Friday Night Sermon -- Online Bible Study
From: www.NailScarred.net (http://www.NailScarred.net?sciforums.com)

Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Part 19 Of A Study In 2 Corinthians

In everyone's life, there comes a time when major life choices must be made. These times don't come about by mistake. I'm convinced that, many, if not most of these times of great choice are sent or allowed by God Himself. They are not to tempt us but to prove us. They are meant to remind us of, re-enforce us in, and further establish us within our faith in Him. God gives us the choice to choose right and will even allow Satan to offer his own brand of choice knowing full well that He has given us the opportunity to be established enough in the faith to resist, but, not defeat, the Devil for whatever choice God allows him to bring. This brings us to an obvious question. How do we choose the right thing?

I hope to bring this answer to you from a different aspect than we have covered in the past. Really, my attempt is to simplify it a much as is possible. The two choices we will use as examples are rather straightforward. We have "ultimate stupidity" and "ultimate bliss". The choice seems simple doesn't it? Well, how many of us have bought into something, say, some product from a store that looked so wonderful on the package, only to find that it was really a piece of junk? I think that's happened to all of us. When it's only a small product, the damage is usually recoverable. You can usually go back and make the situation right. However, the self same mechanisms we use to choose products at the store are the same we use to also make major choices in life. If you choose by what you see on the outside, what's on the box, you're headed for pain! This is the type of choice that can't be readily undone. These choices are not like choosing a product at a store. Choosing by external criterion, mostly the things that drive our emotions, is the way of the fool. It's true that the wise choice, "ultimate bliss", to the foolish, often looks to be boring and not nearly as exciting as the choice of "ultimate stupidity". Like I said, that's to the foolish. The wise, being conformed to God, will readily see the "ultimate bliss" and see it as exciting. Why is this? Satan knows that fools have poor decision making skills. So, what does he do? He hypes up the external things. I've heard it said, on the radio, that, in those beer commercials, they show all the best things and give the impression of, "it doesn't get any better than this". The commentator actually agreed with them and said it to be true. Why, especially being a Christian? It's because Satan always puts his best foot forward. It doesn't get any better than that. It only gets worse! Satan always shows what seems to be just what we want and just how we want it. It's always easy and full of all the right emotions. It makes no demands on us and promises the world. That's "ultimate stupidity"! Never, since God created us, has He ever expected us not to work it, whatever it is. Even Adam had a J.O.B. There has never been a free lunch. The choice that is "ultimate bliss" often requires work and effort and gets better with time and interaction. Satan's choice gives all he's got up front and the rest is a hidden rotten core that will leave you wanting and in pain. God's choice brings reward.

Why is there so much divorce and separation? It's because people too often choose the "ultimate stupidity" mate because that person brings excitement and all the qualities that suits their own wants. The better choice is the "ultimate bliss" mate that will serve you as you serve them because you both serve God. The "ultimate bliss" mate is someone that you can discover the excitement in. There's an "ultimate bliss" way to choose in everything that you do. Just remember, choose wisely. If you go for the external and feel the sting of a wrong choice, you might think to go back and go for the right one now. The only problem is that God often moves that right choice along to someone else in the meantime. That is especially true in the choosing of a mate, a place of employment, large financial expenditures and so on. So, how does this work into this weeks lesson? Let's see. This is a matter of living right.

KJV
Book: 2 Corinthians
Chapter: 5 ,Verses: 1-11
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=2+cor+5&section=0&version=kjv&language=en

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

NLT
Book: 2 Corinthians
Chapter: 5 ,Verses: 1-11
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=2+cor+5&section=0&version=nlt&language=en

1 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down – when we die and leave these bodies – we will have a home in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands.
2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long for the day when we will put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing.
3 For we will not be spirits without bodies, but we will put on new heavenly bodies.
4 Our dying bodies make us groan and sigh, but it's not that we want to die and have no bodies at all. We want to slip into our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by everlasting life.
5 God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit.
6 So we are always confident, even though we know that as long as we live in these bodies we are not at home with the Lord.
7 That is why we live by believing and not by seeing.
8 Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord.
9 So our aim is to please him always, whether we are here in this body or away from this body.
10 For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in our bodies.
11 It is because we know this solemn fear of the Lord that we work so hard to persuade others. God knows we are sincere, and I hope you know this, too.

