Christianity as the message of love

[Medicine*Woman]

water: From what I can tell so far, to you, religion was about the rituals. It does not surprise me at all that you didn't find Jesus there.
*************
M*W: Don't try to analyze what I wrote. I've already analyzed it to death. I didn't find Jesus there -- OR ANYWHERE ELSE! I am not blaming the Roman Catholic Church for turning me away -- if anything, the Roman Catholic Church was what showed me the truth about Jesus.
*************
water: But why then do you go against Christianity with such anger -- when do you admit that it was you yourself who was "clumsy"??
*************
M*W: I'm antichristian because I learned that Jesus wasn't the messiah and that the whole idea of salvation was a myth invented by Paul of Tarsus. If I were to blame anyone, it would be the liar Paul.
*************
water: I said "you have *treated* Christianity as an addiction". Typically, addicts don't consider their doing as an "addiction" -- for the time they are addicted to the drug.
*************
M*W: The "addiction" to religion exists everywhere there is a christian church. Christianity creates the addiction. It's premise is to provide salvation to everyone who wants "eternal life." That's a basic human desire to avoid death, but the problem is that death cannot be avoided, and if we are ever able to see eternal life, it will be due to the work of scientists and not churches.
*************
water: Blaming yourself for letting it happen ... I think you are wishing you had more control -- more control than I think it is possible to have. Things happen to us, things that we cannot predict, cannot foresee. Sure, it all happened so slowly, it all looked as if we had full control and full knowledge all along -- but were just "stupid" or "clumsy". I think you are being too hard on yourself.
*************
M*W: Yes, I had been very hard on myself for being so gullible. I grieved over the loss of something I truly believed in, and I was angry that I'd been duped. I'm sure a lot of people who found the truth felt the same way.
*************
water: You were after the form, the rituals, the what can be seen on the outside. You were in for the *religion*, not for the *faith*. Religion can't give you faith. Religion can help you to come to faith, but religion is not faith.
*************
M*W: I realize that religion is not faith. I had faith, and I believed in Jesus BEFORE I became catholic. It was the RCC that attracted me, and I am sure I was attracted because of the rituals having grown up in a ultra-liberal home with no god. i was only 22 years old, still a babe.
*************
water: Buildings don't love. If you thought they would, then you were merely being superstitious.
*************
M*W: I know this. In fact, when I became catholic, it was on n AFB and the chapel was for all religions -- not just catholic. When the catholic mass was starting, they would roll out a crucifix. When it was over, they would roll out a plain cross. It was a plain vanilla chapel servicing the entire community.
*************
water: There you go: Inspite everything, inspite your being immersed in the forms and rituals, you did see that they are not all there is to religion and faith. Yet you didn't persevere in that "That's not what Jesus was about! At least not the Jesus I knew!" -- you didn't dare to pursue *your own* faith within Catholicism. I don't think it was Catholicism that stopped you from that -- it was your belief then that the forms and the rituals are essential to faith. I am quite sure one can have one's own faith, but within an established church.
*************
M*W: It wasn't the rituals that I worshipped. I felt they were something I needed in my life since I was raised in a home with no discipline. It was the discipline that I was searching for. In the RCC, however, the rituals are reminders of what the faith teaches. The rituals, however, breed addiction. I wasn't the only person who became addicted to christianity, it was everyone I knew! We all went through the motions of ritual even long after they had been scorched into our minds!
*************
water: But why didn't you stick to what you believed? Why did you give in to the pressure from the outside -- and eventually gave up what you have worked for for so long? Who were those other people to you that they could determine whether you have prayed right or wrong?
*************
M*W: It became meaningless to "stick to what I believed," because it wasn't the building or the statues or the gold everywhere, it was the fact that the whole shebang about Jesus was a myth created by Paul of Tarsus. It was the "death" of Jesus, and I don't mean the death on the cross, that came suddenly to me "like a thief in the night." Those weird folks I met up with in my early days as a christian, well, now I just feel sorry for them. They meant well as human beings, but some of them were actually perverted christians. I've always been an independently minded person, and I just didn't allow myself to fall into their twisted christianity. In a nutshell, the reason I didn't "stick to what I believed," is because I learned that what I believed was a lie.
*************
water: You have rejected Christianity for reasons that have nothing to do with Christianity.
*************
M*W: No, I have rejected Christianity for the reason that Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus!
*************
water: You have rejcted Christianity because you were too trusting, didn't take yourself seriously enough, because you didn't take your experience personally.
*************
M*W: Again, please don't even try to analyze me. I know why I left Christianity, and I do take myself seriously! My "experience" with Christianity was comforting and fulfilling, but it was the lies Christianity perpetuated that disgusted me.
*************
water: The credit that they are capable of what you did. You said you have saved yourself from being entrapped, that you have "untrapped yourself" -- why do you think others couldn't do it themselves as well?
*************
M*W: Because other's believe they have found the truth in christianity, and they refuse to read or learn otherwise. So many have been forever trapped in a circular pattern. But, there are many others who experienced the same thing I did and left christianity. Sciforums is probably the greatest truth finder in the world. There are members who have come here as dyed-in-the-wool christians and have found the truth. They, too, have been set free. My purpose here on sciforums is to bring the truth to as many people as possible.
*************
water: And you think they couldn't untrap themselves by themselves? You think they need your help?
*************
M*W: Anyone can do anything they want to do. The folks who don't question their churches or their religion are the ones who like being "trapped" just like I liked being trapped in christianity. When I found the truth, I fought it for years! Just like there are christians on sciforums that try to convince everyone else that they need to believe in Jesus, I want to reach those same people to help them face the truth that there is no salvation through Jesus.
*************
water: I am not a Christian. I have said this many, many times so far, but it seems that nobody wants to listen. You aren't listening to me. No matter what you do, you eventually cannot prevent from being outpowered and harmed. Some attacks you may back off, sure. But not all. But to say that something can be taken away from you only if you allow it -- this supposes that you are omnipotent.
*************
M*W: No, that's not what I meant. I, more than anyone, know that I'm definitely not omnipotent! Otherwise, I'd have a talk show! LOL The reality of life is that if you hold onto something whether it be a golf club or religion or one's belief in salvation, it cannot be taken away unless it is let go of. Although I fought the truth, I had already found the truth, and inevitably, I was the one who let it go. I have absolutely NO regrets. It was the right thing to do. Since then, I have no longer let my belief in my faith sway or influence my thinking. I am able to see both sides clearly. It's a release of an incredible amount of tension to learn the truth.
*************
water: If a group of people comes to rob you, rape you and kill you -- will you say that it all happened because you have allowed it?
*************
M*W: People sometimes set themselves up for trouble. I trust my instincts now instead of trusting an illusion. Your statement doesn't have anything to do with the topic here. If such a thing happened to me and people came after me and my life was in their hands, I would appeal to my innerself, where the source of all my strength comes, and I would utilize my inner strength to stare them down to protect my life. Crying out to Jesus isn't going to be heard.
*************
water: That's odd. You expected to experience salvation right there, in this life? You expected to know, in this life, how the judgedment will be for you? You are contradicting yourself. If
"We CANNOT or SHOULD NOT rely on someone else's description of a savior or salvation." then you can't say anything more after that -- but you are in fact presenting your own solution, when you say "We can only know what is ours from within. Your soul and your salvation will not come from your belief in christianity or a dying Jesus. These were Paul's ideas. Believe in yourself. You are the only one who knows you well."
*************
M*W: I believe these to be opposite of what Paul taught.
*************
water: Since we are ultimately limited to our own individual experience in everything, this also means that we cannot know eachother's experiences. Someone's experience may be that he is not the only one who knows him well -- but you may not have that experience.
*************
M*W: True, one cannot really know the depth of another's experience.
*************
water: This "We CANNOT or SHOULD NOT rely on someone else's description of a savior or salvation. We can only know what is ours from within. Your soul and your salvation will not come from your belief in christianity or a dying Jesus. These were Paul's ideas. Believe in yourself. You are the only one who knows you well." is *your* experience, *your* solution. Something that works for *you*. But according to "We CANNOT or SHOULD NOT rely on someone else's description of a savior or salvation." -- *you* can't say that this *your* solution will work for others as well, or is obligatory for them.
*************
M*W: No, absolutely not. My experience would have no affect on anyone else. My experience was mine only. However, what I learned from that experience, and the truth I gained from it, has helped a number of people come to know the truth about false christianity.
*************
water: And you didn't want to accept that one has to carry water and gather wood before being enlightened, and that one has to carry water and gather wood after being enlightened.
*************
M*W: Oh, I've carried all my own water and gathered all my own wood in this life, and I'm still doing it! In my time, I've also carried water and gathered wood for many others. That will never end, even if I have to crawl to do it.
*************
water:

