When God Becomes A Drug

[DRMIZER]

I found this to be an interesting list regarding the counseling of those struggling with religious addiction. What would we like to add to the list?

"When God Becomes A Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction and Abuse."
By Leo Booth

Quote:
Symptoms of
Religious Addiction:

Religious convictions are stated as black and white

Isolation from people who do not share the same beliefs

Think of the world and flesh as inherently evil

Obsessive about praying, going to church, reading the Bible, attending crusades, watching television evangelists, sending money to missions

Excessive fasting

Hearing messages from God

Judging others; often angry and violent toward "heathens"

Brainwashing* - attempt to persuade family and significant friends to their way of thinking

Compulsively talking about God, religion or quoting from Scripture

Conflict of ideology with hospitals and schools

Discourage thinking for oneself, doubting or questioning

Sexuality seen as dirty or bad

Cannot accept criticism

Suffer tension, stress, often develop physical illnesses, such as eating disorders, depression and anxiety

Often stare, go into trances

Erratic personality changes

*A better word than "brainwashing" to explain this process would be mind manipulation or thought reform

[JoeR]

"Obsessive about.... attending crusades" :lol:

[Seki]

That was certainly amusing

[Dangerrmouse]

Difficult to treat due to complete lack of insight... :lol:

[Churlant]

The truth goes beyond amusing. In the brains of True Believers, certain key terms and thoughts bring about brainwave patterns which very closely match the patterns of actual drug addicts receiving their fix.

-JC

[Cedars]

So you think that scientists have had a good sampling of True Believers? Likely the only ones that came under their study are the fanatics who broke away from traditional teachings to follow their own interpretations and landed themselves under scientific study in the first place. It is no wonder some do not believe in God if they accept such "evidence" at face value and do not bother to think outside the box.

[Derry&Peek]

Symptoms of being a homo sapien sapien:

(a) has a tendency to engage in sexual practices
(b) gravitates toward sheltered areas
(c) seeks out and consumes food and water
(d) an undying compulsion for oxygen

etc. etc. . . .

i.e: totally vacuuous...

D&P

[Churlant]

So you think that scientists have had a good sampling of True Believers?

Yes. A 'True Believer' is self-defined. If you consider yourself as one, then you are. The term itself has no absolute definition beyond self-description.

-JC

[Cedars]

It makes no sense to me how a good sampling can be conducted if there are no set parameters to even define what it is that is being studied.

[Craig]

I know numerous people who have stated that they knew for certain with 100% accuracy that God did not exist, they would enter a state of utter despair (or something along those lines). This, to me, seems to be an instance of God as a drug. The question is, if the above scenario ever were to happen, how many would actually do this? Or would they, as I suspect, eventually move on and live their lives normally?

[Churlant]

It makes no sense to me how a good sampling can be conducted if there are no set parameters to even define what it is that is being studied.

Faith is the parameter. There are a number of questions you can ask to determine the strength of a person's religious faith... from how often they attend church to whether or not they believe in Heaven and Hell - and which way they think they're going.

Anyhow... what was studied is the bio-chemical affects of strong religious faith - specifically how belief causes changes in a person's mood, health, etc.

If you are hooked up to a machine that measures centers of the brain responsible for things like stress and pleasure... and then someone flashes a picture of a nuclear mushroom cloud... care to guess which part of the brain lights up?

Hook a highly religious individual to the same machine and flash 'Jesus' across the screen and you get activation of the pleasure areas.. much the same way an addict's own pleasure center will flash if given their respective vice.

It's not as if this is an attack on religion. The same happens whether it be druggies or guys playing video games or a couple having sex. The point is that the bio-chemical detail of satisfying a strong addictive impulse is similar to religious experience...

Which makes perfect sense, if you think about it for a moment. Religion gives many individuals senses of calm, strength, love, etc.

Ever been high? ;)

-JC

[Churlant]

I know numerous people who have stated that they knew for certain with 100% accuracy that God did not exist, they would enter a state of utter despair (or something along those lines). This, to me, seems to be an instance of God as a drug. The question is, if the above scenario ever were to happen, how many would actually do this? Or would they, as I suspect, eventually move on and live their lives normally?

Asking someone to accept the death of their God is much like asking them to accept the death of a spouse. It would be an incredibly shattering experience. Like many who DO lose a loved-one, however, these people would eventually heal... in the mean time there will be very real despair...

Some would not recover at all. Faith in God is a very strong emotional link we're talking about.. just as real as if it were with a live person.

-JC

[Craig]

Asking someone to accept the death of their God is much like asking them to accept the death of a spouse. It would be an incredibly shattering experience. Like many who DO lose a loved-one, however, these people would eventually heal... in the mean time there will be very real despair...

Some would not recover at all. Faith in God is a very strong emotional link we're talking about.. just as real as if it were with a live person.

-JC

Oh, I've no doubt that some will never recover at all. But I'd still be willing to bet that far more would manage to continue on than the number I was told would not. Perhaps the ironic thing about the "death" or non-existence of God is that if it were certain, then everything you attributed to God as a real entity would have been entirely of your own fabrication and the fabrication of other's influence upon you. Can you truly mourn someone that greatly if you had only ever imagined them? It does illustrate the power of belief.

[Chidi]

If I was to think of beleif in god as a drug I would have to say it would be almost like taking steriods and Valium, maybe some lsd on the top of that. A wacky cocktail.

[Churlant]

Oh, I've no doubt that some will never recover at all. But I'd still be willing to bet that far more would manage to continue on than the number I was told would not.


Oh, quite true. Just as most people who lose a spouse eventually move on. Even I would admit that, rationally, I would be able to move forward from such a tragedy... however, my first response would be 'never'.


Perhaps the ironic thing about the "death" or non-existence of God is that if it were certain, then everything you attributed to God as a real entity would have been entirely of your own fabrication and the fabrication of other's influence upon you. Can you truly mourn someone that greatly if you had only ever imagined them? It does illustrate the power of belief.

Of course you can - and of course it does :) Faith in God is not just love of some imaginary friend (resemblances not withstanding ;) ). Most would claim to have had contact beyond imagination.

Besides, in the end, Belief is all we've got. I would expect it to be so strong... after all, if I don't believe you exist, then you do not :) At least not in any way that matters in my own Universe.

-JC

[Cedars]

Faith is the parameter. There are a number of questions you can ask to determine the strength of a person's religious faith... from how often they attend church to whether or not they believe in Heaven and Hell - and which way they think they're going.

Anyhow... what was studied is the bio-chemical affects of strong religious faith - specifically how belief causes changes in a person's mood, health, etc.

If you are hooked up to a machine that measures centers of the brain responsible for things like stress and pleasure... and then someone flashes a picture of a nuclear mushroom cloud... care to guess which part of the brain lights up?

Hook a highly religious individual to the same machine and flash 'Jesus' across the screen and you get activation of the pleasure areas.. much the same way an addict's own pleasure center will flash if given their respective vice.

It's not as if this is an attack on religion. The same happens whether it be druggies or guys playing video games or a couple having sex. The point is that the bio-chemical detail of satisfying a strong addictive impulse is similar to religious experience...

Which makes perfect sense, if you think about it for a moment. Religion gives many individuals senses of calm, strength, love, etc.

Ever been high? ;)

-JC

Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure that anyone with any strong feelings about anything would render the same or similar effect. I don't doubt that anyone can be "high" on life, on love, or on God (or a number of any other things).

[Churlant]

Okay, I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure that anyone with any strong feelings about anything would render the same or similar effect. I don't doubt that anyone can be "high" on life, on love, or on God (or a number of any other things).

Now you've got it. The stronger the emotional force, the greater the effect. In this case we have people who have an entire lifetime of positive religious reinforcement... so the bio-chemical impact of things related to this experience would obviously be much greater than, say, seeing a good movie... hear one of your favorite songs on the radio and these parts of the brain sparkle - and the older that piece of music is to your experience, the greater the impact.

-JC

[julierep]

So what if they want to consider us "high on God"....who cares? Im high on God and my eyes are focused on Him all of the time. I would rather be high on God then high on nothing. We are all high on something, if you really think about it.

[Xerxes]

So what if they want to consider us "high on God"....who cares? Im high on God and my eyes are focused on Him all of the time. I would rather be high on God then high on nothing. We are all high on something, if you really think about it.

I'd take weed over god any day. at least marijuana addicts don't try to rid the world of the infadels

[julierep]

I'd take weed over god any day. at least marijuana addicts don't try to rid the world of the infadels

Nor do Christians....where did you come up with that silly notion? At least I will continue to have all of my brain cells.

[JoeR]

EDIT: Nor do Christians for the most part today, though they certainly did in the past.

[julierep]

EDIT: Nor do Christians for the most part today, though they certainly did in the past.

When did CHRISTIANS try to rid the world of infidels?

[Blueangel]

When did CHRISTIANS try to rid the world of infidels?The Crusades.

Good to see you back Julie :flowers: A worthy opponent.

[julierep]

The Crusades.

Good to see you back Julie :flowers: A worthy opponent.

Yes, long time since Ive been here. School and all. Glad to see everyone.

Im not quite up to par on the Crusades so I would have to read more about it before even trying to reply!!!

[Xerxes]

Nor do Christians....where did you come up with that silly notion? At least I will continue to have all of my brain cells.

Who needs brain cells? Just another disposable element of our bodies that I will never miss. Well....maybe I worded wrong.....I didn't mean rid as in kill....i meant it as in, change. What do you think missionaries do? find the infadels, and make them christians. What do you think Americans did to the natives when they first arrived? switched them to Christians. What do you think the civil war in Bosnia was for? the Christians trying to convert the Muslims. But, hey, wat do I know, I've lost all my brain cells :shrug:

[eugene40]

Im high on God and my eyes are focused on Him all of the time.


