Maybe I misunderstood that forgiving for him would be the difference between getting into the book of life or not. The earthly parable would be telling a guy you forgive him after you've sucker punched him, then rinse and repeat.
So explain to me how selling your daughter as a sex slave as described in scripture good, including the historical context. And while you are at it, answer these questions: 1.Do you believe that an old grandmother, who lived a life of caring for others, bringing joy to dozens, will be condemned to an afterlife of eternal suffering if she didnât accept Jesus as her saviour? 2.Do you believe women are inferior to men, should remain submissive, and can never be allowed to teach men or have authority over them? 3.Do you believe homosexuals should be killed? Not just âtheyâre going to hellâ, but actually be wiped out? 4.Do you believe that anyone who worship or believe in a God different from the Christian God should be condemned to death? 5. Do you believe slavery is OK? 6.Do you believe that there are cases in which a raped woman should be killed along with, or even instead of, the rapist? 7.Do you believe disobedient children should be killed? 8.Do you believe that, when waging war, it is proper to commit genocide, killing every man, woman and child plus animals in the enemy nation â except for, in some particular cases, female virgins, who can be taken as âspoilsâ? As I am sure you know all of these are commanded in the Bible in a very clear way. BTW-I never put out scripture in a "bad way" as I quote the Bible directly. So am I to take your comment about me putting it out in the "bad way" means that there is good and bad scripture. I thought it was all perfect and not subject to interpretation. I full well understand the historical context, but not the rationalized versions sometimes put forth by the American Taliban to rationalize it away. For example, why are homosexuals condemned using Leviticus 18:22 as a basis, while those casting that stone completely ignore Lev.1-21 and Lev. 23-30 as well as almost all of the other commands given in Leviticus? Your pitiful friend in Christ and Holy Scripture may peace be upon you, Seneca ps-my favorite story was when I was eating in a restaurant next to a group of I assume Christians who were discussing the evils of homosexuals and how it was an abomination. funny, they were having shrimp and lobster, ironically condemned as follows: Leviticus 11:9-12: 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Do you actually believe you are right because you posted someone's opinion on the subject? I posted facts. I named several real occourances. And I posted 2 occourances that had happened in the last few days. AND i proved by your own posts (to which you have conveniently avoided responding to) that you yourself feel the very same way against Christians, which proves my point. Now which one of us has the wishful thinking in this scenario? Which one of us has the "lead" thinking? Let me tell you something... for all of your effort to ignore and run away from the truth, you will one day come to sorely regret it. I would hope that someday soon you would take a moment to examine your heart, your intent, your desire to disprove God, and truly be willing to even lay down your ideas about God and Christianity long enough to truly seek after the truth. I did! And its wonderful!
Welcome back Gringinho! I remember you! Regarding singling out certain atheists... Not criticize Christians; but defame, degrade, intimidate and seek to destroy Christians. Those are the ones I am referring to, and you would have known that had you read my post more closely. Regarding Christmas... this is an old and tired argument. Do you know how homosexuals use rainbows to represent their organizations? Did you know that rainbows are symbols of God's covenant with man to never again flood the earth? By the logic you have presented, you are claiming that homosexuals changed the meaning of what rainbows represent, and now no one can use any kind of rainbow without it meaning something homosexual. Do you really believe that? If i claimed that... oh, i don't know... trading online was an act of worship of God, and all the Christians starting doing it as an act of worship... would you cease doing it because of what I/we said it means? The fact is, it makes no difference what Christmas trees or any other symbolic WAS used for, or what MAN said they represented.. What matters is what it IS used for. The symbolisms of anything used in some pagan religion does not taint that thing for all time, particularly if it is something that man came up with as opposed to God. And if you think it does, then you need to get your thinking straight, and stop throwing around nonsense that you do not understand.
I have neither the time nor the energy nor the interest to address the drivel that continually spouts from your keyboard. You know little about what you are talking about. As an example, you quote Leviticus, and have absolutely no clue about the whole context of Scripture. This is the part quoted above. I will deal with this issue, and ignore your future babbling. You do not seem to realize your ignorance of what you keep harping on, so it is impossible to correct your continuing foolishness. The passage you deal with applies in the Old Testament, and is still followed by Jews. The New Testament is a new covenant, unlike the Old Covenant in the Levitical passage you quote (Jer 31:31-32 - I will make a New covenant unlike the Old) From Acts 10:9-48 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=31 in particular, God opens the covenant to include Gentiles. He sends a vision to Peter to kill and eat "unclean" animals as you reference: ...Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." and then Peter realized that God was adding the previously excluded Gentiles, who were "unclean." Those things that were previously not to be eaten, were no longer forbidden. This is also clearly mentioned in other New Testament passages. 27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So the Christians you were laughing about were perfectly fine in their action and you were perfectly clueless. You were the clueless one. As I said above and repeat, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. And again, you continue to wield scripture like a 2 year old wields an Uzi. The more you say, the more you keep continuing to prove your ineptitude. Go back to Kindergarten, little boy.
