Christianity

Posted by: Lenore

Christianity - 12/18/05 12:43 AM

If a god did exist, one who was holy and all-knowing like in the bible, then upon creating man, wouldn't this "god" forsee the sinnful nature of his created? And why would such a merciful and benevolent god want to create a race where millions would be sent to hell?
Posted by: jjw

Re: Christianity - 12/18/05 09:04 PM

Hi Lenore:

You mention the Biblical God. That ?God? was not very benevolent.

The Biblical God did not know all things. Taking the wording of the Bible for its own truth, it is clear that in the Garden of Eden God was walking and did not know where Adam and Eve were. He called out to them to find them. He then did not know that they had eaten of the forbidden fruit- he did not know this of his own. Through out the Bible there are such references, which to me, demonstrate that the Biblical God was much less than all knowing. If you practice a belief system that requires an all knowing God then you must look elsewhere than in the Bible. I am not sure where the idea comes from that God is supposed to know all. The Catholic Catechism, as I recall, may argue for such so no sin will go un-noticed but the concept is inept in my opinion. You may find it entertaining to scan the Bible for instances where their ?God? did not know what was going on.
jjw
Posted by: RM

Re: Christianity - 12/19/05 03:30 PM

Answer to Lenore:
Because the people that thought up the story of the bible didn't think it through very well.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 12/21/05 10:58 PM

posted 18 December, 2005 16:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Lenore:

You mention the Biblical God. That ?God? was not very benevolent.

The Biblical God did not know all things. Taking the wording of the Bible for its own truth, it is clear that in the Garden of Eden God was walking and did not know where Adam and Eve were. He called out to them to find them. He then did not know that they had eaten of the forbidden fruit- he did not know this of his own. Through out the Bible there are such references, which to me, demonstrate that the Biblical God was much less than all knowing. If you practice a belief system that requires an all knowing God then you must look elsewhere than in the Bible. I am not sure where the idea comes from that God is supposed to know all. The Catholic Catechism, as I recall, may argue for such so no sin will go un-noticed but the concept is inept in my opinion. You may find it entertaining to scan the Bible for instances where their ?God? did not know what was going on.
jjw

Also in 'Job' God asked satan where he had been when satan came to present himself to God. However I do not agree with jjw004. God does know everything. But He chooses to allow His creation to have a free will or choice so He never imposes the fact that He knows everything for His own reasons. When God found Adam and Eve He found that they were hiding, so He knew before He asked them that they had eaten the 'forbidden' fruit. I can demonstrate from the Bible that God has this foreknowledge. When Jesus came across a crowd wanting to stone a woman who commited adultery, He asked anyone from the crowd to throw the first stone if they had not committed such sin.
Jesus also said He 'knew his sheep' He also predicted His death in detail, He even knew the time of his 'hour' So ofcourse God knows everything, but the fact that He made us and we rebelled is not 'His' fault. He sent His only Son to find a way back to Him for us. Also no-one needs to go to hell. If like the thief on the cross people can realise that Chist died for everyone, so all our sins are covered by His sacrifice, we can claim His protection from eternal damnation. Jesus said 'Blessed are the poor in spirit' that is people who lack spirituality and who have never heard of God's sacrifice, they are blessed because they are 'covered' by Jesus blood and as He stated 'For theirs in the Kingdom of God.'
Posted by: jjw

Re: Christianity - 12/22/05 07:32 PM

Mr. P.
Also in 'Job' God asked Satan where he had been when Satan came to present himself to God. However I do not agree with jjw004.

God does know everything. But He chooses to allow His creation to have a free will or choice so He never imposes the fact that He knows everything for His own reasons.

Jjw, you are offering an opinion by your interpretation. You suggest that God intentionally choose to deceive us/them because of some special reason of his own. If you want to rewrite the book why don?t you inject a valid reason?

Mr. P, When God found Adam and Eve He found that they were hiding, so He knew before He asked them that they had eaten the 'forbidden' fruit.

