The happy-sad quandary of pro-aborts
Chicago gay news organization Windy City Times just published a review of the book, Abortion Under Attack.
Gays and pro-aborts both fight for the same goal: Sex without judgment or consequences.
But gays approach societal aversion to homosexuality far differently than pro-aborts approach societal aversion to abortion, from an offensive rather than defensive posture. Imagine gays saying they want homosexuality “safe, legal, and rare,” for instance.
Rather, gays attack anyone who says homosexuality is bad and remove any such language from their own midst except for the mistaken line, “Who would choose this?” to promote the concept of the gay gene, which we’ve discussed before, here, here, and here.
So gays see the flaw in current pro-abort strategy, as quoted from the WCT piece:
Much of Abortion under Attack is interesting, but too many of the writers engage in the apologist discourse of abortion as a tragic choice….
Frances Kissling, in a now-famous essay “Is there Life after Roe?,” reprinted in the book, will have none of that. President of Catholics for a Free Choice, she sanctimoniously criticizes the pro-abortion side’s refusal to discuss abortion in simple moral terms, rather than political or legal terms. She’s critical of pro-choicers who argued against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which endowed a legal status on a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. Pro-choicers rightly saw this as one more attempt to end abortion rights; Kissling insists that their responses “made us seem heartless.” With friends like these, who needs the pro-lifers?….
These fracture points are symptomatic of the contemporary abortion rights movement, perennially caught between fighting for a right and the perceived need to gain cultural acceptance….
Our views on abortion reflect our beliefs in the rightness or wrongness of it. Those of us who stand for a person’s right to have an abortion need to be less ashamed of our belief that it’s right to think so.
Many if not most pro-abortion commenters on this site approach their debate from the “safe, legal, and rare” standpoint. They vigorously fight being labeled “pro-abortion” than “pro-choice.”
Big mistake. I’ve said before, if you are pro-abortion, you must be pro-abortion all the way – for any reason at any time in the pregnancy by any means. Otherwise you lose the debate as you type your first word.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Homosexuals are no different than pro-deathers or any others that have moral views contrary to Scripture.
Their views are simply evidence of their rebellion towards God. With that said, their arguments are easily destroyed by wielding the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.
Christian should make no mistake to support any such types, otherwsie we join them and become party to their self-destruction.
Homosexuality is wrong every time, all the time, under every circumstance. Abortion is wrong every time, all the time, under every circumstance.
leviticus also says that you should never wear a shirt made of two differemt kinds of material, you guys follow that rule too right?
Why is it that people who condemn Christianity are always quoting scripture at us?
It’s not that simple. There were many Jewish laws that we are not required to follow anymore. But these were rules defining Natural Law. These were health rules and ceremonial rules.
The ten commandments never changed. But not eating shellfish was never one of the commandments.
And no, we don’t have slaves, more than one wife, or wear hair shirts anymore either…
mk
Obviously that should have read “These are NOT rules defining Natural Law.”
We are living in San Francisco now, and I am grateful for the oppotunity to teach my children about gay culture as much as I can. I am 100% “pro-gay” — in fact, there are three gay families at my kids` Catholic school.
I am also 100% “pro-abortion rights,” which makes me, as you say, “pro-abortion all the way,” because I don`t believe abortion should be criminalized. However, I don`t believe it`s the right answer in every situation, so “pro-abortion” is misleading. It`s like saying I`m “pro-war” because I`m not a pacifist and believe wars are sometimes necessary.
Cameron,
hatever the case, thanks for facilitating and reinforcing what we always new; y
Given all the deleting/censoring of posts here, and the POV-based differential in tolerance of unsavory dialogue… I finally remember what this site reminds me of.
It reminds me of the American Renascence site, where I am frequently deleted for enigmatic reasons, but mostly because I call them what they are; racists.
Assuming y
I have a name for that, it
“Someday you too will go through puberty, and then you can experience sex instead of only fantasizing about it. Until then, you should probably see someone about this obsession of yours.”
Jill supposedly deletes stuff that’s below the belt. But I suspect this one will stick around.
Speaking of growing-up…meanwhile MK, would you care to defend by pointing how this advances your argument??
It didn’t, it just made me feel good.
“It didn’t, it just made me feel good.”
So much for your moral high-ground.
“Homosexuality is wrong every time, all the time, under every circumstance. Abortion is wrong every time, all the time, under every circumstance.”
Your pious judgement is wrong every time, all the time, under every circumstance. Seriously… how do you sleep with so much hate??
This is one thing that frustrates me about the Christianity… You pick and choose what to believe. I once got into a debate with my catholic mother over homosexuality, of course she says its wrong and sinful, and I said, “yeah well according the the catholic faith sex is suppose to be for procreation only and that any form of birth control is sinful, yet I know you and dad use some contraceptives. And don’t tell me i wasn’t “honoring my father and mother” because i respect my mother and she respects me. I love her dearly and she is one of my best friends.
Yes Cameron,
You put me on a pedestal, and it’s so hard sometimes to stay up there…especially when I’m dealing with people like you.
Why are you so nasty? It is actually quite rare that my “mean streak” shows, but you are so blatantly asking for it…
In all the weeks you have been on here you have never once added anything to the mix. You are abrasive, juvenile, snotty and oh so many things, but the one thing that you are not is sincere.
If just once, you asked a real question, if just once you showed that you were actually participating instead of stirring up trouble, if just once you showed that you were capable of growth, then I would treat you with the utmost respect…
But quite honestly you detract from discussions that are being taken seriously by all the other members and you distract us. We end up answering your ludicrous assertions and that takes the focus off of the real issues.
I’m sure HisMan could quote a scripture passage that talks about satan using methods of diversion to further his cause…
But until you start to show respect to the people here, on both sides, I’m afraid I don’t quite know how to respond to you.
Sorry. Maybe I’ll go to confession and start over tomorrow…we’ll see.
mk
“Their views are simply evidence of their rebellion towards God. With that said, their arguments are easily destroyed by wielding the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.”
How can you start a rebellion against something you don’t believe in?
And unless you’ve spoken to whoever is up there, you don’t know what god says. All you have is a book that was written after years of telling tales and decades after Jesus’s supposed death. Oh yeah, and lots of people telling you how right you are and everybody with a different opinion is evil and an enemy of god.
have has anyone here every heard of the “most hated family in America?”
“It’s not that simple. There were many Jewish laws that we are not required to follow anymore. But these were rules defining Natural Law. These were health rules and ceremonial rules.
The ten commandments never changed. But not eating shellfish was never one of the commandments.”
ummmmm, homosexuality isnt in the ten commandments.
Actually it is.
# “Neither shall you commit adultery.”
Adultery is the breaking of the holy bond between husband and wife, and is thus a sacrilege. This commandment includes not just the act of adultery, but lust as well. (See Catechism 2331-2400.)
“have has anyone here every heard of the “most hated family in America?”
Yep. And I feel strangely reminded of someone every time I see a video of them or hear of their latest idea.