P1: "He who has ears, let him hear."
P2: This (P1) does not only mean to listen to what comes in from the 'outside', it means that which we hear from the 'inside.'
P3: The truth can ONLY be found from within.

P3 contradicts P2.
*************
M*W: Well, I'm not the one to say this, Jesus did. Tell him he contradicts himself.

 

[water]

water, why do you try?

I have an inherent aversion to what seem like bad arguments to me.
This, and I am full of love. Sometimes.
Don't you just profit from it too?

 

[§outh§tar]

I have an inherent aversion to what seem like bad arguments to me.
This, and I am full of love. Sometimes.
Don't you just profit from it too?

Know thy place woman! Thou profitest from me.

 

[Woody]

SL,

More than anything this actually lends support to my statement that: "god and jesus are two completely different beings", and that there is a "gods will" and a "jesus will".

That's called the Arian heresy, which the catholic church follows.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

I can do the math, God has a plurality to His character.

If you spend some time reading Hebrews you'll see beyond any doubt that jesus isn't a god, and never has been. To deny that is to disagree with what the actual god says.

I've spent plenty of time in the whole bible and Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

Revelations 1

I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


Colossians 1: Jesus created the universe

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Sounds like he is God to me. Jesus didn't create himself did he? And yes he is a priest among many other things including The Judge on the Great White Throne.

The only reason you guys want him to be is because he comes across as being a tad nicer than god. While god is happily annihilating anyone he feels like, jesus is carrying daisies, skipping through the meadows, and handing out cures to the crippled and diseased.

Yep, but you haven't seen his angry side, when he sends people to hell.

So perhaps then god should stick a needle in his arm or bum and then he'd be immune to the effects of sin. Bubonic plague would bother us a great deal, but one injection and it just doesn't bother us anymore. Wasn't all that difficult.. Ok, I know it's painful - but he can handle it surely?

