Under a thread you had made a statement about what we deserve...rather..I think you said the ONLY thing we deserve is eternal death in hell.
I am wanting to know why you think that. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know you are a christian and what they teach you is we are nothing but bad sinful creatures who do not deserve anything ...especially the "gift" of heaven. Why?
Also, why would your God...who is all so merciful- place those who do not abide by his laws in hell? The place that was created
for not man but for Satan and his demons.
Another question I have is if hell didn't exist...would you still follow God? Would you still try sooooo hard not to sin? Cause I'm thinking that a lot of people get sucked into the christian faith because they are scared of going to hell.

Hey, Flash!

Nice to see you again. :)

Thank you, TS. :) Good to see you
around.

Flash--

One of my first memories of having a negative impression of the Jesus-God came when I was in third grade. The older sister of a girl in my class fell ill with something ... I never did learn what. But nobody would have known about it if Teri, my classmate, hadn't run around telling people that God had struck down her sister for telling a lie to their mother. This, of course, was the parents' summation.

Well, we all know there's no atheists in foxholes. Parents and family were unable to counter the idea ... they assumed, apparently, that telling me such events were untrue would encourage me to tell lies. Thus I spent the next six months praying, every night, for my salvation and apologizing to God.

After I learned better, I was dumb enough to try again. That came apart for its own reasons, which are irrelevant at this time. But the deepest impression I have from the sum of both of those experiences was that I did not, at any time, encounter a person who could express the idea of Good for Goodness sake. It always had to be because someone else said so, and that I (we) would be punished otherwise.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Tiassa,
Thank you for sharing your experiences... Man, I can certainly relate to them!

Any one who believes that everyone is going to hell and that we dont deserve to go to heaven is obviously NOT a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (or Joshua of Bethlehem :)). Jesus preached forgiveness and love. I believe that it was Jesus who said Love the sinner, Hate the sin. It was not until Paul and Peter that the concept became warped, and so called christians warp it even more.

People blaming illness on lies are blindly following the bible, something which Jesus strictly preached against.

You raised some great questions. I shall try my best to answer them.

""""ONLY thing we deserve is eternal death in hell.""""

The Bibles says all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God. It also states that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. The whole idea is that whithout forgiveness and God's grace we all seem to be destined for hell. We cannot uphold the law God has given us and we cannot enter heaven by doing good deeds, like giving money to charity or by never cheating on a test. Though, if your faith in God does not produce "works" then your faith in God never was. The last statement contradicts itself, by definition, if you were to break it down but you get the point.

We can't get to heaven by being a good person on our own. It's not us thats special, but God inside of us that makes us special.

""""I know you are a christian and what they teach you is we are nothing but bad sinful creatures who do not deserve anything """

First of all, who is they? If your refering to the authors of the Bible then I'd have to agree with you. That is what they state. If your refering to me being spoon fed by my parents and church or being brainwashed by sunday school then I'd have to disagree with you. Wasn't raised Chrsitian. I was in a way raised sort of christian. Was raised roman catholic but it was just a tradition thing. Never talked about God nor read the Bible in my house and barely attended church. I did go to a catholic school for a year and a half but I never attended sunday school nor do I currently attend church. I have nothing against church. Its a great place to strengthen your relationship with Jesus and it is, afterall, the body of Christ. Most Christians who resent church usually stereotype it or they are in the cynical stage of their walk with Jesus.

"""Also, why would your God...who is all so merciful- place those who do not abide by his laws in hell?""""

It was once said that" God does not send people to hell, people send themselves there." But yes, God did create hell and he does send people their who do not accept his gift of eternal life. Not everyone things of hell as a literal lake of fire. Some view it as "separation from God" and some Christians illogically deny its exsistence. The earth is like a testing ground. God is the judge. You either pass or fail.

There is a difference sometimes between goodness and kindness. It may be kind to do your children's homwork for them so they can go out and play but is that a good thing to do? God punishes sin. I don't understand everything. God's thoughts, as the bible declares, are higher than our thoughts.

This helps ease my questions when I think about why humans have to suffer:
Story of Job
'Job lost his family to "a mighty wind," his wealth to war and fire, and his health to painful boils. Through it all, God never told Job why it was happening. As Job endured the accusations of his friends, heaven remained silent. When God finally did speak Neither did the Lord apologize for allowing Satan to test Job's devotion to God. Instead, God talked about mountain goats giving birth, young lions on the hunt, and ravens in the nest. He cited the behavior of the ostrich, the strength of the ox, and the stride of the horse. He cited the wonders of the heavens, the marvels of the sea, and the cycle of the seasons. Job was left to conclude that if God had the power and wisdom to create this physical universe, there was reason to trust that same God in times of suffering.'

"Another question I have is if hell didn't exist...would you still follow God? Would you still try sooooo hard not to sin? Cause I'm thinking that a lot of people get sucked into the christian faith because they are scared of going to hell.""""

I'd still follow God but would I sin more? Yes. If there were no punishments for crime in our society there would be a lot more stealing and raping and murders than we see today. Thank God for the law that he gave us. It helps limit the spread of wickedness in our world. Raise a child strictly and let one do whatever he wants whenever and I think, over all, statistics would show a difference. Look at children in other countries who get cained and stuff. Th more laws and the harsher the punishment the less evil there is in society. There will always be acceptions to the rule but I wasn't seeking for some paradise land before I became a Christian. yes, the offer of heaven sounds great, but I was just looking for the truth. Is there a God? How am I supposed to act? Whats good and what isn't? How can I be a better person?

"""""One of my first memories of having a negative impression of the Jesus-God came """""

Why does this give you an ill impression of Jesus and not just the person who did these things? If a full grown adult commits a crime do you blame his parents? If einstien were arrested for shoplifting does that make e=mc^2 wrong? That is a very poor reason for unbelief. Hopefully, you have better and more thought out reasons for not believing in God but I doubt it. Most skeptics use circular arguments that are not well thought out.

"""Any one who believes that everyone is going to hell"""

I don't know anyone, in their right mind, who thinks every single person that ever was, is, or will be is going to go to hell. Do you?

""""and that we dont deserve to go to heaven is obviously NOT a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (or Joshua of Bethlehem)""""

You must deny portions of the new testament. How do you know which parts are true and which aren't? If you take the entire Bible as the word of God then you would realize that we don't deserve heaven. If we all got what we deserved then we would all be in a lot of trouble.

""""Jesus preached forgiveness and love. I believe that it was Jesus who said Love the sinner, Hate the sin. It was not until Paul and Peter that the concept became warped, and so called christians warp it even more.""""

Again, if you find portions of scripture warped how do you know that is was Paul and Peter's teachings that were warped and not Jesus'?

""""People blaming illness on lies are blindly following the bible, something which Jesus strictly preached against.""""

Where did Jesus say not to follow the Bible? The new testament wasn't even around when he was preaching. But I do agree (sort of) with what you said about blaming illness on lies. The story of the blind man in the Gospel of John (chapter 9) debunks it. Check out who sinned so that man was born blind. Niether his parents nor him. He was born blind so that the works of God may be manifested in him.

Hope this helped.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!




[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited December 07, 1999).]

Continuing my last post about John chapter 9. A physical calamity might befall on you because of sin. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah and also those people eaten by a bear for making wisecracks about elisha or elijas (one of them) bald head. But to tell a child or anyone that every sickness or pain they feel is from a lie they just told or something is biblically inaccurate. Aside from John 9, Genesis says the same. Eve's pain in child bearing would be greatly increased after the fall. There was pain before the fall. It didn't say she would now feel pain but that it would be increased.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited December 07, 1999).]

Ilgwamh ....

Vinnie, I have to admit that I find it odd how you summarize John 9--that the blind man was born so expressly for the sake of godly works.

"And the LORD so loves His people that He might inflict great suffering so that they should prostrate themselves before Him and beg His mercy."

Hey, I could write the Bible, eh? But it is those seemingly miniscule questions which crack the most perfect veneer of faith.

* "Why does this give you an ill impression of Jesus and not just the person who did these things?" (re: 'My first negative impression') That's a great question Vinnie, and the only answer I can really offer is that, oh, I was EIGHT when this happened. Tell me, if someone told you that the wrong answer to your parents could get God to hurt you, would that really make your heart swell with love? If Jesus is unhappy with the way his people are representing him on this Earth, then he might want to get his resurrected butt off the sofa and explain a few things before the whole idea is lost.

* "Again, if you find portions of scripture warped how do you know that is was Paul and Peter's teachings that were warped and not Jesus'?" Thank you, Vinnie ... I think it's important to acknowledge that possibility. But I do admit that when "moral" issues come up (what you say, who you screw, ad infinitum), much of what we accept as Jesus' words was written by those who came after him.

* "I'd still follow God but would I sin more?" More the paragraph that goes with the statement than that statement itself. I think it's interesting what you have to say about punishment and evil. As I read your thinking, Singapore, then, is one of the most Godly nations in the world. In addition to public caning, there's a great evil about that land. If more than four people gather in public, they can be charged with Subversion of the Government; this discretion is left to the observing officers. Singapore's best-seller novels are mere tour guides wrapped in a mystery so thin Hollywood wouldn't touch it. Voting is a health risk ... choosing the opposition earns you uncollected garbage, substandard utility service, and a lack of police protection throughout the guilty voting district. Drool on the street, it's $2500 and jail time. And all in the name of making people happier and more peaceful.