Jjw, You give God credit for deductive logic in that there were two things that Adam and Eve were ordered not to do so hiding from God caused him to infer they disobeyed his order. That is something we might infer from those facts but it is not the same as knowing. Also he did not know which of his orders were disobeyed. Your faith is re-writing the book.

Mr. P, I can demonstrate from the Bible that God has this foreknowledge. When Jesus came across a crowd wanting to stone a woman who committed adultery, He asked anyone from the crowd to throw the first stone if they had not committed such sin.

Jjw: We have an important point of departure here. The God of the Bible to which I refer is the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. Jesus arrives with the New Testament and did not claim to be God. He implied that he was the son of God, only.
The reference to the stoning is more like ?let he that is free of sin caste the first stone?. It referred to any sin, not ?such sin?. You appear to offer this item as proof of his pre-knowledge that the people were not free of sin and that is correct but not because he knew all but simply because being born Jewish (I think) his background was all people are sinners.

Mr. P, I do respect your faith. Little things can show how our faith in things can cause them to read more to our liking.
jjw
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 12/24/05 12:45 PM

Jjw: We have an important point of departure here. The God of the Bible to which I refer is the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. Jesus arrives with the New Testament and did not claim to be God. He implied that he was the son of God, only.

Did you read in the scriptures what Jesus said to Philip when Philip asked him to 'Show us the Father' and Jesus replied, "Philip have I not been with you all this time and you still do not know me why then do you ask me show us the Father." Also when the Jews disputed that Jesus could not have know Abraham, he said even before Abraham 'I Am' Now if you read in the old Testament when Moses asked God, "Who should I say to the people sent me" God replied "I Am that I Am." Do you get the connection? Other references in the scriptures tell us that Jesus had the 'Fullness of the Godhead' dwelling within Him. You also choose to interpret the scripture to further your arguments, that is the problem with the Bible, it can be twisted to suit twisted reasonings.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 12/24/05 12:50 PM

Mr. P, I can demonstrate from the Bible that God has this foreknowledge. When Jesus came across a crowd wanting to stone a woman who committed adultery, He asked anyone from the crowd to throw the first stone if they had not committed such sin.
Jjw: We have an important point of departure here. The God of the Bible to which I refer is the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. Jesus arrives with the New Testament and did not claim to be God. He implied that he was the son of God, only.

Also when Herod wanted to murder Jesus, God sent His angel to warn Joseph. How could he have done this if he did not know beforehand what Herod had intended. Is this then not the same God from the Old Testament?
Posted by: jjw

Re: Christianity - 12/24/05 06:08 PM

Mr. P:

I have no desire to debate your faith with you.
I would not wish to cast doubts even if I could.
I said what I said and I let it go at that.
jjw
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 12/24/05 08:26 PM

Jjw: We have an important point of departure here. The God of the Bible to which I refer is the Hebrew God of the Old Testament. Jesus arrives with the New Testament and did not claim to be God. He implied that he was the son of God, only.

Jim, I wish I had time to write more but I have a family that needs my attention. Your questions are good ones, and your conclusion about God appearing to demonstrate his lack of knowledge may seem obvious, but it fails to take certain things into account. I will post when I have time.

But as for your above comments:

Jesus continually claimed to be God.

"I and the Father are one."

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

He claimed he was able to forgive people's sins. Not sins against him but sins they had committed upon others. Only the person who has been the target of sin has the right to forgive that sin. So why did Jesus think he had the right to forgive sin. Simply because all sin is committed also against God and He can forgive - Jesus and He are one.

The fact that people find it difficult to understand how they can be one, but distinct is not surprising. Why should we believe that our tiny, finite, temporal bound minds could hold such an idea?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Christianity - 12/27/05 06:32 PM

Hi Blacknad:

I say the same to you as I said to Mr. P. Discussion of the fine points would not be productive for either of us. Your example, " I and the Father are one", offered as proof that Jesus claimed to be God is applied editing.

