BigJ: You're quoting from the Old Testament, which is interesting,

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=227F76CC-9BBC-4467-9632013043615287&method=display

Leviticus also held:
- No garment should be made of 2 dissimilar fabrics, because it is an abomination.
- Crop mixing in the same field was forbidden (even though it was usually VERY beneficial) due to it being an abomination
- Men and women should NEVER use the same bed for any reason, because it was an abomination
- Men should NEVER cut their hair, or shave their beards, as it was an abomination.
- Jews should never eat of sea animals without scales, as they were abominations.
- You should not have sex with any close relatives, Esp. your mother as it would disgrace your father, and you shouldn't have sex with any of his other wives for the same reason, and it's an abomin... well you get the idea.
- Homosexuality between men was as bad a sin as touching a dead cloven hooved animal that did not chew cud because both were abominations (Are we seeing a theme here?).
- If you bathed and washed your clothes after an unclean or disgusting act, you would only be unclean until evening (and an abomination until then as well).

Leviticus was also taken from the Torah, which was originally passed from oral tradition. Basically, it was a simple manual about what should and should not be done, but had no rationale as to why. It also contradicted other portions of the Old Testament.

Quote:


The next two go together
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: - Romans 1 1:31("without natural affection" means homosexuality)

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1 1:32 (homosexuals, as mentioned above, deserve death)

Covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful in no SPECIFICALLY about homosexuals. It is meant to encompass:
- Adulterers,
- Thieves,
- Murderers,
- Tyrants,
- Non-Jews and Jews that did not hold the faith.

Also, your bit on Kings, and Lot: Even now, it is a bigger sin in the middle east (ie, where the biblical scriptures were written) to impose upon your guests. You basically treat them like Kings. The Angels that Lot was sheltering were to be "known" by the Sodomites (meaning the people of Sodom, not those whom practised homosexual sex). The word to be "known" is a literal translation from Hebrew, and means nothing more than to introduce them. Lot did not do this as he did not want the angels to be corrupted by the people of Sodom, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL PAGAN. They practised ritual sex with both men, women and children, ritual slaughter and broke most of the covenants that were in Leviticus. Lot proffered his daughters because he did not want his guests to become corrupted by the Pagans, and also because he was the Guest of the people of Sodom.

The Books of Kings was about keeping the Hebrew faith more than anything. Pagan rites were to not invade the Jewish religion. If you read into the New Testament, there is less emphasis on ritual and more on faith in and of itself.

If you read the Bible a little less literally (because there is translation, you have to understand that there is built in allegory), you'll find a better spirit. Also (perhaps because I believe gnostic canon more than orthodox), you'll notice that in the Old Testament, God is hateful, vengeful, retaliatory, self-centered... basically everything that Man is now. In the New Testament, God becomes a little more responsible, and leaves it to us to find his path instead of berating us when we stray. If you look at God as a teacher in the latter Testament, you'll see why it is that Christianity can be a very powerful and positive force.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 19, 2007 2:27 AM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

^^^Not all Archæopagan religions practiced ritual sex with women, children men, animals, and agricultural equipmenrt. Hence why i don't take the bible seriously. I look at it one of two ways:

The book is biased against any religion not practicing it--which in a sense is understandable in that any organized religion from the beginning of consiousness is self-preserviong and denounces other faiths

or

There is a serious problem with any pagan (or monotheistic) religion that comes out of the middle east.




Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

The ones in the story of Lot were thought to be Mesopotamian-era as I remember, so figure Roman Pre-Christian religion in which they did practise sex rites.

I didn't mean to infer that all Pagan religions had that kind of rite.

This is the primary reason why I founded the WWCoW. I just figured out the church's newest slogan, I think it's a real winner: Be Excellent To Each Other.





Yes, it's Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, but, it's still pretty awesome.



And Rufus, can't forget Rufus....






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

you should see the "letters" sent to those people at that site. They come from Christians, soldiers, and other people and the person writing back just RIPS THEM APART, saying that they will eat their children in hell and all of America is doomed. They say that everyone on Earth except their congregation is going to hell.

The odd thing is is that I look at the people holding these signs that say "God loves Dead Soldiers" and these people look normal! They don't look inbred or backwoods rednecks! Seriously, why doesn't somebody beat the crap out of these people on the streets or set fire to their church or something? These people want to see all Americans killed and they don't care... so why should we care what we do to them?

You wanna be as bad as they are?

Be my guest...



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

What's kind of funny is that a lot of southern baptist christians would be agreeing with Phelps and his gang if they'd only kept their fire and brimstone wrath confined to gays. Now that they've expanded to include soldiers they've become pariahs.

I think that's very telling of how people truly feel. It's fine to picket some harmless little gay guys funeral (they'd been doing it for years), but doing it to a soldier is evil and wrong. I think the correct answer is that it's always wrong to ruin someone's funeral.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:BigJ: You're quoting from the Old Testament, which is interesting,

Sure, it's interesting but it is still relevant. God did condone these actions at one time and what makes you think that he changed his mind? So I assume that you aren't arguing that god didn't dislike "sodomites" in the OT. I've heard people say that the laws in the old testament do not apply anymore because of "the new covenant" but just remember that god did condone these things and the 10 commandments are also in the old testament. Should we still follow the 10 commandments? Of course, because they aren't ridiculous, but you are picking and choosing which rules you want to follow. What about the part that says that you can't get into heaven if you are effeminate or gay and the chauvinistic portions of the bible? Also the Romans article is from the new testament but I see that you disagree with my interpretation of it so I will deal with that below.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Leviticus also held:
- No garment should be made of 2 dissimilar fabrics, because it is an abomination.
- Crop mixing in the same field was forbidden (even though it was usually VERY beneficial) due to it being an abomination
- Men and women should NEVER use the same bed for any reason, because it was an abomination
- Men should NEVER cut their hair, or shave their beards, as it was an abomination.
- Jews should never eat of sea animals without scales, as they were abominations.
- You should not have sex with any close relatives, Esp. your mother as it would disgrace your father, and you shouldn't have sex with any of his other wives for the same reason, and it's an abomin... well you get the idea.
- Homosexuality between men was as bad a sin as touching a dead cloven hooved animal that did not chew cud because both were abominations (Are we seeing a theme here?).
- If you bathed and washed your clothes after an unclean or disgusting act, you would only be unclean until evening (and an abomination until then as well).

Leviticus was also taken from the Torah, which was originally passed from oral tradition. Basically, it was a simple manual about what should and should not be done, but had no rationale as to why. It also contradicted other portions of the Old Testament.

Boy, that sure does make me eager to take the bible seriously and consider it divinely inspired. Sure, there are many things in the bible that are ludicrous, you wont see me arguing with you about that.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:


The next two go together
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: - Romans 1 1:31("without natural affection" means homosexuality)

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1 1:32 (homosexuals, as mentioned above, deserve death)

Covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful in no SPECIFICALLY about homosexuals. It is meant to encompass:
- Adulterers,
- Thieves,
- Murderers,
- Tyrants,
- Non-Jews and Jews that did not hold the faith.

Interesting, what leads you to believe this is the correct interpretation? Would you define what you believe the definition of each description is? Which one of the types of sinners is the bible referring to when they say "[those] without natural affection?

