Interesting, thought provoking article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061120/cm_usatoday/whenreligionlosesitscredibility), hopefully. Ok, I'm dreaming. It probably won't provoke many thoughts in the minds of the rigidly indoctrinated but hope springs eternal.

It does pose this interesting question. Why do Christians pick-and-choose so much which biblical things are so bad? If you're going to be literal about homosexuals because of Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.", why aren't they just as fanatical about the the other stuff in Leviticus? Like the death penalty for sassing your parents or eating catfish?

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

Just curious to see the answers...

Oh yeah, I noticed that Leviticus didn't proscribe lesbianism. :p

I think Christians also pull the proscribing of homosexuality from some letter of Pauls, I think maybe Corinthians? I dunno...

Why do Christians pick-and-choose so much which biblical things are so bad?
I would answer that it is because religions are managed by people and people have weaknesses (prejudice, greed, and lust for power, etc...). Religions provide their leaders with the opportunity to interpret the "will of god" and, not surprisingly, their personal beliefs come into play. This is compounded by the fact that religions tend to be very dogmatic so once an idea has been ascribed to god, it's very difficult to challenge it without looking like you're challenging god.

I think Christians also pull the proscribing of homosexuality from some letter of Pauls, I think maybe Corinthians? I dunno...
Where do Jews pull it from?

I am of the opinion, and I don't think I'm alone, that the present day version and translation of the Bible is NOT as it was written to begin with. It has been altered over the years to suit whatever those in charge needed it to say to get the obedience they required. Sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not. In the end, we have a mish mash of altered texts and even some stuff removed becuase it was inconvenient.

I think Christians also pull the proscribing of homosexuality from some letter of Pauls, I think maybe Corinthians? I dunno...
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.Jesus never mentions homosexuals.What would Jesus do?

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

Where do Jews pull it from?

There is no official Jewish dictate on the issue, as there hasn't been a centralized dogmatic approach to Judaism since the fall of the 2nd temple (or before, even).

y synagogue has a homosexual couple which is openly involved in the community.

However, these are recent occurrances. Judaism takes the prohibition for male homosexuality from the Torah. Nor will we suffer outsiders dictating to us which laws of the Torah we will or will not follow. It is not an all or nothing affair. Jewish scholars have, and continue, to debate and adjust the various rabbinic laws over the millenia.

Further, the laws of sacrifice are a poor analogy, as Jewish thought and law dictates that there can be no sacrifices without the Temple and the Priesthood. Jewish law also dictates in the absence of the Temple and a Sanhedric court, death cannot be prescribed as punishment for any religious crime.

Jewish law has always adjusted itself to survive with the times. Slowly the issue of homosexuality is also being discussed, with a myriad of views and positions.

The argument against Christianities hypocritical use of biblical law is that they catagorically rejected the Torah and the covenant, stating that with Jesus's resurrection a new law and covenant was formed, which is the argument for ignoring all other biblical law.

I am of the opinion, and I don't think I'm alone, that the present day version and translation of the Bible is NOT as it was written to begin with.
This an opinion without any supporting evidence. You're free to think that, but can hardly expect anyone else to be convinced by your unfounded opinion.
Oh yeah, I noticed that Leviticus didn't proscribe lesbianism.
Why would a loving God outlaw hot lesbian sex? :)
Just curious to see the answers...
I have long been of the opinion that homosexual sex harms no one. Thus, the question of whether it is sinful or not is between each individual and God.

The biblical evidence that it is sinful is very sparse, but lets put it in context. The Bible clearly outlaws some things, and hints at outlawing others. The modern Christian church has not established its priorities based on the degree of clarity with which sins are outlined in the Bible.

For example, there are no proscriptions against drug use or premarital sex. None. Not a single verse in the entire Bible. But the modern church never questions whether these are sinful; it considers them both serious sins. In contrast, harming another person in self-defense is specifically prohibited by Christ himself. And yet a majority of American Christians feel its perfectly OK. In this spectrum of "clearly stated as sinful" versus "implied as sinful", homosexual sex is certainly farther towards the "clearly stated" end.

Dietary rules in the Old Testament have been specifically repealed, by Christ, in a vision that Peter had. So Christians are clearly freed from thes restrictions. This is a special case, not a general hypocrisy or cherry picking.

But the answer to your question is: the modern Chruch grossly misunderstands and misrepresents the laws written in the Bible. This consitutes my single greatest disagreement with the modern church, and the reason why I, a Bible-believing Christian, never attend church anymore: they've got it wrong.

This an opinion without any supporting evidence. You're free to think that, but can hardly expect anyone else to be convinced by your unfounded opinion.

That's what I said, without saying its unfounded, which it isn't.

Why do Christians pick-and-choose so much which biblical things are so bad?Is this just a rhetorical question to spark a religious debate, or can you really not see the obvious?

Is this just a rhetorical question to spark a religious debate, or can you really not see the obvious?I guess I can't see the obvious. I've never had anyone who actually believed this stuff explain to me why it is ok to ignore some of the stuff in the Bible and not other stuff. Maybe Gunny could give it a shot. I could make up all sorts of answers but how valid are they? I'm not religious.

Holy crap, Leviticus had his fingers into everything!
* Laws regarding the regulations for different types of sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7):
o Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and thank-offerings (Leviticus 1-3)
o Sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings (Leviticus 4-5)
o Priestly duties and rights concerning the offering of sacrifices (Leviticus 6-7)
* The practical application of the sacrificial laws, within a narrative of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8-10)
o Aaron's first offering for himself and the people (Leviticus 8)
o The incident in which "strange fire" is brought to the Tabernacle by Nadab and Abihu, leading to their death directly at the hands of God for doing so (Leviticus 9-10)
* Laws concerning purity and impurity (Leviticus 11-16)
o Laws about clean and unclean animals (Leviticus 11)
o Laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth (Leviticus 12)
o Laws concerning tzaraath of people, and of clothes and houses, often translated as leprosy, and mildew, respectively (Leviticus 13-14)
o Laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification (Leviticus 15)
o Laws regarding a day of national atonement, Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16)
* Laws concerning the commutation of vows (Leviticus 27)

The bible contained insights regarding burying human waste, handling the dead. Many of which like quarantine and sanitation, had not been practised or understood until the late 1800s and were not recognized until 1865 by Joseph Lister. See also Ignaz Semmelweis.

The second part, Leviticus 17-26, is known as the Holiness Code, and places particular, and noticeable, emphasis on holiness, and the holy. It is notably more of a miscellany of laws. Within this section are:

* Laws concerning idolatry, the slaughter of animals, dead animals, and the consumption of blood (Leviticus 17)
* Laws concerning sexual conduct (including some that are often interpreted as referring to male homosexuality), sorcery, and moloch (Leviticus 18, and also Leviticus 20, in which penalties are given)
* Laws concerning molten gods, peace-offerings, scraps of the harvest, fraud, the deaf, blind, elderly, and poor, poisoning the well, hate, sex with slaves, self harm, shaving, prostitution, sabbaths, sorcery, familiars, strangers, and just weights and measure (Leviticus 19)
* Laws concerning priestly conduct, and prohibitions against the disabled, ill, and superfluously blemished, from becoming priests, or becoming sacrifices, for descendants of Aaron, and animals, respectively (Leviticus 21-22)
* Laws concerning the observation of the annual feasts, and the sabbath, (Leviticus 23)
* Laws concerning the altar of incense (Leviticus 24:1-9)
* The case law lesson of a blasphemer being stoned to death, and other applications of the death penalty (Leviticus 24:10-23), including anyone having "a familiar ghost or spirit", a child insulting its parents (Leviticus 20), and a special case for prostitution (burning them alive) (Leviticus 21)
* Laws concerning the Sabbath and Jubilee years (Leviticus 25)
* A hortatory conclusion to the section, giving promises regarding obedience to these commandments, and warnings and threats for those that might disobey them, including sending wild animals to devour their children. (Leviticus 26:22)

I guess I can't see the obvious.Religion is a form of control. However, the religious texts were written a very long time ago, and the things the religious elite wanted to control back then don't exactly correspond to the things they want to control today. (Also, society's growing secularization makes certain forms of control that were possible back then impossible today.)

Ideally, the religious zealots would just keep rewriting the religious texts in Orwellian fashion as necessary to maintain the control they want. They did that a bit by nudging translations (e.g., the King James version), but it's physically impossible for them to do it today to the extent they would like.

So instead, they create interpretations and emphases to twist the original text to the meanings they want today. (They also do this in an attempt to conform the texts to new scientific discoveries, which affirmatively disprove elements of the text.) The Judeo-Christian religious texts are such vague, rambling pieces anyway; you can make them say anything you want them to say.

This is why you see the zealots, on the one hand, going out of their way to twist the meaning of some vague passage to reach a certain result, but on the other hand, happily ignoring entire chapters. Those chapters simply don't reach the result they want, whereas the twisted version of the vague passage does.

Ok, that's your explanation as a secularist. I would like to hear from a believer. What rational do they use to explain that discrepancy?

Ok, that's your explanation as a secularist. I would like to hear from a believer. What rational do they use to explain that discrepancy?You enjoy listening to crickets chirping, don't you?

I suppose I could ask the Jehovah's witnesses that come to my house every week. :\

Hehe well as I understand it, the Law of Moses was fulfilled when Jesus came to the earth. Jesus then setup his own church, keeping some laws and doing away with others. Which is why we can eat pork and catfish, or "non-kosher" stuff.

I suppose I could ask the Jehovah's witnesses that come to my house every week. :\

Ask the Mormons =), there all sorts of stuff in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants about "the Law." I'm sure the bible is refereance under one of those scriptures.

I'd like to hear what nay sayers of the bible have to say about the dead sea scrolls. During the crusade and translations under the pope would have made it pretty easy to put whatever they wanted in the bible.

Jesus then setup his own church, keeping some laws and doing away with others. Which is why we can eat pork and catfish, or "non-kosher" stuff.


I bet the pork industry loves jesus

Praise Jesus.

Congregation, please be seated and open your prayer guides to the book
Of revelations, psalm 69

Drinking the blood of jesus
Drinking it right from his veins
Learning to swim in the ocean
Learning to prowl in his name

The body of christ looked unto me
A preacher with god-given hands
He wants you to suck on the holy ghost
And swallow the sins of man

Psalm 69

The invisible piss of the holy ghost
Comes down like acid rain
Theyre making a bonnet of terminal guilt
The scavengers go on parade

The fathers who write that eternity
Is used to fight the sword
Have filled you up with the devils cock
And hell come in the name of the lord

The way to succeed and the way to suck eggs

Hehe well as I understand it, the Law of Moses was fulfilled when Jesus came to the earth. Jesus then setup his own church, keeping some laws and doing away with others. Which is why we can eat pork and catfish, or "non-kosher" stuff.

Ask the Mormons =), there all sorts of stuff in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants about "the Law." I'm sure the bible is refereance under one of those scriptures.

I'd like to hear what nay sayers of the bible have to say about the dead sea scrolls. During the crusade and translations under the pope would have made it pretty easy to put whatever they wanted in the bible.
Well, no, the Mormons made up their own text so it isn't quite the same.

Seriously though, about the homo thing, they always quote Leviticus so they can't say it doesn't apply because clearly they must think it does.

Religion doesnt follow logical paths panamah you know this!

Dont worry in 50-100 years Christianity overall wont give a damn about gays anymore because mainstream religion must keep up with mainstream cultural views. (See slavery)

Seriously though, about the homo thing, they always quote Leviticus so they can't say it doesn't apply because clearly they must think it does.

Oh I see, you're asking why they quote Leviticus which doesn't exactly apply anymore instead of something from the gospel that does. I don't know. Maybe because they don't get it? It may be a shock that with some billion people claiming to be some form of christanity, there are some that don't have a clue what's going on.

Maybe someone with a more Biblical background can explain this to me:
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
Is this true? What's the basis for this person's intrepretation of Paul's writing?

Here's what Wikpedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_bible#Romans_1

Hehe well as I understand it, the Law of Moses was fulfilled when Jesus came to the earth. Jesus then setup his own church, keeping some laws and doing away with others. Which is why we can eat pork and catfish, or "non-kosher" stuff.



Ask the Mormons =), there all sorts of stuff in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants about "the Law." I'm sure the bible is refereance under one of those scriptures.

I'd like to hear what nay sayers of the bible have to say about the dead sea scrolls. During the crusade and translations under the pope would have made it pretty easy to put whatever they wanted in the bible.


The historical reason is that as Christianity spread beyond simply misguided Jews and began to convert gentiles to a belief in Christ, the question arose regarding whether goyim should be forced to follow Jewish law upon conversion. Until this point, the early Christians followed all of the Jewish laws except that big one about having another God before Adonai and were essentially just a sect of Judaism. Paul was very much against gentile converts having to follow Jewish law, most likely because while these pagans were willing to believe in Christ, they were unwilling to do so if it meant having to follow all of those laws ;)

Praise Jesus.

Congregation, please be seated and open your prayer guides to the book
Of revelations, psalm 69

Drinking the blood of jesus
Drinking it right from his veins
Learning to swim in the ocean
Learning to prowl in his name

The body of christ looked unto me
A preacher with god-given hands
He wants you to suck on the holy ghost
And swallow the sins of man

Psalm 69

The invisible piss of the holy ghost
Comes down like acid rain
Theyre making a bonnet of terminal guilt
The scavengers go on parade

The fathers who write that eternity
Is used to fight the sword
Have filled you up with the devils cock
And hell come in the name of the lord

The way to succeed and the way to suck eggs

Ah the last album of theirs that I liked. Its amazing that a group could put out three great albums...and have a myriad of **** produced before and after.

I think I like the Sgt. Major song only on Rio Grande. And that is just barely because of context.

Nothing jumps out from them to me anymore.

And their early stuff?, it is amazing they survived that.

Paul was very much against gentile converts having to follow Jewish law, most likely because while these pagans were willing to believe in Christ, they were unwilling to do so if it meant having to follow all of those laws ;)

Wait, what am I missing? If they believe in Christ, they believe he fulfilled the law, as he said so himself and so the customs and ordances changed, which he put in place himself. Paul didn't just wake up one day and say, "You know a great way to make my church bigger is to do away with the laws Christ already got rid of."

This thread makes me glad I have a modern day prophet to bring the smackdown (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html) to issues like homosexuality. No ifs, ans, or obscure bible quotes about it.

There was a little blurb I had seen repeated in a couple of locations about the Bible that always stuck in my head. I have absolutely no idea how truthful it is, or anything, but I always wondered...

I had read somewhere that much of the Bible was generally inked/Illuminated/translated/dictated to or by eunuchs or similarly sexually inhibited men. This led to the Bible's bias towards sex, homosexuality, and women among other things.

Put plainly, people who aren't allowed to participate in fun activities were put into the position to write the rules for the people who are.

Again, no idea how true this tidbit was, but it always stuck in my head.

BTW Pana, I now know a Priest. Happens to be my roommate's Uncle of all things. He's actually a really cool guy and he uses the F word a lot (no, not in sermons). He's let me bounce a few (blasphemous) questions off him, so if you have something to ask, and you don't mind waiting for an answer (I don't see him often) I could probably ask :P

Maybe someone with a more Biblical background can explain this to me:

Is this true? What's the basis for this person's intrepretation of Paul's writing?

Here's what Wikpedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_bible#Romans_1

It's a fudge. Paul refers to the homosexual act, never to 'relationships' or 'being gay'. The Greek word used refers specifically to the practice. Various explanations to avoid this conclusion ignore this fact.

Wait, what am I missing? If they believe in Christ, they believe he fulfilled the law, as he said so himself and so the customs and ordances changed, which he put in place himself. Paul didn't just wake up one day and say, "You know a great way to make my church bigger is to do away with the laws Christ already got rid of."

This thread makes me glad I have a modern day prophet to bring the smackdown (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html) to issues like homosexuality. No ifs, ans, or obscure bible quotes about it.

In fulfilling the law Christ lived the perfect life and pleased God completely. At the cross His blood was shed (as required under the law) as a perfect and eternal sacrifice for sins - all, past present and future. And in doing so He removed the main barrier between man and God, allowing the barrier erected by Adam and Eve in their sin to be removed forever.

Some people dont like this idea or dont want it, however this is the message that has gone out since the resurrection.

Maybe someone with a more Biblical background can explain this to me:


Forgot to add - happy to discuss further.

I am of the opinion, and I don't think I'm alone, that the present day version and translation of the Bible is NOT as it was written to begin with. It has been altered over the years to suit whatever those in charge needed it to say to get the obedience they required. Sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not. In the end, we have a mish mash of altered texts and even some stuff removed becuase it was inconvenient.

This is not really correct. The bible is the most well known ancient manuscript, with more copies in more places more recently dated than any other ancient manuscript, the authorship of which is not disputed.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

It's a fudge. Paul refers to the homosexual act, never to 'relationships' or 'being gay'. The Greek word used refers specifically to the practice. Various explanations to avoid this conclusion ignore this fact.

Did Greeks ever acknowledge that some people simply aren't interested in members of the opposite sex? I'm thinking perhaps they didn't and so never had a word for someone intrinsically homosexual.

Did Greeks ever acknowledge that some people simply aren't interested in members of the opposite sex? I'm thinking perhaps they didn't and so never had a word for someone intrinsically homosexual.

Probably... the greeks were well known for their homosexual practice. But ancient Greek was a widely spoken language in the ancient world, in the same way English is today. The difference is that ancient Greek was far more structured and logical than English is. Apparently the Greeks have forced all school pupils to study ancient greek in order to keep the language alive, however noone knows how to write in ancient greek, so translation exercises are from existing writings (I have been informed by a greek cypriot that this is not the case there though!!)

To cut to the chase, the word used by Paul refers specifically to the act, not the 'leaning'. And for the author of that yahoo article to say that there is 'massive evidence' that people are born 'gay' is misleading and a huge insult to those who have abandoned that practice with the help of the local church or counsellors or friends or others.

But the furore over homosexuality is merely a distraction to the main question of whether an individual has an eternal, secure relationship with the living God.

To cut to the chase, the word used by Paul refers specifically to the act, not the 'leaning'. And for the author of that yahoo article to say that there is 'massive evidence' that people are born 'gay' is misleading and a huge insult to those who have abandoned that practice with the help of the local church or counsellors or friends or others.
Like the Batist Reverend Haggard recently? You can't run and hide from gay. I can wear contact lenses and make my eyes look a different color, but they're still the color I was born with.

Since just about every species of animal on the planet also has a percentage of population that display homosexual behavior, it only makes sense that this is a normal variation.

You've only got to talk to the parents of a gay child and they'll tell you that kid was different from their other kids from day 1.

So why is it that Jesus never rejected people for their sexual orientation or practices? Too busy playing the good cop? Someone elses job to be the bad cop?

Like the Batist Reverend Haggard recently? You can't run and hide from gay. I can wear contact lenses and make my eyes look a different color, but they're still the color I was born with.

Since just about every species of animal on the planet also has a percentage of population that display homosexual behavior, it only makes sense that this is a normal variation.

You've only got to talk to the parents of a gay child and they'll tell you that kid was different from their other kids from day 1.

So why is it that Jesus never rejected people for their sexual orientation or practices? Too busy playing the good cop? Someone elses job to be the bad cop?

You will always find failures in the church - the only difference is that Christians have found / been given grace. Not that this is a license to sin - there is still a penalty for that, whether saved or not. What is not lost is eternal pardon from God. One can always return to God, whatever their past. The door of repentance and forgiveness is always open.

Jesus never rejected people for their sexual orientation, although he did say to the woman accused of adultery, 'I do not condemn you either... Go, and sin no more". He was against the sin, for sure. He didnt say "Doesn't really matter, you know, like it's in your genes! Society's to blame, along with the war in Nam. Or Iraq".

I can't really argue with the assertion that all animal groups display some homo behaviour. Just to point out that there is no 'survival of the fittest' (in fact gays should have died out in evolutionary theory as they should never reproduce). If we take the creationist viewpoint then we could say that this is a sign of nature gone awry after the Fall.

Just to point out that there is no 'survival of the fittest' (in fact gays should have died out in evolutionary theory as they should never reproduce). If we take the creationist viewpoint then we could say that this is a sign of nature gone awry after the Fall.
You're making the faulty assumption that there can be no advantage to non-breeding pairings. Homosexuality could be natures way of keeping populations from overwhelming their resources. I don't recall the name of the guy who was studying this but his hypothesis was that certain types of stress during pregnancy can influence the sexuality of the offspring. If we take the creationist viewpoint, then we could say that god blessed us with homosexuality in order to save us from ourselves.

Sheik IT, do you believe in the Old Testament parts of the bible, like Leviticus 18?

I just ran across this debate and have not read every post. With that in mind:

I just don't understand why it is so important to non believers of any religion to tear down the belifs of others to justify their own life choices. Who cares what the bible says about homosexuals.

ake up your own mind about how you want to live your life and let others do the same. Let those who choose to use the bible as their guide do so. Same with the other religions.

I am a christian but I could care less how you choose to live your life. In fact I am in the majority. You think we walk around all day worried about what homosexuals think about our beliefs of the bible. I could really care less. So why do so many people feel such an urgency to change my mind.

I live my life as an example of my beliefs to the best of my human condition. If another person likes what they see and ask, I will tell them why I live the way I do. If they want they can choose to explore my beliefs or they can totally reject them. Who am I to argue their choice.

I have never and will never even try to defend my beliefs. I have chosen to beleive of my own free will. This country (USA) has given me the right to have them. They belong to me. I will discuss biblical philosophy with fellow christian believers in an attempt to better understand and learn about my beliefs.

Please stop trying to justify your beliefs but trying to prove that I can not have mine.

Make up your own mind about how you want to live your life and let others do the same.If only the masses of religious zealots had your attitude, we "non-believers" would have no need to bring up the issue.

I'd be happy to live and let live. Unfortunately, the religious zealots aren't, and constantly try to intrude into our lives.

You act as if there are no zealots on the other side. I hardly go a day that someone isn't trying to tell me how I must yield my beliefs to those who claim no beliefs at all. It's taboo to poke fun at Muslems, Budist, or who ever. But Christianity is open season.

It's ok for non believers to speak out against religion but we must remain silents so as not to offend.

If non believers can speak out about how they believe the world could be improved by the absence of religion why can't we speak out just as strongly about how we believe the would is a better place because of religion.

There are gay pride parades held nation wide and they are heralded as couragous standouts for their beliefs by news organazations across America. If we had a christian pride parade it would be compared to a clad rally.

It seems to me that morality scares people.

just don't understand why it is so important to non believers of any religion to tear down the belifs of others to justify their own life choices. Who cares what the bible says about homosexuals.

Homosexuals care what the bible says about homosexuals. In previous generations they were made into criminals because of what the bible said. Nowadays they want the same legal and human rights as heterosexuals and want to be free from all discrimination, despite what the bible says. Homosexuals want to progress within the church and hold high office.

Right now the Anglican church is on the point of splitting because of the ordination of gay ministers in the US. Just this week the Pope told the head of the Anglican church that homosexual and women priests were a barrier to reunification of the church. It is clearly evident that the major christian churches care what is said about homosexuality in the bible.

I just ran across this debate and have not read every post. With that in mind:

I just don't understand why it is so important to non believers of any religion to tear down the belifs of others to justify their own life choices. Who cares what the bible says about homosexuals.

Well, you admit you didn't read the thread but why is pointing out logical inconsistencies "tearing down"? Does your religious belief fall apart like an overcooked roast when someone points out there are inconsistencies? I've personally never encountered anyone that left their religion behind when confronted with whatever logical problems their belief system has.

This forum is all about debating whatever is topical and homosexuality and religion certainly is topical.

Obviously lots of people care about what the Bible says about homosexuals, since they're trying to use it to set or influence public policy, it affects all of us. When you do anything more than scratch the surface of "Marriage should only be between a heterosexual couple" you find religion. But when you scratch a bit deeper you find a lot of inconsistencies. People cherry picking fragments from a book and blatantly ignoring other parts. What I am personally interested in is why do they feel it is ok to clobber other people on the head with the parts of the book they agree with while ignoring the other things, like dietary law, astrology, fortune-tellers, death penalty for sassing parents, etc?

You act as if there are no zealots on the other side.There are no atheist evangelists. No atheist lawmakers pushing anti-religion bills. No atheist leaders telling the masses of the population that some minority is sinful. No atheist groups murdering religious groups for their beliefs.

There's a big difference between speaking out, and acting out.

It seems to me that morality scares people.

its this attitude that pisses peoplee off is for sure.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality

The meaning of religious doctrine (interpretation etc) should be left to those who at least believe the doctrine has merit.

Sure anything can be debated supposedly for intellectial consideration. However as soon as a non-believer starts to debate religion it's always always about disproving/doing away with that doctrine.

Quote: There are no atheist evangelists.

So there is no one speaking out passionately against religion?

Quote: No atheist lawmakers pushing anti-religion bills.

Oh come on

Quote: No atheist leaders telling the masses of the population that some minority is sinful.

KKK is in the minority. Gays are in the minority. Is one ok and one is not. Who gets to decide. Do I lose my right to openly say what I believe because I am a christian.

So is ok if I say child ****agraphy is wrong?, stealing? murder? Child abuse. You might use the word wrong where we use sinful. People sin/commit wrong acts. Is that in debate also.

Quote: No atheist groups murdering religious groups for their beliefs.

Rome made it a sport.

And I have never seen a simular "debate" questioning a Muslem's right to practice their faith as they see fit. It can't be denied that they are way more in your face with their beliefs than Christianity is today in comparison. What do they call it, Honor Killings? And you are worried about Christians telling you how to live today.

Gay believers are certainly welcome to debate the interpretations of biblical doctrine. There have always been church divisions because some will interpret the bible differently. It is our core belief in a higher authority which binds us together.

And I should not have said morality scares people. Most people think of themselves as being moral. There just differ as to what is moral. I am a prison guard. We have gangs that just wait for the opportunity to kill each other. They think they are moral too. They tell me they are moral because their circumstances demand they be killers. Do you think they are moral? Do you you even have the right to say?

Christians are free to practice their beliefs all they want. It's when they start trying to foist them upon others that the non-believers get irritated with them. You can't expect a whole lot of good will from the non-believers when followers of your religion have aggressively spammed your beliefs into public schools, courts, libraries, etc...

If you (or anyone) want to practice your beliefs, more power to ya. Just stop trying to make the rest of us do so.

It's taboo to poke fun at Muslems, Budist, or who ever. But Christianity is open season.

I pick on those who deserve when they deserve it.

I probably pick on the Jews the least, because they are not evangelical(actively trying to recruit people).

I could treat them accordingly, if Jewish Missionaries came to my door to try and convert me to their way.

But they don't, so I give them a pass.

uslims, they are hardly off limits from this atheist. It is a religion founded by a pedophile and child rapist, and many of its current adherents are irrational and act sub human.

I have never met a Buddhist who ever got in my face, so they get a pass too.

Actually I have noticed that Muslims get a pass, but it is not from atheists per se, it is from Politically Correct, Cultural Relative types. And I have brought that topic up here, as well, in case you failed to see that thread.

The meaning of religious doctrine (interpretation etc) should be left to those who at least believe the doctrine has merit.
What you do in your own churches and temples is fine by me. But when you bring it out into the open and public square, all's fair.

Sure anything can be debated supposedly for intellectial consideration. However as soon as a non-believer starts to debate religion it's always always about disproving/doing away with that doctrine.
If it means doctrine which is supported by government, and organization with the authority to use guns against me, then yes, it deserves to be changed.

Quote: There are no atheist evangelists.

So there is no one speaking out passionately against religion?
I am sure they are. But evangelical mostly comes along with the meaning of conversion. I am an avid and vocal atheist, and I know I don't need anymore atheists. I don't need more atheists, as long as you religious types keep your stuff to yourself(but you are never satisfied with that).