MARK 1:1

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

I think that says it all. Now you can reasonably argue that to be the Son of God makes you a God as well and that might be a good point.
jjw
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 12/27/05 08:30 PM

MARK 1:1

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

Jim - no verse can be taken from the bible and used out of context. Each verse must be seen in relationship to what is around it and also in light of the whole.

It remains that clearly Christ claimed to be God on many occasions, and Paul understands him in that way also.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Christianity - 12/29/05 11:52 AM

I dont mind being a Christian but the Male homosexuality ...
what do you about this ?
What is your precise answer to the question?
Should males and males mate ?

Some answers are missing ...
Other than Humans where do you find it ?

I am guilty but this answer needs good reasoning..
Sorry.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Christianity - 12/29/05 08:47 PM

DKV;

You seem to be concerned with homosexuality as if it was a christian problem. From what I have seen of the world it is everywhere and christianity has nothing to do with it.

You ask, other than humans where do we find it?
Check this out!

gayheros.com/gaypengins

Squawk and Milou, male chinstrap penguins, are among several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan. Homosexual behavior has been documented in some 450 animal species, one researcher says.

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

Rep: I do not concern myself with the consentual sexual habits of others. I do enjoy the artistic portrayals of women, but then, I am not gay so why not?
jjw
Posted by: Lenore

Re: Christianity - 12/29/05 10:08 PM

Often christianity sees homosexuality as "wrong" and "immoral". In this world there are the laws of nature, the laws of man, and the laws of self, which ironically are frequently created by someone else (in religious instinces, where a person takes on the values of their god). I say do whatever you're okay with. Don't take on the morals of others. Instead, define your own.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 12/30/05 02:03 AM

DKV,

This will be a long one, and I hope the moderators will forgive me. My aim apart from answering your question is to challenge any Christians who may read this.

It seems that homosexuality is a problem for you. I have read another post by you on the subject.

Why do you have such a problem with it?

From a Christian perspective it seems to be wrong and many, many Christians have seen it that way.

I am not so clear on this subject.

If you look at the amount of times it is mentioned in the Bible, you can see it roughly gets the same amount of attention as slanderers, and nowhere near as much as adultery.

Large sections of the church have elevated homosexual sin to dizzying heights, and have almost warred with the gay community - one of the biggest reasons for the radicalization of gays (counter-productive to the church's aim).

Especially with American Fundamentalist Christianity, 'gone are God's demands that humanity be wise stewards of God's creation. Gone are the biblical injunctions to bring justice into the world, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to tend to the sick, to assist the widow, to protect the orphan, and to shelter the homeless'.

Instead we have 'persecute the gays, vote in a stupid president whom God has told to war with Iraq (forget what Jesus said about loving your enemies - even if Iraq ever was the enemy), attack (and even kill) abortionists, teach half-baked ideas on six day creation instead of science, and on and on....

So DKV - the problem with elevating homosexuality to the level of a major issue is that the things that should get done, don't get done.

One of my best friends is gay, and despite the fact that I believe God created an ideal of Man for Woman, it is not my place to judge, persecute, or be holier than thou with him. In fact, I love him and my life would be considerably the poorer without him.

It is simply not as simple as people think:

Leviticus states that Homosexual activity was an abomination.

Such an act was considered as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.

In the new testament the Apostle Paul writes:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals as person whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. there are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case. - from Bridges Home - Homosexuality and the Bible.

Sorry for the essay, but this subject is a minefield and I have only scraped the surface, but have shown that is is not easy to come to a conclusion, so anything we do believe, we should believe humbly and not use it as a stick to beat others with.

Having said all of that I do believe there are shades of grey - the writer Michael Robotham wrote 'Thanks to my writing I have slept with thousands of women (which is some boast) and quite a number of men (which is not something I talk about in the pub).'
This would seem to be of an entirely different moral order than two old queens who have spent their lives together in a kind of monogamy that would put most married couples to shame.

But it's not really my place to worry about it, there are many more important things.

