Do you read the Bible?

[Christian]

I'm not militantly, stubbornly non-religious, I just am. I'm just gonna live my life without fear, without hate.

Thereby subtly implying that anybody who professes a religious belief must be full of fear and hate.

[Paka]

Eh? Oops. Actually, I didn't imply anything of the sort. Sorry!

[Christian]

Okay, sorry for reading into your remarks.

[Loomis]

The following was posted as I was typing all of this up...

I'm sure there are people who follow the Koran who believe it is the only path too. Such is the way with any religion.

Yes, I thought you said you never read the Koran. How could you be sure that their text says that what they believe in is the ONLY path as well? Same with any other religious text that you haven't yet read.

Yes, it is true I have never read the Koran. And I am not claiming that it says one thing or another. If you actually read what I had typed - both in that sentence and above - I was challenging his assumptions that his path was the only one. I said I was sure there are PEOPLE following the Koran who believe that it is the only path. I didn't say what the Koran actually said. The point was on followers, not texts.

You attack MMB for making a statement about proceedings, yet you didn't actually really read what I said and felt the need to slap that down too. My general point is, and has been all along, that every religion is going to interpret any given text in a different way. It is just arrogance to assume we have got something we know nothing about right, particularly when there are so many other conflicting beliefs. No - I haven't read the Koran, yet I haven't rejected it as a basis for a belief system. Nor do I reject Aaron's assumptions - I merely challenge them.

[2099net]

Of course helping other people is a good thing and I donate a certain percentage of my income to charitable causes every month. But in my previous post I wasn't talking about the issue of charity one way or the other. And I wasn't talking about I Love Lucy either. People shouldn't be having pre-marital or extra-marital sex but that doesn't mean once they are married that they should sleep in separate beds. In fact, apart from extenuating circumstances, they shouldn't.

I was just questioning on how people come to the conclusion that there is a moral decline now. TV? No, because TV in the 50's and 60's was so censored by standards and practices it didn't reflect the lives of people at the time accurately (like I say, it wouldn't even show married couples sharing the same bed). Surveys and reports? Perhaps, but such was the stigma of underage pregnancy those days, its doubtful the results matched the actuality. Crime reports? Well, according to the FBI themselves crime rates are falling in the past few year (sadly they only go as far back as 1983) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls

Just as the media of the 50's and 60's didn't reflect the true state of the world at its time, I don't think the media of today reflects a true state of the world today. Where as in the past the media emphasised the wholesome, today the media emphasises the negative more, but it doesn't mean that's all that's happening. Crime figures are falling again, but I guess you wouldn't know that from the news reports.

Things are not perfect, but they never were. There is still a high morality rate today. Since the 50's we've got an increase human rights, from woman's liberation to race relations. We've got a keen interest in protecting the environment for future generations. Most other countries have public, universal health care. We have more domestic charities providing help for everyone from homeless children to abused woman, the mentally ill to those with chemical dependencies. We have international charities, including the UN, that distribute food and provisions to disaster spots all over the world. We have regular peacekeeping missions in areas hit by war and unrest.

So we may get more cursing on TV. We may get more exposed flesh on TV. We may even get more sensationalism in news reporting. Does it really matter? On the whole they only shock due to their "taboo" matter, so exposure will only reduce their power. We're still streets ahead where it really matters, and it would be wrong (in my opinion) just to say morals have declined based on such trivial matters.

I find your comments about morality interesting Aaron. Based on your comments, I get the impression you think the "end times" are almost upon us. I'd like to know on what you base this on? Why pick now as the start? Why are morals going to continue to decline since the 50's (or there-abouts). Why pick that time as the "peak"?

[Christian]

There have always been some people living right and some people living wrong. I have noticed on TV a much greater acceptance of premarital sex lately, even making fun of those who don't do it and who choose to stay faithful to marital vows, that I personally didn't see one or two or three decades ago. I'm talking about specific instances I have seen on shows such as Seinfeld, The Drew Carey Show, Sex in the City, and others. People who only have sex with the person they are married to are portrayed as backwards and non-progressive, like they haven't awakened to the idea that if it feels good then do it. Next to providing food, clothing, and shelter and basic emotional nurturance for their children the next most important thing for parents to do is to teach their children that not every one of their urges must be instantly gratified. But now I see babies in adult bodies demanding that they be allowed to instantly gratify every single one of their urges. My brother is having premarital sex with his girlfriend and one time she told me that I needed to grow up and just accept that that is what people do nowadays. So to grow up I need to accept that people will act like babies? For me to mature I need to accept that people will insist on remaining immature? That is the height, the pinnacle, the zenith of irony. It may very well be that it is just me noticing such an attitude more but the phenomenon is never a good thing.