It's easy to get all revved up from verses 1-8. It makes you want to shout, "PRAISE GOD!!!" We're ready for that NEW Body, that incorruptible Body! We have our eyes on the prize and that's part of it. AMEN!? Still, there's this little matter of verses 9-11. Where does the fear of the Lord come into how we choose to live? Excitement, by reason of the prize we know is to come is a good thing. Should that be our motivation? No! Let me point out to you that Satan doesn't mind you getting excited by the Bible so long as you don't do what it says. We're not told to behave in a proper manner because of the excitement of the prize. We are told to FEAR the Lord God! That is something you will never find in Satan's choices of "ultimate stupidity". His choices are always devoid of obligation and seemingly incapable of consequence. His choices are the exact opposite of God's. God's system is a system of value. Just like we see in verse 11, there is always something at stake when you're making a choice, Godly or otherwise. Fear the Lord!!! Don't you dare thing that He'll just forgive you later or that you'll somehow make it up to Him! So what if you are forgiven for willfully making a wrong choice! Are you going to go back and make it up to everyone you let down because of you willful wrong choices? Remember, there's always a stake and what's up for grabs here? That's Right, the souls of men.

All too often, we look at our choices as being for our benefit only. We only see what we want to have happen. We look over the effect on others. We don't measure the choices to see which is from God. We don't FEAR doing wrong in the sight of the Lord!

I can tell you that there is nothing more pleasing to know than knowing that the relationship you have with God is free and clear. There's no other feeling like knowing that there are no hang ups or walls between you and God. This stems from one source, the same source that is Fear, Respect, Honor, and Love. Without this kind of right relationship with God, one where you choose to Fear, Respect, Honor, and Love God, you will continue to willfully choose "ultimate stupidity" in your life. God provides blessings upon blessings upon blessings. They're all there for you. He's made all sorts of promises. The Fear, Respect, Honor, and Love of God are all one in the same. If you miss one, you miss them all. Do this first and then you will have reward. Don't fall in for the lie of Satan that you can have it all now and there are no consequences. That is "ultimate stupidity"!

Christian website of the week: THE OFFICIAL ADVENTURES IN ODYSSEY WEBSITE (http://www.whitsend.org/?www.nailscarred.net-ChristianSiteOfTheWeek05-18-01)

The way of the LORD is a refuge for the righteous, but it is the ruin of those who do evil.
Proverbs 10:29, NIV

Misfortune pursues the sinner, but prosperity is the reward of the righteous.
Proverbs 13:21, NIV

ISDAMan

Why is there so much divorce and separation? It's because people too often choose the "ultimate stupidity" mate because that person brings excitement and all the qualities that suits their own wants. The better choice is the "ultimate bliss" mate that will serve you as you serve them because you both serve God. Divorce is on the increase, now 2 out of every 3 marriages end in divorce, because marriage is an unnatural process. A lifetime commitment to one person might have worked well when life expectancies did not extend beyond 30 years, just a few centuries ago, but now it makes no sense. As people learn more about the world and try new experiences they grow in both their intellects and personalities. It is inevitable that those attributes that seemed so attractive to a partner may well change and disappear altogether over time. And that time period is becoming shorter since modern life offers a vastly increased choice in activities and adventures. To stay with the outdated Christian law “of marriage is for life” is to accept that much of your life will be in misery. And misery is the usual result of following Christian dogma.

This change in divorce rate is also being reinforced by the increasing realization by many women that they are equal to their male counterparts in nearly all aspects of modern life. As women find their freedom then the tyrannical doctrine of Christianity begins to lose its power. Christian marriage ceremonies, and some still persist; include the clause that the woman must obey her husband. The oppression of women by men that was encouraged by Christian doctrine made it very difficult for women to object to the indiscretions of their husbands. Now they have the modern freedom to dissolve an unworkable relationship, whereas, even as recently as 40 years ago divorces were seriously frowned upon.

As tyrannical regimes like Christianity lose their hold over past ignorant masses, people are exercising their rights to personal freedom and desire to learn and experience a rich and varied life.