DKV - Why are you so concerned?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 12/30/05 09:17 PM

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals as person whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. there are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

I'm afraid Blacknad, here I must disagree with you. Its like saying that stealing a pin is the same as stealing 1 million dollars. When the law states, THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Homosexuality and lesbianism must be categorised where they belong. I personally also had a friend who was gay and effeminate, so I know what I am talking about. Although I do not like to judge, for the Lord warned us sternly about judging others. But for my own part I feel that such acts are demonic influences. You have no idea how clever and subtle these demons are. They will make thoughts appear in your mind, and even make one sick. Remember the demoniac child in Mark. Therefore such acts must be labelled what they are and that is EVIL! No amount of fiddling with the scriptures can justify them. If animals commit such acts, remember, they do not have a free will like us and nor do they have a consience. Try stepping into a cage of lions and see if they reason with you. Also who is to deny that these animals are also under demonic influence in order to influence us into accepting such behavior. The greatest achievement of Satan today is that he has convinced mankind that he and his demons do not exist. Well I can categorically say that they do exist. Read the story of when they wanted to film 'The Omen' and how they were beset by mishaps, and you will find that, that particular movie caused many people to read the bible. Bible sales for the year this film came out were record breaking and still are. So you can now see why Satan and his demons tried to no avail to prevent this film from being made.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 01/01/06 01:12 PM

Philege,

You say - "But for my own part I feel that such acts are demonic influences."

Where in the Bible are homosexual acts portrayed as synonymous with demonic influences?

The points I was making were:

1. This is a complex issue with much disagreement within the church.

2. Homosexuality has become a major issue for the church, when in fact the major issues should be those I mentioned - the hungry, the poor, orphans, the sick, justice etc.

It doesn't help if we demonize gays based upon feelings, when WE have stood by and watched (or partaken in - or even caused) all sorts of evils without so much as the bat of an eyelid. A little bit selective.

The Bible clearly teaches that the issue is not about people's behaviour, but where they stand in relationship to Christ. Do you really want to elevate homosexual acts above things such as slander? - because they both fall short of God's ideal. The difference is that to accuse someone of slander is to accuse them of something they can easily change. To accuse a gay of wrongdoing is to accuse them of something that (in many cases) defines their life. If it is possible that people are born gay, (and can you prove that it isn't?) then we need to drastically re-evaluate our interactions with the gay community.

Or would you drag them kicking and screaming before Christ and ask him to execute them?

Because his answer would be the same as when the adulterous woman was bought before him - 'Whoever's done no wrong, be my guest and throw the first stone.'

The way the church talks about, (and to) gays would make you think that we have done no wrong.

Now I know that's not the case.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/02/06 02:44 AM

Blacknad.

Are you forgeting that in Leviticus homosexuality is classified as 'an abomination' to the Lord. Now what do you think that means. Are you forgeting why Sodom (Remember what sodomy means) and Gomorrah were destroyed and how it was prophisied that in the last days it would be just like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Are you denying the existence of demons? Just because Christ died for our sins doesn't mean we must continue doing them. Once the Holy Spirit convicts you that such act are wrong you are expected to cease them or at least attempt to. No man is born naturally homosexual except a true hermorphrodite, that is one who has both reproductive organs male and female. The rest are certainly 'sick' mentally that is and they obviously do not realise this. I will search the scriptures for proof that such acts are demonic influences, I think James and Paul both spoke about this and then post it for you to see. If you trully have the Holy Spirit in your life, then you would KNOW that such acts are certainly above slander and other lesser sins and that they are demon influenced.You do do know that there are grades of sins. Remember sinning against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable, this means that some sins are worse than others. Present day mental illness is the disguise for demon possession I assure you. I had a friend who smoke dagga or what you call 'hashish' he ended up so badly demon possessed that he hurled himself onto a railway line with obvious results. So let us not mislead others into thinking that such acts are condoned by God, no he despises them and those commiting them will likewise perish.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 01/02/06 11:09 PM

Philege,

Does someone have to stop being a homosexual before they can be accepted by Christ?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Justine

Re: Christianity - 01/03/06 05:40 PM

Your post was so elegant, Blacknad. The last post on the first page.Wow. Very impressive. What a pleasure to read.