[2099net]

Well, there's certainly a case for children today being "spoiled", but I'm not sure if that's a moral issue as such. Although I suppose the Bible does state "Honor Thy Parents".

As for premarital sex, I would say it was the introduction of the Pill that has led to this change in attitude. After all, our previous moral base was built upon the fact that contraception was very unrelieable. Now, it's not perfect, but its much better. Would I say premarital sex is unmoral? Not if done responsibly and, most important of all, done with true love as its foundation. Of course, irresponsible sex of any type is morally wrong.

[Loomis]

There have always been some people living right and some people living wrong. I have noticed on TV a much greater acceptance of premarital sex lately, even making fun of those who don't do it and who choose to stay faithful to marital vows, that I personally didn't see one or two or three decades ago. I'm talking about specific instances I have seen on shows such as Seinfeld, The Drew Carey Show, Sex in the City, and others.

I think you are giving TV far too much credit. TV is only a reflection of the times in which we live. More to the point, TV is only a reflection of what the sponsors think we all want.

Do you really think couples in the 1950s and 60s acted like they did on TV? Do you honestly think couples slept in separate beds, had one foot on the floor at all times if sharing the same bed, and Uncle Joe was addicted to soda pop?

Many factors have changed people's attitudes to sex, as 2099net has suggested, the pill is one of these. Do you know in most western countries it was perfectly legal to beat and rape your wife (and that include Australia, UK and the US) up until the 1960s/70s (a legal doctrine known as 'unito caro' - one flesh) simply because that person was your wife? We have moved on since then, thankfully, and thanks to women's lib and an increased level of sex education in schools (although not enough as far as I'm concerned), we have a more frank and open attitude towards sex.

And the fact that you have made this whole judgment on what the world is coming to based on what you "noticed on TV " really worries me.

People who only have sex with the person they are married to are portrayed as backwards and non-progressive, like they haven't awakened to the idea that if it feels good then do it. Next to providing food, clothing, and shelter and basic emotional nurturance for their children the next most important thing for parents to do is to teach their children that not every one of their urges must be instantly gratified.

I don't think people who only have sex with those they are married to are portrayed as backwards. I think it is great if you can find someone you want to spend the rest of your life with. I have and I certainly don't plan on being with anyone else. Doesn't mean I'm wicked does it? We have sex and we aren't married. Still, I suppose being with one person outside of a marriage is still "instant gratification" as far as you are concerned. I just think people who like to "sleep around" are being portrayed less as children of the damned, and more as a socially accepted norm. Different strokes to rule the world...

But now I see babies in adult bodies demanding that they be allowed to instantly gratify every single one of their urges. My brother is having premarital sex with his girlfriend and one time she told me that I needed to grow up and just accept that that is what people do nowadays. So to grow up I need to accept that people will act like babies?

Don't be silly. Babies can't have sex.
See, you say that people are always portraying married couples as backwards for staying with one person - but here you are lumping an entire category of people as "babies" simply because they get laid more often. Now you have every right to your opinion, and I respect you for it, but you can't expect respect in return if you have a go and someone else's lifestyle choice simply because it is not one you approve of.

For me to mature I need to accept that people will insist on remaining immature? That is the height, the pinnacle, the zenith of irony. It may very well be that it is just me noticing such an attitude more but the phenomenon is never a good thing.

For you to be mature, you have to accept that there are people different from yourself and there is nothing you can do about it. There is nothing ironic about it. The 'phenomenon' is called social change. I suppose we could return to a time when sex wasn't spoken about: but it was also a time when rape wasn't reported, domestic and sexual abuse went undetected, and people could fathom child abuse. It may well be that you are JUST noticing these changes, but they've been with us for a long time. In order for you to be truly mature, you have to accept that not everyone shares your opinion, and to most what you call the act of being immature is perfectly normal. To call people babies for wanting to connect with someone in any way they can is the most immature attitude of all.

[Loomis]

And I guess this is just way out of the question:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... nce&s=toys

[cittycatie]

Yeah I read some parts of the bible when I was younger... someof the stories in there I enjoyed reading.

[Christian]

I don't think people who only have sex with those they are married to are portrayed as backwards.

The thing is that I have seen it done.

In order for you to be truly mature, you have to accept that not everyone shares your opinion

I know very well that not everybody thinks the same way.

For you to be mature, you have to accept that there are people different from yourself and there is nothing you can do about it. There is nothing ironic about it. The 'phenomenon' is called social change.

I know very well that not everybody is the same. I left out the part where my brother's girlfriend said in so many words, "It feels good so we do it." Wow, that's very enlightened. They are saying that's the correct way to think and that I need to think the exact same way (no, don't pretend that I'm saying they are forcing me to change my views or you will only cloud the discussion) so it's not really an issue of, "Oh, just accept that people are different."