Quote: No atheist lawmakers pushing anti-religion bills.

Oh come on
Your religious motivated laws permeate our society.

Quote: No atheist leaders telling the masses of the population that some minority is sinful.

KKK is in the minority. Gays are in the minority. Is one ok and one is not. Who gets to decide. Do I lose my right to openly say what I believe because I am a christian.
I don't understand this stuff.

So is ok if I say child ****agraphy is wrong?, stealing? murder? Child abuse. You might use the word wrong where we use sinful. People sin/commit wrong acts. Is that in debate also.
If you want to equate homosexuality with murder, you are going to have to come up with some points of support for your opinion.

Quote: No atheist groups murdering religious groups for their beliefs.

Rome made it a sport.
We are not Romans. And they were polytheists, not atheists.

And I have never seen a simular "debate" questioning a Muslem's right to practice their faith as they see fit. It can't be denied that they are way more in your face with their beliefs than Christianity is today in comparison. What do they call it, Honor Killings? And you are worried about Christians telling you how to live today.
You have not read here long enough. Come back, or look back through the archives, our discussion are replete with just this very type of debate.

Gay believers are certainly welcome to debate the interpretations of biblical doctrine. There have always been church divisions because some will interpret the bible differently. It is our core belief in a higher authority which binds us together.
You can do whatever you like in your churches. But keep your Bible out of government, and out of my anus.

Sounds like a fair deal to me, fair?

And I should not have said morality scares people. Most people think of themselves as being moral. There just differ as to what is moral. I am a prison guard. We have gangs that just wait for the opportunity to kill each other. They think they are moral too. They tell me they are moral because their circumstances demand they be killers. Do you think they are moral? Do you you even have the right to say?

YOUR morality scares the sh!t out of me. Morality itself does not.

And I have never seen a simular "debate" questioning a Muslem's right to practice their faith as they see fit.
Do you live in a cave high on a mountain top with no TV or access to reading material? This is very much discussed everywhere! There's been a huge outcry in France because they basically are a secular society and don't allow things like headscarves and outward religious symbols. In Holland they just banned Bourkas. In the US they don't allow one sect to carry their symbolic knives. Mosques and Muslims in the US have been attacked and vandalized, especially since 9/11.

But regardless, no one in the US disallows Christians to practice their religion. What makes you think they are?

Sikhs carry the ceremonial knives.

And it is not really a Muslim sect.

And I have never seen a simular "debate" questioning a Muslem's right to practice their faith as they see fit. It can't be denied that they are way more in your face with their beliefs than Christianity is today in comparison.Muslims aren't in my face at all. If I shut out the media and just went on with my day to day life, I probably wouldn't even be aware that Islam exists. Here in the United States, they live and let live, which I what I wish the Christian zealots would do.What do they call it, Honor Killings?American Muslims wouldn't force me to kill my wife if she had an affair (though they might kill their own).

Christian zealots, however, constantly try to enforce their beliefs on non-zealots. They try to tell me whom I can have sex with, how I can have sex, how I am allowed to reproduce (or not reproduce), what my children are allowed to learn, and which types of scientific developments are permitted (and which aren't). They inundate me with their religious symbols and holidays. They try to convert me. And most of all, they're just fundamentally annoying.

Ok I get what you are saying now. You don't want anyone to try to persuade you into changing your opinions. I like that idea. I don't want people to try to recruit me also.


Is it ok for PETA to attempt to draw support for thier beliefs against animal abuse?

Or Pro Choice, or Political Candidate, or anyone or any organization that believes they have a point of view they want to share?

Certainly Pro Choice tries to recruit others to join their cause. Gays recruit others to join their cause. PETA etc etc. Thousands and thousands of organizations try to recruit other non-believers to reconsider and join them. But it's wrong for relgious groups to. Many more people are glad that someone of faith reached out them than there are that were offended.

BTW for the record I agree that it is better that a person come seeking religion than religion go out seeking converts. However I still believe that everyone has a right to go out publicly and seek support for thier cause.

I just hang up on all solictations regardless of cause and I have a sign posted on my property as well. In fact I would be all for a law that prevented every organization that exits from distributing pamplets, flyers, advertising, etc etc. Including lobbying.

Serious question:

Where or how does an atheist determine what is or is not morally wrong?

Absent of any religous teaching how does an atheist decide that homosexuality is ok for instance and paedophilia is wrong?

Is it based on social norms? Today an act considered repulsive by socialty could be just fine later given enough passage of time?

Where or how does an atheist determine what is or is not morally wrong?
orality Without Religion (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/morality_without_religion.htm)

:epopcorn:

Yeah... this is going to be a fun one to watch!! Where is Aidon in all of this?

Where or how does an atheist determine what is or is not morally wrong?Morality has nothing to do with religion. If I were forced to make a connection, I'd suggest an inverse correlation.I just hang up on all solictations regardless of cause and I have a sign posted on my property as well.What if they ignored your sign, and came on your property with police back up, and <i>forced</i> you to buy their crap, just because they can? That's the life of a non-zealot in American society.

Ok I read the link. Basically man answers to each other as opposed to a higher authority for their actions. I guess thats why violent inmates are able to justify revenge killings. They answer to themselves. Everyone on the yard knows the rules established within the prison society. And the consequences for breaking them. So the punishment is just/moral in that society.

So if I understand this. Wrong is determined by any action that is detrimental/harmful to man. And man determines what is harmful etc.

So is NAMBLA moral as long as the child concents?


Tudamorf - Ok I get that there can be morality without religion.
The rest of your responce just confused me. Maybe an actual example would help me understand your point.

Oh and no one answered my spicific question of is it ok for other organizations to advertise their beliefs publicly, to hand out flyers and to recruit supporters?

Easy on the attacks please. Quote: Do you live in a cave high on a mountain top with no TV or access to reading material? I'm just trying to hold my end of the conversation here. If you think I am not up to the task just say so and I won't try.

Morality Without Religion (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/morality_without_religion.htm)


Thank you, Klath.

Good link.

Messen,
nm

Messen, I do not think that Tuda and Fyyr mean to attack you personally. But as you probably know from these boards, Klath is our resident conspiracy theorist, Tuda thinks everyone who believes in God is a religious zealot, and Fyyr is our resident Athesist.

To have any kind of interaction on these boards you are going to have to expect some opposing viewpoints and know that they will come with intelligent, well thought out examples.

There are many christians on these boards too, some just arent as vocal as others :)

Basically man answers to each other as opposed to a higher authority for their actions. I guess thats why violent inmates are able to justify revenge killings.
Are you implying that it's a lack of religion that leads people to seek revenge? That's funny. Religion has been used as the basis for revenge throughout history and the Judeo-Christian religious texts have no shortage of verbiage to justify it. Even if that weren't the case, most inmates claim to be followers of a religion.

So is NAMBLA moral as long as the child concents?
Young children are inexperienced and easily manipulated and adults who seek relationships with young children exploit this for their own gratification. One does not require religion to recognize that this exploitation is unlikely to be in the best interest of the child.

Oh and no one answered my spicific question of is it ok for other organizations to advertise their beliefs publicly, to hand out flyers and to recruit supporters?
Sure. But if they are advocating public policy that restricts the rights of others they shouldn't act surprised when people fight back.

But as you probably know from these boards, Klath is our resident conspiracy theorist
I've always thought of myself as a firm believer in Occam's razor -- are you sure you're not thinking of Swiftfox?

Serious question:

Where or how does an atheist determine what is or is not morally wrong?

Absent of any religous teaching how does an atheist decide that homosexuality is ok for instance and paedophilia is wrong?

Is it based on social norms? Today an act considered repulsive by socialty could be just fine later given enough passage of time?
Well, I'll give you the benefit of answering your question even though you haven't been answering anyone elses (or even reading them).

We learn morality, or good behavior, from the people around us and some of it is built into us in the form of empathy. Other good behavior, like driving at the speed limit, is probably done out of fear of getting punished or reasoning about survival chances in a crash, etc.

Changes in morality happen all the time, and should happen. Fortunately morality changes faster than religion does. We've managed in my life time to improve the morality of society in many ways by eliminating (at least open) discrimination on several bases including color and religion and physical handicaps. Many people have changed their morality about the environment to learn to care a little bit more about how they leave the earth for the next generations (and all the other species). We also don't have people starving to death in America because they're too poor to buy food. That's a big moral improvement. Pretty much none of these were moral improvements that had anything to do with religion. In fact, in some of the more "religious" parts of the country, they're often the last to come to accepting things like ending slavery, equal rights for all people.

Religion tries to cast morality into concrete and doesn't like morality to change. If we'd all been properly religious and obedient to the preachers we might well still be practicing slavery and shuffling blacks and jews into ghettos.

Messen, I do not think that Tuda and Fyyr mean to attack you personally. But as you probably know from these boards, Klath is our resident conspiracy theorist
adie, that's Swiftfox you're thinking of. Klath is a laid back skeptic.

The rest of your responce just confused me. Maybe an actual example would help me understand your point.You're confused as to how religious zealots intrude into the lives of non-zealots?

Just a few examples off the top of my head: religious zealots try to prevent access to contraception (including abortion); they try to teach our children that genesis is a perfectly viable scientific alternative to evolution; they restrict promising stem cell research that could save lives; and they prevent gays and unmarried heterosexuals from obtaining the benefits reserved to married heterosexuals.

Not to mention, just try in the next few weeks to walk through one city block without seeing multiple public displays relating to the birth of Jesus (some of which are actively endorsed by the government).

I haven't even mentioned any of the historical ways the zealots have intruded, including mass murder, torture, raping and pillaging, all in the name of "god".Oh and no one answered my spicific question of is it ok for other organizations to advertise their beliefs publicly, to hand out flyers and to recruit supporters? I wish that were all the zealots were doing.Absent of any religous teaching how does an atheist decide that homosexuality is ok for instance and paedophilia is wrong?A particularly ironic comment, since the priests are mostly closet gays and pedophiles themselves.

Absent of any religous teaching how does an atheist decide that homosexuality is ok for instance and paedophilia is wrong?

This is a quite reasonable question. However individual people are capable of looking at the world they live in and the people they live with to determine their own sense of right. It doesn't matter whether their views are shaped by national law, tradition, media, culture, or personal experience. Our modern societies are designed to accomodate the variety of moralities held within the population.

Would it be better for qan entire society to follow an absolute morality that cannot be questioned? Without an assumption of divine authority, I would personally say no.

A particularly ironic comment, since the priests are mostly closet gays and pedophiles themselves.

While I believe it is an exaggeration to say that "most" priests are gays and/or pedophiles, the worst part is that the rest of the religious infrastructure covers up for these priests raping children. They get moved to new parishes where they do it all over again, or they get demoted.

Absent of any religous teaching how does an atheist decide that (anything is right or wrong)?

Formulating your own morality is the hardest thing a person will have to do in their lifetime. You begin at birth and you don't stop revising it until the day you die. Ethics is a hugely complex issue, but my personal moral code can be summed up like this:

Do no harm.

What this means to me is, you should not do anything to harm, interfere, or restrict other people, unless that person harms, interferes, or restricts you.

For example, you shouldn't rape, kill, torture, silence, or even insult other people unless they have done something to harm you, and the harm you inflict should be on a similar level to what was done to you.

Examples...

The government wants to silence me or restrict me, so I will try to "silence" the government by trying to change it, or restrict its powers.

Someone tries to inflict unspecified harm on me, I have the right to injure, maim, or kill them depending on the threat level (weapons).

Not necessarily eye for an eye, but preventative or retributive force that attempts to curb others' actions for fear of the repercussions to their actions. In some cases, law enforcement's punishment may be "good enough" but when a frequent drunk driver kills and is given a slap on the wrist, that person should be killed or hobbled in such a way as to prevent more innocent deaths. (blinded, arms removed, etc, to prevent them from driving, then they can drink all they want.)

I'm a moral relativist; I think in a society where you are brought up to do certain things, it's right for you to do them because you haven't been exposed to the ideas that those actions can be wrong.

For instance, if you grew up in a cannibalistic tribe where everyone you knew ate their parents when they died, or the hearts of their enemies, and you had good moral reasoning for this (you are respecting your parents or taking the strength of your enemies) and had not been exposed to higher ethical reasoning, you can't be condemned for behaving this way.

There's nothing inherently wrong in eating dead human flesh, aside from sanitation and health issues. Human flesh is the best meal our bodies can get, really. The human body needs nutrients to replace dying cells, and what better replacement than to ingest human flesh?

Personally, the idea repulses me. I would gag and vomit if forced to eat human flesh because I have grown up with the idea that it is wrong and disgusting, and it is ingrained in me on the same level as a loathing of insects and disgust for human waste. Some people don't have those same reactions; some people are actually sexually excited by human waste and cannibalism.

There are so many different levels of "wrong" and "right" that I don't blame people with weak wills or insufficient education or higher faculties of reasoning for resorting to a religion to make their decisions for them. They need help with their morality because they don't have the capability themselves. I understand that.

I don't think I have attacked anyone in this thread.

Kid gloves really, just playing wiffle ball with the newbie. Pretty nerfy, if you consider my usual rhetoric on the subject.

The more you guys respond the more you sound like religious zealots.

Heres what I have concluded to the best of my weak uneducated mind.

1) It is fine for organizations such PETA, Pro Choice, and religious groups to seek support for thier beliefs as long as they are ready for a fight. I'm ok with that. You just don't like it when christians do it. I don't like it when liberals do it.

2) NAMBLA is imoral today because children are not ready to make those kinds of decisions. On the other hand NAMBLA says that children are capable of making those decsions at least by the age of 13. So based on the responses that have gone unchallenged it will be acceptable given time to get mankind on their side. That is just sad.

3) Mankind is flawed in it's ability to goveren it's self. Religion if flawed also. I agree. A non-believe just doesen't have any other choice but to rely on mankind. So basically to feel driven to prove to others they don't have a choice either.

4) That mankind is perfectly capable of governing it's self without the need for a higher authority. Come on guys that's just wishful thinking from people who have no choice but to believe in mankind because God does not exist in their mind.

Take religion out of the equation and NAMBLA would have been an accepted act a long time ago. Religious people are the ones that fight the battles against such unacceptable behavior. So if we hit opon a few behaviors you disagree with. Oh well. You have already said we have a right along with any other organization to try.

5) That we are all flawed and most of us trying to live the best life we can. A religous person has placed their faith in something more than mankind. And non-believers have placed thier faith in themselves. Oh and that make us week and uneducated and non-believers strong and educated.

Now that I have an admittedly basic ideal of the fundamentals of non-believer thought I would be happy to share my views on currents affairs. I still will not debate biblical doctrine with non-believers but I am willing to offer my opinions.

That mankind is perfectly capable of governing it's self without the need for a higher authority. Come on guys that's just wishful thinking from people who have no choice but to believe in mankind because God does not exist in their mind.

Why? I don't see any justification for that at all. From one person, to a family, to a village, to a nation, people everywhere can make decisions without religious instruction.

Take religion out of the equation and NAMBLA would have been an accepted act a long time ago. Religious people are the ones that fight the battles against such unacceptable behavior.

Why? I don't see any justification for that at all. Tell me the reason why the Bible (or God) is right to ban underage sex then explain why a secular society wouldn't accept that argument.

Personally, I would just like to see where it says in the bible that a 17 year old is forbidden to have sex, that it is more immoral as opposed or compared to an 18 year old.

Or even a 15 year old.


This whole NAMBLA line of argument is a Straw Man.


I think my point is that you're stating that NAMBLA is bad because the Bible tells us so. When it really does not. NAMBLA is bad because of societal and cultural concerns which are not even found there. The societal forces, of relative cultural morality, that make it bad and unacceptable are the forces which are saying will make child sex acceptable, in some future I suppose.


Here is kinda what you are saying.
1) We know that child sex is bad
2) The Bible and God tell us that it is bad
3) If you don't believe in God, then how possibly can you think it is bad
4) Without God, there will be child sex all over the place
5) Defend your position that you think child sex is good.

That is your argument.

[quote=Fyyr Lu'Storm]Personally, I would just like to see where it says in the bible that a 17 year old is forbidden to have sex, that it is more immoral as opposed or compared to an 18 year old.

Or even a 15 year old.

Based on military recruitment it could be said that a person is an adult at age 17. A child 16 and below generally. I really don't know what the bible says about the age of adulthood. If it is different I would have no problem deferring to biblical text as a foundation. The point is...

Who cares what the bible says. As an individual I am opposed to adults having sex with children. Arn't you

I know that some of you have faith that mankind alone would make the right decision concerning this type of activity. But I do not. There's no socialtal evidence that mankind is more capable of self governing than a sociaty influenced by religion.

Right now today in America mankind believes that they are doing the right thing by giving inmates more personal rights than ever before. That rehabilitation is the anwser. Yet the return rate is higher than ever before. Inmate violance is steadily increasing. So does mankind have it right.

Trust me when I say that religous organization have very little influence on how prisons and inmates are handled. Liberal minded folks have the lion's share of that influence. In fact its the religous groups providing requested services within the prison which are seeing the best results.

Here is kinda what you are saying.
1) We know that child sex is bad
2) The Bible and God tell us that it is bad
3) If you don't believe in God, then how possibly can you think it is bad
4) Without God, there will be child sex all over the place
5) Defend your position that you think child sex is good.

That is your argument.

No I am not.

If you are saying that it is non-believers alone that keep groups like NAMBLA from abusing children then you need to get off the pipe.

Oh and again, I am not going to discuss biblical doctrine. Are you guys incapable of a secular discusion without quoting the bible to support your positions. OMG and I am the christian.

Who cares what the bible says. As an individual I am opposed to adults having sex with children. Arn't you

I know that some of you have faith that mankind alone would make the right decision concerning this type of activity. But I do not. There's no socialtal evidence that mankind is more capable of self governing than a sociaty influenced by religion.

You are contradicting your point.

In the first quote you are saying that it does not matter what religion says about child sex. At the same time you are stating that it is individuals(in this case yourself, and you are including me or/and other readers) who make it right or wrong.

In the second, you say that people should not be trusted to decide what is right or wrong. When you have conceded that religion has very little to say in the matter of whether or not child sex is right or wrong, it really then is a secular force that is left.

QED, morality can be effectively determined by non religious forces.

You may not like the fact that secular forces are not absolute, of course. I'm sure that is really your main issue, and seems to be a recurring theme in your meandering posts.

No I am not.
I was just trying to add some semblance of organization to the points. By all means, if you want to organize them better, please do so.

If you are saying that it is non-believers alone that keep groups like NAMBLA from abusing children then you need to get off the pipe.
That is not what I am saying. It is you who is proposing that it is religious morality only which makes child sex wrong, and not secular forces. I disagree with you. And in the post just above, I have shown you that you disagree with you too.

Oh and again, I am not going to discuss biblical doctrine.
Why not? That is the topic of the thread, and the topic of most of the posts in it.

Are you guys incapable of a secular discusion without quoting the bible to support your positions.
We are not an amalgam here. Some of us here do share common ground on some things, but by and large most of us here have radically different opinions, and posting styles.

OMG and I am the christian.
Are you a God Warrior?

Ok so lets simplify my position for you if I can as it relates to the original post.

While non believers of a particular religion can choose to have a dicussion on the merits of a religion's writings it is futile. I believe that a non-believer lacks the core faith needed to offer an appropriate judgement of one's religious doctrines.

I have no faith in the Koran. So what value can I lend to a discussion of Muslim doctrin. Only true belivers of the Koran can appropriate judge and interpret it's writting.

aybe you would argue that is all is needed is the ability to think and reason. I would say that sure you can discuss it but you won't be able to fully understand it without faith. And if you can't fully understand the doctine how can you judge it.

I have no faith in mankind. And as have been exampled lack the ability to understand it. And as such lend no value to a discussion on that religion.

I would further say that only believers of any religion have the right to determine the interpretations of its faith.

True there will always be divisions among believers of a religious organizations. But it still should be left to them to work out.

Hopefully it brings my fundamental position back on track.

...

Hopefully it brings my fundamental position back on track.

I don't think it clarifies your position one bit.

If you are saying that if someone does not have an explicit experience then one can not form opinions or ideas about it, then I think you are absolutely foolish.

That would be like saying that because you have never tried having man boy sex, that you have no ability to comment on the issue. Or interpret the societal ramifications of it.

That is a DIVINELY inspired uninspiring piece of gibberish.


I know what you are really trying to say, of course.
"Look out!, I'm a Christian, I am off limits to your criticism because you are not a Christian too."

hogwash

Madie, that's Swiftfox you're thinking of. Klath is a laid back skeptic.

You are correct!! Forgive me Klath... for I have made a horrible mistake ;) It is Swiftfox I was thinking of!! Hehehe.

Ok so lets simplify my position for you if I can as it relates to the original post.

While non believers of a particular religion can choose to have a dicussion on the merits of a religion's writings it is futile. I believe that a non-believer lacks the core faith needed to offer an appropriate judgement of one's religious doctrines.
Hardly makes for an interesting debate if everyone agrees ahead of time. Sure, you wouldn't have to look at the inconsistencies that might actually cause you to reconsider your positions. It'd be like saying, "Only Presidential debates can be held between candidates for the same party".


I have no faith in the Koran. So what value can I lend to a discussion of Muslim doctrin. Only true belivers of the Koran can appropriate judge and interpret it's writting. Probably more to the point, you have no knowledge of the Koran. If you're aware of what is actually IN the book, you could have a debate. You don't need to actually believe it is true. There's a lot of scholars of Greek mythology but, I can guarantee you, not one is a believer.

I have no faith in mankind. And as have been exampled lack the ability to understand it. And as such lend no value to a discussion on that religion.
Ok, so you have no faith in mankind, does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to hold any opinions about mankind or express them publically?

Wait, what am I missing? If they believe in Christ, they believe he fulfilled the law, as he said so himself and so the customs and ordances changed, which he put in place himself. Paul didn't just wake up one day and say, "You know a great way to make my church bigger is to do away with the laws Christ already got rid of."

Understand that it wasn't that cut and dry and that the idea of Jesus fulfilling the law was more a rationalization than a reason. Early christians considered themselves Jewish and followed Jewish law...it was not until Christianity started trying to spread outside of Judea/Philistina that the question of Christianity being seperate and distinct from Judaism came about.

This is not really correct. The bible is the most well known ancient manuscript, with more copies in more places more recently dated than any other ancient manuscript, the authorship of which is not disputed.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

While the New Testament is more uniform in its various translations and editions than the Original Testament, there is distinct question of authorship and then later of transcription and translation errors. This, of course, completely discounts the official cannonization of the New Testament and the absence of various other religious texts which were considered heretical at the time of cannonization, mostly for political purposes.

The meaning of religious doctrine (interpretation etc) should be left to those who at least believe the doctrine has merit.

Only until such time as that doctrine becomes the genesis for public policy and law.

Quote: There are no atheist evangelists.

So there is no one speaking out passionately against religion?

Quote: No atheist lawmakers pushing anti-religion bills.

Oh come on

I don't think there is a single atheist in Congress. It isn't athiests pushing bills which would embrace seperation of church and state. Its mostly Christians ;).

Quote: No atheist leaders telling the masses of the population that some minority is sinful.

KKK is in the minority. Gays are in the minority. Is one ok and one is not. Who gets to decide. Do I lose my right to openly say what I believe because I am a christian.

Yes, one is ok and one is not. Gay and homosexual behavior do not espouse racism, bigotry, religious intolerance, and violence against all who are different.

You can say what you believe all you want...but when you begin institutionalizing descriminatory practices because of your religious beliefs, you've crossed a dangerous line.

So is ok if I say child ****agraphy is wrong?, stealing? murder? Child abuse. You might use the word wrong where we use sinful. People sin/commit wrong acts. Is that in debate also.

All of those acts cause harm or loss to another person. Consentual homosexual acts harm noone.

Quote: No atheist groups murdering religious groups for their beliefs.

Rome made it a sport.

Roman's were not atheists.

And for the past 1500 years, Christianity has far outdone anything Rome ever did. Christendom has been the largest scourge upon the western world that history has ever seen. The legacy of Christian prejudice, discrimination, compulsory conversion, theft, assault, rape, arson, destruction, and murder is unparalled in our history and it continues to this day.

And I have never seen a simular "debate" questioning a Muslem's right to practice their faith as they see fit.

We are currently embroiled in what are essentially the opening salvos of a war against Islam because a significant part of their beliefs is the military conquest and conversion of anyone who isn't Muslim.

And noone is saying you can't practice your faith as you see fit. You just cannot impose your faith upon the public. If you want to hate gays because they are sinful perverts who are destined to burn in hell, you are free to do so; however, that is no excuse for limiting their rights in the US.

Personally, I loathe Muslims and Islam, especially Arab Muslims, because the religion and the overwhelming majority of its practitioners despise Jews, want to impose their religion on the entire world through force, and they have an unwholesome and disproportionate tendancy to target and exploit civilians, especially women and children. I am prejudiced and biased against them. I don't like them.

I also stand firmly for their rights as US citizens and am quite vocal in my contempt and opposition for those policies the US has implemented against Muslim citizens in the US in the interest of "security".

I hate Neo-Nazi groups with a fury and passion which is beyond adequate description. If I could get away with it I would slaughter each and every adult member of those groups personally. I would not simply kill them, but gut them and let them die slow painful deaths. They are the antithesis of all that is fine and good and worthy of respect.

I will always defend their right to association, their right to publically gather, their right to spew their hatemongering filth in forums private and public, and their right to hate me and my people (providing that hate doesn't cross the line from belief to action).

It can't be denied that they are way more in your face with their beliefs than Christianity is today in comparison. What do they call it, Honor Killings? And you are worried about Christians telling you how to live today.

Honor Killings have nothing to do with "infidels".

And, yes, currently Islam is a more open and demonstrative threat...but Christianity has quite the history to overcome. Sure, its been an entire century and a half since they've engaged in a religious war in the US (the Utah war where the federal government marched on Utah to stamp out polygamy, essentially). Its been an entire decade since Christians attempted the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Gay believers are certainly welcome to debate the interpretations of biblical doctrine. There have always been church divisions because some will interpret the bible differently. It is our core belief in a higher authority which binds us together.

They wouldn't have to debate if American Christianity was not engaging in a holy legal crusade against homosexuality in the US.

And I should not have said morality scares people. Most people think of themselves as being moral. There just differ as to what is moral. I am a prison guard. We have gangs that just wait for the opportunity to kill each other. They think they are moral too. They tell me they are moral because their circumstances demand they be killers. Do you think they are moral? Do you you even have the right to say?

Again, your attempts to equate homosexuality with murder are ill concieved. One is non-offensive, in that the practice of homosexuality incurs no injury or loss or real effect on anyone outside of the consenting adults so engaged.

The classic libertarian quote applies: "Your rights end where my nose begins".

In the US they don't allow one sect to carry their symbolic knives.

Sikhs aren't Muslim.

Ok I get what you are saying now. You don't want anyone to try to persuade you into changing your opinions. I like that idea. I don't want people to try to recruit me also.

...its about the attempt to interpose religiosity into our public governance.


Is it ok for PETA to attempt to draw support for thier beliefs against animal abuse?

Or Pro Choice, or Political Candidate, or anyone or any organization that believes they have a point of view they want to share?