Nope, God can't be made to be a sinner. The poison analogy was originally for illustration puposes. As all analagies do, it breaks down when compared to reality. OK so maybe it was a crummy analogy.

Satan tried his hardest to make Jesus sin during the 40 day testing period, but Jesus would not, because He could not sin. If he had sinned like Satan wanted then God would no longer be God.

I get the distinct impression you'll say yes, and you've implied it with your "we can't live with poison". If so you've just accepted science's word on the matter. jesus on the other hand says you can drink it, and as long as you have faith it wont harm you at all. And yet, you ignore jesus, (ovbiously because your faith isn't strong enough), and accept science, accept reality. Why is that?

This verse is taken out of context. Jesus did not tell people to go around drinking poison, and letting snakes bite them. He said this was going to happen, and as a miracle there would be people that lived through it, i.e. the apostle Paul when he was bitten by a viper, and no harm came to him.

Satan tried to tempt Jesus by taking scriptures out of context:

Matthew 4:6 If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

and Satan was alluding to this verse:

Psalm 91:12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus knew the OT as well.

You were saying 'no' a minute ago.

No about what? My apologies, but I don't see an inconsistency?

You're arguing against your earlier statements.

I hope I've cleared up the misunderstanding now. I hate analogies, they are always inadequate, my apologies for bringing it up.

Do I honestly have to keep informing you that what you "think" is of no merit or value, and that you should stick to what is supported and what isn't?

You seemed to like it when we agreed.

The text you quoted explains that Peter didn't eat, saying he has never done so.

The remainder of the scripture said the smorgasboard was presented to him three times -- hey, it's ok to eat at the buffet seafood bar, Peter, but if you don't like those creepin critters, that's ok.

This has nothing to do with jews in the wilderness, but the laws set down by god, and confirmed by jesus. Not one dot, not one stroke is to dissapear from the law.

How about the stoning example I gave you concerning the man that picked up sticks on the sabbath, and he was stoned to death. Then Jesus says he who is without sin cast the first stone, concerning the woman taken in adultery -- a violation of the ten commandments. It seems your argument is settled once and for all right here and now we can all quit and go home with me an atheist, Jesus going against God's commandment, and God not making up His mind. I'm giving you better ammunition than you can pick. I got more if you want it.

I'm sure they're keeping your seat warm for you.

You're not sure of anything, but it's nice knowing yer thinkin about me.

Concerning my forgiveness of my father who beat me to the point of being suicidal, and left me incapable of functioning in society for 20 years:

How so? He wrote a letter for you on your father's behalf? He changed your brain chemicals and memory so you'd forget about it? He came down and said "dude, forgive your father or else"Forgiveness is a natural process, that can take a damn long time but will happen when you're ready.

My mother couldn't forgive my father, neither could the brother that tried to shoot him.

SL, I , again suggest you read the post over there, I know it is long, I know it is unpleasant, but I did explain. You being a professional pshychologist should understand something about what was going on in my life. How many people do you think could forgive the kind of abuse I received? I could not do it on my own, though I worked on it with the psychiatrist. His final recommendation to me was to go get spiritual help in a church, that this would help me resolve this issue.

SL, let's assume some worthless creep breaks into you home and shoots you in the back leaving you paralized for life from the neck down, then he rapes your wife and child right there in front of you laughing in your face, and then tortures them slowly until they die, then cooks them in a stew pot and eats them right in front of your eyeballs, Could you forgive a person like this? I can't, but Jesus can. Jesus saved Jeffry Dalmer, the serial killing homosexual cannibal. And if I had to forgive that person, Jesus would help me do it. This is how it works: I am forgiven by forgiving them. If I want to be the judge then Jesus has to judge me. The system works on faith -- and it does work! Let's hear your analysis of it.

Don't try and use jesus as an excuse. He informed you not to infringe even the least of those commandments, and that he came not to abolish those laws but to complete them - to add to them.

While you are quoting the bible, explain these verses to me:

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

and this,


For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Well I look pretty good on the righteous side since Jesus put it on me, so why should I worry about the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love fulfills all of the law, how 'bout that, it sure simplifies matters.

Man, hundreds of thousands of people all playing music will be more painful than wonderful.

Not when we all got the new gift.

As for food.. What you gonna eat? Carrots and soya beans? Meat will be off the menu, as you should know.

Anything you want to eat and meat is on the menu, as you should know: Jesus ate a fish after he was resurrected. There won't be any pee or poop to deal with because food will be 100% converted without waste. And you won't have to eat if you don't want too.

Hundreds of millions? What's that all about? Wasn't the number of people 144,000? Well in either case I just feel sorry for dogs and fortune tellers..

During the seven year tribulation period there will be 144,000 believers. I won't be around for the big trib, but you might.

And where will meat come from you might ask? Answer: God can make it from dust like he did in the beginning -- nobody has to kill the fatted calf.

Chow dude!

 

[SnakeLord]

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

This wouldn't imply that he's a god. He would be alive forever and have the keys as the high priest - the duty assigned to him by god. By trying to state he is god, you're actually arguing against god.

Colossians 1: Jesus created the universe

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

You've made two errors that would seem purposeful. It doesn't say "created by him", it says "created through him" - which would imply that someone else is making things through him, (namely god who is god, using jesus as a tool). It also doesn't say "For by him", but "For in him". There's a big difference.

