2011, DO you beleive it?

That is an absolutely brilliant philosophy Spike. Tell me where to send the donations :haha:
I got one too. I think the whole world is just a test, and it strikes me as an odd coincidence that a lot of religions are based on worshipping one "god" to give it a name. I reckon it's the same "god" in all the religions, the stories just got messed up along the way. I don't like the idea of someone telling you what to believe though, so I don't like the Catholic Church. Anyway, it seems to make more sense to most of us to do good things rather than bad, and it's been said for so long that it must have a basis somewhere, the old saying "no smoke without fire". I think that success in this life is measured a lot differently than success in the next, that success in the next will be detirmined by how many good deeds you did in this life, and that something much more important and better is waiting. In fact this (to me) is something good to think about when I get too involved/concerned in day to day stuff, it's actually great to sit back and think about how irrelevant and insignificant this all may be, and just laugh your head off about how you're so worried about stupid things. And the good deeds thing doesn't mean you have to stop world hunger, you just do what you can.
Oh and techspot counts 'cause you're helping people in your free time.
Spike you've probably racked up about a million points and as for Howardhopkinson, he's probably on jesus levels :haha:

How true, if you read into it (his visions) enough you could reason that you will have a bowel movement tomorrow morning or just about anything.

I personally think Camping is an *****. But that is my opinion and we all know how opinions are.....

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Another religion thread? Maybe TS should make a religion forum? Why not? Maybe, as pointed out by Spike, the heat can build to unholy temperatures

[NOTE: I wrote this and it was to big, so the second half is in the next thread, I didn't mean to write so much, it happens to me ]

I'm also Christian, as some may know. I made the mistake of actually poking around the "Christian" forum at myspace! Of all places! By george, just mention you are Christian and they will rip your head right off in every way possible!
Makes me wonder why Christianity is the most hated religion? But then again, Jesus taught that the world would treat it that way.

On another note, this guy, this Harold, never heard of him or listened to a show. The guy in the article who is "debunking" him is full of garbage, and so is a few philosophies of Camping. Namely, that "everybody should leave churches...", what?? "Trust in his program..." WHAT??? And what the heck is "Je-Zeus"?
If he is adamant about the Bible he would read the part about "do not forsake the gathering of the saints" etc... Gathering together, corporate worship if you will, is a big part of the Christian life. That is scary stuff he's talking about, setting HIMSELF up as the ultimate authority. And his ministry.

But then the other guy, supposedly debunking him, has his own facts screwed up. He lauds the Britannica, saying "Encyclopedia Britannica has a reputation to uphold, so what they print in their Encyclopedias, has to be factual." What? Well I have a reputation too, so I guess that means everything I say is right?
I'm sorry but man simply knows SQUAT about anything in the old age because nobody was there! Think about things such as "cavemen" or "missing links". Think about science and their so called evolutionary finds. For example, when someone digs up a tooth, and they draw a picture around a tooth of an ape man?? It's been done. Taking an ape skull and putting in on top of a mans skeleton. Every other scheme and hoax imaginable to prove their "facts" about origins.
He talks about how most people groups have a "flood story". Well yes that's true, because AFTER Noah as people spread out, and more specifically at the Tower of Babel when people of each language spread out, THAT flood story spread through the ages, changing here and there. Noah's flood wasn't invented based on some "older" story. Noah's flood is what really happened, and the story changed throughout time. Even in Asian languages, for example, the symbol for "flood" or something similar, looks like the shape of the Arc, etc... Arc-like cave drawings and more.
There are tons of historical information to prove biblical stories. This guy seems to think that because his library book written by Joe Shmoe with his PHD means that HE must be right. In other words, as long as you can find a book whose "facts" differ from the Bible, the Bible must be wrong?
And Joe Shmoe must be right because his teacher told him so. His teacher must be right because he is a teacher after all. And he was there to see how it happened? Nobody saw what happened. The people who did, the people who lived so very close to those times, happened to pen the Bible. It's the oldest real history book we have. So when some scientists find some scratches in a cave, or a bone in the dirt, suddenly they know precisely how a whole economy worked and exactly what happened on every day of the year?
I'm sorry but the Bible gives the only account of history from people who nearly lived in that age, who could have sat down and talked with the people IN those stories.

When I see such an attitude from people like Harold Camping, I see danger, I see someone trying to take the place of the Bible and Jesus. When I see the likes of the debunker, I see a big fat hot head full of pride and arrogance. Some people seem to think that every so called "fact" they dig up, as long as it is different from the Bible, must be correct. But all the science that agrees with the Bible, of which there is hoards, must be false; and never reaches page 90 of a science magazine. But they promptly display in full color on the front page, an ape man drawn entirely based off a single foot bone found in the dirt and say the "missing link is here!" We know for FACT that certain ape-men were hoaxes, yet you still find pictures of them in school text books, still talking about them as fact, even though they've been exposed long before!

