Topic awaiting preservation: Doing Jesus II

Continued from here: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000963.html

I just want to reiterate one small point (I guess because I enjoy exercises in futility.....) -

All along, myself and others have very definitely stated that most of what we are talking about is the hordes of so-called christians who abuse the tenents of the "faith".

It is clear that there is a difference between those people and a "true" christian.

It is also very true that you can come to grips with your self and with any wrongs that you have committed *without* resorting to "christ" and "god", just as truly if not moreso.

^ Slide over a bit there will ya DL... I need that wall for a minute. =)

Replace 'practical politics' with religion and that pretty much sums up my view on religion of any stripe.

quote:

---

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

---

By the age of 10 I was already thinking along those lines, by age 12 I was convinced. But it wasn't until my late teens & early 20's when I was introduced to the writings of Mencken and a few others that I realized there were others with similar thoughts. And they could say it a whole lot better.



[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 08-10-2003).]

Hmm. Thats interesting, and true about that subject, and true about some Christians, but...

...It seems that the church (I attend a Four-Square church) has really swayed away from the fire and brimstone sermons ever since we got a new pastor five years ago, because he didn't agree with that kind of thinking (the thinking being motivation=not going to hell). In general, what I hear from church is more or less application of the bible to everyday life: trying to improve your everyday life, and help solve your everyday problems. In fact, mein church has had more people accept Christ since the new pastor took over. Some churches may use the "scare people (with hobgoblins, as you put it) approach," but, aside from turning people away from Christianity, most Christians that I know don't think that way.

Of course, they have a healthy fear of Hell. In fact, people of an atheistic viewpoint are more afraid of hell than the christians that I know are, for some reason (at least they call themselves atheist). But, in fact, lots of Christians are motivated by a reward: Heaven. I myself was raised in a Christian home, but hever really bothered with religion till I was about 13 (I'm 15). I really thought that it was pointless. But, as I became interested in the theology behind religion, I really found it hard to dismiss, and through talking to people, I really came to the conclusion that their had to be some kind of superior being that influences our lives.

I know plenty of intelligent, PhD peoples who came to the same conclusion at some point in their lives. Our pastor the same way: He was doing studies in astrophysics for nearly 10 years and was an adimant beleiver in evolution.

Anyways, he, them, and I, and other Christians are motivated by the simple fact that we beleive that their is a God (that is good) and that the universe, the evolution of the species, our lives and everything has been influenced by him. Through that, well, I'd conclude that if the Bible was written by him (inderectly), that it must be true, not false, and that I should live my life in a way that would coincide with some basic (really not that limiting) guidlines set down by him.

Well, that sounded a little preachy. Damn. I hate it when I do that, but anyways, to sum it up: Lots of Christians don't that way, NoJive. Some do, but...

CB
You seem so wise for a 15yr old. Whereas someone else would take years to come to your conclusions, your unlocking many doors to theology early. Would venture to say that Jesus must be calling you to seek. There is a saying I heard from a religious that is "the more you look for Jesus, the more you find him." And I think this means he becomes more present in your life and you want to share him. I wish my tenth graders had your desire for fullness of truth like you have.

DL

If people feel they can commit crimes and use religion to alleviate responsibility then that's their problem. You can't force people to feel guilt. They have as much a right to hide behind religion, then you have to scrutinize them for their cowardice and abuse of doctrine.

Anyway, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Who cares whether or not they feel vindicated? It doesn't change anything. They are still guilty of a crime, and they will hopefully be punished on earth. If not, then so be it. That's the way things spin. Unfortunately, we don't get much of a say in the matter. No one ever said we had to like it.

(((IN STEREO))) the Peter.Pansy way

Ah, so we should all just be good little drones and do as we're told?

We should always assume that if there is something wrong we can't do anything to fix it, and just proceed mindlessly with our heads down?

No thanks....

I think you've touched on something very important, CB. To me the christian theology (the idea) is completely different than the christian religion (the practice). The idea of christianity is something that I think anyone (for the most part) can agree with and live with. It's the religion that mucks things up. Look at christianity as a whole. Why are there so many paths to the same place? I think it's because religion focuses on the path, not the goal. When someone disagrees with the path they stray even though their goal is the same. Let people live their lives in pursuit of that goal in and of their own right with some guidlines to follow (i.e. ten commandments). Don't give them numbered footsteps to walk in as though they were learning with a 'teach-yourself-to-dance' kit.

So, DL, how do you propose we force people to take responsibility for their actions? Give them a guilt pill? Guilt is something people need to come to terms on their own.

And, how did I ever imply that we should be drones? If anything what you propose is this, by wanting to control people and tell them what is right and wrong. People are entitled to their beliefs and opinions just as much as you are. One thing I've learned, the harder you push people to change, the harder they will push back.

You're too much of an idealist.

(((IN STEREO))) the Peter.Pansy way

[This message has been edited by peterpansy (edited 08-11-2003).]

You are very confused, and you make very large assumptions.

I have never said anything about forcing people to feel guilt, nor have I said anything about right or wrong.

The conversation has been in regard to things that are agreed upon as being wrong - the debate has been about how religion allows people to gloss over the wrongs they have done.

I am not in any way an idealist, and I have not pushed people to change.
I simply ask for explanations.

gd -

quote:

---

The idea of christianity is something that I think anyone (for the most part) can agree with and live with. It's the religion that mucks things up

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

I am not in any way an idealist, and I have not pushed people to change.
I simply ask for explanations.

---

dare i call you a realist? you have my respect. "real' christianity is not a religion; it is a reality. reality can only be judged on an individual basis. if i judge your reality, it can only be a judgement based on my own reality. this is biblical. "judge not lest ye be judged." and again, "as ye judge, so shall ye be judged." and again "know ye not that we shall judge even the angels?" (angel = messenger)

"according to thy faith, so it shall be done", and in another place "Jesus could do no miracles there because of unbelief". if you will note, he never pushed himself on anyone. if he was rejected, he simply moved on. and he directed his disciples to do the same. then the prime directive -- "feed my sheep". this is the problem everyone here seems to keep reiterating. there are too many shepherds who keep preaching over and over and again and again, even to the "saved", that you must be "born again"; this is not feeding the sheep. evangelizing is good for the "lost". but , in the words of a little old lady of commercial fame: "where's the beef?" (it is out there)

at what point do i come to realize that i have been deceived?


/encryption

DL said:
"And it's not a question of whether god actually forgives these people or not - it's not about god, it's about people having the audacity to say that it doesn't matter what they've done, becuase they "know" that god has forgiven them. It's about people creating an easy way to escape their wrongdoings."

Then I'm not sure how else to take this.


hmm...When you use the word 'they' it's confusing whether or not you are refering to the individual wrong-doer, or christian circles. If anything, that's where I lose you.

I think I see what you mean. I just read it the wrong way.

Might I ask, what kind of explanations are you looking for?

(((IN STEREO))) the Peter.Pansy way

[This message has been edited by peterpansy (edited 08-12-2003).]

It's not like I'm on a quest with a list of things I'd like explained...

Topics come up. I ask questions. It seems not enough people do that...people just accept, or say "fuck it, we can't do anything anyway...."

You may have noticed I also share my opinion rather freely.

But hey, no matter how strong I feel about it, it's still just someone's opinion....

You remember the guy with the hair on Monday Night Football? You know the rainbow hair and the sign, John 3-16. He always sat in the endzone. Well I was wondering. Do you think the people behind him ever said "Hey hair freak! Put the sign down I can't see Joe Namath!" And he might turn to them and say "Joe Namath is not your salvation" and the guy punches him in the face. What do you think? I bet he got punched alot. Throwing punches is kinda like throwing stones is it not? So hair freak went to Monday Night Football games and got stoned?