Partnerships between men and women are driven by one single instinct, the survival of the species through procreation. Once offspring have been created and suitably nurtured the parents have no further purpose. A process that is repeated in every other species, and we are no different. But through science we have vastly extended our life spans and find value in longer lives and desire to do things other than procreation.

Finally we are beginning to experience freedom from Christian tyranny and we should strive to replace the antiquated marriage ceremonies with more realistic and meaningful short-term contracts, if for no other purpose than protection of resultant offspring. But beyond that marriage has no value and should be disbanded.

To follow ISDAMans guidelines is to accept personal misery and to live in terror and to experience constant feelings of guilt. These techniques have been used throughout history to subjugate and control the ignorant masses. Fortunately greater access to knowledge and understanding of the universe is enabling individuals to make free choices, we no longer need to be told what to do and how to behave by an antiquated and outdated ancient mythos like Christianity.

It's easy to get all revved up from verses 1-8. It makes you want to shout, "PRAISE GOD!!!" Or more rationally we might say “how can people be so stupid to believe such nonsense?

We are told to FEAR the Lord God! And this shows the true power that Christianity has held over the ignorant for millennia – TERROR! Love is the claim made by Christians but it is terror that is the Christian weapon. Without that indoctrination and Christian tyranny people would have long ago dismissed Christianity as the twisted political propaganda that was its original purpose. If I love someone and they love me then I should have no need to fear that person and they would not fear me. If fear is present then love cannot endure. So we see again the paradox of Christianity, the impossibility that it proclaims, and in this case that fear and love are somehow compatible.

As always I remain hopeful that more readers will be able to see the stupidity spread by the sermons of ISDAMan.

Cris

Cris,

Sometimes you awe me. I mean, most of the time here is this mostly humble and somber and well-paced person, but then all of a sudden you erupt like a bloody volcano. I guess I've been known to do that myself sometimes, but somehow it's not nearly as spectacular to observe yourself as to be similarly startled by someone else. Thanks for the entertainment!

(By the way, amen.)

Boris,

Well thank you indeed sir. And I hope you realize that is was you who inspired me to speak my mind more. Ha ha:)

Cris,

Originally posted by Cris
Finally we are beginning to experience freedom from Christian tyranny and we should strive to replace the antiquated marriage ceremonies with more realistic and meaningful short-term contracts, if for no other purpose than protection of resultant offspring. But beyond that marriage has no value and should be disbanded.

Wow! You do have an interesting take on marriage, Cris. My experience has been quite the opposite, in that now that the kids are grown and gone, my husband and I have much more time for one another, and we have grown closer as a result. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought it would turn out that way for us, but we feel quite fortunate that it has. We do more together now than we ever did before, and I can't imagine starting over again in any sort of romantic relationship with anyone else. Heck, after 20 some odd years, we're finally starting to get the hang of this marriage thing! ;) Of course, we don't have the cloud of Christianity hanging over our home, either. I know we couldn't have survived that.

As always I remain hopeful that more readers will be able to see the stupidity spread by the sermons of ISDAMan.

Well, I can hardly disagree with you regarding all the negative aspects of Christianity you mentioned, but I have to agree with Boris - you did surprise me with that one! Personally, I feel kind of sorry for ISDAMan. He seems so sincere in his beliefs and in his desire to share them with others, but he can't see how others perceive his faith or why. Just like poor old faithful Linus, pathetically waiting in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin to arrive year after year, while the other kids are out trick-or-treating. You just want to say to him, "No matter how strong your belief in the Great Pumpkin - it ain't happening, Linus. May as well go trick-or-treating - it's a lot more fun than sitting around in a pumpkin patch all night." But there comes a point when you realize that he can't hear what you're saying, so you just shrug your shoulders and leave him there in the pumpkin patch to go trick-or-treating with your friends. You feel bad about it, but what else can you do? He's doing his thing, and if he's ever going to realize the futility of waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive, he's got to figure it out for himself.

Emerald

Emerald,

I generally agree with Cris' assessment of marriage, but I also understand situations such as yours. Thing is, if two people are happy living together, there shouldn't be a law there to force them to live together. On the other hand, there definitely shouldn't be such a law if the two are unhappy. Then again, it needn't be just two.