DKV, I hope you have adjusted your thinking on this issue. Blacknad has offered a great teaching.

You filled up my heart, Blacknad smile
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/03/06 09:33 PM

Philege,

Does someone have to stop being a homosexual before they can be accepted by Christ?

Regards,

Blacknad.

If they have accepted Christ, they are expected to grow spiritually. In their growth the question will arise,is what I am doing right in my God's eyes. When the Holy Spirit makes them realise that this is not what God likes then they are expected over a time period of course to make every attempt to fight the sinful desires and they will succeed because being a man of faith I know God will give them strength to resist such desire. It is not easy, no anything sexual, masterbation;lust;sodomy;lechery are very difficult to give up. Ofcourse Christ accepts one as soon as one turns to Him, but he must likewise repent of his sins. I thing if you read 1st or 2nd Peter, he gived the prescription for spiritual growth and as can be seen it is a long diffcult road. Even Paul, late in his Chritianhood claimed he was failing (The thorn in his side) Apparently Venerable Bede was a terrible masterbater and tried for a long time to overcome this. But he was still called Venerable Bede, because at least he was trying to give it up. (But the devil kept making naked images of women appear before him to tempt him I presume.)
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 01/04/06 12:05 AM

Thanks Justine,

But I have probably inadvertently misrepresented my position.

I do believe that man was created for woman and woman for man. That is not to say that people who choose not to get married have taken a less valued path.

Philege,

Your last post was more humane and contained a greater degree of compassion and understanding of the plight of others.

I still think it is wrong to elevate homosexual acts above other human failings.

I am selfish a hundred times a day. Whenever I put my needs above those of my wife's, for instance. When I don't do my fair share of the household chores etc. or when I leave her struggling with our grouchy daughter because I am caught up in something.

If you want to define grades of sin, then in my eyes, this is far worse than two men engaging in sexual acts (as if this defines what it is to be gay). This is because my wife hurts when I ignore her needs, and I have been charged by God to always put her first -'And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church.' i.e. we must be willing to die for our wives.

In fact, saying 'I would die for my wife' is easy to say, but saying 'I will live for her' is so much harder.

So my behaviour is petty and at times, disgraceful, although I try.

Now would you call my behaviour demonically influenced as you would that of gays, (without Biblical basis)? I am weak enough in this instance to have no need to blame other external entities for my behaviour.

I would really dispense with grades of sin. Do you really think your crappiest behaviour is not detestable to a perfect God? And you have no excuse - you do that which you know you shouldn't do, as do I, yet God treats us with grace. Would you deny that grace to others who have never even wronged you? Or even to those who have wronged you?

No? Then try to be more compassionate and understanding, and refrain from judgemental statements like:

'such acts are demonic influences'

'The rest are certainly 'sick' mentally'

You cannot back up these statements and they appear to be very ignorant.

I believe, like you, that people (gay or not) have a need for Christ, and if they come to him he will accept them no matter what. It is then between them and him, as the author of their faith. At no point should we be standing on the sidelines hatefully judging people.

No wonder the church is hated (for the wrong reasons) because we, like the Pharisees, have become bitter, hate filled, judgemental hypocrites - we are the ones who should be ashamed of our actions.

Regards,

Blacknad.

P.S. The unforgivable sin is 'blasphemy of the holy spirit' and you should know what it is. It in no way leads to the belief that there are grades of sin.
Posted by: Justine

Re: Christianity - 01/04/06 02:02 PM

Blacknad,

No, you didn't misrepresent your position. It was nice to see homesexuals defended. Or at least shielded by a Christian. Christ would have done the same I suppose.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/04/06 11:33 PM

Now would you call my behaviour demonically influenced as you would that of gays, (without Biblical basis)? I am weak enough in this instance to have no need to blame other external entities for my behaviour.

