The Problem of Self

I suspect you have, indeed, misinterpreted Rex, Tal.

He and I have been discussing the Bible for almost 4 years now...mostly over in Abuzz, but more recently here in A2K.

One of the items I often bring to the table is a quote from this god Rex "loves" so much.

The quote is from Leviticus 20:13...and reads:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives."

Rex claims I am misinterpreting the god of the Bible if I think this passage indicates that his god has any negative feelings about homosexual conduct.

(Don't ask me to explain his reasoning...but if you disagree with him, he is going to accuse you of being close minded...and unable to intellectually understand the nuances of the Bible!)

He was directing the remark you quoted to me in that regard...and was not condoning hate crimes in the name of his god.

Rex, by the way, is gay...and not only does he manage to rationalize away what his god says about his conduct (although at times, he infers that he is celibate)...he also is a conservative Republican...an advocte of an agenda that, to put it in its best light, does not look favorably on homosexuals or homosexual conduct.

Hey...it takes all kinds!

0 Replies

Frank, Rex may be accusing you, and me, of having a closed mind, but you must agree that his religiousity is not hate-driven, as is that of most fundamentalists. He has, as far as I know, not sent anyone to Hell yet.

0 Replies

Frank,

Evagengelists work on a "can't lose" basis. Whether they convert you or resist your (Devil's) arguments, they get the Brownie points. The more pursuasive you are...the more the points for resistance.

Rex,

Nice work on the Sonnet !

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, Rex may be accusing you, and me, of having a closed mind, but you must agree that his religiousity is not hate-driven, as is that of most fundamentalists. He has, as far as I know, not sent anyone to Hell yet.

I do not think Rex hates either one of us.

I have suspicions, though, that he may hate himself.

Gays who honor the god of the Bible and the Republican conservative agenda...make about as much sense to me as Jews who would honor Hitler and Naziism.

But...that's just my opinion.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

Evagengelists work on a "can't lose" basis. Whether they convert you or resist your (Devil's) arguments, they get the Brownie points. The more pursuasive you are...the more the points for resistance.

Right you are!

Quote:

Rex,

Nice work on the Sonnet !

Indeed!

I have nothing but respect for anyone who can put thoughts into a poetic form.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Rex: This:

Quote:
You may say... "Anyway, why would you follow a God that stones homosexuals and adulterers?" I say that since God is good... then he must have had damn good reasons for this... I search for the reasons... and I find, he well may have had many good reasons at the time!

floored me! Are you condoning hate crimes in the name of "God?" That sounds like the rationalization of the KKK to me, and goes against your "loving and merciful" ideal! Please tell me I have misinterpreted you.

When you think that being a homosexual/adulterer in those times meant probable death anyway because of rampant disease, where an entire city/tribe could be wiped out in a matter of a week just by drinking bad water or eating bad grain, I say yes, I can understand that in those times strict measures were necessary for simple survival.

It was not hatred for adultery or homosexuality it was hatred toward the death that this lust brought down upon the innocent. There were not condoms (other than a piece of leather) and who knows there may have been many even more infectious diseases. When you figure there were leper colonies and many diseases that we may not even have around today.

God knows the future (for real) and God does not make sudden rules because he wants to burden people with hatred toward others. He makes them because he sees actual events in the future (in this case for the Hebrews alone) that need to be avoided.

In Mary magdalenes day we see that this was not the case where Jesus seemingly put an end to this practice... why? Well, I could find many rationalizations or I could search in my heart and the scriptures and find the truth.

Since Christ was born and present on the earth then the chance of the Hebrews being wiped out by plague was no longer a problem. That these rules were to safeguard the tribe till Christ was conceived.

I am not God... I do not know how things would have turned out had God not placed these strict laws on the Hebrews. But who knows with out them it could have led to the early demise of not only the Hebrew people, but then also Jesus Christ would never have been born.

I do not see all things from my own selfish lifestyle only but I see things also for the greater of all people. This is what sets me apart from many people in the world. This has been what has led to my own personal survival... while I have watched many of my friends both gay and straight die from horrendous diseases much to my complete sadness. I stand by and watch a helpless medical community with no solution but to bury the dead.

I have to weigh the old testament procedures with a grain of salt and I am not impervious to the wisdom of the past times. I am sure there are many more homosexuals and adulterers that have died from disease than by stoning.

The KKK kills people out of pure hate... God chose laws to protect the people surely from mass extinction. There is a big difference. If the world was reduced down to a few tribes scattered across the earth again, I would suspect that these measures may become a saving factor in survival over sure death again for the more prudent... Frank may call it, "rationalization"... I call it, giving God a fair shake.