But then, as we're using Colossians, let's see what it really says:

Colossians states that jesus is: "the first born of all creation".. which shows that he was created as the first born being.

Are you concluding that god was created or born?

It doesn't only say it once either, it seems to want to push the issue:

"The first born from the dead".

Are you saying god was born from the dead? Wait, it goes on:

"..so that he should be supreme in every way; because god wanted all fullness to be found in him and through him to reconcile all things.."

So you see, god has always been there, and then before creating anything else, created jesus and works "through" him in order to do his work. According to this, jesus is just a pawn of god's, nothing more. This would be concluded accurately given that jesus gets the job of high priest to god, to serve god and to do gods work, just like it used to be done by Melchizedek, who also apparently never had beginning or end.

While we're on the subject, it's worth pointing out that jesus himself said that he did not know when the end times would be. If he was indeed god he would know, he would have no choice but to know, because he's god and not only is he apparently omniscient, which would leave him very little choice in the matter, but by being god he determined when the end times would be, and as such would obviously know. The high priest of god of course, is not privy to those details.

It's also worth mentioning that it's not only jesus god works "through". Apparently he works "through" others aswell - yes, just simple humans. Now think about it.. If let's say a priest heals someone, it would be said that god was working "through" him. Now tell me.. has the priest actually done anything? Of course not, god has but "through" the priest. By the same token, jesus hasn't actually done anything, but god has done it "through" him.

Sounds like he is God to me. Jesus didn't create himself did he?

You're right, he didn't- god did - as clearly shown in Colossians, (the very book you chose to try and debate the issue lol). He was "born". god's don't get born.. apparently.

And yes he is a priest among many other things including The Judge on the Great White Throne.

Yes, the priest and the judge.. sitting on a throne next to someone famous. Guess who? Ah yes, god. So jesus get's to sit next to god.

Yep, but you haven't seen his angry side, when he sends people to hell.

I've seen as much as you or anyone else has - which is some words in a book. It's not like there's anyone there to tell you what it's like.

Nope, God can't be made to be a sinner.

This doesn't make any sense. Where did I imply he would be made a sinner? Are you saying that because we vaccinate ourselves against the effects of poison that we become poison?

Satan tried his hardest to make Jesus sin during the 40 day testing period, but Jesus would not, because He could not sin. If he had sinned like Satan wanted then God would no longer be God.

god would have still been god, jesus would have just lost his place as high priest. But jesus did sin.. Need I bring up the "thou fool" incident again? Basically he said that anyone who says thou fool is a sinner and in danger of hellfire. Sometime later he said just that to the scribes. As a result, he clearly sinned - you're just excusing him for it because in your mistaken opinion he's god. As a result, it's not that "he can't sin", but that "when he sins he gets excused for it".

This verse is taken out of context. Jesus did not tell people to go around drinking poison, and letting snakes bite them. He said this was going to happen, and as a miracle there would be people that lived through it, i.e. the apostle Paul when he was bitten by a viper, and no harm came to him.

Not true, and this can be seen several times. It's all about faith, and jesus even gets a tad frustrated at his apostles when they ask why they can't heal etc. jesus mentions that as long as there is faith, (even as small as a grain of mustard seed), you can literally say to that mountain; "bugger off mountain, into the sea with you", whereupon the mountain shall pack its bags and drown itself, and nothing will be impossible for you. Nothing.

Much that you need to make excuses, it does come down to faith, and you obviously don't have enough.

Just the other day I flew through the air. I know you wont believe me, and that's where the problem lies. You just don't trust jesus or have enough faith in him.

Remember Woody, god works "through" him so you can do it if you really have faith.

You seemed to like it when we agreed.

Of course, because you were finally paying attention to what is supported instead of what isn't. Duh.

The remainder of the scripture said the smorgasboard was presented to him three times -- hey, it's ok to eat at the buffet seafood bar, Peter, but if you don't like those creepin critters, that's ok.

Yeah, it's ok Peter, aka Satan.. according to jesus:

"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Hmm.. savourest not for the things of god but for those of men. Hmmmm.

You're not sure of anything, but it's nice knowing yer thinkin about me.

But I am sure. After all, it's all a matter of faith.. Right? Maybe? Perhaps? Only when you decide it to be so?

My mother couldn't forgive my father, neither could the brother that tried to shoot him.

Never confuse what's "outside" to what's "inside".

How many people do you think could forgive the kind of abuse I received?

Everyone pretty much. I'm in a job only because people want to get to that stage.

I could not do it on my own, though I worked on it with the psychiatrist.

There are never guarantees. Only you can answer the question you don't know how to ask. We try and help you figure out what that question is.

His final recommendation to me was to go get spiritual help in a church, that this would help me resolve this issue.

I have not to date heard of anyone doing this. Of course, if you expressed a desire to go to church he might have suggested you do so, but otherwise it's more likely you confused what he said.

SL, let's assume some worthless creep breaks into you home and shoots you in the back leaving you paralized for life from the neck down, then he rapes your wife and child right there in front of you laughing in your face, and then tortures them slowly until they die, then cooks them in a stew pot and eats them right in front of your eyeballs, Could you forgive a person like this?

The "assumption" is so far fetched it is not worthy of attention. Of course though, it would be quick to answer 'no' when you've never been through that, but eventually some form of reconciliation will occur. Generally speaking however, a lot of that anger isn't even focused at them, it's focused within: "I should have saved them", "I should have been the one to die", etc etc...