To call people babies for wanting to connect with someone in any way they can is the most immature attitude of all.

That's entirely missing the point. I never said that there's anything wrong with wanting to connect with somebody. If you cling to the idea that I've implied anything like that then that will just be another way to cloud the discussion. I actually think it's a good thing. But there is a proper way to do it. You don't just print up your own driver's license and go out driving because you feel like it and you're pretty sure you can avoid a crash. Well, I guess some people do and I better just accept it as "social change." "Sure, it's okay if you want to wait until you're 16 and get your license from the Department of Motor Vehicles (or however the law works in your country). We're very tolerant of other people's viewpoints. But if you're really smart you'll just do it yourself whenever you feel like it."

I suppose we could return to a time when sex wasn't spoken about: but it was also a time when rape wasn't reported, domestic and sexual abuse went undetected, and people could fathom child abuse.

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm not advocating prudism, rape, abuse, patriarchal domination, or any other bad thing.

[AwallaceUNC]

Oh man. Just when I thought this thread was winding down, I log in to find a full page of lengthy posts has been added. So I start to respond and get about half-way through it, and my browser just shuts down out of nowhere. Needless to say, I was frustrated, but I've now recollected myself and it's time for round 2.

Who am I? Who are you to say that the Bible is correct, is God's Word, and Jesus is the only way? It is all a matter of opinion, and how much faith we put into our opinions. I never said you are filled with hate. I said I think it is hateful to disrespect other religions just because you think your's is correct. If that is the point of holding your own faith, then I think that too is wrong.

Ok, just a run-down of what's been said thus far:

That is why I am so disgusted by folks who profess their profound devotion to Christ and preach hatred in the same (and the next, and the next) breath. I am sure Loomis has met many of them, here and elsewhere.

I then said I knew a few of them myself, and you said "Earth to Aaron: you are one of them."

There's a big difference between expressing a belief (ex: Jesus is the path to salvation) and attributing negative personal qualities to someone else in the course of a debate. That is what is known as a personal attack. They really bring the entire discussion down a level or two, and they aren't appreciated. I don't hate anyone, and I haven't said anything hateful about or towards anyone in this thread. I denounce beliefs, yes, but not those who hold them. There is no basis for your comment. But we can drop it and move on.

No, I never got a memo claiming you are the friendliest/kindest member of the year.

Then let me direct you to the 1st Annual UD.Com MB Awards

Nope. If it was that clear, there wouldn't be a lot of Christians who believe that you can get to Heaven for being a good person. Nothing is ever that clear in the Bible, that is why there are so many denominations and interpretations of it. You can't literally read a Bible and believe every word when it had to be translated into Hebrew, and then English. Just translating it is interpretation.

Unfortunately, there are many professing Christians who don't read the Bible literally. That speaks only about them, not about the text itself. The Bible is clear when read literally. You keep saying "you can't..." That's not really a valid argument. Obviously, I can, and do. I know the point you're getting at ("you shouldn't"), but perhaps a little tact would better serve that point? (Oh, and just a side-note: the Bible wasn't translated into Hebrew, it was originally written in Hebrew- the OT, anyways. The NT was originally written in Greek).

Aside from the "leaning not unto our own understaning" bit, I don't believe miracles are at all implausible. Again, if God is all-powerful, why would something like Noah's ark be beyond His ability? Besides, few scientists/archeologists/historians dispute that a great global flood occured. They've even found remains of what many archeologists believe may have been Noah's ark. It's the destruction and repopulation of the world that they have a little harder of a time grasping.

If God is all-powerful? Sounds as if you don't even know. So many ifs and buts are involved with your way of thinking.

Yes, He is all-powerful. Please show me in that paragraph you quoted where any ifs and buts were cited.

There, it is bolded.

That was a hypothetical for your benefit. I thought that was clear, but I apologize if it was not. I would think it obvious by now that I'm not undecided as to whether or not God exists.

And you are going to then say that God just provided the whole dang thing, right?

Yes, that is exactly what I have said and will continue to say. God did provide. Miracles aren't miracles because they are rational, everyday occurances.

Well if God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

Several factors contribute to this. The first and most important is that God has a master plan, the purposes and effects of which we can't always (and don't need to) see. The races of the world came as a result of Noah's family repopulating after the flood. God also found favor on Noah, he and his family were the only godly folks left in a world consumed by wickedness. He didn't want to kill them. We also know from end-times scriptures that Noah and the flood occured as a prelude to the way in which the end of the age would come (wicked world, Noah/Christians preach that the rain/end is coming, the people ignore and mock them, the rain/end comes, the faithful are saved from judgment, the world is begun anew after the wicked are purged).