You guys want to talk about homosexual bigotry, Oklahoma Baptist University doesn’t allow open homosexuals on campus at all and recently they passed legislation to ban supporters too. So much for Christian charity.
what makes you think that gay relationships are based purely on lust? or that straight ones arent? and how can one break a bond that they didnt have to begin with?
Ever heard of Separation of Church and State?
Haha, I like how they say homosexual commit adultery when they don’t allow them to marry in the first place!
why are christians always so obsessed with sex?? what about poverty? jebus was way more concerned with the poor than he was with gays, whom he never mentioned. ever.
I like how some think “straight” people can’t be lustful.
I can’t cite it off the top of my head, but I read recently that the average age of death for a homosexual is 40 years. Between HIV, drug abuse,alcholism, depression and suicide (all things that seem to go hand in hand with the lifestyle) most of them die very young. They also have a large (on average – i forgot the actual number but in San Francisco one survey showed 500) number of sexual partners in their lifetime. Often (Not Always), they have more than one partner even when in a serious relationship. This leads you to think that it is an addiction rather than a lifestyle I’m not sure if the statistics are the same for lesbians.
This was from a post on a different topic site…I have statistics too but I’m out of time right now.
They aren’t MK, women are more likely than men to choose lifetime partners.
Ever heard of Separation of Church and State?
Ever heard that separation of church and state is not written in the constitution?
Ever read the surrounding context from the letter that included the words “Separation of church and state”?
This commandment includes not just the act of adultery, but lust as well.
Haha, I like how they say homosexual commit adultery when they don’t allow them to marry in the first place!
I like how some think “straight” people can’t be lustful.
Which people would those be?
MK- I would like to see where you got that information.. So once you remember please let us know.
Also MK- I know straight people that have had over 100 sexual partners.
Jana,
Also MK- I know straight people that have had over 100 sexual partners.
Nobody is debating that. This would also fall under the sin of lust or “adultery”
mk
MK,
Almost every Christian church and many Christians I know. They think homosexual marriage is a threat to society but when asking why homosexuals are morally wrong they say it’s adultery. Well you can’t have it both ways!!
im straight and very lustful.
If you go back to the article, and click where Jill has “here, here and here.” The first one. Scroll down and you’ll see all the arguments we had before and all the claims cited.
If not, I’ll do it for you when I get back tonight…
Kay?
I know straight people that are alcoholics, I know straight people that have committed suicide…. I know straight people that do drugs…
blacks are also more likely to suffer from hiv. they have more sexual partners than the average white person, they have a shorter life expectancy . . . wow, maybe they are immoral too. oh wait, according to the bible they are!!!
PIP
Because you are locking yourself into the definition of adultery as “only occuring in married couples.”
The Catholic church uses adultery to include all sexually impure acts…
mk
I know straight people that are alcoholics, I know straight people that have committed suicide…. I know straight people that do drugs…
What is your point? I never said straight people cant commit sin. That’s crazy talk.
Anyway,
really gotta go…
sorry
mk
Question. Does that mean married couples that have anal sex or have oral sex are also committing adultery?
the sodomites will not enter the kingdom of heaven according to corinthians. (also depending on what translation you have ;)
“Our views on abortion reflect our beliefs in the rightness or wrongness of it. Those of us who stand for a person’s right to have an abortion need to be less ashamed of our belief that it’s right to think so.”
This, along with a statement made earlier in the WTC piece criticizing the pro-choice movement’s focus on rights and legality rather than morals seem to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the stance of many in the pro-choice community. And by a pro-choicer no less! That makes me sad.
The fact of the matter is that the moral standing of a particular action is not sufficient to deem it legal or illegal. Killing a serial killer on the street, and thus preventing him from taking the lives of many more victims might be moral (depends on your moral theory), but it’s not legal. Lying to your friend or refusing to help the poor may be immoral, but they’re not illegal.
And note what takes that immoral lie and makes it illegal – rights. Once you violate the rights of another person (by causing them loss in the marketplace) your simply immoral lie can become illegal slander. That’s why the pro-choice movement focuses on rights and legality – because the pro-life movement isn’t just interested in showing people that abortion is immoral; they also want to make it illegal. But, as I’ve just noted, these are two separate issues. Thus, there is nothing inconsistent in claiming that abortion is immoral, or bad, and yet still holding that it ought to be legal, given considerations of the rights of the woman (and even of the fetus).
I honestly think that Jill and others in her camp notice the distinction between immorality and illegality but work hard to conflate the two. It’s a lot easier to convince someone that abortion is immoral than it is to convince them, on the basis of rights, that it should be illegal,especially if you use inflammatory rhetoric, focus on the humanity of the fetus, trade on puritanical views about sexuality, etc. But if you run these two together – if you make the immoral and the illegal seem like the same thing, then as soon as you convince someone that abortion is immoral, you’re done. But you’ve violated the tenets of good reasoning along the way. I know that most don’t care about good reasoning anymore, that they are more concerned with good old sophistic persuasion. And if that’s how you want it, fine. But keep in mind that even apes and children can deceptively persuade. Only well-formed adult humans can use higher order reasoning skills.
“if you are pro-abortion, you must be pro-abortion all the way – for any reason at any time in the pregnancy by any means. Otherwise you lose the debate as you type your first word.”
MK
I hit post too soon. Although it’s probably better this way.
“if you are pro-abortion, you must be pro-abortion all the way – for any reason at any time in the pregnancy by any means. Otherwise you lose the debate as you type your first word.”
Jill, you said this the other day, and once again I don’t understand how you can reasonably make this claim. And since you failed to respond to my comment on this yesterday, and once again posted this claim, I’m starting to think that you recognize the claim’s unreasonableness, but are going to continue making it anyway. So once again, I’ll demonstrate how silly this claim is.
I think the government has the power(the analogue of a right) to tax its citizens. Does that mean that I am thus “pro-taxes”, that I must support the government’s power to tax as much as they want for any reason at any time? By your reasoning with regard to those who support abortion rights, this would have to be the case. And that’s ludicrous. I think I am like most people who think the government has a right to tax and yet hates taxes, wishes we didn’t have to pay them, and wholeheartedly believes that there are limits to how much the government can tax and for what purposes. But you claim that this is inconsistent. So which are you, Jill, are you anti-taxes or pro-taxes? Do you think the government has no right to tax or do you happily support their right to take all your money for any purpose at any time?
Or here’s another way of thinking about it. You consider yourself a supporter of free speech and expression rights, don’t you? Well, by your logic, then, you also have to support the right of people to yell fire in a crowded theater, the right of people to post pornography in the streets in clear view of children, heck, to post child porn, and the right of people to purposefully incite riots with their speech. It’s either that or you lose the debate over whether or not we have free speech and expression rights when you type your first word. Oh and don’t forget that you have to be proud of your support of all of it. You have to like it. That means that you have to gleefully stand behind those Nazi’s as they spew their hateful garbage. So which is it gonna be, Jill? Anti-freedom of speech or pro-Nazi-child-porn?
Or perhaps you’ll agree that one can consistently support the right of an individual or group to do something without holding that those rights are unrestricted or without liking it.