Anyway fellas, I've seen nonsense from both sides of the fence. It's sad because most people are completely ignorant of the Christian faith, and a lot of professing Christians do/say stupid things too. Somebody saying they are Christian, falls into sin in some way, and suddenly ALL of Christianity gets blamed, "so THIS is what being a Christian is all about?!?". Well no, of course nobody is perfect, and Christians fall under just as much pressure, temptation, and so forth that everybody else does. The difference is, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we have a way to fight it and refuse to sin, a gaol to live for. But most well-known Christian speakers on the radio could tell you how sinful they were before getting saved, and many sins they fell into afterward as well. But Christian life is like Spike's mountain analogy, only REACHING the mountain is the point of being saved, climbing the mountain is your Christian walk toward Christ, toward knowledge, righteousness, holiness etc... Difference is, Christ is the top, it is not an unknown destination to a believer.
Christians happen to believe that God exists in three persons. And that God is Holy and CANNOT be in the company of sin, EVER. You sin once, you are departed from Him forever, Hell. If you are sinless, you can enter into His presence. See, to a Christian, going to Heaven is not a "works" based function, it's not relative. "Well, your life was better then so-and-so, I'll let you in. And so-and-so, you really did do better then thus-and-such, so I'll let you in too". Nothing doing. If you are sinless, you can enter God's domain.
That makes simple sense right? A perfect God cannot keep company with sin. You break His perfect law, you are far removed forever. Like a very strict "real" law of today. "You kill somebody, you go to jail". The death sentence. We have laws, God has laws. If you break God's law, you are out, no second chances, no relativity, no "if I'm pretty good I'm in. If I help so many old ladies cross the street, I'm in". That is not the Christian life. It's not about doing good things, following a bunch of rules etc...
The core of the Christian gospel is laid out in the Bible. ALL are sinners, ALL, if you were conceived in the womb, you are a sinner worthy of hell. Simple, you inherit the sin of Adam right down through your parents. You are not acceptable to God in that state. You have broken His law.
So, in order to save some people from this fate, Jesus, born of a virgin, lived that sinless life and died a sacrifice for our sins. I'm sure most are well aware of the sacrificing of the old testament? The Bible says "without blood there is no remission of sins". Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, paying for the sins of the world, not just some guy in the OT sacrificing for himself. The sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient for all who would believe.
This is taught in the Biblical history, the basis of Christianity. So in order to be covered by Jesus' blood, you must, as you've probably heard "offered" on the radio a million times, "the prayer". The basic idea is surrender your life to Christ. You have to acknowledge this work, acknowledge Christ as Lord and savior, turn from your sin, ask for forgiveness, ask for Christ in your life, etc...
Now you see why it is extremely important to believe in a virgin birth. If Jesus was born of a man, He would have inherited sin the same as all of us. And if so, He would NOT have had a sinless life. He MUST have been born a virgin or else He could not be the ultimate sacrifice. This is why it is a grave mistake for a Christian to doubt the virgin birth. If Christ was not born of a virgin, then pretty much the entire Christian faith crumbles because Christ was not sinless, was not a perfect sacrifice. And we're wasting our time.
God didn't send Jesus to die a gruesome death so you could follow after some false god or teacher all your life (a different path), but ultimately end up at His feet in the end. No, it is stated that NONE come to the father except through Jesus. And many more scriptures to this end. God said He is a jealous God, and does not accept people worshiping their own gods, or idols. His first law penned to mankind said plainly "have NO other gods before Me". And promptly said "make NO graven image", such as idols etc... And I think everybody can agree, so many religions have SO many idols, imagery, symbolism etc... For example, nobody knows what Christ looks like, nobody. He isn't some brown hair, brown eyed candy faced guy. Nobody knows. Nobody knows because God didn't want people to make images and idols of him to worship. Which is why you get Christians fighting among themselves over movies such as The Passion, simply because it puts a face to Jesus, and there are some that say it shouldn't be done. Look how Christians turn to symbolism anyway, things like crosses and the fish symbol etc.. And the Catholics who depict Christ STILL dying on the cross. Which is against Christianity because He is NOT on the cross any more, he rose from the dead etc... In other words, the cross is empty now, but they want to keep Him there, so some say.

[continued in next thread...]

[continued from previous thread...]
Oh boy fellas, this is long! But I guess that is because I've been sitting here with nothing else to do!

Don't think I'm forcing "my religion down your throat", I'm not speaking to anybody. I'm just making a statement about what I believe, like everybody else here is doing. And wanted to say a few things about Christianity. Because SO often, I read somebody who will say "Christians do this...", but in reality, that has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with what some guy or girl did. That's all. And what they did goes against what the Bible teaches, therefore it is NOT a Christian act. I don't like to see people think up some random thing that some random Christian did, and then pin his mistake or sin on all of Christianity. Just because a Christian does a certain thing, does NOT mean that this certain thing is a Christian act!
Because Christianity is not the worst faith. But I'll tell you what it IS. It DOES have very strict rules in terms of saving faith. You can't just meander around and end up in heaven, it is laid out plainly what must be done. Second, it is not a religion of rules. Christianity has moral law, namely, how to live with other humans. Simply, how one should be in society. And those laws never hurt anybody who practiced them. There is NO RITUALS that MUST be done to be a Christian, none at all! The only thing that Christ asked that we do, are things like baptism and communion. But they are not requirements. You can get saved in jail, and die in there, and go to heaven. But what you DO have to do, is put your faith in Christ that He is God and lived a sinless life to die a sacrifice for OUR sins. Obviously this command is very hard for people and understandably so. Because pride keeps any human from submitting themselves to another's rule. Keeps them from asking for forgiveness. Keeps them from humbling themselves, falling on their face etc...

I understand why Christianity faces such opposition from the world. Simply because it says there is ONE WAY to heaven, ONE WAY to God. Jesus said in John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Pretty strong words for Jesus to say! But that is the stuff a Christian believes. He believes that Christ indeed is Lord. And not just a good teacher of old. There have been good teachers throughout the ages, but none have placed themselves equal with God like Jesus did, NONE. They wouldn't dare. But Jesus backed everything up with healings and miracles and His life and teaching etc... and of course, by His own life fulfilling the prophecies of the OT. And of course, rising from the dead and much more.

The problem is, people can't believe it anymore. They can't believe it because they don't have the evidence, they don't have the proof, they can't see it or touch it so therefore it isn't real. When a Christian says something like "the Bible is accurate, just look at all the prophecies made and fulfilled in the text!". The scoffer says, ya well, obviously the author wrote the prophecy down, then "fulfilled it" when he wrote the next page. They think it was all just written by a guy in a few months. But the Bible really, just by studying its history, has so many awesome things about it, it really is trustworthy material. A book, heavily copied and preserved through thousands of years, is more reliable then the best guess of a guy who found some symbols carved in a cave. At least I think so. If the Bible were a bunch of fairy tales and lies, why in the WORLD would it still be around today? In those days it could take a scribe a year to copy the text, why would somebody waste a year of there life carefully copying a bunch of nonsense? Why would men write down fairy tales and then live their life by it and die for it? Why would a billion billion people through time put their life in its hands and die for it? Live for it? People get their heads chopped off for not denying Christ is Lord. If it's such a falsehood, why would it have such a following? Because it's not lies and fairy tales? Because it is true history? Call me what you like, but I believe it.
I believe we must look at the world through "biblical glasses". You can understand what is going on when you look at it with that perspective. You don't have to form a thesis about it or find somebody with a PHD. When looking at it through the Bible's eyes, you see what's going on. You don't have to run to the library and get the latest "book of facts", you don't have to open the trusty Britannica.
A simple example of this concept is languages of the world. Why try to come up with theories about that? The Tower of Babel answers it. What about marriage? We know where that came from. A seven day week? Six days work, one day rest? How come there are layers in the Grand Canyon? How about the flood? The flood answers a thousand questions about our fossil records. No need to invent stories about a tiny river flowing for a billion million years to create the Canyon. Reminds me of a story, a believer and a non-believer were marveling at the Canyon and the non said "amazing, a little water and a lot of time did that!" and the believer said "amazing, a lot of water and little time did that!".
It's all about your perspective I guess, and a good Christian aught to have a biblical perspective. If they start to doubt the Bible, begin to lean on man's understanding instead of the Bible, they aren't being very Christian! For example, on origins, the most attacked biblical story of all is creation. Supposedly it is so factual that billions of years created everything, that even believers are getting sucked into it, and then forcing millions of years into the Bible (such as gap theory). They take man's ideas and try to shove them into the Bible, it doesn't work. The Bible teaches six literal days of creation, the genealogies teach that the earth is about 6000-7000 years old or thereabouts. You either have faith in the words of God, or have faith in man. Both require faith. Because I have yet to see any evidence for evolution or millions of years. You can't just take their "facts" at face value. Just because they have a title, a PHD, doesn't mean every word is the gospel truth. There are no reliable dating methods, there are no "missing links", there are no fossil records, there is nothing to prove it. It is all still theory. But to the average person, they accept what National Geographic says, because they read it there in clever words that appeal to them.
Just like the Grand Canyon, the SAME "evidence" can both "prove" the Bible, AND "prove" the theory being presented. It's a choice of which to believe. A Christian must have faith in the Bible. If they can't do that, they don't have much faith do they
The Bible's words can be twisted, of course they can, Satan himself twisted its words when he was tempting Christ. The Bible's words have been used to validate all kinds of intensely horrid actions through time, everything from crusades-like activities to burning people. People can grab some words, out of context, and apply them to something totally different. Which is why one should never "read" the Bible, but instead, STUDY it! Practice it! Endeavor to be "more like Christ". That should be the Christian way. In my understanding.