I will quote some scriptures that I think backup my interpretation:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" - Romans 1 1-26(the women were lesbians and that's unnatural? IDK also note that it says it is also a vile affection. If you take that and the fact that the bible says that homosexuality is unnatural, it is pretty clear that an "unnatural affection" is sexual attraction to your own gender)

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1 1-27 (here they say that the "natural use of the woman" is as a sexual object and that male homosexuality is "unseemly", see homosexuality = unnatural therefore male-on-male affection = unnatural affection, BTW there is another verse about lesbians in the bible)

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Also, your bit on Kings, and Lot: Even now, it is a bigger sin in the middle east (ie, where the biblical scriptures were written) to impose upon your guests. You basically treat them like Kings. The Angels that Lot was sheltering were to be "known" by the Sodomites (meaning the people of Sodom, not those whom practiced homosexual sex). The word to be "known" is a literal translation from Hebrew, and means nothing more than to introduce them. Lot did not do this as he did not want the angels to be corrupted by the people of Sodom, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL PAGAN. They practiced ritual sex with both men, women and children, ritual slaughter and broke most of the covenants that were in Leviticus. Lot proffered his daughters because he did not want his guests to become corrupted by the Pagans, and also because he was the Guest of the people of Sodom.

So you are saying that lot sent his two virgin daughters to the crowd of men to talk? How would that be a substitution for talking to angels? That's like telling the press "you can't talk to the president, but here, talk to the garbage man" and expecting that to satisfy them. After all, you don't believe that to "know" someone in biblical terms is to have sex with them. If that is the case then Lot was not saying that his daughters have never had sex with a man when he said that they "have not known man", he was saying that they have never met a man. OK, what about the following scripture?:

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." - Genesis 4 4:25

How could Cain "know" his wife again? Were the re-introduced? LOL Is it just coincidence that they had a kid after that? Notice that they are always male babies, male obsessed much?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you read the Bible a little less literally (because there is translation, you have to understand that there is built in allegory), you'll find a better spirit. Also (perhaps because I believe gnostic canon more than orthodox), you'll notice that in the Old Testament, God is hateful, vengeful, retaliatory, self-centered... basically everything that Man is now. In the New Testament, God becomes a little more responsible, and leaves it to us to find his path instead of berating us when we stray. If you look at God as a teacher in the latter Testament, you'll see why it is that Christianity can be a very powerful and positive force.

Not a very optimistic outlook of humanity there buddy. I'm not saying that we are perfect, but the majority of people are decent. I do understand that god does seem to "change" in the new testament. Why would god change? Did he really change or was it just the opinions of the people writing the scriptures that changed? Does that make all of the things he stood for in the old testament OK? SOME of the ideas in the bible are noble and healthy, but I still feel that you are overlooking the bad parts. Sure, there are some parts of the bible that are hard to translate, but modern translations should be fairly accurate. Are you telling me that all of the absolutely ridiculous parts of the bible are mistranslations?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 19, 2007 5:22 PM

bigj480 wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:BigJ: You're quoting from the Old Testament, which is interesting,

Sure, it's interesting but it is still relevant. God did condone these actions at one time and what makes you think that he changed his mind? So I assume that you aren't arguing that god didn't dislike "sodomites" in the OT. I've heard people say that the laws in the old testament do not apply anymore because of "the new covenant" but just remember that god did condone these things and the 10 commandments are also in the old testament. Should we still follow the 10 commandments? Of course, because they aren't ridiculous, but you are picking and choosing which rules you want to follow. What about the part that says that you can't get into heaven if you are effeminate or gay and the chauvinistic portions of the bible? Also the Romans article is from the new testament but I see that you disagree with my interpretation of it so I will deal with that below.

I'm not saying that all the old laws don't apply, but the new covenant "Love thy God, Love thy Neighbour" is pretty encompassing and magnifying. It also makes the "Honour thy Mother and Father" reciprocate with the kids, as well as unifying all the other laws into a simple idea that is easy enough to remember. If you look at it, the Sermon on the mount basically says everything is still in effect, but it will be magnified. The new covenant seems to magnify it.

The Old Testament, if you follow gnosticism, is the old God... before he became the God of the New Testament. The God of the Torah and the Old Testament is one that is imperfect, but massively powerful, the God of the New Testament is even more powerful, but is no longer impudent and vengeful.

If you also remember, Moses destroyed the 2 tablets with the 10 commandments after seeing the Golden Calf.

I apologise for the mistake about Romans, I hadn't meant to lump it in, and it was about 4 am my time

Quote:

Boy, that sure does make me eager to take the bible seriously and consider it divinely inspired. Sure, there are many things in the bible that are ludicrous, you wont see me arguing with you about that.

The point I was making was that the book itself doesn't agree with itself in some cases. The other thing that I left unsaid is that multiple biblical era scrolls have been found to either contradict what is in the canonical Bible (ie King James and even Latin Vulgate) or in most cases, shed light on the passages (like the gospel of Judas, and the whole idea of Judas not betraying Jesus because of greed, but because he was commanded to), it would lead me to believe that some of the tomes were edited heavily by the Council of Nicea (and Constantine who was Pagan, but used God's Law to justify the murder of his opponents) or left omitted entirely.

I think part of me leans towards the idea of question everything, and investigate anything that doesn't agree with the other facts.

Quote:

Interesting, what leads you to believe this is the correct interpretation? Would you define what you believe the definition of each description is? Which one of the types of sinners is the bible referring to when they say "[those] without natural affection?

Without natural affection means a couple things and you could justifiably say that it means homosexuals, but in context with the other terms:
Covenant-breakers, Implacable, and unmerciful... It could likely mean those that coveted their neighbour's wives, ass (not necessarily part and parcel), or those that fornicated with others in the temple as part of a rite. Also (less tactfully put) there were sects in that era that practised bestiality as a part of the religion. I'm not disqualifying any of the other interpretations, but I'm not saying one way or the other that one interpretation is correct or not. The wording of this is subject to interpretation.

Quote:


I will quote some scriptures that I think backup my interpretation:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" - Romans 1 1-26(the women were lesbians and that's unnatural? IDK also note that it says it is also a vile affection. If you take that and the fact that the bible says that homosexuality is unnatural, it is pretty clear that an "unnatural affection" is sexual attraction to your own gender)

And affection for animals, close family, etc. It's a broad term.

Quote:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1 1-27 (here they say that the "natural use of the woman" is as a sexual object and that male homosexuality is "unseemly", see homosexuality = unnatural therefore male-on-male affection = unnatural affection, BTW there is another verse about lesbians in the bible)

Again, this is something that is translated differently in several versions of the bible.
http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm

The King James Bible translation is what you quoted (I figure, I could be wrong) but the differing wording and interpretation is an inconsistency that raises question.

Quote:

So you are saying that lot sent his two virgin daughters to the crowd of men to talk? How would that be a substitution for talking to angels? That's like telling the press "you can't talk to the president, but here, talk to the garbage man" and expecting that to satisfy them. After all, you don't believe that to "know" someone in biblical terms is to have sex with them. If that is the case then Lot was not saying that his daughters have never had sex with a man when he said that they "have not known man", he was saying that they have never met a man. OK, what about the following scripture?:

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." - Genesis 4 4:25

How could Cain "know" his wife again? Were the re-introduced? LOL Is it just coincidence that they had a kid after that? Notice that they are always male babies, male obsessed much?

No, Lot was sacrificing his daughters' virginity to protect the angels. I'm not simple If you also remember in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, an angel told Lot to leave the Sodomites and Gomorrans as God was going to punish them for their transgression of corrupting his messengers, and that they should leave and not look back. God turned the people into pillars of salt, and Lot's wife who looked back received the same fate. (It is important to relate that in the real Sodom and Gomorrah, there ARE salt pillars, but they predate humanity.)

