1
   

Got a bible? Grab it and look at this.

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:27 pm
Is it ok to address Christmas Cards on the Sabbath? thats been worryin me for about 20 minutes now
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:29 pm
Do you live under the law? Did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:36 pm
furiousflee wrote:
Thats because Jesus never preached religious Christianity...he preached more relationship with God, to be a family with him rather than to be religious about it...Jesus did not like the Pharisees since they focused on religion rather than the relationship with their Creator...so therefore the people who claim to be Christians and live religiously are really not Christians at all....they try to please God through works and not through faith, which was one of the essential teachings of Christ...


Flee...the focus of Jesus and the focus of Paul are so far apart...they might just as well be separate religions.

Christianity...unfortunately...should more properly be known as Paulianity.

Paul ruined the message of Jesus.
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:38 pm
Quote:
Flee...the focus of Jesus and the focus of Paul are so far apart...they might just as well be separate religions.


Frank...how so
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:39 pm
By the way to you guys out there...I am the Flee, just got bored of the same 'ol same 'ol....
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:49 pm
SmokingFire wrote:
Quote:
Flee...the focus of Jesus and the focus of Paul are so far apart...they might just as well be separate religions.


Frank...how so


Jesus focused on love, charity, understanding.

Paul focused on his dick...and all the trouble it caused for him. Apparently it ran him...and he did everything he could to warn himself...and everyone else he could...about the danger of enjoying one's dick.

That is why...when a Christian gets into a discussion about morals...he/she almost always focuses on what Paul had to say.
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:52 pm
Well, in my understanding paul preached the love of Jesus to people, he stressed that Jesus still loves him even though his apparent "dick" problem was so big...he also preached acceptance through faith and not work...saying that Jesus loved us so much he offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice of love....and that's why paul is saved...not because of him but because of the love of Jesus....
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:54 pm
SmokingFire wrote:
Well, in my understanding paul preached the love of Jesus to people, he stressed that Jesus still loves him even though his apparent "dick" problem was so big...he also preached acceptance through faith and not work...saying that Jesus loved us so much he offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice of love....and that's why paul is saved...not because of him but because of the love of Jesus....


Please don't overdo that "ultimate sacrifice" nonsense with me...or I may barf on my keyboard.

Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:55 pm
Quote:
Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.


Do you fully understand it...and if you do, explain...
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:58 pm
Okay...frank...I will discuss this point with you more when I get back, but...I will be back...so for now, continue with the discussions and so on...
Peace and Love people...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 05:11 pm
SmokingFire wrote:
Quote:
Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.


Do you fully understand it...and if you do, explain...


Yes I do.

Do you?

And if you suppose you do...would you be so kind as to tell me what you think the story is about?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 05:32 pm
I think it means the kick was good.
0 Replies
 
rmurphy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 05:35 pm
shewolfnm wrote:
CarbonSystem wrote:
I thought the part about eating red meat is especially ridiculous. My question about the bible is this, who was given the power to write the words that are now reveered as holy? We have no idea now who wrote them. They can be wild exaggerations and sometimes even totally false, and yet some people take the messages literally.


Too bad there wasnt a way to track the ' writers ' of the bible. i would be interested ( not in a religious sence ) to see the line of hands that have written and re written the bible over the few hundred years it has been in existance.
Even today, we can watch people pick up the bible, read it , then explain it as THEY see the meaning. Church leaders, deacons, pastors the like.. ALL do just that. So I agree with your question.. And I pose another one.

The catholic church, today, is changing the bible to include more of the mother mary's life in it. They say themselves that ' as an important person in the story of jesus, she has no record of her life for people to learn from'.
Hmm... so where are they getting this record? What the hell??? They were not there. So are they going to speculate and make that holy?
There are 7 diffrent versions of the bible. All popular, and have spawned thier own versions of christianity. With something so diluded and physical visable proof that it is diluded on a daily basis, how does a book warrant the 'set in stone' life rules???? >sigh<
this is one of the many reasons I am not christian and continue to question that religion.


First off, I don't understand the 7 versions and 7 churches thing. As for the "Virgin Mary" thing, this is a problem. You cant contain all of Christendom into just Catholicism. Protestants, for example, do not place any where near the significance on her as Catholics. The problem started with the early church fathers at the council of Nicea and Ephesus in the 4th and 5th centuries. The early fathers (as they are referred to) were trying to decide about what should be done with Jesus and the parts of his being. The question was whether his humanity was separate from the part that was God (a familiar Gnostic tradition stating that Jesus was a ghost and physically absent from the cross) or if he was one complete and the two parts just sort of melted together so to say. The discussion took a swing at the Council of Ephesus where it was decided that in order for a woman to carry a god, she must also be perfect. On the side from everything else, Ephesus was also the center for the worship of Artemis Diana, the mother goddess of Roman pagan tradition who was born perfect. This tradition was carried out into later invocations of Papal infallibility stating that Mary also "ascended into heaven" (being perfect, she did not have the capacity for death). Pope John Paul is attempting, or was at one point, to invoke infallibility again declaring Mary the co-redemptrix, meaning she also redeems sins like Christ.
Martin Luther at the Council of Trent rebuked many stances of the Roman Church, eventually calling the church on their obsession with Mary.
I say this all to now say, its not like that with everyone. Yes, it is messed up. Mary was a carrier of something greater than herself.
Oh, and much of the information for the life of Mary is from material previously taken from the Christian canon. If you are interested, check out the Gnostic works of Nag Hammadi. Also, the Infancy Gospels have some information but was deemed uninspired.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 08:58 pm
Frank

Quote:
What is that supposed to mean?


