2011, DO you beleive it?

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:

...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. ...with biblical words being the basis for that sympathy.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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").

Click to expand...

AMEN!

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, living by it, and being a calm and peaceful person rather than some kind of holy crusader.

Click to expand...

AMEN again!

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.

Click to expand...

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...

In order to go up, one simply has to grow in Christ, ...

Click to expand...

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...

and then Spike would say, "well 'he' can mean Jesus to a Christian, or soandso to someone else."

Click to expand...

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.

I personally have no faith and do no choose to believe in anything really. Which would label me as an Atheist i believe, and no that doesn't not mean a "Satan worshipper" for the biased douches.

I choose to do this because i know of no religion that is tolerant of other relgions. There is constant flaming between relgions all the time because "We're right and your not!". The way i see it is, there are hundreds, thousands? of relgions in the world. How are you going to chose one and believe it is true?

It's like looking through a list of new 1 terabyte harddrives with all the same specs and trying to decide which is right, so you then go with a brand that you have always trusted or have heard are good and go with it.

There are new relgions formed everyday, yes some may be called cults but there is no difference really. Both are organized groups of people that share believes. We label the ones that have some rituals or beliefs that are morally wrong to us or the majority of people in the world as wrong or evil. Sacrifical offers and such.

Religion is set on rankings of how unbelievable it is. We see Greek Mythology as complete BS because theres no way a guy is going to strike us down with lightning bolts. Well really whats the difference, God creating the Earth in 7 days and then putting Adam and Eve on the earth.

Take this story for example we read it at school one year and i don't really remember all of it: Government is testing a nuclear bomb on a certain area, they have the blast area marked off. On the edge of the blast area there is a tribe of indians or somethings like that. Well in there religion there God is a giant cat like a Panter i believe. Well the blast goes off and TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED they say that it was there God clashing with his rival.

I mean whose to say anything at all really? For all we know our universe could be a single cell inside of another being's body. The earth being a mitochondria maybe? Men in Black theory here man haha.

I'm done blabbing, have to go eat. Also, i'm simply stating my beliefs and reason i have those beliefs in this post. I'm not flaming you for believing in God or anything. You believing in God doesn't effect me , why should i care?

Your premise is a valid onme, and one which philosophers have battled with fo millenia. Of course, the logical conclusion can be sometimes brout to an intolerance of all religion which is very wrong.

The one thing you state I disagree with is ...

I choose to do this because i know of no religion that is tolerant of other relgions. There is constant flaming between relgions all the time because "We're right and your not!". The way i see it is, there are hundreds, thousands? of relgions in the world. How are you going to chose one and believe it is true?

Click to expand...

...purely because it is that actions of man that are at fault, not the religion itself usually. The trick is indeed to aknowledge the potential validity of any religion for other people while accepting that you believe your religion to be the only way for you personally. Or at the absolute leaset, tolerance of other people and their beliefs.

It's funny what can happen here, when we start talking about tolerance. It is a concept that some misundertand I think. To fully devote one's self to one's belief and faith, a faith which teaches that there really is only one way, it is really literally impossible for a true believer of this kind to acquiesce to another's belief system and say, "Ya that is true for you and just as valid as my way."
I am not saying that you cannot believe that, you have the right do so. I am saying that it doesn't make much sense to expect someone that is really dedicated to their belief only as the whole truth, for them to say ya yours is just as true as mine, "for you".
Such a watered down faith, that tolerates other faiths as really true, cannot possibly, would not possibly be strong enough or absolute for me to even put my faith in. Hope this makes sense. I do not believe that all faiths lead to the same mountain. Or to divinity. I am what you would call intolerant of other faiths. And have every hope that God would show those "lost souls" the way.
And last but not least, it is not my job to cram it down anyone's throat, not my intention at all, but rather it is my job to share my faith, and it is God's job to bring light to the eyes and conviction to the soul of every man and woman as He sees fit.