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus

Jesus always weaves his way into the asylum sooner or later because I think he likes to hang out with us.

For Christians to have a friendship in Jesus is to them like having the most deepest friendship in the world. And its because Jesus sees the raw us with all our imperfections and feel Jesus loves us deeply anyway.


I had the opportunity to go on retreat for 4 days just to concentrate on Jesus with a group of 75. I left my worries at home and was looking to tap into a greater spirit in a oneness with the son of God. Halfway thru, I felt I wasn't praying enough, because there was so much joy and peace with so many. I felt, I will just wait and maybe Jesus will come to me. Jesus was there, but was like hiding from me. And then Jesus crept up on me towards the last part of my retreat and how I can best describe it was like a touch of aweness and a wonder. Jesus was showing me a little bit of himself and it was like getting a touch of heaven. You feel so much love, that you feel euphoric and feel like crying with joy. It was really hard to come down from it when I got back to the real world. But I feel I got to know Jesus a little better, so I could share him more. So how could I say Jesus is not real when he touched me so deep.

Not meaning to preach, just to explain why Jesue is so essential in the lives of many.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-12-2003).]

Peter:

quote:

---

DL said:
"And it's not a question of whether god actually forgives these people or not - it's not about god, it's about people having the audacity to say that it doesn't matter what they've done, becuase they "know" that god has forgiven them. It's about people creating an easy way to escape their wrongdoings."

Then I'm not sure how else to take this.


hmm...When you use the word 'they' it's confusing whether or not you are refering to the individual wrong-doer, or christian circles. If anything, that's where I lose you.

---

I think it's quite obvious from that that DL is talking about the individual, nevero nce does he state that he is talking about christianity in general, and Dl is the kinda guy who would say if he was talking in that broad a scope.

Lobotomy: Ummm...WTF does that have to do with this discussion?

quote:

---

I just want to reiterate one small point (I guess because I enjoy exercises in futility.....) -

All along, myself and others have very definitely stated that most of what we are talking about is the hordes of so-called christians who abuse the tenents of the "faith".

---

DL

In your opinion, in what ways do the so-called christians abuse the tenents of faith? Give me some examples, other than when they go against the will God when we sin. How can you yourself distinguish who is good and who isn't?

I myself cannot distinguish who is a good christian and who isn't. I feel I shouldn't judge people. I know we can get an impression of a person by an act or actions and form an opinion of them, but that doesn't mean you should group them to form a opinion of a whole body of christians of being good or bad. Some pillars of the churchs could possibly have a darkside and could seem so rightious in the eyes of other followers.


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-12-2003).]

quote:

---

And it's not a question of whether god actually forgives these people or not - it's not about god, it's about people having the audacity to say that it doesn't matter what they've done, becuase they "know" that god has forgiven them. It's about people creating an easy way to escape their wrongdoings.

---

I would assume that's it in a nutshell. He's been saying that for the last three or four posts.

Judgement is not necessary for recognition that someone is or isn't holding certain values. Examples of "bad" christians...

1. Xians who Kill.
2. Xians who steal.
3. Xians who commit adultery.
4. Xians who dishonor their elders.
5. Xians who don't honor the sabbath.
6. Xians who believe other Gods exist and are equally deserving of praise by others.
7. Xians who yearn for something better.
8. Xians who take gods name in vain.
9. Xians who carve statues of historical (mythical or not) figures.
10. Xians who lie about their peers (for good or ill).

Yes, I based my list on the 10 Commandments (one version anyway). These are the "rules" set forth for Xians. If they break them they are being "bad" Xians, whether they ask for forgiveness or not. Of course they are against the will of God. How can they not be? Anything that makes a Xian a bad Xian is against the will of God. As has been stated before; all religions, generally speaking, do the same thing. They provide a basis for people to gather together and draw strength from each other and help them get along with one another. The fact that there are some "Xians" out there who feel the need to cram their faith into all of my orifices at once shows me that they aren't being a good Xian. They should be happy in their belief and comforted to know that I am happy in mine. If they believe that all paths lead to God then they should also believe that I will meet him and be judged as everyone else is. It IS NOT their place to direct me one way or the other. If they are truly believers in the christian religion, then they should understand and believe that it is God that will make me see. They are interfering with God, not exactly where you want to be as a God fearing, religious Xian.

Obviously, Grythus, any Christian is going to do (at least some) of that stuff on (at least) a daily basis. Most have the honorable intention to wake up in the morning and not sin. Of course, we all will.

A good Christian is someone who (along with having the basic beleif set of Christians) STRIVES to be BETTER. They/We can never be perfect, but at least we can try to be. In fact, it says that somewhere in the Bible. Those ten commandments are what we are to strive to be like.

For example, of your list, I have and probably will again steal, commit adultery (at least, at this point in my life, lust), dishonor my elders, not honor the sabbath, envy (BTW: It's always okay to want something better, it's bad to ENVY), take gods name in vain, carve a statue of mythological figures and lie about my peers.

Does that make me a bad Christian? No. It makes me human.


[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 08-13-2003).]

quote:

---

I feel I shouldn't judge people

---

And yet you do.

The more you say, Jade, the more hypocritical you seem to me.

You make these happy flourishing 'christian' statements. But you don't seem to actually follow them. You say them, and they are gone. At least that's the way it looks from here....

Examples? I've given dozens of examples at least already. I'm not really inclined to continue going in circles...

.

quote:

---

A good Christian is someone who ... STRIVES to be BETTER.

---

That makes a (potentially) good person. My only point is that it doesn't take the religion to do that. =)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-13-2003).]

Isn't that a nice little EXCULSION of a HUGE modifier, DL.

the original quote would be:

quote:

---

A good Christian is someone who (along with having the basic beleif set of Christians) STRIVES to be BETTER.

---

And if you would of quoted it right, then:

quote:

---

That makes a (potentially) good person. My only point is that it doesn't take the religion to do that. =)

---

that quote really wouldn't of made sense. Would it.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 08-13-2003).]

I'm not perfect... I'm only human... I make mistakes. I have made mistakes. I will almost certainly make more mistakes.

ok...that's me, and I suspect most of you wouldn't have any quarell with that as a description of yourself.

So... when a xian dies all those mistakes are forgiven because jesus died for your sins. I'm gonna say it again. You cannot add on your personal 'Well I think it means..bla bla..' You can think and question all manner of things about your religion but if you think something other than the door's open to all sinners and that jesus forgives ALL, then you are not a xian. That is the very foundation of your religion.

It is also a very exclusive club as anyone who does not believe in christ does not get into heaven.

I also wonder why the xians here find it so difficult to say 'ya you're right, you don't get into heaven if you don't beleive in jesus. There's a lot of this touchy feely... 'we're seeking the same thing...just taking different paths. (paraphrase there) Well if you're xian there is no other path is there. It's the 'others' who have got it all wrong. Be brave... stand up be counted. =)

~sigh~

CFB, we've covered all that already too. As GD said, the ideaology of christianity is great. It's the religion that mucks it up. The basic beleif set, excluding the religous nonsense, is great.

The relgious nonsense is ridiculously un-christian, IMHO.

How could the religion muck it up?

It gives a reason to follow those rules. Otherwise, you get people going "well why not?" and thats when you get burglaries, murders and rapes. Of course, a Christian can mess up, but I've seen more non-Christians prosecuted on TV than Christians, because the Christians have a reson (or goal) for following some basic instructions, whereas a non-Christian doesn't really.

quote:

---

The relgious nonsense is ridiculously un-christian, IMHO.

---

Huh!?

The religious "nonsense" is what makes it Christianity. Otherwise it would be "lots of strict rules."