* "Most skeptics use circular arguments that are not well thought out." Skeptics of God itself? Or skeptics of the God of the Christians? I'm not sure it makes much difference. But pre-Christian thinkers from Greece and Rome gave us ideas that lasted through the Christian age. And major technological progress seems to worry Christians. Much of the Christian effort in the two millennia since Christ walked has to do with three things: establishing their credibility in the world; advancing their tangible authority in the world; and developing their own philosophy. That's not a complete summary, though, I admit. I'm addressing perceived general trends. But the circular, ill-thought arguments of the ancient Greek philosophers worked well enough to guide the world through today.

I've mentioned it somewhere at these boards before, but I would like to offer one of my favorite circular arguments. Now I admit that faith might be as regional as dialect, because I don't often here this outside of two general forums: Oregon, and television ministries. The argument essentially goes as follows:

* "You must _____ because the Bible says so."
"Why because your Bible says so?"
"Because God wrote the Bible and makes the rules."
"How do you know God wrote the Bible?"
"The Bible says so."

I admit that if Einstein tried to make shoplifting an integral part of general relativity, that might damage the theory's credibility. But shoplifting itself has nothing to do with relativity. However, unless parents wish to remove themselves from the instruction of their child ... doesn't lying to them about a "truth" damage the truth?

Apples, dear sir, are apples. And nails in the wrist are nails in the wrist. The two are not similar, except perhaps existentially.

If Einstein shoplifted .... I have to thank you, Vinnie. I'll be laughing about that all night. :D

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

ilgwamh,


We can't get to heaven by being a good person on our own

Then why try?


It was once said that" God does not send people to hell, people send themselves there

This sounds an awfull lot like "but he maid me hit him". Ultimitly it is the choice of the person comiting the act. If thier was no God there be no sin and no Hell. On the other hand if there was no Satan there would be no God and no Heaven. Are they one in the same?

------------------
The Belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it
seems to me the depest root of all evil that is in the world
-Max Born


[This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 08, 1999).]

""""On the other hand if there was no Satan there would be no God and no Heaven.""""

Major disagreement here. Satan is not at the same level as God. Not according to the christian faith nor the bible. Satan was created like everything else. Satan is not equal and opposite of God. He may be opposite in that he wants to be God and do his own will but he is definately not equal. God could have chosen just to not create Satan if he wanted to I guess. If he didn't create satan it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. thats very illogical.

"""Ultimitly it is the choice of the person comiting the act. If thier was no God there be no sin and no Hell."""

The non-existence of God is impossible. Do you know what the biblical definition of sin is?

The "choice of the person commiting the act"?
Yeah, I guess a police man chooses to arrest you if he knows your guilty of murder. But this scenario is a little different because if there wasn't a police man there would still be crime. If God didn't exist there
wouldn't even be nothing. Yeah, so God sends you to hell But your free will is mainly responsible for it. You know the punishment for killing someone. If you perform this act you are subjecting yourself to that pumishment. Sometimes you just have to face the music. That is the way things are. When you jump off a building you fall. Sin must be punished accordind to God.

Hell may be a blessing in disguise for non-believers. Those who reject God here on earth might be subjected to an even crueler punishment if they were forced into heaven. But thats just an opinion.

""""Then why try?""""""

From what perspective should I answer this? According to athiesm life seems pretty meaningless and it doesn't matter if you try or not so you don't have to. Whatever floats your boat. But if you do not obey the law you will have to pay the consequences. Its your choice. The judicial system isn't going to buy the claim that "moral values are relative."

From a Christisan perpsective we are to always strive to get better. Its called growth. We will never be perfect here in this universe but the bible clearly tells us how to act and the holy spirit convicts us of certain things. We can get better as we grow more but never perfect till the new world. Why try? Obediance to God. Why study science? We will never know every single little detail about everything like what it was like before our universe came into existence (was created). Why bother with science when our physical descriptuion of the universe will always be limited and never reach perfection?

If you can walk into a battered womens shelter and not feel bad for those women then your probably not human. Human beings have hearts. We all know some things are right and some are wrong but stating otherwise is convienant for justifying our unbelief.

"""This sounds an awfull lot like "but he maid me hit him"."""

Maybe you missed the statement I made after the one you were commenting on. I'll agree, it does sound a little like "you hit me first," but I'm not into the habit of judging God's judgements. God's not some immature middle schooler fighting in the cafeteria.

""""""Vinnie, I have to admit that I find it odd how you summarize John 9--that the blind man was born so expressly for the sake of godly works.""""""

Thats not my summary of John 9. Thats what the bible says. Here is John 9:1-3:
1
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
2
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

It may seem unfair to us but God's thoughts are higher than ours. He doesn't experence the same limited perspective as us. It comes down to trutsting him. Thats what you call faith. Faith doesn't mean blindly believing in some magical being because you need to feel important by having some purpose in life.

""""much of what we accept as Jesus' words was written by those who came after him."""""'

What do you mean by after? Are you talking centuries or like 20 years?

""""""* "You must _____ because the Bible says so."
"Why because your Bible says so?"
"Because God wrote the Bible and makes the rules."
"How do you know God wrote the Bible?"
"The Bible says so."""""""

Thats what you call bad apologetics and is a
good way to misinterpret the bible. Its pretty funny when people say the bible is true because of that verse. Its spoken out of ignorance. These people probably have no idea what the canonization of the new testament means.

""""However, unless parents wish to remove themselves from the instruction of their child ... doesn't lying to them about a "truth" damage the truth?""""""

Yes it does when they are children. But when they grow up hopefully they will begin to think for themselves. When you grow up you are responsible for your own actions and are in control of yourself in this world. The fairy tales your parents told you as children, whether they really believed them or not, isn't much of an excuse when your supposed to be thinking on your own as an adult.

"""""""Singapore, then, is one of the most Godly nations in the world. In addition to public caning, there's a great evil about that land. If more than four people gather in public, they can be charged with Subversion of the Government; this discretion is left to the observing officers. Singapore's best-seller novels are mere tour guides wrapped in a mystery so thin Hollywood wouldn't touch it. Voting is a health risk ... choosing the opposition earns you uncollected garbage, substandard utility service, and a lack of police protection throughout the guilty voting district. Drool on the street, it's $2500 and jail time. And all in the name of making people happier and more peaceful."""""

I said that stricter laws would most likely limit crime but when the laws themselves go against something the Bible teaches they are not Godly. God's law is just ang holy. It may not seem fair but we are to submit to authority if it doesn't contradict the bible whether we like it or not. It doesn't say we can't try to make things better though. a Godly nation is one that follows Jesus. In an ecomomic utopia there may be a lot less sin but without Jesus at its center it is not a Godly nation and it probably couldn't exsist in the first place without Jesus at its center.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Ilgwamh--

* "The fairy tales your parents told you as children, whether they really believed them or not, isn't much of an excuse when your supposed to be thinking on your own as an adult."

So what's your end of that tale? After all, I have had the experience of Lutheran confirmation and of attending a Catholic high school. Here I could cite a preacher who liked throwing Bibles at kids when he was angry, and a school teaching administration largely obsessed with matters of authority. It's kind of like some of the new criminal laws going around that leave a person's intent open to a police officer's perception ... we have laws in Seattle where an officer can decide if he thinks the items you carry on your body will be used to commit even the smallest of crimes. So it was in school. If our caring guides thought a rule was broken, the important thing became punishing the alleged guilty, and not determining what actually was happening. But you're right. A lifetime of negative experiences surrounding the people who are supposed to be God's more direct instruments of interaction ... I guess I owe some years of my life to the Baptists, and then the Episcopals if that doesn't work out, and then the Kingdom Hall, the SDA's, the Latter Day Saints ... and then, when I'm fifty, will I be able to say that I really think God's method of relating to the world stinks? Of course not. Because, as Truestory points out, those churches are wrong. So then I should build my own "Christian" philosophy, right? And then put up with other "Christians" who don't like my way of viewing Jesus? (Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I've NEVER seen Christian infighting.)

So what is your end of it, Vinnie? How long have you lived without salvation? What did you do with your time? If you're supposed to be thinking for yourself, I'm curious when that process started.

* "What do you mean by after? Are you talking centuries or like 20 years?"

If I remember my theology classes in high school and college correctly, only one of the Gospels was written at a time when the authors could have been alive during Jesus' life. If ... if, if, if I remember all of my numbers correctly, we're looking at the Gospels being written between 60-200 years after Christ. (Anyone, anyone? I know those numbers are fuzzy, but not by much.) Furthermore, as I remember the 1993 Holy Week lectures at University of Oregon ... a local Christian group sponsored a talk called "Understanding Homosexuality." Apparently, for the organizers, it was a plea for help to understand. For all the New Testament they tried to throw at people to demonstrate that Jesus didn't like gay people, it all came from various epistles. None came from the Gospels, none came from the Acts of the Apostles. So, then, we enter a question of whether the ideas Jesus did not speak of in the Gospels are irrelevant to his ministry, or if they remained in place by default. These include various laws from Leviticus and so forth. But the words people often claim as God's law frequently come from portions of the NT that are not the Gospels. In other words, those parts are mortal human males' interpretations of God's law.

* "In an ecomomic utopia there may be a lot less sin but without Jesus at its center it is not a Godly nation and it probably couldn't exsist in the first place without Jesus at its center."

Probably, probably. So it's the name Jesus, and not the principles, eh? That's what confuses me the most. But aside from your speculative conclusion, I'm curious how you see the intervention of various Christian nations in events in India (thru 1947), the United States (Manifest Destiny, slavery), Japan (our first flotilla ever to Japan actually bombed the coastline)? These events all took place because a collection of individuals who thought of themselves as Christian thought they were doing the Godly thing. How about that African plunder to support the American slave trade? Placing Christianity at the center of a nation might add a certain strength to the nation, but history shows that all their neighbors ought to be nervous.

