Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I was just thinking about God.

I was thinking as I was praying this morning, and feeling rather disheartened. I have come to the realisation that our divine father does not have our best interests at heart (even if he has a heart).

How can us believers in God support and uphold our institutions as good things? They soak up money to build pretty buildings. Most of our members pay lip service. We pick and choose what to follow based on our own beliefs.

I think our God is not good. He is using us like a lab experiment – giving us mixed and clouded messages to follow. Leaving us vulnerable and deluded. Over half of our followers hate us as trans people, they tell us it is a lifestyle choice, that we are sinful. We spend countless riches on churches and religious cultery. Look at how much suffering we have just on this forum at the hands of our fellow faithful.

Now clearly god is kind of confused, unless I am missing something. Why is the old testament so different from the new? Why did we have this wrathful and vengeful god who supports intolerance, and causes atrocities. But then we get his son Jesus who preaches love above all things (which is a beautiful message). And what does he do? He kills Jesus. That is freaking barbaric. Sacrificing your kid is not an act of love. He died for our sins, yet we still have sin in the world. What is up with that? What did he achieve? War, hate, intolerance. It does not make any sense. I'm starting to believe one of the old herasies that we have god and the devil mixed up.

When it comes down to it I am going to fight him with all my might.

He can keep his hell and his heaven, I'm going to go my own way.

This is not a question of faith. It is a question of right and wrong.

So this is what I propose. Imagine this, how about we sell every church in the world, every religious artefact, sacked all the priests and preachers. Instead of going to church, or bible study, we spent that time working on how to overcome world problems, get out hands dirty and build safe communities. We would be able to get rid of world hunger and homelessness and improve human rights. Let's do it people, who is with me? You can't deny this is a cool idea, an exciting idea. You can't tell me this is wrong. I believe it with a passion. I have faith it would work. What do you think?

I am currently going through an Atheistic phase, but could well return to a faith.  It happens from time to time. 
It sounds like you are blaming God for the activities of human beings,  acting as part of organisations that are run by people who think they have a direct line to God.

I could never get my head around the whole sacrificial thing, as it doesn't make sense if God is omniscient.  It is a heretical notion.  I decided that Jesus didn't actually even have to be the "Son of God", but if he is accepted hypothetically as such,  then a God who can forgive even his son's murder can only be a God of love and compassion. 

I have discarded the God idea for the moment for other reasons, and am still living a good and happy life.  If you can find a set of beliefs that works for you, then it is all good.  If you believe in an omniscient God, then he knows what you are going through.

I'd suggest reading the books of  Bishop Shelby Spong, for a GLBTI embracing approach to the Church.

Karen.

Hi

I'm not Christian. I am Panthiest. We believe in a balance and unity of all things on this mother earth. Part of my belief is to respect all other religions so i've been talking to and researching a lot of them out of general curiousity

From what I gather of Christianity... it is very different from its Christians.
Even your bible was written by humans - not your God. If this is the faith you want to be, then don't let the acts of mere mortals sway you. And probably don't believe too much that's written in an old book by old men.

Belief is an important part of being human.. it's what gives us strength when we're down and direction when we're lost.
I know that i have often turned to the earth and spirits for guidance and they've yet to let me down.

I also agree, it would be nice to see a world united for the greater good... but i think we'd just then fight over what that "good" is   :(

OP:

I think you are struggling more concerning the injustices of humanity rather than the injustices of God.

Remember, for every person paying lip service to God or taking advantage of people in God's name, there are those who feed the sick, cloth the poor, and give shelter to the homeless. There are those who fight with their lives to defend LGBT people, who fight for social injustices of the world, who wants peace.

Don't discount those people who do extraordinary things in God's names.

George Carlin on Religion and God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo#)

Enjoy !

No matter what anybody can say, or what people might do, the Word of the Gospels is true.

Andi

Quote from: nicole99 on March 15, 2012, 10:09:00 PM
I was just thinking about God.

I was thinking as I was praying this morning, and feeling rather disheartened. I have come to the realisation that our divine father does not have our best interests at heart (even if he has a heart).

How can us believers in God support and uphold our institutions as good things? They soak up money to build pretty buildings. Most of our members pay lip service. We pick and choose what to follow based on our own beliefs.

I think our God is not good. He is using us like a lab experiment – giving us mixed and clouded messages to follow. Leaving us vulnerable and deluded. Over half of our followers hate us as trans people, they tell us it is a lifestyle choice, that we are sinful. We spend countless riches on churches and religious cultery. Look at how much suffering we have just on this forum at the hands of our fellow faithful.

Now clearly god is kind of confused, unless I am missing something. Why is the old testament so different from the new? Why did we have this wrathful and vengeful god who supports intolerance, and causes atrocities. But then we get his son Jesus who preaches love above all things (which is a beautiful message). And what does he do? He kills Jesus. That is freaking barbaric. Sacrificing your kid is not an act of love. He died for our sins, yet we still have sin in the world. What is up with that? What did he achieve? War, hate, intolerance. It does not make any sense. I'm starting to believe one of the old herasies that we have god and the devil mixed up.

When it comes down to it I am going to fight him with all my might.

He can keep his hell and his heaven, I'm going to go my own way.

This is not a question of faith. It is a question of right and wrong.

So this is what I propose. Imagine this, how about we sell every church in the world, every religious artefact, sacked all the priests and preachers. Instead of going to church, or bible study, we spent that time working on how to overcome world problems, get out hands dirty and build safe communities. We would be able to get rid of world hunger and homelessness and improve human rights. Let's do it people, who is with me? You can't deny this is a cool idea, an exciting idea. You can't tell me this is wrong. I believe it with a passion. I have faith it would work. What do you think?

The issue your confusing is your basing everything about here on earth. Our time here is bt a drop in the bucket of our true existence. There is so much we do not know. Its about faith and well too many times things have happened to me because my mother prayed for me. I can't refute those things. She presently sits next to me and so many good things do happen that i may not deserve compared to many other people. I too once felt as you did. I was younger and wanted to figure it all out.. Time will explain more

No, I don't think it is an issue of faith at all. Why worship something that is inherently evil? god is inherently evil. Everything it says is suspect.

And why not look at the real world in relation to religion? No my reasoning is sound. You don't actually need a church to believe in your god. So much wealth is tied up in institutions that don't work for us. They don't do much to further our basic compassion and humanity. We have this archaic religious text whose relevance today is very questionable. It causes more trouble that it helps. You can't whitewash it all by saying it is a matter of faith - people say we should take it on faith that we don't know gods plan. I say it is pretty obvious his plan is >-bleeped-<ed up.

It is all very well worrying about your spiritual salvation - but it is rubbish is you can't look after your own in the here and now, to live with compassion and tolerance. You can't look at this life as insignificant next to eternity. Otherwise what is the point? No what you do now matters.

I say down with religion.  If I ever meet god I will give him a hug and tell him he is a misguided idiot.  If the word of the gospel is true then god is mentally ill.

I don't discount people who do good in gods name. But for every one of those there are two who do good in the name of compassion and humanity - check out Buddah, now there was an amazing man. God is no requirement for a compassionate good life.

I fact I think god is a challenge to our humanity and compassion, I think he makes it harder to love, harder to be ourselves, harder to truly be free of misogynistic bull>-bleeped-<.

Your confusing religion with God..

Religion was created by mankind. God is just that which speaks to your heart.

also you seem to have some anger that your wanting to put out which doesn't help your post.

A witch here.  I worship both a god and a goddess.  All of nature is part of the life cycle.  No big gleaming buildings, or independent television networks.  Just the sky as my ceiling, the earth as my floor.

Quote from: Amazon D on April 02, 2012, 06:40:46 PM
Your confusing religion with God..

Religion was created by mankind. God is just that which speaks to your heart.

exactly, so why suffer churches to exist? Religion says god is good. My heart say he is an evil creation.

Quote from: nicole99 on April 02, 2012, 08:21:22 PM
My heart say he (GOD) is an evil creation.

Created by whom ? a bigger evil ? 

God is beyond good and evil. God created the universe with all its glory and follies.

We can comprehend only a part of God. The thing that speaks on your hart is your intellect, your mind, your brain. It is your internal compass that dictates what you consider right or wrong, your moral and ethical code.

For most people this moral and ethical code is "colored" by their religious beliefs.

At the end of the day, all of this is very personal. I respect everybodies views alas even if I do not agree.

Non-religious/ex-Christian here. We can't prove whether there is a god (or more than one!), but you are right, all those churches, relics, priests and whatnot are a waste of money. If everyone were to spend the time they use worshipping God helping others, the world would be a much happier place today. People who only go to church and do nothing else are wasting their time, I'm sure their God would have liked it better if they spent that time helping his other "children."

Religion says god is good. My heart say he is an evil creation.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Quote from: tekla on April 04, 2012, 09:54:22 PM
Religion says god is good. My heart say he is an evil creation.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

wow i am in awe

I've read it and studied it, I just don't believe the heart of the story.  I don't think Lord of the Rings happened either, doesn't change the fact that it's a good story, with good writing and good advice.

Quote from: nicole99 on April 02, 2012, 08:21:22 PM
exactly, so why suffer churches to exist? Religion says god is good. My heart say he is an evil creation.

Churches exist so that other members of like faith can come together and worship as a community rather than in the privacy of their own homes.

Sorry you think God is evil. In my opinion, I disagree with you. Personally, I do not put the blame game on anyone or anything except for the person who did the offense.  For example, if someone does harm, I do not believe "the devil made them do it" or "God made them do it." They did it to themselves. 

I take religion for what it is. You can either wallow in a mud of despair and feel sorry for yourself because you think God put a monkey on your back or you go out their and do something edifying like feeding the homeless or clothing the naked.

I do not equate the creator of the universe by the ramblings of what certain people say of God such as Pat Robertson, etc, etc. I define God by looking out in nature and in space and truly coming to grips that the fact that God even knows I am here despite everything else in the world is truly extraordinary.

I am not here to "make you get your faith back." It is what it is. If you think God is evil then have fun with that. What I can say is, I certainly feel sorry for you if you think everything is bad or..evil. Or that God is evil.

If God was evil, the >-bleeped-< you are going through now will look like spilled slushie juice on the streets of Disney World compared to what could really happen if the creator of the universe was truly evil.

I don't let man define the nature of God to me. God is slightly more complicated than that.

Quote from: tekla on April 05, 2012, 02:36:28 PM
I've read it and studied it, I just don't believe the heart of the story.  I don't think Lord of the Rings happened either, doesn't change the fact that it's a good story, with good writing and good advice.

haha, very true. Even for non-believers like us, there's some important lessons we can pick up along the way.

Quote from: Beth Andrea on April 09, 2012, 09:35:01 PM
God is good.

(and basically ANY "God" is false; if it's in a church, it's a false image.)

That pretty much makes every single religion or following guilty

I think there is value in the struggle with a God who has disappointed us; whose actions and manifestations of power confuse us, or worse, hurt us; and whose self-identified representatives abuse those who are specifically named as most deserving of compassion, love, and respect. The struggle you are posting about could be seen as a form of prayer.

For myself, if I didn't care so much about God, and if I didn't have the awareness that things could be better, and should be - I wouldn't challenge, or struggle, or get angry with the injustice. I would just walk away. OP, you are not just walking away, but rather staying engaged with God, and in a relationship with God. Pointing out hypocrisy of how people misuse the institutions of the church, and scripture, is a form of prophetic witnessing.

Like Jacob, keep wrestling. And do not loosen your grasp until you know the blessing in the struggle.

Quote from: nicole99 on April 02, 2012, 05:04:04 PM
No, I don't think it is an issue of faith at all. Why worship something that is inherently evil? god is inherently evil. Everything it says is suspect.

And why not look at the real world in relation to religion? No my reasoning is sound. You don't actually need a church to believe in your god. So much wealth is tied up in institutions that don't work for us. They don't do much to further our basic compassion and humanity. We have this archaic religious text whose relevance today is very questionable. It causes more trouble that it helps. You can't whitewash it all by saying it is a matter of faith - people say we should take it on faith that we don't know gods plan. I say it is pretty obvious his plan is messed up.

It is all very well worrying about your spiritual salvation - but it is rubbish is you can't look after your own in the here and now, to live with compassion and tolerance. You can't look at this life as insignificant next to eternity. Otherwise what is the point? No what you do now matters.

I say down with religion.  If I ever meet god I will give him a hug and tell him he is a misguided idiot.  If the word of the gospel is true then god is mentally ill.

I don't discount people who do good in gods name. But for every one of those there are two who do good in the name of compassion and humanity - check out Buddah, now there was an amazing man. God is no requirement for a compassionate good life.

I fact I think god is a challenge to our humanity and compassion, I think he makes it harder to love, harder to be ourselves, harder to truly be free of misogynistic B.S.

Best post I have ever read on the subject matter.  +1,   A+

Quote from: Andi on March 29, 2012, 06:17:53 PM
No matter what anybody can say, or what people might do, the Word of the Gospels is true.

Andi

Imagine an abusive husband who uses fear-tactics to keep his wife at home.  The husband is effectively 'abandoning', never home, always out somewhere but he demands that his wife stay in the house, alone, avoiding "sin".  The wife spends her entire life in the house, fearing death her whole life for the slightest offense and constantly begging forgiveness.  The husband is never anywhere to be seen and the woman's cries for help go unanswered.

One day when she is thinking of leaving her husband a messenger shows up and tells her.  "Your husband loves you so much that if you ever even think of leaving him he will come in the clouds, to judge the living and the dead...  I mean, he will show up and he will tell you that the reason he is choking you to death or burning you with fire is because he loves you so much, and then once you are dead he will give you CPR, bring you back to life and then beat you to death again, maybe choke the life out of you or tear off all your skin, rip off your arms and legs, gouge out your eyes, rip out your intestines and burn you with fire.  Then he will be sure to keep you alive so you can suffer in eternal torment.  The only other sounds you will hear besides your own screaming will be the screams of women, children, babies and men, being tortured eternally of course because god loved them so much that he threw them an ultimatum and he always hurts the ones he loves."

Just my two cents, my opinion... for what it's worth.

I have known a lot of people who only believed something because some body else believed in it.  They spent their entire lives making excuses for their god.  Seems like some suspect pie in the sky to me.

Oh and btw, a relationship requires the effort of two people.  If you do all the calling, all the emailing and your friend never approaches you, never returns your calls, never sends you a birthday card, never visits you...  that's not a relationship or a friend.  And if your friend tells you that if you stop making the effort that he will finally show up and kill you, that is even less of a friend.

Quote from: Noey Nooneson on May 22, 2012, 06:16:18 PM


I have known a lot of people who only believed something because some body else believed in it.  They spent their entire lives making excuses for their god.  Seems like some suspect pie in the sky to me.

I also have known a lot of people who believe in something because they chose to make a decision based on faith to believe in something higher than themselves.

I have also known a lot of people who do not make excuses for God. To make excuses for God would assume that God cannot take care of God's self and needs to rely on other people to bail God out.

QuoteOh and btw, a relationship requires the effort of two people.  If you do all the calling, all the emailing and your friend never approaches you, never returns your calls, never sends you a birthday card, never visits you...  that's not a relationship or a friend.  And if your friend tells you that if you stop making the effort that he will finally show up and kill you, that is even less of a friend.

True, relationships do require two people. For those who are spiritual, the second one is God or a Goddess or whatever diety or spirit they follow.

Since you do not believe in such things then you will naturally assume there is no one on the other side. For those of us who do believe in such things we do know there is another. And we can feel that love, whether through prayers, answers of prayer, worship, being around other people who share the same faith, reading texts showing God's love, etc etc. But again, since you do not believe in such foolishness then you will never believe any of us when we say we do have a relationship with God.

God has helped me in so many ways, it would require a novel no..several volumes of books to write in the things God has helped me through. My only wish, as a pastor, is to help others who approach me wishing to experience this faith.

You either have it or you don't. No sense whatsoever trying to convince the other on this one.

PS.

My God doesn't strangle me, burn me up with fire, leave me to die and then bring me back to life again (only to peel my flesh off, give me CPR etc etc). You either have a very distorted view (and me saying "distorted" ...I am using a very conservative descriptor) of whatever theology you had taken that from or you need to scale back on those Hellraiser movies.

Well I was replying to someone who said that the bible is true.  So that is where I was getting my kookie ideas from, the bible.  You know.. the god who says it is a sin for men to lay with other men or wear women's clothing, etc. etc.  The god who spent so much time killing people in the old testament and then sent his only son to his death in the new testament.  The one who burned Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and threw Adam and Eve out of paradise because Eve ate an apple.  The god who flooded the earth to murder everyone except for a drunk named Noah, etc. etc.

Not believing is your right Nooneson, but there are many of who do believe.  I personally feel your responses are somewhat over the top.

I completely agree with Annah. Well said.

Quote from: Noey Nooneson on May 23, 2012, 07:38:19 AM
Well I was replying to someone who said that the bible is true.  So that is where I was getting my kookie ideas from, the bible.  You know.. the god who says it is a sin for men to lay with other men or wear women's clothing, etc. etc.  The god who spent so much time killing people in the old testament and then sent his only son to his death in the new testament.  The one who burned Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and threw Adam and Eve out of paradise because Eve ate an apple.  The god who flooded the earth to murder everyone except for a drunk named Noah, etc. etc.

The Bible was written by men in cultures of thousands of years ago. If you based your knowledge 100% of how YOU interpret the Bible concerning who God is then that is your own issue.

When I read the Bible, i see a collection of examples that represent's the humanity of the world.

I see tragedy, violence, love, kindness, charity, racism, compassion, remorse, forgiveness, bigotry, understanding, grace, etc etc

It is to show humanity who we are and what we are capable of when we make wrong decisions and right decisions. God did not come to earth to write down God's opinions and then formed it into the Bible. Women and men throughout the ages picked up their quills, hammers, inks, and wrote down their understandings, convictions or accounts.

Also, we reflect on the Bible based on how we view the world around us. You gave us an account of a scene from Hellraiser to validate your opinions on the Bible which tells me you hold people who have faith in very small regard.

When I reflect on the Bible I read the teachings of Christ to love your neighbor as yourself, to feed the hungry, to cloth the naked, to give shelter to the homeless. I see Christ showing that humanity has the ability to accomplish wonderful things if they only love their neighbor as themselves. And that's how I see it. A time of hope where people can respect each other. That reflects who I am because I am optimistic and hopeful.

When I reflect on all the books I read, I realize that I do not need to belive in God or in any religion in order to love your neighbor as yourself, to feed the hungry, to cloth the naked, to give shelter to the homeless.

The poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore who was a Maronist Christian made two rather pointed statements that I think apply here!! 

"I am able to love my God because he has given me the power to deny Him."

"While God waits for his temple to be built of love, men bring stones."

Annah has made some excellent points, and Tekla's cite from Jeremiah is also right on.

Quote from: Vicky on May 24, 2012, 01:39:58 AM

"I am able to love my God because he has given me the power to deny Him."

Very VERY profound.

Sometimes I do have doubt. Sometimes all the injustices just doesn't make sense. At dark times I find myself reading isaiah 53 and to me even though this was written much earlier than jesus it to me means only him.

Kendall

Quote from: kendra on August 08, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
Sometimes I do have doubt. Sometimes all the injustices just doesn't make sense. At dark times I find myself reading isaiah 53 and to me even though this was written much earlier than jesus it to me means only him.