Quote:

Not a very optimistic outlook of humanity there buddy. I'm not saying that we are perfect, but the majority of people are decent. I do understand that god does seem to "change" in the new testament. Why would god change? Did he really change or was it just the opinions of the people writing the scriptures that changed? Does that make all of the things he stood for in the old testament OK? SOME of the ideas in the bible are noble and healthy, but I still feel that you are overlooking the bad parts. Sure, there are some parts of the bible that are hard to translate, but modern translations should be fairly accurate. Are you telling me that all of the absolutely ridiculous parts of the bible are mistranslations?

I work in forensics, and I used to be an optimist. The majority of people are not decent, they're nice: Neither good nor bad (and usually not meek).

Again, I believe that the nature of God underwent a sea-change with advent of Jesus, and Moses' fulfilment of bringing the Israelites to the promised land. The Hebrew God and the Christian God (which I believe to be one in the same, but the God of the Torah is the elder version) differ in that the Hebrew God was micro-managing humans and had dozens of rules... and was busy smiting those that didn't comply. The Christian God basically said that you can live your life as you wish, but this is my word, and it is your job to follow it if you want to be in heaven.

I think that some of the inconsistencies in the bible are not ONLY because of different translations, but different languages, and the fact that they were written at different times, by different people after being passed down through oral story telling. There's 3 different stories of the end of the Judas from 3 different tellings, and this is a total of 27 lines in the bible (as I remember).




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Even still, it's all about the act, not the person.

God loves all his children, some of them do bad things.

PAX

^^^ What I'm trying to say.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Hahahaha wrote:Even still, it's all about the act, not the person.

God loves all his children, some of them do bad things.

PAX

It's like the priest used to tell us kids: "Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're @!#$S!!!!"

I loved him. We'd get him so mad sometimes hehehe.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I'm not saying that all the old laws don't apply, but the new covenant "Love thy God, Love thy Neighbour" is pretty encompassing and magnifying. It also makes the "Honour thy Mother and Father" reciprocate with the kids, as well as unifying all the other laws into a simple idea that is easy enough to remember. If you look at it, the Sermon on the mount basically says everything is still in effect, but it will be magnified. The new covenant seems to magnify it.

I guess my problem with that is that there is no way of knowing which to follow and which to ignor, if any. People seem to fallow the laws that make sense and discard those that don't, but maybe they aren't folloeing gods will by doing so. How does one know?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The Old Testament, if you follow gnosticism, is the old God... before he became the God of the New Testament. The God of the Torah and the Old Testament is one that is imperfect, but massively powerful, the God of the New Testament is even more powerful, but is no longer impudent and vengeful.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17(Jesus had no problem with the laws set in place by the prophets before him in the OT?)
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" - Exerpt from Matthew 5:29 (Kind of extreme and violent, ins't it?
Remember "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart". Does that mean that if I look at women and lust after them I should pluck out my eye?)

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee" - Excerpt from Matthew 5:30

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34 (That comes strait from Jesus and sounds very peace loving, not)

The next two go together
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Matthew 15:4
(Earlier Jesus is criticized by the pharisees for not washing his hands before eating and he replies by saying that the elders did not wash theirs either. Then, in the scriptures quoted above, he goes on to say that the pharisees don't follow the commandment that requires them to kill their kids if they curse them. Man, I'm starting to like this guy)

"But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." - Matthew 18:25(Jesus says that it's fine to sell a family into slavery to pay their debts, he never rejects slavery)

The next two go together
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(give to those that have, take from those that don't. Kick the unprofitable servants "into outer darkness")

This is just from one book in the NT, but you get the idea. These things are pretty bad and if you take them with the fact that that jesus says to follow the old laws, condones slavery and the oppression of women. Even the fact that god would torment those who are sinners instead of just letting them cease to exist points to god being very vengeful and unforgiving. It's not enough to prevent them from getting into heaven and being happy for eternity, nope, they must suffer the worst punishment passable.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you also remember, Moses destroyed the 2 tablets with the 10 commandments after seeing the Golden Calf.

What about it? Do you not believe that the current 10 commandments are and accurate transcription of those given by god or should not be followed?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I think part of me leans towards the idea of question everything, and investigate anything that doesn't agree with the other facts.

I would, there is nothing wrong with gaining a better understanding of the book you use to help you make choices.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Without natural affection means a couple things and you could justifiably say that it means homosexuals, but in context with the other terms:
Covenant-breakers, Implacable, and unmerciful... It could likely mean those that coveted their neighbour's wives, ass (not necessarily part and parcel), or those that fornicated with others in the temple as part of a rite. Also (less tactfully put) there were sects in that era that practised bestiality as a part of the religion. I'm not disqualifying any of the other interpretations, but I'm not saying one way or the other that one interpretation is correct or not. The wording of this is subject to interpretation.

Fair enough, but that isn't very measuring for believers. I mean, you're basing your whole life on ideas in a book that has many contradictions, has been edited and translated, is ambiguous and can be uninterpreted many different ways. Maybe it's just me.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:No, Lot was sacrificing his daughters' virginity to protect the angels. I'm not simple If you also remember in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, an angel told Lot to leave the Sodomites and Gomorrans as God was going to punish them for their transgression of corrupting his messengers, and that they should leave and not look back. God turned the people into pillars of salt, and Lot's wife who looked back received the same fate. (It is important to relate that in the real Sodom and Gomorrah, there ARE salt pillars, but they predate humanity.)

So what was your argument then? That they only wanted to talk to the angels and Lot let them have sex with his daughters to prevent it? Maybe I'm simple. Surely, some of the pillars must be from a time when we existed. That is, if that scripture is to be believed.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I work in forensics, and I used to be an optimist. The majority of people are not decent, they're nice: Neither good nor bad (and usually not meek).

Oh, I understand. However, you must remember that you are seeing a concentration of bad things committed by a few, percentage wise. I do agree though, MOST people fall somewhere in the middle.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:......The Christian God basically said that you can live your life as you wish, but this is my word, and it is your job to follow it if you want to be in heaven.

I have a question. Do you believe that god is all powerful? If so, why does he even allow bad people to exist? There would be no need for a test, he could simply only "make" good people.

God does not "make" good or bad people. We are given Free Will. To enforce are will to be good would go against the policy of freedom.

PAX

I understand your point, but I disagree. If god only made good people, they could still be free. They would just choose to do good things. Would we not be free because we could not choose to be bad? Sure, but we also don't get to choose to be made part of some sick test that leads most people to eternal torture. Which sounds better? Do you think that god knows everything, including the future? He has a plan? Then our fate is already decided and we truly don't have free will. Sure we have free will, but none of us are truly free, especially those that must follow the governments rules plus religious rules. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, but I'm not gullible enough to think that I am truly free. No one is.

bigj480 wrote: I guess my problem with that is that there is no way of knowing which to follow and which to ignor, if any. People seem to fallow the laws that make sense and discard those that don't, but maybe they aren't folloeing gods will by doing so. How does one know?

Which to ignore?

"Love Thy God, Love Thy Neighbour"

This is pretty encompassing like I said. It's a lot easier to follow, and it doesn't matter if your neighbour is Gentile or Jew, Muslim or Infidel, Christian or Apostate. Your neighbour is your neighbour, and your God is your God. That is the Magnifying that Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount.