[continued next thread... sorry]

[continued from previous thread...]

Oh boy, I'm sorry guys, I didn't mean to ramble on this long. I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, I just wanted an exposition of what I personally believe, and what my definition of Christianity is. One should never blame Christianity where blame should rest on an individual. For Christianity is not a harmful thing, it teaches to love your enemy, pray for those who spitefully use you. Even the "golden rule" is written within its pages. Christianity is also full of charity, very giving. Christ taught, give food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, shelter to the homeless, and so forth. A true Christian is ever watchful where he can give and minister and share Christ. Since Christ taught, and most know, whatever you "make" on this earth, you can't take it with you. A Christians life should not be worldly or materialistic. In fact, it is basically impossible to live the perfect Christian life, which is the very reason for Christ's coming in the first place.
Christianity is much MUCH deeper then most think. Most people just hear Christians whining about gay marriage or abortion, and most people roll their eyes every time they here "we hate the sin, not the person" talk. But a Christian's goal to reach other people for Christ is strongly taught, mainly in the "great commission", to go out and preach the gospel to the world. The Bible teaches against homosexuality and abortion etc... therefore it is big on the list of things to fight against. To strive for holiness, and those things are not holy. We've already seen the damage they can do to society within our borders and without. But that isn't the point, the point is that, as Spike said about the mountain, you have to climb UP to get there. You have to become better and better, you have to grow. A Christians life, if they are truly saved by the blood of Jesus, should always be growing, washing out the sins, killing the old habits, living a new life in Christ.

I hope this wasn't overkill, again, I just wanted to share my thoughts, don't want to "force" anything on anybody, I'm not doing an alter call, not saying what everybody thinks is false. Just want to share what I think and believe. My own personal belief, which I happen to think is Christian, and Bible-based.
Hope this doesn't change what people think about me I'm still a PC nerd on the surface, and I try not to let these kinds of thoughts go where they don't belong, such as on a tech forum. But I see Christianity under attack so much, when really it should be the person. Pilate found no fault in Jesus, and so no man should find fault with written Christian behavior. But they can find fault, with the individual who has failed that perfect behavior, and done something they shouldn't. So often Christianity is blamed on somebodies failure. It saddens me, the lack of faith of many professing "Christians". They say they are so, but deny half the truth of the Bible.

I've said my piece. I'm not looking for an argument and I don't want to spend the rest of my life debating in this thread. As all should know, these different religions and faiths go so much deeper and get so much more involved then what could ever be discussed like this. So just take what I said as my personal belief, and be done. No need to fight with me cause you won't change me and I won't change you. I only hope what I've talked about just gives you some more insight into the Christian way of thinking, at least, my Christian way of thinking, as I am aware in my current "walk" up the mountain.

Good night everybody. Truly sorry for the lengthly posting, didn't realize I typed more then 25000+ characters. As I said, way to much to talk about, I barely made a tiny scratch in the surface of the issue.

Wow Spike......

....I didn't realize you were so well-read (seriously). Were you ever on a debate team in school? I think that would've been a natural for you.

To the topic at hand.....this world, history and religion (including the Bible) are so cryptic that you can find anything to back up your current viewpoint. I could probably find a phrase in the Bible to match most any belief (don't get me wrong, I'm a very strong Christian).

If you take all the religions in the world, just a smattering of each, you'll probably find the real Truth of it all.

Just my $.02


Edit: Holy $hat "V"....you must've been up all night composing that. The last post I read was Spike's and when I posted this, you had three pages in there. Sheesh!

LOL. Very true Masque. . Our school didn't have a debate team. I'm only well read in certain areas though - particularly in any area I've taken an interest in. Even then, my limited knowledge pales in comparison to many other people out there.

That was a pretty long post from Vigilante. Perhaps it was a little OTT (lol) but as long as it is only your view you express and not something to push on everyone else, it is absolutely fine.

I don't think we should have a religion forum though - this is after all a tech site. If people want to have a discussion on religion in the general discussion forum (ie, the meeting spot), I don't see a problem with it provided it stays in this forum and people remain well behaved, which is something we've all done so far in both threads. It's pretty unusual to have two religion threads at the same time here. Heck, religion threads don't pop up that often at all really. Of course, someone (such as myself) has to be willing to keep a close eye on such threads and moderate them, which always helps

I have to say though, that NONE escape my mountain analogy . Everyone on their chosen path up the mountain know what they see at the top. Divinity has many faces. A Christian may see Christ. A Hindu may see Brahman. It all depends on the angle/perspective you are looking at it from.

I shan't answer every point individually, as that would not be my place or my right. Your opinion and beliefs are just as valid as mine, even if we don't quite agree on a few things. There are a few things I would like to say though. Particularly in the context of your statements about people hating Christianity.

Such could be said about any religion. With the exception of the book, it could be said about the people involved in the Wako massacre. I rather suspect that more people throughout history have had their head chopped chopped off at the hands of christians for not believing in Christ than vica versa. That doesn't mean that christianity itself is responsible, but rather, it only serves to show that by that description, other religions are equally validated.

While I understand that Christians (many of them at least) believe that homosexuality or abortion is wrong, I sincerely doubt whether this makes it something for said Christians to fight against. Hold on... there is reason to this madness. lol

In the case of homosexuality, it is not a trait specific to human beings alone. It's well known that homosexuality is not a choice, but is just something that "is". This is borne out by the incredible number of homosexual people who through years of abuse, segregation, and bad medicine (including brutal electroshock) have not been "cured". In the case of abortion, there are very strong arguments on both sides of the debate. One of the worrying things above all is that "pro-life" and "anti-gay" extremeists, citing christianity as the reason, could (and do) go and attack, kill, and mame people involved with abortion and homosexuality. Worse still is that while most don't directly condone such acts, many do sympathise with the perpetrators of them in some way, with biblical words being the basis for that sympathy.