Kendall

Clearly all about a man or prophet who lived before Isaiah. Who do you think Isaiah was alluding?

I don't remember what I said in my previous post or what I was feeling at the time.

I will say that I allow for the possibility that there is an intelligence to the Universe.  Sometimes when I have meditated it is like I have downloaded information that I never learned.  If so where did it come from?  I do believe that man has created god in his own image.  I believe that people who wrote stories and poems (etc.) about god (and etc.) projected their own feelings, motivations and emotions onto the god they were attempting to define.

And of course everyone has their own variation or theme on god and so those who agreed or were able to exercise power collected people unto themselves and indoctrinated them with their god theme or god variation.

If there is a god I don't know if it is even aware we exist.  Or maybe god exists in all of us as part of our being, god in embryo, part of our evolutionary process?  And maybe all beings are somehow connected and that connection is "god".  Therefore when we are connected we feel "good" and when we separate ourselves from others with our feelings or our actions we feel out of touch with "god".

It is completely normal for primitive people to see the earth errupt and without real understanding to attribute a volcano or a tornado or a tsunami to an angry god up in the sky, bent on seeking retribution.  Primitive people who don't understand how things work come up with stories about how things work in order to explain those events.  It is a well-documented and well-known aspect of the human race.

Is there a god?  Does it matter if there is or not?

I thought hell was a creation of the dark ages? I see people speaking of hell but I thought that was another creation by the people who were in power back when.

Honestly though, I mostly dislike religion...HOWEVER. I know Christ died for me. I don't go to church, like someone said, I prefer the one on one thing. The God I love is loving, not the fire and brimstone guy. That guy is a douche.

I think it is unhealthy to worry about religion. This is something we coddle and burp our whole lives. It leads and defines us. There was a time when moving from one faith to another (or one denomination to another) would send you to hell. That is no longer the case. Our society has changed. Find your comfort zone. If you can find others who feel the same as you, go for it. If you believe in a deity, rest assured, that deity will have compassion for you. For those who will spit on you, let it slide. Smile back. Give them a taste of what they profess to believe in.

My personal Jury are still out, but I read a quote from Elie Wiesel that made me think.
He described how the Nazis in Auschwitz hung a child, and one of the prisoners asked where God was while such a thing was happening.
A prisoner who was a Rabbi answered,"up there on the scaffold." 
I am still trying to find my own interpretation of that statement, as it can be taken several ways.

Karen.

Quote from: justmeinoz on August 25, 2012, 06:25:30 AM
My personal Jury are still out, but I read a quote from Elie Wiesel that made me think.
He described how the Nazis in Auschwitz hung a child, and one of the prisoners asked where God was while such a thing was happening.
A prisoner who was a Rabbi answered,"up there on the scaffold." 
I am still trying to find my own interpretation of that statement, as it can be taken several ways.

Karen.

G-d was there witnessing the inequity of man. We tend to forget that evil and good are but man creation. The Universe is dual, our "free will" lies in our ability to create either one of them. G-d by her own accord cannot interfere in the affairs of her own universe untill her plan has been fulfilled.

This thrad reminds me of an story told among my people; it goes like this:
SCENE: Angel revealing the future of human kind

WOMAN: but how about the second coming!
ANGEL: there is no such a thing as a second coming
WOMAN: but my religions says there is going to be a second coming!
ANGEL: perhaps you choose the wrong religion

God is Satan's ultimate deception...


...and this world is a lie.


Mark Twain and Satan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q29CmMHSQ3M#)























I'm sorry, was that too creepy...?  >:-)

God is love
LOVE is GOD
so we make a resting place
in our hearts
for LOVE/GOD

Okay, I personally don't believe in God, and that's my way. I believe in science (well actually, I don't BELIEVE in science, I KNOW science) since nothing in science is true unless proven. I believe the universe itself was the first and only thing to ever come from nothing, not that someone had to make it. Religion is something I see as a tool people use to stifle others. I don't think a God would create gay people just to hate on them after the fact, nor do I understand how Annah could be trans and support a religion that hates her kind. You know what, these are my beliefs and I'm allowed to have them just like Christians and all other religions can have theirs. You can have your own beliefs, just try not to make other people's lives miserable simply because they don't follow your code of beliefs. Don't try to force your ideas on others. People are allowed to disagree with you. It's part of what makes us human.

I am not taking anyone's side here. I just think everyone has the right to beliefs.

So now can we all just shut the fudge up and try to live in peace, please?!?!

Quote from: Noey Noonesson on August 24, 2012, 11:03:34 PM
I will say that I allow for the possibility that there is an intelligence to the Universe.  Sometimes when I have meditated it is like I have downloaded information that I never learned.  If so where did it come from?

I would imagine you extrapolate it from other information already in your brain. New things can be learned by thinking alone.

You have mentioned meditation before. I know little about it but it sounds fascinating.

My understanding is that god created Adam and Eve (that is the god I grew up with).  And he put them in a garden where everything was perfect.  But he put a temptation in the garden because he wasn't content for them to just be happy.  He knew that a good television series needed some drama so all you television viewers out there were thinking, "Oh my lord, dear god, why did you put that temptation in the garden, these are your kids and you are supposed to love them, would you put a child in a room with exposed electrical wires and tell that child, "Now don't go touching the electrical wires of the knowledge of good and evil?"

Except these kids didn't just get zapped.  God went about creating all sorts of punishments not just for them but for their kids, cancer, syphilis, blindness, earthquakes, tornadoes...  In fact god is still trying to come up with new ways to cause suffering and death, medicine resistant strains of flesh eating viruses.

My brother has been bed-ridden for five years now.  He can't speak or eat, he has tubes in all his orifices and he is constantly coughing up puss and experiencing all kinds of infections.  He is on a respirator because Eve ate the apple of the knowledge of good and evil.  Because of that apple that god put in the garden my brother has suffered more than most people will ever know.  His arms and hands are atrophied and curled up in tight knots.  He receives terrible care from the staff at his nursing home which has caused most of his suffering.  Because god wasn't content to love his children, he needed to feel like they respected him and that was more important to him than love or doing good.

If we didn't child proof our homes we could have our children taken away from us but god made death and suffering his passion, quite literally ^_^ .  And what about this satan person?  An angel who played music or some thing?  Satan was guilty of wanting attention or something but that was wrong because satan wasn't god and only god gets to have what he wants because god has all the power.  Fortunately in my own experience that power amounts to paper chains.  Unfortunately for some people paper chains are real if you believe in them.  Then again, perhaps it keeps bad people out of the streets.  Who knows?

Quote from: MariaMx on August 25, 2012, 06:36:24 PM
I would imagine you extrapolate it from other information already in your brain. New things can be learned by thinking alone.

You have mentioned meditation before. I know little about it but it sounds fascinating.

Zazen meditation is the practice of existing without thoughts.  You sit and you are aware but you avoid processing anything.  The most profound experience people have when they first meditate successfully is the realization or 'experience' that they are not their thoughts.  Without thoughts a human will continue to exist.  Life has a bad habit of teaching us that we are what we believe.  Zazen meditation is a way to realize just how silly the idea that we are our thoughts is.

Zazen meditation also allows the brain a break and the opportunity to reset.

Most people go through life like noisy rivers.  You can throw huge rocks into a rushing river and no one would even notice.

Zazen meditation causes the individual to become less like a raging river of thoughts and ideas and more like a glass-still pond.  And when you are like a completely still pond someone can toss a tiny pebble into you and it will create ripples that spread to every corner of the pond.

Zazen which is a term for seated meditation with no thought can be a very profound experience.  It is also a tool for being able to make the best possible life decisions.  It will also allow you to see more, understand more and be more.

The only way to know who rules this universe is looking at it as its reflection. There are many things to look at, though, both good and bad, easy and hard to find.

All I know for sure is this: 'I believe there is another world waiting for us. A better world. And I'll be waiting for you there'

Quote from: Noey Noonesson on August 25, 2012, 06:54:54 PM
Zazen meditation is the practice of existing without thoughts.  You sit and you are aware but you avoid processing anything.  The most profound experience people have when they first meditate successfully is the realization or 'experience' that they are not their thoughts.  Without thoughts a human will continue to exist.

Ahh, I think I know what you mean. I have experienced this state of mind a few times. Thanks for the information, I will check this out.

http://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/zazen.html (http://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/zazen.html)

What puzzles me is how so many people say they don't believe in God, and then spend a huge amount of energy being mad at Him, and dissing those of us who believe, and yes, know. Being mad at God is still being in relationship to him.

Also, about the crack above about Annah and the "religion" that is "against" her: most of the mainline denominations are learning more about trans people every year. There are openly trans lay people, clergy, and theologians. We are discussing the parts of the Bible that resonate with us, just like other liberation movements have in their turn. That's the Church...and the Church isn't even God. Trans people can hold the churches accountable the way we hold other cultural institutions accountable. And we can make changes, be heard, and walk away when necessary.

Quote from: MrTesto on August 25, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
What puzzles me is how so many people say they don't believe in God, and then spend a huge amount of energy being mad at Him, and dissing those of us who believe, and yes, know. Being mad at God is still being in relationship to him.

Also, about the crack above about Annah and the "religion" that is "against" her: most of the mainline denominations are learning more about trans people every year. There are openly trans lay people, clergy, and theologians. We are discussing the parts of the Bible that resonate with us, just like other liberation movements have in their turn. That's the Church...and the Church isn't even God. Trans people can hold the churches accountable the way we hold other cultural institutions accountable. And we can make changes, be heard, and walk away when necessary.

Well, I don't think anyone is mad at something they don't believe in. No non-believer is mad at God so much as the perversion of good theorized morals into a power struggle. I for one am not mad at all. I think that you can believe in what you want (and let's be honest, you can't truly KNOW of God's existence without evidence. There's a reason they call it FAITH instead of FACT. To suggest that you know God is real is offensive to other faiths who believe in other gods or in anything else, for that matter). If religious folks are turning around to truly believing in what they preach and accepting and loving good people unconditionally for who they are instead of shunning them as mistakes, then more power to them. I've always had faith in one thing: the goodness of people. If the world can turn into a more united place where people can follow their own beliefs, then that's great.

Know that I am not "dissing" you or any other religious people, only disagreeing with you. If you can be a part of religion and actually accept those who disagree with you, then please continue on with what you're doing and teach others to be just as loving. I'm not trying to get into a religious argument; I'm just stating my own ideals. Have a good one.

Quote from: DianaP on August 25, 2012, 08:54:50 PM
...No non-believer is mad at God so much as the perversion of good theorized morals into a power struggle. ...

All of the progressive people of faith I know are also mad at this perversion. (Which itself has theological connotations!) I should have been more clear about another point - I know people who claim they are non-believers who are deeply (and understandably) angry at God.

Quote from: DianaP on August 25, 2012, 08:54:50 PM
... let's be honest, you can't truly KNOW of God's existence without evidence. There's a reason they call it FAITH instead of FACT. To suggest that you know God is real is offensive to other faiths who believe in other gods or in anything else, for that matter...

Huh? I don't see your logic. Maybe you'll allow this to be one of the things we disagree on. My understanding and experience of God has no bearing on whether other people can also know God or have their own very different understanding. It sounds like you are making vast and incorrect assumptions about my theology. I don't feel dissed, and I don't have much investment in disputing, because, well, I know what I know. I don't know your experience, just mine. I think that when it comes down to results on the "earthly" side of the tally, you and I might agree more than disagree, about what justice would look like. I would simply frame it in context of a divine intention, with reasons that transcend the single lifespan of a person.

Quote from: MrTesto on August 25, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
Also, about the crack above about Annah and the "religion" that is "against" her: most of the mainline denominations are learning more about trans people every year.

After pastoring for over a decade I have seen this time and time again. And here is the ironic thing:

It isn't the Christians who are usually against me or is mind boggled that an LGBT is a pastor. It is almost always those who are not Christians who attacks me the most. For example, when it comes to a ratio, for every 1 Christian who attacks me (making fun, bewildered, thinks I am stupid) for being a "gay" minister there are easily 5 who claims tolerance and love for all religions (or no religions) who will attack me for what I believe.

Honestly, I could really care less how people feel about me. Whatever they feel about me, so be it. I have a church who needs me, supports me, and loves me. So when people say "I cannot see how Annah can be for a religion that hates her" I just smile and go back to what I am called to do. You see, they are so focused and only believes that Fundamentalist/Conservative Christianity is the only form of Christian worship out there....even when people tell them there are DOZENS of denominations who embrace LGBT. I believe it has to do with an issue that they want to dislike something so much that if they learn there are beautiful Christians out there who loves EVERYONE regardless of sexual or gender orientation then it will completely nullify why they are angry in the first place. It is much easier to just stay angry than to admit maybe it isn't needed to stereotype an entire spiritual group of people.

I am also ecumenical. Meaning, I embrace all religions and spirituality as long as it does not require harming, maiming, or killing people (as a whole...I am not talking about fringe groups within a peaceful religion).

With that said, I have seen horrible and nasty people in every single religion who thinks theirs are the best, the right one, the perfect one. I've seen it all...from One end of the hyper religious spectrum to the Atheist to the Witch. Everything. Nothing is new under the sun.

Is my religion perfect? Nope. But it's not all bad either. It's just like everything else in this world. You either decide to gnash your teeth against the bone and break some teeth in the process or you can take your time and find the tender meat to digest.

When I see people say "Oh Religion 'A' Sucks...it's evil...it's against <subject>, try my religion" it raises red flags.

When I see people say "Oh my religion isn't perfect. It isn't my God (Goddess) that is evil...its how God's (Goddesses') followers incorrectly represent my diety...but we also have good people and the good people makes it worth it" then I hear the honesty in their voices.

So when people say "How can you pastor in a religion that hates your kind?" I then respond, "How can I not?? Does it not take reform to show people the errors they are committing? Do you think that will happen on it's own...naturally?" Also, having dozens of denominations and hundreds of churches who are wanting to Ordain me...not because of my Gender Identity (many, many churches aren't phased I am trans), but because of my calling just tells me people really don't know what they are saying when they think I am in a religion where people hate me. That's when I smile and just walk away...feeling sorry for them because they will never want to see the entire picture. Just the shadows.

I am not just typing this up on a whim. I have experience in this. Life experience. I go to one of many, many, many Seminaries that has students of all backgrounds studying Christianity. Gays, Jews, African Americans, Africans, Trans, Lesbians, Bi, Pan, Atheists, Muslims. Matter of fact we have a Iranian refuge family living one building away from me on Campus at the Seminary. He served in the Iranian Royal Guard and then his family sought Asylum. We have created a safe space for him and his family to practice Islam and to read the Quran without fear of being killed.

We have Atheists who are taking the Masters of Religion Program because they have a desire to learn the history of Europe, America, Etc within a religious context. We treat them with the same respect we would treat the Pope if he entered our school.

Our Vice President is a wonderful gay man and is married to our Bookstore Manager. Our Dean of Admissions is a wonderful gay man. Half of our campus are lesbians. About 20% are gay men. I am the only trans in which only 5 people and the administration knows about.

Our Church leaders are gay, lesbian, and trans and straight. And our Seminary is considered one of the more "Conservative Seminaries" within our United States Association.

So when I hear people say "Christians hates gay people" I just think nothing of it. They listened to Pat Robertson and all the other Conservative people...and if they have no desire to see the other side of Christianity, then that is something they have to work out. I am not in the business to point it out to every single person. Twenty minutes on Google would show anyone not every Christian is against the stuff people think.

And when people get up in arms because I believe in a God or say they are offended, I too just smile and walk away. Because no matter how much side A argues with side B about whether or not a particular God, god, Goddess exists...at the end of the argument you are right back to square one. No one has won anything. Maturity is when you can respect someone's beliefs in a God while that person who believes in a God can respect the person who does not believe in a God.

Throwing mud in peoples' eyes about whether or not God exists makes about as much sense to me as the /Trade Chat Channel in World of Warcraft on a Saturday afternoon.

Just remember, when you become intolerant of something through a stereotypical belief system (ex: Christianity hates gay people) then you are just as guilty as the religion(s) you talk about. Intolerant.

I think I have posted something similar somewhere else but can't seem to remember where.
I have just read Karen Armstrong's latest book "The Case For God" in which she points out that the so-called Fundamentalists are actually nothing of the sort.

Rather than a return to the theology of the early Church, she describes it as a Modernist innovation dating from only about 1870 or so.  Before then doubt was always a possibility, because there is no way for a human to fully comprehend God.  The Modernist approach to everything started in the late 19th Century with an attitude of  rigid dichotomy on every subject.  Hence the refusal to consider that there are more than 2 Genders, for example.  The Trinity is a prime example, with it being regarded as "The Mystery of the Trinity" for many centuries.  It was accepted that it could never be fully understood, but the effort to understand it was what really mattered.

Thankfully Post-Modernist philosophies allow for a multitude of interpretations of any issue depending on your personal experience or knowledge.

For me, the jury is still out, but I won't bag anyone elses ideas or beliefs.  Unless they are a total ratbag  ;)

Karen.

God... due to our human condition is only the interpretation of whom, what and however she appears to us – and to our senses.
Certainly, not only the person with the long white beard of old, and who knows how many other pictures have been used, including the Golden Calf those Israelites once figured to be (their) "God"...

This is why one, or so many of us, do get confused. Taking the simplistic nighty-night prayer into our daily adult life? Well, soon you try to, you find, or feel "duped".

The book, "God" by Alexander Waugh ISBN 0-7472-7016-3 makes a jolly good case of it.

I'm sure one can read it and not turn into an Atheist - I'm not ;)

Note: Dogma helps a sense of 'certainty' - yet certainty is NOT where it's at.
Maybe with God... but NOT with us, hum.

Axélle

Then what does one do with this statement made by Jesus "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Either it's the truth or it's a lie. There is no wiggle room. He is either the one true way or He is not.

If there is another way why did He take the religious leaders of the day to task. He flat out called them vipers,hypocrites,graves full of dead mans bones,sons of their father the devil etc etc . They were preaching another way yet He did not let them off the hook. If their way was a truth then why was He so harsh on them? It makes no sense unless what Jesus said is the truth and He is the one and only true way to the Father.

What then do you do with these other statements made by Jesus?

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father —and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.

You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Translation... 2000 years of culture.... other than our present one...

How about all that then?

It is MY contention that bible punching as if it was a book of current law, is not the way to go. It is obviously not.

Why would there be such a subject as hermeneutics if it was as straight and simple as just that?

Axélle

Quote from: MrTesto on August 25, 2012, 11:03:00 PM

Huh? I don't see your logic. Maybe you'll allow this to be one of the things we disagree on. My understanding and experience of God has no bearing on whether other people can also know God or have their own very different understanding. It sounds like you are making vast and incorrect assumptions about my theology. I don't feel dissed, and I don't have much investment in disputing, because, well, I know what I know. I don't know your experience, just mine. I think that when it comes down to results on the "earthly" side of the tally, you and I might agree more than disagree, about what justice would look like. I would simply frame it in context of a divine intention, with reasons that transcend the single lifespan of a person.

To clarify, I was saying that you can't truly know God exists. If someone felt like they had an experience with Allah, would that prove that Allah exists? No. All it proves is that one person believes that he exists. All I'm saying is that you have no actual evidence. It's fine for you to believe in God, just don't go around mistaking faith for fact.