The other thing, it's not really known how many laws were delivered to Moses, but the idea of TEN COMMANDMENTS may or may not have been written in the 3rd-4th Century, about 500 years after Moses. I don't claim to know God's will, but I know that 6 words is a lot easier to live by than 10 commandments that leave a good bit of open ground. In as far as Gays are concerned (back on topic ) they're your neighbours as well. Love the person, not the sin (not that I think homosexuality is neither sin nor virtue, it's like skin colour), .

Quote:


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17(Jesus had no problem with the laws set in place by the prophets before him in the OT?)
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" - Exerpt from Matthew 5:29 (Kind of extreme and violent, ins't it?
Remember "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart". Does that mean that if I look at women and lust after them I should pluck out my eye?)

What if you do it twice?

Jesus had no problems with the old law, but fulfil can be thought of in a few different ways, and one of them is to bring to a close. He also said that he was to magnify the old covenant, which I think he did. Coveting what is your neighbour's is what breeds iniquity and conflict. I think it's part of human nature to covet (as it's part of the urge we have for advancement and exploration), but it's a sin you can receive absolution for in prayer.

Quote:


"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee" - Excerpt from Matthew 5:30

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34 (That comes strait from Jesus and sounds very peace loving, not)

He's affirming that he speaks the word of God and that there is a consequence for not following it. This portion of the Gospels was used to justify the Crusades and forcing Muslims and Pagans and Indians in North America into Christianity. My thoughts are pretty simple: Jesus said that he isn't going to make the world peaceful, but, he'll give you the tools to equip yourself to do it.

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44 ... This doesn't shake out with Matthew 10:34 in the interpretation that he will do violence.

Quote:


The next two go together
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Matthew 15:4
(Earlier Jesus is criticized by the pharisees for not washing his hands before eating and he replies by saying that the elders did not wash theirs either. Then, in the scriptures quoted above, he goes on to say that the pharisees don't follow the commandment that requires them to kill their kids if they curse them. Man, I'm starting to like this guy)

I don't know this passage, so I can't really comment on it. I'm also not following what you're saying... We can come back to it

What I've found that deals with this:
Pharisees -- question Jesus for not using the ritual handwashing custom. Jesus -- From the heart (or mind) come evil thoughts: what is unclean is not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it -- what you think or say. (Matthew 15:1-20) LINK

Quote:

"But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." - Matthew 18:25(Jesus says that it's fine to sell a family into slavery to pay their debts, he never rejects slavery)

Those that are indentured, yes, you commit to it, you repay your debts. Unbidden kidnapping, however, isn't alright. It's also supposing that the indebted are not committing usury.

Quote:


The next two go together
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(give to those that have, take from those that don't. Kick the unprofitable servants "into outer darkness")

Again, if you serve, don't do it half-heartedly. You must commit yourself to your appointed task.

It's kind of funny, I can see both interpretations, but the pessimistic way is hardly a way to enlightenment.

Quote:


This is just from one book in the NT, but you get the idea. These things are pretty bad and if you take them with the fact that that jesus says to follow the old laws, condones slavery and the oppression of women. Even the fact that god would torment those who are sinners instead of just letting them cease to exist points to god being very vengeful and unforgiving. It's not enough to prevent them from getting into heaven and being happy for eternity, nope, they must suffer the worst punishment passable.

I don't think it's that cut and dry, nor do I believe that you just get punished because that's what you deserve just on God's say so: you reap what your sow, and you CAN make your life better.

Quote:

What about it? Do you not believe that the current 10 commandments are and accurate transcription of those given by god or should not be followed?

Depends which set you're talking about
http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/101moses.html
There's a few different commandments.

Seriously, the reason Moses destroyed the tablets is because they meant NOTHING to the Hebrews that made the graven idol of the Golden Calf. Again, I also realise that Old Testament is taken from Oral Traditions, and may be slightly different from what really transpired. If you're getting hung up on technicalities, you're going to miss the message... but, if you understand that the message may be different than the original, then you have to figure it out for yourself. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, but I am trying to cajole some sense that you're not going to get things handed to you.

Quote:

I would, there is nothing wrong with gaining a better understanding of the book you use to help you make choices.

As long as it isn't the only thing you make your decisions by (ie forfeiting your own sense), I have no problems.

Quote:

Fair enough, but that isn't very measuring for believers. I mean, you're basing your whole life on ideas in a book that has many contradictions, has been edited and translated, is ambiguous and can be uninterpreted many different ways. Maybe it's just me.

I'm not basing my life off the Bible... Nor the dictionary

Again, a lot of the reason the Bible is interesting is because there are contradictions and inconsistencies. It's also part of the reason I like forensics.

Quote:

So what was your argument then? That they only wanted to talk to the angels and Lot let them have sex with his daughters to prevent it? Maybe I'm simple. Surely, some of the pillars must be from a time when we existed. That is, if that scripture is to be believed.

Yes, Lot sacrificed his daughters' virginity to spare the angels from being corrupted by the Sodomites. Lot and his family were the only Jews among the Sodomites, and I think he wanted to protect the angels and spare them from the wrath of God.

And the Salt Pillars in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah were deposits left over from the last glacial incursion.. the glaciers melted and created a shallow sea, and when that evaporated (or migrated to the Dead Sea, take your pick) the plumes from the salt flats congealed into larger pillars.

Quote:

Oh, I understand. However, you must remember that you are seeing a concentration of bad things committed by a few, percentage wise. I do agree though, MOST people fall somewhere in the middle.

Certainly, I know the numbers, but I've seen in person and in study, some of the worst. You really don't see that more than once and not have some part of you changed.

I think that most people are "Nice," and unexceptional in anything but their ubiquity. There are few that are dedicated to doing nothing but helping their fellow man, and few that are dedicated to doing nothing but harming others... and a lot in the middle that really do a bit of both but never excel at either. The thing that aggrivates me to no end is that they will write a cheque to some organisation and call that their good deed, no doubt it helps, but it's a cheap way out, doing something small like an hour a week at a shelter or a boys and girls club... something like that.

Maybe I'm cynical about people, but I don't hold it against them as a failing, people are wrapped up in themselves.

Quote:

I have a question. Do you believe that god is all powerful? If so, why does he even allow bad people to exist? There would be no need for a test, he could simply only "make" good people.

Bad people aren't born, they're made.

I've seen murders turn their lives around and become good people that did a bad thing, and I know people that act right, but are really ambivalent toward anyone but themselves.

Personally, I think that salvation is yours to make or unmake. A riteous life may not mean 100% prayer all the time, but you can do the right thing when it's the right time for the right reason.

I may joke about WWCoW (it was a joke really) but the element of truth is that God may be all powerful, but he makes the rules. The rules (at least by my line of thought) are that you aren't promised anything, and that you make your own destiny if you treat people the way you would want to be treated (not in deed but in intent).




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Which to ignore?

"Love Thy God, Love Thy Neighbour"

This is pretty encompassing like I said. It's a lot easier to follow, and it doesn't matter if your neighbour is Gentile or Jew, Muslim or Infidel, Christian or Apostate. Your neighbour is your neighbour, and your God is your God. That is the Magnifying that Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount.