The <u>obligation</u> of marriage pretty much starts and ends with child upbringing. I do think there should be some sort of a socially-enforceable covenant between the parents to finish the job they started when they conceived a child (with provisions of severance if staying together they would do more harm to the child than staying apart.) However, what they do after the child grows up to be an independent adult, is entirely their business. If they want to live together, good for them -- but they shouldn't be forced to.

For example, my grandparents on the maternal side are absolutely miserable. They hate each other's guts, and if you get the two into the same room there will be blood spilt, and not just among the two of them. At some point in their past they were a good couple and loved each other. But now it's definitely over, as is plainly obvious to anyone who observes them. However, they lived their lives in a climate where marriage is sacrosanct, and the whole idea of divorce is almost criminal to them. So, they still live in the same apartment, but each has their own room and they avoid any contact in a most dogged fashion. Still, sometimes conflict flares up over trivial things, and one of them ends up leaving the apartment for a few days to a few weeks and staying with my parents. This has been going on for the last 10 years, with the frequency and duration of conflicts slowly escalating. It's really a pretty horrible situation, and the traditional institution of marriage contributes to it prodigiously.

Boris,

Originally posted by Boris
The <u>obligation</u> of marriage pretty much starts and ends with child upbringing. I do think there should be some sort of a socially-enforceable covenant between the parents to finish the job they started when they conceived a child (with provisions of severance if staying together they would do more harm to the child than staying apart.) However, what they do after the child grows up to be an independent adult, is entirely their business. If they want to live together, good for them -- but they shouldn't be forced to.

I agree 100% with the above statements. However, I do not agree with Cris's assessment that marriage has no value beyond the protection of the resultant offspring, and should thereafter be disbanded because it doesn't always work out for everyone in the long term. I do feel sorry for people like your grandparents who think they have some obligation to stay together when the children are gone (and so is the love), but it certainly isn't that way for everyone. Have you considered the possibility that your grandparents are happier with their lifestyle than you realize? After all, I have to wonder why they keep ending up back together following each separation? But I do agree that if they so desire, they should be allowed to go their separate ways without legal or social interference.

Emerald

Emerald,

Do you need to be married to love someone? I think not. Do you and your husband need to be married for you to stay together for as long as you wish? I would hope you would say no. If you were not married would you still be able to enjoy each other as much as you do? I would hope you would say yes.

If you have answered as I suspect then tell me what is the value of marriage (ignore the children part for now)? Being married or not should make no difference to your happiness, in which case marriage is redundant.

The love experienced and the desire to share lives should come not from a contract but from mutual understanding and overwhelming and clear compatibility. If a contract has to be present for a relationship to continue then I would suggest that the relationship is somewhat lacking.

People make mistakes and/or make decisions for the wrong reasons. A relationship based on a mistake is a poor foundation for happiness. Such relationships should be easy to end to avoid future misery.

Relationships, male/female, male/male, female/female, should be based on the same desire to share and that compatibility that fosters real love. For many this can be very difficult. Relationships of more than two should also be more common, but achieving compatibility between three or more becomes increasingly difficult, but I think the enjoyment of such an arrangement could be far superior to just two.

I was married for 18 years and the divorce was very amicable, we are now the best of friends, not that we ever argued anyway. But we realized our incompatibility and knew we would be happier apart. To accept the realization is one thing but to take action takes courage. Many remain together in misery because they either lack the courage to separate or the system does not make such an event easy, or a religion is involved. The first two are understandable but for a religion to force misery on two people is unforgivable.

The issues with procreation and the instincts involved tend to have fostered the ideas that a family is normal. This has the unfortunate effect of making many people, who are perhaps not very attractive, or who truly do not have any liking for children, feel like outcasts. Being single can also be a desirable state, but this is often made difficult to enjoy because of the pressures of society that assume that people should be in relationships or married, the so-called norm. Or at least that is my perception.

Enough for now – must do my laundry.
Cris

"The love experienced and the desire to share lives should come not from a contract but from mutual understanding and overwhelming and clear compatibility. If a contract has to be present for a relationship to continue then I would suggest that the relationship is somewhat lacking.