There is no secular reason to not allow homosexual marriage, none at all. As the government should NOT espouse one religion over another for obvious reasons (not everyone is Christian, not everyone believes in God, the last time religion was so entwined with the state people got burned at the stake
My what a nasty bunch today.
MK, great job, however, you can’t help people that are lost be found. I think God has to do that, so, I’ll just wield the sword…..
Here’s what God says about homosexuality:
Romans, Caper 1, “18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities
Diana-
Actually, abortion is much harder to defend from a strict legal standpoint. It’s an extrapolation from an extrapolation. Not exactly solid constitutional law.
The fact that abortion is also immoral has little to do with its constitutional legality.
Of course, if we start looking into laws and how they relate to the social contract, the line between law and morality becomes a bit fuzzier.
Less,
Using your logic about debating ideas, let’s say if we were debating why the sky was blue, your argument would start out by saying, well, “The sky just doesn’t exist.”
That’s just not intelligent.
So to try to dismiss pro-lifers’ arguments that killing an innocent child in the womb is murder and that homosexulaity is sin are groundless because you think God doesn’t exist, well, that’s unintelligent as well.
Doesn’t surprise me because Proverbs 1 aptly describes your condition when it says in the 1st Chapter, “7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Since it is obvious you have no fear of the Lord, you haven’t even gotten out of the gate when it comes to true knowledge. You can choose to stay there if you like, but it’s not recommended.
His Man
You’re clearly sounding contemptuous and disdainful… which puts you in with those Paul is identifying.
“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them”
In you’re own preoccupations with biblical verse, you to deserve death.
As far as homosexuality and how it relates to contemporay Christians:
Paul writes in Romans 1:24-32
4Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator
“Doesn’t surprise me because Proverbs 1 aptly describes your condition when it says in the 1st Chapter, “7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
Speaking of logic, that’s what we call a tautology.
I am asking this in all honesty and respect:
Is it still adultery for a married couple to engage in oral/anal sex?
Lol, looks like we had the same idea Hisman.
Cameron, the point is that we ALL fall sort, and only through God’s redemption through Christ do we have life. Look to verse 3. It is clear that though we fall short of the law, we should still strive to uphold the law. Indeed, only by faith is this possible!
I believe that anal is considered sodomy regardless of the sex/marital status of the involved parties. I’m not sure about oral.
Less,
No secular reason not to allow homosexual marriage? Doesn’t surpise me to hear you say that because apparently you also think there’s no secular reason to not allow the killing of innocent children in the womb as well.
According to you, if we could just eliminate God, everything would be OK? Well here’s what Paul told a bunch of Jews and Greeks who thought that they were pretty smart, you know, kind of like how you think of yourself:
Acts, Chapter 17:”16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24″The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28’For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
29″Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone
Also Cameron, I believe it is important to continue to Romans 5:21- 6:1-14
21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin
Hi Diana,
your analogy is bogus because taxes like all money is a dispensible reality. Fertility (like a right) is indispensable. [remember the quality of right being inalienable …. it is of our very nature.] Instead of taxes, let’s think of heart. If only the heart is removed [and not the whole body, the person still dies.] In much the same way abortion is not just one indifferent act among many … abortion kills … a baby/ a woman (quasi-suicide)/ a dad/ my brother or sister! The act is heinous …. and is NOT justified.
All rights are restricted by responsibility … that’s why you cannot yell ‘FIRE!!!’ in a theatre just-for-the-hell of it! Jill and several people have asked pro-choicers here to grow-up(act responsibly) …. this applies in spades to you as a person working to be a university lecturer one day.
Cameron:
Careful, I am quoting God’s words.
Can’t handle the truth?
So, in general, Paul’s babel doesn’t really apply to anyone who considers him/herself christian.
Whatever works for you all!!
These are the names of the men who are to assist you:
from Reuben, Elizur son of Shedeur;
6 from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai;
7 from Judah, Nahshon son of Amminadab;
8 from Issachar, Nethanel son of Zuar;
9 from Zebulun, Eliab son of Helon;
10 from the sons of Joseph:
from Ephraim, Elishama son of Ammihud;
from Manasseh, Gamaliel son of Pedahzur;
11 from Benjamin, Abidan son of Gideoni;
12 from Dan, Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai;
13 from Asher, Pagiel son of Okran;
14 from Gad, Eliasaph son of Deuel;
15 from Naphtali, Ahira son of Enan.”
16 These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.
dont you see?? pro aborts world wide: read this book!!!
How’s this for truth His Man….
Jesus was not buried.
the bible was written by god, it was written by men.
was = wasnt
In reply to the “separation of church and state”
how foolish to think that the founders of our country were trying to keep the church out of the state, seems contradictory when they put it on our freakin’ money!!!
They were trying to keep the State out of the Church.
If God is Reality, then there is no escaping Him/Her. Whatever you call “reality” is ultimatly God.
So…. are we trying to keep “reality” out of the State. It sure seems so by some of the “pro-choice” comments!
Less, you are an EXTREMELEY dangerous person since what you say has the potential of leading so many to hell. For that purpose I am reposting what I said to you on another thread.
MY POST TO LESS:
Less,
You said: “On my left shoulder I want the poem “The Garden of Love” by William Blake tattooed in dark brown. Between my shoulder blades I want several Tarot archetypes: The World, Strength, Temperance, the High Priestess, and Justice. I have a way I want the placed and a deck I’m working from, and I’m really, really, excited.”
Jill, to answer your question, here’s William Blake’s Garden of Love Poem:
“I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And “Thou shalt not” writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore;
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And Priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briers my joys and desires.”
Whoa! If that’s not a total rejection of God, I don’t know what is. This guy probably had his first sexual experience “in the green” where now a chapel was built with a cemetary on the same site. All he could see was a God who wanted death and destruction replaced by “Where I used to play on the green.”
Less, your desires are the practice of witchcraft and evidence of a Jezebel spirit within you. It is not surprising you are pro-death and extremely deceived. Repentance is the only answer. Or will you allow satan to kill, steal, and destroy your destiny?
Deuteronomy 18:10
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [Or who makes his son or daughter pass through] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
2 Kings 9:22
When Joram saw Jehu he asked, “Have you come in peace, Jehu?” “How can there be peace,” Jehu replied, “as long as all the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?”
2 Chronicles 33:6
He sacrificed his sons in [Or He made his sons pass through] the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination and witchcraft, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
Micah 5:12
I will destroy your witchcraft and you will no longer cast spells.
Nahum 3:4
all because of the wanton lust of a harlot, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft.
Galatians 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Also Less, you post is evidence of what I have said about pro-deathers all along: “They reject anyone or anything in authority that would tell them how to live including God Himself and it’s generally masked in the facade of women’s rights. Which when you analyze it, is a very parasitical way of thinking. I mean, they kill unborn baby woman too don’t they? How dare they use the issue of abortion to bolster their sense of self-hood. Again, the perverted, twisted and demented logic shows its ugly head from every angle of the looking glass. Ah, but they see in a mirror darkly? No, the light’s off.” END OF HISMAN POST
LESS’S RESPONSE:
How can any of you call yourself Christian with such hate in your hearts? I posted what tattoos I wanted and you jump from that to my religion? I want the poem tattooed on me because, as I said, it has personal meaning. HisMan, I
Cameron, “buried” is a translation. Jesus was “laid to rest” in much the same custom as any other during that time. The word translated as “bury” in English is the consistant throughout.