Or, it could be about the principles and not the name Jesus. For instance the Muslims, Hebrews, and Christians ... if they stopped worrying about the name of their God ... after all, they are of the same original tradition. Their principles don't seem that far apart. It's just the individuals that choose to avoid reconciliation because they MUST have their God's name be the official one for all humanity.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Hey Vinnie,

You know, you are really smart, and have contributed some very intelligent and inspired debate here. Did I read in one of these strings that you are in high school still? Maybe I misread. You sound much more mature than that???

Also, when you said something about "the cynical phase" of getting religion, you really struck a chord with me. That's me. Ms. Cynicism. Did you go through a phase like this? How did you get over it, cause it bugs me, angers me, and I can't help but think that it is futile.

Keep up the good work!

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Jobs family, possessions, and health were not taken away by any accident or gust of wind. God and Satan collectively took them, in order for God to prove a point to Satan. Satan turned out to be right, which is kind of interesting.

Youre right-I am ignoring parts of the New Testemant. Like the parts not documenting Jesus life,and the parts written by non-apostles. Jesus strictly preaches against blind faith. Although he was a devout Jew, he did not let the strict rules get in the way of charity and the will of god.

None of the gospels was written during the life of Jesus..after all, they all describe his death and the events shortly after. Most biblical scholars think that the gospels werent written by apostles, but "second generation" disciples. The first gospel was written in apporximately 58 CE, and the other three biblical gospels were written sometime after this but before 130 CE. About 130 CE is when the books to be included new testemant were decided, so the gospels had to have been written before this.

It took christians a while after the death Jesus of Nazareth to write down the events of his life. They didnt feel they needed to, because the general feeling was he would return to earth within the next few years. because of this, the accounts got a little fuzzy and varied over time.

Ilgwamh,

My question has all ways been and all ways will be untill I get a decent answer. How do you know the bible is the true word of god and not a great peice of fiction? and one more... Do you belive in orginized religon?

666- I am not advocating that the bible is the unquestionable word of a divine entity (even though I do personally believe that). But, the bible is not a work of fiction. Much of it is not verifiable archeaologicaly, but a large portion of it is. For instance, 3 of the books of Moses are a collection of Jewish law. The books of Judges, Kings, Ruth, and Samuel are embellished documentary of the early jewish kingdoms and heroes. Believe it or not, there is a lot of archeaologically verified history in the bible.

Hey 666,

Did you get the e-mail that I sent you?

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Lori,

No I didn't get. My E-mail is will@flashcom.net

tiassa,

Given the fact that you have emphasized many times that you do not "understand" me, I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth when posting to others, such as:


Because, as Truestory points out, those churches are wrong.

What I said was more along the lines of... I do not condone certain anti-Christian actions of certain individuals or groups of individuals (which you dwell upon) who claim to do their dirty deeds in the name of God/Jesus Christ. The actions of certain individuals who claim to be members of mainstream Christian Churches, over time, have left some with a bad feeling about mainstream churches. However, this does not mean that "churches" are wrong. I do not believe that I ever made the type of stereotypical statements about "churches" which you attribute to me... That's more your style.

666,

The way that I know that the Bible is the truth, and not a piece of fiction, is by looking honestly at my life, and at history, and at society, at my feelings, and I look for answers for what I don't understand. We all have things that we cannot reconcile alone. Some people use that as an arguement to deny the existance of God, the fact that we can't reconcile everything that happens ourselves, but I look to God for an answer, a reconciliation, and He gives me one every single solitary time. If you honestly seek the truth, you definately will find it. That's not just a trite little phrase, it's really true. You have to humble yourself first to God though, and honestly seek Him for guidance like a child would look to a parent. You have to somehow come to the conclusion first that there is a God, and that you wish to know the truth so much, that you are willing to pray to Him in Jesus name, and ask for His forgiveness through Jesus. You don't have to have an answer for anything, or understand everything, all you really have to do is come to the conclusion that you DON'T have all the answers. You can't get to the truth, if you don't even believe in the God that will give it to you. Usually people get to this state of humility when bad things happen, when they are in pain, confused. That's the effect of sin in this world and in your life. How it's touched you. If you're smart, you will use this pain to find God, and to find true peace, what everyone is looking for, sometimes throughout their entire lives. People rationalize rejecting God because of the pain, the effects of our very own sin, which we choose to perpetuate of our own free will. They say that if our God is truly all powerful and loving that He would surely shelter us all from it. But that would take away our free will. He gave us His Word to shelter us. He gave us His Son to shelter us. He gave us His forgiveness, for the mere acknowledgment of His very existence. And yet we still choose to sin. And God designed this universe so that the effects of our sin, actually work to bring us back to Him. That is grace. And that is truly a mind-blowing concept when you realize what it truly represents. The unconditional love that God has for you, that you happen to be denying exists.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Lori,

Unconditional love? Oh yeah, you mean unconditional on the condition that you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Just a minor detail, I realize, but I thought it needed a little more emphasis, just in case anyone missed that point.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

I get your point. But unconditional is just that. He loves you the same whether you redeem your salvation or not. For you to reject Him is His greatest sorrow. The very purpose to which Satan serves. You must see though, that logically, you could not possibly find salvation or find God through a Saviour whom you do not even aknowledge exists! That just doesn't make sense!?

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Lori and Searcher (mostly Lori): If you are trying to get ppl to believe the bible is true, you are going about it the wrong way. Summed up, your argument reads "The bible is true because god told me so." Use historical facts and the parts of the bible that actually can be proven to make it easier to believe the parts that require a leap of faith. :)

Corp,

I don't know that is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the Bible is true because God told me so. I'm saying that I believe the Bible to be true because when I have honestly examined myself, my life, and my world, I have found it to be true. The confirmation from God did not come until after I had already concluded for myself. That is faith, and the confirmation is the Holy Spirit. You can present the Gospel, and some will conclude that Jesus was just a man. That the miracles never took place. That Mary wasn't really a virgin. That the resurrection never occurred. You can present the prophecy, and some will conclude that it is just coincedence, or deny the fulfillment altogether, even when it is so obvious. You can present creation, and some will say that all this "just happened", or look to aliens? I can't come up with a better way to communicate the Word than through witness and testimony. I know that I am no different than most people, and if God spoke to me, then He is certainly speaking to everyone else too, they're just not listening.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Truestory:

Words in your mouth? Make you a deal ... don't assume you know how I prioritize, and I'll drop my petty obligation to remind you through demonstration. It's obvious you don't get it.

In the meantime, why don't you clarify your position on the churches? You'll argue with people's statements about the churches but it all comes down to the old adage, "Well, he's not really a Christian."

Furthermore, I will quote your phrase directly, and offer a counterpoint using the same device of justification you employ. And tell me why it doesn't work ....

* Truestory: "The actions of certain individuals who claim to be members of mainstream Christian Churches, over time, have left some with a bad feeling about mainstream churches. However, this does not mean that "churches" are wrong. "

* Counterpoint: "The actions of certain individuals who claim to be members of the Nazi philosophy, over time, have left some with bad feelings. However, this does not mean that National Socialism was wrong."

Guess what? That's how open you leave your justifications. I understand that it wasn't you, when I was 14, telling me I needed to ask my Mommy if I could buy a rock 'n' roll album. I understand that it wasn't you, when I was 19, asking to fire employees of the State of Oregon suspected to be homosexual. I understand that you didn't put the torch or glowing pins to any of the thousands murdered by the Catholic church during the Inquisitions. But I also understand that that Nazi over there didn't torch six-million people.

So, what's your perspective here? Frankly, I've known plenty of Christians, Communists, Satanists, Nazis, and so forth through my life. It isn't that none of them have anything to contribute, it's just that I'm tired of explaining to people that No, I'm not obliged to kowtow to your High Invisible Concept. Of course, I haven't given people enough of a chance, have I? What words in your mouth now, but your own? So should I spend the rest of my life going from person to person and church to church with my lantern held high seeking the one Christian I will never have to part from philosophically? I might ask you why you haven't done the same for Witches, Muslims, Atheists, or otherwise.

So while I choose not to be a Nazi because I don't want that kind of philosophical identification, what's your excuse? I choose not to be Christian because the amount of time I've spent among the faith demonstrates it to be useless in relation to my personal vision. I am always open to the idea that such conclusions can change, but I don't feel obliged to go out and accept lies in order to prove myself wrong and feel better about it in the morning.

So, someone doesn't like Christianity ... they're wrong because you know better. Someone doesn't like churches ... they're wrong because you know better. Any Christian in the world will tell me something similar to what you write when describing their own faith. But your constant sidestepping such issues with vagaries ... we know more about what you think is NOT proper for Christians and their churches than we do of your ideas of propriety.

Okay, I'll admit it ... you never did write the words "The Churches are wrong". But for somebody who defends their presence, you do little to dispel the veil of negativity emanating from the institutional body Christian. And all you can manage are poor excuses and nitpicking someone's summary of a philosophy you insist on standing by, but refuse to state forthrightly? Come on .... if you can't face the central issues, stop spinning the threads aside.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 13, 1999).]

WOW! Why don't you tell us how you really feel? :) Tiassa, I do get your analogy, but I wanted to consider some other things. It seems that you want to bring an identity to the church that is of it's own, when I can't separate the entity from the human beings who operate within it. And that is only speaking of what we refer to as organized religion, because you are truly not speaking of the church as it is meant or defined in the Bible. That's why you guys don't understand each other, you're speaking different languages. In the Bible, the church is referred to as those who have been saved in Christ, and yes, that refers to sinners, people who make mistakes. It does not however, refer to those who attend a church to worship. Being saved does change a person. That you do not believe, but it really does. Otherwise you are not truly saved. Because when you really get honest, if you don't live your life for Him, then you must not truly believe. I think that you may be conveniently overlooking a lot of good that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit of God has brought in this world. You seem unaware.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Good morning, Lori:

A comment about your statement,


I know that I am no different than most people, and if God spoke to me, then He is certainly speaking to everyone else too, they're just not listening.