Yeah, your basically saying that "Love Thy God, Love Thy Neighbour" is the general rule or message you get from the bible. It's funny, you seem so different from the Christians that I know and that's a good thing. You don't seem to be stuck on details, your beliefs seem more spiritual and less religious. So my basic feeling about the bible is that that the authors went through great lengths to set some ground rules and, to me, it seems that you are discounting them. I know, the sermon on the mount, right? Sure, you can believe that the sermon was meant to magnify certain ideas, but does that mean that the other aspects and rules are not to be followed? Even the ones in the NT? Or do you feel that all of the rules that contradict what is basically "the golden rule" should be ignored?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The other thing, it's not really known how many laws were delivered to Moses, but the idea of TEN COMMANDMENTS may or may not have been written in the 3rd-4th Century, about 500 years after Moses. I don't claim to know God's will, but I know that 6 words is a lot easier to live by than 10 commandments that leave a good bit of open ground.

Easier to follow? Sure. I just don't think that it is the only rule he wants you to follow, but who am I to say.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:In as far as Gays are concerned (back on topic ) they're your neighbours as well. Love the person, not the sin (not that I think homosexuality is neither sin nor virtue, it's like skin colour) .

You don't think that homosexuality is a sin? It's interesting that people can interpret the bible so differently.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Jesus had no problems with the old law, but fulfil can be thought of in a few different ways, and one of them is to bring to a close. He also said that he was to magnify the old covenant, which I think he did. Coveting what is your neighbour's is what breeds iniquity and conflict. I think it's part of human nature to covet (as it's part of the urge we have for advancement and exploration), but it's a sin you can receive absolution for in prayer.

True, he may very well be saying that he is bringing them to an end. However, he seems to reinforce some of the old laws in the NT, like killing your kid if they curse you, and that makes me think that he isn't bringing them to an end. He also seemed to call the pharisees hypocrites for not following the rules of the OT in Matthew 15. Also, what about the part about plucking your eye out is in the NT. Do you think that it is merely figurative? Of course it is, it would be absurd if it wasn't.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:


"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34 (That comes strait from Jesus and sounds very peace loving, not)

He's affirming that he speaks the word of God and that there is a consequence for not following it. This portion of the Gospels was used to justify the Crusades and forcing Muslims and Pagans and Indians in North America into Christianity. My thoughts are pretty simple: Jesus said that he isn't going to make the world peaceful, but, he'll give you the tools to equip yourself to do it.

Yes, but not only is he not bringing peace, he is bringing suffering. You could argue that the suffering is only a result of disobedience, but that doesn't sound like a forgiving god to me. It also sounds like he is proud of it, but you can't always read emotions through text. Some parts of the bible portray god as vengeful, they even say he is, and other parts say the opposite.
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44 ... This doesn't shake out with Matthew 10:34 in the interpretation that he will do violence.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:


The next two go together
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Matthew 15:4
(Earlier Jesus is criticized by the pharisees for not washing his hands before eating and he replies by saying that the elders did not wash theirs either. Then, in the scriptures quoted above, he goes on to say that the pharisees don't follow the commandment that requires them to kill their kids if they curse them. Man, I'm starting to like this guy)

I don't know this passage, so I can't really comment on it. I'm also not following what you're saying... We can come back to it

It was in response to your claim that the god of the NT is "no longer impudent and vengeful". I'm quoting scriptures that I think disprove that statement. You can find online bibles for reference.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:What I've found that deals with this:
Pharisees -- question Jesus for not using the ritual handwashing custom. Jesus -- From the heart (or mind) come evil thoughts: what is unclean is not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it -- what you think or say. (Matthew 15:1-20) LINK

That makes since, but the quote is from Matthew 15:4 in the KJV. What version of the bible are you referencing?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

"But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." - Matthew 18:25(Jesus says that it's fine to sell a family into slavery to pay their debts, he never rejects slavery)

Those that are indentured, yes, you commit to it, you repay your debts. Unbidden kidnapping, however, isn't alright. It's also supposing that the indebted are not committing usury.

Either way he is condoning slavery, not cool IMO. Even if it was customary.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:


The next two go together
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(give to those that have, take from those that don't. Kick the unprofitable servants "into outer darkness")

Again, if you serve, don't do it half-heartedly. You must commit yourself to your appointed task.

It's kind of funny, I can see both interpretations, but the pessimistic way is hardly a way to enlightenment.

You say that the pessimistic way is not the way to enlightenment and I say that the optimistic interpretation is flawed and neither are the way. Remember, he is not saying to punish those that don't try hard enough, he is saying to punish those that are not successful.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:


This is just from one book in the NT, but you get the idea. These things are pretty bad and if you take them with the fact that that jesus says to follow the old laws, condones slavery and the oppression of women. Even the fact that god would torment those who are sinners instead of just letting them cease to exist points to god being very vengeful and unforgiving. It's not enough to prevent them from getting into heaven and being happy for eternity, nope, they must suffer the worst punishment passable.

I don't think it's that cut and dry, nor do I believe that you just get punished because that's what you deserve just on God's say so: you reap what your sow, and you CAN make your life better.

OK, so you think that you must follow god's word to get in? If it's just a "you reap what you sow" situation then one doesn't even need to believe in god, as long as you were good on earth your in. Still, why punish the bad? It would serve no purpose.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Seriously, the reason Moses destroyed the tablets is because they meant NOTHING to the Hebrews that made the graven idol of the Golden Calf. Again, I also realise that Old Testament is taken from Oral Traditions, and may be slightly different from what really transpired. If you're getting hung up on technicalities, you're going to miss the message... but, if you understand that the message may be different than the original, then you have to figure it out for yourself. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, but I am trying to cajole some sense that you're not going to get things handed to you.

I understand, but I feel that the bible gets pretty technical for a reason. If not, then they could merely say "be good".

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

I would, there is nothing wrong with gaining a better understanding of the book you use to help you make choices.

As long as it isn't the only thing you make your decisions by (ie forfeiting your own sense), I have no problems.

That's obvious by your posts, I did not mean to imply that you are blindly following, that's why I said "help".

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

Fair enough, but that isn't very measuring for believers. I mean, you're basing your whole life on ideas in a book that has many contradictions, has been edited and translated, is ambiguous and can be uninterpreted many different ways. Maybe it's just me.

I'm not basing my life off the Bible... Nor the dictionary

It's not the basis? I'm not saying that it is all you use. I just assumed that, if you are a Christian, your choices were based on the bible. You now what they say about assuming though. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Again, a lot of the reason the Bible is interesting is because there are contradictions and inconsistencies. It's also part of the reason I like forensics.

It is interesting and unbelievable for that very reason, among others.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

So what was your argument then? That they only wanted to talk to the angels and Lot let them have sex with his daughters to prevent it? Maybe I'm simple. Surely, some of the pillars must be from a time when we existed. That is, if that scripture is to be believed.

Yes, Lot sacrificed his daughters' virginity to spare the angels from being corrupted by the Sodomites. Lot and his family were the only Jews among the Sodomites, and I think he wanted to protect the angels and spare them from the wrath of God.

OK, it's still a sick decision and a very humorous part of the bible. It would not be funny if I believed it.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:And the Salt Pillars in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah were deposits left over from the last glacial incursion.. the glaciers melted and created a shallow sea, and when that evaporated (or migrated to the Dead Sea, take your pick) the plumes from the salt flats congealed into larger pillars.

I understand that, but that disproves the scripture and further proves that the bible was not divinely inspired IMO.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

I have a question. Do you believe that god is all powerful? If so, why does he even allow bad people to exist? There would be no need for a test, he could simply only "make" good people.

Bad people aren't born, they're made.

OK, but do you believe that god is all powerful? Why wouldn't he only allow good people to exist? Even if bad people are made, some people go through the same things and end up fine. People are a product of their environment, but only to an extent.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Personally, I think that salvation is yours to make or unmake. A riteous life may not mean 100% prayer all the time, but you can do the right thing when it's the right time for the right reason.