It all follows a very consistent pattern that even you would have gone through.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

We've been through this before. The righteous man is righteous because he obeys the laws. The lawless are not righteous because they don't obey the laws. When a righteous man no longer obeys the laws, he is no longer righteous. He becomes the lawless.

By not obeying the laws, (even to the last dot and stroke), you are not a righteous man, but a "lawless and disobedient man, and as such those laws are made for you.

Well I look pretty good on the righteous side since Jesus put it on me, so why should I worry about the law?

A) because by not obeying it, you're "lawless and disobedient", so sayeth the first quote, and

B) because the second quote says "might". You "might" also be turned into a giant guitar playing frog, but you should never be too comfortable with "might".

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Love fulfills all of the law, how 'bout that, it sure simplifies matters.

You're missing the point of it. Obeying all of god's laws is a large part of loving god with all your heart. If you disobey because you frankly don't give a shit about eating pork, you are going against god's word and as a result not showing him your love. That speech puts all of god's laws under one title.. Love god. That is why not one dot or stroke can be infringed - it's showing god you have no love for him because you can't even do as he asks. Worse than that though, is that they're not even 'hard' things he's asking from you. Tell me Woody, does pork taste that nice that you can't live without it? So much so that you need to disobey god? Or how about obeying the sabbath.. Is it that hard just to sit down and chill for one day a week? Your lack of loyalty, respect and love shines like a beacon on the bay.

Not when we all got the new gift.

At the end of the day, I wonder about the value of that. You just wont be you anymore.

Anything you want to eat and meat is on the menu, as you should know: Jesus ate a fish after he was resurrected.

Technically fish isn't meat. But then..

There won't be any pee or poop to deal with because food will be 100% converted without waste.

What would be the purpose of eating? Do you find eating "fun"? Or will it just slide down into your stomach and.. do what exactly? Go into your bloodstream and improve your health? But is health an issue considering you're gonna live for eternity anyway?

And you won't have to eat if you don't want too.

Why would you want to if you don't have to?

During the seven year tribulation period there will be 144,000 believers. I won't be around for the big trib, but you might.

We'll both burn together. Just make sure you're not on a ship at the time, because it's just after this that god destroys a third of all ships.. Lol, oh and when a big "star" crash lands on earth.. The amusing thing is people are apparently still alive after the star, (a sun), has gone splat on planet earth. Makes you wonder..

And where will meat come from you might ask? Answer: God can make it from dust like he did in the beginning -- nobody has to kill the fatted calf.

Let's just hope the god that "never changes", decides to change his mind and allow you to eat pork.

 

[cole grey]

You've made two errors that would seem purposeful. It doesn't say "created by him", it says "created through him" - which would imply that someone else is making things through him, (namely god who is god, using jesus as a tool). It also doesn't say "For by him", but "For in him". There's a big difference.

Exactly, it definitely does not say "through him all things were created", it says, "in him all things were created". What exactly does that mean?

The common translation of the greek "en" would refer to a place. The same greek word is used here - 'all things created, that are in heaven' col1:16
A differnet word "epi" (meaning "upon") is used for this - 'and that are in earth' col1:16
And another word "dia" is used later in the passage for the word "through" - 'all things were created by him' col1:16 -

All things are created "in" him, AND "through" him. You have a tendency to simplify these things into something that is easily spit out by your mind, i.e., wrongly translating "in" as "through" to keep the idea that jesus is not God easily defined and proven by you.

Also, col 1:17 'And he is before all things, and by (en) him all things consist'. "In" him all things consist, is what it says, not "by", or "through".

The translation, en for "in", dia for "through" seems simple enough, so why do the "experts" generally translate en as "by"? Can't you see that you are oversimplifying? This is the basis of why your discussions, including the one with me on the other thread, seem to get nowhere (although they are useful as impetus for gathering information, I am not saying they are useless, just tedious.) It reminds me of something you said about teaching algebra to a monkey or whatever. Again, I ask you who the monkeys are? Maybe we are the monkeys. Maybe the algebra is monkey-talk, so we can't explain it perfectly. Either way it isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

 

[Woody]

SL,

You've made two errors that would seem purposeful. It doesn't say "created by him", it says "created through him" - which would imply that someone else is making things through him, (namely god who is god, using jesus as a tool). It also doesn't say "For by him", but "For in him". There's a big difference.

I just quoted the bible verbatim, what are you talking about here? My bible is a KJV. There are other verses that say Jesus made the world if there is even any question here

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

I'm sorry SL, but you were arguing bible versions here. You've taken a bite off the catholic apple on this one -- ye ole Textus Vaticansus. The RSV came from the vaticansus. I call it the "Rattlesnake Standard Version".

And your legalistic approach to the bible has some major problems:

By not obeying the laws, (even to the last dot and stroke), you are not a righteous man, but a "lawless and disobedient man, and as such those laws are made for you.

Galatians 2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I'm going to obey God instead of frustrating him with law-works that nobody ever lived up to except Jesus himself. So if yer right then Jesus is the only one that went to heaven, but then again he called somebody a fool -- what's the taboo here, doesn't a fool exist? Is it some sacred word that nobody is allowed to say? I don't think so, if the shoe fits wear it (and I don't mean that against you personally).

The whole book of Galatians tackles the issue of legalism head-on.