And let me just tell you something about all this "interpretation" business... To interpret something is to explain the meaning of something. You can either interpret something the way you see fit, or you can interpret something literally. If you interpret something literally, you aren't interfering with what you personally think...It's just the literal thing persay. When leaders talk with other leaders, they use an interpreter. I am pretty sure the interpreter is a guy whol will interpret literally what is being said. Not all the time though, since some languages don't freely translate into others, but sometimes the interpreter will say the literal translation. So there is such thing as interpreting something literally. I really can't make it any easier. Now then, next point...

This is exactly the semantics debate we were steering away from (read the last few posts from Loomis and I for reference). This is truly a repetition of those posts.

Well if you take away anything from this thread, please realize that though you may disagree, the perception that everyone believes it is nothing more than a children's story is very much incorrect.

Hmmm, no...I guess not everyone. I meant everyone in a sense like most people. Even many Christians won't accept it as truth, but I guess they will be "dealt with" individually...*shudders*

That, too, is a hasty generalization. I would guess that it's not the case that most Christians don't believe that it occured, but then I don't know. Care to share any stats? Not that it matters, though, it's not a belief popularity contest.

Let me start by saying anything that comes close to disproving the Bible will be probably answered with a swift "GOD MADE IT SO....CAUSE HE CAN...ummm..YEA!" So you have proof, but you don't need to prove them? Hmmm, I guess you don't have proof.

Man doesn't have to conjur up an answer to debunk the science. Literal scripture does that. And that is precisely right- I don't need to prove anything. I didn't say I have proof, either, but that many things in the Bible have been proven by others in the past. The point is that the proof doesn't matter, because faith doesn't hinge upon science, nor is the Bible subject to it.

God doesn't hate anyone.

Read below...

Well you have to remember that I also said that science can't and will never be able to disprove God or the Bible. At best, it may some day appear to. No point in retyping my last post, though. No, God won't suddenly hate science, He hates the deception of the enemy and the motives of some men who seek to disprove the Bible.

Enemy? They wouldn't be an enemy if you didn't hate them, right?

*sigh* More word-twisting. A simple grammar lesson will show that in the bold sentence, the hate references the deception and the motives, not the enemy and the men. As for your question- an enemy is an adversary seeking to harm/foil/obstruct/what-have-you you. You don't have to hate an enemy for them to be one. In fact, God tells us that He loves the enemy, and that we are to love the enemy as well. So the originally-quoted statement that "God doesn't hate anyone" holds true.

I'm not. God has told us exactly what He thinks in the Bible. I do believe that Christians can share the mind of God, which is taught in the New Testament, but that's an entirely different subject.

Cool. So have you personally ever shared the mind of God? Just wondering...and if so, how was it?

To answer your question in the short-run, yes. But if left in the context of your sarcasm, it remains very misleading. When Christians are in a spiritual walk, if you will, with the Holy Spirit, then they can be anointed with the gift of spiritual discernment. That doesn't mean we run around declaring ourselves God.

The Bible doesn't teach anything bad. You may think the belief that homosexuality is sinful is "dangerous," but it doesn't make it any less valid of a point of view. I don't disrespect other's right to believe it is not a sin. *Sighs at the likelihood of this now becoming a debate on homosexuality*

Pinch me if I'm wrong, but isn't sinful and bad the same thing essentially?

Yes. I'm not sure I get your point. I didn't say "The Bible doesnt teach that anything is bad," but that "The Bible doesn't teach anything bad," as in, none of its teachings are bad.

When did I mention a specific race? It seems you are the one who assumed. And no, that is not at all taught in the Bible. So can you please explain how you are relating good deeds to slavery, because I apparently didn't make that mental leap with you.

You didn't mention a specific race, but where did the race card come from? I didn't mention a race at all. I mentioned slavery. Does slavery belong to a race? No. So why is there even a race card? I am relating good deeds with the abolishment of slavery (in most parts of the world at least), I'm sorry you couldn't make the mental leap.

And here is yet another personal attack. Did I say I couldn't make the mental leap? No. I said I didn't. This really needs to stop if this thread is to continue.

Oh, but you did say that I was addressing a specific race:

It really bugs me when the race card is played when it doesn't relate at all. Perhaps you can explain to me how you got pro-slavery remarks out of what I said?

I feel like a 4th-grader saying this...but since when did slavery belong to a specific race? Or is that what is taught in the Bible? Most every race or nationality has had slavery in it's history.

So I'm happy to see that we are now agreed that I did not. The "race card" is a catch phrase used when people try to change the subject in a debate by bringing in race, racism, slavery, etc. when it does not relate. So you're telling me that from me saying that good deeds won't get you to Heaven, you think I was disrespecting the abolishment of slavery? No, I'm still not following.