All bad behavior is demonically influenced. That is why most sin is commited under cover of darkness. It is just that we were discussing homosexuality that I only referred to it. Do you remember when Cain was contemplating killing Abel. God warned him that sin was crouching at his door. Jesus said that in the Last days, the devil would become 'as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.' Remember Judas when he left the room at the Last Supper, the scriptures state that satan entered into him. Satan took control of him and that's why Judas did what he did. He killed himself afterwards because he realised that he had done wrong.

I challenge you Blacknad, try very hard to follow God's Laws to the fullest and I guarantee you that Satan will raise his hand against you. Becuase like Jesus said satan would challenge even the very elect if it were possible. The you will realise that there is an influence. If satan is not bothering you, know verily that you are lukewarm. For my part I hear satan and his demons swearing and cursing when I pray. Daily they tempt me to do wrong. And even I am degenerating to lukewarm status.

still think it is wrong to elevate homosexual acts above other human failings.

At no point should we be standing on the sidelines hatefully judging people.

When did I state that I hate homosexuals and lesbians? I mentioned before that I have had homo friends. HoweverI do hate what they do, because it is highly offensive to God. Neither have I judged them. I instead felt pity because the legion of demons called 'Soddomy' have taken grip on them. So I feel compassion for them. By the way many 'pooftas' are very nice people and very talented and cover a broad range of personalities. I too have many failings which perhaps might de distastful to others. But it is my duty to try to stop such behavior in order to grow in Christ. Actually you are very judemental too. How dare you call me ignorant! Ignorant of dispising what my God despises. Shame on you!
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/04/06 11:40 PM

Blacknad,

Please do not misrepresent God with you own personal views, it is wrong to do so. Tell me does Christ actually speak to you? If so than ask Him whether your views are right and I am certain what the answer will be.
Posted by: Justine

Re: Christianity - 01/05/06 02:16 PM

I thought Christians were supposed to love each other, and spread the good news of Christ and demonstrate forgiveness, mercy, kindness, etc.

I see alot of this with Blacknad's posts and the opposite in Philiege's posts.

I don't remember Christ telling his people to argue over biblical text. And I don't remember him saying to harrass people based on who they love. I once heard a minister say that Christ said absolutely nothing on the topic of homosexuality at all.

Philege do you follow the Bible over Christ?
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/05/06 10:06 PM

I thought Christians were supposed to love each other, and spread the good news of Christ and demonstrate forgiveness, mercy, kindness, etc.

I see alot of this with Blacknad's posts and the opposite in Philiege's posts.

I don't remember Christ telling his people to argue over biblical text. And I don't remember him saying to harrass people based on who they love. I once heard a minister say that Christ said absolutely nothing on the topic of homosexuality at all.

Philege do you follow the Bible over Christ?

And now do you suppose that minister was right? Did Jesus not say that His new commandments that we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds, body and soul and our neigbour as ourselves hangs on all the Law and the prophets.
Therefore He is confirming that all that was written by the prophets and the Law are valid. Therefore if the Law states that 'For a man to lie with another man is an ABOMINATION unto the Lord what do you suppose that means? It is not that I am angry with Blacknad or that I dispise him. No, I seek only to assist him in his failings as he has attempted to assist me in mine, also hopefully to give a point of view that maybe might make a few atheists reconsider the Bible.
What is there to forgive Blacknad, am I able to forgive his sins? I can only guide him as he guides me. I have learnt a lot from him, he knows that. How is this harrassment. Blacknad did not say he agrees with homosexuality, he feels that it is not an issue in ones relationship with Christ, and I do. I am not trying to force this down his throat, He asked for my opinion and I gave him my answer, Did you want me to lie to him to make him feel good. Or do I not have the right to express what I believe to be the truth. I have even admitted that I have failings that maybe someone who is homosexual might say, well you are just as bad as me. I agree I do fail, but I will never stop trying not to sin against my God. I have suceeded in some and failed in others. Also do not forget I mentioned that I have homosexual friends whom I have been friendly to for years. It is not for me to judge them, I am just a sinner like them. But I will not fool them into making them think that what they do is okay with God.