Certainly Pro Choice tries to recruit others to join their cause. Gays recruit others to join their cause. PETA etc etc. Thousands and thousands of organizations try to recruit other non-believers to reconsider and join them. But it's wrong for relgious groups to. Many more people are glad that someone of faith reached out them than there are that were offended.[/quote]

Yes it is wrong for religious groups to attempt to "recruit others to join their cause", because its wrong for religious groups to have a political cause based on religious beliefs. Do you know why its wrong? Because the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly says its wrong. There can be no establishment of religion. No religion. Not Christianity, not Judaism, not Sikhism. Nothing. When Christians band together to vote against gay rights, they are establishing religion. They are saying "We will codify our religious beliefs in the very foundations of our government". When Christians band together to attempt to force intelligent design in schools or force prayer in schools, they are establishing religion...and frequently are quite clear about their desire to do so, declaring that "America is a Christian nation and needs to return to Christian values".

To be clear, America is not and never was a Christian nation and I dread the day we "return to Christian values" because historically speaking Christian values generally encompass the oppression, torture, and murder of Jews and other non-Christians.

Absent of any religous teaching how does an atheist decide that homosexuality is ok for instance and paedophilia is wrong?

Prohibitions on pedophilia are not religious in origin. Well not until Christianity started associating sex as sinful and innately harmful and thus made the correlation that sex is bad and thus if you do something bad with a child its even worse (which makes sense, in a way).

However, what we consider pedophilia today was considered marriable two thousand years ago. A thirteen year old was literally considered an adult.

Is it based on social norms? Today an act considered repulsive by socialty could be just fine later given enough passage of time?

Actually, in instances of consentual sexuality? Yes. Sexual mores are entirely based on societal views (which are, frequently, heavily influenced by religious views).

Lets look at some of our historical and current sexual laws. Sodomy laws, for instance.

There is nothing immoral about Sodomy (leaving out homosexuality), which legally also usually included oral sex, fetishism, or even sex in a position other than missionary, yet it remained on the books in many states, and in use, until just a couple of years ago.

There is nothing innately immoral about polygamy, yet it remains a law because society is stuck on this Christian belief that it is a sin (though why any man would want to have to deal with more than one wife is beyond me).

There is nothing innately immoral about bestiality or incest either, other than our cultural views on the matter (incest taboos are found in virtually all cultures, but the particulars change. Almost always the taboo is directly related to inheritance custom for that culture, and the confusion which can arise from dual familial relationships between family members).

:epopcorn:

Yeah... this is going to be a fun one to watch!! Where is Aidon in all of this?

I was giving thanks with a four day cycle of eating turkey and then naping off the turkey and waking up again to eat more turkey!

Turkey gone now? :D

Incest does have some implications of making really nasty genetic things be prodominate. There was just something in the news about this recently in some part of the world where the gene pool was very inbred.

Ok I read the link. Basically man answers to each other as opposed to a higher authority for their actions. I guess thats why violent inmates are able to justify revenge killings. They answer to themselves. Everyone on the yard knows the rules established within the prison society. And the consequences for breaking them. So the punishment is just/moral in that society.

So if I understand this. Wrong is determined by any action that is detrimental/harmful to man. And man determines what is harmful etc.

Certain things are de facto harmful. Murder, theft, assault, etc. There really isn't much room for discussion for such activities and societies which permit such demeanor are almost definitionally anarchies.

So is NAMBLA moral as long as the child concents?

Yes, to an extent. However, as a society we've decided that children below the age of 16 (generally speaking, variable by state) are incapable of giving informed consent regarding sexual relations. The primary delineation for sexual morality is that: informed consent. If all parties involved are informed and consent, then the activity isn't immoral (obviously consent via coersion is not consent and further that such coersion does not need to be explicit, but can be by stint of a position of power and authority over a person, such as a Employer/employee, CO/prisoner, Priest/altarboy, Congressman/page...).



Easy on the attacks please. Quote:

Welcome to the Forums ;) what Pan said doesn't qualify as an attack by the standards here. The price for intellectual debate with people broad of knowledge, articulate and of diverse opinion, as found in the OT forum, is that from time to time you will be attacked and insulted in no uncertain terms.

y favorite people in this forum are the same ones I regularly call blithering ****tards wallowing in idiocy of a magnitude which boggles right thinking minds.

And Madie, who I don't think I've insulted yet, but she thinks I'm funny and witty, which makes me not bitter.

socialtal evidence that mankind is more capable of self governing than a sociaty influenced by religion.

There is plenty of societal evidence that theocratic governments tend to end up being some of the most corrupt, totalitarian, cruel, and wicked governments on the planet. When the States "this is illegal, because we say God says so" what appeal do you have? Who can counter the supposed word of God? If you dare revolt, you are then rebelling against God and Country, a heretic and criminal.

No, I think its fairly safe to say that while a secular government may or may not be (I tend to think it is ) more capable of self-governance than a theocratic society, it is most certainly no worse.

Right now today in America mankind believes that they are doing the right thing by giving inmates more personal rights than ever before. That rehabilitation is the anwser. Yet the return rate is higher than ever before. Inmate violance is steadily increasing. So does mankind have it right.

A large part of why recidivism is as high as it is, is a direct result of the continuing societal persecution of criminals after they have served their sentence. Felons out of prison are still treated as criminals, subject to being cheated, stolen from, and generally abused. The difficulty of earning a decent living as an ex-con is daunting, especially given the lack of education which lead to the criminal behavior of many convicts. Then there is the corruption of police who will hound felons in an attempt to find something, anything, with which to arrest them again. Finally there is the sad fact that most of our felons are in prison for non-violent drug offenses and are easy marks upon release for both police looking to boost their arrest record and willing to plant some dope to do so, or the simple economic difference between finding legal work as an ex-con versus working in the illicit drug field.

Turkey gone now? :D

Incest does have some implications of making really nasty genetic things be prodominate. There was just something in the news about this recently in some part of the world where the gene pool was very inbred.

It can, though generally its the product of inbreeding more than incest, if that makes sense.

The geneolgical odds of siblings spawning a defective child are fairly low.

First cousins, so far as I know, have no more odds of defective offspring than non-related people.

Now, when you have groups of interrelated extended family's intermarrying generation after generation, it is going to spread around some genetic defects. You have to bring in new blood, you can't keep marrying cousin Joe Smith off to cousin Betty Jones or Marsha Harris.

Personally the biggest risk, in my opinion, of incest is the lack of social experience and development. If you start sexxin your sibling from day one...you'll form an emotional attachment of a nature which inhibits you from going out and sexxing that kid from school in the back of a car...and while it might be genetically safe for you and your sibling to have children...and even for your children to have children, perhaps, eventually if your family consists of nothing but sibling parents, you're going to start getting some mighty wierd babies...if they survive at all.

Oh hell, now you made me go look it up!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6509680
Weekend Edition Sunday, November 19, 2006 · Deep in the northern Syrian countryside lies a tiny village with a very big problem. For more than 100 years, it has been common practice for the village of Kesten's 5,000 inhabitants to intermarry.

The tradition of marriage between first cousins in the Arab world is a way to keep property and businesses in the family. But it also keeps family in the family, and now up to 800 children in this impoverished village are living with extreme genetic defects.

One schoolteacher in Kesten is taking the unprecedented step of asking the outside world for help.

Oh hell, now you made me go look it up!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6509680Marriage between first cousins is very common in Arab (and some other) cultures, and just look at the large number of people who don't have such defects.

Or just look at human populations today. The genetic evidence shows that the entire Native American race descended from a handful (around 10) explorers who made it from modern day Siberia to Alaska. It also shows that a large percentage of modern day Jews descended from four women.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not encouraging inbreeding, just pointing out that it is the source of many modern-day populations.

800 out of 5,000 residents with extreme defects is pretty bad. That's nearly 20%.

It probably depends on how large the gene pool is to begin with and how often the intermarrying happens.

Your example is just one "tiny" village. It's possible that that village had an abnormal concentration of recessive genetic defects which were brought out by the intermarrying.

Look at the population of Arabs and other cousin-marrying populations as a whole, and you won't get a 20% figure.

Well, we really are doing the same thing here in the US, but just on a larger scale.

Because of medical advancement, it is now possible to pass on genetic diseases to many offspring.

Now of course these disease will be treatable in the future, as they are now.

But it is an interesting notion.

The first one I see becoming near universal, in the near future, would be Diabetes. A disease which was once fatal(and thus a very small pool of sufferers), but now very treatable.

Asthma, or other allergic disorders.

Seizure disorders and psychosis.

Hemophilia and other blood disorders, these will be more rare, and will take many more generations to manifest themselves.

And other genetic disorders, like IBS, or Celiac Disease, or Lactose Intolerance will become near universal.

But we will be good looking people then, that I am sure off. Good looking, smart, and having DM and wearing contacts.

800 out of 5,000 residents with extreme defects is pretty bad. That's nearly 20%.

It probably depends on how large the gene pool is to begin with and how often the intermarrying happens.

20% for over 100 years of 1st cousin intermarriage doesn't seem unreasonable.

As I said, the risk of 1st generation defects from even sibling or parent/child incest is fairly low. Any give pair of 1st cousins are no more likely to produce a defective offspring than two strangers; however, when you start multigenerational long term inbreeding within a limited genepool where everyone is related to some degree or another, you will get defectives.

That's why Appalachia has that reputation...you'd get small "towns" where there were only two of three "different" families (the surnames were different...) and they simply married folks their age with a different last name than they had.

The same can be seen in the old aristocracies of Europe, where there was frequent marriage with cousins.

For long term health of a population the rule of thumb seems to be 3rd cousins or closer relationship is a no go, but again, that's if you're talking about widespread marriage. If two 3rd cousins married each other and there wasn't years of inbred marriage preceeding them both, they would be just fine with respect to defective children.

The first one I see becoming near universal, in the near future, would be Diabetes.Type II diabetes is only rampant in America because the population is largely composed of fat slobs eating a horrible diet while sitting in a chair all day, not because there's a genetic propensity. (Note, I'm not saying there <i>isn't</i> a genetic propensity, just that it's not the main variable.)

If we clean up our diet and exercise a bit, Type II diabetes will disappear almost completely.Asthma, or other allergic disorders.
Seizure disorders and psychosis.
Hemophilia and other blood disorders, these will be more rare, and will take many more generations to manifest themselves.
And other genetic disorders, like IBS, or Celiac Disease, or Lactose Intolerance will become near universal.Even without treatment, these diseases aren't necessarily fatal before reproductive age, which is the only relevant variable.

There is more and more evidence that the pollution in the air, especially ultrafine respitable particulate matter found in diesel exhaust, can do more than simply exacerbate existing asthma, but may actually be able cause asthma in people previously without it by rendering the defense response against allergens hyperreactive. Or something like that.

Even without treatment, these diseases aren't necessarily fatal before reproductive age, which is the only relevant variable.

Nope, but without treatment they were certainly noticeable in others and had been previously selected out.

Hemophilia, all blood clotting disorders, is definitely fatal at an early age without interventions.

But it is a special kind of genetic disorder, it is passed by moms to sons, simply put. There are many X linked disorders, of course. I just have friends who have hemophilia(well a friend's son has it).

Cystic Fibrosis is pretty nasty too. Most males with CF are infertile.

No, it is completely likely that many genetic diseases will eventually become universal here in the US, without some form of therapy to clean up the actual genetic code.

You can intellectualize biblical doctrine all you want. You can form any opinions you want. You can point out perceived contradictions all you want. You can come to any conclusions you want based on your readings and discussions of biblical doctrine.

<O:p</O:pI think you would agree that an intellectual discussion without understanding of the subject material however is at the least limiting. It does have some social value. It would also have some educational value. But to suppose that any conclusion from a discussion void of understanding should provoke life-changing decisions is silly.

<O:p</O:pNow with that in mind:

<O:p</O:pYou cannot and will not ever understand biblical doctrine. Understanding of biblical doctrine does not come from the intellectualization of those teachings. It comes from a person’s relationship with God. You do not believe in God, so you cannot have a relationship with God. You do not have a relationship with God, so you cannot understand the teachings of God.

<O:p</O:pThe OP's questions was answered yet no one showed the understanding to recognize it.

I still see you trying to say that non Christians are not allowed to criticize Christians and Christianity.

And there is nothing intellectual with my response, hogwash!

I still see you trying to say that non Christians are not allowed to criticize Christians and Christianity.

Criticize all you want. But any criticism, interpretation, opinion, will lack understanding.

Hey I got the quote function to work. :)

Well, that is also supposing that Atheists have never been Christians(or some other religion).

Those people are rare.



And I don't really need to understand what you people do in your churches and homes and such.

You just need to keep it there, and out of my face, and out of public, for us to get along. If I wanted to be a Christian, I would be one.

Definitely not work safe.
I think Eric Schwarz says it best...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0

...its about the attempt to interpose religiosity into our public governance.

Yes it is wrong for religious groups to attempt to "recruit others to join their cause", because its wrong for religious groups to have a political cause based on religious beliefs.

I agree the constitution does restict organised religion from imposing it's will on the peope. It does not restrict an individual's right to lobby for anything they want regardless of personal belief.

Additionally it does not restrict religion from soliciting support from the people.

A large part of why recidivism is as high as it is, is a direct result of the continuing societal persecution of criminals after they have served their sentence. Felons out of prison are still treated as criminals, subject to being cheated, stolen from, and generally abused. The difficulty of earning a decent living as an ex-con is daunting, especially given the lack of education which lead to the criminal behavior of many convicts.

Wrong. Did ya get that answer from a book? Criminals remain criminals because they want to be criminals. They like the lifestyle they have chosen. And in fact think others are wrong for trying to inflict our morals onto them. They have in fact formed thier own society with their own rules of conduct and punishement. And they want it that way.

Oh they attend the rehab classes alright. To shorten thier term or gain additional benefits or access. But they arn't doing because they think they need to change. They take the education/law classes. But it's to get better at what they do.

Then there is the corruption of police who will hound felons in an attempt to find something, anything, with which to arrest them again.

This is partially true. But only as it pertains to drug enforcement. And it's complicated. Drug arrest produces income for PD's. So yeah they are motivated by the additional funding. Oh the other hand its drug sells that keep poor drug user commiting crimes against the innocent public that causes the need for additional funding. It's a vicious circle

Finally there is the sad fact that most of our felons are in prison for non-violent drug offenses and are easy marks upon release for both police looking to boost their arrest record and willing to plant some dope to do so, or the simple economic difference between finding legal work as an ex-con versus working in the illicit drug field.

Stop getting your reseach from the movies. I talk to cops all the time in my profession. They don't need to plant evidence to get all the busts they need. Our society is so blatent with it's substance abuse its like mana from heaven for them. There is so much criminal activity that cops are just tired of writing the reports.

I do agree, and most of my colleagues, that some drug use should be legalized. It does less harm than alcohol abuse.

And again maybe 3% of criminals want to intergrate back into society. Some are just too old and some were just good people who made mistakes.

You just need to keep it there, and out of my face, and out of public, for us to get along. If I wanted to be a Christian, I would be one.

I agree if you are talking about active recruiting. You know the door to door stuff.

We have the right too, just like Pro-Choice, or PETA, or Save the whales. But I think there are better ways to find those seeking God.

And I assume you would not be opposed to my personal use of religous symbols such as on my person or personal property.

Well, that is also supposing that Atheists have never been Christians(or some other religion).

Those people are rare.

Assuming a person were able and did deny God after having a personal relationship/experience with God then they no longer are able to understand God.

So you understand God?

Criminals remain criminals because they want to be criminals. They like the lifestyle they have chosen.Many do. But some others would reform given the chance -- a chance which they rarely get in our current system. On the contrary, the system takes nonviolent, mostly drug offenders, and turns them into real criminals in prison.Assuming a person were able and did deny God after having a personal relationship/experience with God then they no longer are able to understand God.So if a zealot turns atheist, it must involve some sort of insidious mind wipe, where all traces of former understanding are purged?I do agree, and most of my colleagues, that some drug use should be legalized. It does less harm than alcohol abuse.That's the first sensible thing you've said in this entire thread. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

So you understand God?

I understand him better than a non-believer does. It's a work in progress.

any do. But some others would reform given the chance -- a chance which they rarely get in our current system. On the contrary, the system takes nonviolent, mostly drug offenders, and turns them into real criminals in prison.

Again do not believe every docudrama passings it's self off as truth. And inmates love to act out thier liitle play roles for every liberal willing to give them a hug, pat them on the arse and says to them If you promise to be good I will let you back out to play.

an I live this ****.

Anyone coming to jail on a non-violent rap who has less than 3 prior convictions is housed in min lock up. Min lock up is like staying in a cheap motel. LOL It's better than a cheep motel. free meals, medical, recreation, sex. These are prison babes. It's easier than the streets. And there ain't nothing to learn overthere they didn't bring with them from the streets.

We got inmates that come every winter like old people go to florida. LOL
in lock up is not creating career criminals.

It they make it beyond min then they made the choice on their own.

Definitely not work safe.
I think Eric Schwarz says it best...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0

LOL! That was great! I think it pretty much sums everything up. :p

My favorite people in this forum are the same ones I regularly call blithering ****tards wallowing in idiocy of a magnitude which boggles right thinking minds.

And Madie, who I don't think I've insulted yet, but she thinks I'm funny and witty, which makes me not bitter.

Good to have you in this discussion Aidon!! I missed you, and for the record - I agree with every single thing you have said in this thread!!

LOL! That was great! I think it pretty much sums everything up. :p

ROFL I agree Pan!! That was GREAT!! And it does sum up the views of Fyyr and Tudamorf succinctly :)

You can intellectualize biblical doctrine all you want. You can form any opinions you want. You can point out perceived contradictions all you want. You can come to any conclusions you want based on your readings and discussions of biblical doctrine.

<O:p</O:pI think you would agree that an intellectual discussion without understanding of the subject material however is at the least limiting. It does have some social value. It would also have some educational value. But to suppose that any conclusion from a discussion void of understanding should provoke life-changing decisions is silly.

<O:p</O:pNow with that in mind:

<O:p</O:pYou cannot and will not ever understand biblical doctrine. Understanding of biblical doctrine does not come from the intellectualization of those teachings. It comes from a person’s relationship with God. You do not believe in God, so you cannot have a relationship with God. You do not have a relationship with God, so you cannot understand the teachings of God.

<O:p</O:pThe OP's questions was answered yet no one showed the understanding to recognize it.

I believe in God.

I'm moderately religious.

I'm not your religion.

I'm completely capable of realizing that history shows the Bible isn't 100% accurate, and that the Bible was written in terms of a society some 3500 years ago and perhaps, just perhaps, its a touch out of date.

Of course my religion realized that about 2000 years ago and adapted to the fact that 1500 year old laws (at the time) were, perhaps, in need of further interpretation.

Of course my religion realized that about 2000 years ago and adapted to the fact that 1500 year old laws (at the time) were, perhaps, in need of further interpretation.
aybe in another 1500 years you'll be able to enjoy shellfish.

I agree the constitution does restict organised religion from imposing it's will on the peope. It does not restrict an individual's right to lobby for anything they want regardless of personal belief.

Additionally it does not restrict religion from soliciting support from the people.

That line is crossed when the pastors and priests at churches across America are telling their parishoners who and what to vote for, lest they be sinners, essentially.

Wrong. Did ya get that answer from a book?

I got it from untold numbers of sociological studies conducted by people much, much more qualified in studying and understanding social behavior than the prison screw.

Criminals remain criminals because they want to be criminals. They like the lifestyle they have chosen.

Tell me, do you have these in depth soul seeking conversations with the inmates before or after you beat them down with your club pretty much just because you can?


Oh they attend the rehab classes alright. To shorten thier term or gain additional benefits or access. But they arn't doing because they think they need to change. They take the education/law classes. But it's to get better at what they do.

Nothing I posted mentioned their willingness or unwillingness to attend any classes in prison. My post was regarding society's treatment of an ex-con after prison.



This is partially true. But only as it pertains to drug enforcement. And it's complicated. Drug arrest produces income for PD's. So yeah they are motivated by the additional funding. Oh the other hand its drug sells that keep poor drug user commiting crimes against the innocent public that causes the need for additional funding. It's a vicious circle

It really isn't that complicated. Stop sending people to jail for non-violent drug offenses. In fact, end the idiodic "War on Drugs".



Stop getting your reseach from the movies. I talk to cops all the time in my profession. They don't need to plant evidence to get all the busts they need. Our society is so blatent with it's substance abuse its like mana from heaven for them. There is so much criminal activity that cops are just tired of writing the reports.

ovie's eh? I've known a few cops over the years. It seems that a disproportionate amount of Marine Corps Reservists are also police officers, something about the police actually wanting to have people who don't need to fire 140 rounds to hit a guy three times. I'm well aware of the dirty **** cops will pull, because they told me all about it. Detroit cops, Toledo cops, hicksville suburbia cops. The uniting factor amongst most of them was that they were above the law, because they were the law (except for speeding on Ohio highways, where the State Highway Patrol is so evil they even ticket other cops).

Assuming a person were able and did deny God after having a personal relationship/experience with God then they no longer are able to understand God.


Newsflash. God is inscrutable. You can't understand God. I can't understand God.

Oh and who's to say your God is the God that needs to be understood?

Well, your Gods.

You cannot and will not ever understand biblical doctrine. Understanding of biblical doctrine does not come from the intellectualization of those teachings. It comes from a person’s relationship with God. You do not believe in God, so you cannot have a relationship with God. You do not have a relationship with God, so you cannot understand the teachings of God.

I'll accept that if you do not follow a religion then you will be unlikely to understand the spiritual implications of the religion. However, when the teachings of God become the law of the nation then everyone in the nation will necessarily form their own opinion of that law. It is unavoidable. I'm sure you would agree that every personal opinion can be freely expressed and has equal weight at the ballot box.

Maybe in another 1500 years you'll be able to enjoy shellfish.

I enjoy shellfish now! Mmmm, I'll risk my kids living cursed lives unto a thousand generations for some Alaskan King Crab legs. I probably won't like the lil bastards anyways.

That line is crossed when the pastors and priests at churches across America are telling their parishoners who and what to vote for, lest they be sinners, essentially.
Aye, the government should be way more diligent in stripping the 501(c)(3) status of religious organizations who do this.

From the IRS web site 501(c)(3) (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html):
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Mmmm, I'll risk my kids living cursed lives unto a thousand generations for some Alaskan King Crab legs.
lol - it's definitely a fair trade!

Aye, the government should be way more diligent in stripping the 501(c)(3) status of religious organizations who do this.

From the IRS web site 501(c)(3) (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html):
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Due to the rapid expansion of various megachurches in Ohio...and their explicit politicization and partisanship...the IRS is currently investigating the tax exempt status of some 130 Churches in Ohio, for exactly that reason.

Due to the rapid expansion of various megachurches in Ohio...and their explicit politicization and partisanship...the IRS is currently investigating the tax exempt status of some 130 Churches in Ohio, for exactly that reason.
Lets hope it becomes a national trend.

WRT Ohio, you guys need to do something about that huge cross near I70. That thing is a road hazard.

I think Eric Schwarz says it best...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0
roflmfao -- yep, he does say it best.

Personally I think most religious, and some non-profits need to be taxxed like everything else.

If someone comes to my door and tells me I shouldn't eat meat because it is immoral (they're PETA) and animals have the same rights as people, I think I've got a right, even obligation, to tell them I think they're wrong. I don't need to be a member of the group to understand the logical errors they're making in their reasoning.

For the record: The first post was an article I found interesting by:
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
A Baptist minister. So using Messen's logic, seems like he's perfectly entitled to express his opinion.

Not a big Bob and Tom fan... but I thought this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ndlsVnV5zVA) was pretty funny!!

I'm completely capable of realizing that history shows the Bible isn't 100% accurate, and that the Bible was written in terms of a society some 3500 years ago and perhaps, just perhaps, its a touch out of date.

Of course my religion realized that about 2000 years ago and adapted to the fact that 1500 year old laws (at the time) were, perhaps, in need of further interpretation.

I never augued differently.

That line is crossed when the pastors and priests at churches across America are telling their parishoners who and what to vote for, lest they be sinners, essentially.

I agree

I got it from untold numbers of sociological studies conducted by people much, much more qualified in studying and understanding social behavior than the prison screw.

Yeah social scientist have their veiw from the outside and I have mine from the inside. Yeah I'm sure they know so much more. And so far the results of their research is working right? LOL

Tell me, do you have these in depth soul seeking conversations with the inmates before or after you beat them down with your club pretty much just because you can?

That's just hate. You don't know me. Oh and yeah its before i beat them.

Nothing I posted mentioned their willingness or unwillingness to attend any classes in prison. My post was regarding society's treatment of an ex-con after prison.

Your post first assumes they are looking for jobs. And they are. It's a requirement of parol or probation. 3 paychecks will do the job until they can disapear from the system. You know there is plenty of employment discrimination going on for lots of groups. It's hard to cry for them when you consider they did it to themselves.

[quote=Aidon]It really isn't that complicated. Stop sending people to jail for non-violent drug offenses. In fact, end the idiodic "War on Drugs".[quote]

I already indicated that the drug offenses need to be looked at. But if you are stretching that out to crimes commited to support drug use your frankly bonkers.

[quote=Aidon]I've known a few cops over the years. [quote]

Yeah i can tell by your name calling (screw) and your general disrepect of law enforment officers that you are intimately familiar. /sarcasm off

[quote=Aidon]Oh and who's to say your God is the God that needs to be understood?[quote]

Did I somewhere claim personal posession of God. No. In fact (though this is a personal veiwpoint) that all religion has more in common than their leaders are willing to consider.

Messen -- just FYI, to terminate a quotation you need to put a '/' before 'quote' inside the braces. As in '[/quote]'

Personally I think most religious, and some non-profits need to be taxxed like everything else.

Taxing religious institutions can be viewed as interfering with the free expression of religion, but when a religion becomes a political party in name or practice (i.e. endorsing specific candidates or parties) it become unconstitutional itself.

That's the trade off.

Of course, it used to be that churches weren't started soley to bilk the pious out of their money to make a massive profit, also, but I don't like the precedent of taxing churches, because most congregations in America are still traditional operating at a loss and dependant on annual contributions from outside sources in order to provide right and good services to their congregants.

Yeah social scientist have their veiw from the outside and I have mine from the inside. Yeah I'm sure they know so much more. And so far the results of their research is working right? LOL

News flash No. 2: Sociologists don't make law. The results of their research are obviously being ignored by those who do, because our criminal justice system hasn't changed regarding the status of convicts after they are released.



That's just hate. You don't know me. Oh and yeah its before i beat them.

No, its ridiculous rhetoric, much like your comments were in presuming I lacked any knowledge on the subject from which to speak.



Your post first assumes they are looking for jobs. And they are. It's a requirement of parol or probation. 3 paychecks will do the job until they can disapear from the system You know there is plenty of employment discrimination going on for lots of groups. It's hard to cry for them when you consider they did it to themselves.

See, therein lies your problem, you are making horribly erroneous assumptions. No, many of them did not "do it to themselves". Many of them broke laws which should never have exists because they did no harm to anyone against their will. Many of them also were simply screwed by dishonest or overworked police or screwed by DA's who's goal is no longer to promote justice, but to get promoted by making their boss look tough on crime, which has turned into an ideology of "convict, regardless of the means", this judicial farce is further compounded by an increasing anti-defendant bias in our criminal justice system, being imposed by heartless and wicked politicians who don't care who's lives are ruined by a mistake caused with no ill intent, so long as they are re-elected.

I already indicated that the drug offenses need to be looked at. But if you are stretching that out to crimes commited to support drug use your frankly bonkers.

No, crimes committed to support drug use are crimes on their own merit, such as burglary, theft, assault, etc. However, over half of the federal prison population are there for drug offenses and over 1/5th of the state level prison populations are there for drug offenses. The US has more people in our prisons than the rest of the world combined...including such wonderful nations like China, who has 3 times our population and is a supposedly less free nation who likes to throw folks in prison or "administrative detention" pretty much at whim. It isn't because we have a disproportionate amount of wicked evil criminals.