Really,, how do you walk around without running into things.... or drive for that matter. :D

[julierep]

Really,, how do you walk around without running into things.... or drive for that matter. :D

Aww, now Eugene, you should know the answer to that question. God gets me thru everything....he is my guide and my eyes :flowers:

[julierep]

Who needs brain cells? Just another disposable element of our bodies that I will never miss. Well....maybe I worded wrong.....I didn't mean rid as in kill....i meant it as in, change. What do you think missionaries do? find the infadels, and make them christians. What do you think Americans did to the natives when they first arrived? switched them to Christians. What do you think the civil war in Bosnia was for? the Christians trying to convert the Muslims. But, hey, wat do I know, I've lost all my brain cells :shrug:

I dont think that missionaries make infidels christians, they just teach the word of God. It is up to each single person to make up their minds on who they will follow. I dont see any harm in spreading the word of God, esp. if you believe it with all of your heart, soul, and mind.

[Xerxes]

sure, theres no harm done. but, umm, wars. Thats kinda the big part. PERSONALLY I find Christianity disrespectful to cultures. Just my take on it all


Edit: if they are just preaching the "word of god", then why are they referred to as infadels? just because they are different, they're infadels?

[eugene40]

Aww, now Eugene, you should know the answer to that question. God gets me thru everything....he is my guide and my eyes :flowers:

You know I had to say it...... but what if "god" sneezes or has to take a pee when you are driving..... when you keep your eyes on him,,,, do you look up his toga.....

[julierep]

sure, theres no harm done. but, umm, wars. Thats kinda the big part. PERSONALLY I find Christianity disrespectful to cultures. Just my take on it all


Edit: if they are just preaching the "word of god", then why are they referred to as infadels? just because they are different, they're infadels?

To be quite honest, I have never heard of any christian using the term infidel.

[julierep]

You know I had to say it...... but what if "god" sneezes or has to take a pee when you are driving..... when you keep your eyes on him,,,, do you look up his toga.....

Ha ha...very funny you clever man!!! :D I dont think God has to sneeze or pee though, but if he does, He has been very good at guiding me. No bumps or bruises so far!!!

[Xerxes]

Another thing, which is possibly the biggest thing affected by religion all together, dominantly Christianity. Love. Under Christianity, you can't marry anybody unless they're a hardcore Christian like your self, and your loved ones can have no individuality. No drinkin. No late nights. Bible studies ever hour. If there truly IS a god, then why would we have to devote all our time to religion and never have time to do things INDEPENDENTLY? Isn't god supposed to be a loving god? Then why does he make the life of Christians miserable (from which I have seen in close friends and family)??

[eugene40]

Ha ha...very funny you clever man!!! :D I dont think God has to sneeze or pee though, but if he does, He has been very good at guiding me. No bumps or bruises so far!!!


So basically,, your lack of answer says you do look up his toga...... So I guess the only question left is..... does his carpet match the drapes? :D

[julierep]

So basically,, your lack of answer says you do look up his toga...... So I guess the only question left is..... does his carpet match the drapes? :D

No...dont look up the toga.....I dont thing God wears one of those either. Why would He need to cover himself???

[julierep]

Another thing, which is possibly the biggest thing affected by religion all together, dominantly Christianity. Love. Under Christianity, you can't marry anybody unless they're a hardcore Christian like your self, and your loved ones can have no individuality. No drinkin. No late nights. Bible studies ever hour. If there truly IS a god, then why would we have to devote all our time to religion and never have time to do things INDEPENDENTLY? Isn't god supposed to be a loving god? Then why does he make the life of Christians miserable (from which I have seen in close friends and family)??

This is simply not true. If you read the teachings of Christ you would see that this is not the case. I do things independently all of the time, but I make an effort to do things as Jesus would do. I dont know of any Christians that are misreable. Yes, we may all struggle at times (as anyone else would), but our trust is in God and we find peace thru the storm.

[Blueangel]

Why would He need to cover himself???NOOOooooOOOO!!! Fatal mistake giving Eugene an open ended question! :D

[julierep]

NOOOooooOOOO!!! Fatal mistake giving Eugene an open ended question! :D


I know...Im REALLY scared of what his next question will be. :lol:

[eugene40]

No...dont look up the toga.....I dont thing God wears one of those either. Why would He need to cover himself???


Maybe he is bashful.... Maybe his whole ruler of the universe thing is a inferiority complex cause he has a small winky.... Maybe he is big and needs something to cover himself up,,, or at least tuck it back.... :D,,, If he doesn't need to cover himself up,, why do we arrest people for running nekked down the street... Are all people in heaven naked. wouldn't it be cold. If he doesn't wear a toga,, do you think he wears Jeans,,, If he wears Jeans do you think button fly or zipper... what about a kilt,,, I mean if it is good enough for the scots...

[eugene40]

NOOOooooOOOO!!! Fatal mistake giving Eugene an open ended question! :D


Oh you should see me question a subject... The longest a guy that has lasted is 2 minutes before they spilt everything they had ever done in their life..... Usually they just go fine I did it for the love of (insert deity here) don't ask me anymore questions.

[julierep]

Maybe he is bashful.... Maybe his whole ruler of the universe thing is a inferiority complex cause he has a small winky.... Maybe he is big and needs something to cover himself up,,, or at least tuck it back.... :D,,, If he doesn't need to cover himself up,, why do we arrest people for running nekked down the street... Are all people in heaven naked. wouldn't it be cold. If he doesn't wear a toga,, do you think he wears Jeans,,, If he wears Jeans do you think button fly or zipper... what about a kilt,,, I mean if it is good enough for the scots...

Well if you think about, we were all born in our "birthday suits"...I believe that was the original design. Besides, who knows what our heavenly bodies look like. Im sure you would be just fine had we continued living only in our birthday suits!! :D :lol:

[eugene40]

Well if you think about, we were all born in our "birthday suits"...I believe that was the original design. Besides, who knows what our heavenly bodies look like. Im sure you would be just fine had we continued living only in our birthday suits!! :D :lol:


I dunno I have seen,,, and done a lot moe then look at more then a few heavenly bodies :D.... I would be all for that save for the rate of obesity in our country....... BUt really do you think it could be ann inferiority complex???? hehehe

[julierep]

I dunno I have seen,,, and done a lot moe then look at more then a few heavenly bodies :D.... I would be all for that save for the rate of obesity in our country....... BUt really do you think it could be ann inferiority complex???? hehehe

Yes, I agree with the whole obesity thing. Those people really should cover up!!! I wont even touch the inferiority complex....Im sure he would put everyone to shame!!!!

[JoeR]

To be quite honest, I have never heard of any christian using the term infidel.

Heathen, pagan, same difference.

See also - inquisition, witch hunts

[julierep]

Heathen, pagan, same difference.

See also - inquisition, witch hunts

Same thing as without God. Which applies to many. They are all just words that mean they are lacking God in their life. Why does it matter if they are called infidels, heathens, pagans, or just ungodly? Does it really matter? What harm is it to call a bird a bird? It is, in fact, the same thing, is it not?

[Xerxes]

You seem to not realize that these terms are disrespectful terms. People should be people, and we could all be one big race of human-kind. But due to religion, it can never happen. From what I see, animals are more mature than humans

[julierep]

You seem to not realize that these terms are disrespectful terms. People should be people, and we could all be one big race of human-kind. But due to religion, it can never happen. From what I see, animals are more mature than humans

You either are Godly or you arent. You shouldnt be offended by that in the least if you dont believe. It doesnt mean you are a bad person, just that you are without God. How is that disrespectful? I think people calling Christians every name in the book is disrespectful, but does anyone who is without God care? No, they continue to do what they do without any thought of the offense.

[Knightman]

Which God are we talking about. pick one.....

http://www.godchecker.com/

[Xerxes]

You either are Godly or you arent. You shouldnt be offended by that in the least if you dont believe. It doesnt mean you are a bad person, just that you are without God. How is that disrespectful? I think people calling Christians every name in the book is disrespectful, but does anyone who is without God care? No, they continue to do what they do without any thought of the offense.

I'm saying the world would be a better place without this separation of people. Religion all has caused so many wars that wouldnt have happened without religion, and lives would have been spared. Millions of lives.

[julierep]

Which God are we talking about. pick one.....

http://www.godchecker.com/

There is only one true living God. You will find his story in the bible.

[julierep]

I'm saying the world would be a better place without this separation of people. Religion all has caused so many wars that wouldnt have happened without religion, and lives would have been spared. Millions of lives.

I agree. My point is this: Christians (true christians, that is) do not believe in seperation from the ungodly. It is our duty to reach these people. Let me show you this quote which is taken directly from my church's website:

We believe that one of the most important tasks for the church here on earth is to share the truth about Jesus with those who do not know Him in a personal way. At CHC, we realize that Christ has been greatly misrepresented to many of the unbelievers in our community by those who claim to be Christians but do not live like Jesus lived. We also acknowledge that the church has for too long isolated itself from the world of unbelievers in an effort to be “set apart from the world”. If one will examine the life of Jesus, he will find that Christ spent much of His time with the unbelievers around Him, in an effort to demonstrate His love for them and bring them to a saving knowledge of Himself. In Matthew 9:12, Jesus was accused and ridiculed by other religious people for being the “friend of sinners” to which He responded, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”


Since we believe that Jesus’ example was to love people to Himself, we have set a very simple approach to evangelism here at CHC: (1) Build relationships with and serve the unbelievers around you in an effort to show them the love of Christ, and (2) when the Holy Spirit brings the opportunity, tell them about the love of Christ and how they may know that love in a personal way. The truth is that most people do not have a problem with God, they have a problem with Christians who misrepresent God and with the church. Our desire is to serve the community through various service projects and love them in such a way that they become open to the messenger (us) and then to the message (God’s unfailing and saving love).
http://www.colonialhillschurch.com/default.aspx?pid=12

This is what a true christian believes and the way they should live their life amoungs unbelievers.

[Xerxes]

There is only one true living God. You will find his story in the bible.