Your last comment on whether I follow the Bible over Christ, I do not understand what you mean, Jesus is described as the 'Word of God' in the scriptures. Now what do you suppose that means. The Bible is His word. I try to follw it as best as I can. Even after many many failings.
Posted by: RM

Re: Christianity - 01/06/06 01:51 PM

Moderators, Things on the origins board should still be -at least a little bit science-based. This origins board is being used as a religious forum ?use your special powers!!!
Posted by: Justine

Re: Christianity - 01/06/06 02:11 PM

I would say that if Jesus is described as the "Word of God" in the scriptures themselves, than it means His essence and His words take precident over all other men who wrote the Bible.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/06/06 10:21 PM

Moderators, Things on the origins board should still be -at least a little bit science-based. This origins board is being used as a religious forum ?use your special powers!!!

Rob, why don't you go where you came in the other forum and bury your head in **** as usual!
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 05:59 AM

You are asking the moderators to do something responsible like make scienceagogo actually, in some vague and mysterious way, relate to science? Surely you jest.

For years I have been of the opinion that Kate's only interest in this website is that she is a psych. student studying those that post here for her thesis. Surely if she had any real respect for science she would never permit the site to degenerate as it does.

You might want to sit back and consider the consequences that flow from a actions of lab rat that is fully conscious that its behaviour is being studied.
Posted by: protonman

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 04:27 PM

Check out populartruth.com-it explains everything you ever wanted to know about Christianity and then some-all on one page!
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 04:37 PM

Check out populartruth.com-it explains everything you ever wanted to know about Christianity and then some-all on one page!

I think you meant to write:

Check out populartruth.com - it misunderstands and over-simplifies everything you ever wanted to know about Christianity and then some-all on one page!

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: protonman

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 04:59 PM

Blacknad, It is one of my son's many websites. I just thought it was cute and truthful in an admittedly simplistic way. -Bonnie-(Gregg's wife)
Posted by: RM

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 09:21 PM

"Moderators, Things on the origins board should still be -at least a little bit science-based. This origins board is being used as a religious forum ?use your special powers!!!

Rob, why don't you go where you came in the other forum and bury your head in **** as usual!"

Philege, why don't YOU learn the importance of quotation marks?
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 10:24 PM

Oh Rob, you are such a poopoel! If you know someone from South Africa, ask them what that means.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 10:25 PM

Philege, why don't YOU learn the importance of quotation marks?

I'm surprised you still have three stars, com'on guys, rate the fellow.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 10:27 PM

Sorry Rob but there are some basic truths in the universe:

1. Death and taxes are inevitable.
2. The moderators at SAGG are not.
Posted by: Philege

Re: Christianity - 01/07/06 10:32 PM

Sorry Rob but there are some basic truths in the universe:

1. Death and taxes are inevitable.
2. The moderators at SAGG are not.

That's funny coming from someone who hase wriiten lots of non-science stuff anyway. Or maybe our brain interprets everything as science. My what a brain. I think the moderators are fair and kind.
Oh and there's something else thats inevitable, D. A. Morgan will make a beastly remark about everyone and everything. Yarooooo!
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/08/06 05:13 AM

Oh I absolutely go off-topic frequently and intentionally with malice and aforethought. My goal ... to goad the moderators into actually doing something. So far I my attempts have been an abysmal failure. C'est dommage!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Christianity - 01/08/06 07:03 AM

Dan,
I could prune a lot but in the interest of lively conversation I have let things stand that are not necessarily Science. Take it easy, you don't have to have 100% Science in every post to be a science forum. You do have to know when to overlook and when to oversee. Lighten up a bit and try to have some fun. You'd be surprised what it'll do for your morale. Save me a glass of the good stuff, will you? I want to talk to that invisible purple rhino too. smile
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Christianity - 01/08/06 07:55 AM

Save me a glass of the good stuff, will you? I want to talk to that invisible purple rhino too.

