[MJ4CB]

Shouldn't y'all be in church down at the alter?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

Sorry, my God doesn't live in a building.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

And that would be altar not alter.

[MJ4CB]

Sorry, my God doesn't live in a building.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

And that would be altar not alter.

Lol! Most useful reply so far.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[cereal killer]

Hey Greg. Thanks for jumping in. Alex thought I was being a smartarse but I wasn't. Can't say I blame him for thinking that though heh. Your forgiven Alex.

So Greg the tree was put there so they would have a "choice" or free will as some may call it? see I don't get that.

If putting the tree there gave them choice, then they didn't have a choice in the first place, and were not responsible for their actions. How can they be responsible? They had no choice in the matter because the trtee was put there to give them choice. They essentially had to eat from the tree.

On the other hand if they did have a choice beforehand, then they certainly did not need the tree to be there in the first place in order to have choice/free will. There's no logic in this story. It just doesn't make sense.

[cereal killer]

So alex. I'll keep it simple with contradictions because there are literally hundreds. I'll show you a simple one which is more to the point. With these you cant use the "context excuse."

The Bible preaches, teaches, speaks whatever you want to call it, fear. Correct? I think we can agree on that. It shapes their behavior and such. Golfnut is a perfect example. He will or wont do things based on what God would want out of simple fear of pisssing off God. Luvitlo as well. He would have his lady in a bhurka if his church called for it. Come to think of it they pretty much do. All his wife needs is a mask to complete her outfit.

Anyway, there is a ton of these that preach fear but I will give you only 3 because there are 3 (that I have found) that directly contradict them.

Fear God:

Leviticus 25:17
Thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God.

1 Samuel 12:24
Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

Dont fear God:

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

1 John 4:8
God is Love.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Can't dispute or explain those away Alex. They are what they are and in plain English.

[gregerator]

I think the tree was there before man. The choice was always there. Love can not be coerced. I'd man did not choose God's way over something else God would never know if man would *really* choose His way over their own. I put that in human terms, God knows all things. But He gives us the right to choose, free will as you say. The logic is here. God makes man and says, I formed you from the earth and breathed life into you. All of this is yours. Just don't eat of this tree. And man and God walked in the garden and talked. And Adam named all the animals in whatever language existed at the time. And God made woman from man. And things were going well. Too well for lucifer's liking. So lucifer possesses if you will a serpent and coaxes eve into committing the same act of selfishness that got lucifer kicked out of heaven in the first place. God said don not eat of the fruit or you will die. Tricky wording here. English is terrible. Die wasn't entirely physical death. Obviously they did not mortally cease to exist right away. However, spiritually, the life that existed between God and man did cease to exist. The chasm was created. God come through the garden asking, where are you? God knew full well where they physically were. But the spritual connection had been broken. They weren't "walking* side by side in a spiritual sense. And in natural selfish way sdam blames the woman. And in natural selfish way woman blames the serpent. Even then we wouldn't take responsibility for our own actions. If there was no choice to choose our own way, then how would God "know" that we loved Him? It's our actions or inactions such as in this case, that tell Him. That's why Christians *should* do good works. It has nothing to do with creating or maintaining our relationship. It has everything to do with because I love God I choose do as He asks. Early on in this thread someone mentioned being a Christian and yet watching porn, drinking, etc. See those things going to break the relationship? No. Are they good? No. But we get to choose what we do. Will we somehow be penalized for doing what God doesn't want? I imagine so be it something that happens here, something that is withheld, or something after life. I don't know any specifics about how God works in that manner. Jonah is a good example of that. He sat and waited for niniveh to be destroyed. Yet it didn't happen. Jonah *thought* he had God all figured out. No one does. What I know is that God took the time to make me, He paid the required perfect sacrifice I could never pay, and because I accept that gift, I am reconciled to Him despite my failure to live in a manner pleasing to him. Because I often choose my own way. I often pick the fruit in a manner of speaking. But because of my accreptance of His bloodshed, His sacrifice, He has forgiven. And when I come to and confess my faults, He forgets them. Something no one often thinks of. Heaven is full of forgiven people. **** is also full of forgiven people. It's the same today as it was in the garden. Do we choose God's way? Or our own? My wife chose to leave me. She'll still tell you today that I am a wonderful hit, was a good provider etc. We're good friends. But she chose not to honor God's way and to go her own way. And she gets to do that. If you love something set it free. God had to let us choose otherwise we'd be robot zombies running around. God doesn't want zombies. He just wants us to choose Him as much as I wish my wife would have chosen me. And when we don't choose His way He hurts like I hurt. If Heidi came back would I take her back? Absolutely. And when I come back to God as a lost son, does he take me back? Yeah. With celebration and joy. But I have to choose to return. I have to say, okay I can either continue down the road I'm going and end up nowhere or I can go back home and be welcomed. Choice. It's all about choice.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