His Man:
Get over it. We do NOT live in a theocracy. America will NEVER be a theocracy. IF you want to live in a theocracy or see how a theocracy works, I suggest you move to Iran for a bit. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it there…they hate women and non-believers as much as you do. You’ll fit right in. But wait, you hate Muslims as well, you xenophobic fool.
Another thing.
This site is so full of hate, and lacks understanding on boths sides.
When i read it it sort of makes me sick…
Both sides of the debate should really think before they speak. I am personally “pro-life” but I also understand what a complicated issue we are talking about, and it should be assumed that whatever side you take you are doing so with a “clean heart”.
Couldn’t it be that even a “pro-choicer” could be doing so with a clean heart?
i know what the answer is… from both sides…. just think about it, and as always.
“Let you speach be seasoned with salt” (Gal.)
and “whenever possible live at peace with ALL men (and women)”!!!
Cameron:
Tautology (logic), a statement of propositional logic which can be inferred from any proposition whatsoever
Tautology (rhetoric), use of redundant language that adds no information
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
No Cameron, God says that without fear of Him you can’t even begin to understand what tautolgy means or how to apply it correctly.
Well. We don’t need a “theocracy” as in the old sense of the word.
But we do need to understand our spiritual condition and adress things on a deeper level than our physical/animalistic level.
I don’t think anyone would argue that.
“she sanctimoniously criticizes the pro-abortion side’s refusal to discuss abortion in simple moral terms, rather than political or legal terms”
Yes, and His Man refuses to discuss abortion without the mention of “God” or a few scrictures from the bible.
No what that verse means is…
FEAR is the begining of wisdom…
the question is “What is the end?”
How about “LOVE”
“Perfect love casts out all FEAR!” 1 Jn. 4:18
HisMan, I don’t see how any conversation about my possible tattoos is applicable to this discussion.
Furthermore, I am not Christian. I have no desire to be Christian. I do not care if you quote Bible verses at me, as I am not Christian and therefore do not care what the Bible has to say. True wisdom begins with tolerance and the knowledge that you are not everyone, and your religion is not everyone’s. What you say is not applicable as it ignores the basic fact that not everyone is Christian. The moment you can empirically prove the Bible is God’s complete word is the moment you can use it in debates. Until such time, using the Bible in debates is no better than picking a random fiction book off the shelf.
I would also suggest you knock off calling yourself a Christian: you’re giving decent, tolerant, loving, wonderful Christians a bad name.
Less, I don`t even know you, but I am impressed (and a little jealous) that HisMan called you ” an EXTREMELEY dangerous person” with CAPS. Way to go!
I am new to this blog, and fascinated by it. I have never encountered this level of Christian nastiness before, in my sheltered liberal Catholic life.
John McDonell, you say, “Fertility (like a right) is indispensable.”
It is not — fertility can be removed from one`s life entirely, and one`s life can still have great meaning. And I don`t just mean fertily can be removed through “sinful” contraceptive/surgical means (though it certainly can) — it can be removed through a freely chosen life of celibacy as well. It is up to the individual to accept or reject his or her fertility according to how they are called by God.
I agree with Chris. I really do not want this board to turn into a cycle of vicious attacks on one another. While I will never bow down in my conviction to follow Christ and to lead others to Him, I also hope to avoid attacking anyones person.
I believe that we are ALL sinners, and that we all deserve hell. I don’t raise one sin above the others. However, I believe that through Christ we are cleansed. Why would I not share that good news?
Cameron- You claimed that homosexuality was akin to the Kosher laws. I quoted Romans to show that we are called to follow God’s law though we are not called to follow All Jewish law. Romans speaks clearly that we do not have to be circumsized, yet upon being buried with Christ, we are held to God’s law.
Chris,
I choose to be hot and not cold.
Seasoned with salt? Does that mean it must taste good or be inoffensive and politically correct?
How about “Speak the truth in love”. You aren’t loving someone if what you’re telling them is God’s word. How have I deviated? No, Jesus called a spade a spade, and didn’t mince words.
Wow! I think why we have had 50,000,000 innocent children killed over 34 years, are primarily due to people people that believe in Churchianity and not Christianity.
LESS.
I agree with you that you could use a “random fiction book off the shelf.”
Even the Bible has pagan writings in it, and at one time a jack-ass was used to bring a meaningful word to someone.
HOWEVER, make sure not to through the baby out with the bath water (funny that i just used that on a site about abortion)… anyways. You don’t need to be so staunch about disagreeing with the Bible, and on the otherhand “IN-HIM” doesn’t need to use it as a tourcher divice.
In Him.
I suggest you actually try DOING what your SCREENAME suggests.
You don’t even know me and you are already speaking offensively.
too bad. “Beware the leven of the Pharises.”
Correction:
How about “Speak the truth in love”. You aren’t loving someone if what you’re telling them is God’s word. How have I deviated? No, Jesus called a spade a spade, and didn’t mince words.
should read….
How about “Speak the truth in love”. You aren’t loving someone if what you’re telling them is God’s word? How have I deviated? No, Jesus called a spade a spade, and didn’t mince words.
Chris, your wife and son are unbelievable beautiful. You are one very very very lucky man. I wish you only the best. :)
Chris, I disagree with the Bible completely, and as it is a work of religious significance, it is simply not acceptable to use in a debate in place of empirical facts. You can base your beliefs on the Bible (not that you need anyone’s permission to believe whatever you want); that doesn’t bother me in the slightest. The problem comes when you take the Bible and use it is fact, which it is not. That’s what I’m staunchly disagreeing with.
And yeah, L. I’m dangerous. I worship a God of Sex and have tattoos and steal people’s SOULS. Oh NOE!
Less, I can’t speak for Hisman, but my quotes were directly addressing a question someone had regarding biblical law.
In that regard it was more teaching what the bible has to say than “preaching”. I would hope that you would read them from that perspective. That said, I would be overjoyed if the words spoke meaning into your life.
Chris:
Pharisees?
They rejected Christ.
I accept Him fully, all of Him, not just the parts that are politically correct and inoffensive.
What did I say that offended you?
In Him:
Also… I know that you are most likely less that 100 years old, but don’t let that get in the way of learning from History yes HIS STORY!
The Bible was used to kill people for saying that the earth revolved around the sun….sounds rediculous, you may think, but it was kind of a big deal to those who were being killed.
Also, The Bible was used to defend Slavery.
The Bible was used also used for the Crusades which not only killed Muslims for not converting, but also Christians. (look it up) The darkerskinned Christians were thought to be Muslims and were killed. Wow.
I may agree with you on some points, but make sure that you use the Bible to promote Jesus and His Love for us.