- Hehe - you've got to love her.

Blacknad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Christianity - 01/14/06 05:00 AM

Take it easy, you don't have to have 100% Science in every post to be a science forum. You do have to know when to overlook and when to oversee. Lighten up a bit and try to have some fun. You'd be surprised what it'll do for your morale.
REP: Honestly Rose .. The 100% Science topics when start getting converging towards Self or the Consciousness the problem appears.
Suddenly we get scared of loosing what we believed in for thousands of years.
In many ways we are like monkeys to next Evolutionary Answer.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/14/06 10:59 PM

Not 100% science Rose. Right now I'd consider it an improvement if we saw 51%. In short ... a simple majority.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/18/06 06:42 PM

And sometimes dvk one person is considered sick. Please seek help from a competently trained and certified clinician.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/19/06 05:21 AM

I had my next door neighbor, a psychiatrist, review some of your postings ... talking about some mythical fabrication of the human imagination is not the biggest issue you need to confront. Seek professional help.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Christianity - 01/19/06 11:53 AM

I am talking to the most intelligent people found on earth.They invested their Life in search of the Truth and I do not think your psychiatrist understands how Freud obtain his thesis. And I am fully aware of what I am saying. So far there is no proof that I am anywhere near foolishness.
Yes there are few things which remains outside the boundary of Science and admit that unless Science upgrades itself I stand to face this kind of opposition from insane minds.
Talking about cures ask your psychiatrist some more questions:
1.How can he explain his standard perfect behaviour when there is so much violence in this world?Does he mean to say that George Bush , Saddam Hussein , Osama , Iran , Japan , Sir Roger Penrose,Matrix Creator all are mad when they swear by God.
2.Is your scientist more capable of explaining natural selection of the unnatural behavior?
3.Can your close friend provide answers for Manufactured Bird Flu which took extremly linearized process to come into existence in the first place. Same for the Sex which is given so much credit in his field.Is everything only and only about Sex?
4.What does he has to offer for the Mad Christ and Mad Buddha who chose to remain Silent.?
5.And finally what does he has to say about you who refuses to acknowledge the greatness of my work.
Answers are there when you understand that there are reasons beyond the normal reasoning.
So far you have taken great pain to serve the people in need .. But Honestly will you not like to save another Kind Soul who is in your knowledge.
Posted by: RM

Re: Christianity - 01/19/06 07:03 PM

" So far there is no proof that I am anywhere near foolishness."

BWAAA HA HA HAH HAH HA HA HA HAAAAAA!

In answer to all your questions that ask; can science...

The answer is yes.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Christianity - 01/19/06 07:11 PM

dvk your contact with reality is tenuous. Your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

But to answer your questions for those who are able to read and comprehend.

Q1. How can he explain his standard perfect behaviour when there is so much violence in this world?

A1. Violence has been a NORMAL human behaviour since the dawn of our existence. Violence or the lack thereof is irrelevant to issues of sanity.

Q2. Is your scientist more capable of explaining natural selection of the unnatural behavior?

A2. Yes!

Q3. Can your close friend provide answers for Manufactured Bird Flu?

A3. Yes! See the answer to Q3. It is just natural evolution at work. Or would you prefer to believe that Bird Flu is the creation of an evil entity that intentionally creates diseases to kill children?

Q4. What does he has to offer for the Mad Christ and Mad Buddha who chose to remain Silent.?

A4. Haloperidol and Thorazine. I'd suggest you reread this question in light of your denial that you need clinical intervention.

Q5. And finally what does he has to say about you who refuses to acknowledge the greatness of my work.

A5. He says I should continue to try to get you to seek clinical support from a psychiatrist as you are giving clear indications of needing it.

And you conclude by writing: "So far you have taken great pain to serve the people in need .. But Honestly will you not like to save another Kind Soul who is in your knowledge."

I would. Which is why I am urging you see a psychiatrist.