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 08-13-2003).]

quote:

---

but I've seen more non-Christians prosecuted on TV than Christians,

---

So... just exactly how do you know this CFB?

quote:

---

Christians have a reson (or goal) for following some basic instructions, whereas a non-Christian doesn't really.

---

Where does this come from? Please re-read this several times and think about what you've said.

Here let me give you a little nudge.

The majority of the world's population is non-xian.

You seem fixated on the notion that non-xians not only commit more crime than xians but also (non-xians) have a much tougher, if not impossible time being decent human beings.

cfb- I think the distiction that is being made between "religion" and "ideology" is this: Religion is the organization of a theological belief. I'm going to break this down, and quite probably over-simplify so please forgive me.

The basics of Christ's teaching can be summed up as follows: Love your neighbor, be nice to one another (where the 10 commandments can be referenced: you follow those and you minimize harm to others and yourself) Believe in Christ and his death for the sins of mankind- and you will meet the criteria for everlasting life in heaven with the Father.

This is the theological belief. Not a bad idea. Sounds like a good deal.

Enter religion. A bunch of people get together that share this belief. They have ancient texts to help others understand their belief. They gather a following, because this belief seems like a pretty good deal. But along the way one of the "founders" decides that women generally suck. After all, it was Eve that tempted Adam into eating that apple. The only woman worth anything is the Holy Mother, Mary. Eventually the following believes that women are inherently sinful, because the founders "interpreted" the texts and said so. If you disagreed you were told you were a bad Christan and branded a heretic. Heretics go to Hell. The following says, "I don't want to go to Hell, woman you are inherently evil." And it is done. No where that I have found in my perusal of the Bible does it say that woman is inherently evil. But that is what was taught for many, many years.

Religion is human interpretation of a belief. Religion is what happens when theolgians want to control their followers in a specific manner. At the dawn of Christianity, it was not possible for the masses to read the Bible and learn for themselves the words of God. It was left to human priests to interpret, and as has been mentioned several times, humans make mistakes. This is why there are so many denominations of the Christian religion: different church leaders interpret the Bible differently.

No one can say with certainty who has it right. Maybe none of them do, and only the ones who have chosen to follow their own path to Christ have it right.

This is how religion mucks it up. It takes a simple idea, a good idea, and turns it into a complicated morass.

Thank you a lot. I wasn't totally getting what you guys were getting at with the "religion mucks it up." Sorry if I was a bit stupid.

Anyways, yes, in that case, I'd totally agree with you.

I guess it's like people that say: I'm Christian, but I'm not religious.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 08-14-2003).]

Skaarjj said:
"I think it's quite obvious from that that DL is talking about the individual, nevero nce does he state that he is talking about christianity in general, and Dl is the kinda guy who would say if he was talking in that broad a scope."

The irony of this is that you have it backwards. I guess he wasn't 'quite obvious'.

He is questioning why christianity, AS A WHOLE, feels it's okay to excuse the individual wrong-doer. Where as I originally thought he was questioning the individual wrong-doer of excusing his own bad deeds.

(((IN STEREO))) the Peter.Pansy way

[This message has been edited by peterpansy (edited 08-14-2003).]

[This message has been edited by peterpansy (edited 08-14-2003).]

Well actually. I think he was talking about the individual justifying their wrongdoings or passing them off as inconsequential because "I will be forgiven". The wrong-doer isn't excusing his bad deeds. He doesn't have to, God does that for him.

We can continue to debate DL's words but, if that were me, that'd piss me off or amuse me (one or the other) so I'm going to stop now.

DL said:

quote:

---

The basic beleif set, excluding the religous nonsense, is great.

---

GD said:

quote:

---

The idea of christianity is something that I think anyone (for the most part) can agree with and live with.

---

I find this very curious and it makes me wonder why you're both not more open to following it then.

But exactly what that basic belief set is makes all the difference I read GD's break down of what he thinks is basic Xianity and then Moon Dancer offered one too, would it be too much to ask to hear yours DL?

GD, I want to comment on a few of your points. Following the 10 commandments really is not what defines Xianity. I'm not sure you said that but it needs to be clear. A Xian is one who follows Christ and he said that the entire Law (of Moses) could be summed up thusly:

quote:

---

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

---

Paul, who I believe Moon Dancer maligned earlier, said this:

quote:

---

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

---

Putting this basic teaching into practice does lead to all sorts of problems but certainly we're not saying we shouldn't do our best to practice it as purely as we can? Are we? What good is it to honor the concept and then do nothing about it?

Moon Dancer, I like how you summed up the basics. I would pretty much agree with a slight mod to the wording here and there. Yes, it is about recognizing that we cannot live perfect lives on our own and therefore require help from above to cover the crap we do. It is the essence of our faith to cling to the promise of being freed from our sin to do every good work. It's the faith that guarantees our inheritance eternal life and it is our works that guarantee that we have that faith. You cannot separate our faith from our works, they must go hand in hand, with the faith walking one step in front of the works.

I pointed out that you maligned Paul because I just assumed you meant him saying women were evil. I agree with you that there have been Xians over the years who did great harm to women and that was, and is, wrong. Paul on the other hand was not one of them. You will find that he was very much open to women taking there rightful place in the kingdom. The confusion comes into play when you take his recommendations about some specific groups of women out of context and apply them to all women. And he, were he here, would probably love to point out that it is not only women whose natures are wicked but that really can be said for ALL of us.

One more point for GD that really shames me into answering a question brought up by mobrul so many weeks ago and that is... I break your point number 5 almost weekly. Does that make me a bad Xian?

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugimus-
Thank you for pointing that out to me (about Paul). I just wanted to clarify that I actually did not have Paul in mind when I brought up the example of women being evil. (It was the first example that came to mind...)

I'm glad to hear that I guess I'm a bit used to people using him as a scapegoat lately. The debate about homosexuality brings that topic up quite a bit in conversations. I had a friend of mine recently call Paul every profanity he could muster when we were discussing early Xianity and how it applies to the question of sexuality. He felt that Christ outlined this wonderful loving warm and fuzzy religion and then Paul came along and destroyed it with his draconian views.

I guess the way I look at it is that the ten commandments are the breakdown of the "Golden Rule" sort of thinking. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. The same as 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. The rest is extraneous. If you follow any of those basic sentiments everything else falls into place, except belief in Christ. That is the only thing that makes Christians... Christians. Nothing else matters. The rest of the Bible is a book of useless words. If you hold yourself to those two tenets you can't fail to be a good person. This is why I don't follow Christianity. Do I believe in Jesus? I believe he may have been real. The son of God? I can't (choose not to/don't know how to) make that determination. I don't feel that I can call myself Christian for that reason. So I choose to follow something that fits with my sensibilities.

This is the prime basis of my belief structure (Wicca). I believe that not harming anyone, including myself, is the most important thing. I don't worship God(s). I have images for the energies that I feel in the world around me. My vision of my "dieties" is unimportant, as are their names. You call your image 'God' I call my images something else. It's all unimportant to me. All I care about is that people treat one another as the 'Golden Rule' (or the Rede in Wicca) dictate and understand that we are all connected. This is why I don't denounce people for being 'wrong' in their faith. I might criticize them for not following it well (or seeming not too), but never will I tell them they are 'wrong'.

quote:

---

One more point for GD that really shames me into answering a question brought up by mobrul so many weeks ago and that is... I break your point number 5 almost weekly. Does that make me a bad Xian?

---

From the viewpoint of some christians, yes, it makes you a bad christian, because of their definition of christian. I look at it this way, if you follow the theology of the faith you're typically being a better follower of that faith then the religious follower. In my eyes you are a follower of Christ and a believer in God. Christianity (the religion) has little to do with it. You are a nice person, religion IMHO has little to do with that. Your belief in an ideal is what helps guide you to your goals and helps you relate to people with fairness. If you want to call that being Christian, go for it. In your eyes then, you are a 'good' Christian. In some other Christian's eyes, you aren't. In my eyes your just a 'hell of a nice guy'. I could care less WHY you are a nice guy, the fact that you are is enough for me.