Remember that it is “his kindness that leads us to repentance” (Bible)
Just settle down. you have a warrior spirit. Like Moses. But remember Moses FAILED to enter into the Promise land.
I’m just saying be careful.
Thank you Alyssa.
Lauren, if someone asks a question regarding Biblical law, that’s completely different. Just like if someone asks about your religion, you speak about it. I don’t see a problem with that at all! As far as I’m aware, you’ve been nothing if not respectful of all of us. :)
I’ve read the Bible; read the Old Testament twice. As a literary work, I find appreciation of it. As a religious text? None.
LESS:
I appreciate where you are comming from. And you are not a minority in you view… However,
I think you should study it a little deeper.
You should know that there are many things that we belive today, and by “we” I mean in general historical terms, Things that are tought in schools and are concidered common knowledge that are less credible than the Bible.
As far as historical accuracy it has been proven time and time again. The Dead Sea Scroll alone have proved it’s legitimacy.
I know that there have been certain manipulations, and that it has been used by the “unskilled” to promote things that were not “of God” … like i said before make sure you don’t through the whole thing out because you disagree with some of it.
It is hard to disagree with LOVE. And that is the over arching message of the Bible.
Grace and Peace.
you say that you accept Christ fully.
and yet there is hate in your heart toward your brothers.
“Beloved let us love one another, for love is of God and anyone who loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God for God is love.” 1st Jn. 4:7 …
Less, Thank you. I try to stay respectful in all of this. I’m glad you’ve read the bible, that’s more than a lot of Christians can say.
It’s hard for me to understand how you can read of God’s grace, yet still think Him a tyrant. May I ask about your upbringing? I find it always explains alot about where a person is to see from where they came.
In Him:
You asked me what was offensive earlier.
I was when you started your response by saying that i was “luke warm”
It’s cool. I forgive.
Chris, I appreciate your respect and concern, I really do. Especially the respect. I have studied the Bible, however, especially the Old Testament and it’s historial accuracy. There’s far less than you would think: there’s incredible amounts of contradictions in the Old Testament, and a message that seems to be less of love and more of scorn for anyone who isn’t “God’s Chosen People.” I’d agree that the overall message of the New Testament is love: Jesus was a pretty amazing guy, and I do believe him to be divine.
I simply do not believe that the Old Testament is something we should raise to be holy. As I also disagree with the dogma of most of the Christian churches, I do not consider myself Christian. It isn’t just the Bible, Chris.
Grace and Peace yourself, you seem a good guy! :)
Lauren, I was raised Christian. My parents converted to Catholicism when I was 12 or 13. For a while, I was okay with it, but when I started questioning it, I was met with no answers.
I honestly cannot remember I time where I didn’t believe in God and Jesus. I still do. I just can’t believe in the holiness of the Bible.
Chris – you’re not the first person to point out the flaws in “HisMan’s” hateful, bitter, and angry bigotry. He attacks fellow Christians with as much venom as he does women, homosexuals, and pro-choicers. Your intelligence and patience will be returned by hate and insults – which is why its not even worth carrying on a discussion with him (if you could even call it that).
He called my parents miserable failures. In a sense, he is right about that – my parents failed miserably and bringing up a bitter, judgemental, and hate-filled woman who thinks her only purpose in life is to serve a man and pop out babies.
I showed my parents his vapid diatribe, and they said they have never been prouder to be called failures, and they would in fact be insulted if a man as dispicable as HisMan thought they were not.
Im so glad I was brought up in a similar Christian faith as you seem to have, Chris, believing that Gods love and Christ’s messages are spread through love, compassion, and kindness.
Id just hate to see you waste energy on a futile discussion with a bigot who misrepresents absolutely everything about Jesus.
I would disagree with your interpertation of the OT Less(suprised?):) Instead of an overall message of an angry God, I see it more as a message of a God trying desperately to join His people to Himself. It’s almost comical to look at the speed at which the Hebrew people turn to worship just about anything BUT their God.
In this vain, I would say that the OT is very much about seperatism. Don’t touch or you’ll be unclean, don’t marry outside your people or you’ll bring in idolotry.
It seems to me that God realizes that His people will never be saved by their merits. “live in the law, die in the law” and all that jazz. So he sacrifices Himself for His people. Seeing the debauchary of the OT, makes Christ’s sacrifice all the more amazing.
As far as contemporary churches go- I believe we have alot of flaws. While it is important to know that churches are made of imperfect people, I understand that it is easy to become disillusioned. I think that youth groups are very guilty in this regard.
I’m curious though. You say you consider Jesus to be devine but not the God of the OT. Consider this:
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name sahll be called Wonderful. Counselor. The mighty God. [b]The Everlasting Father[/b]. The Prince of Peace
Now of course this is OT, but I believe it speaks volumes about the Oneness of God.
Less:
to tell you the truth, I actually don’t believe that God would tell anyone to “kill” anyone else.
I think that God was speaking to people in the Old Testament, but we have to remember that these were a nomadic, raw, uncivilized people and let’s just say that if they were the “filter” by which God spoke, then there were some things that came through that were more of “them” than of “God” But that is why in the New Testament we are told that we need to “rightly divide the word of god”
We need to read, and think for ouselves what is of Man, and what is really from God. I guess I would say to look past the violence and things that pertain to this world, and find deep treasures. After studying the Bible for many, many years I only now am begining to find it’s depths. As it says in the OT.
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
It is our Glory to uncover the mysteries of God.
Hi pro-choicers,
I’ve decided on a new tactic …. you’ll be asked to rationally defend your proposals …. #1 – prove that God does not exist. Remember that this is intellectual proof and not faith …. I’m afraid atheism is an … I do not BELIEVE that God exists. This is a statement of faith, not proof.
Chris:
I am not perfect, I have said this numerous times on this thread, nor am I without sin. However, since you have attacked my integrity, I will resoond to you.
Moses didn’t enter the Promised Land (here on earth) because he directly disobeyed God. How have I disobeyed God? By speaking His Word boldy?
Moses appeared with Christ in the Transfiguration, so are you implying Moses didn’t go to heaven?
The kindness God speaks of is not in lieu of withholding the truth that the world so desparately needs to hear, it’s about how God allows people now to say reviling things against Him, particpate in homosexualtiy, and kill innocent children in the womb, etc., etc., etc. without immediate retribution, which typically in the OT and before the NT was completed was immediate. Ever read about Achan? How about Ananias and Sapphira?
So, just how am I supposed to tell an abortionist and all that choose it, and support it, that abortion is murder?
How am I supposed to tell a homosexual that his or her lifestyle will put them in hell since it involves the practice of sin without repentance (Hebrews 10)?
The very telling of these truths is offensive to these people. So, I guess you would have me not tell it?
Is not the very essence of speaking the truth mean, speaking the truth IN love and not WITH love? In and with are two proposition that are often used interchangebly but have very different meanings that most Christans get confused.
Perhaps you would have me just not say anything, like most Christians do today?