So alex. I'll keep it simple with contradictions because there are literally hundreds. I'll show you a simple one which is more to the point. With these you cant use the "context excuse."

The Bible preaches, teaches, speaks whatever you want to call it, fear. Correct? I think we can agree on that. It shapes their behavior and such. Golfnut is a perfect example. He will or wont do things based on what God would want out of simple fear of pisssing off God. Luvitlo as well. He would have his lady in a bhurka if his church called for it. Come to think of it they pretty much do. All his wife needs is a mask to complete her outfit.

Anyway, there is a ton of these that preach fear but I will give you only 3 because there are 3 (that I have found) that directly contradict them.

Fear God:

Leviticus 25:17
Thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God.

1 Samuel 12:24
Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

Dont fear God:

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

1 John 4:8
God is Love.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Can't dispute or explain those away Alex. They are what they are and in plain English.

I will let Alex do the hard work but the short answer is you're right. They are what they are, in English. Unfortunately, the bible, neither the Torah, the prophets, the poetical books, the gospels, the epistles, none of it was written in English. As Alex pointed out the king James version has some very bad translations in it. As a whole it's right, but with certain words, it's off. And fear is a word that has one word in English but several in Hebrew and Greek and aramaic. Fear is sometimes scared, but more often awe and reverence. Alex, do you have the original texts? Ie a Hebrew bible? Or one that carries the proper word useage?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

I agree that the tree was placed in Eden to represent choice. "The knowledge of good & bad" wasn't so much the ACTUAL knowledge but the RIGHT to decide what is good & bad - as Greg said - choice. Would Adam choose to have God decide what was right & wrong or would he decide for himself - the tree was physically there and not just a metaphor - but more important than the physical fruit is what it represented, choice - will I submit to the authority of God or live by my own standards? We have same choice Adam had. And the same outcome - life in paradise or death.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[cereal killer]

I think the tree was there before man. The choice was always there.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

So the tree didn't need to be placed there then.

[gregerator]

? Placed? Not sure I follow. First came the garden. Tree of knowedge of good and evil was in the garden. Then came man. Once man was there God instructed him, do not eat of that tree. Not sure of a time amount between man's placement and the statement out forth by God. But once man was put in the garden he had a choice to eat of that tree. Without the rule, do not eat, there wouldn't have been much of a choice. But once do not eat comes along, now I have an option. The tree had to be there. As Alex said, will I submit to my creator's authority (author = creator)? Or will I do whatever I dam well please?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[serenityseeker]

I think as I get older I tend to simplify. This is not difficult.

One's own spritual or religious pathway is just that..their own. As such they can subscribe to what ever they think is their pathway to God or whatever they are trying to achieve.

It is however obscenly arrogant to disrespect others by forcing ones spiritual pathway down anothers throat. No one can prove their Bible, Tora, Koran or other text is the true word of God...No one. We are all given the gift to choose what we have faith in and follow that path...but with that gift comes the responsibility to respect others beliefs and not impose our path, beliefs, ideals on others. What could possibly be more invasive than intruding on anothers spirital pathway with an audacious attitude that only one is true or right? That truly is the height of ignorance and intolerance. As history shows us many, if not most religions have been contaminated and twisted for power or political gain. It is what happens when humans are involved.

Pick your own path, enjoy it, and leave everyone else alone..so they may do the same.

And I will add that what seems to be considered the "religious right" may be the most intolerant of all. This is no way a blanket condemnation of christians, just of those that try to impose their will, their theology, their personal beliefs on the rest of this country..it truly is obscene.