Oooh, now this could brighten things up a bit. What about hinduism? are they not living gods too? If religion is ones choice, then how can they have a choice if there is only one god? What about the norse god Odin? What about Zeus? what about the Buddha? are they not living gods too? that is the problem with christianity. It doesn't recognize other religions as real, it doesnt respect other religions

[Churlant]

Does it really matter? What harm is it to call a bird a bird? It is, in fact, the same thing, is it not?

While I personally couldn't care less what term a person chose to label me with, I understand that there is a different emphasis from one word to another. You can call a dog a *****, and both mean the same thing... except one is decidedly less appropriate in some settings, even if it happens to be a proper term.

It is all about emphasis and context - even for words which carry the same definition. If all synonyms had exactly the same meaning, what would be the point? Why not have just one word?

-JC

[JoeR]

When heathen and pagan are used along with burning at the stake it is not merely being without god. When a Christian calls someone a heathen or a pagan it definetly tends to have a bit more than a negative conotation.

If there is one true living god his story is not one of genocide and wrath.

[Knightman]

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, or what there society programmed them to believe. Fortunatly some see past that and begin to think for themselves.

[julierep]

Oooh, now this could brighten things up a bit. What about hinduism? are they not living gods too? If religion is ones choice, then how can they have a choice if there is only one god? What about the norse god Odin? What about Zeus? what about the Buddha? are they not living gods too? that is the problem with christianity. It doesn't recognize other religions as real, it doesnt respect other religions

And neither do any of these other religions. Correct me if I am wrong, but are Christians the only ones who do this? I think not. I acknowledge that there are other "religions" out there, but there is only ONE true living God.

[Xerxes]

I agree. My point is this: Christians (true christians, that is) do not believe in seperation from the ungodly. It is our duty to reach these people. Let me show you this quote which is taken directly from my church's website:

We believe that one of the most important tasks for the church here on earth is to share the truth about Jesus with those who do not know Him in a personal way. At CHC, we realize that Christ has been greatly misrepresented to many of the unbelievers in our community by those who claim to be Christians but do not live like Jesus lived. We also acknowledge that the church has for too long isolated itself from the world of unbelievers in an effort to be “set apart from the world”. If one will examine the life of Jesus, he will find that Christ spent much of His time with the unbelievers around Him, in an effort to demonstrate His love for them and bring them to a saving knowledge of Himself. In Matthew 9:12, Jesus was accused and ridiculed by other religious people for being the “friend of sinners” to which He responded, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”


Since we believe that Jesus’ example was to love people to Himself, we have set a very simple approach to evangelism here at CHC: (1) Build relationships with and serve the unbelievers around you in an effort to show them the love of Christ, and (2) when the Holy Spirit brings the opportunity, tell them about the love of Christ and how they may know that love in a personal way. The truth is that most people do not have a problem with God, they have a problem with Christians who misrepresent God and with the church. Our desire is to serve the community through various service projects and love them in such a way that they become open to the messenger (us) and then to the message (God’s unfailing and saving love).
http://www.colonialhillschurch.com/default.aspx?pid=12

This is what a true christian believes and the way they should live their life amoungs unbelievers.

Its sad really. Christians still aren't getting the message. Unbelievers dont want Christians Jesus-like love. Why else would we be unbelievers? We try to escape to our own haven with no religion around us, and a world of human beings all as one. But evangelicals. They dont understand that we just want to be left alone. Thats all we really want.

[Xerxes]

And neither do any of these other religions. Correct me if I am wrong, but are Christians the only ones who do this? I think not. I acknowledge that there are other "religions" out there, but there is only ONE true living God.

Hinduism respects every religion, and believes that if it is their god, it is theirs and theirs alone, and it is real for them. Their god is also living and real to them. I hang with a lot of hindus

[julierep]

When heathen and pagan are used along with burning at the stake it is not merely being without god. When a Christian calls someone a heathen or a pagan it definetly tends to have a bit more than a negative conotation.

If there is one true living god his story is not one of genocide and wrath.

Well, to defend myself, I have never called anyone by those names. I dont know why they were called that when they were burned at the stake, that was before my time :p , but whose to say that when someone is calling another a pagan or heathen, out of context, that they are truley christian?

[dittohead not!]

There is only one true living God. You will find his story in the bible.

If you believe that Jesus Christ is that god, then I have a couple of questions:
Who sent Christ to Earth? If he's the only god, did he send himself?

Does it bother you that the accounts of Christ's life that appear in the New Testament were written down many years after the crucifixion, then were translated and retranslated through many different languages and cultures?

I'm surprised no one has quoted Karl Marx on this thread. The title could easily have come directly from his writings.

[julierep]

Its sad really. Christians still aren't getting the message. Unbelievers dont want Christians Jesus-like love. Why else would we be unbelievers? We try to escape to our own haven with no religion around us, and a world of human beings all as one. But evangelicals. They dont understand that we just want to be left alone. Thats all we really want.

If that was what you wanted, then why come around these religious sites? We are in the world, your just going to have to live with that. If you dont want to listen, then dont. We arent standing on your head making you listen, now are we? Are we chaining you down? To be honest, I hate seeing the crap on tv...but guess what? Ive got a choice to turn it off if I dont want to see it or hear it.

[julierep]

If you believe that Jesus Christ is that god, then I have a couple of questions:
Who sent Christ to Earth? If he's the only god, did he send himself?

Does it bother you that the accounts of Christ's life that appear in the New Testament were written down many years after the crucifixion, then were translated and retranslated through many different languages and cultures?

I'm surprised no one has quoted Karl Marx on this thread. The title could easily have come directly from his writings.

No, I dont have a problem with that. Do you have a problem with believing history books that have been translated and retranslated through many different languages throughout time?

[julierep]

Hinduism respects every religion, and believes that if it is their god, it is theirs and theirs alone, and it is real for them. Their god is also living and real to them. I hang with a lot of hindus

Like I said before, I acknowledge these other faiths, and if they believe that then thats there belief, however, I believe that there is only ONE living God.

[Xerxes]

If that was what you wanted, then why come around these religious sites? We are in the world, your just going to have to live with that. If you dont want to listen, then dont. We arent standing on your head making you listen, now are we? Are we chaining you down? To be honest, I hate seeing the crap on tv...but guess what? Ive got a choice to turn it off if I dont want to see it or hear it.

Why do I come here? why does anybody come here? for a challenge. I'm not talking about on TV. Im talkin bout the Jahova's witnesses and stuff like that. I dont care what people put on TV. I dont watch TV anyways. Do you not see the title of this thread? "When God becomes a drug" its not a thread for giddy christians to come together and ask eachother how many pages of the bible they read today. Its to get arguments and debates going. thats the point of a political forum

[julierep]

Why do I come here? why does anybody come here? for a challenge. I'm not talking about on TV. Im talkin bout the Jahova's witnesses and stuff like that. I dont care what people put on TV. I dont watch TV anyways. Do you not see the title of this thread? "When God becomes a drug" its not a thread for giddy christians to come together and ask eachother how many pages of the bible they read today. Its to get arguments and debates going. thats the point of a political forum

Exactly!!! So if you dont want to hear it, then why try to debate it? Your putting yourself smack dab in the middle of what it is you dont want. So I ask the question again, why do that to yourself?

[Xerxes]

I dont mean on this website. I meant in the outside world...in the public. Im debatin here

[Knightman]

We had another thread going as well . it was pretty silly but it brought out a few interesting points.

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27700

The problem is with those that attempt to get others to conform to their way of thinking in general, be it through religion or political means. All of which is wrong in my opinion.

(repost from the above thread)

I have respect for what others believe. It may not be the way I view the world but all are intitled to their own views and opinions.

The Bible describes a way of living. It was written by thoughtful individuals as a guideline for a way of treating our fellow man with respect, kindness, forgivness, of cooperating and sharing this planet togeather for the good of us all.

Under the banners of religion some of the worst human suffering and death has occured, Under the banners of religion, abuse, greed, power, hatred and subjection has been delbt out. This has been well documented in history and continues today and shall continue so long as "they" believe "they" are the only true way. Those teachings are not in the Bible or in any other documents of most religions. So in that light the churces and the religious are false, preaching false doctrine and preverting their own beliefs.

Yes, very excellent work has been done by the various churches. no one can argue that. Those that are good people and are doing good work should be praised for their efforts and time spent in many areas of the world. Those people seem to understand the teachings of thier religions and carry out its work.

As for the Bible itself, it is a book, just like any book, a history lesson, a story, an attempt to describe what may not have really been understood by those that wrote the words. It is also a work of fiction, not to be taken as fact but viewed as only food for thought....

[julierep]

I dont mean on this website. I meant in the outside world...in the public. Im debatin here

And like I said before, we arent beating you with the bible are we? Jehovas witness? I know LITTLE about them. Yes, they do bother me a bit knocking on the door, but really, are they actually harming you? They might be bothersome, but so are salesmen and telemarketers. Its apart of life.

[dittohead not!]

No, I dont have a problem with that. Do you have a problem with believing history books that have been translated and retranslated through many different languages throughout time?

Yes, I do. I think that anything that has been translated is likely to have errors, and if it has been translated several times, it is likely to be full of inaccuracies. I've done enough translating to know the pitfalls, even when going from one modern language to another. When going from an ancient language, especially one that is extinct, the pitfalls are enormous. Not only that, but If a story or an account has been passed down by word of mouth, then written down years after the fact, it is certain to have many inaccuracies.

Remember Kruschev's famous, "We will bury you?" A much better translation would have been, "We will leave you in the dust." Quite a different connotation, isn't it? That's just one famous example.

[julierep]

Yes, I do. I think that anything that has been translated is likely to have errors, and if it has been translated several times, it is likely to be full of inaccuracies. I've done enough translating to know the pitfalls, even when going from one modern language to another. When going from an ancient language, especially one that is extinct, the pitfalls are enormous. Not only that, but If a story or an account has been passed down by word of mouth, then written down years after the fact, it is certain to have many inaccuracies.