I think its important to post how non-christians observe the commandments unknowingly or do know but still don't acknowledge a God.

1. I am the Lord thy God that thou shall not have strange Gods before me. (How many times do we choose what is not good for us and learn from it. Like when we make drugs, alcohol, pornography, vanity, etc our Gods. We know these vices are not good for us. This commandment doesn't necessarly refer to idols figures. It refers to anything that takes you away from good.

2. Do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. (How many of know that there is somekind of higher intelligence and we know not to take credit for the way of the world and the good in it) We don't boast that we are Gods.

3. Keep the sabbath holy. (Here some of us are not regular weekly churchgoers, but how many of us celebrate Thanksgiving day. Who are we thanking for all. Aren't non-christians thankful for many things in life)

4. Honor your parents (Did we or do we all do this too? Don't most of us have parents?)

5. Thou shall not kill. (Where does society get this law? From God thru Moses?)

6. Thou shall not commit adultery. ( Here I think when non-christians marry or are in a common law relationship, they know to have another realtionship would be considered wrong.

7. Thou shall not steal. (Same as #5 above. Non-christians know its wrong to steal too. Right?)

8. Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor. (Here too to accuse someone of a wrong that they did not commit is considered wrong or to slander someone who is innocent is morally wrong we can agree)

9. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. (Another law non-christians follow. to do so would mean that itat would go against what what society says is morally wrong.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods. ( We might be envious of what our neighbor has like houses, servants, cars, money etc and desire the same. Even non-christians know they shouldn't try to take away what doesn't belong to them)

So see how non-christians are observing the ten commandments also. Where does society get its moral laws? From men or God? The ten commandments are universal laws. All are governed by them.

Jade: A point of note on the last two commandments there:

Definition of covet from the good ol' Dictionary.com:

cov·et ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kvt)
v. cov·et·ed, cov·et·ing, cov·ets
v. tr.
To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is another's). See Synonyms at envy.
To wish for longingly. See Synonyms at desire.

You have said that

quote:

---

9. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. (Another law non-christians follow. to do so would mean that itat would go against what what society says is morally wrong.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods. ( We might be envious of what our neighbor has like houses, servants, cars, money etc and desire the same. Even non-christians know they shouldn't try to take away what doesn't belong to them)

---

Well, what you've said here doesn't fit with the definition of covet. To know it is not right to try and take what isn't yours is point 5. Thou shalt not steal. To covet it is to wish you had it, and even under 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife', what you say non-christians do is not observe that commandment. To do indeed covet it, for to covet it is to be envious of it, becuase to be envious of it is to wish you had it, therefore you covet it.

Even under society's 'morals' we all know that to err is human, well...to lust is also human, and not just the sexual lust that fits with commandment 9, but also the material lust that fits with commandment 10. Do you therefore say that all non-christians break two of 'God's commandments'?

quote:

---

It refers to anything that takes you away from good.

---

I had always thought that it was anything that you put in front of God. Oh well. It thats what it means, well, hehe, I screwed up (no surprise there).
But, I'd have to disagree. Think of all the things that you do in your life that "take away from good." I mean, lets say that God is 100% Good. In the course of a week, I know that I do some stuff that a normal Christian would consider bad, or maybe nuetral: Counter-Strike, D&D, overindulgance, listening to "secular" music etcetera. Lets say that all those are nuetral, well, doing them would take away from that "good" that you are striving for. But God never said that you couldn't do that stuff, he merely said: Don't put it in front of me. That means, don't by playing D&D so long and become so involved in it that you are totally ignoring God. Same with video games and music.

Jade - I have to ask again, what is your point?

Have you not read the rest of the thread?

GD and myslef have said many things regarding the fact that many of the basic beliefs of christianity are things that we our selves agree with and practice.

But the nonsensical religious aspects of it are hat we have the problem with...

Bugimus - as to your question - I beleive ^that statement answers it as well.

I personally do practice many of the things that comprise christianity. But I don't do it because of a "god", I don't do it because a book says so, I don't do it out of fear of punishment or hope of reward. I do so (or try to...) because the basic rights and wrongs are *very* easy to see, and because it is also very clear that there is a good way to live, and a not so good way. When you get into detail, there is plenty of room for disagreement. On the basic level....it's pretty clear.

The idea of Jesus, and the impact he made on the world, is great. The embellishments that are given to his story, and the subsequent doctrines and heirarchies that spun off from them are, IMO, very un-christ-like. Martin Luther sure helped things out a bit, but not enough.

You don't need religion to be a good person.

You don't need religion to have a postive outlook.

You don't need chants and hymns and prayers and beads and crosses and grape juice and robes and pre-fab "interactive" sermons and stained glass windows and giant steeples to share good will.

skarjj said,

quote:

---

Well, what you've said here doesn't fit with the definition of covet. To know it is not right to try and take what isn't yours is point 5. Thou shalt not steal. To covet it is to wish you had it, and even under 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife', what you say non-christians do is not observe that commandment. To do indeed covet it, for to covet it is to be envious of it, becuase to be envious of it is to wish you had it, therefore you covet it.

Even under society's 'morals' we all know that to err is human, well...to lust is also human, and not just the sexual lust that fits with commandment 9, but also the material lust that fits with commandment 10. Do you therefore say that all non-christians break two of 'God's commandments'?

---

Yes, your right about covet. I would say regarding your question its the matter of heart. Most of us probably don't follow these laws perfectly but we have the intent and I think it depends on where it takes us when we do break these laws. I am gulity too of not following these laws.

I think its human nature to appreciate the creative nature of God's handiwork in persons. Gosh, how many times a good looking attractive man will come to my view and I take a second look. But if the intent is to lust for this person in a sexual way then I could open up myself for more lustful thoughts. Its like your asleep to these feelings, then you awaken to them. So your open to more temptations. And its where these temptations take us to take action to preform a deed of no good. Here in lies the actual sinful act. Some christians use this line many times " The devil never sleeps". Satan is up working 24/7 to snatch souls. It feeds itself to us little at a time to get us to make that major step of our intended desire. But we too are given strength to overcome temptations or maybe we do the deed and suffer for it in some way or another. We could be judged by our efforts in fighting the temptations.

I know I can be envious of someone too or wish for someone else's easy life or what they have like being rich, better looking, smarter, happier, etc. But I think there is a wrong kind of envy and jealousy where it could lead you to work to achieve for only empty pleasures where you make them more important than God. The commandment law says don't go there and look for temporary gratifications because it will take you away from me, and I am a jealous God. Because in the end it will not have mattered how rich, handsome, beatuiful, or smart you are. You become dirt just like the poor, unacttractifve, feeble minded.

In regard to the statement about women thought of as being evil in the early christian days, I think this is so wrong. In the early Christian church women were very instrumental in shaping christianity. If the mindset goes back to story of Eve being the one who made Adam sin, and its because of Eve that sin entered the world and she gets the blame, then this story has been so misunderstood. Eve was intended to show the female side of God, to show greatness and perfection, but she gave in to destructive self pride, which is the ruin of many souls. Adam the same way. The NT tells us that Jesus & Mary broke the chains of the bondage of mankind by opening the doors of salvation. The woman that scripture speaks of in this verse "the woman's heel will crush the head of the serpent is Mary. Who else could it be? In the early christian church Mary is mother of the church(christ) and is a key figure in directing us to her son Jesus in scripture and today. In the wedding feast of Canna, the servants complain of no wine to Mary. Mary tells Jesus of this. Mary knows before hand what Jesus will answer. When Jesus says, Woman, what have I to do with this, my hour has not yet come. It seems like Jesus is being so disrespectful when he says this, but he is speaking of his passion. Mary says to the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. The scripture has a double meaning. And it is meant for us today.
Some Christians refer to Mary as mother of the earth "Mother earth" Because of her, the savior came. Women are all over scripture too and were very instrumental in the preparation for coming of salvation.