[gregerator]

A question for you then. What do you do when multiple belief systems tell their followers to make new followers?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[serenityseeker]

A question for you then. What do you do when multiple belief systems tell their followers to make new followers?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Every one has a choice on what to follow, even to offer that ot others...the evil is when it is forced upon others or intolerant people hold that only their way is the right way. It truly is ignorance.

[gregerator]

And thusly the choice must exist. For when it is forced it is not love but evil.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[serenityseeker]

my sentiments exactly

[gregerator]

I also think that defines politics. I have an idea and I think it's right so I should be in charge.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

Sorry, this is gonna be long again�..

Hey Greg. Thanks for jumping in. Alex thought I was being a smartarse but I wasn't.

You don�t know how NOT to be � but, that�s why we love ya�. You, insolent blasphemous sinner, who pertaineth to thee iniquities of thine holy�

Your forgiven Alex.

So�. You�re a Catholic priest now granting forgiveness?? Never would�ve though it�Wow, go away for a few days and everything�s turned upside down.

So� the tree was put there so they would have a "choice" or free will as some may call it? see I don't get that.

If putting the tree there gave them choice, then they didn't have a choice in the first place, and were not responsible for their actions. How can they be responsible? They had no choice in the matter because the trtee was put there to give them choice. They essentially had to eat from the tree.

On the other hand if they did have a choice beforehand, then they certainly did not need the tree to be there in the first place in order to have choice/free will. There's no logic in this story. It just doesn't make sense.

Man, what the helllll are you talking about? My brain got cross-eyed just reading that. You got me thoroughly confused. I don�t know whether to argue with you, agree with you, be offended, or eat the fruit�

Ok, here�s what I think� Regardless of the timing (Adam came first vs. tree came first) the choice to be obedient to God was ALWAYS there and still is today. The tree was real and tangible and the fruit was actual, real, edible fruit � however, more important it was a SYMBOL.. Just as we have a choice today. The choice was always before Adam. If the tree was there or not is unimportant.

More of my $.02�.
Illustration: You have a kid living at home and lay down certain rules (curfew, no drugs, take out the trash, etc.) and you explain the consequences of not respecting your authority � You�ll kick them out and not support them financially. You tell them if they don�t wanna follow the rules, they need to write it down in a letter so, they can�t come back and say, �I didn�t mean it�. Well, that�s like Adam. God set rules, told him the consequences of disobedience and Adam �wrote his letter� by eating the fruit. The consequences were God removing the support of life. As Greg brought out earlier, Adam didn�t immediately die � just lost that relationship and God�s �support� or life.

Side note: some translations read the statement of consequences of eating the fruit as, �in the DAY of your eating of the fruit you will die.� It�s interesting to note that Adam died at 930 years of age. The bible teaches at 2 Peter 3:8 that in God�s eyes 1 day is �as a 1000 years and 1000 years as 1 day.� So, Adam did die �in the DAY of his eating.� AND all of this happened LAST WEEK!

The Bible preaches, teaches, speaks whatever you want to call it, fear. Correct? I think we can agree on that. It shapes their behavior and such.

NO � we DON�T agree on this. The bible doesn�t teach or preach fear. Religion does.

Religion (and particularly Christianity) have twisted, distorted, ignored, and misunderstood the message from God found in the bible and preached and taught fear, hate, racism, inequality, brutality, and injustice.

Killer (and the OP Balloon if he�s out there - and many others) � you have a problem separating �bible� from �religion� and �Christianity� from �bible teaching� � don�t continue to make the same mistake.

It�s like saying that a great restaurant has lousy food �cause your waiter spit in your dinner. There�s nothing wrong with the food or chef � just the waiter. Well, God is the chef, the bible is the food, and religion is the waiter. Get my point?

So alex. I'll keep it simple with contradictions because there are literally hundreds �

there is a ton of [scriptures] that preach Fear God:
Leviticus 25:17
Thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God.
1 Samuel 12:24
Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

� [and many that preach]� Dont fear God:
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
1 John 4:8
God is Love.
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Can't dispute or explain those away Alex. They are what they are and in plain English.

**I edited that a bit for the sake of brevity. I think I kept true to Killer�s intent�.**

You�re missing the point of what is meant here by the word �fear�

Think of it in the sense of a profound reverence for God and a wholesome dread of displeasing him.