Remember Kruschev's famous, "We will bury you?" A much better translation would have been, "We will leave you in the dust." Quite a different connotation, isn't it? That's just one famous example.

Do you understand the way things were in those times? Being passed down by mouth was what was done, just like we write things down. Since people have become literate, lazyness and inaccuracy is a BIG problem as far as word of mouth goes. It was quite different in those days.

BUT, if you dont believe what was written and translated, thats you. I happen to believe as well as millions of people do. Aparently, there are many that dont have a problem with faith in what was written.

[dittohead not!]

Do you understand the way things were in those times? Being passed down by mouth was what was done, just like we write things down. Since people have become literate, lazyness and inaccuracy is a BIG problem as far as word of mouth goes. It was quite different in those days.

BUT, if you dont believe what was written and translated, thats you. I happen to believe as well as millions of people do. Aparently, there are many that dont have a problem with faith in what was written.

Being passed down by word of mouth was what was done because only an elete few could read and write. That doesn't mean that people were any more accurate story tellers then than they are today. I remain a skeptic, believe only what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and only half of what I've seen with my own eyes. Mark Twain wrote that "Faith is a way we have of believing what we know dang well ain't so."

[julierep]

Being passed down by word of mouth was what was done because only an elete few could read and write. That doesn't mean that people were any more accurate story tellers then than they are today. I remain a skeptic, believe only what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and only half of what I've seen with my own eyes. Mark Twain wrote that "Faith is a way we have of believing what we know dang well ain't so."

O'well...If Mark Twain say it so, then by god, it MUST be true.

[Churlant]

O'well...If Mark Twain say it so, then by god, it MUST be true.

How is that any different than saying "If the Bible say it so, then by God, it MUST be true." ?

-JC

[julierep]

How is that any different than saying "If the Bible say it so, then by God, it MUST be true." ?

-JC

Mark Twain is one man. The bible has many different authors as well as many eye accounts of the stories written.

[Churlant]

Mark Twain is one man. The bible has many different authors as well as many eye accounts of the stories written.

That hardly makes the details of an event, or the event itself, accurate - especially over so many years. Plus we must assume the authors were honest individuals... as well as assuming the honesty of those who have maintained the writings. As well as assumptions of the accuracy of translation and assuming some stories were meant as literal tales, rather than metaphor.

Mr Clemens, as you pointed out, is one man... who happened to scribe in english. I see no reason why his own wisdom should be any less Truth than that of the Bible :)

-JC

[julierep]

That hardly makes the details of an event, or the event itself, accurate - especially over so many years. Plus we must assume the authors were honest individuals... as well as assuming the honesty of those who have maintained the writings. As well as assumptions of the accuracy of translation and assuming some stories were meant as literal tales, rather than metaphor.

Mr Clemens, as you pointed out, is one man... who happened to scribe in english. I see no reason why his own wisdom should be any less Truth than that of the Bible :)

-JC

Because his wisdom is just that...wisdom. The bible is actual accounts of human history. People other than those in the bible, in those days, even account to the testimony.

[Churlant]

Because his wisdom is just that...wisdom. The bible is actual accounts of human history. People other than those in the bible, in those days, even account to the testimony.

:lol: You haven't read much Twain, have you? I would argue there is an incredible amount of human history in his work. There are people from his days who would absolutely account to the descriptions of those times which Twain protrayed :)

-JC

[julierep]

:lol: You haven't read much Twain, have you? I would argue there is an incredible amount of human history in his work. There are people from his days who would absolutely account to the descriptions of those times which Twain protrayed :)

-JC

I have no doubt in that...but his faith statement is just part of his own wisdom and his own conclussion.

[Churlant]

I have no doubt in that...but his faith statement is just part of his own wisdom and his own conclussion.

Which makes it less accurate than a statement from the Bible because.... ?

-JC

[Craig]

Do you understand the way things were in those times? Being passed down by mouth was what was done, just like we write things down. Since people have become literate, lazyness and inaccuracy is a BIG problem as far as word of mouth goes. It was quite different in those days.

BUT, if you dont believe what was written and translated, thats you. I happen to believe as well as millions of people do. Aparently, there are many that dont have a problem with faith in what was written.

Julie,

Word of mouth inevitably is an unstable method of communication, and not just in modern times. Stories inevitably change when they are passed down and disseminated over the years. One storyteller might not hear a particular line from the story very well, and might simply omit it from later tellings. Or he might simply mishear it, and retell it with the mistake, making added provisions to make the mistake probable. He might not even do it with the conscious knowledge he is fabricating if it's been long enough since he heard the story. Likewise, he might forget a part of the story, and it simply remains left out. Or, even more insidiously and subtly, the particular storyteller might like a particular part of the story and put extra emphasis on it, subtly shifting the tone of the story. Or, the story might become embellished over time; rather than a catastrophic flood in local regions, it might become a world wide deluge, for example. ;)

The fact of the matter is that because a human participant is necessary in the transmission of the narrative, human fallibility prevents accuracy. Simply put, unlike written text which remains stable so long as it is faithfully transcribed in the same language and the language remains stable, it can be re-transmitted. While you can point out that language never remains stable, it is more stable than oral language. We can, for instance, examine the original text of Sir Gawain in the Green Knight, and it remains preserved the same today as it was when it was written circa 1390. You'd be hard pressed, however, to find poets who could orally recited some form of narrative that has not changed significantly even after only 100 years have passed. In the case of the Bible, many of whose narratives may very well have been told orally before being transcribed, we have the double problem of narrative permutations from oral transmission and from translation accuracy.

Therefore, one must immediately doubt the veracity of your statement about things being "quite different in those days" because of our modern knowledge of oral narrative instability. These changes that I have pointed out occur not, as you suggest, because of laziness and inaccuracy due to being literate, but rather because the very form of narrative dictates that it will change subtly but significantly from each retelling.

[Craig]

Yes, I do. I think that anything that has been translated is likely to have errors, and if it has been translated several times, it is likely to be full of inaccuracies. I've done enough translating to know the pitfalls, even when going from one modern language to another. When going from an ancient language, especially one that is extinct, the pitfalls are enormous. Not only that, but If a story or an account has been passed down by word of mouth, then written down years after the fact, it is certain to have many inaccuracies.

Remember Kruschev's famous, "We will bury you?" A much better translation would have been, "We will leave you in the dust." Quite a different connotation, isn't it? That's just one famous example.

I can provide another relevent quote regarding the difficulties of translation, and this time it's from... the Bible! The difficulty lies not in the original Biblical text, in this instance, but rather in rendering a satisfactory understanding of a Middle English word in modern English. This example is from a Kentish sermon which has been entitled "The Marriage at Cana". For those of you who wish to follow along with your Bible, it is the story of how Jesus turns the water into wine at the wedding. As a quick side note, since Whistlestopper lacks the correct character for a Middle English thorn, I have instead replaced the character with the modern day equivelent of "th".

And ure Louerd cleped the serganz and seyde to hem: "Folvellet," ha seyde, "thos ydres (thet is to sigge, thos croos, other thos faten), of watere." For ther were vi ydres of stone thet ware iclepede bathieres, wer tho Gius hem wesse for clenesse and for religiun, ase the custome was ine tho time. Tho serganz uuluelden tho faten of watere, and hasteliche was iwent into wyne, bie tho wille of ure Louerde. Tho seide ure Lord to tho serganz: "Moveth togidere and bereth to Architriclin (that was se thet ferst was iserued)."

The central problem here lies in the word "Architriclin". If we check the formidable full Oxford English Dictionary online, we find no entry for this word. We've translated it in class to mean "head waiter". However, this is only a loose translation, and and may not accurately cover all the duties that this man might have attended to in the medieval period. While "Architriclin" does appear in modern French, (though I have not found a translation for it), we also have to be careful in that the medieval understanding of the word is probably quite different from the modern French understanding. You can see, then, the problem of rendering a translation into English with only a single word. While we can get a loose understanding of what was meant, we really lack the richness of meaning that one would have if one spoke this form of medieval Kentish.

Likewise, were I to translate the sermon as literally as possible, there would be some parts that were confusing to the modern English reader, because our modern understanding of grammar and syntax did not apply to Middle English. Surely, we can suggest, these difficulties would only increase when dealing with an ancient language such as Hebrew which is nearly completely dissimilar to English, in contrast to Middle English which is fairly closely related to our modern form. Translations then are at best a tricky issue, and cannot ever convey the exact same intent or meaning as the original, untranslated text.

[Craig]

Oh, and for those of you who want a modern English rendering of the Middle English text:

And our Lord called the servants and said to them: "Fulfill," he said, "Those vessels (that is to say, those tubs or those vats) with water." For there were six vessels of stone that were called bathing tubs, where [one] gives them washing for cleanness and for religion as the custom was in that time. The servants filled the vats with water, and hastily it was changed into wine by the will of our Lord. Then said the Lord to the servants: "Move together and bear [the vats] to the head waiter (that was that first [who] was served)."

[Xerxes]

Which makes it less accurate than a statement from the Bible because.... ?

-JC

cuz its the bible. duh. :(

[julierep]

Which makes it less accurate than a statement from the Bible because.... ?

-JC

Because it is his OWN conclusion. The bible has eyewitness accounts.

[Xerxes]

didn't somebody already go over all the explanations already, or do i have to go through it? TRANSLATIONS CAN SUCK SOMETIMES!!

[julierep]

didn't somebody already go over all the explanations already, or do i have to go through it? TRANSLATIONS CAN SUCK SOMETIMES!!

Yes, they can. No you dont have to rehash any of your thoughts. I, for one, along with millions of others believe the story, not of just one author, but four of the accounts to be the same, is true and accurate. Whether you believe it, thats up to you. I can only be a messanger. You have to have a willing heart to listen.

[Xerxes]

messanger. hah. i always love seeing it spelled that way. makes my day. But noone can be truly sure if the translation is correct since one man translated the bible. King James I or II, cant remember which one. and Martin Luther translated it from Latin to German. and back then, they didn't know a whole lot about Latin. they barely new anything about latin at all. and that is what the bible is based off of. Luther's translation.