It is true that the relationship is somewhat lacking if it is the contract keeping them together but sometimes the relationship only lacks for a period of time. The institution of marriage makes a couple that would otherwise break up think twice about their actions. It is not like marriage is forced upon a couple, it is a choice that the two make. If you marry you accept the problems you will have to go through to separate. It helps the couple through a slump. My grandparents got married early in their relationship and as a result had a lot of friction. After 10 or so years they split up for 8 years and never divorced. When they got back together they were able to fix the relationship and today they are both alive because of their love. If not for the contract that they willingly signed then both of them would be dead. I agree that the old social pressures forcing couples to marry are sad and many relationships have suffered from it. People should neither be pressured or kept from marrying.

also, as a side note, it amazes me how different the read of the kjv and isdaman's bible references are. The kjv is also much more vivid and the word terror is used instead of fear. Seems our beloved priests are softening that bible for us readers that cant take all that fear and pain.

5:1
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

5:2
For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

5:3
If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

5:4
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

5:5
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

5:6
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

5:7
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

5:9
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

5:11
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

5:12
For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.

FA_Q2,

"also, as a side note, it amazes me how different the read of the kjv and isdaman's bible references are. The kjv is also much more vivid and the word terror is used instead of fear. Seems our beloved priests are softening that bible for us readers that cant take all that fear and pain."

Originally, I posted back not too happy with you. I thought it better to just make sure that I am reading exactly what I think you're saying. Is it that you are claiming that I have changed the Word of God? If this is what I am understanding, that is a very serious matter to me! Please, make yourself plain.

ISDAMan

Cris,

Originally posted by Cris
Do you need to be married to love someone? I think not. Do you and your husband need to be married for you to stay together for as long as you wish? I would hope you would say no. If you were not married would you still be able to enjoy each other as much as you do? I would hope you would say yes.

When everything is coming up roses, no - one does not need to be married to remain happily with one's chosen partner. But if my husband and I were not married, we probably would not have made it through the inevitable rocky phases of our relationship. It would have been all too easy to walk away when times got tough, even when the children were still young and dependent upon us. Having a contract that isn't so easy to break (at least, it's tougher than simply walking away) is what kept us together during these times. Obviously, that's important when there are children involved.

If you have answered as I suspect then tell me what is the value of marriage (ignore the children part for now)? Being married or not should make no difference to your happiness, in which case marriage is redundant.

What is the value of a home when the weather is nice, and one can sleep out under the stars? But is the weather <i>always</i> nice? Into each life some rain must fall, and it is good to have shelter during those storms that do come our way from time to time.

I agree that marriage primarily serves to create a secure home for the children of that union. But once the children have moved on, if one spouse has devoted his or her life to making a home for those children, thereby forgoing the climb up the corporate ladder, should that spouse then be tossed out on the street with nary a career skill or retirement account to see him/her through the remainder of his/her life? I hardly see that as the fair or loving thing to do. The spouse who chose to stay home with the children, and sacrificed a career to do so, has actually made the greater contribution to the family and should be rewarded with a lifetime of financial security - not tossed out into the street without a penny like a stray dog.

Not that the above scenario applies to my marriage - neither of us sacrificed a career to stay home with the children. In some ways I do regret that, because children seem to do better when they have at least one parent home with them. Just for the record, if my husband and I divorced, I would be the one who would have to pay him alimony. And yes - I do think that is fair, considering it was he who watched the kids in the evenings while I attended college, and it was he who got up in the middle of the night with a sick or crying infant because he was the better nurturer. Also, he is the one who worked the hardest at keeping our marriage together when times were tough. His contributions to our marriage were therefore greater than mine, and he deserves equitable compensation if the marriage were to dissolve at this point. At any rate, I cannot agree that a marriage should be disbanded as a matter of course once the children have moved out.

<b>Note:</b> I realize that you didn't address the issue of financial support for the spouse with the lesser income, but I felt this was implied by your objection to a contract. Please correct me if I am mistaken on this point.