I've known a few cops over the years. [quote]

[quote]Yeah i can tell by your name calling (screw) and your general disrepect of law enforment officers that you are intimately familiar. /sarcasm off

I hate to break it to you, pal, but not everyone who knows law enforcement officers actually likes and approves of their methodology.

While I was in the USMCR, yes, I did know a few cops over the years, from various areas, and to be perfectly fair, I even liked most of them on a personal level, but that doesn't change the fact that they admitted to conduct I find reprehensible in law enforcment officers and yes, I have a general lack of respect for the entire profession which has done little in their conduct over the past twenty years to combat such disrespect. They generally feel themselves above the law, because they wear a badge, are generally confrontational when they are on the job, and generally feel civil liberties are something to circumvent instead of protect.

Sheik IT, do you believe in the Old Testament parts of the bible, like Leviticus 18?

Yes, but it is no longer applicable for those living under grace, as per the new testament. Certain things were not made permissible, like engaging in homosexual acts, and other things were, like food.

O yes...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/what_islamic_science_and_philo.html

This is a quite reasonable question. However individual people are capable of looking at the world they live in and the people they live with to determine their own sense of right. It doesn't matter whether their views are shaped by national law, tradition, media, culture, or personal experience. Our modern societies are designed to accomodate the variety of moralities held within the population.

Would it be better for qan entire society to follow an absolute morality that cannot be questioned? Without an assumption of divine authority, I would personally say no.

Agreed - unless you have absolutes then all you have is aggregated opinions. That is the problem with the modern West - that everything is supposedly 'equal' or 'someone else's fault'. Crapola.

For example, some b@stard broke into my house last Friday and stole my computer. Now, I dont give 2 sh!ts who brought the little prick up or who bullied him at school: the fact is he broke into my house, deliberately and purposefully, to steal MY computer which I had worked for and I had paid for. It is NOT the fault of society (except maybe the judge who didnt lock the little prick up long enough, or maybe the teacher who didnt beat him hard enough) but HIS fault and his alone.

The Old Testament does set out guidance and property rights - interestingly the first 3 commandments are all about God. We follow these latter 7 rules because we acknowledge the first three. I know this will be contentious but our modern society is fundamentally a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Yes, but it is no longer applicable for those living under grace, as per the new testament. Certain things were not made permissible, like engaging in homosexual acts, and other things were, like food.
Where is that exception stated in the Bible?

Here's a good example of religion trying to force its views on other people and into the government. IMO, our government should purge itself of the practice of swearing people in on the bible (or any "holy" book).

http://www.afa.net/aa112806_2.asp

What happens if you're jewish or Muslim or agnostic? Of course, you probably wouldn't get elected in the first place... but what if?

Hmm...maybe use a copy of the Constitution instead?

That would make a lot more sense.

Well, article 6 of the Constitution does specify this matter implicitly,

Quote. "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

Pretty much sums up swearing into office upon the holy bible or any other religious doctrine. That is more a personal choice. Kinda like where you get sworn in, which typical happens near the Washington monument, but, there was a president sworn into office in an airplane. That was about it in Article six, other than an oath to support the constitution.

Atheists, or any other faith, do not need to swear on a Bible per se in court either.

They may take an Oath of Affirmation.

Which still binds them to telling the truth, and with consequences of perjury still.

I am sure that the swearing in of politicians, and Presidents, pretty much work on the same deal, that is to say, that swearing in a President on a Bible is personal preference and public relations.

quote Panamah," What happens if you're jewish or Muslim or agnostic? Of course, you probably wouldn't get elected in the first place... but what if?"

Thankfully, one of the earlier versions of the constitutions, the one I would call the "weird one" with a similar Preamble expressing the intent of The Constitution, not an exact quote to what it was but to the extent of what was written down. "We the people of the United States, under our Lord God...." and on and on, probably would have had a slightly different Article 6.

Quote Article 6 again, ""no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

Would have been removed entirely.At issue was that in some States the person entering office was required take an oath of office expressing belief in "one God, the creator of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked"; or to declare belief in the "divine inspiration" of the Scriptures, or "faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son", and so on. The effect was that those whose belief prevented them from taking such an oath were excluded from office. Consequently such a "religious test" was forbidden by this clause of the Constitution.

So, under the original Constitution under article 6, would have pretty much only let those of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish(assuming Islam and Judaeism would have been allowed) Faiths hold any kind of political office. Now that would be slightly discrimanatory(despite the early discrimination of say women, African Americans, and Native Americans), not to mention only land owners would have been allowed to elect political leaders, aside from the later amendment 12 I think that established the electoral college. Talk about a few scary thoughts.

Whew I got allittle long winded.

Quote Fyrr,"They may take an Oath of Affirmation"

Yes, pretty much all public office does. Just going to quote the general oath coming up for Senators and House of Reps.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God(optional this last line).

Kennedy had an interesting quote regarding his Oath and the so help me God line."[N]either do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection.."

But anyways, some neat stuff on oaths, going to go back allittle more on subject! muahaha an agnostic doing bible quotes in a bit, hilarious and novel, I tell you!

Like certain religeons denominations that will not take oaths, like say using Jesus's Antithesis of Law, "I say to you: 'Swear not at all'". Jesus says as an interpretation, that we should hold ourselves to a high standard of truthfulness at all times: "yes" should mean "yes," "no" should mean "no," and there is no need for elaborate formal promises.

Apostle James also said,"Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned." Interesting here to note I guess all the politicians well.... not all Christians follow that writing is important to note, as well as many Jews do not take oaths due to good buddy leviticus(19:12, I think) would unintentionally make a false oath and violate that biblical commandment.

But anyways, some neat stuff on oaths, going to go back allittle more on subject! muahaha an agnostic doing bible quotes in a bit, hilarious and novel, I tell you!
Hey, a good friend of mine is the son of Missionary parents, father is a preacher. He knows the Bible inside and out and can debate with anyone. He calls himself an agnostic. Actually, I think he's an atheist, but he's a stickler for symantics and won't call himself an atheist until he has proof God doesn't exist. :p

Like certain religeons denominations that will not take oathsOh yes! I had a Jehovah's Witness friend in grade school who wouldn't do the pledge.

Hmmm... it would be interesting to see Thomas Paine's draft of the Constitution.

I've always loved the story of Ben Franklin's editing of the Declaration that Jefferson wrote, changing a rather religious paragraph to one reflecting Enlightenment era philosophy:
One of Franklin's revisions to Jefferson's draft Declaration replaced "sacred and undeniable," in reference to the truths the Americans were defending, with "self-evident." The difference was crucial: "sacred" summoned the authority of God, "self-evident" the authority of human reason.

I love Franklin.

I also love when there a few of him in my pocket.

But that would be self evident, of course.

Where is that exception stated in the Bible?

ark 7:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=7&verse=19&version=31&context=verse)
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

* Now, bear in mind that it is grace and faith are the keys to salvation, and not works.

Here's a good example of religion trying to force its views on other people and into the government. IMO, our government should purge itself of the practice of swearing people in on the bible (or any "holy" book).

http://www.afa.net/aa112806_2.asp

Well, to whom will our leaders owe allegiance? To whom will they be responsible? To the electorate, whom they treat by and large with contempt? To the pressure groups that surround them? To the parasites and hangers on who want to grab as much as possible for themselves at the state's expense? To themselves?

Better ask your new congressman how much of Sura 9:29 he's going to invoke. Ready to fork over your jizyah?

I believe in God.

I'm moderately religious.

I'm not your religion.

I'm completely capable of realizing that history shows the Bible isn't 100% accurate, and that the Bible was written in terms of a society some 3500 years ago and perhaps, just perhaps, its a touch out of date.

Of course my religion realized that about 2000 years ago and adapted to the fact that 1500 year old laws (at the time) were, perhaps, in need of further interpretation.

Im not sure about that Aidon! The Israelites were sticklers for the law, as God had commanded them to observe. That is, when they weren't going off the rails and persecuting the prophets. But what they didnt realise was that God wanted justice and mercy. He said he was sick of empty sacrifices and words, He didn't want to be 'honoured with lips, but their hearts are far from me'. He is a God of substance, not form. The law was and still is there to show man's failings against God's perfect law in a sinful world, and to point him towards forgiveness...

Newsflash. God is inscrutable. You can't understand God. I can't understand God.

Oh and who's to say your God is the God that needs to be understood?

Well, your Gods.

Not sure that's a tenable position. Its an Islamic position, for sure. But the JudeoChristian God is one who wants a relationship, right from Genesis, and has left His fingerprints across creation. Creation itself provides evidence of God's nature: extremely creative, very organised, structurer and enforcer of laws; the fact we can understand and investigate the universe provides clues to the nature of the creator in the same way that a clock gives clues as to the clockmaker.

Romans 1:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Understand that it wasn't that cut and dry and that the idea of Jesus fulfilling the law was more a rationalization than a reason. Early christians considered themselves Jewish and followed Jewish law...it was not until Christianity started trying to spread outside of Judea/Philistina that the question of Christianity being seperate and distinct from Judaism came about.

It was persecutions in the early church that spread it out from Jerusalem, but the main push came within 5 years after Saul's conversion and his subsequent 2 years studying the Torah (he was an exceptional Pharisee) when he was tried before Jewish and Roman courts before appealing to Caesar and going to Rome. Early Christians were call Followers of the Way. Acts 11:25 describes Antioch as the place where these people were first called christians.

While the New Testament is more uniform in its various translations and editions than the Original Testament, there is distinct question of authorship and then later of transcription and translation errors. This, of course, completely discounts the official cannonization of the New Testament and the absence of various other religious texts which were considered heretical at the time of cannonization, mostly for political purposes.

These questions have been gone over in some considerable detail, however the canon (new testament) was compiled only after rigorous analysis of the texts and their authorship. Basically the writings needed to be written by eyewitnesses or apostles. The early widespread copying of these works testifies to the early adoption of a single set of writings over and above the copies that emerged subsequently.

If you read some of the additional works after reading the bible the differences in the other claimants become very clear.

There is plenty of societal evidence that theocratic governments tend to end up being some of the most corrupt, totalitarian, cruel, and wicked governments on the planet. When the States "this is illegal, because we say God says so" what appeal do you have? Who can counter the supposed word of God? If you dare revolt, you are then rebelling against God and Country, a heretic and criminal.

No, I think its fairly safe to say that while a secular government may or may not be (I tend to think it is ) more capable of self-governance than a theocratic society, it is most certainly no worse.
[snip]


Sin is the problem in this world. Noone is immune from it, neither in government or elsewhere. Although the nations of Christendom have had a somewhat chequered history, the 20th century really went to town in terms of butchering and slaughtering - 100 million dead in China, USSR, Cambodia. All godless! At least if you can point to the bible you have some defence as to good governance, with a God of justice and mercy. Secular government (note:- emerging from Protestant English speaking nations, which since the Bill of Rights 1689 (UK for you Yanks) has provided the separations of power to check to some extent men's sinful nature) is a powerful force for good, however the abandonment by the basic judeochristian worldview will have serious consequences - just wait and see...

Well, to whom will our leaders owe allegiance? To whom will they be responsible?
Our leaders, in their elected capacity, are responsible to their constituents and the constitution. Do you believe they are incapable of honoring those responsibilities without swearing their oath on a bible? If recent history is any indicator, the bible doesn't appear to have helped much.

Well, to whom will our leaders owe allegiance? To whom will they be responsible? To the electorate, whom they treat by and large with contempt? To the pressure groups that surround them? To the parasites and hangers on who want to grab as much as possible for themselves at the state's expense? To themselves?

Better ask your new congressman how much of Sura 9:29 he's going to invoke. Ready to fork over your jizyah?

The constitution specifies, exactly, the oath of office required by our federal leaders.

It also specifically prohibits any religious test in order to serve.

Im not sure about that Aidon! The Israelites were sticklers for the law, as God had commanded them to observe. That is, when they weren't going off the rails and persecuting the prophets. But what they didnt realise was that God wanted justice and mercy. He said he was sick of empty sacrifices and words, He didn't want to be 'honoured with lips, but their hearts are far from me'. He is a God of substance, not form. The law was and still is there to show man's failings against God's perfect law in a sinful world, and to point him towards forgiveness...

Allow me to educate you, my ignorant ****ing assgoblin, for your presumption of any knowledge on the subject is belied by your spewing the propaganda of uneducated imbeciles which litter Christianty like locust carcasses after a plague.

When speaking of the Jewish nation during the Time of Jesus, you're speaking of Judah, and Judaens, not Israelites. During various periods in the history of the Jews in Israel, the nation was not unified and at various times was Judah, Israel, or seperate entities of Judah and Israel.

Secondly, the centuries of time around the turn of the 1st millenia were the periods of time during which Judaism was adjusting itself from the laws of the Torah to the Rabbinic laws, making adjustments to the laws of a religion which was ancient when your pissant little cult was first mewling its first heretical cries. Jesus was nothing unique, nor special, for the time and place. He was little more than another two bit sideshow preacher, espousing his personal philosophy for how to deal with religious life under Roman occupation. There's a reason why noone has ever found contemporary documents which reference Jesus in the slighest. The earliest commentary on Jesus comes in the form of the Gospels, written at least thirty years after his death, and clearly written with an agenda towards inspiring a divinity to differentiate themselves from mainstream Judaism.

As for what Jesus said...pffft. He said nothing, because odds are as like as not that he didn't exist.

Do not presume, in your ignorances, to preach to me on the validity of Jewish law which our religion has molded and modernified over thirty five hundred years, from the mists of antiquity until modern times. Do you have even the faintest concept of who and what the Pharasees, Essenes, and Sadducees were, besides groups mentioned in your bible? Of course you don't, because your mind is empty of knowledge and filled only with the hateful spite of an intellectually inferior people.

Not sure that's a tenable position. Its an Islamic position, for sure. But the JudeoChristian God is one who wants a relationship, right from Genesis, and has left His fingerprints across creation.

First of all, speak not of a Judeo-Christian god, for Christians, by definition, worship Gods other than He who we worship, ignoring the second commandment with their very name. "You shall have no other God before Me". Its a simple commandmant, easy to understand. I do not comprehend the difficulty the lot of you have in following it.

Creation itself provides evidence of God's nature: extremely creative, very organised, structurer and enforcer of laws; the fact we can understand and investigate the universe provides clues to the nature of the creator in the same way that a clock gives clues as to the clockmaker.

You're a fool. Provided, for just a moment, that nature provides evidence of anything divine (which it does not...it simply makes a strong case for it in that there is complex life). However, any being capable of creating our universe is obviously of a nature far beyond our comprehension. Our understanding of God is miniscule and based on what he would have us understand, not any actual understanding.

Romans 1:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Do not quote your filth at me as evidence of theological argument, it was created whole cloth by men most fallible in nature and abilities, from the Gospels onward.

These questions have been gone over in some considerable detail, however the canon (new testament) was compiled only after rigorous analysis of the texts and their authorship. Basically the writings needed to be written by eyewitnesses or apostles. The early widespread copying of these works testifies to the early adoption of a single set of writings over and above the copies that emerged subsequently.

If you read some of the additional works after reading the bible the differences in the other claimants become very clear.

The questions have been gone over in some considerable detail and the virtually unanimous agreement by educated men is that the canon doesn't officially exist to this day.

it was not canonized at once. For many many centuries the Roman church used different books than the Eastern church and the Ethiopian church and the Coptic church, etc. etc. etc.

It was persecutions in the early church that spread it out from Jerusalem, but the main push came within 5 years after Saul's conversion and his subsequent 2 years studying the Torah (he was an exceptional Pharisee) when he was tried before Jewish and Roman courts before appealing to Caesar and going to Rome. Early Christians were call Followers of the Way. Acts 11:25 describes Antioch as the place where these people were first called christians.

We've already determined that you lack any real understanding of what a pharisee is...please stop quoting names which are meaningless to you just because you're aping the translation of books your particular sect of the Christian death cult has chosen to believe is accurate.

Sin is the problem in this world. Noone is immune from it, neither in government or elsewhere. Although the nations of Christendom have had a somewhat chequered history

Somewhat checkered? You raped, burned and pillaged your way through three continents, you despicable murderous ****s. You've spent the past two thousand years spreading your religion by blade and flame, mounting "holy" crusades to bring your piece of **** pagan god Jesus to a multitude of people who didn't ****ing want him. Crusades, Inquisitions, Shtetls, Ghettos, Missionaries and Conquistadores. Christianity has been the worst plague this planet has ever seen. You lot are truly evil assholes.

the 20th century really went to town in terms of butchering and slaughtering - 100 million dead in China, USSR, Cambodia. All godless!

The biggest slaughter in China came from the Japanese military...their society was not godless, indeed, their Imperial government was based on the divinity of their emperor.

The USSR was never truly godless. Even high ranking party members retained their eastern orthodox beliefs.

I don't know what the **** about cambodia.



At least if you can point to the bible you have some defence as to good governance, with a God of justice and mercy.

No...I can point to my bible. The one you reject because your idolic three in one God supposedly said you didn't have to follow anymore.

Your bible spends most of its time intellectually spooging over a two-bit street preacher.

Secular government (note:- emerging from Protestant English speaking nations, which since the Bill of Rights 1689 (UK for you Yanks) has provided the separations of power to check to some extent men's sinful nature) is a powerful force for good, however the abandonment by the basic judeochristian worldview will have serious consequences - just wait and see...

Ah yes, please point out British governance, in its majestic beneficence. You know that wonderous liberal state where in the 18th century it was illegal to not be a practicing Anglican (law required men not only be Anglican, but to attend service, mind you). That wonderous place, so advanced, that Jews got the right to vote as early as the mid 19th century! Of course we weren't allowed to hold office for many years after that, since every oath of office required the oath to be taken "on the truth faith of a Christian".

Again, stop calling it a judeo-christian worldview. Christianity's worldview is vastly different from Judaism's. We don't believe in compulsory conversion, for one thing.

Our leaders, in their elected capacity, are responsible to their constituents and the constitution. Do you believe they are incapable of honoring those responsibilities without swearing their oath on a bible? If recent history is any indicator, the bible doesn't appear to have helped much.

Nope, simply swearing on something wont make you a better or worse individual. But what governs invariably filters its values downwards to the rest of the organisation.

To quote jihadwatch, which has been following this,

"
In the first place, the controversy is essentially over a photo-op. Congessmen aren't sworn in on a book. They line up and raise their right hands and are sworn in collectively. Then, if they choose to do so, they can wait on a long line to get a photo-op with the Speaker, in which the Speaker and the Congressman raise their hands, and someone holds a book -- the Bible, but it could just as well be anything else, as it is not a swearing-in but just a photo-op -- between them.
That said, this is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with eventually. And at that time, I hope there will be some who have the courage to point out that no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an, since -- as we have been pointing out here for over three years now -- there are so many elements of traditional and mainstream Islam that are at variance with our system of government, our Constitution, and our entire way of life. But since that is blandly denied and unexamined by the mainstream media and government officials, it is much more likely that Qur'anic oath-taking will be allowed without any discussion at all. And Sharia principles will continue to advance in the United States, most often under the guise of freedom of religion, civil rights, and "diversity" initiatives."

And that is why - would you want to your representatives intending to abide by the demands of Islam, a worldview that regulates every part of your existence?



Would You Work For This Company? (http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f%2Dnews/1037035/posts) Do you fancy working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics?:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year ...


Can you guess which organization this is?

Given up yet?






It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

Is anyone elses Urban Legend/Internet Myth detector ringing out of control on that one?

Would You Work For This Company? Do you fancy working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics?:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year ...


Can you guess which organization this is?
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm

So, I suppose I'm supposed to infer that if these people were more properly religious they'd be less corrupt? Heh! Yeah, there's so much evidence of that in real life... Catholic Church priest scandal, Baptist Ministers, phoney faith healers, TV Evangelists bilking their flocks and living high on the hog while screwing protitutes, Mormons buying documents that discredit their church and hiding them. I'm just curious how much stuff we never hear about, like people absconding with funds, spousal abuse, affairs, closeted homosexuality because the churchs cover it up.

That said, this is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with eventually. And at that time, I hope there will be some who have the courage to point out that no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an, since -- as we have been pointing out here for over three years now -- there are so many elements of traditional and mainstream Islam that are at variance with our system of government, our Constitution, and our entire way of life.

Why shouldn't they swear their oath on the Qu'ran? If an Islamic represenatative has been elected by a majority of the voters then who are you to decide that Islam is odds with their entire way of life. The ideology of any religious group should not override the rights of the democratic majority.

would you want to your representatives intending to abide by the demands of Islam, a worldview that regulates every part of your existence?


Not particularly. You though seem to want your representatives to abide by the demands of Christianity, quite specifically in the case of the book used to swear an oath of allegiance.

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

So? Do you want to replace them with represenatatives who follow the demands of Christianity to keep the non-believers in line? Just what sort of point are you making here?

I hope there will be some who have the courage to point out that no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an, since -- as we have been pointing out here for over three years now -- there are so many elements of traditional and mainstream Islam that are at variance with our system of government, our Constitution, and our entire way of life.
No American official should be taking an oath on any religious document. Period. The same reasons they give for not doing it on the Qur'an apply to any religious document.

Allow me to educate you, my ignorant ****ing assgoblin, for your presumption of any knowledge on the subject is belied by your spewing the propaganda of uneducated imbeciles which litter Christianty like locust carcasses after a plague.

Ahh, its good to get back to intelligent debate of facts and theory, rather than personal attack.

When speaking of the Jewish nation during the Time of Jesus, you're speaking of Judah, and Judaens, not Israelites. During various periods in the history of the Jews in Israel, the nation was not unified and at various times was Judah, Israel, or seperate entities of Judah and Israel.

That is correct, as far as I understand it. The Israelite nation was effectively exinguished when God kicked them out of the promised land for disobeying him. If you took the time to read what I wrote originally this would be apparent. It referred to God's dealings with those people.

Secondly, the centuries of time around the turn of the 1st millenia were the periods of time during which Judaism was adjusting itself from the laws of the Torah to the Rabbinic laws, making adjustments to the laws of a religion which was ancient when your pissant little cult was first mewling its first heretical cries. Jesus was nothing unique, nor special, for the time and place. He was little more than another two bit sideshow preacher, espousing his personal philosophy for how to deal with religious life under Roman occupation. There's a reason why noone has ever found contemporary documents which reference Jesus in the slighest. The earliest commentary on Jesus comes in the form of the Gospels, written at least thirty years after his death, and clearly written with an agenda towards inspiring a divinity to differentiate themselves from mainstream Judaism.

Thats if you are removing any reference to Paul's writings and the writings of NT authors. Now these events did not take place in the centre of the known world, they took place in a little backwater in the middle east where even then the Romans/western powers were having problems with the locals. However these writings are generally regarded as accurate, especially those of Luke whose writings of seamanship during Paul's journeys are regarded as among the best of surviving records on ancient seamanship.

As for what Jesus said...pffft. He said nothing, because odds are as like as not that he didn't exist.

Even though the new testament writings are among the most reliable (if not THE most reliable) ancient writings we possess? If you apply the same standards to other ancient writings then the authenticity of all them must be in severe doubt.

Do not presume, in your ignorances, to preach to me on the validity of Jewish law which our religion has molded and modernified over thirty five hundred years, from the mists of antiquity until modern times. Do you have even the faintest concept of who and what the Pharasees, Essenes, and Sadducees were, besides groups mentioned in your bible? Of course you don't, because your mind is empty of knowledge and filled only with the hateful spite of an intellectually inferior people.

I see the Jews have not changed since Paul's time and never will. But the real problem is a rejection of God's grace. What don't you understand about your OWN PROMISED MESSIAH? Why are you rejecting God's promised messiah? Or have you already given up? You no longer have a lineage to trace him after the destruction of the temple in AD70. The miles of promises in Isaiah, the predictions and the prophecies that predict a suffering servant, the introduction of a new kingdom, of God's own kingdom, His eternal kingdom, a virgin birth, a saviour from Bethlehem?

God has spelt it out time and time again:- In Genesis, God covers Adam's and Eve's nakedness with skins - an animal had to die and God had to clothe them. Noah followed God's commandments and was saved from God's judgement - God seals Noah and his family in the Ark. In Exodus, God provides the method for escaping judgement via the provision of the Passover. Once again, an animal has to die, blood has to be spilt, an atonement had to be made. This was something repeated for 1000 years and more, to REMIND the nation and to prepare them for the coming promised messiah. Once again, God provides a way out of judgement by providing His Son as an atonement. We are clothed in His righteousness and no longer bound by laws, having been given grace and having any penalty cancelled.

Now either Im right or wrong. Its as simple as that. If I am wrong, accepted. But if I am right then fuming isn't a sensible way to proceed. Jesus did not spout some fashionable teaching, he claimed to be God and to provide the only way to God. Now, either he was mad, a liar, or he was who he said he was. It is not possible to view him as anything else.

Why shouldn't they swear their oath on the Qu'ran? If an Islamic represenatative has been elected by a majority of the voters then who are you to decide that Islam is odds with their entire way of life. The ideology of any religious group should not override the rights of the democratic majority.

Not particularly. You though seem to want your representatives to abide by the demands of Christianity, quite specifically in the case of the book used to swear an oath of allegiance.

So? Do you want to replace them with represenatatives who follow the demands of Christianity to keep the non-believers in line? Just what sort of point are you making here?

Do you really want your government to implement sharia law? If that's what you want then eventually you will get it.

The point Im making is that the God as revealed in the Bible is a God of justice and mercy, and that the populations in countries that implement laws along these lines will benefit from better protection than other types of nations. Why is it that so much wealth is accumulating in these Western nations? It is because they have the social and legal framework that protects it.

I am also aware that the religious right can be rather strong in the US and get away with more than in other nations. I don't think that is a good way to proceed, either.

Do you really want your government to implement sharia law? If that's what you want then eventually you will get it.
They simply can't do it, any more than Bush or any other person in American politics. Unless, of course, they totally subvert the Constitution (as the Christians keep trying) and stack the courts.

That simply isn't going to happen. We allow religious freedom in this country and don't discriminate against people based on their religion. For some reason you think the only ones who should be allowed religious freedom are the people in your religion? Sheesh!

The point Im making is that the God as revealed in the Bible is a God of justice and mercy, and that the populations in countries that implement laws along these lines will benefit from better protection than other types of nations. Why is it that so much wealth is accumulating in these Western nations? It is because they have the social and legal framework that protects it.

I am also aware that the religious right can be rather strong in the US and get away with more than in other nations. I don't think that is a good way to proceed, either.

The Jewish god is sorta an asshole (sorry aidon!) but israel does pretty damn good job.

Japan and South Korea kick some ass but definately arnt Christian.

Pretty much all of south and central america is Christian, and they have a lot of problems.

Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain are Islam, and do very well.

China and India have some of fastest growing economies in the world atm, and are not Christian, although of course they have problems atm.

Do you really want your government to implement sharia law? If that's what you want then eventually you will get it.

Unlike in the US, there are actually a number of muslims representatives in my national Parliament. To my mind, they don't seem any better or worse than the rest of the politicians. They are not trying to impose sharia law on me or anyone else. It is scaremongering to suggest that we'll all be wearing burkhas as soon as anyone dares to cast away their prejudices and vote for a muslim.

They simply can't do it, any more than Bush or any other person in American politics. Unless, of course, they totally subvert the Constitution (as the Christians keep trying) and stack the courts.

That simply isn't going to happen. We allow religious freedom in this country and don't discriminate against people based on their religion. For some reason you think the only ones who should be allowed religious freedom are the people in your religion? Sheesh!

Not at all, but the laws of a nation largely reflect that of the general population. Remember the incarceration of Japanese Americans at the outbreak of WW2? Prohibited by the constitution by done all the same during a time of national emergency.