[julierep]

messanger. hah. i always love seeing it spelled that way. makes my day. But noone can be truly sure if the translation is correct since one man translated the bible. King James I or II, cant remember which one. and Martin Luther translated it from Latin to German. and back then, they didn't know a whole lot about Latin. they barely new anything about latin at all. and that is what the bible is based off of. Luther's translation.

If the bible is divinley inspired, then it is as accurate as accurate can be. No faults, no misprints, and no misrepresentation. Of course, you have to believe that it is what it is, or else you have nothing but your own judgement to go by. I prefer to believe in the Lord God Almighty's word than someone who is imperfect trying to justify it not being accurate.

[JoeR]

Judas's death

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Acts 1:18

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5


Which is accurate?

An important detail I would think is how to reach salvation.

The synoptic gospels describe salvation as being reliant on works or good deeds, in general on being a good person. John writes that it is reliant on faith. Which is right? Or is it both? If both, how do you explain...

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

or

Matthew 25:34-45: "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me...Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels..." which indicates being a good person as the sole criteria

[dittohead not!]

Another troublesome word is "virgin." It was translated from a word that referred to a young woman, or a woman who had yet to give birth. The virgin birth, therefore, isn't a miracle, but it is still important in the context of the culture of the time. What it really meant was that the man born of a virgin stood to inherit any property owned by the family as the first born son. If you've ever read "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck, the setting is in a culture with similar values, even though it is far from the time and place of Jesus' birth.

[Craig]

Whew! I see no one called me on my error, so now I can rectify it before someone does. Unfortunately, anyone who investigated my post regarding the Architriclin could accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when making my argument. However, that was not the case; rather, if anything, it was a case of intellectual laziness. Those who are more lenient might simply say that it was a case of intellectual misleading.

When we were discussing the word "Architriclin" in class, my professor stated that Architriclin is not an English word and you will not find it in an English dictionary. I took his word for it. When composing my article, I decided to double check to see if the word appeared in the OED online, but since my professor stated it did not appear in dictionaries, I assumed that would be the case and wrote my post above in anticipation of the fact that Architriclin was indeed not found in any dictionaries.

However, in order to access the OED online, one has to type a password, and while waiting for the page to load, I jumped back to Whistlestopper and continued to type out the rest of my post. By the time I was done, I had forgotten that I was logged into the OED, and I posted my response here in the forum. Just before my next class started, I remembered the OED webpage and decided to check for the word. Sure enough, although "Architriclin" did not appear, "Architricline" did. It was defined thusly in the OED:

The president or ‘ruler’ of a feast. (Taken in mediæval legend as proper name of a rich lord.)

And, guess what the first example was of the word in English literature?

"c1250 Kent. Serm. in O.E. Misc. 29 Bereth to Architriclin, [th]at was se [th]et ferst was i-serued."

:o

However, even with this definition from the OED, we can still see that "Architriclin" is a problematic term. For instance, what were the duties of the president or "ruler" of the feast? Was the Architriclin necessarily a rich lord? While these questions might seem to be beside the point, they do reveal that our understanding of the word Architriclin, and consequently, of the sermon as a whole, is limited if we do not understand what the term truly meant in a medieval sense.

Unfortunately, this example largely falls flat because of the fact that the term does appear in the OED, but there are other examples from English or other languages of words whose full sense cannot be properly expressed in modern English.

My apologies for the error.

[Churlant]

Because it is his OWN conclusion. The bible has eyewitness accounts.

Witnesses, while useful, are not 100% reliable. I see no reason to hold the Bible's various quotations as more relevant or more important than many of Twain's own life lessons. Except, of course, as an article of faith.


If the bible is divinley inspired, then it is as accurate as accurate can be. No faults, no misprints, and no misrepresentation. Of course, you have to believe that it is what it is, or else you have nothing but your own judgement to go by. I prefer to believe in the Lord God Almighty's word than someone who is imperfect trying to justify it not being accurate.


At least you admit the belief in the Bible as infallible is just that - a belief. I'm not sure how you could possible have faith that the english translation of the Bible is error free from its original incarnation... but if the concept of a Bible with inaccuracies is a deal-breaker to your faith, then I suppose you have little choice.

-JC

[julierep]

Judas's death

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Acts 1:18

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5


Which is accurate?

An important detail I would think is how to reach salvation.

The synoptic gospels describe salvation as being reliant on works or good deeds, in general on being a good person. John writes that it is reliant on faith. Which is right? Or is it both? If both, how do you explain...

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

or

Matthew 25:34-45: "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me...Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels..." which indicates being a good person as the sole criteria


Salvation is this: you are saved through the grace of God (by sending his son to carry the sins of the world, shed his own blood for everyones sins) and by faith (that Jesus rose again, and is now seated at the throne). You have the 1st already done for you. The 2nd is up to you to have the faith to believe. Once you have these, works come from the spirit. Such as performing the will of the Father. These could be several things, but by works you can tell a mans heart. You can have good works, but not have the Holy Spirit living within you (this is where faith comes in...acceptance of Jesus Christ as the son of God, that he died and rose again, and giving him complete control of your life). This is what it means when this is said: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You cant JUST do good works and get into Heaven. You have to have accepted the gift of salvation. Works by yourself is good on earth, but dead to God, unless you accept his gift.

[julierep]

Witnesses, while useful, are not 100% reliable. I see no reason to hold the Bible's various quotations as more relevant or more important than many of Twain's own life lessons. Except, of course, as an article of faith.



At least you admit the belief in the Bible as infallible is just that - a belief. I'm not sure how you could possible have faith that the english translation of the Bible is error free from its original incarnation... but if the concept of a Bible with inaccuracies is a deal-breaker to your faith, then I suppose you have little choice.

-JC

The reason I believe it to be error free is because I believe it is divinely inspired by God. I can understand why unbelievers feel the way they do about inaccuracies. I once believed that way, but now my faith cannot be shaken.

[Churlant]

The reason I believe it to be error free is because I believe it is divinely inspired by God. I can understand why unbelievers feel the way they do about inaccuracies. I once believed that way, but now my faith cannot be shaken.

Ah, but how is 'divine inspiration' inherently error-free? It is only a convenience of definition that we end up with "perfection" as a part of 'divine' - it can also mean something as simple and imperfect as a derivation of a set of events. One could just as easily, and correctly, call any book written about God as 'divinely inspired'.

God and His Son, then, become a source of the inspiration, and while the source may be perfect, the Bible itself was written by imperfect men to be translated by imperfect men and, ultimately, to be read by imperfect men.

As to myself and people I know, there is no issue with accepting the Bible and stories contained within as being inspired by God, yet recorded by humanity - and subject to any errors inherent to that condition.

Again I ask why this concept is a crisis to your faith? Do you somehow equate perfection of Biblical accuracy with perfection of God in general? Believing the Bible to somehow contain a flaw of transcription or translation would require a belief in God also being flawed?

-JC

[julierep]

Again I ask why this concept is a crisis to your faith? Do you somehow equate perfection of Biblical accuracy with perfection of God in general? Believing the Bible to somehow contain a flaw of transcription or translation would require a belief in God also being flawed?

-JC

I wouldnt say it was a crisis to my faith, instead that my faith leads me to believe it is accurate. I do equate the perfection of the bible and God. Simple words may have been changed as to change into the language itself, but nothing of worth, nothing that changes the facts that I believe to be correct.

[Churlant]

I wouldnt say it was a crisis to my faith, instead that my faith leads me to believe it is accurate. I do equate the perfection of the bible and God. Simple words may have been changed as to change into the language itself, but nothing of worth, nothing that changes the facts that I believe to be correct.

Well... logically, if you equate a 100% accurate Bible with a perfect God, and you one day found out the Bible had some errors, the 'perfect God' half of the equation would be in danger. Sounds like a mini-crisis, at the very least, and it would explain why your faith must remain "unshaken".

The process here is curious... even beyond pure translations, which truly would change some 'facts' as you believe them since many words simply do not have accurate english substitutions... do you accept that men - fully human men - wrote the Bible itself? Is it part of your faith that these men, though human and inherenly imperfect, somehow managed to put together and maintain a book which is perfect?

-JC

[Captain America]

I could care less if Julie worshipped a pet rock. Whatever she is about, it gives her grace, patience, a loving charm abounding and I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

She is a wonderful representive of the christian faith.

You go girl!

[julierep]

Well... logically, if you equate a 100% accurate Bible with a perfect God, and you one day found out the Bible had some errors, the 'perfect God' half of the equation would be in danger. Sounds like a mini-crisis, at the very least, and it would explain why your faith must remain "unshaken".

The process here is curious... even beyond pure translations, which truly would change some 'facts' as you believe them since many words simply do not have accurate english substitutions... do you accept that men - fully human men - wrote the Bible itself? Is it part of your faith that these men, though human and inherenly imperfect, somehow managed to put together and maintain a book which is perfect?

-JC

Since Gods hands were totally involved with the writting of the bible, He can do all things, which in this case, make imperfect humans write a perfect message.

[julierep]

I could care less if Julie worshipped a pet rock. Whatever she is about, it gives her grace, patience, a loving charm abounding and I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

She is a wonderful representive of the christian faith.

You go girl!

Thank you Cappy!!! Much appreciation to ya!!!

[Churlant]

Since Gods hands were totally involved with the writting of the bible, He can do all things, which in this case, make imperfect humans write a perfect message.

Sounds reasonable. This brings up some additional questions as far as content is concerned... but the premise would remain the same.

Oh, and I don't suggest taking Cap's idea to heart... I worshipped a pet rock once, and then I dropped it... :(

-JC

[dittohead not!]

Salvation is this: you are saved through the grace of God (by sending his son to carry the sins of the world, shed his own blood for everyones sins) and by faith (that Jesus rose again, and is now seated at the throne). You have the 1st already done for you. The 2nd is up to you to have the faith to believe.