Quote from: Annah on August 25, 2012, 11:14:59 PM

After pastoring for over a decade I have seen this time and time again. And here is the ironic thing:

It isn't the Christians who are usually against me or is mind boggled that an LGBT is a pastor. It is almost always those who are not Christians who attacks me the most. For example, when it comes to a ratio, for every 1 Christian who attacks me (making fun, bewildered, thinks I am stupid) for being a "gay" minister there are easily 5 who claims tolerance and love for all religions (or no religions) who will attack me for what I believe.

Honestly, I could really care less how people feel about me. Whatever they feel about me, so be it. I have a church who needs me, supports me, and loves me. So when people say "I cannot see how Annah can be for a religion that hates her" I just smile and go back to what I am called to do. You see, they are so focused and only believes that Fundamentalist/Conservative Christianity is the only form of Christian worship out there....even when people tell them there are DOZENS of denominations who embrace LGBT. I believe it has to do with an issue that they want to dislike something so much that if they learn there are beautiful Christians out there who loves EVERYONE regardless of sexual or gender orientation then it will completely nullify why they are angry in the first place. It is much easier to just stay angry than to admit maybe it isn't needed to stereotype an entire spiritual group of people.

I am also ecumenical. Meaning, I embrace all religions and spirituality as long as it does not require harming, maiming, or killing people (as a whole...I am not talking about fringe groups within a peaceful religion).

With that said, I have seen horrible and nasty people in every single religion who thinks theirs are the best, the right one, the perfect one. I've seen it all...from One end of the hyper religious spectrum to the Atheist to the Witch. Everything. Nothing is new under the sun.

Is my religion perfect? Nope. But it's not all bad either. It's just like everything else in this world. You either decide to gnash your teeth against the bone and break some teeth in the process or you can take your time and find the tender meat to digest.

When I see people say "Oh Religion 'A' Sucks...it's evil...it's against <subject>, try my religion" it raises red flags.

When I see people say "Oh my religion isn't perfect. It isn't my God (Goddess) that is evil...its how God's (Goddesses') followers incorrectly represent my diety...but we also have good people and the good people makes it worth it" then I hear the honesty in their voices.

So when people say "How can you pastor in a religion that hates your kind?" I then respond, "How can I not?? Does it not take reform to show people the errors they are committing? Do you think that will happen on it's own...naturally?" Also, having dozens of denominations and hundreds of churches who are wanting to Ordain me...not because of my Gender Identity (many, many churches aren't phased I am trans), but because of my calling just tells me people really don't know what they are saying when they think I am in a religion where people hate me. That's when I smile and just walk away...feeling sorry for them because they will never want to see the entire picture. Just the shadows.

I am not just typing this up on a whim. I have experience in this. Life experience. I go to one of many, many, many Seminaries that has students of all backgrounds studying Christianity. Gays, Jews, African Americans, Africans, Trans, Lesbians, Bi, Pan, Atheists, Muslims. Matter of fact we have a Iranian refuge family living one building away from me on Campus at the Seminary. He served in the Iranian Royal Guard and then his family sought Asylum. We have created a safe space for him and his family to practice Islam and to read the Quran without fear of being killed.

We have Atheists who are taking the Masters of Religion Program because they have a desire to learn the history of Europe, America, Etc within a religious context. We treat them with the same respect we would treat the Pope if he entered our school.

Our Vice President is a wonderful gay man and is married to our Bookstore Manager. Our Dean of Admissions is a wonderful gay man. Half of our campus are lesbians. About 20% are gay men. I am the only trans in which only 5 people and the administration knows about.

Our Church leaders are gay, lesbian, and trans and straight. And our Seminary is considered one of the more "Conservative Seminaries" within our United States Association.

So when I hear people say "Christians hates gay people" I just think nothing of it. They listened to Pat Robertson and all the other Conservative people...and if they have no desire to see the other side of Christianity, then that is something they have to work out. I am not in the business to point it out to every single person. Twenty minutes on Google would show anyone not every Christian is against the stuff people think.

And when people get up in arms because I believe in a God or say they are offended, I too just smile and walk away. Because no matter how much side A argues with side B about whether or not a particular God, god, Goddess exists...at the end of the argument you are right back to square one. No one has won anything. Maturity is when you can respect someone's beliefs in a God while that person who believes in a God can respect the person who does not believe in a God.

Throwing mud in peoples' eyes about whether or not God exists makes about as much sense to me as the /Trade Chat Channel in World of Warcraft on a Saturday afternoon.

Just remember, when you become intolerant of something through a stereotypical belief system (ex: Christianity hates gay people) then you are just as guilty as the religion(s) you talk about. Intolerant.

Once again, I am misunderstood. I follow a philosophy similar to that of MLK Jr.'s. It's not that I don't like your religion; you're entitled to it. What I don't like is the oppression religion causes. It's a "hate the sin, not the man" kind of thing. If what you're saying is true and that Christians are becoming more tolerant, then that's great. Keep doing what you're doing, just try to stay out of government and keep your religion to yourselves. Separation of church and state goes both ways, after all.

DianaP. It isn't religion that oppresses people. It's people who oppresses people.

Stalin killed more Christians in Soviet Russia than Hitler killed Jews in WW2. Stalin did this in the name of a pro secular/atheist form of government.

With that said, am I going to sit here and type out "Atheists are Oppressors because of the millions of Christians who were killed in the name of Atheism"? No.

Because I know it was a mad man who used Atheism and Secularism as an EXCUSE to commit the atrocities that he did.

Religion doesn't oppress anyone. It's those who uses religion to oppress others. 

Quote from: SarahM777 on August 26, 2012, 06:21:29 AM
Then what does one do with this statement made by Jesus "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Either it's the truth or it's a lie. There is no wiggle room. He is either the one true way or He is not.

If there is another way why did He take the religious leaders of the day to task. He flat out called them vipers,hypocrites,graves full of dead mans bones,sons of their father the devil etc etc . They were preaching another way yet He did not let them off the hook. If their way was a truth then why was He so harsh on them? It makes no sense unless what Jesus said is the truth and He is the one and only true way to the Father.

What then do you do with these other statements made by Jesus?

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father —and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.

You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

I don't get what you are trying to do with these verses. It sounds like to me you are wanting to present this in a fundamentalist black/Grey interpretation that the only people going to heaven are those who believe in Jesus.

If this is the case, you are reading one interpretation among over a dozen different interpretations of what those verses can mean. It was written in Koine Greek over 2000 years ago in a culture you and I cannot even remotely fathom.

To simply read it in it's American/English version and say "that means <this>" is what seperates me from fundamentalists as a Progressive Pastor.  I study the verses in it's original languages and try to exegite the scripture from it's social, cultural, political, and religious arenas through the use of some really well reputable commentaries and other sources.

To read the Bible at face value like it's a "50 Shades of Grey" does it injustice. It should be read, parsed, analyze, and respected like Homer's works or other ancient masterpieces. To read something from Leviticus and then say "that's the reason why my car doesn't work" isn't a good way to approach the Bible. Nor is reading some scripture from the New Testament and then saying, "What Jesus really meant is this.." because if you did that, the Bible is full of contradictions.

On one hand, the New Testament says you must go through Christ to go to the Father.
On the Other hand, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says the only way to inherit eternal life is by loving your God and your neighbor like yourself.

The two doesn't exactly match up if you read it word for word.

What I believe it means is this: if you love your neighbor as yourself. If you show charity by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless then you are doing what Christ always wanted you to do. So without even acknowledging it or not on your end, you are going through Christ by emulating the morality that Christ wanted to show the world..that Love is the most important thing you can emulate.

It isn't about saying a "sinner prayer" and then start condemning other religions because you got the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket. It's much harder...and much simpler than that. It's all about loving people like yourself...even when yo don't want to.

Quote from: Axélle on August 26, 2012, 06:36:16 AM
Translation... 2000 years of culture.... other than our present one...

Why would there be such a subject as hermeneutics if it was as straight and simple as just that?

Axélle

EXACTLY

Quote from: Annah on August 26, 2012, 12:47:19 PM
DianaP. It isn't religion that oppresses people. It's people who oppresses people.

Stalin killed more Christians in Soviet Russia than Hitler killed Jews in WW2. Stalin did this in the name of a pro secular/atheist form of government.

With that said, am I going to sit here and type out "Atheists are Oppressors because of the millions of Christians who were killed in the name of Atheism"? No.

Because I know it was a mad man who used Atheism and Secularism as an EXCUSE to commit the atrocities that he did.

Religion doesn't oppress anyone. It's those who uses religion to oppress others. 

Okay, to clarify, the only things I said on this topic were that religion is a tool used by people to oppress others (with humans using that tool) and that religion has caused a lot of suffering. I never said Christianity or any other religion was bad. People have performed horrible crimes in the name of religion, making both of my statements true. Do I have a problem with religion? No, believe what you want in your private life. Would the world be a better place without it? Probably.

then we'll agree to disagree :)

Quote from: Annah on August 26, 2012, 01:08:41 PM
then we'll agree to disagree :)

Finally, thank you!! I swear, whenever I get into a discussion about religion, I wait for the person to just admit that we CAN disagree. It took you long enough, but I appreciate that you're not as close-minded as other religious folks I know.

I actually said it one page back ;)

and your last sentence just contradicted your point

All I said was that some religious folks are close-minded, but that you're not, both of which seem to be true statements. I don't see how that goes against anything I said. I appreciate that you have your beliefs and that you can appreciate someone else's. To each their own.

I spent many years arguing with different religious people in different forums. What I soon realized was that it was best to argue specific positive claims set forth by individuals. There are no blanket arguments against any specific religion as there are almost as many interpretations as there are believers. If a a person were to argue that Darwin was wrong because be don't see monkeys giving birth to human I will pounce on them, but I won't assume all Christians are creationists by default.

As for the bible I'm not all that interested. I can see how many people find it spiritually inspirational. As a source of more specific knowledge like some claim I'm not so impressed. There's also the problem with the wide range of interpretations possible and how such a situation can lead to a lot ad-hoc  interpetations. I tend to think the original interpretation will be most in line with the original intent of the text, but I haven't studied the bible much so I really can't say if this holds true or not.

Quote from: DianaP on August 26, 2012, 09:41:56 AM
To clarify, I was saying that you can't truly know God exists. If someone felt like they had an experience with Allah, would that prove that Allah exists? No. All it proves is that one person believes that he exists. All I'm saying is that you have no actual evidence. It's fine for you to believe in God, just don't go around mistaking faith for fact. ...

You seem to be really invested in telling me what I know or do not know. Please stop doing that. My experience is sufficient for me. I don't care whether it is sufficient for you, and I never said it was.

Would you persist in telling me that I have no "evidence" that I am a man? Or that someone loves me?  And therefore you will feel entitled to challenge these other realms of my personal knowledge about my personal life?

Honestly, I am finding your interactions with me to be slightly bizarre, given the nature of this website. Most trans spaces give weight to a person's own knowledge about themselves and things in their life.  I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that my knowledge about the reality of God in my life isn't something that you could possibly have a credible opinion on, just like you can't tell me that I am not "really" a man, because I have no "evidence" about that.

If I might point you to a page back and my "agree to disagree" offer, please reconsider it. I know that God is real. That doesn't have anything to do with you. And if that sounds testy or "close-minded" to you, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: MrTesto on August 26, 2012, 03:27:19 PM
You seem to be really invested in telling me what I know or do not know. Please stop doing that. My experience is sufficient for me. I don't care whether it is sufficient for you, and I never said it was.

Would you persist in telling me that I have no "evidence" that I am a man? Or that someone loves me?  And therefore you will feel entitled to challenge these other realms of my personal knowledge about my personal life?

Honestly, I am finding your interactions with me to be slightly bizarre, given the nature of this website. Most trans spaces give weight to a person's own knowledge about themselves and things in their life.  I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that my knowledge about the reality of God in my life isn't something that you could possibly have a credible opinion on, just like you can't tell me that I am not "really" a man, because I have no "evidence" about that.

If I might point you to a page back and my "agree to disagree" offer, please reconsider it. I know that God is real. That doesn't have anything to do with you. And if that sounds testy or "close-minded" to you, I'm fine with that.

Okay, try not to be so sensitive and don't take what I said as a personal bash. It is true that you have no actual evidence for God's existence, and I don't feel like getting into a religious argument, so please just let me say this and leave it alone. Gender is a social construct, not an absolute. Therefore, it's open to leniency. I never confirmed nor denied any theological idea. I simply state that I don't believe in God, not that he is//isn't real. All I was saying is that for you to say you are absolutely right is offensive to people of differing beliefs.

If you really find this interaction to be weird, then show it and leave this statement alone. I will not be posting in this topic anymore since a religious debate is a hopeless cause. I hope you'll do the same.

If you want to prove me wrong and provide some evidence for God's existence, send me a PM and I will gladly apologize to you. If not, then let this topic die here and now.

It has been my own personal experience that what may seem like, "anger towards god" - by someone who is agnostic or atheist is never actually 'anger towards god', rather it is more like the following...

(In my personal experience)

I am angry that I felt I was unable to be who I really was because of a god who threatened to send me to a fiery hell for all of eternity just for being who I am and for loving who I loved.

I am angry because of a god who made me a sinner and then blamed me for it.

I am angry that I was duped and squandered my life trying to get right with a god who didn't even exist.

I am angry that my parents believed in something simply because their parents believed in something.  I am angry that my descendants never learned to think for themselves or question anything significant.  I am angry that innocent children are indoctrinated by the people who are supposed to love them the most.

I am angry whenever I hear about all the people who are praying for so and so because none of them would ever actually lift a finger to help so and so.

I am angry when people tithe their money to the church faithfully but won't help a friend in need.

I am angry that I wasted so much time and effort thinking about stuff like this.

Whenever I see someone else who is hooked by religion like I was in the past I feel powerless to help them and that makes me angry because the more you try to help the more they hold on tighter to their beliefs.

I am angry because of all the stupid and horrendous things humans have done because of their religious beliefs.

I am angry that someone would rather cling to an old idea than question it.

I am angry that being a believer takes so much believing.

Okay... I'm not really that angry, not today.

Repeat with me, folks!

'You are free to do as we tell ya, you are free to do as we tell yah...'

Quote from: Annah on August 26, 2012, 12:57:24 PM

If this is the case, you are reading one interpretation among over a dozen different interpretations of what those verses can mean. It was written in Koine Greek over 2000 years ago in a culture you and I cannot even remotely fathom.

Although most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Whom did Jesus mostly speak with were they Gentiles or were they Jews? If He spoke mostly to Greeks then one could use a Greek "mindset" but if He spoke mostly to Jews than one MUST work from a Hebraic perspective because that is the ONLY way to understand what He said. Jesus was a Jew and not a Gentile. Over and over He pointed back to the Old Testament and pointed out the Scriptures that pointed to Him. He claimed He was the fulfillment of the coming Messiah,Christ,the anointed one of God.

Add to that that almost all of the Bible was written by Jews not Gentiles it was written from a Hebraic perspective.

Quote from: Annah on August 26, 2012, 12:57:24 PM

On one hand, the New Testament says you must go through Christ to go to the Father.
On the Other hand, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says the only way to inherit eternal life is by loving your God and your neighbor like yourself.

Let's take a look at that passage

Luke 10:25-28

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27 He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."


The guy is a lawyer first. He is asking what he must do by the LAW. In this case Jesus is 100% correct in that if one obeys the law completely one will inherit eternal life. It's not a contradiction.

Quote from: Annah on August 26, 2012, 12:57:24 PM

It isn't about saying a "sinner prayer" and then start condemning other religions because you got the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket. It's much harder...and much simpler than that. It's all about loving people like yourself...even when yo don't want to.

All the sinner's prayer is putting a bandaid on a mortal wound. If there are no evidences than where is the reality?

Who loves more the one that tells someone having a grand old time flying down the road at 90 miles an hour keep going and never mind the end results or the one that sees that the bridge is out ahead and warns the one going down that road that if you continue on you will die?

It's odd...the whole discussion of religion inserted into this and that to support other's beliefs. I guess in my environment religion doesn't play a role.

and it completes yet another circle.

You have people here who feels justified in bashing religious people (or atheists) Or thinking religion/secularism is evil, corrupted, etc. These people lack the ability to see outside their own worlds and respect a cause they may not personally invest in. It's a self defeating, narrow minded view.

This is my point where I see no difference in Fundamentalist Atheists, Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalists Agnostics, or other Fundamentalist people. They are the same peas in a pod:

1.  They believe their way is the only way.
2.  Everyone else is wrong and/or corrupted. 
3.  They see wrong doings in everything (i.e., people tithe to a church and not help people in need. Just so you know, almost every church who receives tithes gives a very large substantial portion of that tithe money to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, food pantries, rent, utilities, etc. Very little is given to the Pastor as a salary. We are literally the lowest paid profession in the world based on the degree we need to preach ..a 120 Credit Master's Level program...an MBA is 30 credits and you can get up to a six figure salary...we do four times the amount of work in school). We are like social workers who get paid on an average 40% lower than the lowest paid social worker. Again...stop looking at the rich evangelists and thinking all Pastors and churches are like that...this is stereotyping. You don't like it when people stereotype transsexuals...it's no different here).
4.  Anything outside of their belief system is corrupt, manipulative or immoral.
5.  If someone else believes in something else or do not believe in anything at all (or vice versa) then the person is stupid.

In my opinion, the mature people are the religious, atheists, agnostics people who respects one another despite the differences.

The religious, agnostics, and atheists who say immature quips like "'You are free to do as we tell ya, you are free to do as we tell yah" are too insecure to respect someone else's beliefs much less have respect in themselves. Because, in the end, it's all about them and everyone around them has it wrong.

Do I have it right with my religion? Absolutely not. However, I am woman enough to admit I do not know everything...in this world or the next. However, I have it right when it comes to respecting one another.

Those who pretend they got it all figured out while everyone else are sheep is doing just that. Pretending.

Quote from: DianaP on August 26, 2012, 04:28:16 PM
Okay, try not to be so sensitive and don't take what I said as a personal bash. It is true that you have no actual evidence for God's existence, and I don't feel like getting into a religious argument, so please just let me say this and leave it alone. Gender is a social construct, not an absolute. Therefore, it's open to leniency. I never confirmed nor denied any theological idea. I simply state that I don't believe in God, not that he is//isn't real. All I was saying is that for you to say you are absolutely right is offensive to people of differing beliefs.
...

Your comments were indeed personal, since you decided that I cannot possibly "know" something that is a core understanding for me. (Although, frankly, I've been bashed, and you hardly qualify as a "basher." Telling word choice, though!) Let me try again: I have evidence enough for me, and me alone, that God in fact absolutely does exist. For. Me. Not for anyone else. So it's not "true" that I have no evidence. I just don't have evidence that you find compelling. And that's OK - I really don't care if you believe in God. That's between you and the flying spaghetti monster. Nor do I say that anyone else has to believe as I do, and I've never said that. Your perseveration in this regard is...odd. If you choose to take offense at me saying what is true for me, then really, I can't help you.

As far as gender, or even "Gender," well, that's another thread, I'm sure. You can believe that Gender is a "social construct" for you, but I don't agree that it is for me. That's why they call it "gender theory."

But back to the topic at hand.

Quote from: DianaP on August 26, 2012, 04:28:16 PM
...
If you really find this interaction to be weird, then show it and leave this statement alone. I will not be posting in this topic anymore since a religious debate is a hopeless cause. I hope you'll do the same.
...