So simple. So true. Why this happens was explained to us repeatedly by the all-knowing. It is another simple truth and it is demonstrated repeatedly, even in this forum... Many know God's words, they know that they have heard God's message but they choose to ignore it. Although less powerful in the long-run, there is another force which humans tend to listen to and, unfortunately, it will rule the earth for a short period in the near future. After that, the beast will be destroyed and the time will come for all of us to face God, whether we accepted or rejected God while living on this earth or not.

At that time, not only will we ALL acknowledge the existence of God, we will all be begging for God's mercy... The very thing that some deny exists... Unfortunately, for some, it will be too late.

Time is running out. Right now, however, it is not too late.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 14, 1999).]

tiassa,


Words in your mouth? Make you a deal ... don't assume you know how I prioritize, and I'll drop my petty obligation to remind you through demonstration. It's obvious you don't get it.

Sorry tiassa, it would be unfair of me to make deals with intoxicated persons... ;) "Petty" is a great description with respect to your arguments... As I've stated before, "etreme" comes to mind too... You're right, I don't get what you mean by my supposedly assuming how you prioritize. Any discussion I have had with you has been based on what you have told me in your posts... Perhaps I have misunderstood you? That's O.K. If that is the case, I can accept it and deal with it... And, if I see that you have misunderstood or misrepresented something which I have said (or not said in this case) I have no problem asking you not to do that, even if it pisses you off or you perceive it to be my telling you how to live... which, of course, it is not. I can accept and deal with that... I can also accept and deal with your questions for clarification... I have no need to sidestep anything as you would attempt to have us believe.


In the meantime, why don't you clarify your position on the churches?

In my opinion, churches serve a very useful purpose for many individuals. They help to bring people into communion with each other and with God. Many churches provide large-scale programs in which their members can participate to actually perform the types of acts of humanity which Jesus taught. Some churches remain more focused on Christianity than others. I consider those that do to be wonderful institutions. As Lori pointed out, however, the Christian church which I speak of are those who have truly been saved in Christ. Individuals who have truly been saved might or might not be members of a variety of "organized religions" which have "Christianity" at the core of their foundation, philosophy and purpose for organizing. True Christians might congregate with other Christians or, they might not. They might attend religious worship ceremonies in structures built of various materials... bricks, mortar, two-by-fours and sheetrock, etc... or, they might not.


You'll argue with people's statements about the churches but it all comes down to the old adage, "Well, he's not really a Christian."

Well, I don't know if I've ever actually used that "adage" but I can't say that I necessarily disagree with it, tiassa, can you? In general, that type of adage can be applied to distinguish the difference between those who are what they claim to be and those who claim to be something they are not. After all, "the churches" are made up of many individuals and there is such a thing as a true Christian and there is such a thing as one who calls themself a Christian but are not. And yes, there are those who even perpetrate greedy, destructive, murderous evil acts in the name of Christianity... They are lying... There are many in this world who purport themselves to be something that they are not... they can be found in all walks of life... they can be found among believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians. That brings us to the next subject:


Furthermore, I will quote your phrase directly, and offer a counterpoint using the same device of justification you employ. And tell me why it doesn't work ....

* Truestory: "The actions of certain individuals who claim to be members of mainstream Christian Churches, over time, have left some with a bad feeling about mainstream churches. However, this does not mean that "churches" are wrong. "

* Counterpoint: "The actions of certain individuals who claim to be members of the Nazi philosophy, over time, have left some with bad feelings. However, this does not mean that National Socialism was wrong."

Well, tiassa, that depends... did the evil and destruction perpetrated by Nazi Germany under Hitler's rule represent the core foundation, philosophy and purpose of National Socialism? Or, did the acts of Hitler and his regime give an otherwise good ideology a bum rap??? The murderous acts which you point to, committed by certain members of churches, went directly against the core foundation, philosophy and purpose of Christianity.

By the way... Hitler was definitely not a Christian. Does that mean that I should hold all of Hitler's acts against those who share his non-Christian philosophy and associate all non-Christians with the acts of Hitler and his evil regime?


...it's just that I'm tired of explaining to people that No, I'm not obliged to kowtow to your High Invisible Concept. Of course, I haven't given people enough of a chance, have I?

You don't have to explain it to me, tiassa. As I've said many times before, you have the gift of free-will to do what you wish. You are not "obliged" to use it in any manner other than what you choose. You're an adult now and you are free to live your life as you wish. In my opinion, I don't think it's a matter of giving people a chance. I think you would do yourself a great service, though, by getting off drugs, getting over your bias of "the churches" and giving a one-on-one relationship with God a chance.


What words in your mouth now, but your own? So should I spend the rest of my life going from person to person and church to church with my lantern held high seeking the one Christian I will never have to part from philosophically? I might ask you why you haven't done the same for Witches, Muslims, Atheists, or otherwise.

Tiassa, we are different in that I have never looked to other people to validate my personal relationship (or non-relationship) with God. There is at least one Christian, however, who did dwell on this earth, from whom I will never have to part from philosophically... that is, Jesus Christ.


So while I choose not to be a Nazi because I don't want that kind of philosophical identification, what's your excuse? I choose not to be Christian because the amount of time I've spent among the faith demonstrates it to be useless in relation to my personal vision. I am always open to the idea that such conclusions can change, but I don't feel obliged to go out and accept lies in order to prove myself wrong and feel better about it in the morning.

The people are not the faith, tiassa. If you've truly listened to Jesus Christ, understand what true Christianity is about, have decided that it is a lie and feel good about it then, good for you. To be honest, though, you do not sound like a very happy person but, you are not "obliged" to live your life otherwise.


So, someone doesn't like Christianity ... they're wrong because you know better. Someone doesn't like churches ... they're wrong because you know better. Any Christian in the world will tell me something similar to what you write when describing their own faith.

tiassa,

I don't think I am as concerned with who is "right" and who is "wrong" as you are. What I am more concerned about is helping to spread God's word so that as many people as possible can receive God's message and share in eternal salvation.

To turn the table... So, someone likes Christianity... they're wrong because you know better, tiassa? Someone likes churches... they're wrong because you know better, tiassa? Any non-Christian in the world will tell me something similar to what you write, tiassa, when describing their lack of faith.

Sorry, tiassa, but I don't think that's what is important.


...Okay, I'll admit it ... you never did write the words "The Churches are wrong". But for somebody who defends their presence, you do little to dispel the veil of negativity emanating from the institutional body Christian.

Sorry, tiassa, only you can dispel the veil of negativity which, as you pointed out previously, you can find anywhere you choose to find it.

tiassa,

Although we think very differently, I believe that I am very forthright and honest with you. I have never been one to side-step an issue. There are many of us here who don't answer the questions of others to their full satisfaction. Much of that has to do with the strong wills and opinions of many who post. Sorry if you interpret my intentions differently. Although I would like to see you and many others saved before it's too late, I am not trying to "force" you to believe anything you don't want to believe.


[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 14, 1999).]

Lori--

Yeah, that one was kinda loose.

As to your point ... "And that is only speaking of what we refer to as organized religion, because you are truly not speaking of the church as it is meant or defined in the Bible." You are most correct here ... the problem is that this applies to many people who consider themselves part of that biblically defined church. Personally, I think Christians have got a great thing ... I just believe that the greater part of them are executing its potential improperly.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Well then I agree with you. Whoa? :)

Just don't throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater, dude!!!!

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited December 14, 1999).]

Lori,

Somthing I have seen a lot of in your posts lately is the word "honesty". What is honesty? Do we achive honesty with our selves through assumptions or through fact? A bleif in a God requires faith. Faith requires an assumption and I do not belive that we can achive honesty through assumptions. I know the above may seem like I am picking on the small little details, but this is something I belive is relevant. Regarding pain in one's life. Why do we have to chose to be on the side of a God or on the side of Satan? Can we use the pain in our lives (and we all have it to some degree) in a positive manner with out a God? My belief is that life can form and thrive with out a God or Satan. I don't need a God to tell me what is right and what is wrong. Every day I wake up chug a cup of coffee and smoke a cigarette. After that I go to work and do what I belive in my heart is right. If I am wrong and there is a God and these actions lead me to hell, then so be it. I will have gone there on my own terms and God would not be worthy of having me in heavan.

------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 14, 1999).]

Hi tiassa.
"""""""So what is your end of it, Vinnie? How long have you lived without salvation? What did you do with your time? If you're supposed to be thinking for yourself, I'm curious when that process started.""""""


When I took off the mask that was blinding me my entire life and let go of my pride. Thats when God started opening up my eyes. I am not saying I am prideless. Just that I stopped baing as self centered as I was and stopped conforming to the world. I let go of it. Salvation came about a year ago. The process of me thinking for myslef started 2 to 3 years ago. My primary passion in life was science and it made me look at things differently than anyone else. Made me view things scientifically. I questioned everything and to an extent I still do.

""""So then I should build my own "Christian" philosophy, right? And then put up with other "Christians" who don't like my way of viewing Jesus?"""""

Why build your own? I'm sure there are plenty of people that would share the same christian philosphy as you. More than you think. And most of the time the differences are really petty anyways.