The Christian life doesn't get worse at all. It's the overall state of the souls of the world. The decline is the fault of Satan, not God, and it is the demise that eventually brings on Jesus' return.

Ohhhh, just the overal state of the souls of the world...Wait a minute, that sounds worse! And do you have some sort of meter reader that tells you what the current state of the world is each second? Because I don't know how else you can withhold such desired information...

.

No. I don't see where I said that I did have such a meter. God does know the state of souls, though, which is what the scripture that was originally referenced in this particular segment of the discussion refers to.

I tried reading it when I was younger, but I couldn't understand it Oh well

It can be very difficult to read when you're young, as it's on a much more advanced reading level. You should give it a try now that you're older.

C'mon, MMb. Do we really need snarky asides in this thread? They're almost more annoying than the "stop fighting!" or "you shouldn't discuss these things here!" posts that come through every few pages. e_e

Agreed.

[Note: In PrinceAli's post following Paka's, I was quoted. It was actually Dacp who spoke. No biggie, I even agree w/ him... it's just for the record. ]

You attack MMB for making a statement about proceedings, yet you didn't actually really read what I said and felt the need to slap that down too.

Yes, that's becoming just a bit of a problem. At least we made it 10 pages!!!

I find your comments about morality interesting Aaron. Based on your comments, I get the impression you think the "end times" are almost upon us. I'd like to know on what you base this on? Why pick now as the start? Why are morals going to continue to decline since the 50's (or there-abouts). Why pick that time as the "peak"?

I didn't mean to suggest that the '50s were any sort of peak, though I can see where it sounded like that. I was just using the last 50 years as a nice, round number, and one that people here have a slightly better perspective on. I'm not sure I can arbitrarily finger a starting point of moral decline, that would certainly require more study.

I do believe the end-times are approaching, but I'm not sure how soon your frame of thinking is when you say "almost." I do think it will probably be within my lifetime. It may be a little after that, we can't really know. It will be within the next century, though. There's a lot that goes into my basis for this. I can go into them, but then we run the risk of veering into a new discussion. Do you want to hear them?

And before the "Jesus said no one knows when the end will be" argument comes up-- and it always does-- let me just encourage those to continue reading in Matthew 24. Jesus says that no one knows the day or the hour, but that just as when trees deleaf/bloom, we know the season, we can know the season of the end by the signs.

-Aaron

[PrinceAli]

I then said I knew a few of them myself, and you said "Earth to Aaron: you are one of them."

There's a big difference between expressing a belief (ex: Jesus is the path to salvation) and attributing negative personal qualities to someone else in the course of a debate. That is what is known as a personal attack. They really bring the entire discussion down a level or two, and they aren't appreciated. I don't hate anyone, and I haven't said anything hateful about or towards anyone in this thread. I denounce beliefs, yes, but not those who hold them. There is no basis for your comment. But we can drop it and move on.

I know there is a big difference between expressing belief and atrributing negative personal qualities. I didn't mean you, as in you preach hatred...but rather you disrespect of what other religions preach, not the people. But still hateful enough for me. And no, I didn't want to drop it when you made me sound like I attacked you.

Unfortunately, there are many professing Christians who don't read the Bible literally. That speaks only about them, not about the text itself. The Bible is clear when read literally. You keep saying "you can't..." That's not really a valid argument. Obviously, I can, and do. I know the point you're getting at ("you shouldn't"), but perhaps a little tact would better serve that point? (Oh, and just a side-note: the Bible wasn't translated into Hebrew, it was originally written in Hebrew- the OT, anyways. The NT was originally written in Greek).

Ok, I am not saying it is necessarily BAD to read the Bible literally. Do what you want, that's good. But I think when reading the Bible literally you should keep in mind that the Bible has been though so many translations of English and before that Hebrew, and Aramaic. The majority of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The Word of God in the New Testament was originally given in the Aramaic language, according to strong historical evidence, and then translated into Greek. I'd like to know where you got your information though.

But also, I did look into the Bible and re-read much of the Noah's Ark story. Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens. So I can see that even if you read it literally it is very hard to understand...

That was a hypothetical for your benefit. I thought that was clear, but I apologize if it was not. I would think it obvious by now that I'm not undecided as to whether or not God exists.

LOL, obviously. But that wasn't what I was talking about, it was whether or not God was omnipotent, or "all-powerful".

Several factors contribute to this. The first and most important is that God has a master plan, the purposes and effects of which we can't always (and don't need to) see. The races of the world came as a result of Noah's family repopulating after the flood. God also found favor on Noah, he and his family were the only godly folks left in a world consumed by wickedness. He didn't want to kill them. We also know from end-times scriptures that Noah and the flood occured as a prelude to the way in which the end of the age would come (wicked world, Noah/Christians preach that the rain/end is coming, the people ignore and mock them, the rain/end comes, the faithful are saved from judgment, the world is begun anew after the wicked are purged).