Here you and I agree, at last, absolutely! A religious debate is a hopeless cause (as you seem to be defining "religious," "debate," "hopeless," and "causality.") However, a religious conversation can indeed nurture hope. But that takes a bit more respect than I feel I have gotten from you.

Quote from: DianaP on August 26, 2012, 04:28:16 PM
...If you want to prove me wrong and provide some evidence for God's existence, send me a PM and I will gladly apologize to you. If not, then let this topic die here and now....

No thanks - I still have no interest in proving anything to you, even after all your baiting. But it's very nice of you to offer an offer of an apology. That's at least something! So until we meet again, God bless you, insofar as you wish to be blessed (and no further). Have a nice day!

I agree with Mr.Testo, belief is "personal" to each of us.  I also have sufficient proof that God exists.  There is little purpose in trying to force that belief on anyone else.

But, it is what I believe.

Quote from: MrTesto on August 27, 2012, 04:23:15 PM
Your comments were indeed personal, since you decided that I cannot possibly "know" something that is a core understanding for me. (Although, frankly, I've been bashed, and you hardly qualify as a "basher." Telling word choice, though!) Let me try again: I have evidence enough for me, and me alone, that God in fact absolutely does exist. For. Me. Not for anyone else. So it's not "true" that I have no evidence. I just don't have evidence that you find compelling. And that's OK - I really don't care if you believe in God. That's between you and the flying spaghetti monster. Nor do I say that anyone else has to believe as I do, and I've never said that. Your perseveration in this regard is...odd. If you choose to take offense at me saying what is true for me, then really, I can't help you.

Here you and I agree, at last, absolutely! A religious debate is a hopeless cause (as you seem to be defining "religious," "debate," "hopeless," and "causality.") However, a religious conversation can indeed nurture hope. But that takes a bit more respect than I feel I have gotten from you.

Quote from: MrTesto on August 26, 2012, 03:27:19 PM
I know that God is real.

Okay, I know I'm going back on my word to stay out of this topic, but I have a couple of things left to cover. I want you to know that I mean you no disrespect. I am not defining any words, just using them. I am not trying to "tell" anything by my word choice. All I was saying is that the fact that you really don't have any real evidence for God's existence (making him a belief and not a fact) besides your own "experience" is not fair to any other person's beliefs. Even a pothead can say that a hallucination was true to him//her, but cannot say that it was absolutely true. No one can have all of the answers. You can believe whatever you want, but don't misconstrue belief as fact. Keep your beliefs for what they are: beliefs. To say you know God is real is simply untrue and simply disregarding any other beliefs. I believe that the universe just spontaneously existed (BELIEVE, not KNOW), Muslims believe in Allah, Atheists don't believe in any God at all, but these are all beliefs that we have no way to actually prove. I am seriously not trying to disrespect you. I apologize sincerely if I came across as such. I just want you to not twist my words into something they're not. I am not taking offense for something that is true to you, nor am I taking any offense at all. I am simply stating that you can have your beliefs, but cannot rightfully claim them to be facts. I am only being persistent for the sake of getting my original point across, which I haven't seem to have done with enough clarity as of yet. You simply misinterpreted my words. All I was saying is this:

You can believe whatever you want. Just don't claim that your beliefs are facts by any means. Don't twist other peoples' words into some message of spite. This was my original point and I simply repeated it with different words repeatedly. Try to understand me this time, please.

Call me petty, call me whatever you want; religion brings out the worst in me and I can acknowledge that. I am simply trying to get my ONE point across. Thank you for your time. Once again, I am not disrespecting you. I am not disregarding your beliefs as wrong. I am not saying that my beliefs are right. I am simply stating that no one is right in regards to belief. Please try to understand that and not twist my words again. Thank you.

 

Parables Of The Not-So-Social Gospel

The Lazy Paralytic

1. When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at his home. 2. So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3. Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4. And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5. When Jesus saw this he grew angry, "Why did you wreck my roof? Do you have any idea how much that cost to install? Do you know how many tables and chairs I had to make in my carpentry shop to pay for that roof? The reeds alone cost five talents. I had them carted in from Bethany." 6. The disciples had never seen Jesus so angry about his possessions. He continued, "This house is my life." The disciples fell silent. 7. "It's bad enough that you trash my private property, now you want me to heal you?" said Jesus, "And did you not see the stone walls around this house?" "Yes," said the man's friends. "Are these not the stone walls native to the Land of Galilee? 8. "No," Jesus answered. "This is a gated community. How did you get in?" The man's friends grew silent. 9. Then Jesus turned to the paralytic and said, "Besides, can't you take care of your own health problems? I'm sure that you're family can care for you, or maybe the synagogue." 10. "No, Lord," answered the man's friends. "There is no one. His injuries are too severe. To whom else can we go?" 11. "Well, not me," said Jesus. "What would happen if I provided free health care for everyone? That would mean that people would not only get lazy, but they would take advantage of the system. 12. Besides, look at me: I'm healthy. And you know why? Because I worked hard for my money." The paralyzed man then grew sad and he addressed Jesus. "But I did work, Lord," said the paralytic. "But an accident rendered me paralyzed." "Yes," said the man's friends. "He worked very hard." 13. "Well," said Jesus, "That's just part of life, isn't it?" "Then what am I to do, Lord?" said the paralytic. "I don't know. Why don't you sell your mat?" 14. All in the crowd then grew sad. "Actually, you know what you can do?" said Jesus. "You can reimburse me for my roof. Or I'll sue." And all were amazed. 15. "We have never seen anything like this," said the crowd.

The Very Poorly Prepared Crowd

1. The day was drawing to a close, and the twelve apostles came to Jesus and said, "Send the crowd away, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside, to lodge and get provisions; for we are here in a deserted place." 2 But Jesus said to them, "Why not give them something to eat?" They said, 'We have no more than five loaves and two fish -- unless we are to go and buy food for all these people. 3 For there were about five thousand men. And Jesus said to his disciples, "You know what? You're right. Don't waste your time and shekels. It would be positively immoral for you to give away your hard-earned salaries for these people. They knew full well that they were coming to a deserted place, and should have relied on themselves to bring more food. As far as I'm concerned, it's every five thousand men for themselves." 4. The disciples were astonished by this teaching. "But Lord," said Thomas. "The crowd will go hungry." Jesus was amazed at his hard-headedness. "That's not my problem, Thomas. Better that their stomachs are empty than they become overly dependent on someone in authority to provide loaves and fishes for them. Where will it end? Will I have to feed them everyday?" "No, Lord," said Thomas, "Just today. When they are without food. When they have eaten their fill, they will be healthy, and so able to listen to your word and learn from you." Jesus was grieved at Thomas's answer. "It is written: There's no such thing as a free lunch." So taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and took one loaf and one fish for himself, and gave the rest to the twelve, based on their previously agreed-upon per diem. But he gave none to the very poorly prepared crowd because they needed to be taught a lesson. So Jesus ate and was filled. The disciples somewhat less so. What was left over was gathered up and saved for Jesus's next meal, should he grow hungry. The very poorly prepared crowd soon dispersed.

The Rich and Therefore Blessed Young Man

1. As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to him and knelt before him, and asked, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 2. And Jesus said to him, "What have you done so far?" 3. And he said to Him, "Well I was born into a wealthy family, got into a good school in Galilee because my parents donated a few thousand talents, and have a high-paying job in the Roman treasury managing risk." 4. Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him, for the rich young man was blessed, and said to him, "One thing you lack: A bigger house in a gated community in Tiberias. Buy that and you'll be all set. And make sure you get a stone countertop for the kitchen. Those are really nice." The disciples were amazed. 5. Peter asked him, "Lord, shouldn't he sell all his possessions and give it to the poor?" Jesus grew angry. "Get behind me, Satan! He has earned it!" Peter protested, "Lord," he said, "Did this man not have an unjust advantage? What about those who are not born into wealthy families, or who do not have the benefit of a good education, or live in the poorer areas of Galilee, like Nazareth, your own home town?" 6. "Well," said Jesus, "first of all, that's why I left Nazareth. There were too many poor people always asking for charity. They were as numerous as the stars in the sky, and they annoyed me. Second, once people start spending again, like this rich young man, the Galilean economy will inevitably grow, and eventually it will all trickle down to the poor. Blessed are those who are patient! But giving the money away, especially if he can't write it off, is a big fat waste." The disciples' amazement knew no bounds. "But Lord, what about the Scriptures that tell us to care for the widow, for orphans, for the poor, for the sick, for the refugee? What about all the many passages about justice?" 7. "Those are metaphors," said Jesus. "Don't take everything so literally."

Quote from: Annah on August 26, 2012, 12:57:24 PM

On one hand, the New Testament says you must go through Christ to go to the Father.
On the Other hand, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says the only way to inherit eternal life is by loving your God and your neighbor like yourself.

The two doesn't exactly match up if you read it word for word.

Coming back to this when Jesus said that He is the way,the truth and the life and no man comes to the father but by Him,He was speaking to His disciples in the upper room just before His betrayal ,trial and death. He had already spoken many times that He would be lifted up and become a ransom for many. He had come to give sight to the blind,the deaf would hear ,the lame would walk, and He would set the captives free.

Knowing that He was speaking to the disciples who are Jews they would know that by the mosaic law the only way one could come before God was by innocent blood being shed for the covering of sins. It was the only way. Jesus had already been called the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. This had been stated throughout the old testament.

In the old testament God revealed the signs how one could know who the Messiah is. He would be born in Bethlehem,born of a virgin,He would give sight to the blind,make the deaf hear,and make the lame walk. He would be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver,be hung on a tree and be beaten beyond recognition and He would be raised from the dead before His body would see decay. This was how they would know that the Messiah is God's truth. Jesus was the fulfillment of those signs so He is God's truth.

Jesus had already shown He has the power and authority to raise people from the dead. The grave cold not hold Him because He was innocent of any spot or sin. An innocent man can NOT be convicted under the law and when God raised Him from the dead it was a sign to the truth of what Jesus said and did.

As under the old testament those who call upon the name of the Lord by faith shall be saved.

The two do not contradict each other. Fulfill the law completely and one can have eternal life but does any one you know of loves God above everything else and so totally loves each other in total perfection. Without any bad thoughts,motives,selfishness etc etc?

If the answer is no than NO ONE can fulfill the law and that's why we so need a savior. That is what is so awesome about what Jesus did and who He is. It is so simple a child can understand it.

Living it out on the other hand is a different story altogether. That is very difficult and could cost you everything in this life. But then again on the other hand other than the people around us is anything in this life really worth all that much? Temporary things that can not last or eternity with the God that loves us so much that He paid the greatest price to redeem us? Which is the greater?

when god puts the inner conscience in us, (all mankind), we then are honoring God, when we follow that inner conscience. Those who do so do not have to know God as taught in the bible. That is why there are THREE ETERNAL DESTINIES.. 

1. those who honor the inner voice put in all mankind
2. those who learn of God and chose to follow and do good according to their inner conscience
3. Those who learn of God and then deny God, as well as not following their inner conscience

for the righteous shall be saved too

Quote from: SarahM777 on August 28, 2012, 04:31:34 AM
Coming back to this when Jesus said that He is the way,the truth and the life and no man comes to the father but by Him,He was speaking to His disciples in the upper room just before His betrayal ,trial and death. He had already spoken many times that He would be lifted up and become a ransom for many. He had come to give sight to the blind,the deaf would hear ,the lame would walk, and He would set the captives free.

Knowing that He was speaking to the disciples who are Jews they would know that by the mosaic law the only way one could come before God was by innocent blood being shed for the covering of sins. It was the only way. Jesus had already been called the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. This had been stated throughout the old testament.

I know those phrases. I used to be a pentecostal pastor ;)

QuoteIn the old testament God revealed the signs how one could know who the Messiah is. He would be born in Bethlehem,born of a virgin,

In Hebrew it wasn't a virgin. It was a young handmaiden. The Hebrew word for virgin was never implied for the Mother of the Messiah. The word "virgin" from a sexual connotative sense came from the translations of the Greek Sept.

And yes, to the Hebrew people. Not necessarily for everyone and not necessarily just one "Messiah"

QuoteAn innocent man can NOT be convicted under the law and when God raised Him from the dead it was a sign to the truth of what Jesus said and did.

Others were raised from the dead on the third day as well. The story of Mithra (written 1000 years prior to the Christ story) tells of Mithra:

Being born of a virgin
Being a shepherd like person
The son of a God
Mithra's birth celebrated near the Winter Solstice (same as Christ's)
Mithra had twelve disciples
Mithra emphasized man's salvation through his redemptive death
Both were killed
Both were resurrected on the third day.
Both had a last supper
Both stressed Baptism (Mithra was a baptism of Ox blood...Christ of Water..Christ's blood symbolic in the Eucharist)
Sunday for Mithra and Christians is sacred

(there's more...and there are more outside religious comparison)

The reason why I bring this up is to show that there are other similar salvation/Messiah stories out there. This is why I stressed that the OT sayings are stressing points for a Judeo/Christian culture but isn't necessarily applicable as a universal truth for EVERYONE.

QuoteAs under the old testament those who call upon the name of the Lord by faith shall be saved.

Agreed. However, other religious texts outside Judaism and Christianity says the same thing. So. Which one is right? Is there only one right one? How can you be sure that your holy book is the only right one and the others are false? Other holy books also warn of false books out there too. Including books that are much older than the Old Testament.

QuoteThe two do not contradict each other.

I never said they did. You may want to reread the entire comment ;)

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 03:27:04 AM

Others were raised from the dead on the third day as well. The story of Mithra (written 1000 years prior to the Christ story) tells of Mithra:

Being born of a virgin
Being a shepherd like person
The son of a God
Mithra's birth celebrated near the Winter Solstice (same as Christ's)
Mithra had twelve disciples
Mithra emphasized man's salvation through his redemptive death
Both were killed
Both were resurrected on the third day.
Both had a last supper
Both stressed Baptism (Mithra was a baptism of Ox blood...Christ of Water..Christ's blood symbolic in the Eucharist)
Sunday for Mithra and Christians is sacred

(there's more...and there are more outside religious comparison)

The reason why I bring this up is to show that there are other similar salvation/Messiah stories out there. This is why I stressed that the OT sayings are stressing points for a Judeo/Christian culture but isn't necessarily applicable as a universal truth for EVERYONE.

Agreed. However, other religious texts outside Judaism and Christianity says the same thing. So. Which one is right? Is there only one right one? How can you be sure that your holy book is the only right one and the others are false? Other holy books also warn of false books out there too. Including books that are much older than the Old Testament.

The one that is right should be able to be verified to a degree.  Outside of the Bible where is any historical backing to what they say? How do you know that this person ever existed at all? If it's a mystery why is it a mystery? If God is trying to save people than why does it have to be shrouded in secracy? Wouldn't it make more sense that if God is trying to save His people then wouldn't He spell it out and have proofs that His word is true?

How is it that Babylon,Nineveh,Tyre,Sidon,Sodom and Gommorah,Jericho and other places have been located? What about the Medes and the Persians? What about the Canaanites and their practices? How is it that the spread of humanity across the globe fits the Biblical account of the tower of Babel? History shows that people spread out from Mesopotamia which is where Babylon is?
What about the Pilate stone?

Do you realize that a nomadic tribe could go from Jerusalem to Rio Grande,Argentina in less than 5 years traveling at ten miles a day? Just as three points of reference,It took less than150 years to go from the east to west coast of the US about 3,000 miles,pony express riders went from St Joesph,MO to San Francisco in 10 days a travel of about 1,600 miles,Lewis and Clark traveled over 8,000 miles in 2 years,4 months and 10 days. (without trains or motorized transportation.) The ididarod takes 10 days to go 1,000 miles by dogsled. It may not be accurate to say it took that long. Nomads do not have permanent structures.

No one can explain why if the New Testament account is not true,why did it not die out within the short time frame of when it was first preached in about AD 33 when there was yet eye witnesses to the account and within 25 years Claudius was throwing the Jews out of Rome because of the riots because the Gospel was being preached in Rome,within 35 years Nero was persecuting the Christians within Rome. How is it within that time frame it wasn't killed off?

Why is it that no one ever swears in any other name other than Jesus name?

How do you explain why the Jews after 1900 years of exile are now back in the land that God promised them? Why are they the most hated,reviled,and persecuted group ever,only because of their race? Why is it in the last 70 years in spite of every war that has been waged against them being far,far out numbered they won? If God's hand is not with them how do you explain it?

None of this makes any sense unless the Bible is God's revealed word.

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 03:27:04 AM

I never said they did. You may want to reread the entire comment ;)

I do apologize. I took it as you implied it and not stated it.

As I understand it, the reason the Christian bible stories are so pervasive is because governing institutions adopted it.  The Roman Catholic Church (think Inquisition, Rome, political power and the Church of England (think Protestants).  Essentially the "scriptures were used to rally people who couldn't be hooked any other way.  People with no electricity who grew their own food, government needed a way to control an uncontrollable populous.  Imagine what things would be like today if we all grew our own food, if everyone was off the grid, and if rich people were trying to collect taxes to ensure their future wealth.  But when you bring God into the equation you can begin to control people who would respond negatively to any other kind of coercion.

SarahM777, you are claiming the current status of Christianity could not come about unless it is the one true religion, but you fail to explain why this necessarily holds true. For instance, you are assuming the premise that the Jews could only be back in the promised land if the bible is true. Logically it would therefor follow that this would be impossible unless the bible is the word of God. If it is indeed possible without the bible being the word of God, then your argument fails.

Also worth noting is that your argument is a double edged sword as similar events or situations surrounding other  religions would also prove them to be true, and should they happen to be mutually exclusive to Christianity, well then you have a big problem on your hands.

Quote from: Noey Noonesson on August 30, 2012, 07:16:55 AM
As I understand it, the reason the Christian bible stories are so pervasive is because governing institutions adopted it.  The Roman Catholic Church (think Inquisition, Rome, political power and the Church of England (think Protestants).  Essentially the "scriptures were used to rally people who couldn't be hooked any other way.  People with no electricity who grew their own food, government needed a way to control an uncontrollable populous.  Imagine what things would be like today if we all grew our own food, if everyone was off the grid, and if rich people were trying to collect taxes to ensure their future wealth.  But when you bring God into the equation you can begin to control people who would respond negatively to any other kind of coercion.

That's what is to often most people see. They don't see the true Church,the body of Christ. They see the power hungry,rigid,formalized,money grubbing,back stabbing etc etc so called church. They see the guy in the fish hat that proclaims he is the vicar of Christ on earth whose words somehow have more meaning than what Jesus Himself said. They see on the TV the mob guy going to confession and the priest saying a few magic words and he can go back to being the mob guy the other 167 hours during the week.  They see the rich guy driving the Mercedes who wouldn't even help a coworker out,but  yet goes to the church down the street every Sunday for an hour like he is doing God a favor. They see the Westboro's  and do NOT see God's love in their lives. Which is what the Church is suppose to do. The Church is suppose to be the ones that are showing His love and preach the good news of who Jesus is and He did to save us. To often people never see the same compassion that Jesus showed to them that they should be showing to others.  To say something is not right is one thing but bashing others on the head is so far from doing what right.