Emerald

I have little to offer re: marriage. I have rather poor sentiments toward the ritual; besides, the only woman I'm supposed to marry happens to be a lesbian, so there's really not as much of a point to it, anyway. That, I suppose, I will eventually get over. But marriage does, indeed, seem primarily like a tax status.

Of ISDA's sermons, I haven't given much thought to them since he advocated violence against children. However, I did learn one important thing about these sermons: If you haven't seen http://www.nailscarred.net , do so. It should tell you all you need to know about these sermons. Suffice to say that the page bearing the statement of faith features this cool little graphic of a young man looking surprised and frightened against a background of flames: Threaten' em until they behave; heck, it's only 'cuz we love 'em.

http://www.nailscarred.net/fns/aof.htm is the statement of faith, I believe. (I don't feel like picking the page out of the html source since it's framed.) But for those who think the message of the Bible is simple, clear, or otherwise, I would ask two questions in relation to these terms of faith: 1) Do these reflect your biblical faith? and 2) How clear of guidance is this for life? (As in, is this specific enough to prevent botched interpretations without creating doctrinal loopholes?)

When you base a ministry on threat of punishment (hellfire, beating children, &c.), well, I guess you get exactly what you put into it: a flock of Pavlovian, dead-eyed sheep. Harken unto the shepherd ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by FA_Q2
Seems our beloved priests are softening that bible for us readers that cant take all that fear and pain.
I find myself in an alternate universe, agreeing with FA_Q2.

5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
FA_Q2 quoting the Bible?

I came across this news article which is somewhat relevant to our discussion on marriage, and wanted to share it with all of you: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/22/fonda.divorce.01.ap/index.html">Fonda and Turner Divorce</a>

I was astonished to read that Jane Fonda had decided to become a Christian, and found it curious that this was reportedly the cause of her breakup with Turner. Why is it that when one partner in a non-Christian marriage converts to Christianity, it often results in divorce? The same thing nearly happened to my parents when my mother became a Christian over 20 years ago. Personally, I view this as further evidence of the divisiveness of Christianity, but would like to see what sort of input others may have regarding this subject.

Emerald

When I think back of the women I've loved ... (fade to warbly, steamy, transitional graphic) ....

Anyway, when I was in high school, I recall the first time the woman I should have married saw me break down and cry. Warmth and heartbeat, rhythm of breath, and calm. And then she whispers, "It's times like this you need Jesus".

I am unable to describe my part in her liberation from religion; my role is unclear. But can you imagine never being able to feel poorly without a conversion speech coming?

Way back when ... when you were still Searcher, and Lori was still Lori, and True was still alive, I think ... I made the rough claim that I did not believe Christians and infidels could be friends. Let me examine this for a moment again: I would reject nobody for friendship solely on the basis of their religion. But in the case of this religious paradigm, I find it so intrusive upon my life that I find myself obliged to alter my conduct apparently out of respect for the other person. What? I understand you're married, Bob. That's why I'm saying good-night now and going off with this lovely lady now. And it doesn't have to be so blatant; I don't understand why my attempts at promiscuity should threaten our friendship. And it doesn't make sense. Unless I consider that if he endorses my sin in any way, he becomes a partner in it and endangers his soul. I mean, you ever see Turner falling-down drunk at Braves games? Can you imagine the effing headaches Jane's obliged redemptionism would give that man? It's probably self-preservation in one sense: did you ever see him skipper an America's Cup boat? Crap, no judge in the world would accept a man talking to his wife that way ... and religious zeal is apparently one of the things that gets him frothing like that.

Two cents or so, I hope.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

For ISDAMan,

Sorry for replying so late and not being clear. I was not saying that you miss quoted your bible, I am saying that those that have translated it have done a very BAD job at it. As I see it, the two versions do not wholly agree. The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the substitution of terror with the word fear. These two words obviously mean different thing even though they are similar. Why change the word. Terror is most certainly not a lost word and does not make the passage any harder to understand. It seems as if there is a deliberate attempt to change the bible to fit the priests of that time. This is something to think about when reading and quoting the bible. How many mutations has the bible gone through and how extreme are they if you can even see the errors in two versions of the SAME language. If I were to base my beliefs on the bible this would outrage me. Personally I find the KJV a MUCH better representation of the bible, so much more vivid and strong. Any comments?