I knew it would come to this...the master plan. I never really liked the master plan and it turned me off from Christianity a lot. I wonder if He will kill innocent animals next time around though.

But seriously now. Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc........................

That, too, is a hasty generalization. I would guess that it's not the case that most Christians don't believe that it occured, but then I don't know. Care to share any stats? Not that it matters, though, it's not a belief popularity contest.

I don't really have stats they prove that, but I don't really need proof... LOL j/k. But, do you have any stats?

Man doesn't have to conjur up an answer to debunk the science. Literal scripture does that. And that is precisely right- I don't need to prove anything. I didn't say I have proof, either, but that many things in the Bible have been proven by others in the past. The point is that the proof doesn't matter, because faith doesn't hinge upon science, nor is the Bible subject to it.

Well then how do you expect me to believe that it's been proven?

*sigh* More word-twisting. A simple grammar lesson will show that in the bold sentence, the hate references the deception and the motives, not the enemy and the men. As for your question- an enemy is an adversary seeking to harm/foil/obstruct/what-have-you you. You don't have to hate an enemy for them to be one. In fact, God tells us that He loves the enemy, and that we are to love the enemy as well. So the originally-quoted statement that "God doesn't hate anyone" holds true.

I feel loved now!

To answer your question in the short-run, yes. But if left in the context of your sarcasm, it remains very misleading. When Christians are in a spiritual walk, if you will, with the Holy Spirit, then they can be anointed with the gift of spiritual discernment. That doesn't mean we run around declaring ourselves God.

I guess if you read what I said outloud it would sound as if I was being sarcastic, but I really was sincere. So is it almost like meditating in a prayer fashion or something?

Yes. I'm not sure I get your point. I didn't say "The Bible doesnt teach that anything is bad," but that "The Bible doesn't teach anything bad," as in, none of its teachings are bad.

Ah, but this is what you said.

You may think the belief that homosexuality is sinful is "dangerous," but it doesn't make it any less valid of a point of view.

So there is a belief that homosexuality is sinful, and sinful means wicked, which is also bad. I personally think that teaching is bad.

The "race card" is a catch phrase used when people try to change the subject in a debate by bringing in race, racism, slavery, etc. when it does not relate. So you're telling me that from me saying that good deeds won't get you to Heaven, you think I was disrespecting the abolishment of slavery? No, I'm still not following.

Again, I will ask you. Why is slavery part of the race card? It has little to do with race. Slavery is when a person is owned by another person. You can't think slavery only in terms of the American South. So since I did NOT bring in anything that had to do with race, why did you say I brought in the race card?

About what I was meaning to say about slavery is simply that it is a good deed when someone abolishes it. But you said good deeds don't amount to much. Well think of all the good people now that wouldn't be able to do what they do if slavery hadn't been abolished. I'm simply trying to show you that good deeds do amount to much. No more, no less.

No. I don't see where I said that I did have such a meter.

Exactly. That is why I asked if you did have one.

You attack MMB for making a statement about proceedings, yet you didn't actually really read what I said and felt the need to slap that down too.

I'm sorry you felt that was a "slap down", but I did read what you said. If I can't disagree with a point you make, I don't know how this debate will survive. But anyway, lets just say that the Koran is a book of peace which just teaches good morals and stuff, since none of us has actually read it through. What if in the Koran's teaching, it says that it isn't the only path? So how can people claim it is the only path if they follow it? I know this is silly that I am basing this on an assumption that they would teach that, but since we don't know for sure....how can you be sure that some PEOPLE will claim it is the only way? But you know what...I think I know a name of the another topic. Does anyone read the Koran?

Now excuse me while I stoop down to MMB's level and get this out of my system...


Yea MMB....TAKE THAT!

"Now back to your scheduled programming"

Wow....so unnecessary

[AwallaceUNC]

But still hateful enough for me. And no, I didn't want to drop it when you made me sound like I attacked you.

Well all I can do is tell you that there's no hate there. If you insist that I am hateful nonetheless, I'll regrettably leave you to that opinion. The "drop it" was an olive branch. You did attack me. But if you don't want to drop it, then fine, we can go on yelling, calling names, and sticking our tongues out at one another.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. That was later recorded in Greek. In that sense, you could say it was translated from what they heard to what they wrote, but then, I don't believe God left it open to their own perceptions, it was He who chose the words that went down.

But also, I did look into the Bible and re-read much of the Noah's Ark story. Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens. So I can see that even if you read it literally it is very hard to understand...