I'm familiar with this philosophy. Basically, it means that, in order to be saved and get into heaven, you have to believe in Christ. Therefore, the task is to make oneself believe. Now, the human animal has a huge capacity to believe what it wants to, regardless of facts or evidence, and here is a great motivation to believe a certain way. I have no doubt at all that if someone wants to believe, if he/she prays hard and sincerely, and meditates on the belief, then faith will come. Does that make it the belief true?

[julierep]

I'm familiar with this philosophy. Basically, it means that, in order to be saved and get into heaven, you have to believe in Christ. Therefore, the task is to make oneself believe. Now, the human animal has a huge capacity to believe what it wants to, regardless of facts or evidence, and here is a great motivation to believe a certain way. I have no doubt at all that if someone wants to believe, if he/she prays hard and sincerely, and meditates on the belief, then faith will come. Does that make it the belief true?

I dont think praying makes it true, because I believe it is true based on facts. If you have a willing heart to listen, then your eyes will be open to the truth. I once had a hard time finding this thing called faith. But God gave me a willing heart which opened my eyes to his truth. The only thing I can hope and pray for is that God will do the same for you and everyone else. Prayer and meditation just gives me a closer walk with Him.

[julierep]

Sounds reasonable. This brings up some additional questions as far as content is concerned... but the premise would remain the same.

Oh, and I don't suggest taking Cap's idea to heart... I worshipped a pet rock once, and then I dropped it... :(

-JC

Dont worry....I know all about those stone carved idols!! :lol:

[JoeR]

So Ghandi wouldn't get into heaven? As far as I know he wasn't a Christian.

[julierep]

So Ghandi wouldn't get into heaven? As far as I know he wasn't a Christian.

If he didnt accept the gift of salvation, then I would say no.

[dittohead not!]

According to Mormon theology, there is an account of Christ's mission in the Americas that was translated by divine power and is therefore the word of God. The Bible is correct also, "insofar as it has been translated correctly." Ghandi, and any other righteous person, would have the opportunity to accept Christ and gain salvation in the next life. Perhaps you should study that religion. It has answers to some of the questions you seem to be accepting on faith alone.

I really have a hard time with the concept of a criminal accepting Christ in his later years and going to heaven while a man like Mahatma Ghandi loses out by being a Hindu. Somehow, I'd like to think that God is more fair than that.

[JoeR]

If he didnt accept the gift of salvation, then I would say no.

If you want to follow a faith that believes that a good man would not be saved by god because he lacks faith, whatever suits you. Personally I don't think any supreme being would be so petty and unjust.

[historyteach]

OHhh, it is sooo funny seeing Julie squirm again....
And TRY to maintain composure while ignoring the facts presented! LOL!
These questions were all put forth to her before on other threads...
Translation errors; contradictory messages in the Bible; faith vs reason....
So, one more time, Julie, I'll ask you what you refused to answer before...
The Bible - the original one called the Torah - says when the messiah comes, there will be peace on earth; that the lion will lay with the lamb...
Jesus of Nazerath has come and gone...
NO ONE in their right mind will say that there has been peace on earth since is birth and death.
Now, Christians had to CHANGE the Bible to make him the messiah. They had to claim that the messiah will return AGAIN to bring this peace, in the so called "new covenent" they call the New Testament.
But, it is a CHANGE from the G*D inspired Torah!!! The one YOU claim to be truth and only truth.
Which truth is it, Julie?
You know, I believe in ONE true G*D, too, Julie. It is the G*D of the Torah.
But, I do NOT believe in the infalibility of the Torah. Not with the FACTS presented.
The trinity; with G*D the "Father"; god the son and god the holy spirit, was a creation of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, (Common Era, as opposed to AD). This religious/political controversy caused much bloodshed and killings as a result of the Nicene Creed. In 381 CE, Theodocious called another council in Constantinople, and the doctrine of the trinity became official for both the church and the state. It is important to note that the trinity was NEVER anywhere in the Bible!
Julie, it is a POLITICAL document; it's purpose was control. The trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed. It took @ 9 centuries for it to gain acceptance - if one can call it "acceptance" at the expense of one's life!
(see http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html )
Today, it is just ridicule; excommunication and judgement! LOL!

G*D expects us to use our gifts of mind, Julie. To be intellectually honest. To NOT be blind purposely. You consciously reject those gifts of mind with your position. You remain blind. Purposely. It, of course, is your life; your choice. But, how very sad, and what a waste of G*D's precious gifts!
Oh, and if you truely know nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust, (another Christian atrocity), then I suggest you really know nothing of your own religious belief!
Shalom!

[julierep]

According to Mormon theology, there is an account of Christ's mission in the Americas that was translated by divine power and is therefore the word of God. The Bible is correct also, "insofar as it has been translated correctly." Ghandi, and any other righteous person, would have the opportunity to accept Christ and gain salvation in the next life. Perhaps you should study that religion. It has answers to some of the questions you seem to be accepting on faith alone.

I really have a hard time with the concept of a criminal accepting Christ in his later years and going to heaven while a man like Mahatma Ghandi loses out by being a Hindu. Somehow, I'd like to think that God is more fair than that.

God is fair. Im sure Ghandi heard the word of God. If he denied Him, then his good deeds will go unseen in Gods eyes.

[julierep]

OHhh, it is sooo funny seeing Julie squirm again....
And TRY to maintain composure while ignoring the facts presented! LOL!
These questions were all put forth to her before on other threads...
Translation errors; contradictory messages in the Bible; faith vs reason....
So, one more time, Julie, I'll ask you what you refused to answer before...
The Bible - the original one called the Torah - says when the messiah comes, there will be peace on earth; that the lion will lay with the lamb...
Jesus of Nazerath has come and gone...
NO ONE in their right mind will say that there has been peace on earth since is birth and death.
Now, Christians had to CHANGE the Bible to make him the messiah. They had to claim that the messiah will return AGAIN to bring this peace, in the so called "new covenent" they call the New Testament.
But, it is a CHANGE from the G*D inspired Torah!!! The one YOU claim to be truth and only truth.
Which truth is it, Julie?
You know, I believe in ONE true G*D, too, Julie. It is the G*D of the Torah.
But, I do NOT believe in the infalibility of the Torah. Not with the FACTS presented.
The trinity; with G*D the "Father"; god the son and god the holy spirit, was a creation of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, (Common Era, as opposed to AD). This religious/political controversy caused much bloodshed and killings as a result of the Nicene Creed. In 381 CE, Theodocious called another council in Constantinople, and the doctrine of the trinity became official for both the church and the state. It is important to note that the trinity was NEVER anywhere in the Bible!
Julie, it is a POLITICAL document; it's purpose was control. The trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed. It took @ 9 centuries for it to gain acceptance - if one can call it "acceptance" at the expense of one's life!
(see http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html )
Today, it is just ridicule; excommunication and judgement! LOL!

G*D expects us to use our gifts of mind, Julie. To be intellectually honest. To NOT be blind purposely. You consciously reject those gifts of mind with your position. You remain blind. Purposely. It, of course, is your life; your choice. But, how very sad, and what a waste of G*D's precious gifts!
Oh, and if you truely know nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust, (another Christian atrocity), then I suggest you really know nothing of your own religious belief!
Shalom!

Historyteach, I answered your questions long ago. YOUR blindness causes you not to see the true answer. I have yet to squirm, as you say. I know the truth. I believe that YOU, my friend, are blinded. The trinity is not mentioned in the bible, I will agree with you on that, but we consider the trinity God, Jesus, and the holy spirt.....three in one....as in three bodies of one person. Get it? Good. Now you continually want to attack the chrisitian faith without attacking your own. If you believe in the Torah....you will see many, many passages that prophesy the coming of Jesus, the death, and the resurrection, just as it happened. Dont blame me because you are blind to read the truth. Ask God to open your eyes so that you may see. Dont worry, I will pray for you that the blinders will one day be torn off and that you will have a willing heart to listen to the truth.

[heel31ok]

According to Mormon theology, there is an account of Christ's mission in the Americas that was translated by divine power and is therefore the word of God. The Bible is correct also, "insofar as it has been translated correctly." Ghandi, and any other righteous person, would have the opportunity to accept Christ and gain salvation in the next life. Perhaps you should study that religion. It has answers to some of the questions you seem to be accepting on faith alone.

I really have a hard time with the concept of a criminal accepting Christ in his later years and going to heaven while a man like Mahatma Ghandi loses out by being a Hindu. Somehow, I'd like to think that God is more fair than that.
You want her to take another theology she does not believe on faith to counter act what she does believe by faith to prove that her faith is misguided while your faith in the mormon theology is not. You have a hard time with the forgiveness of sins? Ghandi does not lose out by being a Hindu, he/we lose out because of self-righteousnes . In the realm of this world our view of good and evil is based on our conduct. In God's view of good and evil it is based on the conduct of Christ. If we stand on our own works we are not good enough. The punishment for sin is death. No probation or do overs. If Ghandi was a sinless person then he had nothing to worry about. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of god. God knew this and instead of leaving mankind in this perpetual state he made provision that would declare us innocent of the charges and guilt free. This would occur not by great things we did and good deeds but by the act of recognition and humbleness to accept a gift from someone else who in fact had no sin. Damnation and death do not reside in the fact that we choose hinduism etc, but inthe fact that we are self righteous enough to believe we can make it on our own merit . This is self righteousness . A criminal who accepts forgiveness after a lifetime of evil is a sign not of injustice for the things he/she has done but is a sign of the overwhelming grace and love that God has for each one and that there" is not a pit so deep that he is not deeper still." It is not of the works of a man that makes him righteous it is by grace we are saved through faith. God is fair but he is no respector of persons he makes salvation available to all with the same requirements and if one accepts and one does not there is no fault with God but with the one who rejects him. This is illustrated in the story about the man who hired a worker for the day and promised to pay him a certain amopunt. The worker agreed and began to work. Later another worker came by andaccepted the same offer though he only worked part of the day. The first man objected and said it was unfair that he worked all day for thesame amount as the one who only worked part of the day. The Boss asked him why he was upset when he had agreed on the price and terms and it had nothing to do with the yerms of the other man. God offers us all the same reward of salvation no matter when it coomes. God's love for mankind is not based on what we do but on who we are. He has chosen to love us therefore that love and favor is not earned on the works of good we do .Therefore salvation is not through how good we are and damnation is not through how bad we are but through the acceptance or rejection of the righteousness of God and how good He is.