It is so easy to point out one thing that someone else is doing,never mind the fact the cheating on ones taxes is lying and stealing,never mind the gossip by the ones in the back of the church,never mind the guy who stomped everyone else to get to the top,never mind the deacon who is having an affair,and it's rarely ever mentioned because they aren't so bad. No wonder it's so hard for those who do not believe to see the truth. They don't see the church living in truth.

Quote from: SarahM777 on August 30, 2012, 07:01:13 AM
The one that is right should be able to be verified to a degree.  Outside of the Bible where is any historical backing to what they say? How do you know that this person ever existed at all? If it's a mystery why is it a mystery? If God is trying to save people than why does it have to be shrouded in secracy? Wouldn't it make more sense that if God is trying to save His people then wouldn't He spell it out and have proofs that His word is true?

How is it that Babylon,Nineveh,Tyre,Sidon,Sodom and Gommorah,Jericho and other places have been located? What about the Medes and the Persians? What about the Canaanites and their practices? How is it that the spread of humanity across the globe fits the Biblical account of the tower of Babel? History shows that people spread out from Mesopotamia which is where Babylon is?
What about the Pilate stone?

The story of Mithra and whether or not it is historically accurate (BTW...the cities mention in those scriptures are real) isn't what is important in my question.

What is important is how similar Mithra story is to the Christ story but the Mithra story came first....by a very long time first.

There are also other religious texts that are historically "accurate" too.

Basically, my point is almost every religion says their book is true...not just the Bible (The Quran says it much more than the Bible). Also, other holy books are very historically accurate (sometimes, even more accurate than the Bible). I find truths in every one of those books...I also see literary narrative (where it is suppose to be a story...and not taken literally). Job and Jonah are two examples.

The rub I have with fundamentalist Christianity (Jesus is the only way...everyone else is going to hell) is how they lift up Israel as the Golden Child of the world. Fundamentalist Christians place the Jewish people on a spiritual pedastil (coming from a Jewish family myself I can tell you we are no different than anyone else) but then they believe Jews are going to hell too if they don't believe Jesus to be their Messiah.

The Zionist movement is an interesting thing. They funnel millions and millions of dollars into Israel. Not to prosper Israel but to hurry the coming of Christ (because some believe that if the temple was built where the current Muslim temple is in Jerusalem then that will usher Christ back according to some people's interpretations of the Book of Revelation).

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 11:42:41 AM

Basically, my point is almost every religion says their book is true...not just the Bible (The Quran says it much more than the Bible). Also, other holy books are very historically accurate (sometimes, even more accurate than the Bible). I find truths in every one of those books...I also see literary narrative (where it is suppose to be a story...and not taken literally). Job and Jonah are two examples.

What an evolution of thought!

Jesus said: "the kingdom of heaven is within," and thus "when in Grace," to be found everywhere.

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
The story of Mithra and whether or not it is historically accurate (BTW...the cities mention in those scriptures are real) isn't what is important in my question.

What is important is how similar Mithra story is to the Christ story but the Mithra story came first....by a very long time first.

Not suprising as it came from the Persian empire. The writers of the New Testament always pointed back to the Old Testament to back it up. The Jews were in captivity from 598 to about 520 BC. The Persian Empire was the power at that time. The Jews that remained would have talked about their scriptures and it would have been very easy for it to be transfered to another religion.  Most of what the scholars do know about it was that it really came about sometime between 300 and 100 BC and appears to be mostly Roman with a slight base going back.

Going into some background a list of the Old Testament and New Testament references


Theme                                         Old Testament Reference                     New Testament fulfilled in                Jesus                                                                                                                   Jesus
Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God   Ps. 110:1                Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20
Atonement by blood                                     Lev. 17:11        Heb. 9:22
Baptism                        Exodus 40:12-15; Lev. 16:4;                   Matt. 3:16; 28:19;
                                            Gen. 17:10; Ezek. 36:25                                                                      Col. 2:11-12; Heb. 10:22
                                         Gen. 17:10; Ezek. 36:25                                
Begotten Son, Jesus is   Psalm 2:7   Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5
Creative work   Gen. 1; 1:26   John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17
Crucifixion   Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10   Luke 23:33-38
Damnation and Salvation   Dan. 12:2   Matt. 25:46
Eternal Son   Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7   Heb. 1:5; 5:5
First and Last   Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12   Rev. 1:8,17; 22:13
God among His people   Isaiah 9:6; 40:3   John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3
Incarnation of God   1) Ex 3:14; 2) Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10   1) John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2) Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3
Monotheism   Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5   John 10:30; Eph. 4:5
Only Begotten Son   Gen. 22:2.                    John 3:16; Heb. 11:7
Priesthood of Jesus   Psalm 110:4   Heb. 6:20; 7:25
Resurrection of Christ   Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19   John 2:19-21
Return of Christ   Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4   Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20
Sacrifice of the Son   Gen. 22.  Typology   Heb. 9:27
Salvation by grace   1) Gen. 12:3; 2) 15:6; Hab. 2:4   1) Gal. 3:8-11; 2) Rom. 4:9
Sin offering   Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3   Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11
Sin offering made outside the camp   Ex. 29:14   Heb. 13:12-13
Sin offering without defect   Ex. 12:5; Lev. 22:20; Deut. 17:1   Heb. 9:14
Son of God   Psalm 2:7   John 5:18
Substitutionary Atonement   Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21   Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18;
Trinity   1) Gen. 1:1,26; Job 33:4; 2) Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8; Psalm 104:30;  23)Gen. 19:24 with Amos 4:10-11; Is.48:16   1) John 1:1-3; 2) John 1:18; 6:46; 3) Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14
Virgin Birth   Isaiah 7:14   Matt. 1:25
Worship of Jesus   Psalm 97:7   Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6

Curtisy of CARM

Note that most of the Old Testament was written prior to 600 BC
So which one really did come first?

Did Mithra really come from a rock as an adult? Did he really shoot a rock with a arrow and cause a worldwide flood? If it's not true how can anyone say any of it is true or is it pick and choose? Are there any witnesses?

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 11:42:41 AM

Basically, my point is almost every religion says their book is true...not just the Bible (The Quran says it much more than the Bible). Also, other holy books are very historically accurate (sometimes, even more accurate than the Bible). I find truths in every one of those books...I also see literary narrative (where it is suppose to be a story...and not taken literally). Job and Jonah are two examples.

Do they have eyewitnesses who were willing to die saying they saw what they saw? How did Thomas go from unbelief to be willing to die for one fact that can not be erased HE saw Jesus alive.
No one knowing dies for a lie. Why would anyone want to die for something they knew was a lie?

Why are they just stories? Could not an all powerful God cause a fish to swallow a man and spit him up 3 days later? Why can't they be literal?

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 11:42:41 AM

The Zionist movement is an interesting thing. They funnel millions and millions of dollars into Israel. Not to prosper Israel but to hurry the coming of Christ (because some believe that if the temple was built where the current Muslim temple is in Jerusalem then that will usher Christ back according to some people's interpretations of the Book of Revelation).

Don't be surprised if that is also a reason for the ecumenical movement.  Moving towards a one world religion.

1. Everything the Persians believed in did not come from the stories of Jews from the diaspora. This has been discounted numerous times by many scholars.  Scholars had looked into this as many Fundamentalists tried to say almost all of the religions in the Middle East was taken from Judaism (to show that Judaism was the only right way). For example, the flood story from the Syrian books are much older than the flood story from the Hebrew Bible. To cite every single story that correlates to multiple faiths by saying "the other cultures 'borrowed them all' from the Hebrew people is very elitist and unsubstantiated.

Historical and archeological finds have shown that the Kingdom of David was much smaller than previously thought (just a spattering of city states)..and if anything, much of the Hebrew traditions were borrowed from other religions. Not the other way around. Much of the Hebrew Bible was written much later than thought. For example, Moses did not write the Pentateuch. King Josiah oversaw the writings of Samuel and Kings as well as Leviticus (Pent.)....he lived over 1000 years after Moses.

2.  The Christ and Mithra comparison...many of which cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible (born on Winter Solstice, having twelve disciples, having a paternal father named Joseph, etc) so the theory of the Persian Empire stealing the Jewish belief system is not valid.

Also, there will never be a one world religion. Too many people still have religious prejudice in their hearts for that to happen..plus the beauty in multiple faiths is the beautiful diversity among them. In my opinion, the ultimate form of spiritual enlightenment is to be aware that there are truths in all of it. Not just one book written much later than many others.

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 02:29:32 PM
1. Everything the Persians believed in did not come from the stories of Jews from the diaspora. This has been discounted numerous times by many scholars.  Scholars had looked into this as many Fundamentalists tried to say almost all of the religions in the Middle East was taken from Judaism (to show that Judaism was the only right way). For example, the flood story from the Syrian books are much older than the flood story from the Hebrew Bible. To cite every single story that correlates to multiple faiths by saying "the other cultures 'borrowed them all' from the Hebrew people is very elitist and unsubstantiated.

All I said was that it is possible that they may have picked it up that way. Can you be 100% sure that the Syrians books were just written first. Not that it was the first to be known?

I do not agree that they came from Judaism most have their roots going back to the tower of Babel.

Quote from: Annah on August 30, 2012, 02:29:32 PM

2.  The Christ and Mithra comparison...many of which cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible (born on Winter Solstice, having twelve disciples, having a paternal father named Joseph, etc) so the theory of the Persian Empire stealing the Jewish belief system is not valid.

Jesus was NOT born on the winter solstice. The winter months can get down into the 30's. Not exactly good temps to be putting a new mother and newborn in a stable.

Taking bits and pieces and blending belief systems is nothing new.

Quote from: MariaMx on August 30, 2012, 07:46:22 AM
SarahM777, you are claiming the current status of Christianity could not come about unless it is the one true religion, but you fail to explain why this necessarily holds true. For instance, you are assuming the premise that the Jews could only be back in the promised land if the bible is true. Logically it would therefor follow that this would be impossible unless the bible is the word of God. If it is indeed possible without the bible being the word of God, then your argument fails.

Also worth noting is that your argument is a double edged sword as similar events or situations surrounding other  religions would also prove them to be true, and should they happen to be mutually exclusive to Christianity, well then you have a big problem on your hands.

If you look at the Old Testament you have what is called both the major and minor prophets. Most of what they wrote about way the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah) was going to be judged. They also dealt with Assyria (Capitol city Ninevah) and Babylon. Assyria came against the Northern Kingdom the Kingdom was dispersed about 720 BC. Ninevah was destroyed by the Babylonians in 612 BC. The Babylonians laid siege to Jerusalem about 598-597 BC and the Southern Kingdom was taken into captivity in 3 deportations. Babylon was then destroyed by the Medes and Persians about 538 BC.  The prophets who were living at that time were preaching that these things were going to happen. Quite a bit more in depth than I can into here. They were right the things they said would happen did. The number and depth of them are beyond coicendense.

Quote from: MariaMx on August 30, 2012, 07:46:22 AM

Also worth noting is that your argument is a double edged sword as similar events or situations surrounding other  religions would also prove them to be true, and should they happen to be mutually exclusive to Christianity, well then you have a big problem on your hands.

It would have to be a lot to even begin to come close.

Quote from: SarahM777 on August 30, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
All I said was that it is possible that they may have picked it up that way. Can you be 100% sure that the Syrians books were just written first. Not that it was the first to be known?

Not 100% sure. When it comes to history, nothing is 100% sure. But with many of their tablets and writings dated much older than Hebrew scripture it is a pretty good bet. Also, with the Mithra story def 100% being dated before the Christ story, it does bring about other extra related questions.

QuoteI do not agree that they came from Judaism most have their roots going back to the tower of Babel.

Jesus was NOT born on the winter solstice. The winter months can get down into the 30's. Not exactly good temps to be putting a new mother and newborn in a stable.

Many Christians do believe he was born on Winter Solstice. It became the official date. I'm not saying he was def born on Winter Solstice. That wasn't my point. My point was his birth date observation was the same as many other Messiahs throughout religious history.

QuoteTaking bits and pieces and blending belief systems is nothing new.

Agreed as this was my entire point :)

Quote from: Annah on August 31, 2012, 02:45:27 AM
Not 100% sure. When it comes to history, nothing is 100% sure. But with many of their tablets and writings dated much older than Hebrew scripture it is a pretty good bet. Also, with the Mithra story def 100% being dated before the Christ story, it does bring about other extra related questions.

Maybe but it leaves out to many other factors. Nomad and city. Nomads would not be writing on stone tablets as they were not very easy to carry. It's assumed that nomads at that time were not educated in reading and writing,but it's not provable either way and it may just be that they most likely had written it down on leather. Writing on leather goes back a long way. It's mentioned as far back as 2500 BC. but all that means is they knew about it. Leather degrades so much faster than stone. All it means is that the stone is documented earlier. Nothing more nothing less.

Quote from: Annah on August 31, 2012, 02:45:27 AM

Many Christians do believe he was born on Winter Solstice. It became the official date. I'm not saying he was def born on Winter Solstice. That wasn't my point. My point was his birth date observation was the same as many other Messiahs throughout religious history.

Most Christians have no idea where a lot of this stuff came from,have very little knowledge of the Bible,and for to many it's a show,it's like "I go to church on Sunday,I give to the church,I listen to the preacher on Sunday,the preacher says some little words to make me OK,I am a good person,I listen to contemporary Christian music,etc so therefor I must be a Christian."  I'm sorry going off on a tangent. It's just one of those things that drive me crazy.

A lot of that stuff was set up by Constantine. It just makes it easier to rule if you can make some of the holidays the same days. He was one of the first ecumenical. Can anyone say if he was or not a Christian? Not for sure. He may have had other motives for saying so. Money and power are strong motives,he may have seen that the empire was spending a lot of time,money,effort and manpower against a group that at that time was basically harmless. What ever his reasons were he did a lot of damage. He set the ground work for the Roman Catholic Church. It opened the door for the "church" to do things that Jesus never ever told them to do and in many cases in opposition to what Jesus said we were to do.

Quote from: SarahM777 on August 30, 2012, 04:18:21 PM
If you look at the Old Testament you have what is called both the major and minor prophets. Most of what they wrote about way the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah) was going to be judged. They also dealt with Assyria (Capitol city Ninevah) and Babylon. Assyria came against the Northern Kingdom the Kingdom was dispersed about 720 BC. Ninevah was destroyed by the Babylonians in 612 BC. The Babylonians laid siege to Jerusalem about 598-597 BC and the Southern Kingdom was taken into captivity in 3 deportations. Babylon was then destroyed by the Medes and Persians about 538 BC.  The prophets who were living at that time were preaching that these things were going to happen. Quite a bit more in depth than I can into here. They were right the things they said would happen did. The number and depth of them are beyond coicendense.

Begging the question. You are claiming such coincidences can't naturally occur but you don't substantiate your claim. Even a broken watch displays the correct time twice a day so coincidences do occur.

Predictions of these kinds aren't all that impressive to begin with. First of all, a lot of people, self-proclaimed prophets or not, make all sorts of predictions. Sometimes they are right, but that doesn't prove foreknowledge, after all we 're talking about events that aren't so unlikely to happen anyway. Say I predict the fall of the North Korean regime within the next 200 years and it does come about, does that mean I have psychic abilities? No, it doesn't. It only means I predicted something that tends to happen anyway. Also, predicting something hundreds of years in advance might on the face of it make it seem even more impressive, but the longer the time span of the prediction the more likely it is to come true.

I also find that often times interpretations of old texts and events are shoehorned to fit into the agenda of the person making the interpretation. Nostradamus predictions are a classical example of this. His predictions are vague and can easily be seen to refer to some arbitrary later event. The trouble is however that no-one was able to foresee the coming event even with Nostradamus predictions in hand. Their "true" meaning could only be interpreted after the fact, but as I like to say, a text that can mean anything means nothing.

There's one more thing in your previous post I'd like to comment on (I plum forgot):

Quote
Why is it in the last 70 years in spite of every war that has been waged against them being far,far out numbered they won? If God's hand is not with them how do you explain it?

Here you are making the assumption that the only deciding factor of the outcome in a war or battle is the number of soldiers on the opposing sides, but this just isn't so. A modern soldier could easily defeat a thousand cavemen without divine intervention. Any further explanation should be unnecessary.

Quote from: MariaMx on August 31, 2012, 11:08:28 AM
Begging the question. You are claiming such coincidences can't naturally occur but you don't substantiate your claim. Even a broken watch displays the correct time twice a day so coincidences do occur.

Predictions of these kinds aren't all that impressive to begin with. First of all, a lot of people, self-proclaimed prophets or not, make all sorts of predictions. Sometimes they are right, but that doesn't prove foreknowledge, after all we 're talking about events that aren't so unlikely to happen anyway. Say I predict the fall of the North Korean regime within the next 200 years and it does come about, does that mean I have psychic abilities? No, it doesn't. It only means I predicted something that tends to happen anyway. Also, predicting something hundreds of years in advance might on the face of it make it seem even more impressive, but the longer the time span of the prediction the more likely it is to come true.

I also find that often times interpretations of old texts and events are shoehorned to fit into the agenda of the person making the interpretation. Nostradamus predictions are a classical example of this. His predictions are vague and can easily be seen to refer to some arbitrary later event. The trouble is however that no-one was able to foresee the coming event even with Nostradamus predictions in hand. Their "true" meaning could only be interpreted after the fact, but as I like to say, a text that can mean anything means nothing.

There's one more thing in your previous post I'd like to comment on (I plum forgot):Here you are making the assumption that the only deciding factor of the outcome in a war or battle is the number of soldiers on the opposing sides, but this just isn't so. A modern soldier could easily defeat a thousand cavemen without divine intervention. Any further explanation should be unnecessary.

I do have to go through my notes. Many of the prophicies are very specific. Writing out the list will take a bit of time and I will work on it through this weekend. There are exacting times,names,and other things.

I agree on Nostradomus,reminds me to much of the physic hot line. If they are so physic why is it they never win the lottery?  ::)

But not so modern against modern. The Yom Kippur War is a good example. Sneak attack on a major Holy day from two directions,out manned and out gunned yet they won. It's more in depth then that.

Quote from: SarahM777 on August 31, 2012, 01:12:56 PM
I do have to go through my notes. Many of the prophicies are very specific. Writing out the list will take a bit of time and I will work on it through this weekend. There are exacting times,names,and other things.

Well, pull them out, but make sure you verify the original source. If exact times and names are mentioned then that would make a strong case but it can also mean it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ie. followers of the prophecies made them come about because they expected them to.

You should also look into Confirmation Bias before you review your material.


[/quote]
But not so modern against modern. The Yom Kippur War is a good example. Sneak attack on a major Holy day from two directions,out manned and out gunned yet they won. It's more in depth then that.
[/quote]
The point I was trying to make was that after a battle the victory can always be traced back to the initial conditions and the following events. For your argument to be true the Israeli's would have to be un-explainable, and even then it might not be reasonable to attribute it to divine intervention as we may not know all the details.

The Israeli's victory in the Yom Kippur War is well understood by historians. It's been a while since I learned about it but as I can recall the Egyptians had mostly focused their planning and effort on the crossing of the Jordan river and the initial battle that found place there. As they had to proceed across the Sinai desert they had logistical trouble sustaining their troops and were lacking the higher positions of the Israeli tanks where they had to cross the mountain pass.

The reason why many of the prophetic books were accurate was because they were often written DURING the event in which the Prophet said will happen.

Matter of fact all these books were written like that.