In any case, If God (or jesus) is love, then he loves everyone, regardless of whether they are homosexual or have had an abortion. I have no doubt that if a Christian homosexual lives a good Christian life, then the sin of living his/her life as best and as righteously as they were able would be forgiven, just as the alternative sins of any other Christian.

The trouble is, what a lot of Christians seem to forget is that while it is right for them to voice their beliefs, that does not mean that they should go on some kind of holy crusade against sin. Sin isn't for a Christian to hate in other people - If there's any hate involved it's for people to hate the sin within themselves ("let he who has never sinned cast the first stone"). I'm sure that it is better to go out into the world (as Jesus did according to Christianity) and not to spread the word and save people by shouting at them through megaphones, harrassing them, and generally making a nuisance of yourself, but instead by setting a PERSONAL example, livig by it, and being a calm and peaceful person rather than some kind of holy crusader. The grand majority of the world - even the western world, ISN'T christian. If Christians don't believe in abortion etc, then at the greatest possible stretch it is something to fight against within their own communities. That does not make it right that their opinion and belief should be imposed on everyone else. People once had their head copped off for not beieving in Christ, as a result of the self absorbed and authoritarian moral superiority of the church and christian state. Gladly, that doesn't happen in Christs name anymore. However from time to time (like in the case of anti abortion extremeists) is still does today (ie, without the sanction of the state). If Christians are to take up this ill-concieved morally superior and 'righteous' crusade against sin in other people, and impose their own laws and beliefs on everybody else (the majority of whome aren't christian), then we are only a short hop, skip, and a jump from the days where people were decapitated for not being Christian. It's THAT that people hate about Christianity, not christianity itself. It's not really a lot different from Muslims imposing Sharia law on the rest of the world, the majority of whome are not muslim.

Put another way, it's like saying "there is only one true way to ge to the top of the mountain, so take the rail-car to the top, OR ELSE. All other paths up to the top are out of bounds, the rest of the mountain is off limits.". Isn't that the very sort of unholy imposition we decry muslim fanatics for (not the terrorist ones, but those that sympathise with the ideology, or otherwise seek to impose their own rules on everybody else)?

I would quote again, with the addition of two others...

He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone. (John 8:7)

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5). (...as applicable to John 8:7)

And Matthew 5:38-48, which is too long to reasonably post here, but essentially explains how "love thy neighbor" superceeds "an eye for an eye" (which was for God to decide, bot us, anyway).

I give the above quotes not to preach, nor do I do so in evidence or to be pedantic or superior. I give them purely to clarify and explain what I'm talking about above in biblical terms.

Good points still, but no point getting into homos and abortion We have hope that the homo "condition" is NOT "just the way it is". I happen to think this condition comes from way back in childhood. By not growing up in a strong home with 2 strong parents. Where his or her "role" in life is skewed. The point is, that behavior is against God's word, therefore is a sin.
I agree, though, it is NOT Christian to take physical action againsts these people. Which is one of the main themes of my short little post
What I'm trying to say, well, here is another quote from you:

Well those actions are certainly NOT biblical. It stems from plain old human emotion and plain old human idiocy. I'm sure you'll agree that those extremist actions are NOT foundational, nor can they, with an ounce of study, validate such actions as being right for a Christian to do. To be honest, if these "conditions" and attitudes that are anti-biblical cannot be reasoned or treated in a Christian-like manor, our only recourse then is prayer. Never physical violence and so forth. But the point is that Christianity has such a bad name because so many completly ignorant *****s do ***** things in the name of Christianity. Or worse, in the name of God Himself.

While it is true that God IS love, that one attribute doesn't overrule any other, they all compliment each other. For example, God is also righteous, He is a judge. And sin MUST be punished. Is it loving to NEVER punish your child for anything? No that is not loving in the least.
God's love was not manifested by dieing for "everybody for all time" to "force" them into Heaven. But instead His love was manifested by giving "everybody" the choice of accepting Christ or not. An escape from hell.
It's also true that becoming a Christian doesn't mean you'll never fail again, really, a sin is a sin. Homosexuality is regarded as a sin, and so would be telling a lie, and in God's eyes they are both sin. I might even go so far as to say they are equal, and that ALL sins are equal. And equaling damning.
But if one is to grow in the Christian life, you must DIE to your sins, not continue in them constantly. For example, if I was addicted to alcohol and got drunk every night, and by the grace of God I was saved, that sin of drunkenness has to be worked on. It has to go away if I'm to grow. I can't just stay in my drunken state, never changing, because "that's the way I am".
A Christian has to work hard to stop sinning, to grow. While I still think it's debatable whether homo behavior is curable, or how it comes to pass, I don't think it's right that if such a person were saved, they it's perfectly ok to continue in that sin for the rest of their life. And yet by that same token, if they are truly saved, and DO continue in that, he won't be rejected either. Obviously there is a ton of theology behind these very simple examples and points.

AMEN!

AMEN again!

But still, again, Christianity gets the bad name due to human actions, not real Christian behavior. "...people hate about Christianity...", and yet, what they hate is superfluous, because the object of their hate is actions that is NOT Christian to begin with.

Your additional "mountain" analogy is right on, the idea is not that we have to go up a certain way, but that you go UP. Sinning is going DOWN, NOT going up is just going around in a circle neither up or down. In order to go up, one simply has to grow in Christ, that doesn't have to be based on how much you say or do to other people. As you go up the mountain, share what you know with others, live by example. Perfect.

Matthew 7:1-5 is a good example of a common and wrong Christian behavior, that of judging others. But at the same time, sin is sin. And if you see another in sin, you can call him on it. Not judge him, but call him on it. And there is no need to judge the unbelievers, their eternity is in God's hands, not ours.

And yes, "eye for an eye" was old testament law, it simply does not apply while we live "under grace" in this day. Christ came to fulfill the law, it is done.

And hey, I got no problem with you quoting scripture! Just try not to grab random bits of text to justify a sepparate idealism. In other words, take it completely out of context. Which you didn't, but you know what I mean.

Fun stuff, see ya round.

Great Vig

I don't think we'll ever quite see eye to eye on the issue of homosexuality, but as you quite rightly say, that is a long and complex debate, but sufficed to say that I've known and heared of people with perfectly good childhood and parents who are gay, and there are undoubtedly some (undefinable #) others who have developed that way as a result of some childhood trauma or lifestyle choice. Overall though, I think we both demonstrate a "live and let live" philosophy, not just to homosexuality but towards other issues also - and that's the important thing really. Live, and let live.