Even today... promiscuity means certain sure death and you do not even have to pick up a stone. If the law had been directed toward homosexuals alone I might agree with you but it was equally directed toward heterosexual adulterers so it was for health reasons and not hatred. It is an abomination to God to throw one's (and possibly another's) life away over a single sexual act of lust. This I can agree with.

Peace with God

0 Replies

Okay. I can see where you're coming from, Rex, and I am extremely glad to find that you're not a fanatic in the hating-other-people way.
I doubt that "promiscuity means certain sure death and you do not even have to pick up a stone," but I'll agree that it's definitely risky/unsafe.

Sorry to ask, since this is usually an offensive question (to some) but: Are you homosexual? The reason I ask is your comments about homosexuals and "selfish lifestyles" would seem to back up Franks' "suspicion":

Quote:

I have suspicions, though, that he may hate himself.

Gays who honor the god of the Bible and the Republican conservative agenda...make about as much sense to me as Jews who would honor Hitler and Naziism.

Frank and Rex, thanks both for the responses.

0 Replies

Rex.

History implies that "Peace with God" is an oxymoron, presumably leading to the catch-all clause "He moves in mysterious ways".

Have you read the childrens book "Northern Lights"
which is about "God the Imposter" ? Its a best seller in the UK.

0 Replies

Frank said regarding Rex: "I have nothing but respect for anyone who can put thoughts into a poetic form."
ME TOO. The Lettys and Cavs are objects of my envy.

0 Replies

Fresco, that answers my question "How do those Christians put up with the humiliation of jeering audiences when they are on their soap boxes spreading the word in public? They can't lose for losing.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Rex.

History implies that "Peace with God" is an oxymoron, presumably leading to the catch-all clause "He moves in mysterious ways".

Have you read the childrens book "Northern Lights"
which is about "God the Imposter" ? Its a best seller in the UK.

Peace with God is achievable... Jesus Christ is the prince of peace.
Yes, God's ways are mysterious... Yet, we can have peace with the father.

Romans 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Psalms 40:3
And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear[godly respect, reverence], and shall trust in the LORD.

Psalms 141:8
But mine eyes are unto thee, O GOD the Lord: in thee is my trust; leave not my soul destitute.

Comment:

I have not read "Northern Lights" but I am always interested in different viewpoints, I really detest it when I have gaping holes in my foundational perceptions.

Could you give me a brief outline of the book?

Thanks Smile

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Fresco, that answers my question "How do those Christians put up with the humiliation of jeering audiences when they are on their soap boxes spreading the word in public? They can't lose for losing.

If I might give my opinion on the answer to this question please? Christians are inspired by the sufferings of Jesus Christ. When one has to go on and speak to a crowd and they have a slight headache or such, one may simply reflect how much more pain hanging by a spike in their hand would feel, or a crown of thorns, yet Jesus still spoke the word of God till it was finished...

Luke 23:8
But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

Comment:
He spoke this while the people were spitting in his face, he was being led to be crucified, and after 32 hours of brutal beating. He was at this point the Bible says, beaten beyond recognition as a human. Yet it was his "Joy" to do the fathers will. "Glory to come" also was shown [On the mount of transfiguration] to him to help him endure.

I heard it once said the Joy and happiness are not the same thing... happiness is external and is dependant on the situation, but joy is something God places on the inside that is always with a Christian.

2 Corinthians 8:2
How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.

0 Replies

Rex,

Pullmans "Northern Lights" is the first of the trilogy "His Dark Materials", which is inspired by Miltons poem "Paradise Lost". I have given one of the more comprehensive links below.

www.listener.co.nz/default,2963.sm - 31k - 30 Nov 2004

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

He spoke this while the people were spitting in his face, he was being led to be crucified, and after 32 hours of brutal beating. He was at this point the Bible says, beaten beyond recognition as a human.

I must have missed this part.

Would you furnish me with a passage reference so that I can catch up?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:
He spoke this while the people were spitting in his face, he was being led to be crucified, and after 32 hours of brutal beating. He was at this point the Bible says, beaten beyond recognition as a human.

I must have missed this part.

Would you furnish me with a passage reference so that I can catch up?

Frank it is an old testament prophecy.. you figure... "flogging" of the type Jesus endured was where they whipped him with whips that have tiny pieces of bone attached to the ends of the whip. This type of beating "ploughs" the flesh and disfigures below the skin down below the muscle structure to the bone.