The Messiah scriptures found in some of the Prophetic books were as close as our interpretation of prophecy we will see..and some of that could have fit other people too. For example, in Isaiah, it says a young hand maiden will give birth to the Messiah and will call him Emmanuel.

Well, many girls who gave birth back then were young hand maidens (i.e., young girls). In Isaiah, it says nothing of the word "virgin." That was written in there MUCH later by the Greeks. Jesus was named Jesus. Not Emmanuel.

Now, of course people say "well, Emmanuel is more of a descriptor than an actual name." I totally agree. But why didn't Isaiah write, "and he shall be called "God Saves" as Yeshua means "Salvation."

But to my original point: every prophetic book was written during the time in which the prophets had "prophesied" the event so of course they are accurate...because it already had happened. However, the point of the Prophetic Books wasn't about Prophets knowing the future. The messages of the Prophets were based on a Deuteronomy type of cause and effect. You had sin, therefor God will do this. However, if you do right, then God will restore you.

Quote from: Annah on August 31, 2012, 07:23:49 PM
The reason why many of the prophetic books were accurate was because they were often written DURING the event in which the Prophet said will happen.

Matter of fact all these books were written like that.

Babylon was not made a waste land during the time the prophets were living they have already died. Babylon was still a city during Alexander the Great's time. In fact he died there in 323 BC. In 275 BC the inhabitants were transported to Seleucia. Even later than that sacrifices were still be performed in the temple there. By the mid 2nd century BC the place had become desolate. At that time it was not yet a swamp yet by the 1800's AD they were doing a dig and had to stop because of the ground water.


It took over 600 years after Isaiah wrote this.

You have the same with Tyre. The prophecies came in stages and not all at once over 100's of years.

One could also argue the point that Kingdoms rise and fall all the time (especially during those times). So of course Isaiah would have been right when he wrote Babylon would have been destroyed. Inevitably, someone else would take it over. Assyrians took it, then the Persians (before and during Isaiah's time)....it was only a matter of time before another kingdom did it too.

Also the prophet of Delphi prophesied against the fall of Babylon as well. These prophecies were coming among the enemies of a ruling kingdom. It inspired morale among the slave nations.

If it took 100 years or 2000 years for Babylon to fall, it would have been inevitable and thus, the prophetic nature of that statement would have been won by default.

Quote from: Annah on September 01, 2012, 12:53:32 PM
One could also argue the point that Kingdoms rise and fall all the time (especially during those times). So of course Isaiah would have been right when he wrote Babylon would have been destroyed. Inevitably, someone else would take it over. Assyrians took it, then the Persians (before and during Isaiah's time)....it was only a matter of time before another kingdom did it too.

Also the prophet of Delphi prophesied against the fall of Babylon as well. These prophecies were coming among the enemies of a ruling kingdom. It inspired morale among the slave nations.

If it took 100 years or 2000 years for Babylon to fall, it would have been inevitable and thus, the prophetic nature of that statement would have been won by default.

It's not in the fact that Babylon fell. It's how it fell. It's in how Tyre fell. It's in how Israel and Judah were dispersed and then regathered.  And that is what I will get into.

I am going to start with the promises and prophicies concerning Israel. This will take a while so I will do it in parts.

Israel Part 1

Going all the way back to Moses time when they where about to enter the Promised Land,the book of Deuteronomy gives a synopsis of what God already did. They are given the blessing for obeying and the curses for disobidience, in Chapter 27 they take an oath.

The very last line in Chapter 27sums it up

Verse 26 "Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out."

Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

In Chapter 28 again they are given blessing and curses. Going down to verse 36 it aid this

36 The Lord will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your ancestors. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the Lord will drive you.

They would not have a king for another 350 years who the people appointed. During the 350 years they were ruled by judges.

Going down to verse 64

64 Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the Lord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life.

This started happening in AD 70 after the fall of Jerusalem. It did not happen in the Babylonian captivity as they were only sent to one country not worldwide.

God gives them a promise if after turning away and they start turning back to Him.

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes[a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, 10 if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

God had already given His promise that the Jews if after being taken away from their land they would be in time restored. They once again became an independent nation on May 14,1948 after almost 2500 years.

The thing is this is warned about and predicted even before they enter the Promise Land.

This is just a small foundation from which it builds on.

Israel Part 2

Again another warning about what would happen. Again before they even entered the promise land.

Deuteronomy 29: 22-29

22 So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it;

23 And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:

24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?

25 Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt:

26 For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them:

27 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book:

28 And the Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Isaiah goes into how many times they will be scattered and returned. Well before the second time they were removed from the land.

Isaiah 11:11-13

11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

So when did the second time that the Jews were removed from the land? It was during the time of the Roman Empire well after Isaiah wrote this as he was living during the time of Uzziah,Jotham,Ahaz,and Hezakiah the 10 through 13 kings of Judah. From 767-687 BC almost 750 years before the second time they were removed from the land.

Hosea goes on to state that Israel would be without a king. He predicted this before 753 BC

Hosea 3:4-5

4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.

How long have they been without a king or the temple where they could preform the sacrifices?

Herod's temple was destroyed in 70 AD.  So since then they have been without a king,prince,or sacrifice for over 1950 years.
Once again you have that the Jews will return to the land.

Jesus Himself predicts the same

Luke 21:23-24

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Once again it was predicted that the Jews would be lead into captivity,Jerusalem would be trodden down by the Gentiles. Jerusalem was mostly destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 and was never again in Jewish hands till 1948.
It went from Roman hands to the Caliphs,then the crusades,it went back and forth between sultans and Christians till the Ottoman Empire,then came the British mandate up until  May 14,1948 when Israel once again became a nation.

Israel Part 3

Again more predictions that Israel would once again be a nation

Amos about 750 BC

Amos 9:11-15


Ezekiel written between 593-571 BC

Ezekiel 37:1-11

The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, "Son of man, can these bones live?"

I said, "Sovereign Lord, you alone know."

4 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.'"

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

9 Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.'" 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

11 Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.'"

Again in Chapter 37:21-22

and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.


Again in Chapter 34:11-14

11 "'For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel.

the scriptures are nice. But it still doesn't change what I already stated previously.

Confirmation bias is powerful stuff.

Although I was raised Catholic for some reason both myself, my sister and my brother came to be fundamentalists.  I was always reading the bible, writing down passages and it even felt like god was guiding me.  Other people in my Reformed Presbyterian church would read the studies I had written and they were amazed how I was about to tie everything together.

Most people spend their lives believing (as in an action) because they can never know (as in an achievement) where there would be some closure or knowledge gained.  But with religion and especially fundamentalist and Zionist Christianity the believers believe.  And anything that supports their beliefs is leaped upon as evidence just as anything that disproves their beliefs is looked upon as a test by Satan or a test of their faith or a test of their beliefs or as just plain wrong.

They are called believers because that's what they do no matter what the facts are.  Why they do it is the question.  You can never disprove a believer let alone a true believer.  I think like any other behavior one has to go to the root of the belief in order to understand the irrational behavior.  Why does a person believe?  Most belief in religion is perpetuated by childhood indoctrination.  The people who are supposed to love the child more than anyone else indoctrinate the child and even hand the child over to others who will continue the indoctrination.

Because of my own childhood indoctrination and because I was never allowed to think for myself I came to the conclusion that there had to be a god, it then became a matter of finding the right god.  Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelist...  I kept seeking stricter churches in hope that god would forgive me and remove my GID curse.  It was like someone created a reality in my head, one where there absolutely had to be a god and if you didn't believe in him you went to hell for all of eternity.

I actually believed (was taught) that no one could be a good person unless they believed in god.  I ended up in a church that met on a farm and when they weren't praising the lord they were talking about the second coming.  These were the most extreme xtians I had ever known.  But after spending a a while in this end times group of believers, growing vegetables, canning, singing, witnessing and all that neat stuff I finally looked around me and I noticed that these were some of the least functional and most dysfunctional people I had ever met in my life.  And they weren't getting any better.  And god hadn't seen fit to cure me of my GID curse.  I was finally willing to admit that a huge sham had been perpetuated on me.  I realized how many years of my life I had flushed down the toilet and I realized my idiocy and still, recovery wasn't easy and I occasionally back-slid but I got through it.  Honestly I think childhood indoctrination into religion is the most powerful addiction to overcome.  The evidence is irrelevant.  Belief is an effort entirely spent by the believer, like trying to hold your breath under water and the goal of the believer is to get back under the water as soon as they have taken a sinful breath of air. In my humble opinion.

the problem with eschatology (the second coming of Christ and the end times) is that it is never right.

Even the Apostles got it wrong when they said "Jesus will return within our generation." Well, they died and dozens more generations has come and gone. No Jesus.

So, people will look into the prophecies. They come up with mathematical formulas, hints, "mystic hidden truths" and everything else under the sun to predict Jesus coming again. And every single time they have gotten it wrong or come up with other excuses saying "Jesus already came back." (Jack Van Impe, Rev. Hag Hagee, Hal Lindsey, Rev. Copeland, the Book "88 reasons why Jesus will come back in 1998, Harold Camping saying the Rapture would be in May 2011 and when that was wrong..October 2011, etc etc).

The Zionist movement is under the same sway. They believe by funneling millions into Israel (under the guise of "we love our Jewish sisters and brothers") they hope this will be the strength of Israel to the pinnacle of which they will tear down the Muslim's Dome of the Rock and place the Jewish Temple there in it's stead.  Their line of "thinking" is that with the Temple in place, this will usher in the AntiChrist to commit the "Desolation of Abomination" under their interpretation of The Book of Revelation; thus ushering in the Second Coming of Christ.

This is why I stress that the Old Testament books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, etc etc and the New Testament's Book of Revelation are NOT books of prophecy. They are so much more than simple gas station horoscope scrolls. When people dwell on "the prophecies" of these books, the lose the true meaning.

Besides, the Book of Revelation was never meant to be some futuristic book on a new world order. It was a book written for the people over 2000 years ago to keep their guard up due to the Roman related persecution. When Rome became a Christian state, the Book of Revelation was no longer a handbook of survival.

Quote from: Annah on September 02, 2012, 09:02:52 PM
the scriptures are nice. But it still doesn't change what I already stated previously.

Again it doesn't change that even though they may appear to be the same in some aspects they are also very different. Again is the story taken off of works of art or is it written down? If the story about Mithra comes from the art forms then it is highly subjective to the meaning of the art. Same as ink blots. It's what do you see in it. Written form is much less subjective than art. Again I ask how do you know he even existed?

Most of the multi-deist religions all have a sun god,moon god,fertility god,god of war,etc etc etc. Does that mean they are all talking about the same gods? Just because Islam talks about the Mauhdid,which by the way their vision of the end times is far closer to the book of Revelation than the story of Mithar is to Christ. And we know for a fact that Islam came way after Revelation was written.

Without eye witnesses,written documentation,verifiable accounts to the persons life,how do you now that it is nothing more than a Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn type of yarn,placed in times and places that did happen?

Quote from: Annah on September 03, 2012, 04:17:41 AM

Besides, the Book of Revelation was never meant to be some futuristic book on a new world order. It was a book written for the people over 2000 years ago to keep their guard up due to the Roman related persecution. When Rome became a Christian state, the Book of Revelation was no longer a handbook of survival.

If it was only meant as a guide book to survival there should be statements that will either confirm that or deny that.
So lets take a good look at one of the passages.

Revelation 17:7-11

7 Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

9 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. 11 The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

Four times John refutes that it is happening in the time that he wrote it down. Four times he states once was,is not now,and three time he states is yet to come. Yet to come is a future tense not present or past.

The seven heads are seven kings,he then goes on to state five have fallen,Egypt,Assyria,Babylon,Persian,and the Greek empire had already fallen,the one king that is Rome and there is yet another that is to come. If that kingdom is yet to come how can it be in the present time when John wrote Revelation?

SarahM777, the prophecies you have listed are about what I expected and similar to other proofs of authenticity I've heard from other religious groups. Islam is rife with this stuff. You should look into the claims because it is very easy to spot the mistakes in their thinking when you are not a believer, and to be honest, some of their proofs are on the surface more convincing than what you have shared here. Do a google search for Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith L. Moore. It is a rather interesting study in how easily we, as humans, can fool ourselves if we don't scrutinize the information we are given to digest. Also it's a good exercise in sharpening our skills in critical thinking.

Now about the prophecies. Annah has brought up an important point, namely, the time the prophecies were written. If they were written after the fact, well, then they can be dismissed outright without any further discussion. Obviously the text you pasted in was written before 1948 but that doesn't really matter because it is too generic to warrant the conclusion that the author had actual foreknowledge of the events to take place 2000+ years later. Coincidence is simply not an unreasonable explanation. If you can't rule out explanations as mundane as simple coincidence then you can't conclude that a supernatural natural explanation is the correct one. You assume there is only one possible explanation while there in fact are more. As trite and cliché as it may sound, this is a classic example for the application of Occam's razor to resolve the issue.

Back when I cared and was trying to believe I stuck with the idea that the second coming of Christ was in 72 AD.  Fortunately I no longer believe or care ^_^ .  I just wish I could have that lost time back.

Quote from: Annah on September 03, 2012, 04:17:41 AM
the problem with eschatology (the second coming of Christ and the end times) is that it is never right.

Even the Apostles got it wrong when they said "Jesus will return within our generation." Well, they died and dozens more generations has come and gone. No Jesus.

So, people will look into the prophecies. They come up with mathematical formulas, hints, "mystic hidden truths" and everything else under the sun to predict Jesus coming again. And every single time they have gotten it wrong or come up with other excuses saying "Jesus already came back." (Jack Van Impe, Rev. Hag Hagee, Hal Lindsey, Rev. Copeland, the Book "88 reasons why Jesus will come back in 1998, Harold Camping saying the Rapture would be in May 2011 and when that was wrong..October 2011, etc etc).

The Zionist movement is under the same sway. They believe by funneling millions into Israel (under the guise of "we love our Jewish sisters and brothers") they hope this will be the strength of Israel to the pinnacle of which they will tear down the Muslim's Dome of the Rock and place the Jewish Temple there in it's stead.  Their line of "thinking" is that with the Temple in place, this will usher in the AntiChrist to commit the "Desolation of Abomination" under their interpretation of The Book of Revelation; thus ushering in the Second Coming of Christ.

This is why I stress that the Old Testament books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, etc etc and the New Testament's Book of Revelation are NOT books of prophecy. They are so much more than simple gas station horoscope scrolls. When people dwell on "the prophecies" of these books, the lose the true meaning.

Besides, the Book of Revelation was never meant to be some futuristic book on a new world order. It was a book written for the people over 2000 years ago to keep their guard up due to the Roman related persecution. When Rome became a Christian state, the Book of Revelation was no longer a handbook of survival.

I thought the zionist were the NWO peeps (rothschilds illuminati) who have used Israel to garner pity (from the USA) from the holocaust to gain control over the oil in the middle east. I do know many jews are upset at the zionist who try to start WW3 as most jews have gotten along with muslims for eons but then the zionist got involved and distorted the truth of that relationship. Many jews in israel speak about this but do not own the news to publicise it but are doing in online these days.

Also wasn't it constantine who changed Yahshua / Jashua  into jesus and changed the sabbath from saturday to sunday.

NWO is part of a Zionist movement yes. They have the same end results in mind: to herald the second coming of Christ through violence.

The evangelical Zionists are more subtle in their approach: they give the money to Israel to build the Temple, and that will spur on a war between the Muslim nations and Israel (because the Dome of the Rock is the most holy temple for Muslims...if you tear that down, there will be a war).

Evangelical interpretations state that there has to be a war in order for Christ to come back and there has to be a Jewish temple on the mount. This is why Zionists are funneling millions of dollars into Israel for a rebuild the temple project.

Israel isn't stupid. They know evangelicals are using them for religious end time purposes....but they're isn't much complaining since Israel is receiving millions of US dollars yearly from this sect. 

Sarah, i dont mean to be killing a dead horse with this issue...but the scripture you gave me again just proves my point concerning prophecy.

Of course John will say all these kingdoms have fallen....cause they already had fallen. And of course, many knew it was only a matter of time Rome would fall because they were in a state of crises even when John wrote Revelation. Not only that, but every kingdom in the past had fallen...it was a sure bet that Rome would fall too.

Matter of fact, it was apparent that Rome would fall. Christians had sent missionaries to the Goths, other Germanic tribes, and as far as England. They became close to these factions so that when the time came for Rome to fall, the Christians had allies on the outside.

This why Rome fell, the Senate was dissolved but the Christian hierarchy was untouched. The Christian "state" survived the sacking of Rome because they built up allies. It is why the Holy Roman Empire had succeeded as it did...converting many Goths and others into Christian states.

In my opinion, it had nothing to do with scrying or reading the future. It had to do with state diplomacy.

It does not appear that even if I went through all 2,000 fulfilled prophecies it would still not change your mind. I begin to wonder if any thing I have said in the last 1 1/2 has made any difference to anyone here. Perhaps I don't belong here.

Quote from: Annah on September 03, 2012, 03:28:43 PM
NWO is part of a Zionist movement yes. They have the same end results in mind: to herald the second coming of Christ through violence.

The evangelical Zionists are more subtle in their approach: they give the money to Israel to build the Temple, and that will spur on a war between the Muslim nations and Israel (because the Dome of the Rock is the most holy temple for Muslims...if you tear that down, there will be a war).

Evangelical interpretations state that there has to be a war in order for Christ to come back and there has to be a Jewish temple on the mount. This is why Zionists are funneling millions of dollars into Israel for a rebuild the temple project.

Israel isn't stupid. They know evangelicals are using them for religious end time purposes....but they're isn't much complaining since Israel is receiving millions of US dollars yearly from this sect.

I agree about the evangelical movement but i thought the NWO was the anti christ movement that wants to destroy all of humanity in the name of power.. I thought they wanted to force everyone to wear the chip to buy or sell and then be able to control all the earths people. I didn't think they wanted to end the world to have yahshua come back again??

. So yes we agree there are two zionist movements..

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 03, 2012, 04:15:46 PM
It does not appear that even if I went through all 2,000 fulfilled prophecies it would still not change your mind. I begin to wonder if any thing I have said in the last 1 1/2 has made any difference to anyone here. Perhaps I don't belong here.

it doesn't mean you don't belong here :)

It just means I disagree with you about the prophecies. That's all.

If you did went through all 2,000+ prophecies, I would still respectfully disagree with you because of the simple matter that the OT Prophets were written during and after the prophecy in which they were written for.

It's beyond that. I have seen the signs way to many times in my life. There comes a point in time where one realizes they are not wanted around.

The Bible cannot be read as history the way we know it today,  that is quite obvious.  If Noah took 2 of all the animals, how come only Australia has kangaroos then?  We have all seen too many points where contradictory stories are presented.  Reading it as attempts to make sense of the world from limited knowledge, and as instructional allegory is more productive.
I have trouble with passages like Romans 1:32 that say I deserve death though.  My distant relatives who left concentration camps via the chimney, are a reminder of where this mentality leads when in the hands of literalists.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 04, 2012, 04:24:26 AM
It's beyond that. I have seen the signs way to many times in my life. There comes a point in time where one realizes they are not wanted around.

Sarah we love you being here sharing. You are educating many of us and making us think.. hugs

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 04, 2012, 04:24:26 AM
It's beyond that. I have seen the signs way to many times in my life. There comes a point in time where one realizes they are not wanted around.

just because someone disagrees with you on a religious issue does not meant we don't want you around.

