chistians are hypocrites

forgot a quote

CRITIQUING,
First, let me say that I agree with what you say regarding your daughter's right to a religion-free education. In a matter that has no option at all for metaphor, such as the legal system, I have to insist that your assertions are well founded. I know you don't need approval to do what you do, I just think you are correct.
I also agree with your second statement, although not with your exact wording on the reason, on the steps for proper interpretation. This describes, with an example, a necessary method.

Your first method, on distinguishing metaphor, is not so reliable, I think.

You cannot be implying that someone MUST believe that God created the universe fully developed in six literal human days to be a christian, that every word not set out as metaphor must be taken as literal description or you are no christian. We have to apply our minds to the whole thing, reasoning together, as you pointed out in one of your posts.

Jesus says he brings a sword, but did Jesus use a sword or did he tell a follower to sheath the sword? You need to put his words in context with his actions. Did jesus use a sword against the money changers? Why would you think he condones this type of violence? Is this because his "followers" use his name as an excuse to fulfill their selfish desires, protecting what they perceive as limited resources by commiting violent acts against anyone who is "different" then they are. You know that humans sometimes do this with other justification. Different tribes, different races, etc.
Isn't it possible that Jesus was referring to future events where people would fight each other, ostensibly in the name of God, and he was warning them to sheath that sword as well?
If I fight not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities, what makes you think Jesus fights lesser enemies?

The verse, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone at her", is pretty clear to me. I will follow that before I will follow something Moses or some other prophet has said. If the two cannot be reconciled, I side with Jesus' words. Does this prevent me from trying to be christian? (I hesitate to use the term christian because it only shames Jesus, but I am forced to by people who must have a final thesis proved before the students have even finished their first sophomore class.)
Also, Regarding your Jesus who tortures humanity, how does that fit with the Jesus who, when nobody will cast a stone, does NOT condemn the woman at all? You say Jesus says the woman is worthy of Hell, but he won't even hit her with a rock. That is something to think about.

Your definition that someone must be a perfect jew to be called a christian goes against others who have studied the bible much longer than you have, if that is the yardstick YOU want to use. My definition is fueled by common logic - If Jesus says 'do this', and something else tells me the opposite, I cannot do both. God will probably be understanding about my confusion. Maybe I have misunderstood Jesus, and Jesus was just a fairly decent guy, but is not as great as CRITIQUING is, as you assert. For now, in concert with everything I have studied, and my personal experience (this part being inescapable for EVERYONE who thinks for themselves in any way), I will use the logical assumption that to be a christian you must first follow the words attributed to Jesus, and others come second if there is a conflict.

I can.

Also, let me just say, I wish I could pretend that I have tried to "hang on" to my faith. Unfortunately, you must realize that you can make nothing more than a weak assumption about my attitudes towards the ideas I have. You were never me, and you have never stood where I stand and looked out from my perspective. No more have I "been there" while you were mad at George W. Bush, or were fighting for religious freedom in the school. Not even close.
-I have tried to ditch my beliefs when they were inconvenient
-I have had the beliefs knocked out of me by certain situations
-I have avoided going to church for years at a time to prevent being influenced by other people's thoughts while I work out my own
- the list goes on
But still the ideas return.
Why must you paint me with the same brush you use for every christian? I would suggest that maybe you "hang on" to your definition of christianity to shield yourself from any doubt you may have about the existence of "God". My doubts are painful, but in the end I come to appreciate them, they push me to evolve.

You have some great questions that anybody who calls themselves a "christian" should ask. The term has been misused to mean everything from, "I go to church sometimes," to, "I am just like Christ" which is a logical impossibility for at LEAST 99.9999...% of humanity. There are many interpretations, but you insist that yours is the only valid one. This makes you out to be the one who is hanging "on" to something, not me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may know more about theology than the average believer. You may know all the historic intricacies and all that.

But all your degrees and studies don't make you one tiny bit more honest or more human.

And yes, you may know more about Santa -- but you don't know the love and excitement the child knows.
You are at a loss, not the child.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I cant for the life of me see what has upset you in my posts, in the first I only welcoming Charlotte.
and stating facts, is it the former or latter, I presume the latter, because you cant be offended by a welcome, so to the latter if you read though history atheist have been hated, and to become an atheist you first study religion, then theres the realisation, that religion makes no sense as there is no god/gods. this is not something that happens over night, I've been an atheist for five years, and I'm nearly thirty.

and the second post I was replying to okinrus who wrote a well formulated reply to Charlotte, and then ended it in the realms of fantasy, so I can only assume you were upset by the reference to religion and fantasy, well I'm sorry but these are closly entwined, the bible has hardly any historical proof, well no more then the tales of a thousand and one nights(arabian nights) and no more moral content then say easops fables, and it's just as fantastical as any of these.
if it's the reference to the term sky daddy, well I'm sorry to us atheist this is all it is a fantasy figure that religious people believe in, thats surposedly above us.
I never said you were irrational, now did I, have'nt picked on you.however you've proberly notice that atheist for time to time, refer to them selfs as free thinkers/clear thinkers, this is because we do not believe in any non-existent/non corporeal beings, who can not be felt by the five senses,
we are only controlled by our own selves, I/we are not slaves, we do not cower to a non thing.
however you may not like this, but you can be classed as delusional, as you have. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i can only assume that you hold nothing in high regard as far as the unknown, except for science. shall i assume that is correct, and show you some hard scientific facts stated clearly in the Torah? please tell me if that is the case.

and no, lol.....you cannot offend me. i am an open minded individual.
as for the name calling (delusional), i dont know what to say..... i only pointed out that your posts were a bit on the rude side, concerning folks that believe in a higher power.
i am not a slave. i do not cower before any being.
show me some of the invalidating evidence. there is no evidence on this Earth, that the spiritual is a pretend idea. show me some before you say rude things.

perhaps you had a bad experience, or perhaps you cant get over yourself, and your own self importance. but, then again.....perhaps you just truly think that there is no god. doesnt matter to me. who am i to tell you that you are wrong? i am just a man. unlike you, i dont try to take a "holier than thou" attitude about this kind of thing.
interesting that i should encounter that with an atheist.

btw...... the word in genesis for a serpent is Nachash. it can mean "sorcerer", "enchanter", or "shining spirit", as well as serpent.
if you want to invalidate my spiritual beliefs, learn to read biblical hebrew, and THEN show me something IN HEBREW that would turn the writings into a big fable.

*smile*

 

wonderfully spoken....but i have a question........
what if CRITIQUING is correct? would you acquiesce the debate? or is the belief in Jesus' teachings something more? perhaps a good handbook to live your life by? just curious.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the devil inside: I dont assert that there is a god, the onus is on you , it is not for me to prove non-existence thats blatently obvious, it would be stupid to try.
you believe in your fantasy figure it's for you to prove it's existence.
and I'm sorry if you feel i'm being rude I'm only making a post here and there, I truly know there is no god/gods. as I stated in my previous post, you still hav'nt told me what exactly upset you. and what exactly is rude by say a sky daddy, or delusional I said you would not like it, but the onus is on you shoulders not mine sorry.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

Proof that an event has occurred is somewhat different.
It can not be proved conclusively that any particular event has or has not occurred but the probability of an event occurring can be estimated depending on:-


The strength of the evidence.

The volume of evidence.

The quality of evidence.

The probability of the evidence being caused by a different event.

Independent witness corroboration.

For example: -
Event 1 - President Kennedy was assassinated.


Volume of evidence - Many witnesses, Televised, A Body, Bullet wounds.

Quality of evidence - Precise forensic evidence of cause of death, ballistics evidence linked to murder weapon. Assassin's confession.

Alternative event probability - Accidental firearm discharge unlikely because of multiple hits on target, suicide unlikely because no powder burns, no weapon found near victim. Mistaken identity or wrong target unlikely …..

Independent witness corroboration - Excellent, Directly seen by hundreds, Indirectly seen by millions.

Event 2: - A talking snake convinced a genetically engineered female to eat an apple that caused her to gain knowledge of good and evil.


Volume of evidence - Contained only in one book (Genesis) of uncertain origin.

Quality of evidence - Very poor, Snakes have no physical means of talking, The interpretation of Genesis is disputed among Christians, The eating of Apples does not cause knowledge to be gained. Serious technical difficulties in remainder of this book. Contradicts accounts from other religions.

Alternative event probability - Very High, More likely to have been an illustrative or metaphorical event rather than a literal event.

Independent witness corroboration, No witnesses.

There is a very high probability that Event 1 occurred, literally, as stated.
There is a very low probability that Event 2 occurred, literally, as stated.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the occurrence of an event you can only argue for the probability of it's occurrence.

The Christians say their God exists. The onus of proof lies with the Christians. Atheists do not have to disprove because they have not made the claim.

Christians say Genesis occured. The evidence indicates otherwise and relies on the existance of a God which has not been proven.

The above statements are not absolute, many alternative hypotheses exist as to the nature of existence, perception and reality.

sinbad



Who has the Burden of Proof?

Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or engage in a sensible discussion.

austin cline

 

LMAO I was indoctrinated. Any former Christian will tell you that their level of ignorance to their current state is appaling. Especially deconverted Catholics, Born Agains and Baptists and Pentecostals. All the stories of demons and hell ensures the young seeker will not question God for any length of time. It was easy to be a believer when I never read the Bible in it's entirity, when I never sought out the evidences against Jesus, when I was scared to ask questions, and admonished by church officials when I found the courage. Though I began questioning as young as 12, it took 8 years to have the balls to face what ever metaphysical punishment there may be for the sake of intellectual integrity. That is the point that highly indoctrinated believers must face.