So I think the view as women being tools of evil equates them with the devil and thats unfair. For some Christian women, Mary the mother of Jesus is a role model to follow.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-15-2003).]

Jade-
With regards to my example about women being perceived as inherently evil- this is what I draw from:

1. It was only until recent times that women could actually lead a congregation. Up until then the highest level a woman could reach in the church was that of a Mother Superior and in the eyes of the church, she still held less power than the local priests. In the Catholic Church, a woman cannot even be a priest.

2. In the Burning Times, it was women who were hunted down, persecuted, & put to death in extraordinary disproportion to men all in the name of the Christian Church. Women were more likely to be branded heretics, witches (in the derrogatory context) and consorts of Satan because the church said women were inherently wicked and more prone to sin. This is not limited to the Catholic Church.

From what I know of the Bible, it never states that women are inherently evil. It says that certain groups of women are sinful and should be avoided. (Thank-you Bugimus for that piece of education) I've said this before. The point I was trying to make was the difference between the Idea and the Application. Are you able to see the distinction?


{edit-random puctuation}



[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-15-2003).]

Mmmm....it depends on what is meant by women being perceived as evil.

Is the perception unfair? Yes. (not that I haven't known some awfully evil women.... )

But is the statement that women have been perceived that way innacurate? Of course not.

I mean....shall we talk about Eve??

And let's look at islamic societies where women need to cover their flesh so as not to tempt men...

Society has undoubtedly portrayed women as evil throughout history. Male dominated groups have certainly enjoyed blaming women for their own shortcomings.

ohh and jade why does satan needs to snatch souls?

I have never understood the concept of hell. God has banished the angel Lucifer Morningstar from heaven, and into hell. Now wouldn't it make sense that Satan, to spite God, would make hell a rather enjoyable and luxurious place to live. That way he could persuade more people to his cause. Why would someone who is trying to overthrow God campaign by making himself sound cruel, unfair, and evil? It just doesn't make sense.

(((IN STEREO))) the Peter.Pansy way

[This message has been edited by peterpansy (edited 08-16-2003).]

As with all religious debates I shall feel compelled to say that Bhuddism rocks hard, and then my neighbor is a unitarian. She MOST DEFINATELY thinks for herself and most times she's very unique when it comes to advise or problem solving. Part of it is the kind of person she is, and the other part I believe is her religion.

Secondly, my AP Psychology Teacher in highschool who I loved very much was catholic. She was awesome. She didn't press anyone to convert ever in or out of school, instead I remember her for her interest in Harry Potter, and stories of her daughter. She died of cancer early summer this year. And going to the funeral, I feel like there was a lot of LOVE in the church for her. Sure, a lot of christians were in there but religions aren't really all about following rules, or conforming to jesus. I think it's like a guide for making better people. Jesus could have been fictional for all I know, and in that case I admire the author for writing about a great hero who is worth following. And in that way I guess I am a little christian too.

Shine and shine. :: [Cell=992] :: [See my team's 30 second animation!! ]

quote:

---

1. It was only until recent times that women could actually lead a congregation. Up until then the highest level a woman could reach in the church was that of a Mother Superior and in the eyes of the church, she still held less power than the local priests. In the Catholic Church, a woman cannot even be a priest.

---

MD
Your correct here. In my faith, today women are not allowed to be priest. But that doesn't mean the role of women in the church is not esteemed. They are viewed as caretakers of the faith in that they nurture and shape the newborn Christians from infancy. They are a powerful force within the church. More women assist in lay positions than men do. The church does not veiw them as subordiate to men, but with different roles. In my family, my mother was the one who taught us to do chores with love and self sacrifice. She taught us of the lives of saints and how we could imitate them. She along with my father instilled in us a great love for all people, regardless of race, or creed.

In the beginnings of Christianity though, women were instrumental in the start & in safegarding of the faith of the church. There were many Christian women who were maryters and there were also women priest . Through the history of the faith, the teachings on the role of women in the church have evolved into the teachings of today. We believe the early church in its infancy with the help of the Holy Spirit is guided in matters of faith and doctrine to what it teaches today. So we may question it, but we must obey. We probably have an opinion about women in the priesthood, but we have to be submissive. The system of our faith is not like a democracy. Christ is in charge and the absolute ruler and king. If it was like a democracy, we would have splintered off into thousands of Christian sects. Sure, we think for ourselves, but we must be obediant to Christ.

Women are are not allowed to act in the role of "persona in Christi"(acting in place of Christ in the power to change bread & wine to his body and blood). This ritual of transubstanciation is the whole focus of our what our faith centers upon. The view of the church is that Christ handed these powers to men. And the church in keeping with this tradition will not change it. If I don't believe it this, should I leave the church and find a faith who lets women be priest or stay and pray that Christ knows what he is doing for his family here on earth. I stay and remain faithful.

Ruski, I think peterpansy answered you question like I would have about Lucifer.

Bmud. They only thing I can say about why Christians evangelize is that its what we are called to do. Its like we have no control because the Spirit compels & propels us to act. It pushes us like puppets to go and make Christ known to all peoples. I guess the Christ in us wants us to share him like a good friend that we think everyone would love to meet. Why we can't just be content to just know Christ ourselves and leave everyone else alone only God knows.


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

On the Lucifer issue, I have a take on it that was passed on to me. As an agnostic and a psychology grad, I find religion (and its inevitable paradoxes) fascinating. Anyway, here it is, with absolutely no scriptural references to back it up:

Supposedly, God wanted to give Man free will, ever the optimist that Man could use it responsibly. Lucifer argued that Man wouldn't be able to handle free will. After his fall, Lucifer set to tempting Man to sin and thereby prove God wrong about the whole free will issue. The idea was also raised that, like God, Lucifer dislikes sin (but still insists on tempting Man, just to show God), which is why Hell is depicted as a place of torture.

So basically, Hell is a direct result of the equivalent of a bar bet between God and Lucifer.



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

Or Lucifer could be a metaphorical reflection of the worst sadistic parts of human nature...the part that enjoys pain, especially inflicting pain and suffering on others...

That's basically what any deity in any mythos has been.

Including the judeo-christian mythos. =)

Peterpansy,

I am sorry to say I skimmed thur your post and really didn't catch the thought of it. Regarding Ruski's post, I don't think anyone knows what hell really is. Its a burning, but what kind of burning, who knows. I try to imagine when burning a needle or sharp object to purify it and then I think of a purging of the soul for being totally pure without contamination to prepare to face the almighty God, the only one who can do any damage. Because with the Lucifer your the pawn and the doer. In hell the burn doesn't purify, but maybe its a hurting, burning, aching. Or maybe if you could think of life without hope it would be a hell. Like being a life long prisoner without parole incarcerated in a small cubicle or being in a situation where hope was lost & dead. I am so blessed in waking up AM for the hope of good day, a good tommorrow or week, month, and so on. Some of us love to sieze the moment. For Christians, in regard to Lucifer, the deceiver, the father of lies, trickster, illusionist, ect., evil gets us confused on what is good. Like if feels good, it must be good, so do it. If it looks good, it must be good or good for you. Or how could something that feels so good, be so wrong? God would think this is good. Satan confuses the mind into thinking its kind of evil is good and comes from God. So you think Evil is God. For Christians, even in all this bad, good can come from it if the soul is able to see Satan for its evil and is able get out of its clutches. Maybe the tormented soul can advise others thru experience not to go there where it has been.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-18-2003).]

so what are you telling jade is that since Jesus handed man power and stuff and not to women so thats like he pretty much IS sayint women are lower than men(or in whatever way you say it) thats is catholic way of thinking but it seems christians dont agree on that with you.

now since God is all powerful and he knows that satan is confusing his children=humans why dont he just destroy satan I mean cmon big guy, you like to see us tempted? hehe what you said jade in all those post represents fanaticism, no joke about it.