So please, quote the Word of God, not the words of God, especially when you call me a Pharisee and that in front of non-beleivers. Thata an extremly serious charge and one that I don’t take lightly. They crucified Him not because He was a nice guy but because he confronted their hypocrisy and inability to recognize the truth when it was standing right in front of them because to do so would mean that they would have to base their salvation on their own merit and not of His grace. Sorry, you don’t understand me or what I am trying to accomplish on this site.
Doesn’t mean I have to water anything down about what He says about any of those subjects.
And, if I have called anyone a name I am sorry. Chris is right about that not being a good thing, however, I think most are jsut offended at the use of God’s Word to counter what they say. However, I will not apologize for speaking the truth, ever.
John:
I’m not sure that is the best direction to go…
I understand what you are trying to get at, I think everyone does. In fact I think that everyone has gone down that road before, the problem isn’t with what you are trying to accomplish, but with the underlying assumtions that one brings to you question.
This issue needs to be adressed on a deeper level or else we will go round and round for ever.
??? not trying to be contrary ???
For anyone interested, check out the link on my blog. It is called 24 principles.
Follow the link and download the pdf. it is pretty amazing.
http://www.theblindshallsee.blogspot.com
then 24 principles.
Chris:
I said I choose to be hot and not cold.
From that you inferred I was calling you luekwarm?
I spoke of myself, not of you.
Who are you listening to?
His Man: Do you get a special joy out of demonizing an entire population of people (homosexuals)? Does it make you happy to constantly revile them?
Lauren, my beliefs are really complicated: I believe in one divinity, but I believe that said divinity is simply too great to comprehend. For that reason, I believe that the god of the Old Testament is a facet of the greater divinity, as is the god of the New Testament. Both are parts of a greater whole, if that makes sense. Jesus is also a part of this greater whole. I don
don’t back down now In Him:
i’m not stupid, and neither is everyone else on this site. It is obvious that by saying YOU are not luke warm, that you were implying that I was.
??? dude, get a grip, at least man up to you trash talking!!!
Rae:
How did I demonize an entire population of people?
No, I’m trying to keep them out of the company of demons, forever,
Perhaps Chris can explain it better than I can?
Go ahead Chris, you’ve got the floor. I’ll listen and learn. I’m ready to change if I hear truth.
Chris, do practicing homosexuals go to heaven apart from repentance?
It’s funny that everone here sees a problem with you except for YOU.
Open you Eyes! This is not persecution, you are not Jesus! You are not here with a spirit of love.
At least see that, and continue with your “we’re going to hell in a handbasket”
(oh by the way, the concept of hell is a fairly new one. I will post a new thread on http://www.theblindshallsee.blogspot.com about hell for any comments.)
Chris,
Answer the question.
Chris –
Checking out your blog as we speak.
Thanks for posting here.
Good to know my parents aren’t the only Christians who “failed miserably” at raising a hateful and judgemental person.
=)
His Man: You demonize homosexuals by constantly saying how evil and immoral their “lifestyle” is. You keep saying that they are sinners and they will burn in hell for eternity for something that is NOT THEIR FAULT.
HisMan, thought you might like this:
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Galatians 5:13-15 (New International Version)
Are you biting and devouring the rest of us? Are you loving thy neighbor as thyself? And if the law is summed up in a single command, how does homosexuality violate that?
its okay Rae – I just smile thinking about the day he meets my friend Mike in the afterlife arm in arm with Jesus.
*ooops!* will about sum it up.
Chris, do practicing homosexuals go to heaven apart from repentance?
And there’s no hell?
Reveal truth to me and I will change.
Again, answer the questions, please.
I really want to know.
It is easy for us as humans to try and simplify complex matters. It is quite difficult to hold in our minds so many different situations, and so we simplify difficult issues into absolutes.
His Man: You are asking a very “Pharisaical Question” I know that you will take offense at this, but I say to you “blessed is he who is not offended”
Fist of all heaven is not a place.
you can’t hop into a ship and get there.
it is a state of being. In fact you are so focused on if people are getting into heaven or going to hell that you have missed the very message of Christ himself.
The goal is to experiance heaven on earth!!!
“Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven!”
Heaven and Hell will worry about themselves, You call, if you believe you are called by God, is to bring the Kingdom of God here on earth.
On earth as it is in heaven. (funny there is no birth, or sexuality in heaven).
His Man: Quit being so gosh darned condescending. You don’t want to know what he thinks for the sake of knowing, you want to know what he thinks so you can do your “Holier than Thou” shtick and verbally thrash and misinterpret everything he says and then finally condemn him to Hell for his beliefs, like you do to everybody else but your precious, precious self.
“you can’t hop into a ship and get there.
it is a state of being. In fact you are so focused on if people are getting into heaven or going to hell that you have missed the very message of Christ himself.”
Chris FTW (for the win)
Do you mind if I quote that in my forum?
There is Hell.
The question is what is it?
where is it?
and when is it?
feel free amanda. what is your forum?
Chris: According to Pat Benatar…”Hell is for children”.
Its a debate group regarding women’s rights. We get a lot of posters, though none quite as bitter as HisMan, who come in with the holier-than-thou attitude and condemn everyone who disagrees with their politics to hell, fire and brimstone.
You might disagree with my views of abortion, but it seems our views of Christianity are quite similar, and I just think you said what I try to say a lot better than I’ve ever said it.
Rae,
No, I am open to truth and if Chris knows something I don’t know I want to know it. Over 30 years of being a Christian I have changed my views on many things, but it has to be done reasonably and logically.
So Chris, just answer the questions I asked directly and I promise I won’t even respond to them other than to continue to ask you to answer them directly, honestly and with Scripture to back them up, OK? I want to emphasize that in order to convince me you will nee to use Scripture and not just your opinions.
Please, I do want to know and I do listen to reason.
Well. this brings up an important issue with abortion.
The “doctrine” of the Church is that we need Christ for salvation.
However, when it comes to children, they have created a loop-hole. So we need to belive in Jesus, but if you die before the “age of accountability” you get in automatically.
Now i know this is the extreme but IF WE REALLY BELIEVED THAT….WHAT WOULD ANY LOVING PARENT DO?
KILL THIER KID. TO ENSURE THAT THEY GET INTO HEAVEN.
Yes, we would be killing them and so we would go to hell, but isn’t that sacrificial love?
Obviously I don’t believe this….so….what’s up with kids? are they in or out?
Chris,
I’m listening.
okay. but it will take me some time.
the History of Hell is a long one.
I will however throw out this for starters.
If Hell is the “lake of fire” which it is said to be. The how is it in Revelation, that “Death and Hades (Hell) are thrown into the lake of fire?
It seems that Hell is being thrown into hell?
Chris,
I agree that Hell is a bad place.
And, really, I don’t want anyone to go there or be in in that state of mind, whatever, the truth is about it.
How does one stay out of it or keep from being in that state of being?
For the record, I don’t think abortion or homosexuality is any worse a sin than any other, however, I believe society’s growing acceptance of both abortion and homosexuality as morally OK is very, very dangerous. Would you agree?
And I hope I am keeping my word on now attacking what you’ve been saying.