"""If ... if, if, if I remember all of my numbers correctly, we're looking at the Gospels being written between 60-200 years after Christ.""""

I'd say your half right. Probably 60 years after Jesus life most, if not all, of the books were written. Revelations was the last I believe. Not sure on the date. The 200 is way off.

""""For all the New Testament they tried to throw at people to demonstrate that Jesus didn't like gay people, it all came from various epistles. None came from the Gospels, none came from the Acts of the Apostles. So, then, we enter a question of whether the ideas Jesus did not speak of in the Gospels are irrelevant to his ministry, or if they remained in place by default. These include various laws from Leviticus and so forth. But the words people often claim as God's law frequently come from portions of the NT that are not the Gospels. In other words, those parts are mortal human males' interpretations of God's law.""""""

When you pick and choose which pieces of scripture you want it becomes your opinion and not Gods word. What makes the first 4 books better than the rest. They to were written by humans.

Logically, you must take the entire Bible or none of it. The puzzle is incomplete if you remove pieces.

"""""These events all took place because a collection of individuals who thought of themselves as Christian thought they were doing the Godly thing. How about that African plunder to support the American slave trade? Placing Christianity at the center of a nation might add a certain strength to the nation, but history shows that all their neighbors ought to be nervous.""""""

A Godly nation from a Christian perspective has Jesus at its center. That doesn't mean it will be sin free. By definition a christian is not someone who does good deeds and never messes up. A christian is a follower of Christ.

A godly nation from the worlds perspective is more 'humane' than others. It does good things. It allows freedom. Thats a stereotype of a godly nation in the world's eyes.

"""""Their principles don't seem that far apart. It's just the individuals that choose to avoid reconciliation because they MUST have their God's name be the official one for all humanity.""""

Their principles may not seem far apart but that depend on your perspective. You can be two feet from someone while being whole world apart (earth is circular). A lot of religions may have consistent values and even the same "God" buts thats where the similarities end. Jesus said He is the only way to the father, thus he is the only way to eternal life.

Hi lori.
Yes I am still a high schooler.

"""Also, when you said something about "the cynical phase" of getting religion, you really struck a chord with me. That's me. Ms. Cynicism.""""""

I knew I would. Your the reason I posted it.

""""Did you go through a phase like this?""""

Yes a short one.

"""How did you get over it, cause it bugs me, angers me, and I can't help but think that it is futile.""""""

It is futile. We experience many different stages. I'm not sure all the time how we get over them. Later on we usually look back on them and realize how much we have grwon since then. They help us grow. Do you get a lot of christian fellowship? Being with other christians should help. Pray, devour god's word, and go to church. These things will help you.

I still get a bit cynical when I see stuff tv where preachers are asking for money and stuff but we have to realize all we here about seems to be the bad stuff. If the christian church was actually bad enough to make us cynical of each other than christians would not be stereotyped as "holy people" that always do good. Not everyone who calls Jesus is really a Christian but there are a lot of great people out there. Proabaly a lot more than you think. Lots and lots of people who love Jesus just like you.

Hi 666.
""""My question has all ways been and all ways will be untill I get a decent answer. How do you know the bible is the true word of god and not a great peice of fiction?"""

Prophecies, the Bible seems to be able to predict the future. That fact seems to call for the divine. The pretty much historical fact of Jesus' resurrection. The fact that genesis agrees with the findings of modern science. I'm talking real science. Not yec. The Bible provides a consistent and cohesive world view. The best one we have today that can put all the pieces of the puzzle together. Archaeological finds help lend some credibility to the bible. Its historical accuracy. The fact that is does not contradict itself (this will most likely draw the most criticism). The change that occured in the apostles. Pauls conversion. I'm not saying these things prove the Bible and I did kind of avoid the canonization of the books but the bible has enough credibility to leave you with no excuse for not at least reading it. Maybe it is true. Ask God. Say if you really exsist and wrote this book show yourself to me as I read it. Give it a shot. Read it with an open mind and eamine things. If you have questions or see contradictions ask about them and study them yourself. Look to see if they are real contradictions or just a mistranslation or scripture taken out of context.

""""and one more... Do you belive in orginized religon?""""""

Can you please tell me what you mean by organized religion? I'll will say this much before I get more info: church is good if thats what you meant.

tiassa
"""""'Personally, I think Christians have got a great thing ... I just believe that the greater part of them are executing its potential improperly."""""

I agree and disagree. My statement would go like this:

Personally, I think Christians have got a great thing ... I just believe that a MINOR part of them are executing their potential improperly. A few bad apples stereotypes christians as a rotten bunch. But this is illogical. One bad kid (a common christian) doesn't mean the entire school (the church) is bad. And if there is a bad teacher (a minister) it also does not make the entire school bad. But its the few bad teachers that we hear about on the news. We don't seem to here about the good ones.

666
"""A bleif in a God requires faith. Faith requires an assumption and I do not belive that we can achive honesty through assumptions. I know the above may seem like I am picking on the small little details, but this is something I belive is relevant."""

This faith in God is more like trusting him. not that you have to just blindly believe in him. There is sufficient evidence to allow us to maintain a rational faith in the God of the Bible.

"""""""Why do we have to chose to be on the side of a God or on the side of Satan?""""

Your statement seems to assume some sort of duality. Its not that you choose God or satan but that you choose God or you do not choose God. Choosing God means accepting that you are a sinner and getting forgiveness. YOu must realize that others aren't perfect just like you aren't and you have to forgive them when they sin against you. Christianity is more of relationship than a religion. If you read the bible and take it as a whoile you will understand this.

"""'I don't need a God to tell me what is right and what is wrong. Every day I wake up chug a cup of coffee and smoke a cigarette. After that I go to work and do what I belive in my heart is right."""""

You can't logacally say what is right and what is wrong without an overlying truth. Who do you think gave you your conscience? Our view on things is not perfect because sin has distorted our vision. The bible says
our own consciences judge us. If your own conscience doesn't judge yourself as a sinner and a bad person in the christian sense then there is something in the way, probably pride.

""""I will have gone there on my own terms and God would not be worthy of having me in heavan.""""

Yep, its pride. Thats whats keeping you from seeing God. When you drop that then you will see God. Your eyes will be opened. Thats what happened to me. We are all in the same boat.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!



[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited December 15, 1999).]

666,

What I'm talking about is being honest with yourself about your pain. Everybody's got it to one degree or another, right? Sometimes I get the impression that some people out here haven't experienced the same pain, but then someone gets honest and I have hope! We all do eventually, continuously to one degree or another. That's the effect of something the Bible calls sin. Getting honest with yourself means not to rationalize about your own behavior, or to ignore your feelings and where they come from and why. When I do that myself, I see God. Witness to God everywhere and always. Getting honest is seeking the truth. What is the meaning of this life? That's a big question. I think that some people live their lives like they're in a movie. Denying things about themselves and how they feel and why, even to themselves. Rationalizing things that they know are wrong deep down inside; it's that little voice, that little angel on your shoulder, that's the Holy Spirit.

So, when I decided to have faith in God, and that Jesus was His Son and our Saviour, I was not basing my decision on an assumption, but on the fact that every single time I examined my life, or the world I live in, or my pain, He had answer that made perfect sense to me. When I was ready to be honest. About my ego especially, and there's were the humbling effects of sin came in on my head. By assumption, do you mean that it's all written in a book, and there's no "footage" of the history, or because you weren't there? Do you mean because I haven't quite figured out all of the metaphorical stuff going on in Genesis? Because I can't really imagine in my head what omnipotent means? I'm not inclined to understand much about this life til I'm dead and gone. All I try to do is be a good person, just like you do. But God's Word definately helps explain some things. I just had to answer the question why? Why do I feel this pain? Why do I try to be good? Why is it hard sometimes? Do I even know what's right or wrong? Does anyone? Well if we do, then why do we all make so many mistakes and have so much pain then? That's what I mean by honest.

You know, I wake up every morning, chug a cup of coffee, and head off to work too. And I try to be a good person too, and chances are that you are probably better at doing that than I am, but I really try hard, and I think that most people do. But I think that we're all confused about what is right and wrong, and you learn that all your life. If you're honest.


------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Theres metaphorical stuff going on in Genesis? Where?

The hebrew text does not say the earth was created in 6 days. The word used for day can also mean an unspecific length of time with no reference to a solar day. There is also unusual syntax in those verses that say something along the lines of 'and there was evening and morning...' which lend credibility to the biblical interpretation of long creation days. Genesis gives some of the best evidence that can be found pertaining to the supernatural origin of the bible. Just not a lot of people know about it because it requires a good knowledge of both science and the bible. Its hard to find people with both. The Genesis Question by Dr Hugh Ross is a very good book on this subject, probably the best. You can visit his website at reasons.org and look at some apologetics or read chapters from his books.

If you have questions about something in the bible, if there appears to be a contradction, or some other problem just look at the greek and hebrew text.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Lori,

I going to try and not rant to much, but you struck a chord with me.


Sometimes I get the impression that some people out here haven't experienced the same pain, but then someone gets honest and I have hope! We all do eventually, continuously to one degree or another. That's the effect of something the Bible calls sin.
What sin did I commit that caused my father to beat my head into a brick fireplace mantle and clean up the blood afterwards at 5??? I don't expect you to give an answer, but this sort of general statment can realy piss me off. I know I did nothing to cause it. Ok now after venting a little I can move on and see a litlle clearer. I know that you were most likely refering to the pain that people bring upon them selves.