The freedom of religion in the US is a good idea and one that removes the power of the clergy. The framers wanted to avoid the tit-for-tat persecutions arising from a Europe where the church and state were intertwined and almost impossible to separate.

However I dont think that the framers enviaged that the US would import the violent ideology that is islam. Islam prohibits any form of governance except that of shaira law.

Unlike in the US, there are actually a number of muslims representatives in my national Parliament. To my mind, they don't seem any better or worse than the rest of the politicians. They are not trying to impose sharia law on me or anyone else. It is scaremongering to suggest that we'll all be wearing burkhas as soon as anyone dares to cast away their prejudices and vote for a muslim.

Not anytime soon. But go forward 10, 15, 20 years and see what will happen. It is speculation for sure but there will be sizeable muslim majorities in most European nations before long. The riots in France last November are the start, Muslims in Bulgaria are asking for their own independent province and I believe there are more flights from Norway to Pakistan than to the US. Europe is being colonised by the middle east. There is no threat yet, but the US may be threatened within 20 years by militant islamists with access to the French nuclear arsenal...

The Jewish god is sorta an asshole (sorry aidon!) but israel does pretty damn good job.

Japan and South Korea kick some ass but definately arnt Christian.

Pretty much all of south and central america is Christian, and they have a lot of problems.

Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain are Islam, and do very well.

China and India have some of fastest growing economies in the world atm, and are not Christian, although of course they have problems atm.

South and central america, along with italy and spain, are catholic countries, which seem to have higher levels of corruption and repression than protestant nations.

Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain are islamic and "do well" because you pay them every time you heat your house or fill your car. Or take out a loan or mortgage which is then sold to these nations' investment vehicles.

Jap and Korea have sucked off the West's tit since the US forced open its ports in the 19th century and subsequent to 1945 when the US decided to rebuild Japan. Korea was considered a bulkwart against communism, and so the US built that nation up by trade and military spending.

China and India do have some of the fastest growing economies but they also have terrible poverty. Both nations have very fast growing christian populations, with over 100m in China (still only 6% of the population) and probably 80-100m in India.

But this is not a rant on the comparative advantages of various nations. All nations will have their ups and downs. But let's just say that there's a reason why third world nations put their money on deposit in first world nations rather than third world nations. Stable legal systems, justice and general respect for the law.

When referring to the Jewish God do you refer to the Old Testament, New or both?

But go forward 10, 15, 20 years and see what will happen. It is speculation for sure but there will be sizeable muslim majorities in most European nations before long. The riots in France last November are the start, Muslims in Bulgaria are asking for their own independent province and I believe there are more flights from Norway to Pakistan than to the US. Europe is being colonised by the middle east. There is no threat yet, but the US may be threatened within 20 years by militant islamists with access to the French nuclear arsenal...

Oh that's just rubbish. There is no more a muslim tide of immigration coming to devour Europe than there is yellow peril or reds under the bed. France is a secular nation. Bulgaria and Albania had muslims populations going back to the Ottoman empire. Where does all this psuedo-nationalistic scaremongering claptrap come from?

Maybe of some interest and perhaps too late for those with a subscription to Discover, but the December 2006 issue has an article about five researchers trying to find the source of faith.

And at that time, I hope there will be some who have the courage to point out that no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur'an, since -- as we have been pointing out here for over three years now -- there are so many elements of traditional and mainstream Islam that are at variance with our system of government, our Constitution, and our entire way of life.

You Christians should have thought of that before you started up the notion of swearing on a bible. Myself, I don't think any government official should be permitted to swear his oath on any manner of religious text...but once that door is open, our nation demands equality.

And that is why - would you want to your representatives intending to abide by the demands of Islam, a worldview that regulates every part of your existence?

Because our view demands a complete lack of regulation for a man's religious beliefs, regardless of how odious I may find them. The same law in America which protects Catholics and Anglicans from Protestant injustice and protects Jews from Christian injustice, protects Muslims from redneck Christian injustice.

I hate Muslims. I loathe them. I've yet to meet a Muslim that didn't hate Israel and Jews. But I'll be damned if I'll sit idly by and see them persecuted for being Muslim in the United States. Let Arabs and Europeans persecute Muslims.

Oh that's just rubbish. There is no more a muslim tide of immigration coming to devour Europe than there is yellow peril or reds under the bed. France is a secular nation. Bulgaria and Albania had muslims populations going back to the Ottoman empire. Where does all this psuedo-nationalistic scaremongering claptrap come from?
I keep hearing about a large wave of immigration from parts of Africa, especially to France but elsewhere as well. Mostly Muslim.

Not at all, but the laws of a nation largely reflect that of the general population. Remember the incarceration of Japanese Americans at the outbreak of WW2? Prohibited by the constitution by done all the same during a time of national emergency.
Yes and it was a hideous, odious thing that shouldn't have happened.

The freedom of religion in the US is a good idea and one that removes the power of the clergy. The framers wanted to avoid the tit-for-tat persecutions arising from a Europe where the church and state were intertwined and almost impossible to separate.
I just love it when you guys start to spout what the framers thought. You've got no frickin' idea. Have you read the letters from Jeffersen, have you read about Benjamin Franklin, do you know anything about the Englightenment? Have you read Thomas Paine? These folks all understood the perils of religion in government and stood up against people that would have mandated religious beliefs in the Constitution.


However I dont think that the framers enviaged that the US would import the violent ideology that is islam. Islam prohibits any form of governance except that of shaira law.
Like the Christian violent ideology that has people blowing up government buildings, commiting mass suicides, shooting doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, picketing soldier's funerals? Oh? What's that? Oh that is just some out-of-control sects that don't represent the majority of Christians? Could it be... the Muslims have the same issues?

Ahh, its good to get back to intelligent debate of facts and theory, rather than personal attack.

I reserve intellectual discourse for those with intellectual ability and knowledge. You do not fall under such a heading.



That is correct, as far as I understand it. The Israelite nation was effectively exinguished when God kicked them out of the promised land for disobeying him. If you took the time to read what I wrote originally this would be apparent. It referred to God's dealings with those people.

...Hey, McFly, you ignorant ****. It wasn't God who kicked the Jews out of anywhere. During the period under discussion...it was noone. The Roman's expelled many of the Jews from Jerusalem during 72 BCE. During the 2nd century, the larger diaspora occured after the Revolt led by Bar Kochba and Akiva, some seventy years later.

If you want to have discourse regarding facts and theories, it is required that you know them. Otherwise you're worthy of nothing but disdain.



Thats if you are removing any reference to Paul's writings and the writings of NT authors.

The writings were not contemporaneous. Do you understand what that word means? Further, they are not independant sources.

There is no record of a Jesus heard before Pilate or sentenced. No record of some man disrupting the Temple overturning displays and whatnot. No record of some guy going around preaching before the multitudes. The only people who reference his existance, at all, do so decades later and insist that he was a God.

We have a name for people like that, these days. When the Mormon's tried to the do the same thing, the rest of Christendom mocked and persecuted them...and continue to mock them to this day.


Now these events did not take place in the centre of the known world, they took place in a little backwater in the middle east where even then the Romans/western powers were having problems with the locals.

Guess what? The known world wasn't that big back then and you can be sure that the mediterrean coast between Egypt and what would become Byzantium/Constantinople, was not a backwater. Gaul, Brittania, Hispania, these were backwaters.


Even though the new testament writings are among the most reliable (if not THE most reliable) ancient writings we possess? If you apply the same standards to other ancient writings then the authenticity of all them must be in severe doubt.

Its amusing how History has managed definitive dates and outlines for all manner of historical figures in the region during that period...and yet, the only reference to Jesus are these "accurate" Gospels. I would suggest their accuracy exists only in the minds of fanatics willing to ignore historical truth for religious fervor.


I see the Jews have not changed since Paul's time and never will.

And I see Christendom is still plagued by an abundance of ignorance, and those who take pride in their lack of knowledge to condemn their betters.

But the real problem is a rejection of God's grace. What don't you understand about your OWN PROMISED MESSIAH? Why are you rejecting God's promised messiah? Or have you already given up? You no longer have a lineage to trace him after the destruction of the temple in AD70. The miles of promises in Isaiah, the predictions and the prophecies that predict a suffering servant, the introduction of a new kingdom, of God's own kingdom, His eternal kingdom, a virgin birth, a saviour from Bethlehem?

zomg, you're ****ing fruitloop. Hello. Jesus. Not God. Not a Messiah. You're exactly the reason why we still don't trust you damned Christians.

I'm glad you're over there with Anka instead of over here in the States, you bumbling numble****.

God has spelt it out time and time again:- In Genesis, God covers Adam's and Eve's nakedness with skins - an animal had to die and God had to clothe them. Noah followed God's commandments and was saved from God's judgement - God seals Noah and his family in the Ark. In Exodus, God provides the method for escaping judgement via the provision of the Passover. Once again, an animal has to die, blood has to be spilt, an atonement had to be made. This was something repeated for 1000 years and more, to REMIND the nation and to prepare them for the coming promised messiah. Once again, God provides a way out of judgement by providing His Son as an atonement. We are clothed in His righteousness and no longer bound by laws, having been given grace and having any penalty cancelled.

Wow...this is so far out there as to be mind boggling....however, to use your own absurd argument. Allow me to refer you to Isaac at the Altar..and let me remind you, he doesn't die.

Not bound by laws? lol, ah yes, in case I had forgotten...Christianity, the wonderful religion where you can lie, rape, kill, steal, assault, torture, and cheat...so long as you confess afterwards and ask forgiveness from your pagan godling. The religion of no consequence...the religion of the masses...where all is forgiven, so long as you're part of the in crowd. Everyone else will go to our make believe hell which we invented in order to better control the masses after we figured out it is awefully damned difficult to control the people if there are no consequences...

Now either Im right or wrong. Its as simple as that. If I am wrong, accepted. But if I am right then fuming isn't a sensible way to proceed. Jesus did not spout some fashionable teaching, he claimed to be God and to provide the only way to God. Now, either he was mad, a liar, or he was who he said he was. It is not possible to view him as anything else.

Oh for ****s sake....read your own bible, you dumb****.

He claimed to be the Son of Man a few times, but never, even in the fairytale scriptures called the Gospels, did he ever claim to be the Son of God or Divine in any way.


But if you force me to choose betwen your choices...I'll take Insane Liars for 1000, Alex.

The Jewish god is sorta an asshole (sorry aidon!) but israel does pretty damn good job.

He never claimed to be a nice guy. In his own words, he's a jealous and vengeful God.

You don't **** with our God...he'll get medieval on yo ass.

But...he's our God. Its like Dad...who had no qualms about taking a belt to your ass if you didn't mow the lawn properly...and was a bit of an asshole...but he's still Dad.

Oh that's just rubbish. There is no more a muslim tide of immigration coming to devour Europe than there is yellow peril or reds under the bed. France is a secular nation. Bulgaria and Albania had muslims populations going back to the Ottoman empire. Where does all this psuedo-nationalistic scaremongering claptrap come from?

I would have initially agreed with you, but the more I read the worse it gets. France is a secular nation but is having increasing problems integrating its muslim population, which now numbers around 10% of the total population. 14 Parisian police officers are injured every day in muslim dominated areas. There are some 750 areas marked as 'no go' zones for police and emergency services in France. Demographics are against the natives, too. Allied with the PC left, who no longer have any cause to support since the collapse of communism, politically the natives are quite weak.

Im sure that things will change as trends never continue on their initial trajectory forever, but it may be a long time changing...

South and central america, along with italy and spain, are catholic countries, which seem to have higher levels of corruption and repression than protestant nations.

Ah, so not only must it be Christianity...but your particular flavor of Christianity, I see...I see.

Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain are islamic and "do well" because you pay them every time you heat your house or fill your car. Or take out a loan or mortgage which is then sold to these nations' investment vehicles.

aybe you do, in England, but here in the US, only about 12% of our imports come from the mid-east and thats almost all from the Saudis. We also only import 50% of our oil...so, no, I don't pay them much at all. Especially since my house is on electric (and Davis-Bessie nuclear plant is relatively close by), and I try to avoid buying gas from places who deal heavily with Arabs...like British Petroleum.

Jap and Korea have sucked off the West's tit since the US forced open its ports in the 19th century and subsequent to 1945 when the US decided to rebuild Japan. Korea was considered a bulkwart against communism, and so the US built that nation up by trade and military spending.

Yes, it has nothing to do with the collective appreciation for knowledge and education which permeates both societies...unlike those nations where Christianity reigns supreme, where ignorance holds sway and the people respect leaders who proudly display their own lack of intellectual ability, declaring themselves "down home normal folk"...when our leaders are supposed to be brilliant good men who will lead us well.


When referring to the Jewish God do you refer to the Old Testament, New or both?

I'm sure he's referring to the God of the Oringinal Testament.

He never claimed to be a nice guy. In his own words, he's a jealous and vengeful God.

You don't **** with our God...he'll get medieval on yo ass.

But...he's our God. Its like Dad...who had no qualms about taking a belt to your ass if you didn't mow the lawn properly...and was a bit of an asshole...but he's still Dad.

True, He is jealous of His holiness and His people. He is also perfect and eternal. And when he judges He does so in perfect righteousness rather than.... 'getting medieval on yo ass' although thats understandable...

God does not judge in perfect righteousness. He Himself has admitted to mistakes and made promises to never repeat them.

Even He is not infallible.

I reserve intellectual discourse for those with intellectual ability and knowledge. You do not fall under such a heading.

Well why dont you make your arguments and let other readers make their own mind up rather than flaming others before making your argument?

...Hey, McFly, you ignorant ****. It wasn't God who kicked the Jews out of anywhere.

Thats not the way the Israelites saw it after their lands were invaded and they were deported to Assyria and Babylon. They realised they had sinned and that God had punished them - Deutronomy 11, I believe:

" 26 See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- 27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; 28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. "

In other words God gave them physical indications of whether they were obeying his laws or not. The worst thing that could happen was deportation - a sign God was so sick of their sin He could no longer stand them, so he kicks them out. 760-560BC.

During the period under discussion...it was noone. The Roman's expelled many of the Jews from Jerusalem during 72 BCE. During the 2nd century, the larger diaspora occured after the Revolt led by Bar Kochba and Akiva, some seventy years later.

The Romans were governors of the lands now called Palestine/Israel 2000 years ago and I dont think any historian of any repute would dispute that.

If you want to have discourse regarding facts and theories, it is required that you know them. Otherwise you're worthy of nothing but disdain.

The writings were not contemporaneous. Do you understand what that word means? Further, they are not independant sources.

Well, let's investigate these claims of yours. They are eyewitness accounts, according to the writers. Do you have any evidence to support your claims or are we expected to take what you say on trust?


There is no record of a Jesus heard before Pilate or sentenced. No record of some man disrupting the Temple overturning displays and whatnot. No record of some guy going around preaching before the multitudes. The only people who reference his existance, at all, do so decades later and insist that he was a God.

No, He insisted that he was GOD. YAHWEH. Josephus records Jesus' existence. Pliny writes to the emperor about some christians he captured within 100 years - he records them saying the basic creeds of christianity. How can that make sense, if a real Jesus didn't exist?

We have a name for people like that, these days. When the Mormon's tried to the do the same thing, the rest of Christendom mocked and persecuted them...and continue to mock them to this day.

The mormons came up with their own book and own theology. No archeologist agrees with the claims made by the Mormon church and it is not Christian.

Guess what? The known world wasn't that big back then and you can be sure that the mediterrean coast between Egypt and what would become Byzantium/Constantinople, was not a backwater. Gaul, Brittania, Hispania, these were backwaters.

Rome was the centre of the Roman world, to be sure. But most long journeys were made by sea; land journeys were dangerous and long, especially in that part of the world. Palestinia was a troubled region and there would have been a long string of troubles, rebellions etc emerging from those areas. Jesus had a 3 year ministry so there would have been a limit as to how widespread it would become.

Its amusing how History has managed definitive dates and outlines for all manner of historical figures in the region during that period...and yet, the only reference to Jesus are these "accurate" Gospels. I would suggest their accuracy exists only in the minds of fanatics willing to ignore historical truth for religious fervor.

And what is truth? Which messiah do the Jews look for?

And I see Christendom is still plagued by an abundance of ignorance, and those who take pride in their lack of knowledge to condemn their betters.

zomg, you're ****ing fruitloop. Hello. Jesus. Not God. Not a Messiah. You're exactly the reason why we still don't trust you damned Christians.

I'm glad you're over there with Anka instead of over here in the States, you bumbling numble****.

Stunning argument. Well, how do I respond to bland unsupported assertions and abuse? I wonder if anyone is being swayed one way or the other... let us press on...

Wow...this is so far out there as to be mind boggling....however, to use your own absurd argument. Allow me to refer you to Isaac at the Altar..and let me remind you, he doesn't die.

Not bound by laws? lol, ah yes, in case I had forgotten...Christianity, the wonderful religion where you can lie, rape, kill, steal, assault, torture, and cheat...so long as you confess afterwards and ask forgiveness from your pagan godling. The religion of no consequence...the religion of the masses...where all is forgiven, so long as you're part of the in crowd. Everyone else will go to our make believe hell which we invented in order to better control the masses after we figured out it is awefully damned difficult to control the people if there are no consequences...

Bound by grace, not the law. But there are always consequences, Aidon. God cannot be mocked and will not be mocked. He is still holy and will still 'get medieval on yo ass' in this life. Grace is God's gift of adoption into His family. Everyone has family problems, but whether in jail or not one is part of a family. There will be consequences, eternal in nature.

But that is the way it must be. Otherwise how can you have any assurance? God wants you to be as assured as the repentant thief. How many good works do you want to do? Can you do? How many sacrifices? How do you get right with God, please let us know Aidon. I may be wrong!

Oh for ****s sake....read your own bible, you dumb****.

He claimed to be the Son of Man a few times, but never, even in the fairytale scriptures called the Gospels, did he ever claim to be the Son of God or Divine in any way.

But if you force me to choose betwen your choices...I'll take Insane Liars for 1000, Alex.

OK let's share this reading with other readers. Let us be very clear on this passage because the Jews themselves know exactly what Jesus is claiming. Verse 30 is a direct claim to be God; the Jews realise this and, following the law, pick up stones to stone him as a blasphemer - verse 33. Problem is, he was actually telling the truth.

John 10:

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all<SUP>[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26500d)]</SUP>; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Here's a juicy one from John 5:
45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Is your accuser Moses, Aidon?


Blessings,

Sheikhy.

Like the Christian violent ideology that has people blowing up government buildings, commiting mass suicides, shooting doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, picketing soldier's funerals? Oh? What's that? Oh that is just some out-of-control sects that don't represent the majority of Christians? Could it be... the Muslims have the same issues?

Pan, dear - kindly stop ruining a perfectly good debate by introducing logic and pointing out people's double standards. It's just not on!

Well why dont you make your arguments and let other readers make their own mind up rather than flaming others before making your argument?

Because I suffer no fools nor idiots, and you are both.



Thats not the way the Israelites saw it after their lands were invaded and they were deported to Assyria and Babylon. They realised they had sinned and that God had punished them - Deutronomy 11, I believe:

" 26 See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- 27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; 28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. "

First of all 1) The Babylonian exile happened roughly five hundred years earlier...2) I well know that verse....it was the portion I read for my Bar Mitzvah, from a Torah...in the original Hebrew.

However, i would suggest, to you, that it has little bearing on your discussion...because we are his Chosen people...and he has told us we would never be forsaken. So..**** you and your attempt to discredit my religion. Oh by the way...There has never, once, in all of recorded History since the time of the Exodus been a period where Jews did not inhabit Israel. Even during the Babylonian exile and the later Diaspora after the destruction of the 2nd Temple...Jews remained in Israel.

In other words God gave them physical indications of whether they were obeying his laws or not. The worst thing that could happen was deportation - a sign God was so sick of their sin He could no longer stand them, so he kicks them out. 760-560BC.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with a Babylonian empire powerful enough to control the entire region /eyeroll.

****ing dip****. Its like arguing with someone who insists that Rome didn't conquer Gaul because in his game of Rome: Total War, he fended off the Roman army...



The Romans were governors of the lands now called Palestine/Israel 2000 years ago and I dont think any historian of any repute would dispute that.

I so very much wonder the point of this statement...as it merely reiterates what I've been saying.

Oh and there is no land now called Palestine.



Well, let's investigate these claims of yours. They are eyewitness accounts, according to the writers. Do you have any evidence to support your claims or are we expected to take what you say on trust?

...You seem to miss a certain logical point. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. The appropriate point is for you to prove that Jesus did exist. Gospels written by biased parties, a generation after the supposed happenings took place are not credible sources, especially given the absoulte lack of any supportive evidence from the time when Jesus supposedly lived until the gospels were written. Hell, even the Gospels contradict each other about various issues, including measures of time.






No, He insisted that he was GOD. YAHWEH. Josephus records Jesus' existence. Pliny writes to the emperor about some christians he captured within 100 years - he records them saying the basic creeds of christianity. How can that make sense, if a real Jesus didn't exist?

Josephus and Pliny were both writing many decades after the fact and writing about what other people believed. Belief is not proof of existance...again, especially consider the absolute lack of corroborating contemporary evidence.

Oh, Jesus may have existed...but if he did, he was a two bit big tent preacher who didn't even make enough of an impression to merit historical note. A pretty sad state of affairs for a man who is supposed to be Divine.

And nowhere in the gospels do the words "I am God" or "I am Adonai" or "I am HaShem" come out of Jesus's mouth. And he never would have said Yud hey vav hey.

The mormons came up with their own book and own theology. No archeologist agrees with the claims made by the Mormon church and it is not Christian.

You prove my point.

Oh, by the way, no archaologist agrees with the claims made by the Christian church either. There is no archaological proof of Jesus, or his claims to divinity.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also widely known as the Mormon Church) retains belief in Jesus as the Christ; by definition they are Christian, except in your mind, you who expect everyone to uphold your mythological beliefs because of your say so...but will not uphold anyone else's.

Go away, you sad hypocritical ignorant fool. Go away and continue believing your little beliefs.



Rome was the centre of the Roman world, to be sure. But most long journeys were made by sea; land journeys were dangerous and long, especially in that part of the world. Palestinia was a troubled region and there would have been a long string of troubles, rebellions etc emerging from those areas. Jesus had a 3 year ministry so there would have been a limit as to how widespread it would become.

....have you looked at an Atlas, recently? That big blue space next to Israel, Lebanon, and Syria? Yes, that's the sea....

It wasn't called Palestinia until after Bar Kochba's revolution in the 2nd century, by the way. And then it was called Syria Palestinia. Don't use archaic names if you don't know which archaic name to use.

And of course there was a limit to how widespread it would become....because he was nothing special. Noone knew who he was when he was alive.


And what is truth? Which messiah do the Jews look for?

The Jews do not maintain any belief as a whole...our beliefs differ, we are not a dogmatic religion. There are those who still hold with a messianic person who will arrive after the return to Israel and the reconstruction of the 2nd Temple. There are those who have taken the messianic mythos as a symbolism to embrace an idyllic period when the Jews have been restored to their land, the world is embraced by peace, and war is practiced no more.



Stunning argument. Well, how do I respond to bland unsupported assertions and abuse? I wonder if anyone is being swayed one way or the other... let us press on...

There is little swaying going on here, because even the most pious of Christians on this board, are intellectual enough to realize that there is a difference between your beliefs and theirs.

By the by, how, pray tell, do you intend on supporting mythology? And you became deserving of abuse from the moment you insulted my religion with your claim that we were inveterate legalists who killed your god.


Bound by grace, not the law. But there are always consequences, Aidon. God cannot be mocked and will not be mocked. He is still holy and will still 'get medieval on yo ass' in this life. Grace is God's gift of adoption into His family. Everyone has family problems, but whether in jail or not one is part of a family. There will be consequences, eternal in nature.

ay I remind you...I'm of His chosen people. I do not need your silly concept of grace. Every man woman and child on this planet has His "grace" so long as they follow the basic Noahide laws, regardless of their religious creed...despite what you bigoted butchers would claim for use as an excuse for your rampant slaughter.

But that is the way it must be. Otherwise how can you have any assurance? God wants you to be as assured as the repentant thief. How many good works do you want to do? Can you do? How many sacrifices? How do you get right with God, please let us know Aidon. I may be wrong!

Getting right with God is simple...

Lift up the fallen, free the captive, and keep faith with those who sleep in the dust.

I can tell you, it doesn't include persecuting Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and everyone else who disagrees with your point of view.



OK let's share this reading with other readers. Let us be very clear on this passage because the Jews themselves know exactly what Jesus is claiming. Verse 30 is a direct claim to be God; the Jews realise this and, following the law, pick up stones to stone him as a blasphemer - verse 33. Problem is, he was actually telling the truth.

John 10:

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all<SUP>[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26500d)]</SUP>; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Here's a juicy one from John 5:
45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Nowhere in that is there any mention of Jesus being Divine in any way shape or form.

Is your accuser Moses, Aidon?


Blessings,

Sheikhy.

I stand accused of nothing. Keep your blessings...you'll need them for yourself.

Quote:
When referring to the Jewish God do you refer to the Old Testament, New or both?

I'm sure he's referring to the God of the Oringinal Testament.


Isn't the Jewish god, by definition, the "old" testament (only old testament if one would accept the new testament as authentic, a more apt term would probably be hebrew bible or 'Tanakh')

Re: Countries, undoubtedly many of the countries today that are prospering, the US has helped, however although the US and Japan have close economical and political ties, they had much of the industrial capabilities from obviously before WW2, otherwise they wouldn't have been such world power in the early to mid early 20th century. Again they sure arnt [Protestant Christian]

Re: South America? So now its not christianity, its protestant christianity? While undoubtedly the US has had a protestant majority, Catholics (ireland, Italy) Jews, etc play a critical part in our nations rise to power

Asfarso as power and military might, Hi USSR! (Orthodox)

All the various powers and superpowers throughout history have come from a plethora of different backgrounds, whether its political, religious (Persian Empire, Roman empire)! etc backgrounds, while it would be foolish to deny that religion can and does influence people, and hence their nations power, its only a part of the complex scenarios that have made countries strong throughout history.

As far as morality, despite being a protestants majority, England (****ing over half the world as colonies) Germany (Nazis) and the US (Slavery, kicking some indian ass) sure didnt stop any of those. Only major religion I can see that its people havn't done horrible things is Buddhism, (hindus have their dumb caste system!)

What the hell is Asfarso? :bonk:

Good Question

Is that your diety?

no its a jammed spacebar and a few extra letters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidon
If you want to have discourse regarding facts and theories, it is required that you know them. Otherwise you're worthy of nothing but disdain.