Many Christians assume you deconvert because something bad happened to you, because you never truly had the faith, blah etc. It's nonsense. You don't wake up, put on your socks and proclaim "I'm an atheist!" LOL It's a long journey of questioning, educating, discipline and compassion. I'm sure you know this, considering your stance. Thanks for the laugh man, I needed it.

I think it's sad that this lady even has to protest. That people just can't accept what is blatantly true and move the hell on for the sake of honesty.

The Bible is a compilation of minor "books", sold as a complete book. I think we are all clear on this. So are you bringing it up just to be a thorn? Grasping at straws?

Well then please, indulge me, site empirical evidences that support the idea that Jesus existed, and you believe in him based on these evidences. Give it a shot, because you'll be the first in human history to have succeeded. And as far as deifying literature, well that's certainly preferential to the other alternative Christians gave us during the dark ages, isn't it LOL?

Bullshit! At any time I can reach my hand around to my arse and feel my own tail bone. At any time I wander out into the sun and I can see my skin tan before my very own eyes. At any time I can take a medicine and see how the use of chemicals takes advantage of the evolution germs. At any time I can ponder the utter "divine purpose" of my appendix. Any time I over come a cold I can praise the evolution of my immune system. At any times I can compare myself to other forms of the animal world and see the commonality. I can go out and do the dna studies concerning our relation to animals. I can meet people who have successfully received organ implants from bonobo monkeys, successful due to our relation to them. I could go on and on, what's the point? The evidence is right in our face, the question is whether you chose to recognize it.

And that is percisely what evolution is. Minor adaptations and mutations over a period of time which lead into a change of a genus of a species. Evolution is very simplistic, easy to understand, and verifiable. You don't need to consult a book to know this. All you need to do is observe nature. And that IS what science does. Observe, record, test and retest. If if it can not be retested it is thrown out, if it can be retested by any human anywhere, and the results remain the same, it is considered fact. This is why micro evolution is a fact. Because anyone can test it for themselves, it is repeated and proven, observed, documented consistently.

Never said I was.

Whenever I have claimed something as a theological fact, it is BECAUSE scholars unanimously agree. Because it is documented, because it has been proven, because it has overwhelming evidence in its favor. I have used the word theological fact here very sparingly. I believe I only mentioned it twice in the totality of my posts. The rest is my opinion. And yes, I do believe my opinion carries more weight than the laymen's position. Just as when I was a laymen my opinion carried less weight than my professors.

Jesus said you must know the word to know him, hence when you claim you know God, but you don't according to the Bible.

Why are you peeved that I'm merely pointing out what god says? You have an issue with what Jesus said regarding how one knows him. I'm merely echoing his sentiments. Take it up with the source.

"Do onto others as you'd have them do onto you". You assumed that I believe everything based on a book. And I shot that shit right back in your face, now you play martyr?!? No Lauri, I won't concede.

Not according to the Bible.

And does he answer back? You should get that checked out LMAO

I've had mystical experiances of my own, but that doesn't mean I have to automatically attribute them to a diety. And out of the millions of deities I could attribute them to, I don't have to pick Jesus. Face it, you have experiances that through your own bias you attribute to Jesus.

Atheists believe in only one God less than the Christian. When the Christian understands why it is he rejected belief in the millions of other deities, then he is close to understanding why the Atheist rejects his. You want to understand why I do not believe your experiance is proof of Jesus? Ask yourself why the communion the Greeks had with Zeus is false. Ask yourself why you think the Hindu who experiances Moksha with Vishnu is misled. You will find in your answer that they attribute their experiance via cultural and regional bias. And I say the same to you. (along with a host of other reasons.)

I highly doubt this, but please, entertain me, share these "empirical" evidences. (I highly doubt you even understand what empirical means for you to use it so flippantly in relation to the paranormal.)

And so do the majority of you Jesus Jockeys on this thread. I am consistently attacked based on my lack of belief. Christians pay no mind that there is no evidence to support their faith, they are completely unnaccountable scientifically, logically, etc. Yet they demand the answer of atheists. This consistent behavior of Christians has created my defensive persona. I rightfully own it, and wouldn't change a thing about it. It's long time my brethren have vocal and unapologetic scholars who are capable of engaging in laymen's term with as much zeal and passion as Christians profess. This is what I am known for in the atheist community, this is what endears me to others. Do you think your calling me defensive would hurt me? It makes me proud!

I am okay, nothing any Christian can hand me would be capable of shaking my psychological health. It was only as a Christian that I had any mental issues.LMAO

Sure you do, just not in so many words. You told me the difference between you and I is that I believe simply by books or consensus. There for implying that I am gullible and niave in comparison to you. I threw that shit right back in your face, and now you pretend it never happened. Please!

And that's percisely what I did. I sought him all my life. I entered theology hoping to solidfy my shaky faith, and it left me at the door of atheism. Indeed, the more people study religion the less fundamentalist they become, and there is a reason for that. The promise of seeking and will find is null and void. Millions of atheists and agnostics have died giving a whole hearted life long search. Try reading Ingersoll and his quest to find God.

Ah Lori, but these are precisely the tools that God tells us he gave us specifically to find him! This is precisely why Jesus said you can not know him if you do not know or keep the law.

Do you realize that what you are telling me right now is that if I don't have a relationship with God it is because I am some how faulty? That my journey is not well intended? Come on Lauri! I have sought more than the average person, could it be that maybe this promise isn't as cut and dry as you like to think it is? (Christians, this is what peeves the atheist. It's condescending. Lauri is essentially telling me here that I haven't really tried to seek God. But yet she claims I am the one professing to know her. It's hypocritical, and the funniest thing is, she is so used to belittling people in this manner that she has no idea when she does it.)

Again, I have a fault with my "attitude". The Christian that believes without any regard to what scripture expects of them knows God. But the atheist who spends their life seeking him and attempting to understand him can not know him because they have an attitude problem. It's that classical curse the victim ideology that Christians have always unleashed on the populace. Sickening!

 

okinrus: No one worships a god for whom they believe cannot affect the material or spiritual world.
*************
M*W: So, are you admitting that to believe in this type of god reflects on the individual's inability to be totally in control of oneself?
*************
okinrus: Giving money away with the expectation that it will return, though isn't magic(well, if it occurs it's supernatural), is non-charitable. Magic is the stage art performance. Magik, so they say, is conjuring up spirits or demons.
*************
M*W: Magick is nothing more than the 'power of positive thinking.' Giving away money is charitable. Expecting it to return three-fold is 'positive thinking.' If/when it returns three-fold, call it 'magick' if you like, but it's nothing more than 'positive thinking.'

True magick is not 'stage performance.' True magick is a positive force of energy created by the power of positive thinking. For example, I give my laboring mothers herbal teas, depending on the situation. They are calming and relaxing during labor, and my patients think of them as magick, but it's just the power of positive thinking. I use specific oil combinations that are used in magickal rites to ease those in childbirth. My patients come back to me for future births, because of the ease of childbirth. I also use scented candles and aromatherapy. I play CDs with ocean sounds and thunderstorms. I usually make a pot of chicken soup to nourish my patients as they progress through labor (i.e. work, not pain). I think of these things as tools. My patients think of them as magickal. If they do the job, what difference does it make if they work or not? It's only the power of positive thinking.
*************
okinrus: I never said sorcery didn't give those who practice what they want. The argument given by CC is that Christian belief are hypocritical or somehow false, which, for what she believes, is shown by assuming a few Christian believes and showing how they contradict the Bible. But if were're going simply by the Bible, Deuteronomy says that all the pagan idols were no-gods, demons, in fact. A pagan could be worshiping demons without even knowing.
*************
M*W: And demons have been the creators of christianity since Paul was on the Road.

 

She's not literal, and she wasn't declared by an official body because she was a pagan goddess (Brigid) who was absorbed into Catholicism by Pope Leo under pressure from Emporer Charlamagne. Catholicism struck up a deal with European emporers so that they could better assimilate the people into the church. It was a common place tactic, well documented.

No, A means away from or anti. Theism is belief in theos. Hence, atheism is not a belief it is away from or anti belief. The state of being without belief. For the life of me I can not stand how religionists try to turn my theological view into a faith, simply because they are so indoctrinated that they can not imagine a being void of belief. And that's it's precisely what you are doing. Because you just said I can't really lack a belief. Well, I assure you I can. Millions of people do everyday, and their existence proves the assumption that people need faith, is wrong.

First, hypocrisy is not a theological term. It is a secular one that I am applying to theology. We do not use specific terminology from a singular faith unless we are making an exegesis of a particular faith. Nirvana is a theological term, should we use it in exegesis of Christianity? No, because it's not applicable. This is the same, you are using one denominations lexical definition in application to a diversified faith. It's bad theology and I won't par take in it.

How many times do I have to go over this? Hypocrisy is not equivalent to lying, but both include an act of deciet. Hypocrisy is to proclaim one thing and do another. Christians proclaim to follow Christ, to ascribe to biblical teachings, yet don't, hence they are hypocritical. You are NOT going to change my view on this. So why even keep trying?