Ah, I meant to mention that in my first post about Noah, but forgot. It distinguishes which kinds of animals came in 2s and which came in 7s. The differences in animal types is covered in Leviticus as well. There's a lot of Biblical numerology to be studied in that, too, but I don't know enough about it to get into it.

LOL, obviously. But that wasn't what I was talking about, it was whether or not God was omnipotent, or "all-powerful".

lol, well, He is.

But seriously now. Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc........................

You forget that back then, people lived for very, very long periods of time. They also had many, many, many, many children. Those children grew up and began to marry and have children at much younger ages than they do typically do now. Noah's family split up and traveled after the flood, so the population growth spread out across the globe quickly, as well. Also, I'm not totally sure, but it may be that this occured prior to what we now know as incest being banned, which would have increased the population as well.

That, too, is a hasty generalization. I would guess that it's not the case that most Christians don't believe that it occured, but then I don't know. Care to share any stats? Not that it matters, though, it's not a belief popularity contest.

I don't really have stats they prove that, but I don't really need proof... LOL j/k. But, do you have any stats?

No, though I'm sure I could find some. But then I didn't make a definitive claim, did I? I only said I would guess.

Well then how do you expect me to believe that it's been proven?

Frankly, I don't. As long as you need proof as the underlying basis to your faith, you won't really achieve faith. But if you do want to know what sorts of evidence has been found, I would suggest objective research.

I feel loved now!

Good!

To answer your question in the short-run, yes. But if left in the context of your sarcasm, it remains very misleading. When Christians are in a spiritual walk, if you will, with the Holy Spirit, then they can be anointed with the gift of spiritual discernment. That doesn't mean we run around declaring ourselves God.

I guess if you read what I said outloud it would sound as if I was being sarcastic, but I really was sincere. So is it almost like meditating in a prayer fashion or something?

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd describe it in those terms. In fact, it is a difficult thing for me to articulate. A lot of Paul's writings in the New Testament deals with this. It's more like a communication with the Holy Spirit (and indeed, prayer is a form of that communication) in which His spirit moves our's.

Yes. I'm not sure I get your point. I didn't say "The Bible doesnt teach that anything is bad," but that "The Bible doesn't teach anything bad," as in, none of its teachings are bad.

Ah, but this is what you said.

You may think the belief that homosexuality is sinful is "dangerous," but it doesn't make it any less valid of a point of view.

So there is a belief that homosexuality is sinful, and sinful means wicked, which is also bad. I personally think that teaching is bad.

My point, of course, is that the teaching isn't bad. God is truth, God is righteousness. After all, it is God that established good from bad to begin with.

Again, I will ask you. Why is slavery part of the race card? It has little to do with race. Slavery is when a person is owned by another person. You can't think slavery only in terms of the American South. So since I did NOT bring in anything that had to do with race, why did you say I brought in the race card?

And again I will tell you that it's a catch phrase. I'm surprised you haven't heard it before. To "play the race card," an allusion to poker or other card games, is to drag race, slavery, or sometimes even other divisive issues into a discussion when it isn't related. I do not think of slavery solely in terms of the American South. But to say that slavery has little to do with race is to be erroneous. Not all slavery has been race-based, but most of it (again, not all) has been at least class-based, and much of it based on race or nationality.

About what I was meaning to say about slavery is simply that it is a good deed when someone abolishes it. But you said good deeds don't amount to much. Well think of all the good people now that wouldn't be able to do what they do if slavery hadn't been abolished. I'm simply trying to show you that good deeds do amount to much. No more, no less.

I still say your intentions were suspect. A lot more went into abolishing slavery than just a good deed. But I'm not arguing that good deeds are in any way bad. And yes, they can (and often do) make a difference on Earth. They make no difference, however, in salvation.

But anyway, lets just say that the Koran is a book of peace which just teaches good morals and stuff, since none of us has actually read it through.

Wait, using your logic, if none of us have read it, how can any of us say that it is a book of peace that teaches good morals? How about we just play it safe and say, "The Koran is a book that some people read and follow."

What if in the Koran's teaching, it says that it isn't the only path? So how can people claim it is the only path if they follow it?

I may not have read the Koran, but I know enough about it to know that it does not teach that. But again, I haven't yet read it, so I'll just leave it at that.

Wow....so unnecessary

You took the words right out of my...er...fingers.