[Churlant]

God is fair. Im sure Ghandi heard the word of God. If he denied Him, then his good deeds will go unseen in Gods eyes.

Doesn't seem very fair to me.. but then, I suppose God's sense of fairness is much more realistic than my own.

This does bring up a contradiction, however... under this restriction, if Ghandi had no good deeds to his name, yet accepted God, he would go to Heaven and yet a Ghandi who worked all his life for the benefit of others would be denied because he's not a Christian?

-JC

[julierep]

Doesn't seem very fair to me.. but then, I suppose God's sense of fairness is much more realistic than my own.

This does bring up a contradiction, however... under this restriction, if Ghandi had no good deeds to his name, yet accepted God, he would go to Heaven and yet a Ghandi who worked all his life for the benefit of others would be denied because he's not a Christian?

-JC

God gives everyone the opportunity to accept his gift of salvation. The only sin that is unforgivable is denying the father. If some horrible person came to accept the Son, then God would accept him into his kingdom. Like it says in the bible, "works without faith is dead." However, I can see how this might seem unfair. But if a good man like Ghandi new of God's word and denied it, then his works without his faith was dead to God, however good it was on earth.

[Churlant]

God gives everyone the opportunity to accept his gift of salvation. The only sin that is unforgivable is denying the father.

Why?

-JC

[julierep]

Why?

-JC

Because if you deny the father, you deny the son also. And since the Son is given by God's grace for the worlds salvation, then you deny the gift. However, this is if you still deny him before you die. Jesus says, "if you deny me on earth, then I will deny you in front of my Father."

[Churlant]

Because if you deny the father, you deny the son also. And since the Son is given by God's grace for the worlds salvation, then you deny the gift. However, this is if you still deny him before you die. Jesus says, "if you deny me on earth, then I will deny you in front of my Father."

At its most extreme, you are saying that an individual who creates nothing in his life but misery and pain for millions of people may be granted entrance... yet a man who has brought hope and joy to millions will not.

Despite your faith in the word of God, doesn't this seem more than a bit selfish?

-JC

[heel31ok]

OHhh, it is sooo funny seeing Julie squirm again....
And TRY to maintain composure while ignoring the facts presented! LOL!
These questions were all put forth to her before on other threads...
Translation errors; contradictory messages in the Bible; faith vs reason....
So, one more time, Julie, I'll ask you what you refused to answer before...
The Bible - the original one called the Torah - says when the messiah comes, there will be peace on earth; that the lion will lay with the lamb...
Jesus of Nazerath has come and gone...
NO ONE in their right mind will say that there has been peace on earth since is birth and death.
Now, Christians had to CHANGE the Bible to make him the messiah. They had to claim that the messiah will return AGAIN to bring this peace, in the so called "new covenent" they call the New Testament.
But, it is a CHANGE from the G*D inspired Torah!!! The one YOU claim to be truth and only truth.
Which truth is it, Julie?
You know, I believe in ONE true G*D, too, Julie. It is the G*D of the Torah.
But, I do NOT believe in the infalibility of the Torah. Not with the FACTS presented.
The trinity; with G*D the "Father"; god the son and god the holy spirit, was a creation of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, (Common Era, as opposed to AD). This religious/political controversy caused much bloodshed and killings as a result of the Nicene Creed. In 381 CE, Theodocious called another council in Constantinople, and the doctrine of the trinity became official for both the church and the state. It is important to note that the trinity was NEVER anywhere in the Bible!
Julie, it is a POLITICAL document; it's purpose was control. The trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed. It took @ 9 centuries for it to gain acceptance - if one can call it "acceptance" at the expense of one's life!
(see http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html )
Today, it is just ridicule; excommunication and judgement! LOL!

G*D expects us to use our gifts of mind, Julie. To be intellectually honest. To NOT be blind purposely. You consciously reject those gifts of mind with your position. You remain blind. Purposely. It, of course, is your life; your choice. But, how very sad, and what a waste of G*D's precious gifts!
Oh, and if you truely know nothing of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust, (another Christian atrocity), then I suggest you really know nothing of your own religious belief!
Shalom! I do not see julie squirming at all , in fact I see her sticking to her priciples just as she always does. The squirming that seems apparent to you is the fact that she continues to hold on to reasons for her faith that seem to you foreign and illogical. But in fact her logic is sound and based on the foundation of her beliefs. This makes many who disagree with her squirm and transfer that to her. To address your Holocaust remark I think the intellectual dishonestly lies with you. You need to revisit your history ...teach. Where is it that shows that christianity was responsible for it? If you recall Hitler claimed to rebuild the Arian race . Well alittle research would show that the arians were involved with the split with the catholic church of rome because of their rejection of the divinity of Christ, which in itself rejects the notion of a christian sect or denomination and would it directly in the line of a cult and all the trappings that go with it. This is certainly not a representation of christianity and the evils by him and others during this time do no and cannot associate itself with christianity when the two are opposed in theology and general overall beliefs. One being of bgood and the other born out of obvious evil. the enemy Satan is not a creative being but can only imitate. He was and is jealous of the Son of God and uses the things that Christ has done and does and has perverted them in cheap imitations . This will all culminate in the ultimate imitation as he trys to become flesh just as Christ did and enters the totally evil andsurrendered life of a man who will be known as the Anti-christ, thus illustrating the perverted imitation.

[julierep]

At its most extreme, you are saying that an individual who creates nothing in his life but misery and pain for millions of people may be granted entrance... yet a man who has brought hope and joy to millions will not.

Only if the individual who created nothing accepted the word of God, and the one who did much denied the word of God.

Despite your faith in the word of God, doesn't this seem more than a bit selfish?

-JC

Putting my faith aside, I would say yes, it seems unfair. But really, it is even hard for me to say that since I do understand how God's love is just and fair. It is definatley hard for someone of faith to say that it isnt fair, but stepping out of the box, I could definatley see it.

[julierep]

I do not see julie squirming at all , in fact I see her sticking to her priciples just as she always does. The squirming that seems apparent to you is the fact that she continues to hold on to reasons for her faith that seem to you foreign and illogical. But in fact her logic is sound and based on the foundation of her beliefs. This makes many who disagree with her squirm and transfer that to her. To address your Holocaust remark I think the intellectual dishonestly lies with you. You need to revisit your history ...teach. Where is it that shows that christianity was responsible for it? If you recall Hitler claimed to rebuild the Arian race . Well alittle research would show that the arians were involved with the split with the catholic church of rome because of their rejection of the divinity of Christ, which in itself rejects the notion of a christian sect or denomination and would it directly in the line of a cult and all the trappings that go with it. This is certainly not a representation of christianity and the evils by him and others during this time do no and cannot associate itself with christianity when the two are opposed in theology and general overall beliefs. One being of bgood and the other born out of obvious evil. the enemy Satan is not a creative being but can only imitate. He was and is jealous of the Son of God and uses the things that Christ has done and does and has perverted them in cheap imitations . This will all culminate in the ultimate imitation as he trys to become flesh just as Christ did and enters the totally evil andsurrendered life of a man who will be known as the Anti-christ, thus illustrating the perverted imitation.

I have to say, you hit it right on the nail!! Thank you for pointing that out to history teach. Im not quite sure that she/he will be able to understand though if the heart is not open to hear. :)

[Churlant]

Putting my faith aside, I would say yes, it seems unfair. But really, it is even hard for me to say that since I do understand how God's love is just and fair. It is definatley hard for someone of faith to say that it isnt fair, but stepping out of the box, I could definatley see it.

Well then.. stay outside the box a moment longer and answer me this...

Why would you choose to worship a God who is more concerned with His own Majesty than the well-being of His sentient creations?

Does it seem even a small part bizarre to you that Jesus would commit such a tremendous and selfless act of sacrifice and redemption for us all, only to turn around and make a purely selfish, uncompromising demand in return?

-JC

[julierep]

Well then.. stay outside the box a moment longer and answer me this...

Why would you choose to worship a God who is more concerned with His own Majesty than the well-being of His sentient creations?
God is not only concerned with his own majesty, he is concerned for his children as well. That is why he sent his Son to die a horrible death so that the sins of his children were easily forgiven.

Does it seem even a small part bizarre to you that Jesus would commit such a tremendous and selfless act of sacrifice and redemption for us all, only to turn around and make a purely selfish, uncompromising demand in return?

-JC

I dont believe it was selfish since this is the reason he did what he did. So that anyone can come to the father thru himself and his act of sacrifice. That was the entire purpose of the death on the cross and the resurection. God wants to have an intimate relationship with each of his children. I dont mean this to sound harsh, but I believe that someone not willing to have that relationship with God is being selfish. Selfish in that he/she is not willing to lay down his life as the Son laid down his life for them. I really am trying to step out of the box but it is so hard to when your faith is so consuming. :)

[Churlant]

God is not only concerned with his own majesty, he is concerned for his children as well. That is why he sent his Son to die a horrible death so that the sins of his children were easily forgiven.


Yet a person who provides a lifetime of good to His children will still be denied based on their faith? Perhaps He is concerned with both, but "works without faith are dead" tells me He cares more for Himself.