The writings were not contemporaneous. Do you understand what that word means? Further, they are not independant sources.

sheik it
Well, let's investigate these claims of yours. They are eyewitness accounts, according to the writers. Do you have any evidence to support your claims or are we expected to take what you say on trust?
--
I believe what aidon is getting to on this subject, of the oral tradition common to the period or near to the period, such as the Transcriptions of Homer's Iliad(while at the earliest between 800-600 bc). Several years after the fact, they were transcribed. In one case of the canonical gospels, one of the authors claimed to have been given a revelation of Jesus. So, many of Oral Tradition is lost or often twisted some here and there, amongst others such as mistranslations, allittle misrepresenting, or left out details. As the Gospel of Thomas, made allittle more famous by the movie Stigmata, deemed heretical, also, seems to have some consistentcy with other canonical writings of Jesus speaking, as well as more in depth into his quotes and teachings, as opposed to the canonical versions with use more of the Apostles.

quote aiden

Josephus and Pliny were both writing many decades after the fact and writing about what other people believed. Belief is not proof of existance...again, especially consider the absolute lack of corroborating contemporary evidence.
---
Tacitus(sp) also wrote of Jesus although several years afterwards of the orgins of Christians also referred to as Chrestuns. he spoke of a man named Jesus executed under procurator Pilate. There, as a slight speculation, would have been a few more records of the incident, had the Temple not been destroyed and some records lost. Pretty sure that Romans would have documented as well the incident, but, whether there is surviving records on that unsure.

quote Aiden
And nowhere in the gospels do the words "I am God" or "I am Adonai" or "I am HaShem" come out of Jesus's mouth.
--
Some of the non canonical versions, specifically, Mary, Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, distinctly mention Jesus as saying no way is he related to or being the son of god. Even going so far as to curse anyone for suggesting his divinity in at least one of them. Although, Thomas and Judas Iscariot(was also one of the dead sea scrolls uncovered, as well elsewhere) were deemed heresy(in fact the new pope benedict, had some rather not nice things to say about Judas in April), Mary is missing a few pages, Barnabas(although not to be confused with his epistiles) was found amongst other Gnostic texts in I believe, but can be mistaken, 14 century transcribed in Italian or Spanish with no other earlier documentations. But, also they are surprisingly consistant with each other.

any of the claims as to Jesus divinity, was first debated(well more likely before that actually) around 325 ad in the First council of Midea(pretty sure there, but can be mistaken), prior to the Edict of Milan during Constantines reign.

quote sheik
I see the Jews have not changed since Paul's time and never will. But the real problem is a rejection of God's grace. What don't you understand about your OWN PROMISED MESSIAH? Why are you rejecting God's promised messiah?
---
Problem is, despite race, religeous backgrounds, sex, or other cultural backgrounds throughout time, while the methodology may differ, the results always stays the same. Despite how people celebrate their technolgical advances and shiny new toys we developed, the result is always the same.

Each vie for supremacy over the others. And the favored result always ends with the genocide of others within their organization, or out of their organization. So, while the times have changed, the ways we have changed. Our human tendancies towards each other to reject those that are not the same as us remains. We are aggressive and territorial.

It is funny, well rather not funny, that despite what history has taught us, that remembering history is a way to learn from past mistakes, and to prevent the future mistakes by remembering what happened in the past. One of the Karmic principles(or Newton's Laws of Physics if you prefer, being objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or outside force) that can be applied to pretty much any place in life.
The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. And another Karmic principle, that unless we change, we are condemned to keep repeating the same behavior, over and over.

Just like in the Catcher in the Rye, by J.d Salinger, Holden is sitting at a wall, staring and remarking about all the profanities on the wall, and to clean up all the profanities in the world would take up quite a long time(been awhile since I read it). Same logic applies. There are say 7 billion people on this planet, while the majority(or I would hope) would agree that we should stop the genocide, irrational hatred of each other, doing so, would be quite a bit longer to fully stop, if ever.

But, I would ask about the possiblity of a different Messiah. How about Judas Iscariot as a messiah for the Christian faith? Well, considering a few things. He was labeled as a Betrayer. But, did he really betray Jesus as spoken upon in the bible? Or, was he really acting as Jesus had asked of him perhaps privately, as neccessary for his ascension? Since, Jesus was wanted for blasphemy(amongst others), defiling a temple by declaring the moneychangers and priests(for lack of a better term), unfit. Wouldn't Judas turning in Jesus be an act of justice as a method to prove himself as innocent? Afterall, Jesus did historically preach about that.

Also, supposedly, Judas was possessed by demons, would that make him not responsible for his own actions, and that his free will was violated. Here is where the messiah part really kicks in. If Judas, was sent to hell for all eternity as neccessary for Jesus to do his humanity saving act, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity. How about if Jesus only suffered during his crufixion and Judas was sent to hell, wouldn't that mean that Judas suffers for all eternity,for the sins of humanity? How about Judas death? It was never implicit how he died. Some say,he hung himself literally, although it could have been metaphorically? As in, when the apostles found him, they could have killed him, now that would be an allegation, not factual, but, within the realm of possiblity. Also, a possiblity to biblical lore, that Judas purchased a plot of land and burst forth his bowels, but also, an interpretation could be represented as, as confessed what he had done. Well, I am done for now with philosphical theology.

As far as morality


The best I have seen it described is that religion is not inherently good or evil. It just enlarges. It encourages people who are essentially good to become even better. But it encourages people who are evil to do so even worse as well.
And since most people are pretty much in the middle it does not do a whole lot for them, except maybe make them a little bit kinder or a little bit more petty (washing away the slight twinges of guilt by convincing themselves that they are good religious people and therefor are doing the right thing).


Eri

Many of the claims as to Jesus divinity, was first debated(well more likely before that actually) around 325 ad in the First council of Midea(pretty sure there, but can be mistaken), prior to the Edict of Milan during Constantines reign.

I think you mean the First Council of Nicea in 325.

The best I have seen it described is that religion is not inherently good or evil. It just enlarges. It encourages people who are essentially good to become even better. But it encourages people who are evil to do so even worse as well.
Eri

Religion, yes. However that needs to be qualified with regards to Islam and its rewards to those who 'slay and are slain for Allah'.

But christianity is about relationship first; good deeds should result as an act of gratitude based on God's grace to us, rather than any attempt on our part to earn it.

---
Problem is, despite race, religeous backgrounds, sex, or other cultural backgrounds throughout time, while the methodology may differ, the results always stays the same. Despite how people celebrate their technolgical advances and shiny new toys we developed, the result is always the same.

Each vie for supremacy over the others. And the favored result always ends with the genocide of others within their organization, or out of their organization. So, while the times have changed, the ways we have changed. Our human tendancies towards each other to reject those that are not the same as us remains. We are aggressive and territorial.

Aye, thats a fact of life. But most people in the world want to live in or move to the western developed nations, because these are the nations that protect and preserve rights. Open an atlas and see just how few of these nations there are. And if you don't believe me, just remember that its easier for a muslim to start a mosque in Europe than for a Jew or Christian to build a synagogue or church in Saudi Arabia. Or even hold a service in Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.

And another Karmic principle, that unless we change, we are condemned to keep repeating the same behavior, over and over.

Just like in the Catcher in the Rye, by J.d Salinger, Holden is sitting at a wall, staring and remarking about all the profanities on the wall, and to clean up all the profanities in the world would take up quite a long time(been awhile since I read it). Same logic applies. There are say 7 billion people on this planet, while the majority(or I would hope) would agree that we should stop the genocide, irrational hatred of each other, doing so, would be quite a bit longer to fully stop, if ever.

Agreed - most people want to get on with a peaceful life, free of pain, suffering and worry. But that is not the way life is. Most people know that and most sense that something is wrong. And we know that because we are created in God's image and we can discern that not all is well. We desire that utopia only God can provide.

But, I would ask about the possiblity of a different Messiah. How about Judas Iscariot as a messiah for the Christian faith? Well, considering a few things. He was labeled as a Betrayer. But, did he really betray Jesus as spoken upon in the bible? Or, was he really acting as Jesus had asked of him perhaps privately, as neccessary for his ascension? Since, Jesus was wanted for blasphemy(amongst others), defiling a temple by declaring the moneychangers and priests(for lack of a better term), unfit. Wouldn't Judas turning in Jesus be an act of justice as a method to prove himself as innocent? Afterall, Jesus did historically preach about that.

Also, supposedly, Judas was possessed by demons, would that make him not responsible for his own actions, and that his free will was violated. Here is where the messiah part really kicks in. [snip] Well, I am done for now with philosphical theology.

Very interesting observations made here. You are correct, that at the appointed time, satan did enter Judas. But this was not done outside of God's permission or time-Jesus knows exactly when His time has come.

Looking back at the passover, we see God tell Moses at his appointment as leader of Israel that He will harden Pharoah's heart so as not to permit Pharoah to let the Israelite slaves go. Paul doesn't answer or attempt to explain this in his letters, but one thing it should do is remove any pretense that God is as woolly as many today take Him to be. He is still extremely holy beyond anything we can even imagine. This should make us respect Him even more.

Because I suffer no fools nor idiots, and you are both.

Why? Would be nice to have a reason.


However, i would suggest, to you, that it has little bearing on your discussion...because we are his Chosen people...and he has told us we would never be forsaken. So..**** you and your attempt to discredit my religion. Oh by the way...There has never, once, in all of recorded History since the time of the Exodus been a period where Jews did not inhabit Israel. Even during the Babylonian exile and the later Diaspora after the destruction of the 2nd Temple...Jews remained in Israel.

But wait a minute - wasn't God's promise to Abraham that ALL nations would be blessed? And what about Ruth the Moabite or Rahab? They were both brought into the nation of Israel, but by faith, not race. Abraham proved himself by his trust in God, by his faith.

And Im not saying that all Jews/Israelites were removed, there were always some that would remain behind. But the explusion of such a huge part of the nation was a sign of God's judgement. Those who were kicked out recognised that.


Yeah, it had nothing to do with a Babylonian empire powerful enough to control the entire region /eyeroll.


So your God wasn't powerful enough to prevent an army invading? Why didn't he stop them as he promised? He did it when Hezekiah sought His help.


...You seem to miss a certain logical point. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. The appropriate point is for you to prove that Jesus did exist. Gospels written by biased parties, a generation after the supposed happenings took place are not credible sources, especially given the absoulte lack of any supportive evidence from the time when Jesus supposedly lived until the gospels were written. Hell, even the Gospels contradict each other about various issues, including measures of time.


Can say the same thing about abraham, moses, noah, adam, the exodus and dozens of other characters. No other evidence!

The gospels were written largely by Jews (cant remember whether Luke was Greek or not) and first preached to jews. They were written pretty much independently and each writer has their own style. Many of the supposed contradictions can be explained or reconciled, but they add an element of authenticity to the works - noone would trust four identical writings as they would be strongly indicative of collaboration. In addition 12 men went to their deaths proclaiming eternal life. Noone goes to their death for a lie, let alone 12.

Josephus and Pliny were both writing many decades after the fact and writing about what other people believed. Belief is not proof of existance...again, especially consider the absolute lack of corroborating contemporary evidence.

Oh, Jesus may have existed...but if he did, he was a two bit big tent preacher who didn't even make enough of an impression to merit historical note. A pretty sad state of affairs for a man who is supposed to be Divine.


Suppose you're right. After all, someone who is worshipped as God on every continent, has 1-2 billion adherents, nominal or otherwise, whose words and promises have brought comfort and assurance to billions down the ages and who split time into BC/AD... yes, a pretty sad state. After all, if God were to appear what would you want him to do to prove his credentials?

And nowhere in the gospels do the words "I am God" or "I am Adonai" or "I am HaShem" come out of Jesus's mouth. And he never would have said Yud hey vav hey.

hey hey hey. He did say that noone can come to the Father except through him. He also said he was one with the father. referring to quotes below, the jews knew exactly what he was claiming otherwise they wouldnt have intended to stone him.

Oh, by the way, no archaologist agrees with the claims made by the Christian church either. There is no archaological proof of Jesus, or his claims to divinity.


No, but they do uncover evidence that corroberates the gospel's statements about the city of Jerusalem and about Israel 2000 years ago.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also widely known as the Mormon Church) retains belief in Jesus as the Christ; by definition they are Christian, except in your mind, you who expect everyone to uphold your mythological beliefs because of your say so...but will not uphold anyone else's.

No, they follow the book of mormon. Their creeds are not christian at all.

Go away, you sad hypocritical ignorant fool. Go away and continue believing your little beliefs.

not sure where Im hypocritical. But as Paul says, the gospel needs to go 'first to the Jews, and then to the greeks'.


....have you looked at an Atlas, recently? That big blue space next to Israel, Lebanon, and Syria? Yes, that's the sea....


editerranean sea, to be precise.


It wasn't called Palestinia until after Bar Kochba's revolution in the 2nd century, by the way. And then it was called Syria Palestinia. Don't use archaic names if you don't know which archaic name to use.

And of course there was a limit to how widespread it would become....because he was nothing special. Noone knew who he was when he was alive.


I wasn't using a technical term as our dear readers may not be able to follow this discussion.

The Jews do not maintain any belief as a whole...our beliefs differ, we are not a dogmatic religion. There are those who still hold with a messianic person who will arrive after the return to Israel and the reconstruction of the 2nd Temple. There are those who have taken the messianic mythos as a symbolism to embrace an idyllic period when the Jews have been restored to their land, the world is embraced by peace, and war is practiced no more.

Interesting... i though that there had to be certain dogmas - the 10 commandments and God's exalted place in creation and in the lives of His people, for one.

There is little swaying going on here, because even the most pious of Christians on this board, are intellectual enough to realize that there is a difference between your beliefs and theirs.

By the by, how, pray tell, do you intend on supporting mythology? And you became deserving of abuse from the moment you insulted my religion with your claim that we were inveterate legalists who killed your god.

I never claimed this. The Romans killed him, but the Jewish leadership of the day was determined to get rid of him, and set it up. Ultimately, however, Pilate would not have had the power if he had not been given that power by God.

ay I remind you...I'm of His chosen people.

Great! So am I!

I do not need your silly concept of grace. Every man woman and child on this planet has His "grace" so long as they follow the basic Noahide laws, regardless of their religious creed...despite what you bigoted butchers would claim for use as an excuse for your rampant slaughter.

Rampant slaughter?

Grace is undeserved favour. But Paul says in his letter to the Romans that noone is good, noone follows God, that all have turned away. Is it not true that the noahide laws (and indeed all laws) simply show how incapable we are of keeping them?

Getting right with God is simple...

Lift up the fallen, free the captive, and keep faith with those who sleep in the dust.

I can tell you, it doesn't include persecuting Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and everyone else who disagrees with your point of view.

So, by that reckoning, christians are right with God on works alone? Giving time and money for the disadvantaged, freeing slaves (Christian Solidarity International's work freeing slaves in the Sudan) and salvation by faith in God alone?

Im persecuting noone, neither outright or as a pretext for political aims. Salvation is God's prerogative. It is friendship with God in this world and eternal life in the next world that we benefit from.



Nowhere in that is there any mention of Jesus being Divine in any way shape or form.

I stand accused of nothing. Keep your blessings...you'll need them for yourself.

O come now, if Jesus wasn't claiming to be God then the Jews wouldn't have threatened to stone him for blasphemy. They knew exactly what he was claiming.

Religion, yes. However that needs to be qualified with regards to Islam and its rewards to those who 'slay and are slain for Allah'.
How does that make it different from Christianity? The Crusaders were given complete absolution for all sins they committed while on a crusade. Isn't that the same thing?

So your God wasn't powerful enough to prevent an army invading? Why didn't he stop them as he promised? He did it when Hezekiah sought His help.


Heu, two thing.

1- By the chistian holy book his god is also your god, You two just have an argumentation about what you think that is the right version of how to honor him. When you insulte one version you insulte the other one too.

2- Didn't some priests or pope have say something about who can know the motivation of god?

Eridalafar

How does that make it different from Christianity? The Crusaders were given complete absolution for all sins they committed while on a crusade. Isn't that the same thing?

The crusaders (i) responded to a plea for help from the Byzantine emperor via the Pope, for help against an invading force. It was Muslims invading the eastern Roman empire, comprised mainly of christians and jews. (ii) as there is no mainstream thought of violence in the New Testament it appears a number would have balked at the idea of travelling to another country to fight. Therefore papal permission (however misguided) was probably necessary to remove any religious objections.

I know some people reading this would take this as evidence of the West's violence towards 'poor muslims' but the fact remains that the muslims/islam invaded the west. And if you had an army coming at you, you take out your weapons and fight back. No people ever has willingly willingly extinguished itself. The sole exception was the central Americans after the conquistadores arrived, but after they realised the conquistadores weren't really gods they fought back, only too little too late.

Heu, two thing.

1- By the chistian holy book his god is also your god, You two just have an argumentation about what you think that is the right version of how to honor him. When you insulte one version you insulte the other one too.

2- Didn't some priests or pope have say something about who can know the motivation of god?

Eridalafar

No, Christians view the New testament as the fulfilment of God's promises for the salvation of mankind. The Israelite nation had the privilege of knowing God for millenia; they had God's laws, a relationship (often rocky, as it was conditional), and more importantly, they had God dwelling with them, firstly in the tabernacle in the wilderness and subsequently in the Temple in Jerusalem.

The salvation of mankind refers to the quashing of God's righteous anger. The Israelites were given a sacrifical system to show what was required to have God dwell amongst them: some sort of atonement for the nation's wrongdoing. But animals needed to be sacrificed annually, God ended up providing the full and perfect sacrifice.

As to the second point, yes, Im sure many have said this in the past. If you want to know God's will for the world, its covered in the bible. In brief, its that all men should join His eternal family.

Religion, yes. However that needs to be qualified with regards to Islam and its rewards to those who 'slay and are slain for Allah'.

But christianity is about relationship first; good deeds should result as an act of gratitude based on God's grace to us, rather than any attempt on our part to earn it.

With the Bible, like the Koran, it's all about how you read it. Neither the Bible (even if you focus on the new testament) nor the Koran are any more gentle or any less ancouraging of violence than the reader wants it to be. For instance, Matt 10:34 isn't exactly peaceful.
("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (King James))

With the Bible, like the Koran, it's all about how you read it. Neither the Bible (even if you focus on the new testament) nor the Koran are any more gentle or any less ancouraging of violence than the reader wants it to be. For instance, Matt 10:34 isn't exactly peaceful.
("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (King James))

The bible interprets itself to a large degree. The above text comes from a specific chapter where Jesus is sending out the 12 disciples into a Jewish world. He is sending them with specific instructions. Most of these are applicable specifically to them, but some are arguably relevant today. Take for example a Muslim son or daughter converting to Christianity today. In many Muslim countries they would be killed for doing so.

If you flip to Revelation you find it is Jesus himself sending war out into the world. It is still a fallen world.

The bible interprets itself to a large degree.

As does the Koran. Which kindof was my point. Zealots will find justification for their actions regardless of which book they call Holy. The western world is just better at not blowing the clinically insane "God told me to do it"-explanation out of proportion than they are at not blowing the equally insane muslim paralell out of proportion. So we all think "they" are worse than "us", and we all go vote for the Men Of Action(tm).

Not that we're gullible or anything. :P

As does the Koran. Which kindof was my point. Zealots will find justification for their actions regardless of which book they call Holy. The western world is just better at not blowing the clinically insane "God told me to do it"-explanation out of proportion than they are at not blowing the equally insane muslim paralell out of proportion. So we all think "they" are worse than "us", and we all go vote for the Men Of Action(tm).

Not that we're gullible or anything. :P

The Koran is simply a collection of sayings. Koran means 'recite' in arabic, and so the koran is a collection of recitations. What many muslims will not tell westerners is that much of the koran is interpreted by the hadith, that is, the collection of deeds and sayings attributed to Mohammed.
The violence in the old testament is limited in time and scope. Violence in the New testament is put aside in acknowledgement of the resurrection and the life to come.

Islam, on the other hand, seeks to wage war on the infidel until there is no infidel left and all are brought under the submission of allah.

For those hearing 'voices from God' then the first question is, does it contradict the bible? If it does, then it cannot be from God. As God's plan now is redemption then individual offensive violence cannot be 'heard from God'.

For those hearing 'voices from God' then the first question is, does it contradict the bible? If it does, then it cannot be from God. As God's plan now is redemption then individual offensive violence cannot be 'heard from God'.

Nothing contradicts the Bible, that's my point. It may contradict YOUR interpretation, YOUR choice of what to emphasis, what to place 'in context' and what to decide to be universal, but not everyone's. Same with the Koran.

Now, I'm fairly sure you've gotten my point by now, so I'll leave it here.

Shoot, the bible contradicts the bible all over the place. Look at how many versions of the ressurrection there are. People wrote the books and stories that went into the bible and the Church decided which writings to put in and which to leave out and thus the people and Church politics of the time had a lot of influence over how Christianity is done these days.

The crusaders (i) responded to a plea for help from the Byzantine emperor via the Pope, for help against an invading force. It was Muslims invading the eastern Roman empire, comprised mainly of christians and jews.

And it was Christians who stopped along every Jewish village on their way to the holy land, for a wee bit of the ultraviolence.

(ii) as there is no mainstream thought of violence in the New Testament it appears a number would have balked at the idea of travelling to another country to fight. Therefore papal permission (however misguided) was probably necessary to remove any religious objections.

I know some people reading this would take this as evidence of the West's violence towards 'poor muslims' but the fact remains that the muslims/islam invaded the west.

Actually, the Muslims invaded the Levant and up Syria towards the Byzantine Empire and taken the Iberian peninsula. Of course this was all some three hundred years prior to the first crusade...so that wasn't the reason for its calling, no.

As for your previous long post, which I haven't had time to respond to, let me just suggest that your grasp of the historical realities is severely lacking in a great number of areas and that debating history with Divine Providence does not provide for confidence in your ability to maintain intellectual discourse.

Before you argue the historical bible, I suggest you research the politics of the time and region, the religious happenings, and the historical probabilities of certain occurances.

Nothing contradicts the Bible, that's my point. It may contradict YOUR interpretation, YOUR choice of what to emphasis, what to place 'in context' and what to decide to be universal, but not everyone's. Same with the Koran.

Now, I'm fairly sure you've gotten my point by now, so I'll leave it here.

In doing that you're holding biblical scholarship and interpretation to a much higher standard than you would any other work. The only indisputable point is one of salvation by faith alone, trusting in the finished work of Christ at Calvary alone. Anything else is not biblical. There are individual preferences and ideals, those are fine.

One can interpret things in a reasonable manner or in an unreasonable manner, however one should always check their motivation for investigating events or reports to see whether it is to scorn or investigate with an open mind.

Shoot, the bible contradicts the bible all over the place. Look at how many versions of the ressurrection there are. People wrote the books and stories that went into the bible and the Church decided which writings to put in and which to leave out and thus the people and Church politics of the time had a lot of influence over how Christianity is done these days.

The apparent contradictions that many point out can usually be reconciled or explained. These are not 'new' and have been known for millenia. There are some challenges and explanations at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ResurrectionAccount.htm. As to what went in and what was left out, the church fathers applied very strict criteria when compiling the canon that sought to exclude questionable or dubious writings.

And it was Christians who stopped along every Jewish village on their way to the holy land, for a wee bit of the ultraviolence.

And where was that permitted in either the new testament or under the papal decree? They also trashed Constantinople on the way over, which kind of defeated the reason for calling the crusade in the first place...

Actually, the Muslims invaded the Levant and up Syria towards the Byzantine Empire and taken the Iberian peninsula. Of course this was all some three hundred years prior to the first crusade...so that wasn't the reason for its calling, no.

Then what was the reason? The Byzantine Empire was a considerable entity during the 6th century and wasn't going to fall over at the whim of a few arabs from the east. Now if Islam was a Byzantine problem it was hardly likely the northern Europeans were going to care that much. But once the buffer that was the Byzantine Empire crumbled, it started to focus the attention of European states a little more. Hence, ultimately, the seige of Vienna and Battle of Lepanto, which marked the high point of islamic expansion into Europe.

As for your previous long post, which I haven't had time to respond to, let me just suggest that your grasp of the historical realities is severely lacking in a great number of areas and that debating history with Divine Providence does not provide for confidence in your ability to maintain intellectual discourse.

Before you argue the historical bible, I suggest you research the politics of the time and region, the religious happenings, and the historical probabilities of certain occurances.

I've got time to wait, although the term 'historical realities' is a bit of a misnomer. All we have is written records, many incomplete, and archeological ruins on which to construct our knowledge of ancient history. As far as 'debating history with Divine Providence' goes, God must by His own nature know the outcome from before the beginning. Alpha and Omega. Therefore, history must be a working out of God's plan, with ourselves having the benefit of hindsight.

Im always eager to learn!

The apparent contradictions that many point out can usually be reconciled or explained. These are not 'new' and have been known for millenia. There are some challenges and explanations at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ResurrectionAccount.htm. As to what went in and what was left out, the church fathers applied very strict criteria when compiling the canon that sought to exclude questionable or dubious writings.
I just watched a number of National Geographic documentaries on a number of gospels that weren't included in the Bible.

What I heard is one bishop pretty much made all the decisions. They put in the gospels that were the easiest to understand because the Romans were persecuting Christians right and left and they wanted to make it clear what Christians were suffering for. If I were a Christian, I'd be keenly interested in what was left out and why. Was Mary's story left out because she was the favorite disciple of Jesus and this gave women a status that men were uncomfortable with? They found some interesting frescos of some women who were "teachers" in the early church who had their eyes gouged out and their raised hands scratched off, only the man was left standing untouched.

Decisions like this were based on what was most beneficial to whoever was in charge of the church. Anything that gave power to people to experience God in their own way would not have been beneficial to the church. It's got to be the Church people who have the mystical insights and lock what you believe. That's why the Gnostics, and probably other early Christians, were squelched. They didn't have a heirarchy and the church didn't like that.

Later on another one decided that Mary the prostitute was the same person as Mary Magdelena, never mind that 25% of the graves they've found from the time period contained women named Mary. So he convienently combined them into one person to simplify things.

y sister also says much the same thing, "The church fathers". As if there were some sort of paternalistic gathering of people with wisdom beyond ordinary. Come on, it was a bunch of guys drunk on power trying to ensure they stayed on top!

In doing that you're holding biblical scholarship and interpretation to a much higher standard than you would any other work. The only indisputable point is one of salvation by faith alone, trusting in the finished work of Christ at Calvary alone. Anything else is not biblical. There are individual preferences and ideals, those are fine.

Are you saying that murdering a converted muslim woman is an indisputable point in the Koran, or is that too individual preferences and ideals?

If the former - please provide further information. If the latter - well, that was kind of my point all along. It's all about personal interpretation. Of BOTH books.

And I really do not see how holding something to a high standard can be precieved as a BAD thing, as you seem to be doing here. If anything, you should be chewing into me for all the works I DONT hold to a high standard. Not that you know the first thing about my standard-holding, but since you're presuming anyway, that ought to be the way you should do it.

And where was that permitted in either the new testament or under the papal decree?

..Oh please. Christianity has been torturing and killing Jews since they converted a Roman emperor, with or without papal decree. The crusaders were the paragons of christendom, going forth to do Gods will...which evidently included the rape and burning of Jewish villages, because they wouldn't become Christian.


Then what was the reason? The Byzantine Empire was a considerable entity during the 6th century and wasn't going to fall over at the whim of a few arabs from the east. Now if Islam was a Byzantine problem it was hardly likely the northern Europeans were going to care that much. But once the buffer that was the Byzantine Empire crumbled, it started to focus the attention of European states a little more. Hence, ultimately, the seige of Vienna and Battle of Lepanto, which marked the high point of islamic expansion into Europe.

The purpose of the 1st Crusade wasn't to defend the Byzantine Empire...it wasn't in any immediate danger. The purpose was to retake the Holy Land...in recent years, the European Kings had been having more success with their various coastal campaigns...and it was thought that perhaps they could defeat the Muslims and retake Jerusalem finally, at that point.



I've got time to wait, although the term 'historical realities' is a bit of a misnomer. All we have is written records, many incomplete, and archeological ruins on which to construct our knowledge of ancient history. As far as 'debating history with Divine Providence' goes, God must by His own nature know the outcome from before the beginning. Alpha and Omega. Therefore, history must be a working out of God's plan, with ourselves having the benefit of hindsight.

Im always eager to learn!

Ok, a very brief rundown, because I have things to do besides try to teach someone who is so drunk on his heretical beliefs that he will simply ignore facts and use God as reason for anything he cannot explain:

1) The leaders of Judea, both secular and religious (not that there was any difference) had been appointed by the Romans since Roman influence spelled out the destruction of the Hasmonean rulers.