Quote from: Amazon D on September 04, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
Sarah we love you being here sharing. You are educating many of us and making us think.. hugs

Thanks Danielle,

I need ed to hear that so badly.

Hugs

Quote from: Annah on September 04, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
just because someone disagrees with you on a religious issue does not meant we don't want you around.

Annah,

It's not that. I am just feeling so very,very alone. Dealing with the GID is bad enough. Trying to deal with it from a more fundamentalist direction doesn't make it any easier and to most it makes no sense at all. Knowing that a lot of people in here are very bitter towards those professing a faith that is closer in line with a fundamentalist does not go over very well here. Even though both have gone through much the same,the only difference is that one was able to hold on to their faith. To often I hear the bad from both sides while being caught in the middle because I am in both groups.

Is it any wonder that some days I feel like the odd one out?

Sarah

When it comes to you being a fundamentalist Christian and a transgender, unfortunately, you are the odd one out. I do not say this to pick on you but I know how the fundamentalist church is. I used to work for them.

They see you as an abomination. They see your lifestyle as a sin and a blight. I have seen so many children, teenagers, and adults get pushed to the verge of suicide because of what their churches and their traditions accuse them of (or how they make them out to be outcasts and sinners) Many are lucky to even have a chance to attend a fundamentalist church and working for them as a volunteer is out of the question.

The reason why so many have such a hard time with fundamentalists (in any religion) is because their end results is usually to point out how many sins the other person has. They pick and chose their own scripture to their liken. For example, they say homosexuality is wrong because of Leviticus, but they will glance over the part in Leviticus where the Lord forbade the Israelites from letting people with physical and mental disabilities into the church. Now, of course, a fundamentalist church will never not allow a disabled person from entering their church. However, the question I have to ask is "why do they see the Leviticus code of homosexuality still wrong but the Leviticus code against disabled people as 'not with this time and place'?"

I have not found one person who could answer that satisfactory without having to compromise their literal interpretations.

We have a transgender person who just started attended our church three weeks ago. She was kicked out of her church when she told the Pastor. However, she is struggling with our  "non fundamentalist" beliefs here. It happens but I do know she will never be welcome in any church as a functioning member if she is in a fundamentalist church. I have yet to see a church that fully welcomes gay people and be fundamentalist. And trust me, I've been looking.

Yes, you do belong here. Just because I disagree with your interpretations of the Bible does not mean you are not a valued member here. People disagree and the most important thing is that while we disagree with each other we can still respect one another and I certainly respect you.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 04, 2012, 03:06:53 PM
Annah,

It's not that. I am just feeling so very,very alone. Dealing with the GID is bad enough. Trying to deal with it from a more fundamentalist direction doesn't make it any easier and to most it makes no sense at all. Knowing that a lot of people in here are very bitter towards those professing a faith that is closer in line with a fundamentalist does not go over very well here. Even though both have gone through much the same,the only difference is that one was able to hold on to their faith. To often I hear the bad from both sides while being caught in the middle because I am in both groups.

Is it any wonder that some days I feel like the odd one out?

Hey i feel like the odd one out here with you two who have so much book knowledge..  :embarrassed:

Just know we all have our times when we feel different, but here beyond it all is our susans.org love  :-*

Remember much that i offered here wasn't even thought about let alone answered..  ;)

Quote from: Annah on September 04, 2012, 05:49:08 PM
Sarah

When it comes to you being a fundamentalist Christian and a transgender, unfortunately, you are the odd one out. I do not say this to pick on you but I know how the fundamentalist church is. I used to work for them.

They see you as an abomination. They see your lifestyle as a sin and a blight. I have seen so many children, teenagers, and adults get pushed to the verge of suicide because of what their churches and their traditions accuse them of (or how they make them out to be outcasts and sinners) Many are lucky to even have a chance to attend a fundamentalist church and working for them as a volunteer is out of the question.

The reason why so many have such a hard time with fundamentalists (in any religion) is because their end results is usually to point out how many sins the other person has. They pick and chose their own scripture to their liken. For example, they say homosexuality is wrong because of Leviticus, but they will glance over the part in Leviticus where the Lord forbade the Israelites from letting people with physical and mental disabilities into the church. Now, of course, a fundamentalist church will never not allow a disabled person from entering their church. However, the question I have to ask is "why do they see the Leviticus code of homosexuality still wrong but the Leviticus code against disabled people as 'not with this time and place'?"

I have not found one person who could answer that satisfactory without having to compromise their literal interpretations.

We have a transgender person who just started attended our church three weeks ago. She was kicked out of her church when she told the Pastor. However, she is struggling with our  "non fundamentalist" beliefs here. It happens but I do know she will never be welcome in any church as a functioning member if she is in a fundamentalist church. I have yet to see a church that fully welcomes gay people and be fundamentalist. And trust me, I've been looking.

Yes, you do belong here. Just because I disagree with your interpretations of the Bible does not mean you are not a valued member here. People disagree and the most important thing is that while we disagree with each other we can still respect one another and I certainly respect you.

I was brought up Lutheran Missouri Synod,then went to an Assemblys,then a CMA,then back to an Assemblys,now back to a Missouri Synod. I was brought up also with Chuck Swindoll and John MacArthur,Petra,Phil Keaggy,Twila Paris and Michael Card so..... but thankfully not Billy Graham,the guy with the crystal cathedral,TBN,Jack Hyles or Billy Sunday.

Where I split off is that they are missing one very major part. Jesus never ever brow beat anyone to follow Him. He always said come follow Me. Where is the compassion that He showed? He at times would point out what they were doing wrong but He forgave them and said "Go and sin no more"  The thing I had the hardest time getting through was just how much compassion He has for us. Can you imagine if the church was to walk and talk like Jesus how much the world could be changed for the better.

I do respect you Annah,you have gotten further in seminary than I did. I had a real hard time just trying to start to get through the four years of liberal arts. (Why you would need calculus is beyond me) 80 hour weeks did not work out too well  ::)

If we keep an open mind one can often see things that one never thought of before.

Quote from: Amazon D on September 04, 2012, 06:09:38 PM
Hey i feel like the odd one out here with you two who have so much book knowledge..  :embarrassed:

Just know we all have our times when we feel different, but here beyond it all is our susans.org love  :-*

Remember much that i offered here wasn't even thought about let alone answered..  ;)

No need to feel embarrassed. I just love to read a lot and have all those silly answers to Trivial Pursuit (I read Shogun in 2 days and I'm not a speed reader) :D

I hope you don't mind me using the GOD'S WORD translation but I prefer one that doesn't refer to being a man and prefer reference to being an adult instead.

QuoteGOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I no longer used childish ways.

The whole idea about God, Jesus and the Scriptures (in my opinion) was to help the so-called "believer" to have a rich, rewarding and fulfilling life while loving one another in healthy ways that promote a world full of peace and fulfillment.  We are supposed to love one-another in healthy ways, end of discussion, that is the goal of Christianity.

Churches that argue scripture and doctrine and don't get along are engaging in Childish Ways (in my opinion).  Trying to find truth in the bible is a Childish Pursuit (in my opinion).  This Jesus you speak of put his whole law into your heart, this "Knowledge of Good and of Evil".  The fruit of the tree in the garden of Eden, a story about why life isn't perfect.

I mean because if you believe in a loving god who created you then you might come to ask yourself, "Why did this loving god give me cancer, why does this loving god allow my friends to die, why has this loving god created so much evil and suffering, why does he allow it to persist?

So someone wrote a story to explain to people (who needed to believe in a Sky Daddy) why things were the way they were so they could continue to spend their time and effort worshiping an entity they imagined existed in the heavens, up where the clouds floated around. 

The Bible is a conundrum, on the one hand it is about loving your neighbor, being a good person and even being of service to your fellow human.  On the other hand it is a warning to love your neighbor, be a good person and be of service to your fellow human.  And there is some weird stuff thrown in by people who were probably doing mushrooms or drunk or who wanted to see if people would actually believe what they wrote or maybe they were in positions in the "church" and had to produce something to justify their position by writing something that would satisfy the "church".

But the whole law exists in your heart and religion is a distraction and a childish thing.  And it's time to put away things that cause offense and make it difficult to obey the law.  (In my humble opinion).

The truth is it's really easy to obey the law in your heart if your head isn't full of children's toys and dominating the sand box or taking your toys and going home in order to feel "right" about something.  Life isn't a treasure hunt, it's about making the most of what you already have.  If you are looking for treasure look in your heart, not in a bunch of stupid books that were created to help a primitive people maintain social structure in and during a time that was relevant to their culture and situation.  IMHO

The real reasons for the construction of the Bible are legion. In the beginning (500 years after the exodus), King Josia had the oral traditions written down so he could purge other religions from his realm and strengthen his position as King. Hezekiah, 150 years later, did a rewrite for the same purposes. They did not like people praying in high places... especially when it wasn't a religion that conformed to the law.

... and that was just the beginning.

I love ancient history.

If one takes the Bible literally,there is a question which most of them can not answer,in the way it is laid out in the Bible. Ask this and most do not even realize it. Which came first after the fall was it grace or the law? Most will answer that the law came first,but it's not. How did Abel know about a sacrifice? In Biblical terms a sacrifice was a means of grace. Even in Leviticus grace comes BEFORE the law. Leviticus Chapters 4-7 goes into forgiveness before the Levitical laws are given.

Even in Exodus

Exodus 33:19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Ask them this Is the law greater than mercy or is mercy greater than the law? The answer should be that mercy is greater than the law.

This is the sort of thing I have problems with,

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 05, 2012, 04:39:33 AM

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Unconditional love doesn't seem to get a look in, although we are supposed to practice it .  If that is truly how god works, I'll go with Crom, Odin or any other deity  thanks!

Then what is the condition. There is one

Romans 10:11-13

11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

13 is taken from Joel 2:32

Pretty simple don't you think? It sounds like the only ones not included are those who will not call on the name of the Lord. But for one to do so they must be able to humble themselves,because one must come to the point of realizing that one can not save themselves.

Quote from: Annah on September 04, 2012, 05:49:08 PM

They see you as an abomination. They see your lifestyle as a sin and a blight. I have seen so many children, teenagers, and adults get pushed to the verge of suicide because of what their churches and their traditions accuse them of (or how they make them out to be outcasts and sinners) Many are lucky to even have a chance to attend a fundamentalist church and working for them as a volunteer is out of the question.

You need to add a couple of more things. Talked to my friend (Ex Lutheran Pastor) this morning and he reminded me according to the Lutheran Church I am also a heretic and of the devil. And you know what they do to those who they call heretics. I may have to keep an eye on the parking lot for firewood and stakes.   ::)

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 05, 2012, 01:52:22 AM
The real reasons for the construction of the Bible are legion. In the beginning (500 years after the exodus), King Josia had the oral traditions written down so he could purge other religions from his realm and strengthen his position as King. Hezekiah, 150 years later, did a rewrite for the same purposes. They did not like people praying in high places... especially when it wasn't a religion that conformed to the law.

... and that was just the beginning.

I love ancient history.

Omg i am really impressed!  I cant tell you how many seminarians have broke down in tears when they learned Moses did not write all of that

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 05, 2012, 09:29:23 AM
You need to add a couple of more things. Talked to my friend (Ex Lutheran Pastor) this morning and he reminded me according to the Lutheran Church I am also a heretic and of the devil. And you know what they do to those who they call heretics. I may have to keep an eye on the parking lot for firewood and stakes.   ::)

There are a couple Lutheran sects who are against LGBT but the main Lutheran church is opened and affirming

Quote from: Annah on September 05, 2012, 06:03:30 PM
There are a couple Lutheran sects who are against LGBT but the main Lutheran church is opened and affirming

If it was only the LGBT issues I could deal with it. The synod is cracking down on the pastors to bring them in line with the rigid doctrinal statements. Trying to dig them out is like pulling teeth some days.They give you enough of the basics but leave out to much of the foundation and I am just finding this out now. I am founding out just how different my views are and that is not good.

Right now the head pastor is very close to synod and he is trying to get the church in line with synod. They have let 7 pastors go in the last 10 years and not by their choice.

If I was by myself I would leave. I just have to wait till my mom is ready to leave. The only friends she has are there and I don't want to take that away from her. With her not being able to drive,and it's a 25 minute drive each way,it's just easier to stay with her time the service is over and she can take some time to talk with her friends.

It is what it is.

I was told I committed a sin "second only that to murder." I was labeled a "son of perdition" and condemned to "spend eternity in Lucifer's realm."  That's pretty harsh and eventually did push me to suicide. I took as many sleeping pills as I could swallow. It didn't work. Several hours later, I threw up and spent the next two days, alone, in my apartment, scruffing on the floor on my bare elbows and knees running away from fundamentalist demons. When I came to, the place was in complete disarray, vomit in my closet, the tables and chairs were tipped over. My elbows, knees and hands were bloody with blood all over the floors and furniture. What fun.

I don't need that. I left it behind me. I can find compassion and good moral values without the chain of guilt strung around my neck. I simply cannot support religion because of the gross inconsistencies. If a book IS from God, it should be nearly perfect in that regard. I haven't seen one that is. 

I know that a person can be a very spiritual believer and not be strung to the wall like I was, so I definitely do not speak for everyone. To them, I give my love and appreciation. For they literally have been saviours to me.

Peace be upon you.
Cindi

Quote from: Annah on September 05, 2012, 05:55:09 PM
Omg i am really impressed!  I cant tell you how many seminarians have broke down in tears when they learned Moses did not write all of that

I don't understand why would they be surprised that Moses didn't write all of it?

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 05, 2012, 06:47:14 PM
I was told I committed a sin "second only that to murder." I was labeled a "son of perdition" and condemned to "spend eternity in Lucifer's realm." 

Too often the words of a modern day Pharisee. Thank God I am not a sinner like YOU!!!!. (Pointing finger)
(See in reality I am sooooo much better then YOU!!! I don't do those things and I can be your judge because I am so much more perfect than you. God must love ME more than you because you do all those vile and disgusting things. By the way you are just way to weird for us and we really just don't want you hanging around us because you may just pass it along. I mean after all it must be some sort of virus and maybe we can catch it and we don't really want your kind around us. EWWWWWW!!!!)

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 05, 2012, 06:47:14 PM
  That's pretty harsh and eventually did push me to suicide. I took as many sleeping pills as I could swallow. It didn't work. Several hours later, I threw up and spent the next two days, alone, in my apartment, scruffing on the floor on my bare elbows and knees running away from fundamentalist demons. When I came to, the place was in complete disarray, vomit in my closet, the tables and chairs were tipped over. My elbows, knees and hands were bloody with blood all over the floors and furniture. What fun.

That's a hard place to be. Thankfully you survived it.

Quote from: SarahM777 on September 05, 2012, 06:55:14 PM
I don't understand why would they be surprised that Moses didn't write all of it?

because many people still believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

In all actuality, The first two books were written by at least four different authors. The first two chapters (creation story) of Genesis was written by two different authors.

Most of the Deuteronomical and Levitical books were written by King Josiah over a thousand years after what the "traditional"story says it was written.

So think about this...it wasn't until after Solomon's great great great great grandson, where Leviticus and Deuteronomy was written. Most of the Pentateuch wasn't even in existence during King David's reign. The Psalms and Proverbs are much older than the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

Job is more than likely the most oldest book in the Holy Scripture.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 05, 2012, 06:47:14 PM
I know that a person can be a very spiritual believer and not be strung to the wall like I was, so I definitely do not speak for everyone. To them, I give my love and appreciation. For they literally have been saviours to me.

Peace be upon you.
Cindi

I agree with this.

For me, the number of thing that I look at to see a particular religion as being wonderful is one act: Love.

In my opinion, it is love that commonly will unite any religion, secularist ideal,...everything. It is the bond that can enter twin within everything and it should.

Fear should never be a motivator. Love lasts a lot longer than fear.

Quote from: Annah on September 05, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
because many people still believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

In all actuality, The first two books were written by at least four different authors. The first two chapters (creation story) of Genesis was written by two different authors.

Most of the Deuteronomical and Levitical books were written by King Josiah over a thousand years after what the "traditional"story says it was written.

So think about this...it wasn't until after Solomon's great great great great grandson, where Leviticus and Deuteronomy was written. Most of the Pentateuch wasn't even in existence during King David's reign. The Psalms and Proverbs are much older than the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

Job is more than likely the most oldest book in the Holy Scripture.

Even if one were to take the line that Moses wrote it,what does one do with Deuteronomy Chapters 31-34.
The very context within the Bible tells you he didn't write those four chapters. The first three are his farewell speech,end of 33,Moses on that very same day he isto go to the top of Mount Nebo to die.

48 On that same day the Lord told Moses, 49 "Go up into the Abarim Range to Mount Nebo in Moab, across from Jericho, and view Canaan, the land I am giving the Israelites as their own possession. 50 There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. 51 This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. 52 Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel."

So unless somehow he had time to write down chapters 31-33 and unless he was told before hand there is no way he wrote 34 which is his death. 

Deuteronomy 34:5-8

5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.

Just within the context of the Bible itself it points to the fact that most likely it was a different writer at that point.

It goes back to the fact most Christians do not know much about the New Testament let alone that they know even less about the Old Testament. At best they know just the "highlights",the traditional 50 main stories and that's it.

This is the way I look at religion: There are many fine spiritual people. They are the face of faith. There are many people who profess to be religious. They are the face of power, authority, and greed.

Quote from: Annah on September 05, 2012, 10:17:15 PM

Most of the Deuteronomical and Levitical books were written by King Josiah over a thousand years after what the "traditional"story says it was written.

So think about this...it wasn't until after Solomon's great great great great grandson, where Leviticus and Deuteronomy was written. Most of the Pentateuch wasn't even in existence during King David's reign. The Psalms and Proverbs are much older than the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

But that leaves out some very major points that the Bible itself states.

First Moses tells them to place the book of the law where? In the ark of the covenent.

Deuteronomy 31:25-27

24 After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end,
25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: 26 "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!

Joshua then goes on and refers back to the book of the law.

Joshua 1:8

Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

Joshua 8:33-35

33 All the Israelites, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, facing the Levitical priests who carried it. Both the foreigners living among them and the native-born were there. Half of the people stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord had formerly commanded when he gave instructions to bless the people of Israel.

34 Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the foreigners who lived among them.

Joshua 23:6-7

6 "Be very strong; be careful to obey all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, without turning aside to the right or to the left. 7 Do not associate with these nations that remain among you; do not invoke the names of their gods or swear by them. You must not serve them or bow down to them.

Joshua 24:25-27

25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord.

27 "See!" he said to all the people. "This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God."

Joshua is refering to it in the past tense as already written. Joshua himself writes in the book of the law. (That points to that both Moses and Joshua wrote of the book of the law)


When Solomon built the temple what was placed in the Temple?

1 Kings 8:3-4

3 And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark.

4 And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up.

They placed the ark of the covenant in the temple. What was to be placed at the side of the ark? The book of the laws of Moses. Did they need to restate that as it was already stated in Deuteronomy that they were to keep the book of the laws of Moses with it?

2 Kings 14:1-6

Amaziah King of Judah

14 In the second year of Jehoash[a] son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoaddan; she was from Jerusalem. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash. 4 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

5 After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 6 Yet he did not put the children of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Amaziah ruled about 150 years BEFORE Josiah. Again it is written as the laws of Moses were written before Josiah. Again past tense.

