ where exactly is "there"?

That is a good question. Where exactly is "here"?

I do know that if there is a heaven that you believe in, you are already there.

I did not mean this to be a huge discussion, especially on Christianity as I am not even close to being an expert. One thing I do know is that it is not the path for me. From the bottom of my being and with my conversations with God, I know that for a fact. It is not an interpretation of the lord, it is the Lords understanding of his path for me. (use of lord and path in their loses sense of those words as they are just words that fit into the context of the conversation).

In the words of a great philosopher, Live long and prosper.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-04-2008, 04:13 PM
For example in Mat chapter 5 v 43 it says You have heard it said (this is referring to the oral law of the Pharisees being taught) You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. This is referring to Leviticus 19:18, which the Pharisees taught that you should love only those who love you back. Jesus goes on to say But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.......... Well this is nice, but how many of us do that, really? It is hard and we all fail at it sometimes. We are not perfect.

And then in verse 48, the clincher, Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.


I know I work on this everyday.

Forgiveness is the scent the violet leaves on the boot of the man who squashed it
- Mark Twain

To not forgive is the drink poison and expect the other person to get sick
- Many people

Dolphan7
03-04-2008, 06:15 PM
Dol-Fan Dupree

I believe our discussion is complete.

Da 'Fins
03-05-2008, 09:18 AM
What bold claims?

I don't think anything I claimed was bold. All i said was there is no way for you to prove that the bible was translated more accurately then SW: E-III.

The meanings of certain words change over time, and similar words have different meanings in different languages. How is that a bold concept or claim?

Now if I were to try and "attack" the bible by saying you can't believe those "first hand" accounts because you never see everything as clearly your mind thinks you do, and you never manage to see everything that is there to be seen either. That is much more "bold" than anything I have said so far, and still not that bold of a claim IMO.

Sorry, Stitches, this just speaks from ignorance about the information available to translators. Indeed, words change over time - but, modern translators have an abundance of information about the meaning of words as they were commonly used in the first century (both within and without NT writings). They have an understanding about how words were used pre-NT times, during NT times, and post-NT times. Translation is not an issue when it comes to getting it right in 99% of the terms in the NT.

At the same time, words always have meaning in context. In other words, words don't have inherent meaning by themselves. For example, if I say:

"That was a bad car!" What does 'bad' mean here? Impossible to say without the context.

If I read the context and it's - Stitches, "Wow, did you see that porsche go by a minute a go? What an awesome car!" Da 'Fins: "Yeah, I saw it. You're right. That was a bad car!"

We can figure out what it means. When you have multiple, sometimes hundreds of uses (both within New Testament writings and outside of them) we can understand the meaning of words.

Furthermore, you should know that in ancient times words did not change quite as rapidly as they do in the modern industrial or computer age - technology has a lot to do with this. Things moved much slower in terms of new inventions and language changes in antiquity.