Profound reverence: I saw Niagara Falls. I was in awe. The power and majesty was awesome. I need to respect its power. If I don�t have a proper �fear� or reverent awe � I�m liable to jump in and drown. � Same with reverent awe of God � He made those falls � he�s the source of ALL power. (not getting preachy here - just making a point). Respecting that power is �fear� in a sense of that word. Look up a starry sky and contemplate your smallness. Enjoy a beautiful sunset. Play with a baby and think that they were formed in their mother�s belly over 9 months. Those things make me in awe and wonder of God. A �fear� of his strength and power. These aren�t original thoughts, David wrote in Psalms 139: 13-15 in regards to being �formed in the womb� when his organs and bones were being made. He stated �in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.� What�s scary about the way God formed him in his mother�s belly? Being in fear does not always equate to being scared or frightened. Don�t be so narrow-minded in your use of that word. Don�t LOOK for problems with the bible, look for what the message is. Think a little deeper about the intent of the message. Does it make sense to be frightened by a God of love?

Fear of displeasing God is CLOSELY linked with �fear� of displeasing him. Illustration: I love my wife. I would do nothing to harm the relationship I have with her. The pain it would cause her if I was unfaithful hurts me to even think of. I �fear� the thought of making her sad. That �fear� of displeasing her helps me to stay faithful. My love for her causes me to honor her and not even seek a relationship with any other woman. Am I scared of her? (no jokes here) No, I�m not scared. But, I fear what could happen to that relationship if I do something stupid and mess up our relationship. My love for her and my fear of displeasing her work closely together.

You don�t want me to use �context� when explaining your supposed contradictions. Why not � you�re quoting things out of context and distorting them. 2 Timothy 1:7 is a great example of you attempting to create a disparity where none exists. The word �fear� is used here in the sense of timidity or cowardice. Which is exactly how the verse is rendered in William�s, Beck�s, and the New Authorized standard, and the New World Translation translations.

1 John 4:18. Killer, read the whole passage. Read the entire first chapter. It�s one of the best chapters explaining what the love of God means. The �fear� referenced in verse 17 was a fear of punishment. The �fear God� you speak of is a fear of displeasing God and fear of harming the relationship (a la the illustration about my wife). There�s no �punishment� from my wife for cheating on her (other than divorce or financial problems � which isn�t something �from� her) So, I John 4:18 is not discussing the same type of fear.

Your quoting 2 Timothy chapter 1 and 1 John chapter 4 to �prove� your contradiction is ironic because those are precisely some of the verses I would quote to show that a reverent awe and a desire to not displease God are NOT related to �fear� the sense of scared, timid, cowardice, and being frightened or fearful of punishment.

I would suggest that if you do have a sincere desire to worship God you should spend less time looking for contradictions and more time appreciating the harmony of the bible and its guidance and advice that can help you have a peaceful and loving relationship with him.

If I spent all day looking for faults with my wife and my marriage I would have a miserable marriage. But, instead I enjoy the beauty of the relationship and the love we share. I don�t turn a blind eye to issues and problems we face and I don�t ignore serious problems, but I don�t invent them � when something comes up we deal with it together. Same with relationship with God. I�m not even suggesting blind faith or ignoring your concerns.

I certainly wouldn�t ask total strangers what they thought of my wife and then base my opinion of her on theirs. Asking most �Christians� what they think of the bible and turning to religion for biblical questions is like doing that.

So alex. I'll keep it simple with contradictions because there are literally hundreds. I'll show you a simple one which is more to the point. With these you cant use the "context excuse."

You say, �don�t use context� to disprove contradictions. Ummm....NO. Since when do you get to set the rules for the basis of my reply? I�ll use whatever tools are necessary to disprove you and if you insist on denying my arguments based on consideration of context then I will ignore your challenges based on quotes taken out of context � how ya� like that? (that wasn't aggressive - it's in your original spirit of "the bong is now passed to you" - so, I now pass it back.) happy tokin'

[superlawyer15]

these threads are a waste of time

only 1% of people in the US are gay, the fact that this issue receives national attention boggles my mind. CALIFORNIA, of all states voted to have an outright BAN on gay marriage. I think this shows that a vast majority of people do not believe that people are born gay, its a lifestyle choice, science also fails to show how one can be "born gay".

and why bash the religious right. you are hating on their beliefs just like how you claim they hate on yours. So in essence you are doing the SAME EXACT THING.

liberals need to sit down and rethink all the crap they start up do you really want to

do away with the pledge to the flag

create an incentive to immigrate illegally and pretty much say F U to all those who did it the right way

hear more people complain when someone says "Merry Christmas" rather than "happy holidays" even tho over 77% of people identify themselves as christian in this country.