Isaiah 52:13-15
13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
RexRed wrote:
He spoke this while the people were spitting in his face, he was being led to be crucified, and after 32 hours of brutal beating. He was at this point the Bible says, beaten beyond recognition as a human.

I must have missed this part.

Would you furnish me with a passage reference so that I can catch up?

Frank it is an old testament prophecy.. you figure... "flogging" of the type Jesus endured was where they whipped him with whips that have tiny pieces of bone attached to the ends of the whip. This type of beating "ploughs" the flesh and disfigures below the skin down below the muscle structure to the bone.

Isaiah 52:13-15
13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

To suggest it actually happened because of a "prophecy" predicting that it would happen is a stretch...and suggesting that this passage predicts what would happen to Jesus is even a greater stretch, Rex.

That is one of the problems with the 367 (or 219; 548; 622) prophecies of the Old Testament that supposedly apply to Jesus. They are simply pulled out of context...and a pretence is made that they apply.

There is an excellent essay that you might read that deals with this problem. Here is a link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
RexRed wrote:
He spoke this while the people were spitting in his face, he was being led to be crucified, and after 32 hours of brutal beating. He was at this point the Bible says, beaten beyond recognition as a human.

I must have missed this part.

Would you furnish me with a passage reference so that I can catch up?

Frank it is an old testament prophecy.. you figure... "flogging" of the type Jesus endured was where they whipped him with whips that have tiny pieces of bone attached to the ends of the whip. This type of beating "ploughs" the flesh and disfigures below the skin down below the muscle structure to the bone.

Isaiah 52:13-15
13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

To suggest it actually happened because of a "prophecy" predicting that it would happen is a stretch...and suggesting that this passage predicts what would happen to Jesus is even a greater stretch, Rex.

That is one of the problems with the 367 (or 219; 548; 622) prophecies of the Old Testament that supposedly apply to Jesus. They are simply pulled out of context...and a pretence is made that they apply.

There is an excellent essay that you might read that deals with this problem. Here is a link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

I find the article you have directed me to to be sorely lacking in several points.

One point: The article mentions that the word "virgin" of the old testament is the word young maiden and the word in the Gospels is virgin. But they do not mention that Jesus could have been "conceived" of a virgin but it did not have to be a "virgin birth". Mary was married after she conceived and Joseph and her "came together" "after" she conceived.

Another point: About Jesus being born in Bethlehem, but being called Jesus of Nazareth... Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to pay taxes and be counted in a census, and Jesus was born there perchance, but their main residence over the years may very well have been Nazareth... What is the problem with that?

There are very evident explanations for these things when someone does not come into the problem with rank skepticism...

As for the old testament prophecies... It was very important that they each and every one be fulfilled.

When the Bible says that Jesus was "tempted in all points but without sin"... It does not mean that he was temped by every sin conceivable to humans... Jesus did not have a mother in-law... hehe

The meaning of Jesus being "tempted in all points" is that he was tempted to not fulfill the prophecies of old at every point. If we see a part where it "seems" that Jesus did not fulfill a prophecy... the error is surely in our understanding and not in the performance of Jesus Christ... or, he would not have been "without sin"... Jesus said all must be "fulfilled". The Old Testament said that the first miracle Jesus would perform would be the healing of a blind person... This is what we read in the Gospels... Every jot and tittle was fulfilled by Jesus Christ

The author of your webpage link wrote this...
But the problems for these prophecies run even deeper. Is Jesus actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and the house of David? The sole evidence for this is two sets of genealogies for Jesus, in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper ancestry.

Comment:
He does not consider that Mary's father's name was Joseph too... So Jesus does not lack the lineage... That was Jesus' mothers father not his step father. Why would the Bible give his stepfathers lineage?
One of them traces from Mary back, and the other traces from Mary's father back. They are two different peoples account of the same genealogy.

Frank I have not finished the entire article yet but so far I can poke holes in "almost" everything he is implying...

Another example of a hole so big you could drive a truck through it...

he writes this...
Christian apologists claim that Jesus' Galilean ministry is prophesied by Isaiah 9:1, which says, "... in earlier times he [God] treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on he shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles." All this verse says is that God will make the area "glorious"--it says nothing of ministry by the Messiah. The subsequent verses (Isaiah 9:6-7) speak of a child to be born who will be king, whose "name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Jewish tradition says that this refers to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah (Sigal 1981, pp. 29-32). Isaiah 9:7, if applied to Jesus, is unfulfilled since it speaks of his kingship.

Comment:
Has he not even read the book of Matthew?