Correction:
And I hope I am keeping my word on now attacking what you’ve been saying.
should read
And I hope I am keeping my word on not attacking what you’ve been saying.
(we need a spell checker on this blog, because I am a terrible typist)
Chris – if only it could be answered that easily – I guess none of us would be here discussing it…
Its never as black and white as HisMan or Jill insist that it is.
I adore children. I worked in the infant room of a daycare for 5 years. I’ve been babysitting since I was 11. I volunteered at a daycare for homeless children when I was in high school. My first internship for college was in the post-partum unit of a NYC hospital. I spent the month of December in Africa distributing medication that treats a parasitic disease that blinds and disables millions of children. My major in college was Public Health with a focus on Reproductive Health. My entire life – my career and my passion – will be spent on efforts to improve life for women and children (no offfense to men). But after seeing first hand just how bad things can get for pregnant women, especially young and poor women…I feel that denying them the right to terminate their pregnancy is unfair and unjust. When looking at the reasons most women choose to abort, you’d notice they are the same factors that lead to infant mortality (and our infant mortality rate is one of the highest of all modern nations). Who are we to force women to give birth to children they feel they are too poor or unhealth to raise, when we fail to remedy those preventable causes of infant death?
Amanda,
You speak as if it’s God’s fault and He doesn’t know what He’s doing.
All of these hoorors you talk of are the reulst of sin, be it greed, mistreating the poor, immoral sex, etc.
So, the solution to sin is more sin?
Doesn’t He tell us to stay away from all this bad stuff so that all these horrors you describe won’t happen?
I’m trying to understand, but, it’s very difficult, in light of what I know about God.
Chris,
I’ve got to leave on a trip to California now.
I’ll be looking forward to hearing yours answers later.
I assume you’re doing your homeowrk on my questions. I appreciate that.
Yes you are keeping your word.
thank you.
yes, i agree on the issue of abortion. When we choose to abort a baby there are a few things to concider…
1. The effects on the mother. No one would argue that this is a positive thing, physically or psychologically.
2. It is one thing to disobey a moral law, but its quite another to go against a natural law. By getting rid of an unborn child we go against one of our deepest natural instincts. The paternal instinct.
3. It is hard for me to listen to people who care more about a panda bear fetus than a human one. Seems we have somehow got it backwards.
I know that there are a lot of different circumstances that effect, and rightly so, a persons decicion to have an abortion, and I am not blind to those situations. I hardly could say what I would do in some of the most extreme abortion situations. i.e. rape, and possible death of the mother….
For the most part though, abortion seems to be a selfish decision. It is more about finances, and carreers than it is anything else. A child is said to “ruin” someones life at a young age.
This is a modern idea, and it was not long ago that your wealth was determined by how many kids you had.
the best teaching I have ever heard on this issue is from Kris Valloton from Bethel Church, anyone who is serious about adressing this issue should listen to it.
it is on itunes, or go to ww.ibethel.org
Now on the issue of homosexuals, this is a hard one for me. The only thing I can say is that it seems that the physical puzzle pieces don’t fit together right. I have much love for homosexuals, and many great friends who are homosexual. Again, we must not over simplify the issue. I can say that for me it would be wrong because it goes against my concience, but it is hard to put my convictions on someone else. I have close friends who have tried to be straight, and couldn’t, I won’t ask them to deny how they feel God has made them. Again I know this is a huge issue and I know all of the “answers” from both sides. Let’s just say we should all “seek God while He may be found!”
One thing I will stand on….
“You can’t be pro-life, and not be willing to open up your own home to the un-born child.”
-Chris McCarley
you can quote me on that!
It is easy to talk about things from a distance, but when face to face with these issues things aren’t so black and white.
Oh, and i will gladly take any baby that is going to be aborted. just email me and i will be there to pick him/her up. I don’t care what problems the child has…
I don’t give up on life…. I’ve seen too many crazy things, to give up on life. I’ve seen the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk. Let the children come to me.
His Man. I will post my “hell” topic on my blog.
thanks.
http://www.theblindshallsee.blogspot.com
thanks for your change of heart. may He lead you and guide you into all truth.
HisMan,
You’ve called me names, insulted me, disregarded and attacked my faith in God and Jesus, mocked me, insulted my family, spoken to me in hate without knowing a darn thing about me, and judged and condemned my lifestyle, my friends, and my education.
You have absolutely blown any chance that I will EVER have a conversation with you. So if you want to waste your time addressing me, go ahead, but I will not be a part of it.
I accept and expect a certain amount of opposition and anger when I post here as a dissenter (which is why I keep visiting to have discussions with other posters) but certainly not the complete and utter disregard and disrepect you have shown me.
Have a good one.
Chris,
I haven’t yet left for California but will be shortly.
Please back up your responses to my questions with Scripture though, and not just opinions, OK? I’m really not interested in what you have to say personally, think or opine unless it’s expounded Scripturally. And I’m not trying to be a smart alec, just don’t want you to waste your time.
I agree, to be pro-life we need to be doing all to help both the mother and baby.
Let’s work together to make abortion illegal but then provide every manner of help necessary to both support pregnant women in difficult situations. This includes Biblical counseling, food, clothing, shelter, etc. for both mom and tike.
However, from a lot of the posts, seems like there’s a lot of hate for both motherhhood and babies alike especially from a morality persepecive.
Amanda,
If I have offended you I ask for your forgiveness.
“This includes Biblical counseling,, food, clothing, shelter, etc. for both mom and tike.”
How is Biblical counseling supposed to help those who are atheist, agnostic, simply dont believe in religion, or dont find the Bible as an absolute reliable source?
Dan, they should also provide Koran and Torah counseling, as well. And don’t forget book of mormon.
i have already posted the verse from Revelation.
i hear what you are saying and it will be easy to use scripture to prove that hell is not what we have been taught by our recent church fathers.
thanks.
And the Satanic verses as well, PiP. And a couple Grimoirs. Maybe even the Necronomicon: some of you all have given your bodies to Jesus, but I rent mine to Chulu. ;)
(No offense meant, guys, I’m kidding.)
Haha Less, don’t forget the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and Greek Mythology counseling.
Throw in some Norse mythology and some Celtic mythology and we’ll be set!
that is pretty funny. I have to admit.
Oh man, the Necronomicon is the funniest book I’ve ever read. It’s not meant to be funny, but it turns out that way.
It’s a deal!
What is it?
It’s a book based upon the mythology of H.P. Lovecraft. Supposedly written by a “Mad Arab,” the book has “rituals” to summon the Elder Gods, including Chulu. It’s completely ridiculous. It wasn’t even written by Lovecraft; a bunch of goons got together after he died and wrote it, meaning it to be a joke. These days, fluffbunny “Satanists” take it and try to summon the Elder Gods of destruction. It’s lame on so many levels.
“Gays and pro-aborts both fight for the same goal: Sex without judgment or consequences.”
Sex was not created just as a pleasure mechanism!! Sex has a purpose: to create new life & to expand God’s beautiful and totally unique creation on Earth!!! To bring Him glory!!