2) The Gospels not only are not corraborated by any outside source, but they are obvious fictions as the authors not only were not eyewitnesses, but could not have possibly known anyone who was an eye witness to certain events...such as the discussions between Jesus and Herod or Jesus and Pilate.

3) Jesus was not particularly unique, there were various people advocating change in the socio-theological makeup of Judea at the time.

4) If Jesus existed, and caused a scene on the temple mount, he almost certainly would have simply been rounded up and crucified with various other troublemakers, rather than taken before a Herod or Pilate.

5) It wasn't God who saved Hezekiah, but rather Hezekiah's decision to dig a 500 ft tunnel to a spring, and wall off the pool fed by said spring, so that Jerusalem would have a supply of fresh water, and the Assyrian army laying siege would not. He then was wise enough to ally with Egypt and Kush after breaking off his tribute to Assyria, so that when the Assyrian army was laying siege to Jerusalem, and getting sickly as every army does without advanced logistical support from distances when they stop in a foreign land, there were two other armies marching towards the Assyrians.

6) God is not an interventionist God...at least not in the past two millenia. If God hasn't shown up to lay the divine smackdown now, its highly unlikely he did so often before.

7) My religion rocks, the bizzaro version of Christianity you spew, doesn't.

Are you saying that murdering a converted muslim woman is an indisputable point in the Koran, or is that too individual preferences and ideals?

If the former - please provide further information. If the latter - well, that was kind of my point all along. It's all about personal interpretation. Of BOTH books.

And I really do not see how holding something to a high standard can be precieved as a BAD thing, as you seem to be doing here. If anything, you should be chewing into me for all the works I DONT hold to a high standard. Not that you know the first thing about my standard-holding, but since you're presuming anyway, that ought to be the way you should do it.

To quote Bukhari, whose writings are included in the Hadith :"Whoever changes his religion, kill him". This is not my interpretation or taking out of context but simply standard Islamic teaching:- see http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002016.php for a little more info. Its not personal interpretation but the standard interpretation in Islam for centuries.

As for standard holding, all Im saying is that 100% certainty is never possible. But life cannot stop simply because things are not certain. A court must decide on the evidence before it whether someone is guilty or not. A court can never be 100% certain but it can be certain beyond reasonable doubt. All im saying is that if we are going to examine texts then hold them all to the same standard, not one to 'beyond all doubt', another to 'beyond reasonable doubt' and another to 'balance of probabilities'.

..Oh please. Christianity has been torturing and killing Jews since they converted a Roman emperor, with or without papal decree. The crusaders were the paragons of christendom, going forth to do Gods will...which evidently included the rape and burning of Jewish villages, because they wouldn't become Christian.

Im not defending anti-semitic behaviour anywhere in the world. Show me where in the new testament that conduct is endorsed (ie the justification for their actions) and secondly provide an example where a Jewish village was raped and burned solely because they wouldnt convert. What I believe you will find is that the village was burned due to political reasons with conversion used as a political tool.

I note you havent yet criticised Islam yet, whose holy books refers to Jews as pigs, and is intensely anti-semitic. Why is that?

The purpose of the 1st Crusade wasn't to defend the Byzantine Empire...it wasn't in any immediate danger. The purpose was to retake the Holy Land...in recent years, the European Kings had been having more success with their various coastal campaigns...and it was thought that perhaps they could defeat the Muslims and retake Jerusalem finally, at that point.

From Wikipedia's commentary on the First Crusade: "In 1074, Pope Gregory VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_VII) called for the milites Christi ("soldiers of Christ") to go to the aid of the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) in the east. " There clearly was a threat to the Byzantine Empire, but the First Crusade does end up in Jerusalem where it retakes the city.


Ok, a very brief rundown, because I have things to do besides try to teach someone who is so drunk on his heretical beliefs that he will simply ignore facts and use God as reason for anything he cannot explain:

1) The leaders of Judea, both secular and religious (not that there was any difference) had been appointed by the Romans since Roman influence spelled out the destruction of the Hasmonean rulers.

2) The Gospels not only are not corraborated by any outside source, but they are obvious fictions as the authors not only were not eyewitnesses, but could not have possibly known anyone who was an eye witness to certain events...such as the discussions between Jesus and Herod or Jesus and Pilate.

3) Jesus was not particularly unique, there were various people advocating change in the socio-theological makeup of Judea at the time.

4) If Jesus existed, and caused a scene on the temple mount, he almost certainly would have simply been rounded up and crucified with various other troublemakers, rather than taken before a Herod or Pilate.

5) It wasn't God who saved Hezekiah, but rather Hezekiah's decision to dig a 500 ft tunnel to a spring, and wall off the pool fed by said spring, so that Jerusalem would have a supply of fresh water, and the Assyrian army laying siege would not. He then was wise enough to ally with Egypt and Kush after breaking off his tribute to Assyria, so that when the Assyrian army was laying siege to Jerusalem, and getting sickly as every army does without advanced logistical support from distances when they stop in a foreign land, there were two other armies marching towards the Assyrians.

6) God is not an interventionist God...at least not in the past two millenia. If God hasn't shown up to lay the divine smackdown now, its highly unlikely he did so often before.

7) My religion rocks, the bizzaro version of Christianity you spew, doesn't.

Im not using God as an explanation for anything I dont understand but as a valid conclusion from the evidence presented.

In response:

1. Granted, but the Romans were the prevalent power in the region. As such they would have had overall power as to what happened in the region, although, as the west has learned, politics in the region means that power is only ever temporary for foreign powers. And yes there were many false messiahs, rebels and general troublemakers.

2. The authors repeatedly state that they are writing these things for assurance that what is being written is true: Luke writes:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled<SUP>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke;&version=31;#fen-NIV-24887a)]</SUP> among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

John writes: 30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may<SUP>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&version=31#fen-NIV-26888a)]</SUP> believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1 John says 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

Were there others in Pilate's room observing this? Curious Romans or palace servants watching? The centurion who saw Jesus die declared his faith - Luke could have interviewed him.

The whole story was about Jesus, a Jewish messiah. Why would the Romans with their plethora of gods want to take detailed notes about another god of another small minority trouble group out in the east?

but there is evidence via Josephus and Pliny's letters testifying to an individual called Jesus.

3. But there weren't leaders out there saying 'your sins are forgiven'. Almost all of them wanted freedom from Rome's rule and wanted a military leader.

4. Crucifixion was a very severe punishment, and the risk with doing it was to create even greater hostility with the populace. Im not sure just 'creating havoc' on Temple Mount would have led to a punishment such as that. Are there any records of such punishments being meted out for this type of crime? The Jews did not have power to put to death, only the Romans.

5. Im not referring to that battle but to the seige of Jerusalem:- 2 Kings 19:34 onwards:- "35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp."

6. How do you know this unless you have God's own knowledge? God is intimately interested in His creation, in every tiny aspect of it. Nothing goes by without His attention.

7. Yes, you have a religion, a series of tasks for yourself to perform in the hope that if you do it enough and if you do it well enough you might just please a holy God. I have an eternal relationship.

To quote Bukhari, whose writings are included in the Hadith :"Whoever changes his religion, kill him". This is not my interpretation or taking out of context but simply standard Islamic teaching:- see http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002016.php for a little more info. Its not personal interpretation but the standard interpretation in Islam for centuries.

If you think anyone is going to take jihadwatch as a reliable source, or a simple quote from a book called "Why I am not a muslim" as gospel, I think you're sadly mistaken. If it's "standard Islamic teaching", where's the mass-murder? People convert en masse every single day, yet they're still alive. I think we can safely assume that empiric examination negates your claim of "standard teaching".

So we're back to the same old "there's content in both books that can be used to justify violence". Anything can be interpreted to be in line with both islam and christianity.

Hmmm... even the Catholic church admits the Bible has errors.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Im not defending anti-semitic behaviour anywhere in the world. Show me where in the new testament that conduct is endorsed (ie the justification for their actions) and secondly provide an example where a Jewish village was raped and burned solely because they wouldnt convert. What I believe you will find is that the village was burned due to political reasons with conversion used as a political tool.

I note you havent yet criticised Islam yet, whose holy books refers to Jews as pigs, and is intensely anti-semitic. Why is that?

That's because you're a newb.

Ask the folks on this board my opinion of Islam.


Regarding the death of the Jews during the 1st (and all subsequent Crusades), some 12,000 Jews just in the Rhine valley were killed...while the Crusaders demanded of them "Christkillers, embrace the Cross or die!". Those Jews they did not killed, they forcibly baptized.

Granted, for centuries Jews had been persecuted and tortured legally throughout Christendom...laws specifically against Jews which cease to be binding upon a person who converted from Judaism to Christianity...

The tales of the butchery visited upon the Jews during all of the crusades are legion.



From Wikipedia's commentary on the First Crusade: "In 1074, Pope Gregory VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_VII) called for the milites Christi ("soldiers of Christ") to go to the aid of the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) in the east. " There clearly was a threat to the Byzantine Empire, but the First Crusade does end up in Jerusalem where it retakes the city.


Holy ****...are you really that ****ing stupid...did you just outright ignore the very first ****ing sentance of wikipedia's First crusade entry?

Read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade), you dundering nincompoop. Allow me to quote:

"The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the stated goal of capturing the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslims."

Gregory VII didn't call for a crusade, he called for solidiers of Christ some twenty years earlier...and was widely ignored.

Read what you cite.


Im not using God as an explanation for anything I dont understand but as a valid conclusion from the evidence presented.

Divine intervention is never a valid conclusion in discourse, because it is impossible to prove or disprove. Its the equivilant of playing cowboys and indians with your friends and having an argument over whether or not I shot you with my gun finger. "I hit you! You missed!".

In response:

1. Granted, but the Romans were the prevalent power in the region. As such they would have had overall power as to what happened in the region, although, as the west has learned, politics in the region means that power is only ever temporary for foreign powers. And yes there were many false messiahs, rebels and general troublemakers.

They played a very direct role...the people the Roman's placed in power were well aware of the historical response Rome had for disturbances in that region. It usually involved legions kicking much ass.

2. The authors repeatedly state that they are writing these things for assurance that what is being written is true: Luke writes:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled<SUP>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke;&version=31;#fen-NIV-24887a)]</SUP> among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Well, ****, man...

Since I, myself, have carefully investigated everything form the beginning, it seemed good, also, to me to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Shiek IT, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The Gospel of Aidon

1:1 And lo, did Mary Rock and Roll all Night...and verily she did party every day.
1:2 And so it was that Gene Simmons, the Father (of Metal), did concieve upon her a child destined to bring balance to the forces of Rock n Roll, baby!
1:3 Mary, being a wise mother, did say unto her fiance, Joseph, who foolishly declined to join her at the concert, that her child was divinely concieved by the Father
1:4 Joseph, not wishing to admit he was cuckolded, did accept Mary's tale at face value, so that he could accept Mary's tail, at rear value later on.

2:1 And so did Jesus, son of Gene, also known as Chaim Witz of Haifa, grow to be a wise and rocking young man with goodly long hair, the better to rock out with.

3:25 Jesus did wander out from the concert and did wander the Desert for Forty Hours whilest trying desperately to find God...but instead only cursing the devil's brew he imbibed...

7:23 Jesus did approach the Money Changers at the Temple and did beg of them for a shekel, with which to buy more hashish, and they refused, for their purpose was a holy one, to provide local currency for foreigners who sought to enter God's House and donate unto it, for this year it needed a new roof and the Youth Group cabin needed to be painted as well.

7:24 Ye did Jesus, son of his Father, enter into a rage, and upend the inequitous tables of those who dared not support his hashish habit...

9:17 So it was that Pilate did go to unto his bed, having spent another day not even hearing of this stoner called by the name of Jesus, who caused a ruckus at the temple...and thus it was that Jesus hung from the cross without notice and died some days later, his body tossed into a mass grave for the poor.

10:12 Oh Mother, tell your children not to do what he has done. Spend your lives in sheer misery, in the House of the Rising Son.

There we go...
I wrote that its true...so it must be.

The whole story was about Jesus, a Jewish messiah. Why would the Romans with their plethora of gods want to take detailed notes about another god of another small minority trouble group out in the east?

They took note of quite a bit of what happened in the region at that time...to the Romans in that area, it was of import. We have ample evidence of the history of the region, including detailed history of the Herods and Roman rulers...if Jesus was of any import, he would have been mentioned.

but there is evidence via Josephus and Pliny's letters testifying to an individual called Jesus.

Neither one claims to have met him..and they address people who followed a sect or cult surrounding an individual called Jesus...and they wrote some decades after Jesus would have died...Josephus's account is widely discredited by scholars on a variety of historical, literary, and religious grounds. It is certain that the primary reference to Jesus in Josephus's account was added some centuries later for just such a purpose as you are attempting to use it now. A secondary reference to Jesus is oblique, in that it noted a John, who was the brother of a Jesus...however the dates involved in the citation contradict the Churches own dates, the John cited being after Jesus's brother John would have died. Further, that particular citation, also, is never used by early Church figures, lending further credence to the notion that the James and Jesus so mentioned were not considered to be the James and Jesus of Christian mythology.

Pliny, the Younger, simply was writing to the Emperor about these people called Christians who worshiped "Christus". Jesus is never mentioned.

While conventional historicity says that Jesus existed, was a teacher and was executed by Rome for sedition...this is primarily because the world would be pissed if they came out and said "Hey...we can't find anything proving the existance of Jesus...so we can't really claim he existed". Only great religious figures are treated with such deference...had the discussion been regarding, say, Heracles...history would place Jesus's existance firmly in the realm of myth, with the amount of evidence present.

This is no corroborative evidenve, outside of third person narratives, obviously biased and fictionalized, written decades, if not centuries, after the facts.

The Bible is not, and has never been, considered a historical source.


3. But there weren't leaders out there saying 'your sins are forgiven'. Almost all of them wanted freedom from Rome's rule and wanted a military leader.

No, you fool. The Zealots were secular militants who's existance was predicate on rebellion from Roman rule. The Pharisee's were the philosophical believers who eventually created Talmudic law, a few centuries later. They believed that things had to change in the religion. The Essenes had yet different beliefs. Then there were innumberable other minor beliefs during that period.

I've told you already...you really need to look up the history. There did not need to be a preacher saying "your sins are forgiven"...Judaism, since its inception, has had Yom Kippur, the day of atonement....which is when we atone for and ask forgiveness for our sins. Of course, Jews believe you need forgiveness from those you've sinned against before God will forgive you...whereas Christians believed at one time that you can buy forgiveness for sins before you commit them, for enough money (go go Indulgences!).

When making even a cursory study of the writings and beliefs of the Pharisee's, even predating when Jesus would existed, it becomes evident that they were a primary source for the beliefs that Christianity attribute to Jesus.

4. Crucifixion was a very severe punishment, and the risk with doing it was to create even greater hostility with the populace. Im not sure just 'creating havoc' on Temple Mount would have led to a punishment such as that. Are there any records of such punishments being meted out for this type of crime? The Jews did not have power to put to death, only the Romans.

The Romans treated disturbances at the Temple with swift, direct, and harsh punishment, as it had traditionally been a boiling point for Jewish rioting and turbulance against foreign rule, and there had already been riots spawned by Jewish belief that the Romans had defiled the temple. Creating havoc on the Temple Mount was pretty much a guarantee of crucifixion under Pilate, if you survived the arrest itself. Recall, if you would, that Pilate was considered so cruel and harsh in his governorship of Judea that he was recalled to Rome as a direct result of how vicious and intractable he was. He was well known for putting down minor disturbances with lethal intervention of legionairres and being quick to crucify anyone he saw as even potential political rivals.

Oh, and the Jewish priests most certainly had the authority to put someone to death at the time...and the means of execution for the Jews was still stoning to death.

5. Im not referring to that battle but to the seige of Jerusalem:- 2 Kings 19:34 onwards:- "35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp."

So am I. Read what I wrote. There was no battle between Egypt, Kush, and Judea on one side and Assyrians on the other. The Assyrian army laid siege to Jerusalem...found now easy source of fresh water, found themselves stationary in a foreign land, without the logistical support required, their army sickening...and with armies from Egypt and Kush entering Judea...so they arranged with Hezekiah to pack up and go home for a small tribute so everyone could save face.

6. How do you know this unless you have God's own knowledge? God is intimately interested in His creation, in every tiny aspect of it. Nothing goes by without His attention.

Because if God was interventionist, he would have long since put an end to your manner of idiocy.

Again, though, your argument is absurd on its face.



7. Yes, you have a religion, a series of tasks for yourself to perform in the hope that if you do it enough and if you do it well enough you might just please a holy God. I have an eternal relationship.

Your misapprehension of Judaism comes as no surprise, given your utter lack of knowledge of understanding of any other topic of which we've discussed.

Judaism isn't about tasks, though like every religion it has its rituals and traditions. Judaism is about freeing the captive, healing the sick, and helping the poor. Its about social liberalism. Its the original religion of mercy and social contract, dictating systems of justice, social liability, charity, hospitality, and education.

Where Christian preaches "mercy" and uses its belief in an "eternal relationship in God" as justification for rapine butchery of those who haven't "embraced God's love", Jews have taken a religion which was radically liberal for the time of its inception and adapted and evolved it to ensure we retain the same deep respect and love for social justice, mercy, charity, and lovingkindness.

Who cares if your bible preaches "mercy" and "turning the other cheek", when the practice of Christianity has been of inveterate terrorists, forcing their religion on all in their path with sword, flame, rack, and kidnapping.

If you think anyone is going to take jihadwatch as a reliable source, or a simple quote from a book called "Why I am not a muslim" as gospel, I think you're sadly mistaken. If it's "standard Islamic teaching", where's the mass-murder? People convert en masse every single day, yet they're still alive. I think we can safely assume that empiric examination negates your claim of "standard teaching".

Actually, it is illegal, on pain of death, in the majority of Islamic nations to convert from Islam. In Pakistan, it was just this past year that a man was sentanced to death for converting to Christianity...but intense US pressure after the story broke on US news, drove the Pakistani court to declare the man's "obvious insanity" for wishing to convert in the first place...and thus, because he was insane, he could not be executed, because that is forbidden by the Koran as well.

Had that story not broken in the US...that man would be dead right now, because he converted ;)

That was Afghanistan. Pakistan is a secular government (knock wood, so far).

I think what you all are taking about is Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia).

If we took certain passages out of the bible, like stoning adulterers, and made it law, it'd be similar. And if we didn't have such a strong tradition of separation of church and state, I'm sure we'd be doing things just as barbaric.

I just watched a number of National Geographic documentaries on a number of gospels that weren't included in the Bible.

What I heard is one bishop pretty much made all the decisions. They put in the gospels that were the easiest to understand because the Romans were persecuting Christians right and left and they wanted to make it clear what Christians were suffering for. If I were a Christian, I'd be keenly interested in what was left out and why. Was Mary's story left out because she was the favorite disciple of Jesus and this gave women a status that men were uncomfortable with? They found some interesting frescos of some women who were "teachers" in the early church who had their eyes gouged out and their raised hands scratched off, only the man was left standing untouched.

Decisions like this were based on what was most beneficial to whoever was in charge of the church. Anything that gave power to people to experience God in their own way would not have been beneficial to the church. It's got to be the Church people who have the mystical insights and lock what you believe. That's why the Gnostics, and probably other early Christians, were squelched. They didn't have a heirarchy and the church didn't like that.

Later on another one decided that Mary the prostitute was the same person as Mary Magdelena, never mind that 25% of the graves they've found from the time period contained women named Mary. So he convienently combined them into one person to simplify things.

y sister also says much the same thing, "The church fathers". As if there were some sort of paternalistic gathering of people with wisdom beyond ordinary. Come on, it was a bunch of guys drunk on power trying to ensure they stayed on top!

There has been a lot of chatter about the reliability of the gospels and the gospel accounts since Dan Brown's Da Vinci code, and the points made above have been suggested by a lot of people. However they have also been refuted by scholars: for example many of the points are rebutted at http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/christian-analysis-of-da-vinci-code.html

The question as to Jesus' sonship being decided at Nicea is incorrect and the rebuttal from that site worth quoting in full:

"Problem 3: Did A Belief in Jesus’ Divinity Receive its Decisive Sanction through a “close vote” at Nicea in AD 325? This claim by Brown is probably the worst of the three problems. What we know about Nicea is this. It gathered not to determine the divinity of Jesus but to discuss the Arian view of Jesus, who saw Jesus as Son of God, but appointed to that role versus the view that the council adopted that Jesus possessed Sonship from eternity. So the debate was the type of Son of God Jesus was, not whether Jesus was divine. Arius believed that Jesus was Son as the first created being with a special, unique relationship to God. What Nicea ended up affirming is that Jesus was eternally the Son and was not created. "

erry Christmas everyone!!

If we took certain passages out of the bible, like stoning adulterers, and made it law, it'd be similar. And if we didn't have such a strong tradition of separation of church and state, I'm sure we'd be doing things just as barbaric.

Ahem. Which of our euro actions are you calling "Just as barbaric" here really? Or are you simply calling europeans smarter than americans since we have a strong -connection- between church and state and yet do not stone adulterers or whatnot? ;P

Oh and I would formally like to nominate The Gospel of Aidon to some form of Best of TDG-archive (yes, we need one).

That was Afghanistan. Pakistan is a secular government (knock wood, so far).

I think what you all are taking about is Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia).

If we took certain passages out of the bible, like stoning adulterers, and made it law, it'd be similar. And if we didn't have such a strong tradition of separation of church and state, I'm sure we'd be doing things just as barbaric.

Ah, you are correct, it was Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, it isn't against the law to be Christian...but you run a very real risk of being killed for being so.

And many Muslim nations maintain courts to uphold Sharia law, if the secular courts themselves do not. To try and create a real distinction is disingenous.

There has been a lot of chatter about the reliability of the gospels and the gospel accounts since Dan Brown's Da Vinci code, and the points made above have been suggested by a lot of people. However they have also been refuted by scholars: for example many of the points are rebutted at http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/christian-analysis-of-da-vinci-code.html

The question as to Jesus' sonship being decided at Nicea is incorrect and the rebuttal from that site worth quoting in full:

"Problem 3: Did A Belief in Jesus’ Divinity Receive its Decisive Sanction through a “close vote” at Nicea in AD 325? This claim by Brown is probably the worst of the three problems. What we know about Nicea is this. It gathered not to determine the divinity of Jesus but to discuss the Arian view of Jesus, who saw Jesus as Son of God, but appointed to that role versus the view that the council adopted that Jesus possessed Sonship from eternity. So the debate was the type of Son of God Jesus was, not whether Jesus was divine. Arius believed that Jesus was Son as the first created being with a special, unique relationship to God. What Nicea ended up affirming is that Jesus was eternally the Son and was not created. "

erry Christmas everyone!!

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction...much like the Gospels.

There are a slew of Gospels...which Gospels were adopted into the Canon was entirely political.

Ahem. Which of our euro actions are you calling "Just as barbaric" here really? Or are you simply calling europeans smarter than americans since we have a strong -connection- between church and state and yet do not stone adulterers or whatnot? ;P

Um, Tinsi...would you really want me to go through the litany of what Euro atrocities have been committed in the name of God, with their strong connection between Church and State? I hope not, because I'd be typing up that post for a year, most likely ;)

No...you didn't stone adulterers...just burnt them at the stake =P (if they couldn't afford the indulgences, that is, and weren't royalty).

Oh and I would formally like to nominate The Gospel of Aidon to some form of Best of TDG-archive (yes, we need one).

=D

There we go...
I wrote that its true...so it must be.

This must be true. Because I've heard the House of the Rising Sun story many a times. I can cooberate that story.

Ahem. Which of our euro actions are you calling "Just as barbaric" here really? Or are you simply calling europeans smarter than americans since we have a strong -connection- between church and state and yet do not stone adulterers or whatnot? ;P

When I said "we" I meant the US. You guys really do have separation of church and state although it isn't encoded in law, although much of Europe had some issues with that if I recall:

Witch Burnings? Check!
People executed for heresy? Check!

Now if we didn't have those words in our constitution, you can bet we'd most likely be doing some crazy crap in the US. We've got a lot of fundamentalist zealots here always pushing to control everyone else.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction...much like the Gospels.
There are a slew of Gospels...which Gospels were adopted into the Canon was entirely political.
Exactly! Deciding which group of fiction to include was a work of an editorial staff.

None of the books in the Bible were written by the Apostles any more than the ones deemed heretical.

...and this thread has gone full circle. Begin again with my post #5.

I am of the opinion, and I don't think I'm alone, that the present day version and translation of the Bible is NOT as it was written to begin with. It has been altered over the years to suit whatever those in charge needed it to say to get the obedience they required. Sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not. In the end, we have a mish mash of altered texts and even some stuff removed becuase it was inconvenient.
Indeed! There's been a lot of documentaries recently, the ones on NGC and then one on CNN a couple days ago, "The Early Christians". Very interesting.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction...much like the Gospels.

There are a slew of Gospels...which Gospels were adopted into the Canon was entirely political.

The canon was compiled according to strict criteria. If there was an important truth to be proclaimed then it would only make sense that a defined body of works comprising that truth be created.

It was not a political move, as the early church fathers quoted extensively from the works we now regard as the new testament. it only became political when there were sufficient christians to comprise a significant part of the roman empire, at which point the canon was well established.

Indeed! There's been a lot of documentaries recently, the ones on NGC and then one on CNN a couple days ago, "The Early Christians". Very interesting.

Easy programming for those who can't be bothered enquiring further. There is a defense of this at http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

That's because you're a newb.

Ask the folks on this board my opinion of Islam.

I think I am safe in assuming then that it is not too favourable.

Regarding the death of the Jews during the 1st (and all subsequent Crusades), some 12,000 Jews just in the Rhine valley were killed...while the Crusaders demanded of them "Christkillers, embrace the Cross or die!". Those Jews they did not killed, they forcibly baptized.

Granted, for centuries Jews had been persecuted and tortured legally throughout Christendom...laws specifically against Jews which cease to be binding upon a person who converted from Judaism to Christianity...

The tales of the butchery visited upon the Jews during all of the crusades are legion.

Yes, the world of christdom, ie. those ex-Roman empire and certain surrounding nations have not conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the new testament. But Jesus did not promise to deliver this fallen world, it is still in sin.

You can't point to biblical justification for persecution of any race or people because it doesn't exist. Thats my point.

Holy ****...are you really that ****ing stupid...did you just outright ignore the very first ****ing sentance of wikipedia's First crusade entry?

Read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade), you dundering nincompoop. Allow me to quote:

"The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the stated goal of capturing the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslims."

Gregory VII didn't call for a crusade, he called for solidiers of Christ some twenty years earlier...and was widely ignored.

Read what you cite.


I did. The first crusade was to repel invaders of christian/jewish lands, not to run around randomly cutting citizens up.

Divine intervention is never a valid conclusion in discourse, because it is impossible to prove or disprove. Its the equivilant of playing cowboys and indians with your friends and having an argument over whether or not I shot you with my gun finger. "I hit you! You missed!".


Agreed. But where it relates to a historical event where God says He would do something, and it happens, then it is fulfilment of prophecy. I dont think it is possible to draw such conclusions today, for we have no such revelation. However, if we do acknowledge that God is the alpha and omega, knowing all things from the start, then history must be the working out of God's plans for the nations.

Out of interest, I was pondering the other day, what do you make of triumphant arch in the Roman Forum in which the menorah is carved - the one captured from the Jewish temple in 70AD and brought into Rome, along with other sacraments from the temple?

