Remember, you asked me to say a few things. I gotta run now, so you won't have to hear any more stories...
I see that reason and rationality enter the picture here. I guess that's why as much as I would love to take a "live and let live", or "disbelieve and let believe", kind of stance, I feel I have to, from time to time (whenever I read the latest survey highlighting the abysmal scientific literacy in america) take a swipe at the religious view of the world. But I'm sure I'll get over it again soon. As for your "religious experience" that you shared, there's a lot I could say about it, but I suspect you're committed to your own (religious) interpretation of it no matter what so I'll just let it go.
and ten years from now you'll have renounced christianity like you did the occult and hitched your nut wagon to another star.. like to many cranks flavor of the day. :-/
Me: >I ask because though it is technically possible to answer >yes to all of the above questions and still not be in conflict >with your statement (meaning you were in the occult before >you were "saved"), a different impression could very much >be derived. Shoe: >Not sure what you mean... Well the statement "I was into the occult before I became a Christian" would lead some to believe that christianity delivered you from the occult - or the occult led you to chrisitianity (take your pick). It's pretty easy to demonstrate (woops...there is that word "demon"...any timely significance here?) through cultural evidence that had it not been for your christian background and thus the indoctrination(or perhaps only knowledge) in the "devil" entity that you would have likely never been in the "occult". In other words, christianity led you to the occult and not visa versa. Had your answer been "I was a player in the occult and one day learned about this heretofore unknown christian thing and ended up there". Then my hypo would have not been applicable. JB
turok dont waste your time you got a nutbar on other end, rules of reason mean nothing to cranks so whats the point :-/
>turok don't waste your time you got a nutbar on >other end, rules of reason mean nothing to cranks >so whats the point :-/ Though one should separate the judgement of a persons philosophy/religion from the person themselves it is often hard to do and I am as guilty as probably anyone. I will often rush to judgement of a persons beliefs just because of how they act on such a forum as this. My knowledge of the above weakness of man compels me to at least attempt to not be a crank but to rather present a taste that is in some way palatable. I sometimes fail. JB
Jem, I asked a buddy of mine about the genealogies. I had an idea that it couldn't be so simple that the idea of a Mary genealogy derives from that verse in Luke. I mean, that one was just so black&white that it referred to Joseph I couldn't imagine how it could be spun into a Mary genealogy. Well, lo & behold, my buddy claims Matthew's as the Mary genealogy. I was more than a bit bamboozled by that one, as I thought that one was even more clearly a Joseph genealogy. But watch this: Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary At first glance, to an English speaker, this appears as if Joseph is Mary's husband. But wait! The Aramaic word that is translated into English as husband is "gavra", meaning "mighty man" or "man of the house". Joseph, as husband, would not be the "gavra", until the father of the household died, meaning that the "gavra" here must refer to Mary's father. Apparently, in Matthew 1:19, Joseph is referred to as "bala", meaning "husband". So Mary's father is named Joseph and her husband is named Joseph. Um, my first reaction to this is that that's all fine, only the gospel's were originally composed in Greek, not Aramaic! I love the lengths apologists will go to! This one's a classic!