Do you think that you must believe in god to make it, or just be a good person?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I may joke about WWCoW (it was a joke really) but the element of truth is that God may be all powerful, but he makes the rules. The rules (at least by my line of thought) are that you aren't promised anything, and that you make your own destiny if you treat people the way you would want to be treated (not in deed but in intent).

Is that the answer to my last question? Just follow the golden rule and your in? Then why not say JUST that?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:30 PM

Wow.. I'm SO going to have to wait to get home to answer.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

bigj480 wrote:Yeah, your basically saying that "Love Thy God, Love Thy Neighbour" is the general rule or message you get from the bible. It's funny, you seem so different from the Christians that I know and that's a good thing. You don't seem to be stuck on details, your beliefs seem more spiritual and less religious. So my basic feeling about the bible is that that the authors went through great lengths to set some ground rules and, to me, it seems that you are discounting them. I know, the sermon on the mount, right? Sure, you can believe that the sermon was meant to magnify certain ideas, but does that mean that the other aspects and rules are not to be followed? Even the ones in the NT? Or do you feel that all of the rules that contradict what is basically "the golden rule" should be ignored?

I'm not discounting them, I'm saying that there is several distinct people giving similiar but different accounts of what's happened. On top of that, most of these stories were committed to writing in either Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, this not being the end, The Council of Nicea (convened by the Pagan Emperor Constantine, under the veil of trying to bring harmony to an Empire divided) edited and possibly altered the texts... 300 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Latin Vulgate (which the King James Bible is based on) is missing all of Gnostic Gospels & texts and most of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I wonder about the source, not the message.

I also know that if I judge someone, I'm basically a hypocrite because at some point, I'm not perfect... Again, I'm not ignoring the rules given, I'm just saying that I'm not God and I'm not going to judge my neighbour. I also don't speak for God. I can't look at a friend of mine that's queer as a $3 bill and say he's a bad person because he does something that someone said 4000 years ago was disgusting? I can't get behind that. I can credit Hahahaha for the line "love the Sinner, hate the sin," (it was the first time I had really heard it put that way), but my thoughts are "Love sinner, and forgive the sin." Forgiving sin is not about you and God... it's about you and the other person.

Hating someone (for whatever reason) means you are abdicating your personal power over to them. Seriously, I wonder about Fred Phelps, if he didn't have this corked up hate for gays, what would he be able to channel that energy in to.. I don't hate him, but I pity him.

You're right that I'm not exactly Christian in that I don't point @ the bible and say that is God's word.. That's Hogwash... it's retelling of stories that illustrate the ideals, or allegory. I know that there is probably some fiction rolled into with the fact. What is true or not, isn't up to me to know... I don't have a time machine. I know what's right, and what's wrong, and that sometimes you need to bend a little instead of being rigid and causing problems.

If gays live around me, that's fine... they're not hurting me, and their presence doesn't corrupt me or any kids around me. I know that people that do bad things can be good people otherwise and that you're not the sum of your worst act. I don't think gays are any different than anyone else, in that they don't consciously choose to be gay... it's like choosing to be white when you're black, or choosing to have blue eyes when your eyes are brown. You may be able to use makeup or contacts, but its not changing who you are.

Quote:

Easier to follow? Sure. I just don't think that it is the only rule he wants you to follow, but who am I to say.

True enough. I just figure that the New Covenant in comparison to the Ten Commandments is a lot simpler, more elegant and makes sense. The Ten Commandments leave a lot of ground uncovered (like homosexuality, killing versus murder... I'm all for simple, and I figure that people need to use their brain and morals a little more.

Quote:

You don't think that homosexuality is a sin? It's interesting that people can interpret the bible so differently.

I'm not God. Your sins are yours to deal with between you and God. If you sin against me, then I'll deal with it, if you sin against God, that's something you need to deal with on your own. Again, love thy neighbour... it means that you're not going to judge or condemn a person for their acts. It's against human nature, I know.

Quote:

True, he may very well be saying that he is bringing them to an end. However, he seems to reinforce some of the old laws in the NT, like killing your kid if they curse you, and that makes me think that he isn't bringing them to an end. He also seemed to call the pharisees hypocrites for not following the rules of the OT in Matthew 15. Also, what about the part about plucking your eye out is in the NT. Do you think that it is merely figurative? Of course it is, it would be absurd if it wasn't.

Figurative? Not really. Ironic? Most definitely.

Sarcasm rarely translates, and even more rarely does it survive through the page.

Quote:

Yes, but not only is he not bringing peace, he is bringing suffering. You could argue that the suffering is only a result of disobedience, but that doesn't sound like a forgiving god to me. It also sounds like he is proud of it, but you can't always read emotions through text. Some parts of the bible portray god as vengeful, they even say he is, and other parts say the opposite.
[]
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44 ... This doesn't shake out with Matthew 10:34 in the interpretation that he will do violence.
quote]It was in response to your claim that the god of the NT is "no longer impudent and vengeful". I'm quoting scriptures that I think disprove that statement. You can find online bibles for reference.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:What I've found that deals with this:
Pharisees -- question Jesus for not using the ritual handwashing custom. Jesus -- From the heart (or mind) come evil thoughts: what is unclean is not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it -- what you think or say. (Matthew 15:1-20) LINK

That makes since, but the quote is from Matthew 15:4 in the KJV. What version of the bible are you referencing? I'm not quoting the bible, I'm quoting a web page.

I believe it's also referencing Matthew chapter 15, verse 1-20, it says so at the end of the quote.

Quote:

Either way he is condoning slavery, not cool IMO. Even if it was customary.

Slavery isn't what I'd call it. It's called indentured servitude, and was a common practise until about 150 years ago. Slavery is when you are held into servitude unbidden... basically you're kidnapped and forced to work. Indentured Servitude is basically working off a debt... it's what you'd see in debtor's prisons... as unsavoury as that is, it was a common practise. It was a good enough idea (indentured service), but you would find that some of the debt holders would charge outrageous interest (basically 25% per year... it's legal term is Usury). That's where it falls apart.

I don't think Slavery is a cool idea either, but your also talking about a time where Abject poverty was not only the norm, but utterly pervasive, those that had money would never loan to those without unless there was a way to be certain they'd get their money back.

Quote:

You say that the pessimistic way is not the way to enlightenment and I say that the optimistic interpretation is flawed and neither are the way. Remember, he is not saying to punish those that don't try hard enough, he is saying to punish those that are not successful.

You're not talking about feats of engineering here.... and you're also talking about the guy that said "Forgive us our Debts as we forgive those that debt against us."

Quote:

OK, so you think that you must follow god's word to get in? If it's just a "you reap what you sow" situation then one doesn't even need to believe in god, as long as you were good on earth your in. Still, why punish the bad? It would serve no purpose.

- I don't make the rules.
- Process without belief is nothing.

Quote:

I understand, but I feel that the bible gets pretty technical for a reason. If not, then they could merely say "be good".

SOME elaboration is needed... I just think that the new covenant simplifies and magnifies. Again, I prefer the simple and elegant solution.

Quote:

That's obvious by your posts, I did not mean to imply that you are blindly following, that's why I said "help".

I know it using it as a guide is fine, but you have to think for yourself. I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on that.