The I mentioned about what people hate in Christianity was perhaps a little badly directed in that I meant to say it was what people hate about the way christianity appears to be practiced most often. On that basis, perhaps the biblical figure for the number of places in Heaven is actually quite accurate after all. (At the times the bible was written, some of the larger figures used in various passages were purely expressive of numbers beyond the comprehension of people of the time. That's not a corruption of the word, but more like reading another language. lol). It is very rare I feel to meet a true Christian compared to the masses of people who would call themselves Christian in this world, and as long as you can see the corruption and personality our King James' in his version of the bible (he skewed a few things, especially with his intense fear of real world daemons and witches (of the black mass/kissing satans bum variety). King James was a bit of a nutjob really in some respects), I feel priviledged to have been speaking with one here.

The same with the biblical words backing up horrible acts - I meant that people used them for support, not that they actually suport such acts.

The one thing I absolutely can't agree with is...

with regards to the mountain analogy. The person going up the mountain may not be Christian, and so may not see Christ - they may see something else. However, if you see divinity as Christ and the Father, and are able to remain open minded about th possibility that a non christian may be seeing what you consider to be Christ from a different angle, in a different way (in the two people looking at a table don't see the same table due to perspectives sort of philosophical way), and so are still ascending the mountain towards divinity, then I agree with you 100%.

I think overall we (you a Christian and me not so, simply being a very spiritual person) actually see the world and the concept of religion, and how we should live, in a very similar way. Overall I suspect we agree on most things. A slightly different way of getting there for certain, but getting there never the less. It's that mountain analogy again! lol

I do try not to quote out of context in anything, especially where peoples beliefs are concerned, though it's not unknown for me to experiment with contexts and perspectives - you have to to get a better understanding of it (that goes for everything ).

An honour and a priviledge Vig... Thanks.

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence
the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment
on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the
fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent,
been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of
Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.]
My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely
superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we,
with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.
Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God
--Albert Einstein The Human Side, 1954"

I`m with Albert on this one.

That's a very nice quote Peddant. Thanks for digging it out

Another infamous quote of his is also quite incisive...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

...Apart from science, he was still a brilliant (and religious) man.

You to Spike, we'll leave it at that, though I don't quite follow about King James. I know he himself wasn't anything special, but I doubt he directly had any influence in the actual translation, which was done by a council of literary and linguistic geniuses, all of them believers. Don't think James was a believer, he just wanted an English language bible. But some of the men translating could be considered in our day even, to be some of the most advanced linguists around. Some of them fluent in a dozen languages by the age of 20 etc... college professors, religious leaders of the time.
Contrast that council of men to, say, Wescott and Hort, who were not Christian, and denied the resurrection, denied a six day creation, lauded the works of Darwin, didn't believe in virgin birth etc... Contrast the counsel of Christian geniuses of the 1611, to a couple non-Christians with their own bias slant. Well, no need to get into THAT debate, of all things. lol. But Bible versions and their history is my current topic of interest that I've been researching.

I like your last quote Spike, it proves a simple point that people tend to fall in to. When becoming a Christian, that it means you must "check your brains in at the door". I'm sure you've heard that quote before. Science hasn't disproved anything of the Bible. I mean 100% factual, observable and real science. Not best guesses and theories etc... People like Ken Ham (www.answersingenesis.com) have been trying to show Christians that our faith doesn't have to be a "blind faith". And that in order to believe, you don't have to throw away your science book etc... You don't have to be dumb to be a Christian, you don't have to be an "intellect" to rise above the ignorance of scripture. It isn't "if you can't think, become religious". Obviously this line of thinking comes from the fact that when dealing with God, we can't KNOW everything. He is infinite, and we will never grasp it all. Which thus leaves most questions answered as "because that's the way God made it".

After all, God did say "my ways are not your ways, and my thoughts are not your thoughts." We err when we try to shove the entirety of God into the small tiny box of our rational minds. Which is what Einstein did in that first quote by Peddant. You cannot rationalize God, and you don't HAVE to. God is infinite, and it would take an infinite mind to comprehend all of Him. Don't even try. Don't try to rationalize the Trinity, don't try to rationalize Christ as fully God and fully man. Etc...

Oh, I have one last comment about Einsteins first quote there. Cause I've heard both these arguments. One is that, OK, let's see if I can word this. Um, if God had NOT put the tree in the garden, OK, if He just created a perfect world with no sin possible, the scoffers would say He is "controlling us". In other words, puppets on a string, just doing what he pleases, not letting us see behind the wall. But God gave us a choice, RATHER THAN controlling us as puppets. But our perfect representative Adam couldn't do well to leave alone, and chose to suffer. Ok, which is it? If God makes us all good, and nobody goes to Hell, He is wrong for making us puppets; but if he gives us a choice to live or die, then He is not loving? You can't have it both ways. God is not only Love, but also JUST. Despite Einstein, God CAN judge His own creation, because He is just. But also gave us a way out, because He is loving.
Don't want to sound preachy, cause that gets threads deleted around here But just another one of my perspectives. How people can say God is NOT good because He EITHER makes us puppets, OR gives us a choice, the scoffers find fault with Him. My personal belief is that he has a perfect and complimentary balance of ALL His attributes. It is the only way to think of an infinite and perfect being, as having an infinitely perfect balance of attributes. And I am the one who's thinking is flawed. MY logic is flawed. Because I can't try to force my limited brain power to shove God in a little box I can understand. I have to humble myself and say, I don't get it all, but I know it must be perfect, because it comes from a perfect being. The world doesn't like this, because they can't believe in God until they fully fit him into the resources or their carnal mind. And the "god" that they finally find to fit that thinking, is very often but a shadow of the true God of the universe.

So ya, you don't enter a classroom on Advanced Algebra, fully understanding Algebra. No indeed, you have no clue, but you are there to learn it because you have faith that it will make sense in the future. Likewise you can't enter in, say Christianity, only AFTER you fully comprehend it's theology. Because like the classroom, you will always be learning, there will always be things you just can't explain, there will be things you wish you could comprehend. But have faith that it will all make sense some day. As you learn, and CLIMB THAT MOUNTAIN!!

Haha, well I'm outta here, gunna go load my PC with Vista Beta, Office 2007 Beta, IE7 Beta, Media Player 11 Beta. lol, but seriously, I am.
Hey, that's the first mention of computers in this thread

Wow.. you guys are like... like... heh.. and now i feel like i have to really watch what i say (for fear of getting told off )..

But to provide some tiny input (and possible humor) on my end..

Harold Camping. Never heard of him, although from what I gather (mainly from this thread) is that his teachings are much more further than questionable, some of it doesnt even have much basis on anything.. 2011? sounds like a random year to me. Even Microsoft hasn't thought anything that far ahead . Who has the power to say (even if there is power in words) that "this is the day the world ends" apart from the one who started the world in the first place. eg: A person (lets say John) building a house starts by himself (designing, measuring, financing etc), then adds things into the mix (people, family/friends, money, material, workers). John would have to finish the house or declare it finished (even if its uncompleted) to be truely done. Kate (random person), nor Harry the plumber can say its finished (unless its their part of the job-the plumbing).