-Aaron

[DDMAN26]

Well here are my quiz results. I figure I should contribute again since I started this topic

Here are my results:

1.  Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2.  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (95%)
3.  Eastern Orthodox (90%)
4.  Roman Catholic (90%)
5.  Jehovah's Witness (90%)
6.  Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (84%)
7.  Orthodox Quaker (77%)
8.  Seventh Day Adventist (75%)
9.  Orthodox Judaism (72%)
10.  Bahá'í Faith (69%)
11.  Islam (63%)
12.  Sikhism (58%)
13.  Liberal Quakers (55%)
14.  Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (50%)
15.  Hinduism (48%)
16.  Unitarian Universalism (47%)
17.  Reform Judaism (46%)
18.  Jainism (38%)
19.  Neo-Pagan (37%)
20.  Secular Humanism (33%)
21.  Mahayana Buddhism (30%)
22.  Scientology (28%)
23.  Theravada Buddhism (28%)
24.  New Age (27%)
25.  New Thought (27%)
26.  Nontheist (23%)
27.  Taoism (18%)

[Loomis]

Ok, here is another crack at the bible thing. I'd like to paraphrase a theory put forward by Bill Hicks for much of this, but it is point I forgot to make earlier, before being distracted by the whole sex thing.

People who believe in the Bible as the literal word, would believe that it is the history of the world up until that point, right? It does, after all, outline creation and much of history up until that point.

Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

Dinosaurs.

If the bible is a literal word of god outlining the history of the earth and dinosaurs existed, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the Bible at some point.

"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big lizard, Lord!'

But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.

So with all the dinosaur fossils, where do you think they fit into god's scheme? Or did he neglect to mention one of his most impressive creations in the books of creation?

[Todd_star]

Omg, I coulden`t belive that so many of you were christians..
I am not, I have not read the bibel..
I respect that people belive in god and all that, but for me it`s just nonsense, it`s all a myth just like what the romans and vikings belived in for thousands of years ago.
I think that religion is judgemental and has nothing to do with love, love divides, religion is an ide that someone forces down on you.
My mother was raised by a very christian father and had a very bad childhood. She is now a non beliver ans she never really was, because she was forced to do that and don`t do that in the name of god all the time. And the issue they have with gay people is just silly, gay people is just as normal as any other man or woman.
Sorry if someone got offended..

[AwallaceUNC]

Dinosaurs have plenty of room in Biblical history. Whether it lines up with science's time frame, I'm not sure, but I don't put much stock in their timing methods. They would have been around with man, though. However, the only person around at first was Adam. He was given dominion over all the creatures and named them, and then Eve came along, and they eventually had children. The Bible teaches that they lived in peace with all the creatures at first, though.

The original Hebrew references animals that aren't identifiable today. They translate to dragon, beheameth, great creature, sea serpent, etc. One word is believed to have possibly been the Hebrew root of the word dinosaur today.

Todd, which country are you from? Forcing a religion on others really is a terrible thing. It's not as if it is bettering them in any way. Another's unfortunate actions or experiences, though, speaks only about that person, not about the basis they suggest their actions are based on. If someone doesn't follow a recipe correctly and the food tastes terrible, it doesn't mean the recipe was wrong. I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but you believe that love is divisive? What are your beliefs on love then (not necessarily romantic love, but love in general), then, I wonder?

-Aaron

[poco]

wow! some have a lot of time on their hands to reply as much as they do!!!!!

Anyway, I did belief net and here are my results if any care to know:

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (86%)
3. Liberal Quakers (82%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (75%)
5. Roman Catholic (75%)
6. Unitarian Universalism (73%)
7. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (71%)
8. Reform Judaism (70%)
9. Seventh Day Adventist (69%)
10. Hinduism (62%)
11. Sikhism (54%)
12. Orthodox Judaism (50%)
13. Islam (46%)
14. Bahá'í Faith (46%)
15. Neo-Pagan (45%)
16. New Thought (44%)
17. Theravada Buddhism (42%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (42%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (40%)
20. Scientology (40%)
21. New Age (40%)
22. Secular Humanism (38%)
23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (38%)
24. Taoism (36%)
25. Jainism (28%)
26. Jehovah's Witness (27%)
27. Nontheist (19%)

[Disneykid]

Here are my results:

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (93%)
3. Seventh Day Adventist (81%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (76%)
5. Roman Catholic (76%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (59%)
8. Islam (53%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (53%)
10. Liberal Quakers (52%)
11. Jehovah's Witness (50%)
12. Unitarian Universalism (46%)
13. Hinduism (46%)
14. Bahá'í Faith (45%)
15. Jainism (39%)
16. Reform Judaism (38%)
17. Sikhism (36%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (35%)
19. Theravada Buddhism (34%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (32%)
21. Neo-Pagan (32%)
22. Secular Humanism (30%)
23. New Age (28%)
24. Scientology (28%)
25. Taoism (24%)
26. Nontheist (21%)
27. New Thought (20%)

That sounds fairly spot-on to what I'm like even though I consider myself non-denominational. With all the intense debating going on at the moment, I'm not even gonna (re)TRY to get in. Besides, Aaron's doing a splendid job, already. ::watches from a corner with a bucket of popcorn::