The entire book of Matthew is dedicated to the emphasis of the royal lineage of Jesus Christ coming as the "Shepherd King". That is why Matthew includes a lineage... where Mark does not because it emphasizes Jesus as "the servant" and servants do not require lineages.

Has he not heard of "the red thread" that the subject of every book of the old testament is Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is "the red thread". He is the subject of even Genesis when the Bible says that the woman's seed will bruise the head of the serpent. Well a woman does not have a seed she has an egg. So this must be prophetically talking about a son of the woman. Eve thought she brought forth this seed but she brought forth the first murderer, Cain... I am sure the writer of your article would says that "Jewish tradition says, that Cain is the "promised seed"...

I don't want to write too long of a reply.

I might also add that as you remember generations are only cursed for four generations not indefinitely... and blessed for thousands.

Also Jesus Christ is our Passover... How is that for fulfilling the prophecies? He takes the place of animal atonement.

I think a course for your Christian antagonist article writer is to look and see how the Bible fits rather than to squish it out of shape through misaligned presuppositions that only misguide the ardent truth seeker. One must "believe" the Bible is inherently inerrant in order for it to give up it's pearls of wisdom concerning these prophecies.

I will write more on this after a bit.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Quote:

The author of your webpage link wrote this...
But the problems for these prophecies run even deeper. Is Jesus actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and the house of David? The sole evidence for this is two sets of genealogies for Jesus, in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper ancestry.

Comment:
He does not consider that Mary's father's name was Joseph too... So Jesus does not lack the lineage... That was Jesus' mothers father not his step father. Why would the Bible give his stepfathers lineage?
One of them traces from Mary back, and the other traces from Mary's father back. They are two different peoples account of the same genealogy.

Frank I have not finished the entire article yet but so far I can poke holes in "almost" everything he is implying...

Oh, I am sure you think you can, Rex...but can you really?

Let me...a layman...working off the cuff and almost instantaneously upon reading your post... deal with this little explanation you gave here.

You claim that the lineage actually traces back to Mary's father...who, you say, was also named Joseph. You even mocked the notion of tracing back his "stepfather's" lineage.

But let's take a look at what actually is written in Luke.

After a very long litiny of names of who begat whom...it concludes...

"Matthan, the father of Jacob.

Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

It was of her that Jesus who is called the Messiah was born."

Now...unless you are saying that Mary's father, Joseph, was also her husband, Joseph (and you are not since you expressedly said they are two different people)...your thesis here is wrong. The hole you poked...is not a hole at all.

The lineage given in Luke is of Joseph...the supposed step-father of Jesus...not of Mary, through her father.

I'm not even going to bother with the other stuff!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Quote:
The author of your webpage link wrote this...
But the problems for these prophecies run even deeper. Is Jesus actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and the house of David? The sole evidence for this is two sets of genealogies for Jesus, in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper ancestry.

Comment:
He does not consider that Mary's father's name was Joseph too... So Jesus does not lack the lineage... That was Jesus' mothers father not his step father. Why would the Bible give his stepfathers lineage?
One of them traces from Mary back, and the other traces from Mary's father back. They are two different peoples account of the same genealogy.

Frank I have not finished the entire article yet but so far I can poke holes in "almost" everything he is implying...

Oh, I am sure you think you can, Rex...but can you really?

Let me...a layman...working off the cuff and almost instantaneously upon reading your post... deal with this little explanation you gave here.

You claim that the lineage actually traces back to Mary's father...who, you say, was also named Joseph. You even mocked the notion of tracing back his "stepfather's" lineage.

But let's take a look at what actually is written in Luke.

After a very long litiny of names of who begat whom...it concludes...

"Matthan, the father of Jacob.

Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.

It was of her that Jesus who is called the Messiah was born."

Now...unless you are saying that Mary's father, Joseph, was also her husband, Joseph (and you are not since you expressedly said they are two different people)...your thesis here is wrong. The hole you poked...is not a hole at all.

The lineage given in Luke is of Joseph...the supposed step-father of Jesus...not of Mary, through her father.

I'm not even going to bother with the other stuff!

Frank, if you look at the words behind the word translated husband it is the word father not husband.

0 Replies

Jesus Christ, Rex...every time someone shows that the Bible says something you don't want to accept...you pretend the word means something else.

Now you are saying that the Bible has been mistranslated...and that it really meant to say "father" not "husband!"

What kind of terror could possibly make anyone that blind.

The geneology traced in that passage was directly to Joseph...Mary's husband.

Really...you have got to stop pretending that every time you encounter something you don't want to accept...that the words have been mistranslated. Don't you realize that your god hates liars damn near as much as he hates homosexuals.

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know