Its kinda fun to read

jade-

quote:

---

If it was like a democracy, we would have splintered off into thousands of Christian sects.

---

And how many denominations of Christianity (recognized or not) are in existence today?

quote:

---

The view of the church is that Christ handed these powers to men.

---

This is the point that I am trying to make about the distinction between Faith (the belief) and Practice (the religion) Show me where in Christ's teachings it is said that women cannot perform "ritual of transubstantiation "! This is, as you stated, the view of the church! This view was determined by mortal men based on Biblical interpretation and on their own bias and assumption. If you can show me where in the Bible it states that women are not allowed to administer communion, then I will happily eat my words regarding this particular example.

Also, you neglected to address my second point regarding the Burning Times. A woman who did not go to church on Sunday as recently as the 1600's was regarded as a heretic and subject to intense scrutiny or accused of being a witch. It mattered not if she were laying in bed desperately ill. This was then explained as punishment for consorting with Satan or other such nefarious activity. It was simply assumed that due to a woman's inherently wicked nature, she was guilty. Truly a sad state of affairs and very much unlike the happy picture you painted above.

I am going to reiterate this one more time: This example was simply used to illustrate the distinction between Belief and Application- they are not one in the same.

Here is another example: One of the Commandments is to Remember the Sabbath day and Keep it Holy. Who decided that the Sabbath should be celebrated on Sunday? In the Jewish tradition, Sabbath begins on Friday night - but someone along the way decided that the Christian Sabbath should be on Sunday. Who it was doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, the Bible does not state that Sunday must be the day of rest. "Sunday" did not exist before the Gregorian or Julian calendar. The current western calendar did not come into existance until several hundred years after Christianity was an established religion. But it has been the stance of many churches that you are sinful if you do not attend church on Sunday. What does it matter what day you spend in meditation and rest, contemplating the Holiness of God & Christ? It doesn't - so long as a practitioner of the Faith, you remember that even God took a day of rest. I really don't think He cares if that day happens to be a Wednesday.

The reason it does seem to matter? The church basically said: "Theology: Leave the thinking to us."


[edit]durn greek suffixes[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-19-2003).]

Jade - So....what you're saying is, you're allowed to think for your self, so long as you agree with and are submissive to (even if you do actually disagree with) the church.....?

For the record, that's not really considered thinking for your self =)

Moon Dancer - Hurray!

quote:

---

. . . After all, a closed mind is a safe soul.
Wesley Treat 2003

---

ThanQ Wes.

And I see way too many Christian parents embracing that philosophy when raising their kids.

Jesus was the Son of God.

Are you alive?

Ruski said:

quote:

---

so what are you telling jade is that since Jesus handed man power and stuff and not to women so thats like he pretty much IS sayint women are lower than men(or in whatever way you say it) thats is catholic way of thinking but it seems christians dont agree on that with you.

---

You've got to understand from jade's perspective, Ruski. When she says Jesus set it up that way, she is going on the word of her church which she believes is directly led by the Holy Spirit through its leaders. You are correct in saying that some Christians don't agree that women should not be allowed to lead. I happen to be one of them.

However, you should know that I only came to that decision a few years ago after much study and consideration on the subject. Before that time, I believed very strongly that the New Testament said women could not hold leadership positions. But then I came across a section in one of Paul's letters that gave instructions on how women were to preach in church. If the very person I had thought prohibited women from preaching was instructing them the proper way of doing it, then I must have had something wrong. That is just one example of how my thinking changed on the subject of women's role in God's kingdom.

I am not so quick to judge people who disagree with me because we are all learning as we go. I find the time is far better spent making positive arguments in favor of the things I believe are right. Minds can be changed, I'm proof of that

Moon Dancer, how many different sects of Xianity? It's got to be in the thousands by now

I wanted to chime in on the Sabbath versus Lord's Day thingy. The Sabbath was and is Saturday. That has never changed. The view that the church moved the Sabbath to Sunday is not quite what happened. The early Xians celebrated the resurrection which just so happened to have been on the first day of the week. The early church also met on this day because most of them still observed the Sabbath, since they were virtually all Jewish In fact, observing the Sabbath is still a *very* good idea, it's just not required of Xians.

And there is also no requirement for having "church" on Sunday. In fact, our congregation has two services on Sunday morning and one on Thursday evening. There is nothing wrong with that, at all, and I would argue it is crazy to limit worship services to Sunday alone when there are people who work on Sunday morning or whose schedules make it very difficult to attend that day. Even Christ Himself said that the Sabbath was made for man and *not* the other way round.

Thanks for that insight, Bugimus. I guess where my issue comes in is the disparity between her views on women within the church and what I imagine is a woman who would fight tooth and nail for women's rights in the social and political world. How can women who want equality be so blind to the, dare I say 'oppressive', views of the church?

It's like women who move here with their families from the Middle East to escape the opression of that life and start a new one here and yet they accept the opression of their husbands and continue to wear the traditional clothes and give up other freedoms that they fought so hard to get for their families. Like the ability to vote. I've heard that these women are only allowed to vote by their husbands if they vote the way their husband votes. They are being used to further their husband's wants, not their own. I just don't understand. It frustrates me because I don't understand. That why it drives me to the edge of anger when I can't get 'real' answers out of someone.

*Shakes head* I just don't UNDERSTAND how people who believe so strongly can do so in such a blind fashion. Gabriel, our newest *ahem*, how am I ever going to learn anything from him if he won't talk to me just because I believe something different? What a shameful state of events. No wonder the world is so screwed up. People won't F*ing TALK to each other. Screw agreement, just F*ing TALK.

Gee, Gabriel, thanks for that compelling insight.



Bugimus - that's exactly the type of thing I have a problem with.
You beleived one thing, because you thought that's what the bible said. Then you found something that contradicted that thought, and so your beleifs change.

I don't understand that.

Not to say beleifs can't change, or that anyone is wrong for changing their view of something. I just can't fathom the idea of changing your stance based on such things...

GD, I think I can understand why some women are content to remain oppressed but I cannot appreciate that decision. But I can think of some situations where a woman is raised from childhood to remain in her place and constantly beaten down at any hint of individuality

DL-44, you stated what happened perfectly and it is so perfectly clear what is there not to understand about it? I read through the NT and got a certain understanding from what I had to work with at the time. As I learned more and read more carefully I got a more accurate understanding of what was written. What am I missing in that process? It seems to me to be quite appropriate and proper.

Let me give you some more detail to see if it helps. I attend a church that comes from a particular movement begun early in this nation's history. The movement intended to shed as many "man made" doctrines and "religiosity" in an attempt to get back to modeling the implementation of the Xian faith more after the early church. It is assumed, of course, that the early church was more correct than what it became shortly after the death of the apostles and the few hundred eye witnesses of the resurrection.

So my church taught that women were allowed to teach children and other women in bible studies and such but were not to teach men. That was based on primarily, but not limited to, this verse by Paul:

quote:

---

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

---

That sounds pretty clear and if you assume that Paul meant ALL women for ALL time are subject to that rule, then your path is clear. That verse really sticks out and is so direct that it tends to be retained more readily compared with this verse by the same guy:

quote:

---

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head?it is just as though her head were shaved.

---

Did he berate the church that allowed women to pray and preach? Nope, he simply gave instructions on the proper way to do it.