Liberals need to stop complaining and be satisfied that they don't live in a country where the gov't forces one to follow a certian religion and executes gay people.

live your life, mind your own business and realize that the more you complain the more likely you are to create enemies. I don't see why gay people complain when they are offered civil unions, you get all the same legal rights, to me that sounds a lot better then no rights at all.

you have to appease both sides especially since the gay side only MAKES UP 1% OF THE POPULATION, you are not the majority, take what you get.

i think civil unions solve the problem, gay people want legal protection, the other side doesn't want it to be called marriage.

note to gay people: stop crying over the term that will be used, does it really make a difference to you? if the right side of the spectrum cares about the term then let them have it, at least u get the legal protection.

i have no sympathy to gay couples who say they do not want civil unions because it isnt called marriage, those people do not deserve to get anything at all

[gregerator]

I'm not sure where you got the homosexual issue from. I believe the OP had mentioned the idea that religious zealots were using politics to push their ideas into law. After that it just kinds morphed into a "what does the bible actually say" discussion. And I am pleased to see it so civil and brilliant! Thanks to all who have contributed!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[superlawyer15]

lol i actually only read the OP and saw something about prop 8 and I happened to have CNN on at the same time and they were discussing that

[prometheus]

Yeah. This isn't the "gay" thread or the prop 8 thread. This is the egyptian mythology vs fear / love God thread.

If you can't add some incite to the divinity of Horus you're in the wrong thread. (Joking) that was a nod to the veterans of this discussion.

I see mkahalil's point. It does appear to be a battle over "words". It always struck me as odd that the whole argument regarding gay marriage was rather silly. The folks who get all twisted that gay people are "destroying" morals and the sanctity of marriage to my knowledge don't have the same zeal and fervor to ban the civil unions. Either gay people shouldn't be allowed to have any rights at all and should be publically flogged and put in stocks or leave 'em alone. Marriage / civil union- what's the diff?

Not many religious folks seek to ban divorce (destroys marriage literally). Or go after prostitutes with a passion they reserve for gay people. Prostitutes service married people and "destroy" the sanctity of marriage or speak in such condemnatory terms against child molesters and lobby for stronger laws to make their lives miserable and stripped of legal protections. I mean hurting kids hurts families right?.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm politically neutral and don't give a woop about who has the legal right to marry or not - doesn't effect the "sanctity" of my marriage one bit. - but why do folks get so worked up about gay marriage but seem to be silent about premarital sex, adulery, and a whole host of other things that the bible speaks out against and "hurts" marriage.

I mean the bible condems idolatry. That's the use of idols. But you don't see "religious" people calling catholics heathens and condemning them to firey he.ll for wearing crosses around their necks.

That was the OP's point (partially) is that religious folks irritate him when they waive the bible as their political banner and attempt to give their cause some sort of moral superiority when they pick and choose what doctrine they want to use to condemn a political idea they disagree with.
The bible should not be used to advance any political agenda.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

And every body said... Amen!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

Was that before or after they passed the collection plate?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

You know the church I generally attend still does that. Really annoying. Mars hill has boxes in the back that you just drop your choice of tithe in with out every one in the row watching you. Makes more sense to me.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

You know the church I generally attend still does that. Really annoying. Mars hill has boxes in the back that you just drop your choice of tithe in with out every one in the row watching you. Makes more sense to me.

I'm not picking on you - this is a genuine question.... if the church you "generally attend" does something you feel is improper, why do you continue to attend?

By the way.... "tithe" generally means 10% of your income. If you contribute whatever you feel is proper then it truly can't be spoken of as a "tithe".

Another "by the way" I had a friend who was Mormon and he told me that his church literally reviewed tax returns and compared them to the records of the person's contributins and sent them a bill for the difference - they wanted their 10%. I don't know if this is a Morman policy or just some wacko elder from that particular congregation. But, can you imagine someone being subjected to that and continuing voluntary association?