I dont believe it was selfish since this is the reason he did what he did. So that anyone can come to the father thru himself and his act of sacrifice. That was the entire purpose of the death on the cross and the resurection. God wants to have an intimate relationship with each of his children. I dont mean this to sound harsh, but I believe that someone not willing to have that relationship with God is being selfish. Selfish in that he/she is not willing to lay down his life as the Son laid down his life for them. I really am trying to step out of the box but it is so hard to when your faith is so consuming. :)

Well we are only human... I would think any standard of selfishness can't possibly be applied evently. You admit to difficulty separating from your faith, so how is another person consumed by different beliefs expected to change them so easily? There are those who have never heard the name of Jesus spoken and, in this case, would denying Him still be selfish?

-JC

[julierep]

Well we are only human... I would think any standard of selfishness can't possibly be applied evently. You admit to difficulty separating from your faith, so how is another person consumed by different beliefs expected to change them so easily? There are those who have never heard the name of Jesus spoken and, in this case, would denying Him still be selfish?

-JC

Oh, I dont believe for one second that it is easy for anyone of any faith to seperate themselves from it. I believe it has to be one of the hardest things to do. Just speaking from my own experience. God knew who he would call to be his children before this world began. I dont know why, I cant answer why he would call some and not all, the only answer I can assume is that he knew who would accept his gift and who wouldnt.

[historyteach]

SHE, as you are VERY well aware, Julie, understand what is being said completely. And, as an historian, know very well that what is being promolgated here is completely false historically.
Germany is and WAS during WWII a CHRISTIAN nation. Martin Luthor and all... Remember??? The 95 Thesis which started the Protestant Reformation against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church???
Yep, the Nazi's WERE christians.
I suggest you BOTH check your history! LOL! OMG! This IS getting a bit foolish!

Now, Julie...
"Historyteach, I answered your questions long ago. YOUR blindness causes you not to see the true answer. I have yet to squirm, as you say. I know the truth. I believe that YOU, my friend, are blinded. The trinity is not mentioned in the bible, I will agree with you on that, but we consider the trinity God, Jesus, and the holy spirt.....three in one....as in three bodies of one person. Get it? Good. Now you continually want to attack the chrisitian faith without attacking your own. If you believe in the Torah....you will see many, many passages that prophesy the coming of Jesus, the death, and the resurrection, just as it happened. Dont blame me because you are blind to read the truth. Ask God to open your eyes so that you may see. Dont worry, I will pray for you that the blinders will one day be torn off and that you will have a willing heart to listen to the truth."

I GAVE you the link on the trinity...did you bother - at all - to read it???
I thought not... Get it???
Do some BASIC research, Julie...you DO NOT answer ANYTHING.
You repeat the same ideaolgoy as you have done in the past, and leave the questions always unanswered!!!
I attack NOTHING but inconsistency. I am not, nor have I ever been anti-christian. For crying out loud!!! LOL! I WAS a christian - until I learned better - for ME. (whatever you believe is your choice...UNTIL you foist it on me - as in OUR public uildings and OUR government!) My entire family is christian. Do you think for one second that I am against them??? No, I don't AGREE with them - or you - theologically. And I have given many, many reasons why...which you continually ignore! LOL! You are just TOOOOO funny!!!
I'm blind??? Translation Julie??? Oral tradition, Julie??? Hand written documents being copied Julie???
Shall I really continue...AGAIN???
And, as I have posted in the past... Julie...the so called "passages" in the Torah which YOU say predict the coming of the messiahship of Jesus of Nazarath...well...they are from the King James version of the Bible...yep! The POLITICAL translation that is chock full of error!!! As I have pointed out to you, (and other have too) in the past!!!
But, I'm blind, huh???
You keep right on praying Julie. You might just understand...someday...when YOU open your own heart!
Shalom, Julie...
Believe it or not, I do wish you well...
Even as you stay stuck...
And squirming. :D
Shalom!

[historyteach]

Well, Julie...
"Oh, I dont believe for one second that it is easy for anyone of any faith to seperate themselves from it. I believe it has to be one of the hardest things to do."

Seems as if you HAVE been hiding your respect for me and my beliefs all this time... :D
Shalom!

[julierep]

SHE, as you are VERY well aware, Julie, understand what is being said completely. And, as an historian, know very well that what is being promolgated here is completely false historically.
Germany is and WAS during WWII a CHRISTIAN nation. Martin Luthor and all... Remember??? The 95 Thesis which started the Protestant Reformation against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church???
Yep, the Nazi's WERE christians.
I suggest you BOTH check your history! LOL! OMG! This IS getting a bit foolish!

Now, Julie...
"Historyteach, I answered your questions long ago. YOUR blindness causes you not to see the true answer. I have yet to squirm, as you say. I know the truth. I believe that YOU, my friend, are blinded. The trinity is not mentioned in the bible, I will agree with you on that, but we consider the trinity God, Jesus, and the holy spirt.....three in one....as in three bodies of one person. Get it? Good. Now you continually want to attack the chrisitian faith without attacking your own. If you believe in the Torah....you will see many, many passages that prophesy the coming of Jesus, the death, and the resurrection, just as it happened. Dont blame me because you are blind to read the truth. Ask God to open your eyes so that you may see. Dont worry, I will pray for you that the blinders will one day be torn off and that you will have a willing heart to listen to the truth."

I GAVE you the link on the trinity...did you bother - at all - to read it???
I thought not... Get it???
Do some BASIC research, Julie...you DO NOT answer ANYTHING.
You repeat the same ideaolgoy as you have done in the past, and leave the questions always unanswered!!!
I attack NOTHING but inconsistency. I am not, nor have I ever been anti-christian. For crying out loud!!! LOL! I WAS a christian - until I learned better - for ME. (whatever you believe is your choice...UNTIL you foist it on me - as in OUR public uildings and OUR government!) My entire family is christian. Do you think for one second that I am against them??? No, I don't AGREE with them - or you - theologically. And I have given many, many reasons why...which you continually ignore! LOL! You are just TOOOOO funny!!!
I'm blind??? Translation Julie??? Oral tradition, Julie??? Hand written documents being copied Julie???
Shall I really continue...AGAIN???
And, as I have posted in the past... Julie...the so called "passages" in the Torah which YOU say predict the coming of the messiahship of Jesus of Nazarath...well...they are from the King James version of the Bible...yep! The POLITICAL translation that is chock full of error!!! As I have pointed out to you, (and other have too) in the past!!!
But, I'm blind, huh???
You keep right on praying Julie. You might just understand...someday...when YOU open your own heart!
Shalom, Julie...
Believe it or not, I do wish you well...
Even as you stay stuck...
And squirming. :D
Shalom!

Still, I have yet to squirm....only sit in amazement on how you preach about freedom of religion and such in so many threads, yet you claim you are completley 100% right. Well, not according to my book. I have not changed one thing about what I say. I stick to what I believe and If I keep on repeating it, that is my fault how? Maybe it is because the same questions you raise will always have the same answers from me. Please, Please...point out the inconsistency in what I have said and the bible I believe. You cant. Now, Im the one squirming? Again, I will pray that GOd opens your heart and ears. Until then, or until you point out inconsistencies WITH MY BIBLE, then I wish you well in you journey to find happiness. I have found mine.

[julierep]

Well, Julie...
"Oh, I dont believe for one second that it is easy for anyone of any faith to seperate themselves from it. I believe it has to be one of the hardest things to do."

Seems as if you HAVE been hiding your respect for me and my beliefs all this time... :D
Shalom!

I do have respect for your religion. I dont however, respect someone who walks all over my faith. If you can respect my faith, then I can respect you as well.

[dittohead not!]

Let me get this straight. A fellow named Torquemada, who lived in Spain in the middle ages, tortured Jews simply because they were Jews who didn't believe in Christ. Torquemada must have been a true believer in order to do what he did. Therefore, the torturer is now in heaven, while his jewish prisoners are not. According to Juilerep, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you believe and accept Christ. If that's the way things are, then the greatest good you can do for yourself is to somehow convince yourself of the correctness of Christian thought and ignore centuries of bloody conquest. I hope that is just a twisted interpretation of the Bible, because I'm having a really hard time with it.

[julierep]

Let me get this straight. A fellow named Torquemada, who lived in Spain in the middle ages, tortured Jews simply because they were Jews who didn't believe in Christ. Torquemada must have been a true believer in order to do what he did. Therefore, the torturer is now in heaven, while his jewish prisoners are not. According to Juilerep, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you believe and accept Christ. If that's the way things are, then the greatest good you can do for yourself is to somehow convince yourself of the correctness of Christian thought and ignore centuries of bloody conquest. I hope that is just a twisted interpretation of the Bible, because I'm having a really hard time with it.

WHere did I say you can do whatever you want to do? What I do say is works without faith is dead. Acceptance of Christ is the first on most important part, but you also have to have fruit of the spirit as well. Fruit of the spirit includes doing good deeds. I think you got lost in transcription somewhere. And obviously you dont know what the bible teaches if you honestly believe that people that torcher others are actually a part of the christian belief, because THAT is so far from what the christian faith teaches. Get a bible, read it, and then tell me whether you think those people were true christians.

[dittohead not!]

WHere did I say you can do whatever you want to do? What I do say is works without faith is dead. Acceptance of Christ is the first on most important part, but you also have to have fruit of the spirit as well. Fruit of the spirit includes doing good deeds. I think you got lost in transcription somewhere. And obviously you dont know what the bible teaches if you honestly believe that people that torcher others are actually a part of the christian belief, because THAT is so far from what the christian faith teaches. Get a bible, read it, and then tell me whether you think those people were true christians.

Then you do believe that works are important too. I wasn't too sure. Faith without works is dead, that makes sense. Why would a supreme being reward gullibility? Works without faith is dead, no, I'm still not convinced of that. I still expect that Ghandi was rewarded for his good works, Hindu or not.

I have read the Bible, and, no, the people who carried out the Inquisition (Torquemada et al) were not true Christians in my opinion. They may have believed in Christ, but it takes more than that to be a Christian. From your earlier posts, it seemed that you were saying that such people are forgiven of even the most egregeous sins simply by believing, which is why I posted such an extr