So you can draw a few different conclusions from this. You could say that it is all just a bunch of crap and this is just an excellent example of how screwed up the entire thing is and it should be thrown onto the trash heap of history along with all the rest of man's asenine mythological concoctions of ignorance. (sorry got a little carried away there) Or you could say that Paul changed his mind from city to city as he traveled. Or you could say that every church had its own set of problems and needed different solutions. The third makes the most sense to me at this point in my studies.

There are several other things that you will find in the NT that should illustrate that women were intended to be lifted out of the cultural oppression that had existed for literally centuries prior. The entire gospel of Luke is very powerful in this regard. The way he wrote was unheard of in his day. Every time he includes a parable of Jesus' about a man he mirrors it with that concerning a woman. It seems quite clear upon a close study of that book that Luke did this intentionally to elevate the status of women in the newly born kingdom that Christ had established.

I don't know if that helped. If not, then I need to better understand what part of my changing my mind based on more information is problematic to you.

Yes, the process is very clear.

The reasoning is what I do not understand. Because there are a couple of verses in the bible that allude to one person claiming that a woman should act the way he thinks she should act, you'll base your way of life around it?

And because you read a little more that alludes to somehting a bit different, you'll change the way you live your life based on it?

That is what I don't understand.

I am also somehwat confused at how someone like yourslef who is so vehemently against racism could be swayed to rather blatantly sexist simply because Paul says so (I know, it's not *just* based on that...).

I can (to an extent) understand the faith, and the following of Jesus' word devoutly. But, we're talking about Paul. I know Paul is an important figure, but....we're moving from following Jesus to following Paul....

And it seems that it should take far mroe than a couple of verses in the bible that that quote one person to base a life-view on.

I do have respect for the fact that your church has moved in the direction that it has. I think it's important to at least go back before the coruption of Rome if you're going to be a christian.

But we're still talking about what seems to me as rather arbitrary verses, and more social in nature than religious.

DL,

Sometimes I wonder if your a protestant christian in disguise with all this resentment against Rome. You sure stay in religious debates like a devil's advocate, trying to bring up all these views against christianity. More like you are trying to get topics discussed to shoot them down or reveal hypocrisy.

Who really are you?

You are interesting. I try to read thru your post to get a revelation of who your hiding in your skin.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-20-2003).]

Bugs-I was raised catholic

DL - You save me so much posting time, it's scary. Your willingness to question and question with reason and logic to get to the truth (or at least the point, in case the truth is too relative) kinda reminds me of that "Scrubbing Bubbles" tub cleaner commercial: "New DL-44 with his scrubbing bubbles (er, questions). DL-44 posts... so you don't have to!"

In case the preceeding made no sense, please feel free to ignore it.

Now then... game on!

Haha! I like that =)

Jade - It really isn't all that complicated. A lot of people tend to really overcomplicate their view of my view (if that makes sense....).

I summed it up earlier - I question. When things don't make sense, I ask. If the explanation still doesn't make sense, I try to explain why it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not out to debunk anything. I'm not out to shoot anything down.

Reveal hypocrisy? Sure, why not. Is that wrong? Are we susposed to bury our heads in the sand and pretend we don't notice the contradictions in religious doctrine? That seems rather counterproductive...

I am not anti-Rome either. But regardless of your religion, you can't deny that Rome was an extremely corrupt empire - and bringing in christianity did not change that, especially seeing as they cahnged christianity around to suit their own purposes.

You look at it from the singular and biased view of your religion. I look at it from an objective historical view - the religion means nothing to me, so I have no reason to hold any bias for any particular sect of it...

I am not hiding anything under my skin. In fact, I do everything possible to lay it all out as plainly as possible. But most people tend to focus so much on seeing what's "under" it, that they don't see what's right there...




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-20-2003).]

Bugimus-
If you could please point me to the verses that you quoted, I would appreciate it. I would like to read the whole passages to get the context.
Thanks!

Well, I don't buy it all. You harbor some bias and you are searching too. Or else you wouldn't be posting. Don't depend on the faithful to fully explain the answers if you are not receptive to it. Some thoughts just can't be answered because maybe you refused to be open to them too. Not all can be explained.

MD, first verse is 2 Timothy 2:9, the other is 1 Cor 11:5.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Thank you, Fig.

quote:

---

But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:16

---

Now, I am understanding this to mean that the previous verses of instructions are recommendations regarding how women should worship. If the peoples of the region find it offensive for a woman to cover her head, ( I am reading this to be both literal and figurative - there is someother meaning that I think is being alluded to) then they should not let this instruction bar their way to the path of Christ.

And as I was reading this passage, I just had one observation to make...

quote:

---

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 1 Corinthians 11:14

---

Don't the majority of representations of Christ portray him with long hair? (Tangent - I know... )

Jade - you take yourself far too seriously.

I am biased - against people who can only spit out pre-fab answers that usually mean very little.

Am I searching? In a way. I'm not looking for "the truth" or "the light" or any other such nonsense. I look for what makes people think the way they do. That's what drives me to learn most of what I learn. I like understanding the way the human mind works.

I am not relying on anyone to explain the mystical or divine to me. I am not searching for a savior I ask questions that anyone who truly believes what they preach and have truly questioned those beliefs can answer. People who regurgitate or blindly accept what they've been fed tend to react negatively...

I feel I have answered others in keeping with that.

I post because I love to learn, and I hope that I can share something. But of course, you take everything I say in regard to religion negatively, and outright omit the possibility that there might be something in what I say.

That's your perogative...


{edit -

as I reread your post, it's quite funny - Yes, you caught me! I'm a protestant in disguise out to bring down catholicism under the veil of atheism so we can take our rightful place in the world!

lmao

}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-21-2003).]

For sure DL, Didn't you know I meant to be funny?

I wasn't serious. I don't take your words to heart like you don't take mine to heart. But your heart does beat like mine so we are the same, but then, not the same.

But you are searching. That I can read. All mankind is searching for something out there. You are not immune. And I don't think of my views in my post as a regurgitating, like vomit. Vomit stinks. I don't think my words of Jesus have a foul odor. They are like vomit to you because you have alientated yourself from believing that a certain human man could be worshipped as a Godman. To you, it so ignorant for believers to think that way, like the blind leading the blind. For you to believe that way would be stepping out of your human intellect. I know to spiritually make a connection outside of youself like a "ET phone home", would be so beneath your character and would show a weakness in intellect.

MD

I will answers you questions regarding in reference to women in the priesthood and sunday worship. I would have to make a little long post of it as I want to give you more of an explanation. I will get to my computer at home without disruptions and send. Sorry.

You aren't understanding what he meant, Jade. He isn't saying that he doesn't like what your saying (at least not as you mean). he's saying that you aren't saying things from you own distinct point of view. You are plopping scripture and other people's words in your posts and giving us none of your own. You are taking yourself out of the arguement and letting other people argue for you basically. We want to know YOUR flaver of Faith. It should be different from everyone elses. Right now it's the same as everyone elses because it's using everyone elses answers. Where are YOUR answers?

quote:

---

NO EXCESSIVE QUOTING - Open minded discussion requires statements of belief and an understanding of other beliefs. There can be no understanding if someone elses words are used. It gives no real information about the person speaking.

---

I stand by this. Until things are explained in words that are only your own I have a hard time seeing YOU in your responses. I don't trust words. I do trust people. Put yourself in your words so I can know YOU. Then I can trust what you say.