Yep, and popes also claim to be from the apostolic tradition when we can't even prove the apostles existed. We have writings of biblical authors but can't prove they exisited either. Theology is NOT like other fields in that documentation is merited proof. Theology evolved under faliciousness, political agendas, and persecution. Cryptology is heavily used, as well as dedication writing, hence authorship claims are never used as proof in theology. We must go to outside historical sources to say anything is a fact in my field. This is the first thing you learn when entering a theology course.

Actually she was. In other Christian works such as the Nag Hamadi Mary is refered to as the Apostle of Apostles, in addition to numerous other traditions. A great deal of scholars acknowledge her as such because she perfectly fulfills what the concept of what apostle meant. The argument goes as follows:
-Apostle means, to be sent with message, or messenger.
-Jesus said the whole truth of his message hangs on his ressurection.
-Mary was the first of the apostles to be given the message, and sent it to the other apostles.
=hence Mary is the apostle of apostles.

You can of choose not to give her this title, but the scripture remains clear that the first to be sent the message was Mary, and she was also the annointer of Jesus, hence her role in Christianity is great.

And many modern historians say it may be bloodier than most think. The truth is: the Catholic church destroyed the majority of the evidence against their immoral crusade, and we will never have empirical numbers as a result. But from what we do have, it is the worst violation of human rights the world has ever seen.

I'm happy you looked! I can go find some for ya if you want.

The Spanish inquisition began in the early 1100's. And though the Malleus Maleficarum was officially completed in 1486, it's earlier forms were circulated. I never rely on when Catholics claim to have officially completed something, after all we are talking about the denomination that is perpetually reinterpreting scripture and interpolating. Why they didn't even make an official cannonized of the entire Bible until almost 1870 when the Vatican Council was called. (Obviously, early versions of the Bible were circulated prior to that time.) And even still, they argue over the meaning of the apocryphal works. And their canonization was such a shoddy job that they left out books which the canonized books claim are scripture, Enoch & Jasher for instance.

No I meant Yhwh, because that is specifically the name for the Jewish national God. He is called Yhwh coupled with the title Elohim because El, Elohim, and its forms are all titles denoting divinity. Naturally, since they are related to Bel, Bal, or Baal, the far more ancient Babylonian words for divinity. The Baals were a pantheon of deities. Yhwh was a part of that pantheon, and was knows as Yhwh Elohim. The word El alone refers to the pantheon, that is why it is plural and does not accompany a personal name, where Elohim does. You shall see this repeated in Judaic scripture and Christian tradition, for example: Baal Zebub, the devil. The evil of the pantheon.

Actually what we find in the Bible concerning a pantheon of Judaic deities coincides with other Jewish writings and the writings of cultures in close proximity. It fits perfectly with languistics and perfectly with the evolution of monotheism, this is why it is considered true by theologians and historians alike.

You got that right. Abraham did accept the existence of other Gods, but felt Yhwh was his personal God due to nationalism.

Right again! Scholars can not say that the exodus occured, or even that Jews were held en masse slavery. Linguistics and lack of documentation on egypt's behalf is the problem. We can not locate any documents of mass Jewish slavery in Egypt. And after four years of being held captive, it is only likely the Jews would have absorbed Egyptian words or vice versa, into their native language. This did not happen, hence, it is deemed currently by scholars an unlikely event. Theologically however, it makes sense that Jews were held captive because it would answer for monotheism, and testify to the Bible. Welcome to the hardship of theology! Where age old questions remain stagnant due to lack of outside sources. For admitting this, what scholars say, I commend you!

Again, this is what some theologians point to, but there is also a raising theory that answers a great deal of commonality in faiths, and its the one I find the most promising. The one with the most ammount of evidence, would fit well with historical and scientific fact and brings up the least amount of difficulties. It's a rather long theory, detailing almost 25,000 years of human history so I won't go into it. We all know I talk enough LMAO

I'm cutting you off right there just to intercede that Augustine wrote, and it was absorbed into Catholic doctrine, that it was fine to abort a male fetus until 40 days gestation, and a female fetus 80 days.

Again, I disagree, abortion had no condemnation with exception to christian heretics who we now consider the first theologians (Tertullian, Origen, etc. They were condemned by their peers when they were alive, just so you know.) And the Theologians who were accepted by the early church wrote of ways in which one may attain an abortion. Subsequently the church actually supplied this knowledge to its parishoners. Hence, how it was not allowed by the church, except for it's current manifestation and the three year edict in the 1500's, eludes me.

I understand this. And I am telling you that the church's official stance through the majority of it's existence is that the soul was implanted at the time of quickening, hence abortion up untill that time was allowed.

I am talking about the Catholic church's official stance as released by it's written works, papal authority and councils. None of which (except for modern times and the three year edict) EVER said abortion was wrong (except for after the time of quickening). Local papal states did attempt to legislate abortion because of decreasing membership, but that does NOT attest to the official church stance.

Again, murder requires malice. So how abortion could be murder prior to Roe versus wade does not make sense to me. The fetus did not magically lose personhood due to roe versus wade.

We are talking about what people consider life. We live in a world of such diversity that we have some cultures which say a child is not a person until it actually survives on its own! We have some cultures which practice an utter disregard for life, sacrificing it's offspring. We have some cultures that revere life to the point where spilling semen is a crime fit for capital punishment. We have other cultures which say a child is not a person until it can utter it's first word. There are so many milestones to chose from, none with scientific evidence to support it is a momentous occasion, the interpretation is based on nothing but personal bias. Knowing this, we came to a definition of law in which we recognize birth as the time of personhood. I think it's a perfectly fine compromise and I don't believe (nor do the majority of people believe) that we should change it to suit the religious or cultural agenda of another.

Oh sure there is. If conception has personhood we have a nightmare on our hands! The point of restriction has not occured yet, so just how much personhood is the pregnant woman carrying in her womb? Do we court marshal women who miscarry, just like Christian Hitler did for his anti abortion stance? Do we hand out social security numbers with the positive test results? Do I get a tax break for my fetus? Women pass conceived zygotes all the time, vigorious activity can cause it, sex, etc. Should we jail them? When you expound upon the implications of conception being personhood it becomes a nightmare of ludicrousy.

Don't forget you'd have to prove malice!

Personhood is nothing but the recognition of government that the being is entitled to the protection of the government. That's all it is. The problem here is when is the most sensical time to bestow personhood. Birth was elected as the time because anything after is regarded as cruel, and anything before is regarded as ludicrous.

You must not be a woman. To think a mother has malice towards her fetus is so far beyond logic. I had an abortion years ago. And it certainly wasn't because I had malice towards the fetus. I loved that fetus, I wanted to bring it forth into the world. I however elected for abortion because I did not have the finances, the physical health, mental strength, or fortitude to raise another child. I was in an abusive relationship, had no health care that was worth a damn, and could find no way in which to manifest the being that I desired. I acted on abortion because I LOVED that fetus, not because I had malice for it. I felt it was better to end it's potential life in love then to birth it in to a world of misery.

And my story is no different than the stories of every woman I have talked to which elected abortion. Every woman I have ever spoken to have confided they wanted that child, but couldn't have it because of some circumstance beyond their control. Every woman I have spoken to in regards to this situation has told me of their pain and their sorrow and of their love. I do not believe that "most" women have abortions out of malice. We are life givers and nurturers, creatures of survival and reproduction. It violates our very nature to end the potential life of our offspring or to feel malice towards them. No, I will never believe most women who abort are careless, irresponsible, evil, immoral or any of the host of things right to lifers often say about about my brethren.

Who said the fetus has the right to exist? We have a clause called "Mother's promise". That is where a fetus can have honory personhood bestowed upon them if the mother consented to give them life. This is how the law is able to persecute people who kill a pregnant woman on behalf of the fetus. (IE: Scott Peterson.) This clause essentially states that the right to exist is based on consent of the expectant mother.

But you aren't gestating Joe, that is the difference. Joe is not dependant on you biologically or anatomically for him to exist. Joe is an independant, viable, self sufiecient being in the biolgical and anatomical sense. Hence, you have no right to attack Joe. If Joe was your fetus however, it would be a different matter.

No, I don't think that is what the woman believes. I wanted my fetus to exist, nature bestowed on it a right to exist, but nature was also dependant upon me to give consent. I however could not give my consent based on circumstances outside of my control. So I had elected abortion as a more compassionate death than starvation. Abortion is not about ending life my friend. It's about maintaining quality of life. This is where the difference of philosophy lies between the lifer and choicer. The lifer says quantity is the moral choice. And the choicer says quality is the moral choice. It's a shame that we don't have a common ground, because we could pool our resources to eliminate why abortion even happens, instead of fighting over the legality of it.

And we do: Birth.

And Hitler was also anti abortion, so what's your point? I think I know what it is: you are saying that the law shouldn't define personhood because it has a history of being precarious with it. Fine, but what makes your definition better than my own? We live in a society my dear, where we must have consensus and go with it, we must equally protect minority rights in the process. Which is why we elected the definition that we did.

The practicing of wearing white for purity stemmed from religiousity.

I'm more apt to look at the existence of prayer beads in religions that existed far before the advent of Christianity.