And to the point, no one knows when life ends. Take a page from the history books to Y2K, The Millenium, 31 December 1999... and how one cult killed all its followers just because it didnt come true. So some would say that you may know when you finish your part of the job, its not realy set in stone, as circumstanses changes, as does the Will of God to one's life.

To reply to Camping's statement of church being old has probably been answered here. Humans are social beings, they can't help it - its in their nature to talk, have relationships with people (bf, gf, family, friends, collegues etc), go places, discuss in Forums (Go Techspot ), interact. If not for this nature, we would not learn, write stuff, communicate, create new things and overcome obsticals. If this world was to be ruled by radio, in my interpretation of what he's saying, then its the same as a programmer that writes code into a machine without any variables, just 1=1. The machine has no other options than going 1=1. There's no If, Then, Go, Not, True, False... of course, one living like that probably wont have to think much, and in direct relations technology, intellect and/or communtiy won't advance much. Just our own bubble and the radio...

As a Christian, I would too admit that there was things that I'm not particularly proud of, nor would I know of everything (even I would step off the plate if need be), but hey, you live, you learn, you move on (with the strength of God), and strive to continue climbing that mountain , no matter how much you've probably slipped and slide down... nothing in this world is perfect: computers get infected, break and BSOD all over the place, earthquakes happen randomly, wars goes on, etc.. but there is something that is perfect, and therefore we have something to strive for. Something to get us motivated to get muscles working within our bodies to do anything.

For example, a person would look up to Michael Jordan, and becomes a basketballer and tries his best to do those jumps and 3 pointer shots and be so sporty.. or a different type of motivation would be one who likes things and to find out how things work, and in doing so enjoys the process and output given by what he does. They may not be exactly the person they strive for, but if they try their best at, its all that counts...

So the same for Christians, the person would be Jesus, and the motivation and driving force is love and faith.

Evolution, I would say exists, but not in the form of ape-men to human, although it does happen on a physical scale - child to adult, a cattapillar turning into a butterfly thing.. and on the mental side - the way we think, our habits, our perception of the world, ideologies etc. Like genetics, its there for a reason. The only think I can point out to the big who-ha on Darwin's theory of the ape-man would be, according from the Christian teaching (as a reference), is that God personaly got down here and got his crafting tools out and shaped us out of dirt, then gave us life with his own breath (and a small portion of his intelligence), where as he simply just "spoke" to make the beasts of the earth (animals), the vastness of the oceans, water, air, land, space, light etc.. to appear. [Genisis 1:27, 2:7.. and around it..]

Well thats my input, hope I didn't write things the wrong way, and as the rule for a good post, its just my version of how I understood things and the best I could express it, so if there is any offences caused, please forgive me . As bad as I am quoting from things, I leave you with some paraphrase of it, hope its not become too misunderstood.

And most likely someone's probably replied to this post while me slowly writing it....

EDIT: ok maybe not ^^, but its the longest d@mn post i've ever written..

ape men... must've been just humans with bad case of body hair (eww....)

LOL. Everyone has to watch what they say in a thread this deep about religion, including me. That's nothing new though, as this is a priciple on which society is based. When the principle breaks down is when the problems start.

The basic rules by which the threads are being moderated are there to remove the possibility of offending others or preaching to them (form any perspective), but at the same time to encourage rational debate and objective discussion. Anyone can discuss religion, but to do it in an environment where it's calm, intelligent (not a reflection on the person, but on the discussion itself), and "flame retardant" requires a lot of thought, tolerance, and understanding.

To those ends, while only one person has perhaps accidentally fallen foul of this (even if that person didn't do so maliciously, as was the case), both threads and all posters have played by the rules in both threads. Both threads have diverged however, and have essentially come to the same topic. There's nothing wrong with the evolution of a conversation such as this, but there's no point in having two, so I shall close the other thread, and I shall leave this reply here, and continue this thread in a new reply.

I apologize for breaking the rules. I really am a techy kind of guy also, but my passions flow around subjects of religion and in particular, eschatology. Which Illuminati and DaVinci Code fall into quite heatedly. It was not my intention to come off as strong as I did, but I was turned onto to this forum by my friend Vigilante. I look forward to reading this thread in it's entirety, but also to begin being involved in this community on a technical basis also.

Thanks. Cya laters

Good on ya Watching.

Spike I personally vouch for him. He's far more literary then even I am And no troll to be sure.
Look forward to his input about any subject. From a Christian perspective

King James did have indirect influence over the translation I'm afraid, despite the best efforts of Wikipedians to ignore what influence the social and ecclesiological climate of the time in England (and europe as a whole) had. The translation was commissioned under the Church of England, and just as the Pope is head of the Catholic Church, at that time James was the head of the Anglican Church. A firm believer as he was in the "divine right of kings", his word could not be questioned, his decision final, and his translators selected (if you see where I'm going there). He also set the rules for that translation, which included a rule that the translation should be as true as possible to a pre-existing translation, should maintain the establishment of the Church (the authority and rank structure that is) in place of literal translations (such as replacing "congregations" (literal) with "church" (preferred), the literal obviously having a potentially detrimental effect to the authority of the Anglican Church.) by these rules, such as to stay true to the faith, he had a final say in whether he approved of the translation or not.

As one possible example, given this in combination with James's paranoia over witches and daemons (http://www.tartans.com/articles/famscots/jamesviking.html), and the climate of "witchfinding" of the time (where innocent women, children, and one or two men were interrogated, tortured, and subjected to kangaroo courts before being killed or further tortured on little more basis than accusation), we see the corrupted translation of Exodus 22:18 - the fist time that that translation ahd ever appeared. Such a translation in that climate had some basis at that time only, but was not true to the "original tongue" at all. Today, it has no relevant meaning as per the original text. It is however A VERY lengthy subject (as is the translation of most words that ancient), so the reasoning can be found here. Clearly, the corruption of this one word in a simgle verse is not a simple irrelevant error, but in fact has a cascading effect on other verses through definition of meaning. It's also a clear case of mans views corrupting the Word, which further spurred man on to commit atrocities in its name, which then lended support to the corruption.

On the subject of "one true way"...

It has been said (and agreed) that God cannot be comprehended in His entirity by the human mind. Yet still we make presumptions on his intentions when giving His Word, we make assumptions on it's meaning, and we make assumptions on its teachings and relevance. What this essentially boils down to it seems is a question that has endured centuries... should the bible be interpreted literally or non literally? and further, a more modern question, being that of how can we know?

The view of the biblical literalist is quite well known and clear. Gods word is "set in stone" and cannot be changed. Because it is Gods word, it must be taken as is because we cannot hope to understand it fully, being as it is His Word.