Quote:

It's not the basis? I'm not saying that it is all you use. I just assumed that, if you are a Christian, your choices were based on the bible. You now what they say about assuming though. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

I don't know what I consider myself. Do I have a personal relationship with God? No, not really by my estimation. My choices are based out of what conforms with my belief system, and basically, a lot of it is congruent with Christianity, but with Gnosticism, neo-Buddhist, and renaissance idealogies. I'm not a devout Christian in that I go to church weekly, I don't follow the Dalai Lama's teachings intractably, and I don't subscribe to Priorie De Scion ideals with rigidity. I figure that there's good ideas everywhere: If it makes sense to me and will benefit me, I'll follow it.

Quote:

It is interesting and unbelievable for that very reason, among others.

well, you have 2 stories, what you think might have happened, and the truth.. the problem with the Bible is that it's about 2000-3500 years removed from the act.

Quote:

OK, it's still a sick decision and a very humorous part of the bible. It would not be funny if I believed it.

It follows with some of the other decisions. Choose faith over the material.

Quote:

I understand that, but that disproves the scripture and further proves that the bible was not divinely inspired IMO.

OH! Certainly... I suspect that most of the stories in the bibles are apocryphal. True or not, the meaning behind the allegory is what is important.

Quote:

OK, but do you believe that god is all powerful? Why wouldn't he only allow good people to exist? Even if bad people are made, some people go through the same things and end up fine. People are a product of their environment, but only to an extent.

Bad people can become better, and you can make amends.

Quote:

Do you think that you must believe in god to make it, or just be a good person?

What's the point if you don't believe?

Quote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I may joke about WWCoW (it was a joke really) but the element of truth is that God may be all powerful, but he makes the rules. The rules (at least by my line of thought) are that you aren't promised anything, and that you make your own destiny if you treat people the way you would want to be treated (not in deed but in intent).

Is that the answer to my last question? Just follow the golden rule and your in? Then why not say JUST that?

That's more or less what I believe even if I don't identify myself as Christian. If God is all powerful, we can either follow his laws or not.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Monday, January 22, 2007 3:46 PM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
I also know that if I judge someone, I'm basically a hypocrite because at some point, I'm not perfect... Again, I'm not ignoring the rules given, I'm just saying that I'm not God and I'm not going to judge my neighbour. I also don't speak for God. I can't look at a friend of mine that's queer as a $3 bill and say he's a bad person because he does something that someone said 4000 years ago was disgusting? I can't get behind that. I can credit Hahahaha for the line "love the Sinner, hate the sin," (it was the first time I had really heard it put that way), but my thoughts are "Love sinner, and forgive the sin." Forgiving sin is not about you and God... it's about you and the other person.

That's admirable, but you don't even believe that homosexuality is a sin. To me that's great, even more so because you are semi-Christian. Too bad the "traditional" Christians don't feel this way.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Hating someone (for whatever reason) means you are abdicating your personal power over to them. Seriously, I wonder about Fred Phelps, if he didn't have this corked up hate for gays, what would he be able to channel that energy in to.. I don't hate him, but I pity him.

What a sad legacy to leave, I think he and his followers have serious problems. As you say, it's pitiful.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I know what's right, and what's wrong, and that sometimes you need to bend a little instead of being rigid and causing problems.

I agree 100%, but I don't follow any religion. If all people would be a little less judgmental and stop trying to enforce their beliefs on others(including athiests) then I don't think we would have so much hostility.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

Easier to follow? Sure. I just don't think that it is the only rule he wants you to follow, but who am I to say.

True enough. I just figure that the New Covenant in comparison to the Ten Commandments is a lot simpler, more elegant and makes sense. The Ten Commandments leave a lot of ground uncovered (like homosexuality, killing versus murder... I'm all for simple, and I figure that people need to use their brain and morals a little more.

True, but you are basically saying for people to use their morals and not the rules laid out in the bible just because they are complicated or make less since. I agree, but that is not very Christian. You sound a lot like a humanist except for the whole god thing.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

You don't think that homosexuality is a sin? It's interesting that people can interpret the bible so differently.

I'm not God. Your sins are yours to deal with between you and God. If you sin against me, then I'll deal with it, if you sin against God, that's something you need to deal with on your own. Again, love thy neighbour... it means that you're not going to judge or condemn a person for their acts. It's against human nature, I know.

Yeah, but you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, right? Are you against gay marriage?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I believe it's also referencing Matthew chapter 15, verse 1-20, it says so at the end of the quote.

No opinion on the quote that seems to describe jesus as a pretty violent guy that supports the old law?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I don't think Slavery is a cool idea either, but your also talking about a time where Abject poverty was not only the norm, but utterly pervasive, those that had money would never loan to those without unless there was a way to be certain they'd get their money back.

Like I said, even though it was the norm, you would expect the son of god to speak out against it. Every Cristian believes in jesus, a man who supported slavery, according to that scripture. You may doubt it's authenticity but many will not doubt any part of the bible and still believe.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

OK, so you think that you must follow god's word to get in? If it's just a "you reap what you sow" situation then one doesn't even need to believe in god, as long as you were good on earth your in. Still, why punish the bad? It would serve no purpose.

- I don't make the rules.
- Process without belief is nothing.

I know you don't make the rules, but that does not mean that you don't have an opinion about them. Unless you are one of those who will not question anything that you believe comes from god, even if it is wrong. What do you mean by "Process without belief is nothing"? That, just because you are a good person doesn't mean that you will go to heaven? You must believe in god? So I can live my whole life doing thankless, selfless deeds and still go to hell simply because I did not believe in 1 particular washed down, mistranslated and unprovable religion? I don't mean this as an attack on you, I just think that it is BS.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

It's not the basis? I'm not saying that it is all you use. I just assumed that, if you are a Christian, your choices were based on the bible. You now what they say about assuming though. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

I don't know what I consider myself. Do I have a personal relationship with God? No, not really by my estimation. My choices are based out of what conforms with my belief system, and basically, a lot of it is congruent with Christianity, but with Gnosticism, neo-Buddhist, and renaissance idealogies. I'm not a devout Christian in that I go to church weekly, I don't follow the Dalai Lama's teachings intractably, and I don't subscribe to Priorie De Scion ideals with rigidity. I figure that there's good ideas everywhere: If it makes sense to me and will benefit me, I'll follow it.

Interesting, I guess I could say the same. I follow what ever makes sense, it just so happens that religion is not one of those things. I just chose to have my own sense of right an wrong, much like you. I don't use a book to confirm it.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

OK, it's still a sick decision and a very humorous part of the bible. It would not be funny if I believed it.

It follows with some of the other decisions. Choose faith over the material.

I hardly consider children to be material. I would also expect any respectable god to stop this from happening. Can I ask A stupid question?(Like you could stop me) Why are there no more obvious acts by god?

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Quote:

Do you think that you must believe in god to make it, or just be a good person?

What's the point if you don't believe?

I'm just curious. I just think that it would would be pretty shallow of god, who I do not believe in, to require you to be live in him to make it in even if you were a great person.

All I am gonna say is that these people along with anyone that thinks "God hates gays and is punishing us by killing our soldiers" are crazy and sick in the head. I am a Christian (by my standards not by a denomination) and to say "God hates" something is a very strong statement and COMPLETELY opinionated as there is NO official statement in the bible saying this. Also as many revisions as there has been of the bible you have NO IDEA on what has been added, taken out, or changed. I think alot of people read the bible and just take in what they wanna hear and/or twist the actual meaning.