So their religion is sorcery because they aren't appealing to Jesus? That's pretty discriminatory, you do realize that, right? What about the fact that their deities existed for thousands of years before yours? What about the fact that their religion influenced yours? If Witches practice sorcery, and their religion affected yours, are you guilty of sourcery too?

A few things you should know about pagans:
-They are animistic, and montheistic: meaning they believe in a singular deity, and all personal deities are nothing but avatars for human understanding. They don't literally believe in Thor, Odin, Brigid, etc. These are representations of the one true deity, something we use to better relate to deity. And this deity prevades all of existence with it's nature and spirit. Hence, when they use elements of nature they are actually drawing in the energy of deity, because it prevades all things.
-Their belief in deity is so overwhelming they do not believe they are attributing "supernatural powers to physical things". They instead see deity as a part of all things, including the physical, and hence to use them is to harnass the energy of deity.

I believe wiccans would be very offended when you say they are appealing to physical objects, because this is far off the mark regarding their belief system.

I disagree. It's all in the way you perceive it. You look at the pagan and think they are committing idolatry by giving praise to a tree. In the mean while you sit in your church and pray before a wooden statue of Jesus. It's no different! You are using earthly elements as representation for your deity. religion isn't in the wood, it's your thoughts, your prayers, your communion with god, that is the relgion. You can judge the exterior pomp of ritual all you want, but understand that Christianity contains just as much as paganism, and understand they are nothing but tools to aid the religiousity which is purely mental.

 

You are correct, I am not implying the entire Bible must be literal. Anyone who literally believes the creation story suffers from overwhelming ignorance; especially considering genesis one and two conflict in chronological order concerning creation. I am however saying that when Jesus says something is law, it is law! And no amount of rationalizing a Christian attempts to do to escape the law is not going to win my acceptance, or Jesus' according to the scripture.

Yes, the Bible is supposed to be reasoned together, that's what it claims. But it never says anywhere that we must consider it as a whole. It wouldn't! The Bible is presented as a whole because Christianity was grafted on Judaism under the lawful religion clause. If it was a logical precession the Jews wouldn't remain Jews. They would all have proclaimed Jesus as the messiah. The Bible was further interpolated by Grecco Roman people. All this varied influence is why the bible is contradictory. Because it was written by hundreds of people from various cultures over thousands of years. To read it as a whole often causes as much problems as it brings solutions. Hence, it should be the goal of the Bible reader to understand the historacity of the scripture so that they may separate what is eternal command from what is meant for a specific time and place. Take Revelations for example. Look at all the ignorant fundy eschatological spewers who claim that it is a warning of times to come. If they only took one theology class they'd understand it is cryptic symbology for a time that has passed: In application to Nero, Vespian and the Roman empire, mixed with astro theology.

Again Jesus is contradictory. He was the hope of the marginalized; one minute speaking of love, and the next of vegenance. He is a reflection of the pain and hope the people felt. That is why he sends the sword, denying he is the king of peace, and the next chapter he is the king of peace who hates divison. I stated earlier this is the magic of Jesus, this is what I love about Jesus, his contradictory nature showed his passion, showed his love balanced with his desire to fight. It showed his humanity. This isn't something Christians should shun, they should embrace it!

I do, and that is the problem: hypocrisy/contradiction, the point of this entire thread. And by what measure of authority is your idea of context (often by reaching into other books not even related) better than mine? I hate this check context excuse I get from Christians. As if I don't check the context, as if I don't cross reference. I do that ALL day, that is what I am known in the atheist community for. I ran a site that had the largest amount of biblical contradictions on the net. But it is often the Christian who says no contradiction exists that tells me I don't know how to read the Bible.

Actually he made a flog and beat them. But you can bet millions of people believe he will be torturing those money changers with a sword, torch, etc. in hell.

Because as I stated above, he is contradictory. He embodies the love and desire for vegenance, hence we have a deity that claims to be benevolent yet creates the vicious hell.

Every atrocity in Christian history pointed to the disturbing passages of the bible for inspiration. Inquisition was based on "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", the crusades were based on the deuteronical laws which states we should kill non believers. Slave holders looked to the bible to okay their treatment of slaves, men look to the bible to degrade women, the rich take solomon to uphold their treatment of the poor. On and on it goes. Bottom line? If god was omniscient, omnipotent and truly benevolent he wouldn't have gave us such a shody work that it could be used to treat fellow beings with anything less than love.

Why do Christians always have to take some story in the bible and search for ways to make it applicable to an overall teaching? Why can the story of the man who has ear cut off by the centurian just be Jesus defending non violence in that one instant? Where is the basis for saying this was the totality of his message while ignoring the thousands of verses which protest otherwise? It's a stretch, this atheist sees it, and so do many others.

Jesus did fight against power and prinicpality, and this is not a lesser enemy. Why would you think I consider his battle "lesser" than? That goes against everything I am saying. I do not fault Christians for believing in these myths. I fault them for not living the moral worth of these myths. I fault them for ignoring the moral worth but condemning those who live it outside of the faith. THIS is my beef with Christianity more than anything else.

I appreciate this as a moral being, but as a religious scholar I must ask: Why do you think this teaching is more important than the other commands of the bible? By what measure of arrogance can you say what you choose to ascribe to is fundamentally more important than the others?

And what about the events where Jesus does act immoral? There are plenty of them in the bible, will you follow them then?

On a personal level, if you truly ascribe to live love and share it, then you are a moral being. However, according to the bible you are not a Christian because you "fail in the letter of the law". Do I like it? No, I think the letter of the law is mostly for shit. And this is why I say it's ludicrous to limit God to an ancient immoral religion.

Now, I don't believe in a God. But I do think that if there was a deity then this thing would be infinitely more wise & benevolent then it's creations. And I believe the greatest form of worship we could give that deity is to love it's creations as an extension of deity. I can not believe this deity would be obsessed over how we come to know it, what laws we follow, if it is going to eternally damn us, or how I wear my hair! To attach these things to deity is to limit it, is to limit love, to limit worship and ultimately, to stunt the self of every moral message we are capable of learning. Do Christians not understand when they say their God is obsessed with such things they are doing a disservice to their God? Do Christians not understand that when they fail to live the moral messages they are not pleasing God? Do they not understand that when they deliberately do not try to to live the message they are essentially telling God they do not respect him enough to even try and are only interested in the reward?

I am an atheist because, believe it or not, I have a respect for this "non existent god". God to me is nature, the righteousness of life and morality. I ascribe such worship to these concepts that I shall not limit them with religion. I have an intellectual integrity that does not allow me to place a pascal wager, having the faith so I won't burn "just in case". I have honesty, and that honesty tells me to proclaim my truth despite the punishments. And in the event that I was punished, then it only serves to underscore the immorality of this deity. Jesus was not a historical person, but he is something: he is the symbolism of hope of mankind. Crucified, as the marginalized are crucified. I live his message of charity, works and love because they are moral in their own right. I shall not belittle Jesus by claiming to be a Christian yet pissing on everything he stood for by refusing to do his bidding. This is what Christians do. And they damn those who hold the mirror up to their face. This is what I mean by little Judas' they sell out their savior daily be refusing to live the message.

I loved this sentence. Because I do believe Christianity as it is today would shame Jesus. And I understand thouroughly how we hate to use concepts that don't really show what we are trying to convey, but must use them because we fear others would not understand. Please know that if I ever do not understand a concept you use, I shall ask, and I am fine with you refering to followers of Christ by other terms.

Again, it fits with the idea that he embodied human desire for freedom and vegenance, love and power. I can rectify these fine, because I am under no obligation to follow the totality of his teachings. The question is how can Christians rectify this? Because they ARE under obligation to follow the totality of his teachings.

Maybe he's saving up all that fury to hit her with an infinite amount of rocks in hell LMAO. Look, the scripture contains shit I wish it didn't contain, as much as the Christians do. The difference is that I own these immoralities, and account for them, the Christian does not.

Jews have been saying the law must be followed to be perfect for 6,000 years before Christianity even came about. And the Christians continued this in the ealy church which is why they staved off baptism until immediatly prior to death. Try reading Augustine's writings. Revelations even states that the only people who will know the song of the saved are a very small number of righteous, virginal, circumcised Jewish males who kept the law. The truth is what I proclaim WAS the proclamation of Christianity until people started finding excuses to not follow the law because it interupted their lifestyle of gluttony. This is WHY we must dig back for into history to find anythingthat comes close to resembling Christ's message. This is why Christians bring of Saint Francis of Assissi when you ask them for a man who ascribed to live Christ's teachings, you can't look at contemporary people, they lost the message. So don't give me this "its a yardstick" I want to personally use. It is the long standing history of Christianity that has been perverted by gluttony and ignorance.

Yep, you can't do both. So what do you do? Pick which ever suits you, right? And then claim that people who say the other don't understand the Bible or use a personal yardstick. THAT is hypocrisy. You are yelling at me for what you personally do. And the worst of it is, as you do it, you claim not to judge. "Take thine plank out of thine own eye before telling your brother there is a speck in his."

You better hope, because with the way God likes to condemn and kill people your chances are pretty slim.

This must be addressed to someone else. And I have to say: I don't recall anyone on here praising me, saying I'm greater than Jesus LMAO. I ascribe to be as giving and caring as Jesus was, I certainly fall short. But I also fall greater when it comes to the fact that I have dolt out far less injustice than Jesus has. I certainly hope no one would ever say that Jesus was only fairly decent, he was revolutionary! Yet I also hope this world sees someone greater than him, because we could desperately use the guidance.