The view of the biblical interpretist is somewhat different though, and can come from many angles. One view is that God (all knowing as believed) would know that Man could not possibly hopeat the time that the word was given to understand it's true meaning as God would have intended. As such, God would have provided such Words in an allegory context, so that through such human (and therefor flawed) words we could understand his meaning. By such a context, such things as the theory of evolution become plausable, in a context where God gives us the story of Genesis which tells us WHAT he did in a way that our limited minds could understand, but in actual practice, he used the method of evolution to do it. This is no more or less illogical or revisionist than the literalist view. It would also make the whole of science less of a problem for many, and for Christians in particular, it would make science the study of how god did (and does) things. A study of His methods if you like, and the mystery of trying to work out what they are as best we can. It would not be inconcievable to consider that if God gave his word as an allegory, he did so in the knowledge that one day we would grow up and evolve to a state where we could see it as such, and know that the teachings are in the meaning of the WOrd, rather than in the literal stories themselves.

The question of whether literalism or interpretism is little different to asking "what were the intentions and thoughts of God?". The answer of course is that we will never know, but the word was probably given to us in such a form that our best reasoning (of both mind and soul) would likely lead us to follow his intentions.

So what if we take this a bit further... Again, without knowing the unknowable, How can we possibly know that God is not the creator of all? Surely, he is? Some would argue for the work of Satan in creating the worst things in life, but we are told by the Word, that Satan is in fact a created (lesser) being with limited power, and can only work within the authority of God. As such we face the uncomfortable prospect of God creating both Good and Evil - and such is the nature of balance, and it seems likely that if there must be balance, God creatied it for this reason. He did after all create Man "in his own image". No doubt, in such a case, such balance extends everywhere, even into the natural world where we know all to well of the importance of balance (not that I believe for a moment that were are any more than one part of the natural world).

Is it not therefor possible (or even probable) that such a God would create all religions in existance? Is it not possible that HEaven is something that is equally incomprehensible to the living human mind? As such, in the interests of balance, is it possible that God has been trying to show us that the important thing is simply to HAVE faith. It doesn't matter in which religion perhaps, and indeed, each religion has it's own version of Heaven. Perhaps they are in fact all the same religion from different perspectives, thus maintaining the overall balance, where we all go to the same heaven (or hell), but again, each religion seeing a different aspect of it and so coming to different conclusions over what it is?

When we talk of God - the all knowing, the omnipresent, and the utterly incomprehensible (to us), - it seems to me that anything which can exist within the realm of thought equally exists within the realm of possibility, inclusive of any of the many thoughts that the human mind is simply too limited to ever have. It further seems to me that anything that exists, even as thought, also exists within the realms of the probable where all existance is one existance. It is even possible (even probable) that this God actually IS existance itself.

My personal view (unsuprisingly) follows this concept. I believe that while the Christian Bible may indeed say that there is only one path to salvation, that one path is for Christians to follow. After all, If God is as incomprehensible to us as everyone would reasonably agree, there is nothing to really say that he didn't also give the words contained in the sacred texts and concepts of every other religion in existance, perhaps in the interests of balance, perhaps in the interests of something else, or perhaps for both or niether reason, or maybe even as a cosmic joke. As such, I cannot possibly make the assumption of deciding for or against this possibility.

I sincerely doubt that anybody can reasonably profess to be able to answer any such question or possibility definitively. Where a religion calls itself the one true way (as most do), the adherants to that religion may well (and probably should) hold that belief personally. However, I feel that to hold that belief on or against other people would be spiritually arrogant, as to do so makes an assumption on the will and the intent of God (which would potentially be the ultimate case of a false idol!!! lol)

Edit: Wow! I tok an hour and a half to put that little lot into words. lol. Talk about being careful (and obviously, as accurate as possible). Such is the nature of such discussions I guess.

No problem TheWatching. It did come on a bit too strong in the other thread, but forgiveness and understanding are the name of the game The trick is to state things as personal belief rather than fact in a way that's open to intelligent and rational discussion (and of course, to refrain from saying anything that may be inflammatory - such views are held by us all (me too) but are usually better left unsaid rather than to potetially let an emotive subject run out of control. Sorry to have sounded so harsh, but it's hard to condense an intention such as my edit in that thread into a short phrase sometimes.

Also, No problem Vig. After I read your reply, I had to smile myself

The tartans link didn't seem to work.

About the "suffer...witch" statement, I just have to say, once again, OT versus NT. We live under the Grace of God where those OT laws simply do NOT apply. And eye for an eye as an example. If I go to someone and punch them because they punched me, and say, "well, bible says eye for an eye...". That is wrong.
Matthew 5:39: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matthew 5:41: "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."
Or how about Matthew 5:40: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."
Clearly none of these teach us to take vengeance. Which is also clearly taught against in Romans 12:19: "...Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

A true Christian could NEVER possibly conclude to horrid acts as burning or killing people, ever. I blaim ignorance of scripture, twisting of its teaching, and probably Satan himself.

Which leads quite nicely into another subject you brought up, that of literal versus paraphrase. I happen to say literal. We're supposed to live by "every word that procedeth out of the mouth of the LORD." In other words, we don't live by "every thought that...", or, we don't live by "every idea that...". We are supposed to live by every "word".
My logic tells me we are not to rely on the interpretation of men, but the plain black and white words.

Then you talked about translations. While yes, I know we have translation problems, in a big way. Take even the scripture I just talked about, Mathew 4:4: "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Jesus said, "it is written", He was quoting from Deuteronomy 8:3 where it says "...man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD.".
So we have "mouth of the LORD" in the OT but when Jesus quotes it he says "mouth of God". Is that literal or paraphrase? It's different, because it's translated between Hebrew and Greek. But also BOTH quotes were translated into English, in this case KJV.
So a study on the subject would be good.
I do believe that God MUST have a perfect translation for our language. Would go so far as to say for EVERY language that is literally translated. God said His words would "NOT pass away". Now either that means He will always have his perfect word in each language as it is translated. Or that means we will always have a perfect Greek and Hewbrew. Not the originals, mind, they are gone, but the copies we have would have to be considered perfect.
God MUST have His perfect, preserved Word someplace. He said it would "not pass away", and so if we DON'T have any words which can be labeled perfect, then God is not powerful enough to keep a book together? Or He lied when he said His Word wouldn't pass away?

Granted, no matter what English version you read, the basic gospel is there, despite irrelevent, or important, translational word use. You can drive a car with dents in it and scratched up paint and still get to the store. Likewise I think you can read the gospel and be saved with a non-perfect translation. But it is not the BEST. It is not the best car for you, and it is not the best Word for you.
Especially if YOU had the choice of the perfect car and the beat up car, and you choose the beat up car when you had a better one available.
If we only have a bunch of paraphrases and bad translations and skewed text and nothing is what God really said, then we have no reason to put our full trust in its text. And you might as well believe whatever you want.
On the other hand, if God's word does exist and is perfect, you best start believing what it says, and not rationalizing the text to fit your thinking, but let your thinking change to be inline with what God says.