We're getting into an argument of which bible to use. You are probably using the RSV or some other variant of the Textus Vaticansus

I'm sorry I can't take you counterpoint for counterpoint becasue it is getting late, and we already have a big difference of opinion about bible versions. Naturally we are going to argue over bible semantics as a result. But consider this: the catholics are worshipping the virgin mary. The rest of us christians are worshipping christ. So if you go with the catholic version you might as well argue for or against catholicism.

PS: I don't buy it about forgiving my DAD on my own after more than 20 years. I wasn't even interested in forgiving him until I became a christian -- the thought never even crossed my mind, until the head shrink mentioned it, I felt like my dad deserved every bit of my resentment and then some. I didn't go to church on the headshrink's advice, I chose to carry the bitterness instead. My brother still hasn't forgiven my dad after 40 years and my father is dead. By the way, I saw a tv program about the families of victims of serial killers. It was indeed rare that any of them ever forgave the murderer.

 

[cole grey]

Hey,

I didn't want to do music talk on the thread, because there is topic-related posting going on too, but I guess it doesn't matter -

**Please skip the following if you are only interested in the topic.**

I actually made it through my twenties (hard to believe), but some of the album was recorded while i was still in my twenties.

I have a rosewood telecaster and a fender jaguar on most of the album. (you can hear some other tracks at colegrey.com). Also, the other guitar player plays a jaguar. His amps- fender twin and that little, tiny, fender amp jimmy page used sometimes (forgot the name). My amps- mesa nomad and a marshall 1/2 stack.

The acoustics were a rosewood jumbo by Rico, and a Gurian, both amazing semi-unknown guitars. I tend to prefer these sounds over the more common acoustics.

I have a thinline acoustic, i think that is like the one you are getting, but made by godin. It is actually as good of an acoustic sound as most acoustics if plugged in. If not plugged in though, it sounds bad.

Anyway, good luck with the guitar playing, see you later.

 

[water]

Know thy place woman! Thou profitest from me.

Aye, of course I do.

If the road is muddy or there is horsedung, you put your coat over it so that I have a clean path to tread.
And if there are holes in the road, you lay over it like a man-bridge, so that I can walk over safely. (And I do try to not make too big holes through your ripcage with my stilletoes. Nice I am.)
So there is mine place.

Indeed, I profiteth from thee!

* * *

Enough of this. I've been in a deathly mood these past days, that's why I was so jocose.

 

[§outh§tar]

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.



Do you want any more PROOF?

 

[water]

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.



Do you want any more PROOF?

Yes. You can ask me to marry you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45099

(I feel like dying.)

 

[SnakeLord]

Exactly, it definitely does not say "through him all things were created", it says, "in him all things were created".

Actually it does in the majority of translations.

What exactly does that mean?

You know, I've spoken to thousands of religious people, (mainly christians). They all have one thing in common. I get round to asking them if they speak to god/jesus to which they generally say yes. I then ask what he sounds like and looks like, to which they say he is in them, (communicating from the inside).

They say that god is in all people, all things, and he works through some to do his will.

It even shows this throughout the bible, for example:

Gal 3:20 yet it is no longer I, but christ living in me.

All things are created "in" him, AND "through" him. You have a tendency to simplify these things into something that is easily spit out by your mind, i.e., wrongly translating "in" as "through" to keep the idea that jesus is not God easily defined and proven by you.

While it's very sweet of you to point the fingers at me, I didn't translate the texts. I didn't wrongly translate "in" as "through", and I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. It says:

'all things were created through him and for him".

But while you continue fart arsing around trying to blame me for translating the biblical texts in a manner you don't personally like, I'll just sit here wondering why you ignored the rest of my post - namely the text saying that jesus is "the first born of all creation" and "the first born from the dead". Or indeed the verses in Hebrews, the speech by jesus that he didn't know when the end times would come etc etc etc.

I've supported it by several means, and you seemingly have nothing better to go on aside from some disagreement with the work done by bible translators, while trying to blame it all on me.

Can't you see that you are oversimplifying?

Oversimplifying? Dude, you ignored my entire post in preference of debating against one word that you disagree with - which you can hardly lump on my shoulders. I didn't make the translations, but the translation that says "through" is in the majority of bibles. Now, if you have a specific bible you would claim is the best translated one and that I should ignore all the other translations then fine, but you have no place to make accusations concerning me because you don't agree with the translators. That is ignorant and rude.

This is the basis of why your discussions, including the one with me on the other thread, seem to get nowhere (although they are useful as impetus for gathering information, I am not saying they are useless, just tedious.)

Oh c'mon, I debate issues with support whereas you faff about on the KJV not agreeing with the NKJV about one word - and then try and blame it all on me.

But it is hard for dicussions in a religious forum to really progress to great lengths. There are reasons for this, and mainly because the two sides are too different. You've had "belief" drummed into your head since.. 'god knows when', and so it's not a case of actually understanding the bible, but understanding what you've been told to understand. You're the earthly equivalent of Borgs.

But beyond that, my posts do go places. If you look back in this thread you'll see how, through supporting my statements, that people like Woody who originally debated against what I was saying, came to actually agree with it. But that is something that will only be done if you see no harm being done to your actual core beliefs. Notice how both you and Woody completely ignored the biblical quotes I used about jesus being "the first born of creation".

If you can't debate something, you just ignore it right?