It was in response to this:

Quote:
Granted, stuff has changed since the Old Testament times. So why has it only changed on some things and not others? If the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), and it is accepted today, then how come back then slavery was pretty much encouraged (Lev 25:44,45) while today it is an outrage?


I was merely pointing that sins about homoxsexuality is mentioned in the NT as well. (Whether a person accepts it was not really my point.)
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 04:40 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
SmokingFire wrote:
Quote:
Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.


Do you fully understand it...and if you do, explain...


Yes I do.

Do you?

And if you suppose you do...would you be so kind as to tell me what you think the story is about?


Well, to fully understand the entire fact of the ultimate sacrifice you need to look at OT sacrifices. We will look right now at the sacrificial lamb of the bible since Jesus is commonly refered to as the lamb of God. Now, at the Pass over feast the Jews use to observe a lamb for three and a half days to see if it had any impurities on it, if it did they would place another in his place that had no impurities. Then after the lamb was observed and found pure they then would sacrifice the lamb. What did this mean? What the jews believed in that time as they would lay their hands on the lamb would be that the pure nature of the lamb would pass to them and their sinful nature would pass to the lamb. A switch of identity. Then the lamb was slaughtered and died instead of the man.

Jesus being the lamb of God did the same action. He took our place and took our sins on him and he died for us. In turn he gave us His identity and His purity, which if fully understood is very interesting. Jesus then died for our sins and by Him dying for us gave us eternal life, since God now sees His(Jesus') nature in us and not our defiled old nature. Now, if you believe that this is true and apply your faith you would be able to accept your inheretence left by Christ to give us eternal life. What does it mean to have the nature of Christ? You are considered a brother of Christ and a son of God. It makes you be able to come into the throne room of God and have a relationship as a son would have to his father. John 3:16 gives us this truth...That is basically what it means, I would be able to get into more detail but I have not much time....

I'm interested in your comments Frank...
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 05:15 pm
Quote:
First off, I don't understand the 7 versions and 7 churches thing. As for the "Virgin Mary" thing, this is a problem. You cant contain all of Christendom into just Catholicism. Protestants, for example, do not place any where near the significance on her as Catholics. The problem started with the early church fathers at the council of Nicea and Ephesus in the 4th and 5th centuries. The early fathers (as they are referred to) were trying to decide about what should be done with Jesus and the parts of his being. The question was whether his humanity was separate from the part that was God (a familiar Gnostic tradition stating that Jesus was a ghost and physically absent from the cross) or if he was one complete and the two parts just sort of melted together so to say. The discussion took a swing at the Council of Ephesus where it was decided that in order for a woman to carry a god, she must also be perfect. On the side from everything else, Ephesus was also the center for the worship of Artemis Diana, the mother goddess of Roman pagan tradition who was born perfect. This tradition was carried out into later invocations of Papal infallibility stating that Mary also "ascended into heaven" (being perfect, she did not have the capacity for death). Pope John Paul is attempting, or was at one point, to invoke infallibility again declaring Mary the co-redemptrix, meaning she also redeems sins like Christ.
Martin Luther at the Council of Trent rebuked many stances of the Roman Church, eventually calling the church on their obsession with Mary.
I say this all to now say, its not like that with everyone. Yes, it is messed up. Mary was a carrier of something greater than herself.
Oh, and much of the information for the life of Mary is from material previously taken from the Christian canon. If you are interested, check out the Gnostic works of Nag Hammadi. Also, the Infancy Gospels have some information but was deemed uninspired.


Interesting point....
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 05:50 pm
I am about to leave now, I have to go and let my spirit go...but Frank I would love to hear your points on my comment of John 3:16 and see your points on it, whether you believe I have a full understanding on it, or if you have some questions you would like for me to answer.

Peace and blessings to you all! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 06:20 pm
SmokingFire wrote:
I am about to leave now, I have to go and let my spirit go...but Frank I would love to hear your points on my comment of John 3:16 and see your points on it, whether you believe I have a full understanding on it, or if you have some questions you would like for me to answer.

Peace and blessings to you all! :wink:


Nah...I have no questions at all.

So let's be at it.

Here are some of my thoughts on the notions contained in John 3:16...and in your post, SF.


A sin...as I was taught, is an infraction against one of the many laws of your god. Essentially, it is a thought, word, or deed that offends the god.