I realize that certain English words may be an OK translation, such as the use of "Church" instead of "congregation". If you do a word study on "church" you will find it leading back to pagan worship of a form of sun god. Whose symbol was a pentagram in a circle. The word "church" also stems from this, sort of means "a gathering", but was originally used for that pagan god.
What is arguable is whether that really means anything TODAY or not? So what if our english word "church" stemed from X which stemed from Y which was a part of sun god worship 5000 years ago. Does ANY person really believe "church" to have any other meaning then what it means today and how we use it? Or should we really be so picky in our word use?
Just because I say I'm "going to church on Sunday", does that really mean deep down in some evil way that I'm saying I'm going to my secret cultish sun god worship "circle"? Who would even know or think that? I certainly don't, so does it matter? Like saying "Amen" instead of "Ahmen" or "easter" versus "resurrection sunday". If sombody uses the term "Easter Sunday", they might literally be talking about the god "Ishtar". But is that really what they mean?
This could be likened to a child who finds a swear word for the first time. They have no idea what they said, but they must be told not to say it.
If a word like "Easter" really means something else (thousands of years ago, translated to English), should we be "learning" and NOT using those terms? Or, use in current meaning and context is fine?

There is no point to that, just that translations and words are an interresting topic to me. The other thing is that, most all English words are taken from other languages anyway, most our words go back to some word used in some old language, so just because it had a pagan meaning then, does it still have a pagan meaning now in a different language? Fascinating stuff, really is.
So if tracing words back thousands of years is irrelevent, then using "church" doesn't mean anything, just a word. If it is relevent, then that word shouldn't be used, and therefore the translation is not perfect, and I must keep searching for the perfect one.

People tend to over-rationalize or over-think things. For a few reasons:
1- Over-rationalize until God makes sense to THEM
2- Over-rationalize until the maximum number of people go to heaven
3- Over-rationalize until their own lives become justified to them

I happen to believe 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
I don't think God would write a book to us and then make the book completely and uterly GREY, so people really don't know what He's saying.
I think, if God says "black is black", what He means is black is really black. Not, "black is a color", or "black could be red or green or yellow", or "black is what you see it is at this time". Or even, "black is really really dark, but it could be many things". You see?
But let's say the gap theory were true, then. Supposed "facts" of today "prove" that everything is billions of years old and man is a result of millions of years of evolution.
Right, so what believers have to do is take these so called "facts", and find a way to cram them into the bible some place. And the only place to do that is in between a couple of the "days" of creation. Supposedly the billions of years happened in there. But what happens to scripture when we do that?
Think about after Adam and Eve, afterwards when God said "it was VERY GOOD". Now why would God say billions of years of death and bloodshed are "very good"? Our fossil records show dinosaurs with cancer and other diseases. We have thorns in our fossil record. So how could those diseases and thorns get there when thorns didn't come until after the curse?
My point is simply that, when people try to cram their ideas into the Bible, it ripples through the entire scriptures right down to the core of the gospel. God said if you eat the fruit of the tree, you will surely die. What does that even mean, then, if there has already been millions of years of death before then?
Now all of a sudden we're doubting the validity of scripture because it doesn't make sense. But the only reason it doesn't make sense is because people have crammed unneeded info where it never belonged, which changed the story entirely.
This is why I would not accept a paraphrase bible, I have to have the very WORDs of God to "live by". Not some guy's paraphrase of a bad translation
All that does is continue to dumb down and water down, over and over, the words we are supposed to live by until those words don't mean anything absolute. For example say a translation simply changes "Jesus" into "he". So "Jesus said..." becomes "he said..." in somebody's translation. What is happening is they are taking away these specifics so nothing is absolute anymore. Eventually somebody can say, "well 'he' could mean ANY religious leader. So the bible is talking about Budha or Gandhi or whatever." And then I would say, "no, 'he' means Jesus", and then Spike would say, "well 'he' can mean Jesus to a Christian, or soandso to someone else."
So the further away from absolutes we go, the harder it is to ever know what God really wants from us.

I just see a lot of "what ifs". And it all makes real good logical sense to our carnal mind. My "what if" is just, "what if what the bible says is God's word from front to back?".
In other words, if you are right, and people just take everything to seriously, then we'll all laugh about it some day in the after-life. But if I am right, and God demands much more than this to enter his kingdom, then some people will not be doing any laughing at all, quite the opposite. And that is a big chance to take.
I'm just saying, if we're going to play the "what if" game, that is one what if you don't want to miss.

Dang, if we keep going like this, TS will have to increase their maximum character limit. lol. I had to edit some text out. Some 2000+ characters.

You are of course perfectly right.

I wasn't really trying to suggest that a christian shouldn't follow the word itself (nor was I trying to say that a christian shouldn't interpret it - as long as the same conclusions are eventually reached it's still Christianity.

I understand what you are saying, though I disagree that the OT is completely irrelevant. The OT is only irrelevant in my eyes where the NT supercedes it, wich it doesn't do completely. Nor does the NT take anything away from the OT. In fact (as with the love thy neighbor comment by Jesus) it actually clarifies the OT and tells people where they've been going wrong by it.

What I was really trying to say was not really summarised by your statement...

I certainly wouldn't mean to say that a christian should believe that. Nor would I actually say it. I WOULD say though that a christian should be aware of the possibility thet while they should personally follow the christian path, and believe that for themselves it's the only way to go, a Christian should also be aware that God as the creator of everything could thus also be the creator of every other religion out there.

This doesn't detract from the Christian faith, nor from the Christian individual. It merely aknowledges that God is indeed incomprehensible, the creator of everything, present in everything, and in that light avoids making an assumption on the rest of Gods creation. To you there may be one God, but to others there may be another. It's all the same God perhaps (quite probably in my own personal view), but he's chosen to present himself in a different way to other groups of people.

OK, I'm muddying the concept again. Essentially I'm saying that we colour the world with our own perceptions (a well known concept. at any time we actually only see about 20% of what's really there usually. The mind fills in the rest for us). If a faith says that it is the only way, that is for us as individuals to know and to follow and place upon ourselves as adherants to that faith, but it shouldn't extend to a different faith of any other person, as to extend it in such a way is to make an assumption.

When it comes to beliefs andd even scripture, it is ALWAYS personal, and never to be the basis of judgement on anyone or anything else. In such circumstances, I believe we should not be simply tolerant, but acceptant also. If for no other reason, then because not doing so starts wars, in which light I think you'll appreciate the old addage that "A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend" - clearly penned by an atheist, but it does still contain an important point somewhere.

I don't think You and I will come to full agreement on this Vig, but at the end of the day that doesn't really matter, ans I'm sure you will agree I will only say that the link I last posted didn't work because of the parenthesis I left on the end of it (if you want to read it), and I shall leave the conversation there.

Thanks.