It occurred to me that it may be similar to the ark captured by the philistines during the time of the judges. Only this time it is symbolic of God moving into the heart of the gentile empire, where his word was starting to spread. An interesting idea, but I have no other support for it. It sounds like the sort of thing God would do - after all, He likes doing things in style, and what better way to do it than a procession into the capital city?



Well, ****, man...

Since I, myself, have carefully investigated everything form the beginning, it seemed good, also, to me to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Shiek IT, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The Gospel of Aidon
[snip]


Ah yes, entertaining. For some. But it fails on numerous points, including corroberation from other sources and no interviews with the original eyewitnesses. Neither does it have a resurrection story in it, without which it means you are dead in your sins.


They took note of quite a bit of what happened in the region at that time...to the Romans in that area, it was of import. We have ample evidence of the history of the region, including detailed history of the Herods and Roman rulers...if Jesus was of any import, he would have been mentioned.

True. But most of what he did was done in the countryside, outside the towns. All he did was done in just 3 years, hardly time to mount an organised and sustained rebellion, and as a result not on the Romans' radar. Why would he be when the Romans had hundreds of other rebels - like Barabbus - to chase, capture, torture and execute? He was no threat to them.


Neither one claims to have met him..and they address people who followed a sect or cult surrounding an individual called Jesus...and they wrote some decades after Jesus would have died...Josephus's account is widely discredited by scholars on a variety of historical, literary, and religious grounds. It is certain that the primary reference to Jesus in Josephus's account was added some centuries later for just such a purpose as you are attempting to use it now. A secondary reference to Jesus is oblique, in that it noted a John, who was the brother of a Jesus...however the dates involved in the citation contradict the Churches own dates, the John cited being after Jesus's brother John would have died. Further, that particular citation, also, is never used by early Church figures, lending further credence to the notion that the James and Jesus so mentioned were not considered to be the James and Jesus of Christian mythology.


Dear o dear. If we do have Josephus' reference you claim it must have been added later. If we dont have Josephus' reference you claim it means Jesus can't have existed. This goes is well beyond the established procedures of any historical scholarship.

The early church figures had their own texts and contacts as sources. They didnt need a secular source.

Pliny's letters attest to a widespread existence of christianity at an early stage. If you say Jesus didn't exist then someone has to explain how a non-entity started an organisation that became very well spread out so quickly.


Pliny, the Younger, simply was writing to the Emperor about these people called Christians who worshiped "Christus". Jesus is never mentioned.


Christus is the title - Messiah. He also wrote seeking advise as to the legal status of these beliefs, and whether they broke Roman law.


While conventional historicity says that Jesus existed, was a teacher and was executed by Rome for sedition...this is primarily because the world would be pissed if they came out and said "Hey...we can't find anything proving the existance of Jesus...so we can't really claim he existed". Only great religious figures are treated with such deference...had the discussion been regarding, say, Heracles...history would place Jesus's existance firmly in the realm of myth, with the amount of evidence present.


Im not sure that's a valid argument to make. There are four accounts regarding these events, all of which could have been dismissed by contemporaries. But they weren't, and to say that one rebel managed to create a religion when hundreds of contemporary rebels failed just doesn't make sense.


This is no corroborative evidenve, outside of third person narratives, obviously biased and fictionalized, written decades, if not centuries, after the facts.

The Bible is not, and has never been, considered a historical source.

Including your own scriptures? Or is it just the new testament?

The new testament was largely completed by 70AD, as there is no mention of the sacking of Jerusalem, which would probably have been included had news of that reached Paul. But how much evidence is enough? Or would be enough? What are you expecting from an event that happened in a far flung corner of the Roman empire 2000 years ago? A news broadcast?


No, you fool. The Zealots were secular militants who's existance was predicate on rebellion from Roman rule. The Pharisee's were the philosophical believers who eventually created Talmudic law, a few centuries later. They believed that things had to change in the religion. The Essenes had yet different beliefs. Then there were innumberable other minor beliefs during that period.

I've told you already...you really need to look up the history. There did not need to be a preacher saying "your sins are forgiven"...Judaism, since its inception, has had Yom Kippur, the day of atonement....which is when we atone for and ask forgiveness for our sins. Of course, Jews believe you need forgiveness from those you've sinned against before God will forgive you...whereas Christians believed at one time that you can buy forgiveness for sins before you commit them, for enough money (go go Indulgences!).


Indulgences were a Catholic invention and are not christian.

The day of atonement was an annual plea to God for forgiveness of sins. There was the Passover, where God illustrated the need for the shedding of blood, a substitute, to die in the place of someone otherwise guilty. God provides a way out of His anger, and the provision of His son was the only way He could do it.

As far as sacrifices go, God was tired of them: Isiah 1:11:-

11 "The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?" says the LORD.
"I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

God wants His people to do what is right rather than repetitive, meaningless sacrifices. Anyone can do that, but God wants sincerity.


When making even a cursory study of the writings and beliefs of the Pharisee's, even predating when Jesus would existed, it becomes evident that they were a primary source for the beliefs that Christianity attribute to Jesus.


but the new testament is a jewish book, written by jews and written about jews. of course there should be similarities.


The Romans treated disturbances at the Temple with swift, direct, and harsh punishment, as it had traditionally been a boiling point for Jewish rioting and turbulance against foreign rule, and there had already been riots spawned by Jewish belief that the Romans had defiled the temple. Creating havoc on the Temple Mount was pretty much a guarantee of crucifixion under Pilate, if you survived the arrest itself. Recall, if you would, that Pilate was considered so cruel and harsh in his governorship of Judea that he was recalled to Rome as a direct result of how vicious and intractable he was. He was well known for putting down minor disturbances with lethal intervention of legionairres and being quick to crucify anyone he saw as even potential political rivals.

Oh, and the Jewish priests most certainly had the authority to put someone to death at the time...and the means of execution for the Jews was still stoning to death.


Yes, as Paul did, overseeing the stoning of Stephen. I suppose the main response I would make here is that it could have been that the jewish council wasn't able or willing to kill him as he was very popular, and so they roped in Pilate and stirred the crowds up. That way they could get him crucified and set an example to others who may threaten their position.


Because if God was interventionist, he would have long since put an end to your manner of idiocy.


He put an end to sin once - almost - by wiping out almost His entire creation. And he'll do it again...


Again, though, your argument is absurd on its face.


And underneath?


Your misapprehension of Judaism comes as no surprise, given your utter lack of knowledge of understanding of any other topic of which we've discussed.

Judaism isn't about tasks, though like every religion it has its rituals and traditions. Judaism is about freeing the captive, healing the sick, and helping the poor. Its about social liberalism. Its the original religion of mercy and social contract, dictating systems of justice, social liability, charity, hospitality, and education.

Where Christian preaches "mercy" and uses its belief in an "eternal relationship in God" as justification for rapine butchery of those who haven't "embraced God's love", Jews have taken a religion which was radically liberal for the time of its inception and adapted and evolved it to ensure we retain the same deep respect and love for social justice, mercy, charity, and lovingkindness.

Who cares if your bible preaches "mercy" and "turning the other cheek", when the practice of Christianity has been of inveterate terrorists, forcing their religion on all in their path with sword, flame, rack, and kidnapping.

It would be good if you could actually cite how these events are justified in the New Testament. And as for the crapola spewed about how jews are do damn perfect recall that it was the israelite/jewish that God wanted to wipe out after the golden calf episode, after the rebellion before entering the promised land (and that generation was wiped out during those 40 years in the desert), that God became sick of repeatedly during the time of the judges and after Solomon's reign before finally evicting them from the land through force of arms.

Your problem is that you yourself don't have a proper understanding of judaism. Judaism (and christianity) is founded on a relationship with God - that is why the first three commandments are wholly solely and exclusively about Him.

Um, Tinsi...would you really want me to go through the litany of what Euro atrocities have been committed in the name of God, with their strong connection between Church and State?

Not at all, but please note that Pan used present, not past, verb tense.

When I said "we" I meant the US. You guys really do have separation of church and state although it isn't encoded in law, although much of Europe had some issues with that if I recall:

Witch Burnings? Check!

So did the U.S. - regardless of their seperation of church and state, so I don't think we can put the blame entirely on the lack of seperation here. :)

And no, we do not have a seperation between church and state. As long as the official church gets my tax money by default unless I am a member of a different religious group, there is no seperation. As long as a certain percentage of the cabinet at all time has to be protestant, there is no seperation. As long as children in primary schools are taught about Jesus -as if it were fact-, and get away with it, there is no seperation of church and state, neither legally nor de facto.

However, if we do acknowledge that God is the alpha and omega, knowing all things from the start, then history must be the working out of God's plans for the nations.

But we cannot acknowledge that, because that tosses the entire concept of free will out the window, and then Exodus is sortof fubared. Closest we can get is he PLANNED for Adam to get hungry and knew he'd eat, but after that his plan was simply to lean back and watch mankind's choices. But then we can't very well blame history on him.

The canon was compiled according to strict criteria. If there was an important truth to be proclaimed then it would only make sense that a defined body of works comprising that truth be created.

It was not a political move, as the early church fathers quoted extensively from the works we now regard as the new testament. it only became political when there were sufficient christians to comprise a significant part of the roman empire, at which point the canon was well established.

The canon wasn't compiled at all...its was slowly collected and accepted de facto over the course of centuries. The Catholic (and hence, most Protestant) canon wasn't normalized until the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

It is also different depending on what your paricular flavor of Christianity is. Coptic canon is different from the Ethiopian Orthodox canon is different from the Catholic canon was different from the Lutheran canon (for a few centuries at least).

Further...looking at the so called "criterion of inspiration"...the criteria was pretty much in no way objective, but rather focused on the historical opinions of those who predicated their scholarship on the very divinity they were attempting to assess. Indeed, certain early Church "fathers" were quite obviously working with an agenda...namely Eusebius, who was known to have added forgeries to documents amongst other activities which were lacking in academic integrity.

It is a giant excercise in circular logic.

"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them." - Jeffrey Sinclair

OR

The message is what is important, not the words.

It seems to me that people start wars and commit atrocities over the words and forget the message entirely.

I think I am safe in assuming then that it is not too favourable.

I think the greatest external threat the Western World faces, at the moment, is the militaristic growth of Islam.



Yes, the world of christdom, ie. those ex-Roman empire and certain surrounding nations have not conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the new testament. But Jesus did not promise to deliver this fallen world, it is still in sin.

You can't point to biblical justification for persecution of any race or people because it doesn't exist. Thats my point.

What matter to the millions upon millions of people subjugated into Christianity or outright killed, if the bible does or does not say it is acceptable. Over the centuries most Christian sects have espoused official stances and policies of intolerance, coerced conversion, and the forced "education" of non-christian children into Christianity against the will of their parents, even going so far, in the case of the Slavs, as to kidnap children to be raised elsewhere as Christians. In the best of times, until very recently, the heads of Churches simply ignored the doings of their congregants. At the worst of times, they ordered it themselves.





I did. The first crusade was to repel invaders of christian/jewish lands, not to run around randomly cutting citizens up.

Firstly, the 1st crusade had nothing to do with repeling invaders of Jewish lands, as the first thing the Crusaders did upon capturing Jerusalem was to butcher some 30,000 Jews living there.

Secondly, the purpose was to take Jerusalem, not to protect the Byzantine Empire.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter what the state purpose was, with regard to the mass execution of thousands of Jews along the path of the Crusaders. These men were "soldiers of Christ" called to do the Churches holy work...and in the process they determined that part of their task was to murder Jews because they were not Christian.



Agreed. But where it relates to a historical event where God says He would do something, and it happens, then it is fulfilment of prophecy. I dont think it is possible to draw such conclusions today, for we have no such revelation. However, if we do acknowledge that God is the alpha and omega, knowing all things from the start, then history must be the working out of God's plans for the nations.

Except...as it happens, God doesn't seem to have his words put into writing until after the even fortold occurs...or the "history" of what occurred as put forth in biblical sources is conviently crafted to match nebulous beliefs of earlier periods.

Who acknowledges that God knows all things? I dont'. If he knows all things, why would he bother doing anything? Hell, if he knows all things, why wouldn't he will himself out of existance? It would suck to be omniscient. The idea of Divine omniscience is one of the dumber concepts Christianity has dreamt up.

Out of interest, I was pondering the other day, what do you make of triumphant arch in the Roman Forum in which the menorah is carved - the one captured from the Jewish temple in 70AD and brought into Rome, along with other sacraments from the temple?

It occurred to me that it may be similar to the ark captured by the philistines during the time of the judges. Only this time it is symbolic of God moving into the heart of the gentile empire, where his word was starting to spread. An interesting idea, but I have no other support for it. It sounds like the sort of thing God would do - after all, He likes doing things in style, and what better way to do it than a procession into the capital city?

Where's the Roman Empire now? Who controls Jerusalem now?

If you're going to attempt to espouse Divine Providence as the reason for socio-political occurences....well, I have the last laugh on that one ;)

Heck, Jews have the ability of delivering what could be considered the very wrath of God himself, in the form of nuclear weapons. The Vatican has guys in puffy shirts and halberds. Who's da men? We da men!



Ah yes, entertaining. For some. But it fails on numerous points, including corroberation from other sources and no interviews with the original eyewitnesses. Neither does it have a resurrection story in it, without which it means you are dead in your sins.

It has corrboration from other sources...the Animal's Letter to Americans I, "There is a house down in New Orleans, they call the Rising Sun..." That is quite obviously a hidden reference, in order that the Animal's could escape persecution. Further, there is, indeed, someone named Gene Simmons who was born Chaim Witz of Haifa. That is all the proof needed, evidently.

Oh...and I interviewed the people involved. I promise. Cross my heart. Would I lie about such important matters? God himself provided me the information for those I didn't actually get around to interviewing...he send me dreams of Gene Simmon's long tongue and a woman named Mary who kept crying out "Oh God!" over and over. That is obviously proof, in and of itself.



True. But most of what he did was done in the countryside, outside the towns. All he did was done in just 3 years, hardly time to mount an organised and sustained rebellion, and as a result not on the Romans' radar. Why would he be when the Romans had hundreds of other rebels - like Barabbus - to chase, capture, torture and execute? He was no threat to them.

Exactly. If Jesus existed at all...he was of such little import at the time that his very existance was recorded nowhere. Not even when he was crucified.



Dear o dear. If we do have Josephus' reference you claim it must have been added later. If we dont have Josephus' reference you claim it means Jesus can't have existed. This goes is well beyond the established procedures of any historical scholarship.

I don't claim it must have been added later. The very Church itself has acknowledged that it was an obvious forgery and realized that it only hurt their cause to cite it. Noone with any manner of legitimacy pretends that reference in Josephus is anything other than a forgery implaced some centuries after the fact by Eusebius.

The early church figures had their own texts and contacts as sources. They didnt need a secular source.

The early church figures used any source they could which would lend credence to their assertations. Scholars generally accept that any mention of Jesus in Josephus's work, which was considered the seminal work on Jewish history and life at the time, would have been heavily referenced by early church figures as credentials. It would have proved a great boon in their attempts to convert people.


Pliny's letters attest to a widespread existence of christianity at an early stage. If you say Jesus didn't exist then someone has to explain how a non-entity started an organisation that became very well spread out so quickly.

Pliny the Younger's letters attest that Christians existed in at least some significant numbers in the region some century after the fact. That is all.

How do I explain how a non-entity started an organization that became somewhat numerous so quickly? Did you know that Jedi Knight is a religion on the 2001 UK Census? Its code is 896. More people listed their religion as Jedi in the 2001 Census in England and Wales than did for Buddhism, Hinduism, or Judaism (Almost 400,000 people). In 2001, in New Zealand, some 53,000 people listed their religion as Jedi on the census, making it the second highest "religious" population (Though New Zealand decided to persecute those poor Jedi, by marking their response as "Answered, but no counted") In Australia the Jedi would have come in at number two, also, would Australia have counted that response. Indeed, in Australia they've even suggested that you could be fined up to 1000 dollars for the '06 census if you're a Jedi who dares to proclaim his religion on the census.

I suppose that means, given how widespread Jedinity has grown in a mere thirty years, that Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Luke Skywalker were real people. Hell, we even have them on film and there are hundreds of corroborating books and stories.

They must be real!

What is particularly amusing is how unsurprising it would be, to me, if 2000 years from now, Jedinity was the worlds largest religion and some intellectual member of a small religion called Christianity was thinking a long post on the Druids Grove (that ancient respository of intellectual discourse used by the brightest minds of the modern world for 2000 years now, though the reason for the name being lost in the mists of antiquity) debating the historicity of Jedinity and Yoda with some right wing Jedi fundamentalist.

Christus is the title - Messiah. He also wrote seeking advise as to the legal status of these beliefs, and whether they broke Roman law.

I am well aware of what Christus and Christ is and means. It actually translates into "The Annointed One", as I recall.



Im not sure that's a valid argument to make. There are four accounts regarding these events, all of which could have been dismissed by contemporaries. But they weren't, and to say that one rebel managed to create a religion when hundreds of contemporary rebels failed just doesn't make sense.

There are four, contradictory accounts, regarding these events, which contemporaries don't even note the existance of, let alone bother to refute. You'd no more see colleges of history, sociology, political science, or theology in this era bother to refute the veracity of the Star Wars movies.


Including your own scriptures? Or is it just the new testament?

Noone takes the Torah or the rest of the Septuagint as historically accurate documents (outside of fundamentalist whackjobs). Some facts have been verified archaogically and via other sources (when possible), such as the Exodus from Egypt is known to have happened, in that the Hebrews did reside in Egypt for some centuries as slaves and then got up and left. There is no historical proof that Moses existed. He almost certainly was not raised as an Egyptian Prince, if he did exist.

Jericho, for instance, did fall...this is fact. However, more likely, what happened, rather than Joshua "blowing the walls down", as it were, was that the red "cord" which Rahab was to hang to identify her home was so that the Israelites could send up a rope to be fastened, so that some of them could inflitrate the walls of Jericho, while Joshua marched his army around making a lot of noise elsewhere.

The new testament was largely completed by 70AD, as there is no mention of the sacking of Jerusalem, which would probably have been included had news of that reached Paul. But how much evidence is enough? Or would be enough? What are you expecting from an event that happened in a far flung corner of the Roman empire 2000 years ago? A news broadcast?

Both Matthew (Matt 22:7) and Luke (Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24) allude to Titus's attack on Jerusalem.

Further, it is commonly accepted that Matthew was written between 70 and 100. Luke is more debated, as there are contradictory indicators of date. Some suggest 70-100, some suggest 60-68. Most seem to agree on 80-90.

Scholars generally accept that Mark was written between 65 and 75, as Matthew and Luke both plagiarize heavily from Mark. It is further assumed, by many, that Matthew had to have been written sometime very close to, or after the destruction of the Temple, since he also references it.

John is generally accepted to have been written between 90 and 100 or 120 depending on who you ask. Some place it as late as 140, but that is due to the last chapter, of which evidence suggesting that was added later, exists.


Indulgences were a Catholic invention and are not christian.

So, it is your posistion that Catholics are not Christians? I would venture to guess the Pope would disagree...as would history. Indeed, when indulgences were popular, there was only one flavor of Christianity available for worship in most of Europe.

The day of atonement was an annual plea to God for forgiveness of sins. There was the Passover, where God illustrated the need for the shedding of blood, a substitute, to die in the place of someone otherwise guilty. God provides a way out of His anger, and the provision of His son was the only way He could do it.

Do not attempt to debate Jewish theology with me...you lack the knowledge to do so.

Passover has nothing to do with atonement or Yom Kippur. It was the celebration of the Exodus from Egypt. The Pascal Lamb served two main purposes...to provide a festive meal and to commemorate the Angel of Death passing over the Israelite homes in Egypt.

Oh, and the Day of Atonement is...not was. It is still observed.

As far as sacrifices go, God was tired of them: Isiah 1:11:-

11 "The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?" says the LORD.
"I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

God wants His people to do what is right rather than repetitive, meaningless sacrifices. Anyone can do that, but God wants sincerity.

Hey, asshole. We're still here, you stupid mother****er. We Yids, despite all the efforts of you ****tard Christians, are still alive and kicking.

Don't try to tell us what God wants, you blithering idiot of astounding proportions. Oh, and by the by, the notion that God was tired of sacrifices, etc etc etc...is a Pharisee notion (and one of the reasons why Judaism hasn't held a sacrifice in almost two thousand years). Just in case you forgot, in your ****ing moronicism, the Pharisees were Jews =D


but the new testament is a jewish book, written by jews and written about jews. of course there should be similarities.

...if you don't see my point, despite basically repeating it here, there is no help for you.

Yes...Jews invented the beliefs that Christianity supposedly believes (and then violates daily). Jesus was nothing special...preaching nothing new. He was one of a multitude, if he existed as a person at all.


Yes, as Paul did, overseeing the stoning of Stephen. I suppose the main response I would make here is that it could have been that the jewish council wasn't able or willing to kill him as he was very popular, and so they roped in Pilate and stirred the crowds up. That way they could get him crucified and set an example to others who may threaten their position.

Ah yes "The Jews killed Jesus!" Dumb****.

It could have been that the Grand Poobah of the Order of the Brontosaur ordered Jesus's death secretly from his lodge with Fred Flintstone too...but it is much, much, more likely (and virtually certain) that had Jesus existed...and been crucified by the Romans, it was because he decided to start a scene at the Temple, which was almost a guarantee of a one way ticket to a long painful ride on the cross, lest you instigate a riot.

Btw, as I believe I've mentioned a few times now...Jesus wasn't unique. There were a great many people preaching beliefs similar to what the Gospels put forth, at the time. Yes, somehow Jesus was the only one the Jews decided was such a threat they had to have the Roman kill him?

Pfah, you're hopeless in your ignorance...what's worse is it isn't ignorance born of a lack of knowledge...but ignorance born of willful disregard for knowledge.



He put an end to sin once - almost - by wiping out almost His entire creation. And he'll do it again...

Oh for ****'s sake.

Every mythos in the region has a great flood myth...

Regardless, though, if you are going to give credence to the Bible...then you can't ignore the fact that God swore to Noah that he would never again commit such a tragedy upon the human race.

Goddamn idiot Christians can't even ****ing cite the Bible without inventing **** to counter what is already written down. Its like playing a game with someone who makes up the rules to the game as he plays.


It would be good if you could actually cite how these events are justified in the New Testament.

I don't need to cite how the events are justified. Christianity has already created the justifications for itself. Frankly, I don't give a **** how you butchers justified your mass slaughters...what matter to the dead what reasons were ascribed to to justify their death. In the end, their deaths were justified by one simple criterion "They weren't Christian."

And as for the crapola spewed about how jews are do damn perfect recall that it was the israelite/jewish that God wanted to wipe out after the golden calf episode, after the rebellion before entering the promised land (and that generation was wiped out during those 40 years in the desert), that God became sick of repeatedly during the time of the judges and after Solomon's reign before finally evicting them from the land through force of arms.

Again, you use biblical stories as justification...meanwhile I point to real things, real concepts, and real practices over the course of millenia. You reference myths and stories...I reference facts. Are Jews perfect? No. Are we a damn sight better than Christendom has shown itself to be? Yup. If for no other reason than we've not butchered and forcibly converted millions upon millions of people. However, one can point to the disproportionate preponderance of Jews in those fields which advocate social justice, social evolution, scientific advancement, and education in general, to show my point. You can look at the modern justice system of the UK, the US, and the various Commonwealth nations and see its roots in the Mosaic social laws put down in the Torah. You can look at the modern social movements over the past centuries which have propelled thought, rationalism, equality and equity, and see the disproportionate role Jews have played.

Your problem is that you yourself don't have a proper understanding of judaism. Judaism (and christianity) is founded on a relationship with God - that is why the first three commandments are wholly solely and exclusively about Him.

Commandment 1: I am the Lord your God, who led you out of Egypt...

Commandment 2: You shall have no other Gods before me, nor make any graven images...

Commandment 3: You shall not take the Lord's name in vain (no swearing upon God's name, for he never signed a power of attorney for you).

Do tell me about a proper understanding of Judaism, please...I find it amusing when you have shown an utter lack of knowledge of Christianity's history.

Please, do tell me what the proper understanding of Judaism is, considering that Jews themselves, have been debating that question for nearly four thousand years, and very few Jews would ever have the audacity to suggest they know the "proper" Judaism (though most all would agree that the definining beliefs in the religion are "He is the Lord our God, who led us out of Egypt to be our God", that we shall "Have no other God before him", that we "are to be as a light unto the nations", that we are commanded to act with charity and mercy, and that we are the People of the Book for a reason...and that reason is our continual respect and dedication to knowledge and education.

Oh, and we don't put people on the rack and stretch them until they convert to Judaism.

So did the U.S. - regardless of their seperation of church and state, so I don't think we can put the blame entirely on the lack of seperation here. :)

And no, we do not have a seperation between church and state. As long as the official church gets my tax money by default unless I am a member of a different religious group, there is no seperation. As long as a certain percentage of the cabinet at all time has to be protestant, there is no seperation. As long as children in primary schools are taught about Jesus -as if it were fact-, and get away with it, there is no seperation of church and state, neither legally nor de facto.

Wow, that's scary...do the Jewish children in Norway all go to a private Jewish school? I would never let my kid attend any class which taught about Jesus as if it were fact.

But we cannot acknowledge that, because that tosses the entire concept of free will out the window, and then Exodus is sortof fubared. Closest we can get is he PLANNED for Adam to get hungry and knew he'd eat, but after that his plan was simply to lean back and watch mankind's choices. But then we can't very well blame history on him.

Im not sure we can say He planned for Adam to 'get hungry'... the act of rebellion was in defiance of God's commandment. Everything was very good until that moment, when Eve, then Adam, ate of the fruit they were not meant to. God doesn't want automatons but those who choose to follow Him and his desire for them. The decision was there for all to see, and both Adam and Eve knew what they were doing was wrong. It was a deliberate act of rebellion.

Finally, God has revealed that the present age will not continue forever. He has stated it numerous times, certainly from Daniel and through to the new testament and finally revelation with His promise of a new earth and new heavens, eternally free of the sin and pain of this age.

"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them." - Jeffrey Sinclair

OR

The message is what is important, not the words.

It seems to me that people start wars and commit atrocities over the words and forget the message entirely.

i have a lot of sympathy with those sentiments... only problem is that you have to be God to know that for sure. Many people identify themselves similar to their most tightly held beliefs, and so rather than think about them and analyse them dispassionately they take it as a personal affront.

It also relies heavily on the message that is being spread...

Wow, that's scary...do the Jewish children in Norway all go to a private Jewish school? I would never let my kid attend any class which taught about Jesus as if it were fact.

Some children go to private school, others are excused from religious classes. Regardless, the fact that protestantism is even taught in public schools shows the lack of seperation, even if it's technically possible - and really quite easy - to get out of it.

Im not sure we can say He planned for Adam to 'get hungry'... the act of rebellion was in defiance of God's commandment. Everything was very good until that moment, when Eve, then Adam, ate of the fruit they were not meant to. God doesn't want automatons but those who choose to follow Him and his desire for them. The decision was there for all to see, and both Adam and Eve knew what they were doing was wrong. It was a deliberate act of rebellion.

Finally, God has revealed that the present age will not continue forever. He has stated it numerous times, certainly from Daniel and through to the new testament and finally revelation with His promise of a new earth and new heavens, eternally free of the sin and pain of this age.

You digress. Nothing you're saying here addresses the initial issue you raised - that of an all-knowing god vs free will.

You digress. Nothing you're saying here addresses the initial issue you raised - that of an all-knowing god vs free will.

Fine, and Im happy to accept that there is some tension within the bible about this. There are elements of both free will and predestination within Paul's writings. But at the end you can't say to God, 'I'm condemned because you didn't bother to save me' won't wash. The question will be, did you accept my Son?'