P.S. Please don't delete this, I am trying to be objective

TheWatching: If you can't see all views of something how can you fully understand it?

Heres something for everyone religious to think about. I'm guessing you got your religious beliefs from your parents. They brought you to church when you were little and the church taught you the religion and you continued going. And you are fully devoted to this religion and believe in it deeply. Say the parents were catholic.
Now imagine you were born during the time period where greek mythology was believed all over. Your parents teach you the ways of that religion and about sacrifical offers and such. You would then believe deeply,no you would simply know that you must make the gods happy or bad things will happen.

Humans learn from the time they are born from what is around them. You could teach a child to pray to "Turd" instead of God(not mocking just an example). And as long as they weren't taught different they would continue praying to Turd.

Also, i do believe there may be a higher power, but I and none of us have any way of knowing. I do not think that if there is a god he needs me to worship him as "God" is suppose to love all of his children(Humans). Children should not have to bow down to there father but stand beside him.
I live my life to what i think is right and moral, and the day i die this "God" can then decide if i have lived my life to what he thinks is worthy of going to "heaven".

TheWatching said:

It's funny what can happen here, when we start talking about tolerance. It is a concept that some misundertand I think. To fully devote one's self to one's belief and faith, a faith which teaches that there really is only one way, it is really literally impossible for a true believer of this kind to acquiesce to another's belief system and say, "Ya that is true for you and just as valid as my way."
I am not saying that you cannot believe that, you have the right do so. I am saying that it doesn't make much sense to expect someone that is really dedicated to their belief only as the whole truth, for them to say ya yours is just as true as mine, "for you".
Such a watered down faith, that tolerates other faiths as really true, cannot possibly, would not possibly be strong enough or absolute for me to even put my faith in. Hope this makes sense. I do not believe that all faiths lead to the same mountain. Or to divinity. I am what you would call intolerant of other faiths. And have every hope that God would show those "lost souls" the way.
And last but not least, it is not my job to cram it down anyone's throat, not my intention at all, but rather it is my job to share my faith, and it is God's job to bring light to the eyes and conviction to the soul of every man and woman as He sees fit.

P.S. Please don't delete this, I am trying to be objective

Click to expand...

I won't delete it. It's a fairly objective post. I'm not some kind of ogre you know. First and foremost I'm a member. Moderating comes second (as long as I behave - contrary to popular belief it's actually quite difficult to do something wrong on one hand and then be seen to genuinely reprimand yourself for it. lol).

I have to say that I'm in partial agreement with WindowsMonopoly on that one. However, I would say that what I suggest is not unreasonable to ask of any religious person in the context of my previous post. What you believe is indeed what you believe. The strength your faith can be as storng as anything on this earth - that purely depends how secure you are in your own faith, which I imagine is very secure. I personally cannot see that someone so secure in their personal conviction that their religion is the one true way cannot conceive of even an outside chance that God created all religions and told them all they were the one true way, intending their adherants to follow them as such for some utterly ineffible mysterious reason. That detracts niether from your faith, nor anybody elses.

I suppose it's like a bit of a cosmic guessing game in that respect, where you might say to yourself something like... "Well, I picked my religion, and from the perspective of other people I may have picked the wrong one, and they picked the right one. I can't prove them wrong because they are only my own beliefs, but as far as I am concerned personally I backed the winning horse. Their beliefs are as valid as mine and they have as much right to their own beliefs as I do, even if I strongly disagree with them personally."

...except on sundays. No gambling on a Sunday - you need a different analogy for the sabbath (just kidding).

vailid points made by all.

so can it be said (by summing up the arguments present) that a person is most influenced by what he's familiar with - the comunity, the race, the culture (and therefore the basis of a religion), upbringing etc?