According to you theistic folk...we all sin. In other words, we all do things that offend your god.

Now you seem to think that "sacrifice" is needed to your god for some reason or another...and that Jesus "sacrificed" himself for your sins.

Once again...essentially...this means that your god would forgive you your sins...

...that is, your god will forgive you for offending (him)...

...but was unwilling to do so without a sacrifice.

And you theist folk seem to think that the sacrifice needed to get the god to cooperate...had to be a significant sacrifice.

You folks also say that this god sent (his) son to Earth to make that sacrifice.

Now...you know better than I what terrible things you have done to offend your god...but I simply cannot conceive of them being so horrible that someone had to be tortured and killed in order for your god to forgive you for them.

And I cannot conceive of anything that would make me love, honor, adore, or worship a god so disgusting that (he) would be offeded by so much...and who would demand that you first torture and kills (his) son before forgiving any of it.


Consider all this...and let's discuss it.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 11:16 pm
In addition to what Frank has said, I think it is also important to note that forgiveness is not something that God previously devoted much time to. He was however known to display his wrath quite often.

He sent plagues, famine, pestilence on the Egyptians. He killed their first born sons. He wiped out all life on the earth except for what went onto Noah's boat because he was offended.

He destroyed Sodom and gomorrah because he was offended, then after sparing Lot's wife, turned her into a pillar of salt for that terrible sin of looking back. Kind of makes you wonder why he was not offended when Lot's daughters got their father drunk, then crawled in the sack with him to get with child.

Then we are supposed to accept a complete change of behavior after God has his son brutally tortured and killed? This behavior change is rationalized by what?
0 Replies
 
SmokingFire
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:26 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
SmokingFire wrote:
I am about to leave now, I have to go and let my spirit go...but Frank I would love to hear your points on my comment of John 3:16 and see your points on it, whether you believe I have a full understanding on it, or if you have some questions you would like for me to answer.

Peace and blessings to you all! :wink:


Nah...I have no questions at all.

So let's be at it.

Here are some of my thoughts on the notions contained in John 3:16...and in your post, SF.


A sin...as I was taught, is an infraction against one of the many laws of your god. Essentially, it is a thought, word, or deed that offends the god.

According to you theistic folk...we all sin. In other words, we all do things that offend your god.

Now you seem to think that "sacrifice" is needed to your god for some reason or another...and that Jesus "sacrificed" himself for your sins.

Once again...essentially...this means that your god would forgive you your sins...

...that is, your god will forgive you for offending (him)...

...but was unwilling to do so without a sacrifice.

And you theist folk seem to think that the sacrifice needed to get the god to cooperate...had to be a significant sacrifice.

You folks also say that this god sent (his) son to Earth to make that sacrifice.

Now...you know better than I what terrible things you have done to offend your god...but I simply cannot conceive of them being so horrible that someone had to be tortured and killed in order for your god to forgive you for them.

And I cannot conceive of anything that would make me love, honor, adore, or worship a god so disgusting that (he) would be offeded by so much...and who would demand that you first torture and kills (his) son before forgiving any of it.


Consider all this...and let's discuss it.


Ok...here we go...

Origally man was created in the image of God, and when man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they disobeyed God's command. Adam prior to that could be in the presence of God and did not have to do anything to please God. The moment he ate from that tree he lost his identity. Which originally was supposed to be the god of earth. Since we were created in God's image he gave us a mandate.

Quote:
Genises 1:26
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


The interesting thing about having the image of God is this, man could freely enter into God's presence since man saw him not inferior to God. Once man lost his image and likeness he could no longer freely be in God's presence, hence the being kicked out of Eden. Now, man being tainted with his disobedience and his sin could not please God. This was his offence to God. Since God is holy and sin cannot stand in the presence of holiness, man could not stand in God's holy presence. God is also righteousness, and for man to deal with God's righteousness he needs to be righteous himself. Therefor God created the law, which was ultimately to make man righteous once again. But man still was disobedient. Therfore God also instituted sacrifice, because of atonement.

Quote:
Exodus 30:10
Once a year Aaron shall make atonement on its horns. This annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. It is most holy to the LORD ."


Now, the reason God did this was that man should not die, holiness and sin cannot be in the same presence. Now, for one man's sin we all were tainted and by one man's obedience we were justified. The reason Jesus had to be tortured for our sins was that it was God's wrath on our sin. Since Jesus had no sin he was not judged but took our punishment for our sins. He became our sacrifice which made us be justified through his acts. His 100% obedience set us free from our disobedience, which made us be acceptable in the sight of God once again. So now, by understanding this, can we still sin?

The answer to that is no, through faith accepting this action of Christ we eliminate our possibilities to sin. We are dead to sin and alive to God. Jesus covered us by his obedience and so God doesn't see us but he sees Christ in us. We became free of sin. The reason Christ had to suffer, was that we didn't have to.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2022 at 10:02:50