His post was spot on the mark, although the logic sequence was not completely sound, the observations were good and important, I think. Much of philosophy becomes very difficult to accurately describe to others, since concepts and words do not accurately convey meanings or similar structures as those we may have perceived ourselves; not even longer phrases or metaphores may always be able to do a good enough job. Therefore it become just as important to be able to reason ourselves about philosophy when studying, in stead of just "getting the blanks filled in by reading information". Sadly, few show such skills or insight - but then it is not to be expected everywhere either. If someone gets to where they were supposed to and do not interfere with me, then I don't mind what kind of belief system they have - they are all free individuals to me. It's when they start fucking up things for us others that I really react... Finally, Christianity is one of the biggest stealers from other religions and traditions around - to get "accepted" and it is a quilt of bizarre contradictions - just like it always has been. It tries to assimilate anything it can't stand up to - instead of being able to define some clear path. It is a weird phenomenon - and mostly a social thing, with a hierarchical theme for those seeking powers over others - just like user "I am..." pointed out about idoltry etc and I completely agree with that. If Abrahmic religion wasn't used so much to gain power and control over others, it would be a much more giving thing - on a personal level, where it can actually do some good for those in need of a personal religion, and not being inclined or adept at understanding the philosophy and science of humanity, the universe etc but seeking religion as an easy substitute.
The biggest problem is the way the world views Christianity, grouping it, as religions as a whole. Everyoneâs looking for a set of ârules of conductâ to follow, and in doing so, establish a form of self worth. How ever while the Bible does set out a âcodeâ or ârules of conductâ, The 10 Commandments and the Mosaic Law, the law was given to show man, how no one could live by it, manâs sinful nature, hence the need for sacrifice and intervention by God. Man kind was made to be in communion with God, hardwired into the human psyche there exist this unfulfilled void and the need to search for something bigger than ourselves. From ancient times, looking for correlations in the earth and stars to todayâs religious ideologies, if you donât believe this, just go into any book store and look at the self-help section, there are aisles of books all looking for some direction to make ourselves better and fill that void. Only most folks donât know how. Some search in religion, others by helping others, some turn inwards, but they all look for the âthingâ that will make them feel complete. This void exists because the communion with God has been broken by sin, donât fool yourselves, it doesnât matter how good you think you are, each and every one of us has done something, or many somethings we know were wrong in our lifetimes. In doing so, our imperfection by sin, has broken the ability to commune with a perfect and holy God. When God created man and woman and placed them in the Garden of Eden, He walked and talked with them, they were there to have a âpersonal relationshipâ with God. But by their sin âan act of free willâ they broke that ability to commune. That barrier now exists in this earth, itâs a part of mankindâs fallen nature, but donât take that as an excuse, because all of us have slipped up a time or two. And no matter how hard we try we will always slip up every now and then. Christianity, or better the Bible shows a way for man to find that bridge, and reestablish communion with God. As this is what God wants, to have personal communion, much like a Father has with his Children, with each and every one of us. Itâs not about doing enough good to tip the scales of âgood vs. badâ so Iâm deemed good enough. That path is impossible to achieve, as there is no balance point except âperfectionâ. What it is about, is reestablishing and experiencing a ârealâ personal connection with God. Once that happens, you will find yourself wanting to do what God wants, not out of obligation but out of appreciation and love. It doesnât mean that we will be perfect in our actions here on earth, but our focus will be on pleasing God. The Bible says, there will come a time where people will say,â Lord!, Lord! havenât we done this and that in Your name?â And God will say, âDepart from me, for I never knew you?â Matt: 7: 21-23 It is impossible to understand without the help of God, but He will to who ever asks and seeks for Him. The answers are all there in the Bible, it doesnât contradict itself when God gives you the understanding. I hope all here will seek him. Peace.
Great post, Wallet. I really like this part: "What it is about, is reestablishing and experiencing a ârealâ personal connection with God. Once that happens, you will find yourself wanting to do what God wants, not out of obligation but out of appreciation and love. It doesnât mean that we will be perfect in our actions here on earth, but our focus will be on pleasing God."
More factual data for jem: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113...K0jLVEeolbLLJ94 By MEG KINNARD, Associated Press Writer Meg Kinnard, Associated Press Writer Thu Nov 13, 6:33 pm ET COLUMBIA, S.C. â A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote. "Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein. "Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation." During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights. But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers â and voters â should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. In their annual fall meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights. According to national exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. In South Carolina, which McCain carried, voters in Greenville County â traditionally seen as among the state's most conservative areas â went 61 percent for the Republican, and 37 percent for Obama. "It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same." Conservative Catholics criticized Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 for supporting abortion rights, with a few Catholic bishops saying Kerry should refrain from receiving Holy Communion because his views were contrary to church teachings. Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. A Boston-based group that supports Catholic Democrats questioned the move, saying it was too extreme. "Father Newman is off base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words." A man who has attended St. Mary's for 18 years said he welcomed Newman's message and anticipated it would inspire further discussion at the church. "I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."