Again, I ask you who the monkeys are?

Is it even relevant here?

Either way it isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

You are amusing, I'll give you that. The only reason you have to say I've made it out to be simple is that you squashed every statement, comment, and supporting text down to a one word disagreement, and then tried to place the differing translation on my head.

Simplifying it would be to say that jesus is god, because.. well he is. End of story

That is what you seemingly want to do, and while that is your right, it leaves you in no position to tell me I'm simplifying it.

Let me recap:

Hebrews states jesus is a priest for ever... Let's look at some quotes:

Hebrews 4:14 Since in jesus, the son of god, we have the supreme high priest..

Hebrews 5 Every high priest is taken from among human beings and is appointed to act on their behalf in relationships with god.

Hebrews 7:21 The lord has sworn an oath he will never retract: you are a priest for ever.

Hebrews 8 He has taken his seat at the right of the throne of divine majesty in the heavens

Hebrews 8:3 Every high priest is constituted to offer gifts and sacrifices, and so this one too must have something to offer, (he got himself killed). In fact, if he were on earth he would not be a priest at all, (the duty only given to him by his supreme sacrifice).

Let us not forget that he was not even the first to get this position, but that Melchizedek came before him. What does it say about Melchizedek:

Hebrews 7 He has no father, mother or ancestry, and his life has no beginning or ending; he is like the son of god. He remains a priest for ever.

jesus on the other hand:

Colossians 1 'the first born of all creation'

Colossians 1:18 'the first born from the dead'

But of course, you'd rather ignore all this and just simplify matters by concentrating on a one word translation disagreement, that in actuality doesn't mean anything. Even in the bible translations that use 'by', these other verses are shown, and god - being god, has the power to give jesus the power to make things such as: thrones as sovereigneties, and anything else he so chooses to empower jesus with, because after all:

Col 1:19 "god wanted all fullness to be found in him"

So please, unsimplify it.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm sorry SL, but you were arguing bible versions here. You've taken a bite off the catholic apple on this one -- ye ole Textus Vaticansus. The RSV came from the vaticansus. I call it the "Rattlesnake Standard Version".

No Woody, you're arguing bible versions. Both you and Cole seemingly want to tell me that the majority of biblical translations are wrong, and that your translation is right. While that's ok, not only have I shown on my post to Cole that it doesn't really matter - because god can give him that power, but that I am not personally responsible for translating the texts.

As seen above, you seem to display almost a hatred for other bible versions, whereas I'm generally quite comfortable with any. Do these other versions threaten you and your beliefs, that you instantly have to try and dismiss them with no valid call to do so?

Hey but not only other versions, but even the one you read that also shows jesus was "the first born of all creation" and that he is a priest, (like others before him), for ever - so sayeth god - and yet because that's such a threat you just ignore it completely and then, much like Cole, waffle on about who's bible is better.

I'm going to obey God instead of frustrating him with law-works that nobody ever lived up to except Jesus himself.

You mistake the quote as meaning laws are irrelevant. They are not, but are a co-partner of faith, (as you should know) - faith and works, (about which the apostles in the bible have their own debate going on). It's a partnership. I fail to see how you're "obeying" god, by not "obeying" the laws he gives you.

Look at yourself as a parent. You probably have "laws" for your child, (i.e don't touch the power drill) which constitutes one part of a whole. The other part would be the 'faith' part - your childs faith in trusting you etc. That makes the whole.

You seem more than happy to just dismiss the first part of the whole. How would you feel if your daughter did that? She could still have faith in you as a good parent, but then a large part of that would be in listening to what you say.

Still, I'm sure you have plenty of time to work on your excuses.

but then again he called somebody a fool -- what's the taboo here, doesn't a fool exist? Is it some sacred word that nobody is allowed to say? I don't think so, if the shoe fits wear it

You missed the point. But yes, apparently you're not allowed to say it - so sayeth jesus.. well, more to the point - you can say it if you so choose, but it wont work out good for you if you do.

And again Woody, it doesn't matter what you "think". What matters is what's supported.

We're getting into an argument of which bible to use. You are probably using the RSV or some other variant of the Textus Vaticansus

Quite a few different versions actually, including the nkjv, (the updated edition of your outdated edition).

But consider this: the catholics are worshipping the virgin mary. The rest of us christians are worshipping christ.

Sure, and none of you seem to care about god.

So if you go with the catholic version you might as well argue for or against catholicism.

Like I said, I use many different versions.

 

[cole grey]

SL,
Did you not notice the explanation of the words in the greek text? Why, oh why, oh why, do people write an exegesis on each phrase I post and miss ALL of the point???

"IN", the same as all things "IN" heaven, not through, or by. That is all of my point. When you accept my point that this verse is much more complicated than you give it credit for, which is a very hard point to refute, you will see what I am saying. The one thing I am saying in my post.

God does not give him the power to create the universe, it is created "IN" him. Of course, nobody is going to understand what that means, so most translators just make it simple. I guess I shouldn't blame you for over simplifying, it is just a human tendency.

I don't have time to talk about the other ideas right now.

 

[§outh§tar]

Yes. You can ask me to marry you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45099

(I feel like dying.)

I am sorry. I did not know my jokes would turn out to be so pertinent.

Remember what I told you: It is never that simple. Aren't you shocked to know?

 

[Woody]

SL,

No Woody, you're arguing bible versions.