I understand this, but why is Jesus' words more important? Christianity is based on the belief that Yhwh incarnated as Jesus so isn't what is said of God just as important as what is said of Jesus? And if Jesus tells us to follow what others have said, is that not just as important? And lastly, when Jesus says something immoral should we follow? For instance, Jesus told us to beat our slaves, should we?

I actually don't cole. I said earlier that you were the only christian in the thread with the integrity to admit the bible contradicts.

This comment was pathetic. I don't hang onto any definition of Christianity to shield myself. My definition is as general as you can get. "Follow of Christ". And from there, I allo the believer to classify themselves as they see fit. There are Christians like Bishop Spung who believe Jesus was not a literal man, but his morality was worth ascribing to. He is a Christian. There is the fundy freakazoid Jerry Falwell, who I hate with a fucking passion, but he is also a Christian. You are no different than me in claiming doubt and using them to evolve. I have merely evolved out of religion, where you have evolved with it.

I am assuming you are making this comment because I stated people hang onto their faith in the face of all these contradictions out of fear, indoctrination, etc. Well, I still maintain it is true, even in your case, and this is why: You seem to be a very loving person cole. Logical, intelligent, inquisitive. You seem to have compassion and desire to aid mankind. Yet you hang onto a religion "that has created more insane people than it has built asylums for" (Ingersoll quote regarding how Christianity has brought more pain than benefit to the human race). So why do you hang onto this religion if your true mission is love? The answer is indoctrination. You are telling me right to my face that in order to remain a Christian you must disregard and sweep aside the negativity of the scripture so you can continue to love God. And you hope that if you are mistaken God can forgive you. That is indoctrination through and through.

And you have some great ideals that Christians should be living.

I use scripture, consistency, history & science to back up what is proper interpretation. Christians go on their "feelings". They go on what is easy for them, or what jives with their bias. I'm not hanging onto anything. I let go, and that's what annoys Christians. That I let go of the belief based on its failings. When I mention these failings they rabidly deny them, and when I throw in their face it's existence they claim its my interpretation that is errant. Even though I am the one with the consistency and references while they have none, it is me who is errant. I won't allow Christians to do this, and I demand if they try they hold themselves accountable. Don't battle with me Cole unless you are willing to go through the entire bible and write how you can reconcile each and every negative thing attributed to your god and still call yourself moral for supporting it. And if you refuse to do this (which you do) then don't get peeved when I say there is a reason why you haven't done it and speculate as to what it is.

Are you claiming that I am dishonest? Are you claiming that honesty is a not learned trait, developed in part via love for knowledge? I assure you, my honesty was honed through my love for education. My intellectual integrity evolved as I reaped my degrees. Of course honesty is not constigent upon education, and never I said it was, but it certainly helps to develop it.

.

I was a child and experianced the excitement (Just as I was a christian once and experianced God). And as a parent I still experiance that excitement through my child, but I also have the profound joy of knowing that the excitement is something I created. Where my child does not have that. How I am at a loss is beyond me. It is no loss to live without God. It has been a freeing experiance for me. Though the comfort of faith was sacrificed what I gained is even more joyous. I gained love with out limit, I gained bodily integrity for myself and all others. I shirked that blame the victim mentality where humans are debased for their nature; and in it's place I learned self respect, intellectual integrity/freedom and reverence for all forms of nature and life. I'm a lover of truth, not comfort. I wouldn't trade in what I am for the former Christian I was, not even the promise of heaven compells me. That is what atheism did for me more than anything: to have strength in my convicitions. To uphold what I know above any threat or reward. That personal power and awe is irreplacable.

Miss T already said it: you can't prove a false negative, it is up to the prosecution to provide the evidence, not the defense. You claim spirituality is true, hence it is your job to prove it. It is your job to account for the lack of evidence, it is your job to account for it's contradiction with logic.

I can say pink unicorns fly out my arse every hour on the hour. And you can't prove it doesn't happen. You can however discount it via logic and that is exactly what logic has done to spirituality.

LMAO I'm gonna answer this question even though it is no way directed at me. I want the majority of Jesus' teachings to be adhered to. That's the whole point of my battle with Christianity. Is that they have taken all the good of their religion and pay nothing but lip service to it. I don't want people to stop seeing Jesus as something of value, I want them to embrace that value and live it.

A few? No, all! As we seen earlier we could not find a single person in human history to have lived to successfully ascribe to Jesus' teachings concerning charity, caring for the marginalized and love.

And yet the Bible equally says there was a pantheon of deities. And it does not demonize every deity, it actually prasies sume such as asharoth (the early judaic female counterpart of Yhwh, interpolated as sophia by the greeks.) And your idea that pagans could be worshipping demons equally applies to you. Jews think you are ignorant of scripture and have used their religion to errantly graft on a fictional deity. They laugh at the christian interpretation of Isaiah, and the idea that Jesus was a heavenly king versus an earthly one. Many pagans think your concept of God is a self created evil. And since Christians have absorbed so many pagan gods and celebrations, are you part taking in the worship of this demon without knowing? IE: Christmas, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, but ahhh... you don't seem to reflect religious tolerance very well. Do you believe any religion outside of Judaism and Christianity is of the devil/sorcery, etc?

 

i am not trying to prosecute ANYTHING.
you are, by definition of your name.
i believe in an open mind.
funny how there was no response to the learning of hebrew to read the literal Torah, instead of your anglicized platform.

 

the devil inside, I speak one other language, besides english and when I speak it, as it's not my native tongue, the first thing my mind does, is translate it in to my native tongue, almost instantly, so what would be the point of learning hebrew, if somebody has already done it and I'd only tranlate it, in my head into my native tongue, what would I gain?.

 

Do you know anything more about the Jewish pantheon? What sort of Gods did they worship, names, etc . . . . What sort of God was Yhwh?

I’m not sure where these depictions are? In the Bible? Is it of God and Satan?

Who is Tiamut? Is he of Jewish origin or Assyrian or Egyptian . . . ?

Why would Judaism arise from Hinduism? I’d have thought it’d have arisen from Babylonian, Assyrian, or Egyptian (somewhere a little more West of India). How did the proto-Jewish come in contact with India? Was there a vibrant trade between the regions?

Do you have any good book suggestions on the relationship between Hinduism and Judaism?

I had always though that amen just meant “so be it” could you expound on Amen Rah. I’m surprised that such an ancient term would have persisted for such a long time?

Thanks in advance,
Michael

 

The Irish Brigid around the time of St. Patrick? There seems to be quite a lot of evidence she existed.

During ancient Greek there were ancient philosophers, even Christians were acused of being atheist. But there use of the word, to me, suggest disbelief, not merely the lack of belief.

If this were so, then we could doubt any historical figure existed.

No, it didn't. The Spanish Inquisition was started in 1478. The effort to root out the Albigensian heresy was the first officially declared Inquisition, I believe. At other points in times such as the Aryian heresy, there was an inquisition but it was not officially declared. http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html

There's no proof that the authors of Malleus Maleficarum relied on earlier infomation. And there's no proof, I could find, of the name Malleus Maleficarm being attached to St. Francis.

The council of Trent, in 1545, refaffirmed the canon.

The canonized books don't claim the book of Enoch is scripture. They quote from the book Enoch, but Paul also quotes from Philosophers.

These Christians were not truly heretics, persay. There works, because of some of the theories in them, were considered heretical, but the person was not.

In what writings? The only writings I've been able to find say abortion was wrong.

The church never took an official stance. Some of her theoligicans had opinions on the issue, but all them, from what I can tell, condemned abortion.

Because the founding father's said "these rights are self-evident" and "all are entitled to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness," Government cannot decide who's a person without violating the self-evident rights entitled to decide. Rather, the Government's job is protecting the rights of its people.

Abortion was never elected in. A select group of judges decided that states must allow abortion.

That's not what I said. What I said was that abortion was wrong, which doesn't imply someone who has an abortion is evil or immoral.

Joe could be in a coma on life support.

If you were forced into abortion, by your belief that you or the fetus would starve, then your rights were violated somewhere else. That is, you have the right to happiness and so does the fetus.

Who are you to say sorcery is wrong?

There's no one single pagan belief. The word "pagan," however, refers to non-monotheistic faiths.

Wiccans are not the only pagan ritual, and I'd be suprised if wiccans had any sort of official belief beyond the creed.

 

-- First of all let me make one simple point using your own words. If there is something which was simply mis-stated by you or misinterpreted by me, let me know.
CRITIQUING says,
1)“However, according to the bible you are not a Christian because you "fail in the letter of the law".
…
2)“There are Christians like Bishop Spung who believe Jesus was not a literal man, but his morality was worth ascribing to. He is a Christian. There is the fundy freakazoid Jerry Falwell, who I hate with a fucking passion, but he is also a Christian.”

You say both of these people are confused in calling themselves “christian” due to #1. Then you yourself call them christian in #2. I understand that your definition is not #1, but I feel that you must admit that the matter is not as clear-cut as you seem to be asserting in your previous posts on this issue. You have what you consider a clear definition but you confuse me. I assume neither the bishop or falwell follow #1. You seem to be suggesting in all of your previous posts that a christian can't rightfully use the word to describe themselves unless they use #1. Then you use the word to describe Falwell, someone some would say only follows the worst interpretations of Jesus' teachings.
Huh?