Again in Chronicles

2 Chronicles 2:1/8-9
17 And Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead, and strengthened himself against Israel.

8 And with them he sent Levites, even Shemaiah, and Nethaniah, and Zebadiah, and Asahel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehonathan, and Adonijah, and Tobijah, and Tobadonijah, Levites; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, priests.

9 And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.

Again stated that they HAD the book of the law before Josiah. Jehoshaphat reigned 230 years before Josiah.

Josiah was 8 when he became king,at 16 he began to purge the land of high places,Asherah poles and idols.
It's at 26 when he begins the repair of the temple.

2 Chronicles 34

14 While they were bringing out the money that had been taken into the temple of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the Lord that had been given through Moses. 15 Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord." He gave it to Shaphan.

16 Then Shaphan took the book to the king and reported to him: "Your officials are doing everything that has been committed to them. 17 They have paid out the money that was in the temple of the Lord and have entrusted it to the supervisors and workers." 18 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

So if they state that it's the Book of the Law of the Lord and it was given to Moses would it make sense that if it was written at the time of Josiah,is it not possible that they would have seen it was written recently? A new scroll doesn't look like an old one.

So what does this mean it means that the Bible reaffirms that the law was written long before Josiah. It puts it into conflict with the notion that it was written at the time of Josiah. So the question remains how did they come up with the Josiah time frame? Is it based on reality or is it based on speculation?

Just because a writer uses a different style does not mean that it's a different writer. Take a writer that writes both tech and novels and the styles will NOT be the same. Two different venues and they are not that compatable with each other. The writer is making different points to two different sets of people but yet one writer. The same with musciains. Take the same group have them write two different styles of music and they may not sound the same. Take the groups Chicago and the Moody Blues. Listen to their earlier music and compare it to their later music and you may not recognize the groups. So what does this mean it means that one person could have written it but in a different style than what the writer first started with.

it's actually been considered common knowledge for about 500 to 700 years that the Pentateuch had been written by different authors.

You have the Jehovah author
The Elohim author
the Priestly texts from another author
and then you have the Deuteronomical text.

This idea was considered blasphemous when it was first introduced because:

1. The idea came from a Jew. Not a good time to be Jewish during this era
2. People were already comfortable with the idea Moses had written everything.

When I read, say Genesis, for example. I see not one, not two, but three different authors in this book. I see it as clearly as a group of authors writing on an existing manuscript..to make editions. There are two different creations stories in the first two chapters of genesis. Even many fundamentalists scholars will say that.

The book of Exodus and Joshua (as well as others) were edited by King Josiah..so of course they will look like one smooth transitional story. Many (including myself) believed Josiah had written the entire book of Deuteronomy. It makes sense during his time and there is nothing out there that would show he did not write it,

Just because these books were written and edited by different people throughout different periods of history does not invalidate the book. To say these books HAS to be written by one author, in my opinion, gives the work a grave injustice.

Also, I don't understand your argument if King Amaziah ruled before King Josiah then King Josiah couldn't have written it. In my opinion, that makes it even more believable that King Josiah written it. People can write about Kings in the past.

Quote from: Annah on September 06, 2012, 03:34:52 PM
it's actually been considered common knowledge for about 500 to 700 years that the Pentateuch had been written by different authors.

You have the Jehovah author
The Elohim author
the Priestly texts from another author
and then you have the Deuteronomical text.

This idea was considered blasphemous when it was first introduced because:

1. The idea came from a Jew. Not a good time to be Jewish during this era
2. People were already comfortable with the idea Moses had written everything.

When I read, say Genesis, for example. I see not one, not two, but three different authors in this book. I see it as clearly as a group of authors writing on an existing manuscript..to make editions. There are two different creations stories in the first two chapters of genesis. Even many fundamentalists scholars will say that.

The Bible itself confirms that at least two people wrote the book of the law. It states that both Moses and Joshua wrote in the Book of the law. Just because one "sees" three different authors does not make it so.
Styles can change over time and if they are writing on a different subject matter it can be vastly different. Read an authors very early works and often their last works are not on the same level as the first especially if they have written for 50 years or more. If a person were to be handed these two writings without the author's name would they be able to on the surface say they are the same author "Pet Sematary" and "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" could you on the surface say it was Stephen King that wrote both?

Quote from: Annah on September 06, 2012, 03:34:52 PM

The book of Exodus and Joshua (as well as others) were edited by King Josiah..so of course they will look like one smooth transitional story. Many (including myself) believed Josiah had written the entire book of Deuteronomy. It makes sense during his time and there is nothing out there that would show he did not write it,

But what proof is there that he did? If it based on it seems that it was written at this time does not make it so. Appearances do not make it fact. What evidence is there that makes it that causes people to think it was first written during Josiah's time?

Quote from: Annah on September 06, 2012, 03:34:52 PM

Also, I don't understand your argument if King Amaziah ruled before King Josiah then King Josiah couldn't have written it. In my opinion, that makes it even more believable that King Josiah written it. People can write about Kings in the past.

To be plain the text says that the book of the law existed before King Josiah.

On Genesis it would not be outside the realm of possibility that it was authored by any or all of the following.
Shem,Abraham,Issac,Jacob or Joseph and then compiled by Moses.Which in that case it is still not wrong to say that Moses wrote it it just that he may not in that case be the original author.

This brings us to the question Why is there two different views on when the Pentateuch was written? The first being that Moses wrote the Pentateuch  before 1400 BC and then you have the view that it was written down during King Josiah's time and after. Where did it come from and who first came up with the idea?

First the name of the Theory goes by the name Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis or the JEPD Theory.
First one needs to define a hypothesis and a theory.

Merriam Webster defines each as follows

Hypothesis.

1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

A hypothesis by definition is an assumption to be tested.

Theory

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

A theory by definition is not fact but is to be tested,it uses a hypothesis as the base and then it tests the hypothesis to validate the hypothesis. Neither by definition is FACT until it is verified.

So what is the hypothesis and theory that they are trying to convey? Has it been proven to hold up under scrutiny? If there is no validation of the hypothesis based on facts it is nothing more than a set of arguments for the sake of arguing. Is this the case of dating the writing of the Pentateuch at a much later date? Can it be verified that the writings were written much later? That is the proverbial $64,000 question.
More later.

So, it looks like Nicole99 was not duped by G-d but by people and books who claim to know what G-d said or wants from humans.

It seems from the above discussion, and from what you can observe in other religious forums, that the smart shopper ought to pick and choose what suits her/him life style and belief; or better yet, clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly from the "word" ?

Yup, Peky. I think you've pretty much presented the best approach. We believe what our parents teach us and many of us (in a general sense), rarely challenge those beliefs. Over generations, these beliefs change significantly with the flow of civilization. Who governs, who's making a power play, who writes a cool book (like Dante), all move religious beliefs in major ways. Just look at the current election process in the USA, and you will see religion challenged and altered in the perception of the public eye. Yes, it changes.

So, we've got this book that's been around a very long time. Everyone's had their fingers in it. Shoot, just look at any modern translation and compare it to the King James and you'll see minor changes to move popular belief a bit. Just think how major those changes could have been if the public didn't read.

Inconsistency is religion's biggest flaw. It reins everywhere and can challenge even the greatest believers. So what do they do? They ignore it, usually to favor the current regime in power. Religion is nearly always involved in politics. It always has been.  That way you can ignore the real problems and lead people by their faith.

My solution is to pull the good you can from what you study and try to live a good life. The concept of sin is foreign to me. For sin relegates righteous decision making to dust bins and boxes. Guilt is the proverbial nose ring, so get rid of it.  Goodness can not be measured as sin can. Rather, it is a great influence of the true power of faith... that to enrich other lives as well as your own.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 08, 2012, 10:18:59 AM

My solution is to pull the good you can from what you study and try to live a good life. The concept of sin is foreign to me. For sin relegates righteous decision making to dust bins and boxes. Guilt is the proverbial nose ring, so get rid of it.  Goodness can not be measured as sin can. Rather, it is a great influence of the true power of faith... that to enrich other lives as well as your own.

Cindy,

Just a quick question. I can see a bit of a problem and also a solution to it. To often those of us who are Christian will throw out terms like sin, propitiation,sanctification,etc etc as if most Christians and nonbelievers know what we are talking about. We might as well be speaking a dead language or gibberish as far as they are concerned. My question is can a list of terms and definitions be tacked to the top so that those who are reading these threads can at least have a basic idea of what we are referring to when we use the insider terms? I do apologize for my oversight because it is far to easy to use terms that I understand but others may and I do forget that many do not understand.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 08, 2012, 10:18:59 AM
Yup, Peky. I think you've pretty much presented the best approach. We believe what our parents teach us and many of us (in a general sense), rarely challenge those beliefs. Over generations, these beliefs change significantly with the flow of civilization. Who governs, who's making a power play, who writes a cool book (like Dante), all move religious beliefs in major ways. Just look at the current election process in the USA, and you will see religion challenged and altered in the perception of the public eye. Yes, it changes.

So, we've got this book that's been around a very long time. Everyone's had their fingers in it. Shoot, just look at any modern translation and compare it to the King James and you'll see minor changes to move popular belief a bit. Just think how major those changes could have been if the public didn't read.

Inconsistency is religion's biggest flaw. It reins everywhere and can challenge even the greatest believers. So what do they do? They ignore it, usually to favor the current regime in power. Religion is nearly always involved in politics. It always has been.  That way you can ignore the real problems and lead people by their faith.

My solution is to pull the good you can from what you study and try to live a good life. The concept of sin is foreign to me. For sin relegates righteous decision making to dust bins and boxes. Guilt is the proverbial nose ring, so get rid of it.  Goodness can not be measured as sin can. Rather, it is a great influence of the true power of faith... that to enrich other lives as well as your own.

Thanks Cindi, much better said!!

Quote from: peky on September 08, 2012, 09:20:48 AM
clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly from the "word" ?

I guess probably this ^^ makes me the antichrist, putting the preachers out of bossiness, sacre blue!!!

>:-)

PS note that this is my post number 666 OMG

So what is the JEDP Theory?

Basically they "see" four different authors. It was broken down by certain words that were used and the type of books.

First you have the "Jahwist" who used the name Jehovah
The second is the the Elohist who used the name Elohim
The third is the Deuteronomist
The fourth is the Priestly code

So how did they figure this out and come up with this idea?

One way they broke it down was that  in some cases the Pentateuch was a law book,an instruction manual for the priests. That's have they came up with the D and P.
The other was that they took the Pentateuch and "underlined" the times when Jehovah was used and when Elohim was used,and separated them by the usage of those two names and that's how they came up with the J and E.

Somewhere along the line they have what they call the redactor. What the redactor was said to have done was to takes all the writings and combine them and edit them into one sets of books.

''J was hypothesized to live about 900–850 BC in the Southern Kingdom of Judah during the divided Kingdom. Collecting myths and legends of the Ancient Near East (i.e. Creation, Flood, Babel), J wrote most of Genesis. This source is characterized by: it's attention on man and earth, God as YHWH who interacts with man, emphasis on Judah, emphasis on Israel's leaders, and use of the term Sinai.

E was hypothesized to live about 750–700 BC in Israel's Northern Kingdom. This hypothetical source used the generic term for God Elohim until Exodus 3-6; E wrote some of Genesis and most of Exodus and Numbers. This source is characterized by: God as Elohim, emphasis on Northern Israel, and use of Horeb for Sinai.

D was hypothesized to have written most of Deuteronomy around 650-625 BC. It was speculated that this was the book found by King Josiah in the Temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC (2 Kings 22:8). This source is characterized by: God as Elohim (until Exodus 3), emphasis on Judah, a cultic approach to God, and presence of genealogies and lists.

P was hypothesized to be a priest(s) who lived during the Babylonian Exile. This source provided chronology, genealogy, the book of Leviticus, and the code for priesthood and worship. This source is characterized by: emphasis on the Temple and obedience to the law.


Wellhausen hypothesized that the sources were joined in the following manner:

1. J was written around 900–850 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

2. E was written around 750–700 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

3. At some unknown time, an anonymous editor edits and combines J and E and attends to discrepancies and introduces doublets.

4. D was written around 650-625 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

5. At some unknown time, an anonymous editor edits and combines D with JE and adds new material.

6. P was written around 525-425 BC by an unknown person for unknown reasons.

7. At some unknown time, an anonymous editor edits and combines P with JED and adds some new material to harmonize the document. "

Above in quotes thanks to anyomous

As this is stated as a hypothesis,is there any truth to it and can it be proven?

I attended a Uniting Church service today, as they are the most accepting of the major denominations here.  As I have said the jury is out on the question of God, so I thought it might be an interesting experience. 
I know one thing, I won't be back to the cathedral, because the pews were built for midget convicts in the 1800's. My back was in agony. 
The issue of marriage equality was raised during a sermon on generosity of spirit, which was encouraging.  Maybe I will try another church where I can actually sit through an entire service.

Karen.

Quote from: peky on September 08, 2012, 09:20:48 AM
or better yet, clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly from the "word" ?

That's a good concept but being a pastor is so much more than reading a Bible. Even with just reading from the word of God...you can put 40 people in separate rooms. Have them read the Bible and I pretty much guarantee you that no one will have the same ideas of what the scriptures means.  Heck, Pastors and scholars cannot even do that.

But back to my main point. If someone wants to be a Pastor and they think it's just about reading the Bible or teaching others how to read it, then they fail before they even start.

Being a Pastor also means counseling (of all forms), funerals, bereavements, a source of comfort at a hospital or hospice, a big brother or a big sister to a child who has no one else to turn to, a confidant, a source of social justice, a source of relief for those who need food, shelter, clothing, etc. Just today, we stopped the start of service because a man from Romania walked into our church in desperate need of resources. If we ignored him and continued with church then we would have lost the meaning of "church."

Now, unfortunately, you have pastors (in every religion) who fails miserably. But you also have a lot of really good ones.

Quote from: Annah on September 09, 2012, 02:01:25 PM

Being a Pastor also means counseling (of all forms), funerals, bereavements, a source of comfort at a hospital or hospice, a big brother or a big sister to a child who has no one else to turn to, a confidant, a source of social justice, a source of relief for those who need food, shelter, clothing, etc. Just today, we stopped the start of service because a man from Romania walked into our church in desperate need of resources. If we ignored him and continued with church then we would have lost the meaning of "church."

Now, unfortunately, you have pastors (in every religion) who fails miserably. But you also have a lot of really good ones.

But is the pastor suppose to be doing all of that or is that suppose to be the responsibility of the elders and the members of the church? The legal requirements have to be because they are defined by the law of the land. I think the members expect way to much of their pastors.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 08, 2012, 10:18:59 AM
Yup, Peky. I think you've pretty much presented the best approach. We believe what our parents teach us and many of us (in a general sense), rarely challenge those beliefs. Over generations, these beliefs change significantly with the flow of civilization. Who governs, who's making a power play, who writes a cool book (like Dante), all move religious beliefs in major ways. Just look at the current election process in the USA, and you will see religion challenged and altered in the perception of the public eye. Yes, it changes.

So many people base it on assumptions. But you know what they say when you assume to much,it makes an ass out of you and me. Just because mom and dad say it,because a guy in a white robe says it,some guy in a fancy suit says something that I like,just because a teacher or professor says it.
Faith is to be tested. It must be to be able to with stand the scrutiny. It can only be refined in the testing. Being an honest skeptic is not a bad thing. The thing is if the foundation is rock solid nothing will break it. If the foundation is faulty it will crumble. It's at the heart and soul of it.

Most people want predigested thoughts and they will never take it any further than that until something shakes their foundation. Maybe just maybe,growing up in the family I did wasn't the worst thing in the world,I had to learn the hard way that relatives,preachers,teachers and others don't always have it right. They to often pass down what they have been taught without checking the sources as best as can be. I learned to be a skeptic. If they say something test it,try it,refine it where need be,throw out those things that I got wrong and reject those things they got wrong. Lather,rinse and repeat as often as need be.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 08, 2012, 10:18:59 AM

So, we've got this book that's been around a very long time. Everyone's had their fingers in it. Shoot, just look at any modern translation and compare it to the King James and you'll see minor changes to move popular belief a bit. Just think how major those changes could have been if the public didn't read.

Go back a bit farther and the public wasn't even allowed to read it. It was in Latin which only the priests were allowed to read.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 08, 2012, 10:18:59 AM

Inconsistency is religion's biggest flaw. It reins everywhere and can challenge even the greatest believers. So what do they do? They ignore it, usually to favor the current regime in power. Religion is nearly always involved in politics. It always has been.  That way you can ignore the real problems and lead people by their faith.

Bingo. Most people are afraid to stand up within the churches. It's much easier to go with the flow than to take a stand to speak out about the fact that to often those within the church are no different then those outside. To do so is not a good place to be. The "church" does not take to kindly to it. Those who do speak out put their very lives at stake. Those who are in power do not in anyway shape or form,do not want to lose that power,influence, or money. Those who do so are a threat to that system. They will see the threat as a virus that either needs to be removed or eliminated. That is a very scary place to be.

When people who call themselves "Christian" and are suppose to act differently then those outside,(which is suppose to be the proof that they are Christians) act no different then those who are not,is it any wonder that people see it as a fraud,a bunch of control freaks,greedy and corrupt? Which is far to common and it shouldn't be that way.

Should that be any surprise? It's really no different than when Jesus walked the earth. The harshest statements that He made were to the religous leaders of His day. He said the same things that need to be said today. He called them white washed sepluchers full of dead men bones. So what was He telling them? You prettied up the outside but inside your dead,rotten,and corrupt. You put on airs to make it look like you have it altogether,but it means nothing because it's dead,there is no life to it.

I really wish that those of us as Christians would get this through our heads.This is written to Christians and not unbelievers,and it right after the part that a lot of Christian's use to bash us. It's a very,very stern warning.

Romans 2:1-6

You, therefore, have no excuse,you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Quote from: Annah on September 09, 2012, 02:01:25 PM
That's a good concept but being a pastor is so much more than reading a Bible. Even with just reading from the word of God...you can put 40 people in separate rooms. Have them read the Bible and I pretty much guarantee you that no one will have the same ideas of what the scriptures means.  Heck, Pastors and scholars cannot even do that.

But back to my main point. If someone wants to be a Pastor and they think it's just about reading the Bible or teaching others how to read it, then they fail before they even start.

Being a Pastor also means counseling (of all forms), funerals, bereavements, a source of comfort at a hospital or hospice, a big brother or a big sister to a child who has no one else to turn to, a confidant, a source of social justice, a source of relief for those who need food, shelter, clothing, etc. Just today, we stopped the start of service because a man from Romania walked into our church in desperate need of resources. If we ignored him and continued with church then we would have lost the meaning of "church."

Now, unfortunately, you have pastors (in every religion) who fails miserably. But you also have a lot of really good ones.

I am sorry as was using the "Word" as "G-d" not as the bible. So my revised version would be: "clear your mind and initiate your own conversation with G-d, why to use second hand sources when you can get directly to G-d ?


I do recognize the charitable and educational work of some religious organization, it is just that more often than not such a good work is attached to a cultural genocide or religious conversions requirements.

I also agree that preachers, rabbis, and imans, do plays roles as unlicensed (most of them) psychologiest and social workers for the followers, some good does come from it.