In the end, whether one was taught in a certain manner to be part of their lifestyle and 'culture'/personality/intelect, thats them whether we like it or not. And ultimatly wouldnt change their personality just because you've "bible-bashed" (as a common term used, not to be offensive) that person to your views, in which flames and major disagreements start happening. The person would have to make a consious decision to change, and if he is truly faithful to it stick to the changes he made. For better or for worse some would say. Take the story of those people that was on the news recently (well on 60Minutes here in australia) about these two people who was never taught to walk, and just lived their lives on their hands and knees (four "legged").. unfortunatly i didnt quite get to watch the entire docu so i wont say much from that. But google is a "friend" so i'll probably read up on it, if there is interests..

\\this next paragraph is from a christian perspective (the only one i can say something from ), and relate to some of the aspects of christianity, so either bear with me or move on to the next , i'm not up for making a flame war...\\

Even if some christians that "tolerate" other religions they should not be considered as weak in faith, rather that God teaches us to repect and love one another as people, not as their religion or social status, not only our brothers and sisters in Christ. Its realy a disclaimer that you would trust your God that he is God, and that the other person's God should not affect your own beliefs, and that you also don't bow or worship the other God(s), as stated in the Bible for us christians... Rather with the attitude that when that person is ready, he is ready.. like i've written above..


Words do get lost in translation, since some languages dont have equals to a word, or may even have multiple meanings to another. If you do want to see exactly the "original" words of the Bible (the word-of-mouth-passed-down-to-generations version), then by all means learn ancient greek and hebrew.. then try translating into english lol. You'll see that some words are hard to translate, having no equivilant and others that can mean a multiple of things, yet the same.

There are new relgions formed everyday, yes some may be called cults but there is no difference really. Both are organized groups of people that share believes. We label the ones that have some rituals or beliefs that are morally wrong to us or the majority of people in the world as wrong or evil. Sacrifical offers and such.

Click to expand...

Heck this is true.. even in ancient times, one person would say "this tree is GOD", and he would be worshiping it or others, and therefore making the tree a religion or diety. Its all boils down to humans and the word "choice" (doesnt that remind you of the Matrix movies hehe ) and our own free will (or those whome belives in conspiracy theories says "to a point"). Even one would argue the workplace or a social gathering is a form of "religion" or "church" in that context. Its all just a play on words, and what we percieve to be its meaning, either true or false, and times do change, and so does some of the meanings of words and the actual language. Like how at one stage French was considered the "global" language, then English came through instead (with some words absorbed from different languages due to this). Thats why you hear at the Olympic Games the country or local/national dialect is spoken first, then english, then french. its all become history.
Second part of the quote is quite true to a point, but for most they would apply to those whome been brandid "extremists".. at least the sacrificing bit. But there are those who do so just because they are that way.

I'll stop there in fear of rambling on. I tried to be as unbiased as i could, only limited to my scope of words and my stomach telling me i've been writing too much and need food

Again, If i've offended someone, then by so PM me, or forgive me .. either way lets try and prove that a thread with religion in the topics can be objective and not end in closure, and keep other "conversations" seperate..

EDIT: seems like spike replied while typing this up..

Spike said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think its funny how you consider the lack of a "cure" to be proof that something is not considered a problem. We don't have a cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS, so we don't have a problem there I suppose?

Not at all. I consider that the fact the major concensus of medical opinion says that it's not a problem. The fact that they tried so hard for so long in so many ways to "cure" it only lends support. It proves nothing. I've already said, in agreement with Vig, that the reality is a long and complex debate, and I'm not getting into that here. It has nothing to do with the thread. It was purely used as a contextual example.

Your question is based on an incorrect interpretation of my what I said. It really needs no answer. This thread is not going to degenerate along such lines.

I posted that as a joke, not supposed to go too much into it. Interesting tho. But I feel its quite pointless arguing about religion, most of the time it changes nothing.

No problem, but it had to be answered purely for the way it was written.

It's just as well that nobody's arguing then It's just a discussion. A pretty deep one, but hey. It could be argued that converstion itself is pointless because it doesn't actually do anything, but there's an obvious flaw to such a concept. Let us not have to close a thread because people are complaining that something wrong ISN'T happening. That would just be far too ironic for my liking.