-- The quote from ingersoll about a religion "that has created more insane people than it has built asylums for", should be on the bathroom wall in every church, in one of those plastic poster holders advertisements that are placed in bars. People should be able to see it every time they gather to warn that when people gather together personal mistakes and evils are often greatly amplified.
Maybe the christians were fearful after they heard of Jesus' end, and had been told they would be persecuted. They were persecuted as you know. Then, acting like humans (and animals) do when they are in great fear, they started to attack. This is a scientifically justifiable idea - perceived danger=fear=violence. Don't say Jesus forced this to happen by being killed. Don't say Jesus created the great fear of hell and this caused their reaction, because we can be pretty sure the catholic heirarchy were not considering themselves the ones in danger when they "attacked". (unless you want to get really Freudian on this last point, which might be an interesting discussion to watch.)


-- I will not be supporting or denying the bible's historical value in the following paragraph, that is not the point, I am just trying to avoid spinning off on a tangent with this example.
CRITIQUING says– “Anyone who literally believes the creation story suffers from overwhelming ignorance; especially considering genesis one and two conflict in chronological order concerning creation.”
I would suggest you refer to the real "experts" on the book of genesis. From what I have seen there is a large amount of information in the first sentence alone which is not visible to the Gentile eye. Maybe you have studied the hebrew scholars and find their reasonings false. You then would be a practitioner of basing your beliefs on your own understanding, ignoring experts, which you seem to condemn in someone like Lori. Your pointing out of an “obvious” conflict may be a clue that we should dig deeper and not just accept the first thing an “expert” like a non-jewish priest or scholar has to say about it.
I try not to wave the idea of “experts” around when I talk to someone who may have less “knowledge” about some subject than I, although I could. I know that this is the most devious technique the judges and killers of humanity use to justify what they are. It is also a great context in which to apply the verse in which it is said that a man who calls someone fool "shall be in danger of hell-fire".

(I would tend to apply the suggestions Jesus makes first to christians since they should be his most attentive audience. Some self-righteous jerk tried to say that because there is no mention of brother in this part of the verse it only applies to unbelievers. Ha! I would suggest it may be a warning from Jesus to believers who call the unbeliever a "fool", since someone calling their brother an "empty-head" or whatever is only in danger of the council, not hell-fire. Will I take his word for it because he studied the bible more than me? No. I assume you wouldn't suggest that I should except to try to argue a point which isn't logical)

-- CRITIQUING says, “You are telling me right to my face that in order to remain a Christian you must disregard and sweep aside the negativity of the scripture so you can continue to love God.”
You use this to falsely promote the idea that I “hang on” to christianity. You glossed over very important points I brought up, in the post you are replying to here, about my “desire” to keep this belief. If you wish to continue in your false use of words on this matter we can go further into boring details, you can trust me when I say I have more points than just the three. I left the more complex ways I try to "let go" of my faith out of the list.
Also, don’t make assumptions about me being “indoctrinated”. When I was a young child, I was indoctrinated into the belief that there was a santa claus, but when I peeked downstairs to see my mom putting presents under the tree, my belief was quickly abandoned. We should be very open about how well indoctrination does and does not work. Sometimes well, often not so well. You are concrete proof of indoctrination not working, and there are countless more proofs like this. Do not use indoctrination as a slur against someone who since the age of 12, like yourself, has been puzzling these questions. I still suggest that you feel safer in your position when you denigrate mine. Although the statement may be incorrect, as only you can decide what you feel, it is definitely not a "pathetic" one.

 

Although not an expert on the subject – I had read that (outside of a few Christians BBQed by Nero for a stroll along the garden path) very few Christians were persecuted.

I even read once of a letter from the Governor in Alexandria complaining that some Christians had demanded to be martyred. The Governor was repulsed and told them if they were so inclined to find a high ridge and do the job themselves.

Regardless, I just wanted to say that I’m not so sure that there is evidence (outside of a stint in Roma proper) of an orchestrated killing of the massive number of Christians that Christian folklore likes to lay claim to. But maybe?

((Ultimately, I’m sure, there were a lot more Pagans persecuted by Christians than Pagans persecuting Christians.))

 

Hopefully my possible scenario is not seen as a justification for violent behavior. I'm just saying that christians would have found another reason to persecute others, if they were in fear. Let me just expand to say I attribute both the church and empire's actions to fear and greed.

 

Devil, you REALLY need to let people know who you are addressing, there have been a few comments by you I skipped over because I assumed you were not talking to me. Regarding Hebrew, it was a requirement for me to take courses in base understanding. Though I certainly am not a fluent speaker, I do understand enough to compare hebrew versions of the Torah againt contemporary english translations. And again, please try to include a name so that I don't waste time responding to you when you are not even speaking to me.

Oh man Michael I was excited to see your post, because I love talking about the historacity of Judaism, but it's so time staking that to write a full exegesis that it would take me forever and a day. I hope you don't mind but I plan to give a base summary and if you want to know more I shall expound. I actually teach a "Prophets" class. I have a massive amount of notes regarding the circulum. If you ever want it, I would be happy to send it.

Okay, so here we go. The early Jews practiced animism, and as a result the majority of the deities took after forms in the animal kingdom. Many modern Jews are under the assumption that they have a restriction against eating cloven foot animals because of the unsanitary conditions in the desert, especially concerning pork. In truth, this restriction is far older. It comes from a previous deity, a boar god that refused the eating of cloven foot animals. The ancient Jews were heavily influences by their neighbors, This included Syria which gave them the boar God. The boar was a sacrificial avatar which symbolized the fertilizing of the great goddess. To enact this a boar was tossed into a cleft or pit of earth. Just as Jesus ran thousands of pigs off of a cliff. It is an echo that he is here to bring life, he is the sacrifical king. It sounds odd, I realize this, but almost every culture practiced the mythology. Hinduism, Greeks, Romans, Syrians and Jews.

As we now know, theology was not originally an exorcise in patriarchy. It was a matriarchy that evolved into dualism, and then to patriarchy. The early Jews had a female Goddess, and Yhwh was her consort. Her name was "Asharoth" Also known as Asherah (semitic), Ashnan (Sumerian), Asha (Iranian). She was regarded as the wisdom of creation. In ancient dualistic religion, the God was the activator while the female counterpart was the wisdom and compassion. She is still talked about in the Bible, but was interpolated by the more strict patriarchal greeks, who changed her named to pistle sophia (meaning wisdom) you can read about her in proverbs 8. She talks about being the first, about being the beloved of God. Modern Christians say that this wisdom is Jesus as logos. But in truth, the word of creation was always spoken by the woman. It was her in pangs of labor she meditated and made the sacred sound Om which brought forth creation. Every religion on earth has the concept of creationism via a holy word. Every religion on earth has their deity seperating the cosmic waters and forming ground. The waters are the womb waters of the great goddess. All religions are modeled after biologicalism because it is the only way we can make sense of concepts such as life and death. This is why every religion also considers blood holy, for they knew when a woman cease her menses she was creating life. We still call our galaxy the milky way after these ancient mythos. Which all began in hinduism, which the eldest religion in the world.

Anyhow, her sacred city where there was a great temple in her honor was called Mar-ash (mother ash) this city appears in the Bible (Joshua 15:44) as "Mareshah". Her name is also translated as "grove" by modern bibles, without explaining that this grove is a representation for the birth place of all things. The ancient Jews worshipped this goddess in her grove (1Kings 14:23) which were later cut down by patriarchs who burned the bones of Asherah's priests on their own altars (2 Chronicles 24:4-5) She was lovingly known by the Jews as ""Athra qaddisa" (the holy place) and her title was "Holiness". Scholars speculate this why with the raise of Patriarchy we see Yhwh being called the Holy of the Holies, because they were showing his raise above all the other deities. Canaanites and Hebrews also referred to her as "Qaniyatu Elima" (she who gives birth to Gods) Her worshippers were called "Rabbatu" where those who worshipped her consort were called "Rabbi". She was symbolized by the holy cow, and her consort Yhwh was symbolized by the Bull. It is speculated this may be the reason why Moses became so enraged at the creating of the golden calf. (Exponded upon by how the Northern kingdom was judged on the basis of their golden calves by Jeroboam, book of kings) During their sacred union The Goddess bore two more deities: Sharer and Shalem (The stars of the morning, one was later demonized by Christians as Lucifer) The marriage rite of Yhwh and Ashareh was practiced by their worshippers until it was forbidden by Jewish priests in creating a patriarchy. (Exodus 23:19)

The head of the pantheon for many years was not Yhwh, it was Baal. The male leader of all the male deities. He was attributed with the power of rain, hence extremely venerated in the desert. Rain is the holy seed, and as the bestower was originally the father of Yhwh with Asherah! In Hosea we see a battle with the followers of Baal akining them to adulterers in that they are unfaithful to the Lord. The entire book of Hosea revolves around a man was cheated on by his wife. This happens to him because the Lord wanted him to understand the infidelity the were committing against Yhwh by worshipping baal. The Lord equally uses the example of idolatry being akin to committing adultery. The book is saturated with sexual euphamisms, a very interesting read, and really testifies to the loving nature of the ancient Yhwh (Which is unusual in the OT) Take for example, when Yhwh sees the people turning from him to worship the other deities of the pantheon he cries: "What I do with you, O Ephraim? What I shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes away" (Hosea 6:4) "How can I give you up Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? (Hosea 11:8a) He is literally a husband who grieves for his wife that commits infidelity. (I recommend this book highly to Christians. This book shows God's struggle to love mankind, he akins us to his bride, to his beloved, this is the kind of love that should prevade the bible. Even though I am not a believer, the words in this book still manage to make me cry, amazing work!)