GOD IS NOT A HATEFULL BEING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is not gonna kill innocents to get to gays... Where is the sense in that? If he is gonna kill someone then why doesnt he kill the gays??????? Oh well.


-Brandon

To throw some more fuel on the fire:

1: How do you know what God thinks and feels? How do you know God doesn't hate something? For all we know God hating things could be the the reason that Cop Rock got cancelled.

2: If there is a God, it's not God killing "innocents" (I think you lose any of that when you get squirted out of someone's vagina, but that;'s a whole other argument), it's the humans that are doing it.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Better question is....

Does God hate the gay people that attend church to worship him and lead a christian life?


Everyone "sins", its just a matter of to what degree your sin is. So you are telling me that God forgives cold hearted murderers, yet he hates gay people? There is no logic in that thought at all. There is much more evil in the world going on than gay people. So why do people make a big deal out of it?


-Brandon

redecocav: True... You can take away your own meaning from whatever you read... If you think about it, "See Spot Run" can be obnoxious and dirty.. you impart your own ideas.

Keeper:
1: I don't. I never have. I think Cop Rock got cancelled because it sucked and had poor ratings, but that's just my opinion. A better question is why did they cancel The Flash, Viper, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, and yet, they allow the abomination of "Friends" to continue for over 10 years?
2: Some poor shmuck that gets crushed by a pile of rocks may not be innocent, but he isn't killing rocks... The flip side of that is one side killing the children of their enemies. It's something that few countries are immune from.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

That's admirable, but you don't even believe that homosexuality is a sin. To me that's great, even more so because you are semi-Christian. Too bad the "traditional" Christians don't feel this way.

Some don't, but then again, I think that part of humanity's mission (no matter our origin) is to learn about our selves, and there is credible and duplicated research behind the hypothesis that homosexuality is a biological condition (that can't be "corrected" any more than brown eyes or hair colour) and not a conscious choice.

Quote:

What a sad legacy to leave, I think he and his followers have serious problems. As you say, it's pitiful.

His followers are mostly his extended family. They're not stupid, but I think they're going to be better off once Fred's dead. He's the Charismatic leader behind a hateful legacy. Some people like living in a small world. I just wonder what's going to happen to these kinds of people when they find out we're not alone in the universe.

Quote:

I agree 100%, but I don't follow any religion. If all people would be a little less judgmental and stop trying to enforce their beliefs on others(including athiests) then I don't think we would have so much hostility.

It's part of human nature. That's why there's so many assholes out there.

Quote:

True, but you are basically saying for people to use their morals and not the rules laid out in the bible just because they are complicated or make less since. I agree, but that is not very Christian. You sound a lot like a humanist except for the whole god thing.

I yam what I yam. I think the rules in laid out in the Bible are a good starting point, but they're of a different time. You said about slavery, and I understand that, but at the time, it was acceptable in the case of debt. At this time, it's not acceptable at all.

There's a pagan covenant that goes something like: "Do what ye will, and harm none." I find that a lot more liberating than the 10 Commandments, and if you subscribe to the New Covenant, the only addition (at least in my mind) is that you Love thy God. It's simple, and it carries the weight of the 10 Commandments (there's no free lunch ) but it's simpler to remember, and a LOT more clear cut.

Quote:

Yeah, but you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, right? Are you against gay marriage?

No, and I'm not against Gay unions. I don't call it marriage because a marriage is a religious term, and I don't believe in forcing a church to perform a union they don't believe should happen. Call it a Civil Union, and give it the same advantages and responsibilities of a traditional marriage.

Quote:

No opinion on the quote that seems to describe jesus as a pretty violent guy that supports the old law?

I still think (after reading it a few times) that Jesus was being facetious or ironical in that passage. He's not commanding the slaughter of children that don't follow the old laws. His New Covenant incorporates the old one... But instead of it being applicable to Jews, it applies to all, Jew and Gentile.

Quote:

Like I said, even though it was the norm, you would expect the son of god to speak out against it. Every Cristian believes in jesus, a man who supported slavery, according to that scripture. You may doubt it's authenticity but many will not doubt any part of the bible and still believe.

They also will miss the forest for the trees, more often than not. I think part of that is to make people honour their debts... I may be wrong though.

Quote:

I know you don't make the rules, but that does not mean that you don't have an opinion about them. Unless you are one of those who will not question anything that you believe comes from god, even if it is wrong. What do you mean by "Process without belief is nothing"? That, just because you are a good person doesn't mean that you will go to heaven? You must believe in god? So I can live my whole life doing thankless, selfless deeds and still go to hell simply because I did not believe in 1 particular washed down, mistranslated and unprovable religion? I don't mean this as an attack on you, I just think that it is BS.

I think that if you believe in heaven, you're already on that path. I'm not so concerned about the afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. I'm more concerned about THIS life, and making it better for everyone. IF you believe and don't follow through, you're short-changing yourself. If you go through the process and don't believe what you're doing is for the better of EVERYONE, you're doing better for everyone else, but you're not going to get into heaven necessarily... You could be Mother Theresa, but if you don't believe in God, you're not going to get in.

Quote:

Interesting, I guess I could say the same. I follow what ever makes sense, it just so happens that religion is not one of those things. I just chose to have my own sense of right an wrong, much like you. I don't use a book to confirm it.

Werd

Quote:

I hardly consider children to be material. I would also expect any respectable god to stop this from happening. Can I ask A stupid question?(Like you could stop me) Why are there no more obvious acts by god?

*Shrug* The closest I can say is that there are Gnostic texts where God in the New Testament was compared to the Old Testament and asked why there was a change, and much of it basically stated that though Jesus was the Son of the Lord, he was the Mortal Son and was God's living essence. The horrible floods (like the one Noah rode out), the Pestilences etc. were minor. Sodom and Gomorrah were razed because the Sodomites and Gomorrans wanted to corrupt the Angels that were visiting a faithful Jew and his family. They are acts of the Old Testament God.

The feeding of the 5 thousand, healing of the lame, and other acts... They're acts of the New Testament God... A few large acts of petulance, versus many smaller acts of kindness.

Kill them with kindness

Quote:

I'm just curious. I just think that it would would be pretty shallow of god, who I do not believe in, to require you to be live in him to make it in even if you were a great person.

You don't need God to be a good person. You need God if you want to get into heaven.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:His followers are mostly his extended family. They're not stupid, but I think they're going to be better off once Fred's dead. He's the Charismatic leader behind a hateful legacy. Some people like living in a small world. I just wonder what's going to happen to these kinds of people when they find out we're not alone in the universe.

Jesus hates aliens!

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I still think (after reading it a few times) that Jesus was being facetious or ironical in that passage. He's not commanding the slaughter of children that don't follow the old laws. His New Covenant incorporates the old one... But instead of it being applicable to Jews, it applies to all, Jew and Gentile.

Jesus was being sarcastic? No way!

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I think that if you believe in heaven, you're already on that path. I'm not so concerned about the afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. I'm more concerned about THIS life, and making it better for everyone. IF you believe and don't follow through, you're short-changing yourself. If you go through the process and don't believe what you're doing is for the better of EVERYONE, you're doing better for everyone else, but you're not going to get into heaven necessarily... You could be Mother Theresa, but if you don't believe in God, you're not going to get in.

Maybe I can sneak into the back. I wonder if heaven got a ghetto.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:You don't need God to be a good person. You need God if you want to get into heaven.

Although I know that this is the generally accepted idea, I don't have to like it. I think the afterlife consists of nothing. No consciousness, just like before you were born. You know, comfortably numb.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:43 PM