GD

But your not understanding me. I believe in those words I speak. I am those words. Do I seem like a person who doesn't know their own mind or feelings because I choose to follow Jesus like a blind person. Why is it so impossible to believe from the outside looking in I know my real self because I choose to be RC. You think I believe because I am dictated to believe, but I believe because I feel a deepness & richness in it. Do I seem like I repeat myself over and over again and say the same words. Can you not tell what kind of person I am thru my words? I too have been on the outside looking in because of a hardend heart thru despair, hopelessness, sickness, opression and neglect so I know whats out there. I have seen darkness and know that being faithful requires much strength. I like many others fight evil every day. So I beliveve that qualifies me on being able to think for myself on what I choose or choose not to believe.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-21-2003).]

And that would be the first time I've read a post of your that was all from you. You didn't quote anything, you didn't just say things again and again. You wrote with FEELING. I could FEEL your hurt and anger at being questioned like this. That is what I've been after. Explainations and discussions that carry the feelings behind your faith. I can't see and/or feel the wonderment you do if you don't show it. Your posts, up to that last one have seemed very automated, mechanical almost. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying. And hopefully you'll continue to open yourself in more ways then hurt and anger. I do apologize for insighting those feelings in you, but... I think I achieved my intent.

no sorrys accepted. no apology neccessary.

I must admit I feel better connected to you if that makes any sense after reading your post.

Jade- you are so funny.

Then again "God" can mean different things to different people. Some may think its ghostly figure who looks like a man as described in bible, others might think its energy, others say its "love" and whatever else they might have in mind individualy is different oppinion ...so like since we dont have an explanation of what the hell "god" is, how can we believe in something like that?


Yeah sure bible says he is alpha and omega and blah blah, so like duh it prevents us from questioning the truth...
basicly teaching us,[ yeah stay stupid, dont question shit, just believe in me or else you gonna burn in hell...sorry dude, I am loving and forgiving but you gonna have to go to hell because I didnt provide no shit of evidence of me and since you dont understand bible or it sounds too supernatural for you to believe in it, then you gonna have to go to hell .]

then comes Jesus...Yeah I know he existed, but in history book I see no evidence of him resurected or performing miracles...and the way he speaks sounds really hyporcritic...


He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matt. 12:30)

sounds like I really really must chose either him or hell...interesting, but it seems I have other options in life


You are my friends if you do what I command you. (John 15:14)


so like yeah I have to become his bitch huh? or else (once again) I am going to hell.




He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)


so it seems most of my freinds are going to hell...how sad...ohh it seems ghandi is also in hell.


well what can I say there are millions of bible sentences that are pretty close minded and stuff...

ohh jeez I am not gonna bother arguing anymore, I did better enjoy reading the whole post *grabs popcorn*

quote:

---

I know to spiritually make a connection outside of youself like a "ET phone home", would be so beneath your character and would show a weakness in intellect.

---

I know you like to think that, because it makes you feel better to think that atheists have no spirituality...that not beleiveing in your "godman" means that they are empty shells only capable of self interest and cold logic.

But you are very very wrong, Jade, and you show your arrogance vastly by such statements. You speak of alienating....you have wrapped yourself so thick in your doctrine that you alienate any other possibilities.

I, on the other hand, am open to all possibilities...though I may have strong opinions on which ones are "right".

And yes, of course, like any other being, I search. But not in the way that you see it.
You look at anyone who doesn't believe as you do to simply have not "found" it yet.

I'm not looking for what you have =)
Quite frankly, I don't think you have found what you preach about. You seem to try too hard to convince yourself that it is so.....

And yes, I am sure that you believe the words and thoughts that you regurgitate. Whether you believe them was never in question...

But of course, we're simply rounding that circle one more time here...




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-22-2003).]

ruski, all i'll say about your bible comments is to
a. read things in context
b. actually read them

nowhere in the bible does it say not to question, that may be a church position in some denominations but its not biblical. if you have a question about something related to christianity then actually READ and do some research on it, don't take a simple denial from a teacher or parent for an answer. if you end there and just give up i can't say you're much better off than those ignorant christians you seem so quick to condemn.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

DL-44, I've been thinking a lot about your earlier post. If nothing else, please know that I always consider your opinions and questions and I appreciate your honesty.

You said:

quote:

---

I can (to an extent) understand the faith, and the following of Jesus' word devoutly. But, we're talking about Paul. I know Paul is an important figure, but....we're moving from following Jesus to following Paul....

---

I'm pretty sure that I have never had anyone put it to me quite like that before. Basically my faith hinges on the Resurrection. You know I believe that really happened and that is why I put my faith and trust in Him for *everything*.

When I say everything, I mean it in the sense that I am bought and payed for. Christ *owns* me. Starting from there, you have to understand that the same scriptures that convince me of Christ, convince me that Christ gave His authority to the apostles to carry on th work he began. In Acts we see how the Holy Spirit filled the apostles with the power to do miracles just like Jesus had done. The early church followed their leadership. It is no leap for me, who beleives the early church had it right, to trust in the apostles teachings as the early church did. Keep in mind that virtually all we know about Christ was written by these guys.

Now we come to Paul. A man that had never been a follower of Christ before and even after his crucifixion. I believe that Paul really was confronted by Christ himself on the road to Damascus. I believe Christ gave Paul the authority to be an apostle and when Paul spoke about matters concerning theology, I believe it is about as close to hearing Christ's voice as it gets. *That* is why I can make a live-view change based on my understanding of his teaching.

If I believe God is asking me to do something, I'm going to be extremely inclined to oblige. If I really believed that God wanted me to be a sexist, I would be one. That goes for any other "wrong" thing as well. Happily, that is not the case and I have every confidence that the urgings of the Holy Spirit will guide me to being a better human being and not a worse one. It is possible to misunderstand what God wants and that is why it is so vital to study the scriptures and pray to be able to clearly hear what He's asking one to do.

The way I view the authority of Paul in these matters is very similar, if not identical, to how jade views the authority of the holy father in Rome. She and I part in that I don't believe the authority that Paul and the other apostles had could be passed on indefinitely. I believe the powers that the apostles had could be passed on to other followers *but* those followers could not pass it on to others. I believe God structured it that way in order to ensure His church would survive its infancy. Once the apostle's teachings were canonized we are now able to continue in those teachings with the written word.

I suppose I could go on and on about this but I think I've addressed your main question which was about Paul.


[edit]
Moon Dancer:

quote:

---

Now, I am understanding this to mean that the previous verses of instructions are recommendations regarding how women should worship. If the peoples of the region find it offensive for a woman to cover her head, ( I am reading this to be both literal and figurative - there is someother meaning that I think is being alluded to) then they should not let this instruction bar their way to the path of Christ.

---

That's right. Those were instructions on how women in that area were to behave in the worship gatherings. I can tell you that we don't insist on women covering their heads in our church. But it may interest you to know that many churches have stressed that rule for the women based on that verse.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

Intersting.

It still seems to me though, that what Paul was saying in that and other verses was of a social nature, in keeping with society's views of men/women at the time, and not a 'religious rule' of any kind.

Is there no differentiation of such things? Do you accept the total package of the society in which the religion was started, or are you only interested in the religion? Where is the line drawn between absolute word for word following, and educated interpretation?

What if there was this big "Bad Ass Christian" who didn't take no shit from heathens. Maybe people called him... Big Man with Club. And Big Man with Club (BMC) carried some weapon he used on heathens, probably the weapon would be like a sword or a machine gun... or maybe a Club... yeah, a club would work! And when heathens would spew forth blasphemy then BMC would use his mighty Club to do Gods work. BMC would sat the heathens on a chair and raise his mighty club and yell "In the name of God doth I do this deed!" Then BMC would put the club beside the heathen and proceed to tell them the word of God. And BMC had eloquent speech and was well versed in the word of God.

That would be cool!

lobotomy, the world has been there and done that.. check your history - a few topics:
the crusades: the inquisition: the 1500's -> the spread of western culture and christianity in the 'new world' ; the spread of islam as the ottoman empire spread. yes, the club was just as often a sword