There was a host of different "Baals" in Judaism Hosea tells us in 2:2-8 that the OT Jews worshpped many Baalim as past or present consorts of the Goddess Zion.
Other deities in the Jewish Pantheon:
-Yamm (Father of death from the Hindu Yama)
-Sin, the moon goddess of Sinai
-Molech (Malek) the king and God of Tyre
-Horus (another calf) whos image was made by aaron
-Baal-Peor a phallic "lord of the cleft" (Meaning a god of love) His worshippers were murdered off in Number 25
-Nehushtan, "the firey flying serpent" of lightning, madeby Moses (2 Kings 18:4)
-Chemosh (A Babylonian sun god names Shamash) his incarnate samson (Shamson) lives forever in the OT
-Malechizedek
-Etana (or Ethan) the caananite Eytan
-Baal-Rimmon (Lord of the pomegranate, avatar is Solomon)
-Baal-Berith, the law giver, represented by two stone tablets. Baal Berith was originally a Babylonian God who found it's way into Judaism via the Canaanites, which is why the ten commandments resembel the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. In Babylonian myth, the law was given by the great goddess Tiamat which she bestowed on Shechem (and this the temple where they were housed.) Interesting to note that these myths were still so prevalent in christianity that a wicth by the name of Catherine Delort was burned in 1335 for signing a pact with the demon berit.
-Elias (Avatar Elisha or Elijah, the preparer) He comes from the ancient myths of Helios, which is who Jesus cries out to from the cross if you check the ancient Greek. "Eloi, Eloi, why hast thou forsaken me?"
-Even Joseph, Jacob and Israel were originally names for tribal deities.
-Baal-Gad (the goat god, avatar is Azazel)
-Baal Hadad (Forever known in the OT by his kingly avatars Ben-hadad and Hadad-ezer) Zecharaiah 12:11
-Baal Hamman

There's so many more I can list, but there's alot of other thinsg I have to tackle, so forgive me, but I'm moving on. Let me conclude with saying that everyone of these deities were sacrificial gods. All ancient biological religions were based on the idea of circular time. The sun impregnated the earth, then died in winter, and was reborn. He sacrificed himself to give continuing life. Blood was needed to ensure this. Hence, our Gods are blood sacrificers. The word Baal originally comes from the sanskrit Bala which means "Sacrificial offering." (This is why I stated very early in this thread that most people who are of linear religion do not understand how polytheism is possible in their ancient traditions.)

Christians did not want to reveal the monotheism of the early Jews, but they could not mask it, hence they condemned all Baals as devils in 2 Chronicles 11:15, 1 Corinthians 10:20 & Revelation 9:20. This however does not undo their wealthy and ancient history of the early Hebrews. And it only ratified their worship in distant cultures.

Michael you asked such wonderful questions and each one of them merits an answer. So I want everyone to know my responses are going to be backed up for a bit. Each of these questions is a veritable book. The rest of the shit can wait, I find discussing the historacity of the scriptures far more educational and important than arguing over hypocrisy, etc. So if I don't answer anyone immediatly, know it's because I'm going through this in chronological order.

 

Oh man, two things: I forgot the most important part of the question; "what do I know about Ywhw". I will answer this in brief. Also please know when I am done posting I go back and reread my post, and I notice a butload of spelling errors I should have corrected but did not because I try to keep up with my thoughts while typing. To be very frank, I'm to lazy and to concentrated on my thoughts to go back and proof read everything. I'm sorry if it causes confusion, I hate it as much as the next person, and though I can promise to correct the behavior I most likely won't because it's a bad habit of mine I simply have not been able to break

Okay, Yhwh: All we have are these four letters. It's a term for God, and considering that it was a holy and exclusive name, speaking it could bring curse, the actual full name was never revealed. The only thing we are certain of is these four consonants, this is why I use them versus adding vowels to suit the pronounciation. The original hebrew consonants are JHVH it is believed his name would be "yod-he-vau-he". We have some who say Yahew, a bastardization of the Yhwh. And some say Jehovah, not understanding that J is pronounced as a ya or yod sound in ancient hebrew. So most scholars prefer to use the Yhwh when referring to the God of the OT. There are so many semitic dialects that we have a host of pronounciation: Jah, Heud, Ieu, Yahweh, Yah, Yahu, Jahi, Jehovah, Yaweh, Jahveh, Yaho, Iao, Jesus (which comes from the latin Yeshua), Joshua and Jeud.

Who was Yhwh? There is a great debate about that amongst comparative religions scholars. Some maintain that he was nothing but a consort god of the great goddess. Others who point out that matriarchy preceded dualism, say that Yhwh was originally a Goddess! (I personally ascribe to this, linguistically and historically the theory has great evidence.) I believe that much of this debate revolves not around evidence, but personal bias. It is typically Christian scholars who will say that he was never female, where as Jewish scholars, secular scholars and other faithful scholars say the opposite. Faith still remains such a big deal in my field, which is odd, considering we are supposed to dedicate ourselves to rising above our biases to get to the root of the truth concerning religion. BLAH!

Anyhow, back to Yhwh. The scholars who maintain he was a god point to the linguistic evidence that Jaho, Iao and Ieuw are derivitives of Zeus. Yhwh is represented as a solar god in the Bible, and is worshipped on a sabbat, which relates to Zeus and his incarnation as Sabbaoth.

The scholars who maintain that he was originally a goddess point to the Canaanite deity Yareah (an adrogynous spirit, the union of Yhwh and Asherah). This deity before the age of dualism was derived from Jahi the very ancient Goddess of Persian Scriptures who is the original maker of man and his seducer. She mated with the phallic serpent before creating the Gods and used the blood of her menses to create women. She is the literal womb waters and every deity attempts to battle her for creation rights and dominion over the earth. In turn, Jahi is a derivitive of Kali, which is the eldest deity known to humanity, and almost every deity on earth seems to be directly related to her mythos. Even the ancient Rig Vedas point to Kali as the creatrix, the formless and begining of all existence.

The depictions of God wrestling with Tiamat is Biblical. God battled with many baals over rulership, and as I said earlier, the baals were not condemned as devils until the NT. The Jews may have battled over what Baal was worthy of their adoration, but they never ascribed to saying the baals were evil. That would have been sacrilegious. In ancient biologicalism there is no evil. Everything is dual, the Gods were as capable of mischief as they were of benevolence, and this was their right. Our job as worshippers was to appeal to their loving nature so that we may ascertain their favor. The concept of true evil arose with gnosticism which came far after Judaism.

Tiamat was originally a Sumero-Babylonian Goddess (Known as Dia mater to the Greeks) She is the formless cosmic waters. Literally known as the "Deep" or "Toho Bohu" in Hebrew which means "Primal chaos". She is the formlessness between the destruction of one universe and the creation of the next. She is represented by the grail, cup or cauldron, for she is the sea of infinite formlessness, the chalice in which all life resides. (Secular scholars have been insisting for years that the grail of jesus is a referrence to his life giving, conquering and victory over the formless, it the symbolic version of his femine creatrix side. Christian scholars are only know starting to think it is possible that the grail is a representation of the goddess aspect, but they look to Mary Magdalene as the chalice and not the history of the Magdalene in earlier mythos.) Anyway, Tiamat is literally the deep or abyss before creation. Her name "Toho Bohu" is actually used in the Hebrew Genesis 1:2.

The hopeful deity had to battle Toho in hopes of forging a place for creation. This is exactly what Yhwh does in Creation. He divides the water and reveals land, so that he may create. The ancient Babylonians said El Marduk devided Tiamat into two parts, upper waters and lower waters. This is copied by the later Jews whose Yhwh divides Toho's waters in Genesis 1:7. (Funny that we still a diameter is what divides a circle.) The Jews kept her ancient menstral calender as their measurement of time, despite becoming a patriarchal culture. Christian scholars refer to Tiamat as a water dragon that Yhwh slain, they refuse to follow with what is known, that matricide was a duty for the male deities to earn creation powers. Secular scholars are expected to never mind that the word dragon has absolutely no relation to Toho. They ascribe it onto the Boho (Behemoth) which was not a serpent, but a Ba-hemet phallic god, that inmpregnated Toho. This too they ignore.

And so genesis goes: attributing all of what was said regarding Toho, and ascribing it to yhwh, including the cain and able story which was orginally a mythos regarding a fight between her sons. Her mythos is found extending into Exodus with the tablets of law. And mentioned sparingly there after right up through the entire OT.