I think that some people live their lives like they're in a movie. Denying things about themselves and how they feel and why, even to themselves. Rationalizing things that they know are wrong deep down inside; it's that little voice, that little angel on your shoulder, that's the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you about how a lot of people deny who they are and what they do. On the other hand I don't agree that the little voice (your conscience) is the holy spirit. I belive that as we grow through life we experiance things, good or bad, that form this conscience and is what tells us what is right and wrong. Why we some times chose not to listen to it? Well I don't feel there is one all encompasing answer and is more of an individual one. I am not trying to represent the fact that I do not deny parts of my self. This is another area ware I belive that we all do it to some degree or another, but I do not blame others for my actions. Due to my background and current social/political tendencies, I could have chosen to be an axe murderer and used my background as an excuse and gotten a lighter sentance or none at all. It is that conscience, the part of me that knows what it is like, that persueded me to take corrective action on my state of mind and not force some one eles to suffer an equal or greater pain. This also blends into personal integerty. I feel that historicaly science has giving me more answers to life than religon has.


------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 15, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 15, 1999).]

666,

Your father transferred his emotional pain onto you in a physical way... That poor, sick, twisted sinner! I'm really sorry you went through that and I thank God that you turned it into a positive force in your life!

666,

I wasn't talking about YOUR sin specifically!!!!!!! For crying out loud, do you honestly think that I'm insane enough to think that you somehow deserved that??????????? Just how crazy do you people think I am????? I'm astounded. Did you happen to think I may be referring to your father's sin, or whatever persons sins that effected him to cause him to act that way???? Or how about the sins of humanity and how it affects society in general? Come on, give me a break, please, I'm begging you...

I'm also begging you just to really think about this for a while. Just give what I'm saying some thought, and really see if it doesn't make a little sense. I mean, you seem to be following the Word, you're just not attributing it to the Word, but to yourself. Don't you think it's more than coincedental though, that everytime someone is doing the right thing, that it happens to say to be that way in the Bible? Well, it does, and there came a point when I couldn't ignore that anymore.

How about this. You give it some more thought, and try to envision my perspective. And if you end up giving your life to Christ, and becoming saved, then I'll send you that nudie picture of me? Deal? ;)

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited December 16, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited December 16, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited December 16, 1999).]

Ilgwamh,

quote:
-Genesis gives some of the best evidence that can be found pertaining to the supernatural origin of the bible. Just not a lot of people know about it because it requires a good knowledge of both science and the bible. Its hard to find people with both. -

According to Genesis 20-25, god made the fish and sea creatures and the birds of the air at the same time, before creating land based creatures.
Well I'm sorry, but that is not the scientific view, we all know that birds evolved after the dinosaurs.
This just goes to demonstrate, that Genesis was more than likely actually written by men, who used the (simple} logic of their day, ie, fish and birds are 'dumber' than land creatures and so they must have arrived first.

And here's another mistake, in Genesis 11-13 it says that god created vegetation, plants with seeds and trees producing seed bearing fruit. This was on the third day before he created life in the sea. But we know that all organic life began in the sea and that seed bearing plants and fruit trees need insects to help them propagate.

And here's yet another mistake, in Genesis 16-19 the bible says that god made the sun, the moon and the stars, this was on the fourth day. Kinda makes you wonder how all that vegetation grew without sunshine, never mind the insects!

Where exactly does your science fit in?

Truestory--

Are you running out of gas here, or is there something more sinister in your posts?

After all, as muddy as we've made this forum, you're relying more and more on trying to be cute. Wink-wink yourself. One of the major differences between how I regard myself and how you appear to regard yourself is that I know damn well when I'm being petty. It's actually one of the perks of leaving Christianity behind. Instead of turning the other cheek, I have the liberty to choose whether to stay and fight or just take it like a proper Christian.

But it doesn't change the fact that we've arrived at this place because of the stupid distractions you seem to want to bandy about.

But when I go back and look at the messier fights we've had, they are petty. And here's a few things I don't understand: You dislike my opinion of churches, but you choose not to attend them for some of the very same reasons I dislike them entirely. You can cite your efforts to save children from evil drugs, but refuse to comment on your methods, and eventually give me an answer that equals, "Well, not mentioning it is better than giving it to them." And now we come to this thread.

So here's what it is, about drugs, sex, free speech, or any of those things you seem to object to: For your arguments to work, everyone accepting the argument has to agree that Jesus is Lord and Savior. This is simply not true. I see many non-Christians trying to reach into the mess of Christian identity and pick something of value out, only to be rebuked by paranoid, insistent, "Jesus-or-nothing" ideas.

We got close once, arguing something about the idea of "God made man in his own image". We came very close to a consensus. If I recall we could not meet on the issue of why we had to make our acts a submission to Jesus. I believe I accused you of holding the name as more valuable than the principles, for that one. After all, it was Jesus' way or the highway.

So you, as well as I, have a distaste for the organized churches. Whenever someone asks a question about the churches, you deflect the question by saying it has no credibility. Too many individuals, we--the questioners--don't know enough Christians. That sort of stuff.

Get off it and make a stand for yourself, based on something other than what sounds like a very common party-line. Stop denying historical implications because you weren't alive then. You choose to identify yourself by the idea. Its history is important. Why are certain acts of the church body inappropriate? After all, someone thought they were doing the right thing at the time. But, no, you'd rather say it's not important because it's not you. These forums aren't necessarily about you. They have to do with what people see in the representative culture, and what they read in source material, and so forth. I love some of your opinions. The ones with which I don't agree often leave me chuckling. But the questions have to do with issues larger than your experience, or mine, or Ilgwamhs, or Searchers, or any of our own. Until you address the darker side of the history you've chosen, there is the possibility that you could participate in the same mistakes. And the whole time you'd think you were doing the Godly thing. See, the problem is that when we accept certain shortcuts in how we address what we consider reality, the shortcut applies in other ideas than the one we intended. Thus, if we cannot look to Christians to explain the conduct of their churches, something so basic as a behavioral admonition to students ("Remember, you're representing your school/town/state/country here") becomes an utter lie perpetuated for the convenience of the guardian. Christians have worked hard to make their faith an integral part of all of our lives. But too often they engage the menagerie of distractions because it's easier to feel like they're making progress. After all, what would be easier ... ending world hunger, or serving God by silencing music on the grounds that we don't like the harmonies, the rhythms, or the words. What would be easier? Cleaning up the graft that exists within a church, or blaming Satan for the church's troubles? What would be easier? Acknowledging the past and learning from HUMAN mistakes, or dismissing offensive behavior undertaken in the name of God and run the risk of committing the act again?

Sorry, it's your show. Those of us outside the faith have not chosen the same constrictions for our lives. After all, the individuals could turn their churches out and renew their direct relationship with God. Or they could unify inside their churches and strenghten themselves through sectional solidarity. Or they could go on ignoring the problem while complaining about petty ideas. To act, ignore, or bargain ... these are the issues which challenge all of us.

I have to go now ... Gee, I'd love to stop being petty. But I think the evangelical need for Christendom to exercise its moral will on the reset of us will force me to exercise my right to fight pusillanimy with pettiness.

Oh ... that's right, I remember the bumper sticker. Christians have no need to consider the cumulative weight of the acts of their body social. After all, "Christians aren't perfect. They're just forgiven."

Such a license to abuse humanity ... of course, it's up to you to use it for good or ill.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

tiassa,

Talk about distractions and diversions and side-stepping the issues! Give it up already! If you can't do that, then I'll at least make the statements easier for you to stay focused on.

I say... "Coal is black." What's your response?



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 16, 1999).]

Vinnie,


I'd say your half right. Probably 60 years after Jesus life most, if not all, of the books were written. Revelations was the last I believe. Not sure on the date. The 200 is way off.

According to a book I have called, "Bible Life & Times", Matthew and Luke were written 7 BC - AD 29; Mark and John were written AD 25-29; Acts of the Apostles, AD 30-62; New Testament Letters, AD 50-100; Revelations, AD 95.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Lori,

I didn't maen to come off that way! When I read or hear people say things like that my first reaction is anger, but I do understand that this is not what you and others are refering to. I just need to vent a little otherwise I brew over it and my end of the descusion is bullsh*t. Read the last 2 sentences of it again. I thought I had made it clear enough, but apparantly I didn't. I am sorry for any misunderstanding.

Ok now after venting a little I can move on and see a litlle clearer. I know that you were most likely refering to the pain that people bring upon them selves
I do admit that my moral convictions do coincide a lot with the basic moral teachings of the bible, but there are a lot of things about the bible and the fondations of the bible that just don't sit well with me. For example a snipit from a passage, the name of the passage I do not rember. "Leave vengance to me. For I am a imperfect Go and a vengfull God". Thats just one example, there are many more. I don't belive I will convert any time soon. As much as I would like the picture, I am a stuborn ass, and when I belive that I am right I will stand fast untill persueded other wise. As all ways I will continue to think and discus the topic of religon. I belive that our beleifs change with time and this only comes about through deep thought and discusion. This doesn't mean I will convert, there are many directions one can chose to go.

------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 16, 1999).]

Truestory--

I say "black" is a fiction. Insofar as I need to perceive coal with my eyes, sure, it's black. But if our sun had been a slightly different wavelength, that "black" would look bluer or redder. Whereas it may or may not be good enough for you for coal to be black and chunky and flammable ... did you know you can see stars shine when you burn coal? It's all the same thing, you know. Or is it that such considerations don't matter? I see mass and energy, I see fire and harmony, I see the fuel of important moments of human history. Sure, coal is black, but why stop there?

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

Thanks, tiassa,

I say... "Coal is black."