I hate to be short with you SL, but why don't you argue with a catholic about your bible since y'all use the same one? Well actually catholics have one but they don't use it for much of anything -- that tells me a lot about it. They have little use for it and I have none.

My bible is the textus receptus.yours is either the vaticansus, sinaticus, or vulgatis. All three of those versions have been corrupted with arianism from egypt. That is why the virgin Mary reigns in the catholic church: It's Isis & Nimrod from babylon, Ashtorah from Egypt, and Diana from Greece -- they are all one and the same: the "Holy Mother" false God.

Why should bible versions even matter to you? You don't believe in God or Jesus anyway. So why not get a reader's digest bible, or something? Why are you even debating the bible at all? You have your mind made up anyway.

No hard feelings, but let's stop wasting our breath.

 

[§outh§tar]

Rule #1

When losing the argument - badly - accuse your opponent of playing Devil's advocate and pretend to be the bigger man by cutting the discussion short.

Whew!

 

[SnakeLord]

Did you not notice the explanation of the words in the greek text?

Sure I did.

Why, oh why, oh why, do people write an exegesis on each phrase I post and miss ALL of the point???

Beacuse without doing so you wont even realise that there's a whole lot more to the debate than your belief that I was "wrongly translating "in" as "through"", even though I never translated in as through, but "by" as through because dia means through, not by. Thus: all things were created through him, and for him. It is supported that it was god working through him as seen slightly later with: 'because god wanted all fullness to be found in him' - and thus worked through him, and "with" - the meaning of 'en', (along with upon, at, and in) - him in order to accomplish the 'fullness' he wanted to be found in him.

But in either case I said I was happy to agree with you given that it doesn't make a difference given the other passages - that he was born and created, born from the dead and so on, (yes, those passages you ignored).

You seem to think that as long as you ignore them, they'll cease to exist.

"IN", the same as all things "IN" heaven, not through, or by. That is all of my point. When you accept my point that this verse is much more complicated than you give it credit for

Look, your started your argument by saying "It definitely does not say through him", when in actuality it does, and your whole argument now boils down to 'translators don't know shit' - aside from you and anyone who agrees with you.

which is a very hard point to refute, you will see what I am saying.

Hardly, given that "en" has several meanings such as "with", and given the rest of the passage does not support your version of its meaning given that we see god wanting jesus to have fullness, and not that jesus always was and wanted himself to have fullness - and that jesus was indeed born and created.

However once again I can only state that your personal disagreement with a word or two isn't of any real issue - and you'd notice that once you started paying attention to the rest of my post.

I guess I shouldn't blame you for over simplifying, it is just a human tendency.

Says the man who completely narrowed down "en" into meaning one word and one word only, while completely ignoring everything else.

I don't have time to talk about the other ideas right now.

What a surprise..

 

[fadeaway humper]

Rule #1

When losing the argument - badly - accuse your opponent of playing Devil's advocate and pretend to be the bigger man by cutting the discussion short.

Whew!

Your momma is fat!

 

[SnakeLord]

I hate to be short with you SL, but why don't you argue with a catholic about your bible since y'all use the same one?

I have access to most bibles - no matter who they're for.

Experience will tell you that as time passes, ability and understanding improve. This is why the NKJV uses 'through', while the KJV, (from 1611 - nearly 400 years ago), says 'by'.

You see, the 'new king james bible' is the updated and improved version of the King James bible, written 400 years ago, and still used by you. I think you should get with the times man instead of being stuck in the past, using outdated, faulty copies.

It has nothing to do with what catholics think, but the unavoidable advancement of man's understanding.

My bible is the textus receptus.yours is either the vaticansus, sinaticus, or vulgatis.

As I said on my last post, (happily ignored by you), I have access to a load of bibles - all sitting here. such as the NJV, NIV, KJV, NKJV and so on.

All three of those versions have been corrupted with arianism from egypt. That is why the virgin Mary reigns in the catholic church: It's Isis & Nimrod from babylon, Ashtorah from Egypt, and Diana from Greece -- they are all one and the same: the "Holy Mother" false God.

While this is most certainly interesting, it's also irrelevant. Even the bible you use states clearly that jesus was "the first born of creation" and all those other biblical quotes I used, (that you and Cole seem determined to ignore).

Why should bible versions even matter to you?

Seemingly they matter more to you and Cole. Hell, you've just given me some headache garbage about how fucked up catholic version bibles are etc etc etc.

As I've said three times now, I'm happy using any. Tell you what Woody, you tell me exactly which version to use and we'll continue from there. If you have the balls.

You don't believe in God or Jesus anyway. So why not get a reader's digest bible, or something?

I don't believe in many things, but that does not mean I am not allowed to discuss and debate them. I don't believe in capital punishment, Tony Blair's involvement in Iraq, or that absinth should be banned - and that's exactly why I do discuss them.

Why are you even debating the bible at all?

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't.

You have your mind made up anyway.

Oh cmon, that's rude. I've happily put aside my "atheism", and am speaking in your terms - I.E that god/jesus are real etc etc etc. The funny thing is you can't even debate it - instead just choosing to ignore it. Before that you ended up agreeing with me to things you had formerly been debating against. That is part of it's purpose.

No hard feelings, but let's stop wasting our breath

Well that's your choice. Ok, it comes across that you are distinctly trying to avoid dreaming up and answer to all of my post that you ignored, but whatever.