"Awake, awake put on strength, O arm of Yhwh; awake as in days of old, the generations of long ago, Was it not you who cut Rahab (Goddess Euphamism in Hebrew) in peices, who pierced the dragon? (Originally Toho Boho in Hebrew, made dragon by the greeks.) Was it not you who dried up the deep (Toho Boho), the waters of the deep (Toho Boho); who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over?" This is creation language, ancient references to how Yhwh was batteling Toho Boho. This is the development from dualism to patriarchy right before your eyes! We see Yhwh, a regional God becoming a national God, he actively holds back chaos from destroying creation. Deutero-Isaiah is a wealth of examples: "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand" Isaiah 40:12 "Thus say Yhwh, who makes a sea, a path in the mighty waters" 42:16 The reason why Deutero Isaiah is such an important part of the bible is because it shows explicitly the struggle of the Jews to go from a dualistic religion to a patriarchal one, to go from a polythestic religion to a monotheistic one.

I guess partly answered your next question:

Tiamant is all. She is Jewish, she is Asyrian, she is found in Greece, in Hinduism, in Babylon, in so many places; because Tiamut is an avatar of Kali, the base deity that all deities share a commonality with.

 

Why is it that just because you were stupid and naive enough to allow yourself to be indoctrinated that you assume that everyone else was as well? I see that you are still stupid and naive...just regarding a different opinion now. I could have never claimed to believe in something so consequential as God, the Christian God especially, just because there was some organization that existed with His name on it, or some book that told me to. That would be retarded, and I'm not. And people who do so, don't really want God or knowledge of, or a relationship with, Him...they want to belong to an organization, or to read a book. And so there you have it...f'ing rocket science yea? no, not really. People like you join cults and drink poison just because some charismatic guy says to, while the rest of us look on in bewilderment, wishing for something to say to you that would make you yank your head out of your ass.

You "deconvert" because you were a gullable idiot to "convert" in the first place...big surprise. You never knew God...you never had a relationship with Him. Which is the definition of being born again. Which is what the "religion" and the "book" teaches in the first place. After all, how can you have faith in something that you don't know? In something that you haven't experienced? You can't.

You're ignorant of God...you missed the entire point and were therefore "duped" by some "organization". Congratulations. So now you expect people to take your word for the truth? Hopefully, you will know the truth when it bites you in the ass, but until then, don't count on anyone taking your word for it.

Forget the Bible, it's useless to you without the knowledge of the Holy Spirit anyway. I dare you to get your head out of a book and look to God Himself. It's not about a book.

That's not true. You can read and hear the testimony of many people who have known God personally and have had their lives turned upside down by Him...and in a good way. There is documentation of miracles and spiritual rebirth, which in itself is a miracle to everyone who experiences it, everywhere and throughout history. God is right there in your face and He has been all along. Just because you have chosen not to look at Him doesn't mean that no one else has.

The evidence of what? That you're a human being? Well congratulations...how long did it take you to realize that? I moved on from that when I was in gradeschool...and now I have the same kind of evidence as to the relationship that I have with God, and therefore God's existence, and identity. You must be "slow". But it's never too late to catch up.

You want to test something? Want to conduct your own experiment? See if you can sincerely tell God that you want evidence of Him in your life...no screw evidence...tell Him that you want proof of His existence, because if He exists, you want know Him...to understand Him...to the point at which you can decide whether or not you would like to have a relationship with Him. That my dear is simplistic, easy to understand, and very verifiable.

And please don't ever suggest that you had evolution all figured out without having to consult a book again...it doesn't lend to your credibility at all...Ms. Darwin Jr.

Your opinion based upon what exactly? Again, based upon the fact that you are now bitter and jaded from allowing yourself to be duped? You never knew God...and so you don't know what (who) you're talking about. You believe that something is a fact because "scholars unanimously agree"? Why? Why do you allow others to make up your mind for you? Why do you rely on others to do your realization for you? It's not prudent.

Jesus IS the word. He is the living manifestation of it...THAT is how I know the word...because I know HIM.

I have taken it up with the source, which is why I am born again. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus about being a pharisee vs being born again. Here's how it works in a nutshell. You desire sincerely to KNOW God...to have proof of Him personally, and given that proof, you sincerely seek to know Him. And so you do come to know Him, and in that knowledge, you come to understand things which are confirmed 100% in the scriptures of the Bible. It's not the other way around...duh.

I didn't assume anything...that's exactly what you said, and are still saying. You're still trying to make it about a book. Certainly you didn't confess to actually meeting God or having knowledge and understanding of Him via a relationship with Him, as you go on to say later in this post that you don't believe that is even possible. Listen, I know that you're slow, but my name is spelled L...O...R...I.

Yes, according to the Bible, which even though being "indoctrinated", you really didn't read much of, or maybe it's that you just didn't understand what you read. If you had, you certainly would have noticed the fact that just about everyone in the Bible had a personal relationship with God...heard His voice and followed His direction in their lives...seeking and gaining knowledge from Him personally. As...hello...there was no Bible to reference back then.

And how about according to HIM? How about according to my relationship with Him? How about the absolute mountain of undeniable proof that He has given to me of His existence, His identity, and His nature? Who needs the book when you've got the real thing? Oh yea, those who go at it ass-backwards like you did. lol.

Of course He does. And what a brilliant response you have to offer regarding my answer. Brilliant.

No, I had studied all of the major world religions and mythologies prior to my relationship with Jesus. And had actually been seriously jaded against Christianity from my exposure to organized religious hypocrisy. I asked for the truth, no matter what it was, and Jesus was what I got. And to be honest, at the time, I probably would have hoped for a different answer...but it was the truth that I insisted upon.

The Holy Spirit is not the only spirit that exists or that can interact with humanity, and spiritual truth exists in this universe regardless of what label you put on it, or what you choose to attribute it too. You don't believe in God, or in my testimony for one reason and one reason only...because you don't want to...period. It's law. And it's quite obvious given your rhetoric.

Yes, your vocabulary is so advanced I can barely keep up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Get your own evidence...from the same One who gave me mine. I dare you.

But don't look to others to get your evidence for you. I have my own testimony that I am very willing to share with anyone who wants to hear it. I've actually experienced a full blown whopping freak of nature miracle that will be corroborated by a world famous rock star as a matter of fact. How's that for empirical evidence? But the fact is that people believe what they want to believe, no matter what is testified or presented as evidence. So believe what you want to believe, and see where it gets you. But I know, as well as you know, that you don't want the truth. You just want to be right.

Yea, well pride is a sin. And that is because it is like a child that one enters into the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Humility is the key that unlocks the truth. And you're not even looking towards the door...you must be blinded by all of your pride. After all...how can you seek knowledge when you think you know it all already? How can you seek the truth when you've already determined what it is, or is not? You can't.

Your "issues" haven't gone anywhere...they're just redirected.

Listen, you're the one who said it...you're the one who attested to your prior "belief" being based upon a book and an organization. YOU said that, not me. And YOU are also the one who said to do what you had done is gullable and naive...assuming in your ignorance that everyone else professing to be a Christian also derived faith from a book and an organization, and therefore is equally as gullable and naive. I'm simply telling you that you are mistaken. Faith is not a belief in something that you don't know to be true, but a belief in something that you do know to be true. Because you know from experience...personal experience. Experience that you apparently never had...because you were too busy looking to a book or an organization to provide you with proof that it did not have to offer. God is not a book. God is not an organization. God is a living spiritual being that can and will interact with you if you so sincerely desire.

So you thought you would find Him in a university? A seminary? A book? An organization? Um...did it ever occur to you...you know, given all of your study...to just simply talk to Him? To ask Him to show Himself to you? To prove Himself to you? Because that is all it takes. If it took a book, then how would He be fair to illiterates? If it took a degree, then how would He be fair to the uneducated? If it took an organization, then how would He be fair to those outside the "culture" or the availability of said organizations. God is there to the man on the deserted island with nothing and no one. He is there...everywhere...spirit to spirit. Based upon what you've shown me of your personality, and what you've told me...I doubt that you've ever appealed to Him personally, or listened for Him to respond to you if you had.

God calls those who rely soley on the law as their "knowledge" of him pharisees and hypocrits. And that when they appeal to Him saying "but we did this and that in your name", He responds to them "I never knew you". You are purposefully leaving out a huge chunk of the scripture because it doesn't suit your twisted purpose. The scripture teaches of a spiritual rebirth. The scripture teaches of a counsel of the Holy Spirit. The scripture teaches that no man is saved or redeemed by his works. The scripture teaches that it is the Holy Spirit living through a man, the man being it's vessel, that accomplishes God's will.

You do not understand the scripture that you do selectively cite either. The word says that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and this I know. But you can not follow Christ and follow Satan at the same time. Every moment of every day you have a choice to make...it is either one or the other. You go back and forth according to your knowledge, your understanding, and your intent. Intent is what you are accountable for. Intent is what brings knowledge and understanding. The easy way, or the hard way...it's your choice. But you can not have it both ways at the same time. The more you know of Christ, the more you desire to follow Him...His will...and His law. He is the manifestation of the law. So in following Him, you are choosing to follow the law. And I have no idea why I'm explaining this to you...you have no interest in understanding.

Oh what a cop out. Quit blaming your "faulty" make up. You, like the rest of us, were given the knowledge of good and evil and a choice to make considering. Given your knowledge, you have decided that you do not wish to know God, and therefore do not seek a relationship with Him. You get exactly what you wish for. That's right...with God, you get exactly what you ask for. You don't want to know Him? Fine...done. Quit bitching about it, and quit assuming that no one else wants to know Him either. Because I, and many others do want to know Him, and so we do. And yes, it is that simple. Doesn't take a degree in theology to accomplish that...just a sincere desire of the heart.

Love,

Lori