And you respond:


I say "black" is a fiction. Insofar as I need to perceive coal with my eyes, sure, it's black. But if our sun had been a slightly different wavelength, that "black" would look bluer or redder. Whereas it may or may not be good enough for you for coal to be black and chunky and flammable ... did you know you can see stars shine when you burn coal? It's all the same thing, you know. Or is it that such considerations don't matter? I see mass and energy, I see fire and harmony, I see the fuel of important moments of human history. Sure, coal is black, but why stop there?

Interesting... this brings to mind a few other questions:

1) Why go off on tangents about black as "fiction," about changes in perception "IF" things were different, about whether "black" and "chunky" and "flammable" were "good enough" (???) for me, about seeing "stars shining" in "burning" coal, about whether or not such "considerations" matter (???), about "mass" and "energy" and "fire" and "harmony" and "fuel" and "important moments in human history" from the simple statement that "coal is black"?

You could just as easily have kept your response concise and to the point.

2) Why did you choose to respond the way you did?

3) On the other hand, why didn't you go on about "coal" and "black" some more?

4) Surely, there is much more to be said about "coal" and "black", isn't there?

5) For example, why didn't you include the association of coal's carbon make-up to every organic compound and most inorganic compounds in the universe in your response?

In that respect, you could have gone on with your response for the rest of your life.

6) Why did you choose to stop when you did?

There are many more questions which I could ask you regarding this, tiassa...

7) Why, do you think, I am choosing to stop now?

Just so you know. I am serious. I would like to hear your responses to all seven questions, if you don't mind.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 17, 1999).]

666,

You know that I was just teasing about the picture right? It was kind of a trick in that I would only know that you're saved when you no longer wanted me to send the picture. Sorry, I'm just trying to be funny. You would think I would learn, but....

Anyway, the reason that I'm so over zealous in a way regarding you is just because I feel like you have been given a real opportunity to find God. I did that while trying to reconcile my pain, and I certainly know that you have more than your fair share. Some things that you have written have really touched my heart, and I would love more than anything to be able to do something to take all your pain away. But alas I am only human, and can not. I do know that the only one who can make it go away is Jesus. So hopefully that explains where I'm coming from. You sound like such a nice guy, and I'm so impressed with your attitude and disposition, especially when I consider what you've been through, and like I said before, I want ALL of your days to be good ones.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Truestory:

That's fair. I even have answers, though some will rest on the merit of the other answers:

1) The conditions described by the color black exist in the universe. "Black" is a human designation which relates to the portion of the spectrum we see. In this regard, I try to remember that such words are ficticious ... they depend entirely on another person being able to comprehend what the word means in relation to their station in the universe. It's actually an argument I use more surrounding money. What is a dollar worth? Well, two of 'em gets you a loaf of bread if everyone agrees that's the exchange. What is black? Well, it's all colors to painters, or no color to scientists ... and merely an observational designation. As long as we all agree what black is, yes, coal is black.

As a side note, let me apologize for the "good enough for you" line ... I now understand why you limited your assessment of "coal" to black. That's all it meant. You ask why I continue and why I don't, I turn the same notion to you. But we'll get to that.

2) I choose to respond the way I do because the greater part of my human experience has taught me that no question rests as simply as it sounds. I've watched twenty years of people pointing their fingers from the soapbox or pulpit, accusing, retracting, saying ... "you just don't understand" or, "you just don't want to understand." And the whole time, the parties are saying nothing to actually disagree, but are speaking in different terms with different considerations defining their central perspective.

3, 4, 5, 6) Well, maybe that was the point. Human communication is supposed to take place on many levels ... elsewise, why would we be taught, as children, to consider "other peoples' feelings." After all, as we grow, we learn that many of our best intentions will upset people because they are looking, as in answer number 2, at a different facet of the issue. It's only in adulthood--specifically, in the part of the "working world" that I'm currently in--that I've started to encounter, en masse, a bizarre new literalism. Whereas a very important point could be made with general statements of cultural or historic reference, the culture seems to have abandoned its ability to comprehend the whole of a thing, choosing instead to tear each other apart based on hurried conclusions taken from an out-of-context snippet. It's called "sound-bite" or "blurb" culture. Strangely, since the country seems to vote for its national offices by that philosophy, I always thought people were aware of it. Basically, though, it's that one does not necessarily need to go on forever in order to represent the infinite diversity of perspectives. I remember when preferred less confusing communication.

Y'know, a trivial perspective of mine is that when I see coal or natural gas or oil, I see Barney. A purple dinosaur millions of years dead, and, thankfully, no longer singing and dancing to annoy us all senseless. But that's trivial, so I chose not to include it.

7) I refuse to speculate on why you choose to stop. If there's one thing I've learned from our exchanges, its that it doesn't matter what I think. You've got your reasons and your truths, any anything else I could say would merely be petty, extreme assumptions.

There's more to your question one, but I feel that considerations about mass and energy are as inherent to me as Christ-as-Savior seems to be to you. Human history? How far would we have gotten in the industrial revolution without coal? How about heat? In that case, though, we might ask why fire deserves consideration regarding human history. But if you know the math, and want to take the time, you would find that burning a piece of coal, essentially, is no different than a star burning hydrogen.

For the record, I'm not enough of a mathematician or physicist to undertake those equations regularly.

I look at a human being, I see a piece of all humanity. I look at coal and it must necessarily be more than this black lump in front of me.

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

Lori,

Yeah I know you were kiding about the pic. , but sometimes a little fantasy is fun. :)

I want to address the rest of your post, but not sure exactly ware to begin. So here it goes. Fortunetly I decided to get help a long time ago and have spent a lot of time sorting quite a bit out. At first I didn't want to feel any thing. As time progresed I came to realize that what I went through and the pain I feel made me who I am today. Turning what happened into a pasitive force in my life could not have happened with out the help I recived from those around me. As much as I appreciate your empathy, I am at a point in my life ware I don't want to go back and change what happened. It is as much a part of me as the fingers I use to type this post. The pain is part of it and me. This doesn't mean I would ever want to go through it again, but I would never change my past. As much as I would like to say I am not angry or bitter, I am. All though it is not a controling factor in my life. I don't total denounce God, I just take the stand of I don't know if there is or not. Most of the time I need some place to put the anger and bitterness. So I let it rest with a being that I do not know is there or not. When I do pass on I will know and if there is. I just hope he can accept and understand that I needed him to hold the anger and bitterness for a while. I had to excaept the fact I have strength, but even I have limits to what I can handle. I wrote this partially so you can understand me a little more and partially for anyone eles who has gone through this and maybe it will help who knows. :)

------------------
My life could have been black and white, but I had to color it.

[This message has been edited by 666 (edited December 18, 1999).]

"""""""""""According to Genesis 20-25, god made the fish and sea creatures and the birds of the air at the same time, before creating land based creatures.
Well I'm sorry, but that is not the scientific view, we all know that birds evolved after the dinosaurs."""""""""

"""""""""And here's another mistake, in Genesis 11-13 it says that god created vegetation, plants with seeds and trees producing seed bearing fruit. This was on the third day before he created life in the sea. But we know that all organic life began in the sea and that seed bearing plants and fruit trees need insects to help them propagate."""""''''''

Check this out and let me know what you think. Its on "days" 5 and 6 and clears up the contradiction in the firts paragraph above.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/genesisquestion/gq6.html

Put that together with this (down below) and your contradictions diappear for the second paragraph as well.

The creation of vegetation.
"Let the land produce vegitation: sead-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds" (Genesis 1:11). The newly formed land now brings dry vegetation.

The words "seed," "trees," and "fruit" have much more specific meaning in english than in Hebrew, and this difference has led to some misunderstanding and unwarranted criticism of the text. The Hebrew nouns used here, zera, es, and peri, mean, respectively, "semen" or "the embryos of any plant species," "any large plant containing woody fiber," and "the food and/or the embryos produced by any living thing." Zera and peri could refer to any plant species that has ever existed. The es, certauinly includes all large plants containing cellulose and could possibly be referring to all larger-than-microscopic plants whose fibers provide a measure of stiffness. Thus, these terms do include the relatively primitive plant species sccientists have identified as the first land vegetation."

That was taken from The Genesis Question by Dr. Hugh Ross on page 39.

Also the hebrew text does not tell us when insects were created. Doesn't say before or after. No contradiction can be found there.

"""""""And here's yet another mistake, in Genesis 16-19 the bible says that god made the sun, the moon and the stars, this was on the fourth day. Kinda makes you wonder how all that vegetation grew without sunshine, never mind the insects!"""""""""

The word used for created in that verse has a lexicon that means 'cause to appear.' The second verse in genesis makes it clear genesis is giving the creation account from the perspective of the earth's surface. A lot of people miss this crucial shift. On the earth the sun appeared. It does not say that it did not exist, just that it was not viewable from the earth. Our atmosphere did go from translucent to transparent a long time ago. This means at one time we could not clearly see the outline of the sun and at one time we could. Once agian the Bible is clearly not at odds with the findings of modern day science.

Hope this helps.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

tiassa,

Thanks for your reply. I would like to share some excerpts from the Book of Ecclesiastes. This historical book is concerned with the purpose and value of human life, with life considered to be an enigma beyond human ablitiy to solve. It speaks about the vanity of all things and the merits associated with man enjoying certain legitimate pleasures. However, this indulgence is also considered to be vanity unless man returns due thanks to the Creator who has given him all. The clear answer to the problem was to come with the light of Christ's teaching concerning future life.

"The quiet words of the wise are better heeded than the shout of a ruler of fools-!

... More weighty than wisdom or wealth is a little folly! The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left. When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish.

... Words from the wise man's mouth win favor, but the fool's lips consume him. The beginnning of his words is folly, and the end of his talk is utter madness; yet the fool multiplies words.

... Man knows not what is to come, for who can tell him what is to come after him? When will the fool be weary of his labor, he who knows not the way to the city?"

May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you always, tiassa.



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited December 18, 1999).]

Truestory--

Given that you and I do not receive the same frequency regarding faith, I wonder why you pick such pointed passages from a book whose credibility rests wholly with the reader's predisposition.

After all, I'm sure we both read the phrase differently. Rather, we read the same words, and base our assessments on different criteria. On the one hand, "The quiet words of the wise ...," is an excellent idea. To the other, though, is the assumption that the term "wise" is reserved for those who subscribe to a specific philosophy. In this case, that philosophy is the one founded by Christ's followers. So I could assume the statement is true and proper, but I might be making assumptions about my perception of your openmindedness, and that would be extreme.

You also included a quote that contained a gem: "When will the fool be weary of his labor ...." I would respond here by citing Camus: with nothing to compel us otherwise, we must assume Sisyphus to be happy. But, again, I'm probably reading something you hadn't intended. In fact, I can wager quite safely on that.

So, if you would be so kind, offer your best translation of the faith terms of your citations ... or is this just a declaration which actually is supposed to require no response? In that case, I'm sorry to waste your time.

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

Tiassa,

I don't get your sig??? Perverted message? I know that the message has been perverted by many. Do you know that? If so, then why are you usually arguing the perversion? And if it is perverted, then what does that say about the integrity of the original message itself? Confusion...please explain.

I just noticed that you can disable smilies in a post. Why would anyone want to do that? :)

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

Lori--

Does the turning off of smiles have to do with Unix/Linux? Otherwise I have no clue.

The signature is part of a rant Hitchcock wrote for the interior sleeve of his "Globe of Frogs" album. In 1989, when I first read it, it presented interesting possibilities. Today, it almost seems a truism, but that's a matter of opinion.

The perversion he refers to encapsules nearly two-thousand years of acts that do not hold accord with the message allegedly motivating said acts. The Bible is incomplete ... several of the Gospels excluded made allusions toward Jesus as a married man. In Catholic schools they teach that there were as many as sixty-four "Gospels" being considered when the church heads got together and pared it down. Strangely, in that regard, the four chosen Gospels mirror the Old Testament prophecies more closely than the others. He could refer to the split between James and Saul-turned-Paul. He could be referring to inquisitions, crusades, encomienda, slavery, Manifest Destiny, or any of the horrible atrocities visited on fellow humans by those alleging to be of Jesus' faith. The twentieth century has been bad for Christianity. At the turn of the century, the various sects engaged in character assassination, spawning the phrase "Puritan pornography" in reference to lurid pamphlets by the Anti-Catholic league. Mr. Hitchcock, also, is a British artist. The state of the empire, locally speaking, was pretty bad off during his time, and much of the justifications for what was wrong involved God. Belfast was only a two-hour flight away. Sex scandals, infighting ... all of it said to be in the name of Jesus.

But that's speculation. I'll get the entire text for you, if you like, for context sake. And then I'd be happy to explore the idea with anyone. Why not? I've carried that one, virtually unchallenged, for ten years. If it flies with the audience, hey, it's doing alright. But if you still have deeper issues ... it would be my pleasure to address them.

But it was a quaintly-timed response to a growing "God-is-dead" postmodernism taking hold among jaded youth. That much I can say now.

As to the integrity of the original message ... I cannot comment on Hitchcock's state of mind regarding the things he did not say--as I noted, the best definitions I can give you off the top of my head are speculation.

For myself, the quote said nothing of the integrity of the original message, except perhaps that said integrity is lost. Even I did not get a sense of falseness surrounding the early faith. Instead, it seemed to indicate that something existed there worth saving (which idea had not yet bothered to occur to me, given the ineptness of the preachers and congregations I knew). That something, though, has never been the set of social prohibitions prescribed by alleged Biblical justification. In fact, I'm quite sure that if we wiped out all the church buildings and forced Christians to start over, with small congregations and much to consider, they would have a pretty good shot at avoiding certain traps the founding church could not avoid. But that argument leads into my "people generally never learn" attitude, which I suppose is extreme, but entirely another issue.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

Thanks, that helps alot. I guess that's what I thought it meant in a general sense. It's strange because the notion of "God is dead" is shown to me through the same acts of perversion, but only in the sense that He is dead within us, or to us, or in our hearts. The very fact that we recognize a perversion at all means to me that God is alive. You know that it angers me to know that the Bible in it's original message has been sliced and diced or twisted to the whim of someone's ego. But I also know that for each and every sin committed within the church, there is a message in the Bible (as sliced and diced as it is) that identifies it as such. God can't be dead if there isn't a God. The sheer fact that an absolute right and wrong exists shows me that there is a God, whatever that right and wrong may be. So, I see the same things that this guy is talking about and I see God, instead of seeing that "God is dead". And not only the things within the church of course, but everywhere, lots of bad sad things. Mixed with some good. :) Some. Sometimes the difference between good and bad is obvious, and sometimes it's not so obvious, but I believe that if you look very close and be very honest, you can see that line most of the time. Every time I do, I end up agreeing with the message in the Bible. Ever see that movie "Very Bad Things"? Man, you can see the line ALL OVER that movie. Watching it was quite a spiritual/mental exercise.

------------------
"ET phone home!"
"Uh, hello Satan?"
"Hey, your plan worked great! They all think I'm cute!"

tiassa,

Peace be with you.

As you know, I have a personal relationship with God. When starting to respond to your post which addressed the seven questions, I received a message from God... God asked that I share something with you... God lead me to the Bible and to those passages. It is something that happens sometimes. I do not go searching in the Bible... I simply open it, go to the page that is facing me, and God directs me to the specific passages to be shared with the intented recipient.

Understanding your reluctance to be open to the source, I originally considered interpreting the message and posting it in my own words rather than quoting the passages directly. However, I then realized that doing so would have been an injustice, since it is a personal message from God, to you.

In this case, I am simply the messenger.

May the peace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you always, tiassa.

Truestory--

Slick. Even Falwell would be applauding that performance.

But I like to think I know when not to respond ....

But I'm wondering, since my first inclination toward that heavenly-inspired post was to respond with Crowley's assessment of archaic, Old Testament wisdom ... does that mean that God was hiding my Book of Lies from me? Or does it mean that I just need to write it down when a friend borrows one of my books? Given no other details of your holy revelation, though, I'm inclined to place it beside the notion of "Eureka!"

But thank you for sharing your revelation with me. Though I must admit that if God were truly the omiscient force tradition claims, It might have known that It has a better chance interacting directly with me. Though it's mostly an old standard joke of mine, it is true that if Jesus wanted to sit down over a drink and explain the difference between what He intended and what His people are doing in the modern day, I would even buy the rounds.

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

tiassa,

Believe me. There was no trickery involved. What I said happened, happened.

God does interact with you directly. Perhaps you don't recognize it. If what you truly want is a one-on-one relationship with God, then all you have to do is ask with a purity and sincerity of heart.

More good news! Jesus is also coming in the flesh again. Hopefully, in your lifetime!

In the meantime, you can read His words in the Bible. His intentions are really simple and clear. We might deny them because we are human, but, they are what they are... timeless.

Truestory:

So tell us about your visitation with God, then. What I'm getting after here is that you say something which requires faith to accept--that God spoke to you directly--and leave it simply at that. Given various circumstances, religious visions can be explained as psychiatric phenomena as commonplace as the mysteries of ectoplasmic and Kirlean photography. However, I cannot assert those conditions, because of your short detail. Considering that, a declaration of faith with nothing tangible to relate suddenly reeks of snake oil.

Should I say that ghosts stole my keys when I was prowling the site of a ruined "haunted house"? But then someone might point out the obvious: running full-speed up a steep hill in shoulder-high foliage with my keys stuck recklessly in my jacket pocket, without closing or buttoning said pocket. I might believe in unexplained phenomena, but I know I dropped my keys while running.

But what happens if I describe the episode as we saw it? That we descended the hill with the moon at our backs, felt an unnatural wind just explode through the ravine, saw two white, translucent figures, and then things got weird. The moon shifted its position in the sky 180 degrees, which compelled us to not trifle with the powers we assumed resident in the land we tread. Again ... I may have seen, in my time, things that compel me to not disbelieve spiritual discorporation; but that does not mean that a ghost picked my pocket that night.

Or, to be more relevant, when I found my Thoth tarot Star card in a room of the house which the deck of cards had never been, and with no compulsion for the other residents of the house to remove this card from the deck and hide it ... was that the power of God? When a book of false sorcery spontaneously combusted in front of three of us, was that necessarily an act of God? Or was it the amount of lighter fluid that the bag the book had been in reeked of and the proximity of an ashtray holding three lit cigarettes?

When I sit amid my occult library, now rarely used, and still feel the power of revelation, the need to open this volume or that, and suddenly I gain a new insight into a philosophy that has previously confounded me, is that a message from God? Or is it several years of latent consideration of certain aspects of this faith which have since resolved themselves and simply await a psychological key to offer their fruit?

As to the "More good news" report ... you know, in 96 CE, or thereabout, Clement of Rome felt compelled to advise the church at Corinth to not doubt the resurrection of Christ. It seems many people in that church had begun to doubt the resurrection merely because a lifetime had passed, and still no Second Coming. Thus I would assert your "More good news" is not so much news at all, but a story that has played its doubting aspects out many times over the intervening millennia.

And, yes, the Bible certainly is timeless. It's place in culture has been secured by centuries of the sword. Beyond that, the spiritual qualities that make me consider it timeless are present elsewhere in the world.

Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)