My 2 cents =)
LOL, wow.
Hehe, I had a boyfriend once who believe it was real. T.T We broke up very soon after he bought that and started trying to bring about the end of the world via Chulu.
What does it mean in the Bible when it says that women shall be saved through child bearing?
Seems like there is a bigger reason for procreation than just
“to create new life & to expand God’s beautiful and totally unique creation on Earth!!! To bring Him glory!!”
as was previously posted.
Haha, can’t say I’ve ever been in that situation. Luckily you guys weren’t together long, eh?
Chris – Find me a scripture reference for that and I’d be happy to give you my take on it.
and Chris…
you say JUST expand God’s beau…
That’s not a very small thing there.
PiP, we were togther for two yearsish, maybe longer. :( It wasn’t until the end of the relationship when he got really crazy like that, though.
Oh. Well, at least he was normal most of the time you were together!
PiP: True that. Ah well, we’re both much better without each other, and we’re both leading much happier lives now. I’m glad everything worked out for the both of us. ^^
His Man, just noticed your comment about a spell check, if you download Firefox 2.0 it automatically spell checks text fields.
and Im very disappointed in you two, how could you forget Pastafarianism ;)
Ryan J.
Here is your verse. I was not saying that you are wrong, its just such the “Christian” thing to say. “oh, to bring glory to God” I think that is something that can be assumed. The question is Why does this bring Glory to God?
What is Glory? and How does Child bearing “Save Women” if the only way to “heaven” is Jesus?
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:
1Ti 2:15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Chris.
Why does it bring glory to God? Because we are created in His image — We are the only creation in the universe with His characteristics. Before the fall of man (in the garden of eden), Adam’s commission from God was to multiply and populate the Earth.
Let me look those scriptures up….
hi folks,
for the record, I will take HisMan (faults, warts, and all) over Cris’ 24 Principles any day. The present Pope (as Cardinal Ratzinger) used to say. “even the devil believes in God, he just doesn’t love Him!” There is one thing absolutely clear about HisMan … he very much loves God. God’s name is Abba which translates as ‘Daddy’. He is not better known as The Supreme Universal Being but as Abba. In Jesus, I am Abba’s kid!
And I still challenge anyone at all, to prove God does not exist … this is not a religious question, but a philosophic one. In past posts: I have used one proof for God existence. That has been ignored. So, for those claiming God’s non-existence … P-R-O-V-E it!
One of geometry’s laws states that ‘the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.’ Sounds simple, eh? It took over 3,000 years to prove it correct.
John McDonell:
What is it that you disagree with in regards to the 24 Principles?
And I also Love God Very Much!
Thanks.
Ryan… How does that bring glory to God?
Please use a Bible Verse. You have asked me to…so I would like the same.
thanks.
chris.
This may seem off topic but are there any fans of HBO comedies and Showtime comedies here? I am doing a presentation of racist and stereotypical humor in cable shows but I only have one Showtime show and I’ve looked through HBO and it’s hard to find these racist clips on YouTube. Any ideas anyone??
PIP, watch Mind of Mencia, he isnt racist per se, he makes fun of everyone, though the jokes he does use would be considered racist
comedy central sunday nights at 10, and im sure there are some on comedy central on demand
and John, how does one prove God exists, it is impossible to do so without claiming the Bible as absolute Truth with no metaphors or fallacies onesoever
Ryan… How does that bring glory to God?
Please use a Bible Verse. You have asked me to…so I would like the same.
thanks.
chris.
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Psalm 127:3
1 CORINTHIANS 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
And what of women who do not want to have children? What about women who are infertile? What about women who are celibate? Do they not bring glory as well?
Have you ever read about Sarah, Abraham’s wife? She was barren. If you are interested, try reading about her and see how she was considered a woman who brought Glory to God, before she had her first son in her old age.
Have you ever read about Rachel? How about Hannah? These women were also women who Glorified God in their barren state.
There are so many instances of barren women in the Bible, that all you would need to do is read a little bit to see that they Glorify God by their FAITH in God. Faith in God is what allows them to willingly let God control their womb. Whether it means they are able to bear children or not. What we believe is that God knows more than we will ever know about our lives…if he gives us children, He knows we can handle them. If he gives us a disabled child, He gives them to us to glorify His name. Everything we do should be considered an opportunity to Bless and Glorify His name. (Sometimes of course (!) we fail, but try to remember we are not perfect).
Anyway, this is what I believe, based on the Bible.
I’ve read the OT, remember? I realize that these women were more blessed by their faith, but the way your posts read seemed indicate that childbirth was the only way to glorify God. It makes much more sense now.
Less, you don’t have to be so snappy. ;) Lighten up!
My post was in reply to Chris’ query about how childbearing could possibly glorify God. I’m glad that you understand my position better now.
Chris. As a fellow sister in Christ I urge you not to back down from Scripture. I believe that your intentions are pure, but we must not back down from God’s Word. I urge you to back up your Christian arguments with scripture, especially the ones that are matters of salvation.
Bethany, it really does make more sense now. The stories of Rachel are really fascinating from a literary point of view, actually: Rachel seems to be very much associated with the ‘trickster’ archetype, a primarily male archetype. So it’s really interesting.
Sorry if I was snappy, I had a long night with the storms last night. : ( Didn’t get much sleep.
Less, I reread your post, and I’m not totally sure if you actually were being snappy, or if I just read it into the post, since our latest exchanges haven’t been very pleasant. If I read your post wrong, please forgive me.
lol we posted at the same time.
(((hugs)))
*hugs!* No worries, I understand the feeling. I’m pretty weird about that, actually: I try really hard to keep other discussions within the context of those discussions, and keep the past in the past. Thus far in this conversation, you’ve been quite respectful and your ideas were clarified and whatnot, so I’d feel rather awful if I snapped at you for that!
Dan – Aquinas centuries ago gave 6 philosophical proofs of God’s existence… my personal favourite says the universe can be divided into animate (living) beings and inanimate reality. Since only animate matter self-moves, what made inanimate matter move? He calls God – the Prime Mover. … a hint about another says this is an ordered universe … what gives it it’s order?
cris …
the answer is in my post above. Jesus did not reveal as much about God’s power as He did about our relationship in Him (I purposely did not say ‘to Him’.) Think of yourself as about 4 yrs-old. Your Daddy is President of the USA. Most of the people call him ‘Mr. President’ but you know him as Daddy …. our relationship is one of kin … I doubt it can be any closer/better.
Beth & Ryan … forgot to name you as a huge helpers on this site …. very much appreciated
Okay. Lauren. What are you refering to exactly?
and Ryan: Nice verses, I love it. Now we are getting somewhere.
In response to your previous post:
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Psalm 127:3
1 CORINTHIANS 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
This was your previous post. I totally agree with both verses. Our bodies are the actual temple of God, but do you believe that even to be true of children or do we have to “recieve Christ” in order to be “the temple” of God???
So. I guess I am not being very clear… My question is more in regards to How we bring glory to God.
Here is another way to ask it… what is it about living on this earth, generation after generation, being subjected to futility (Romans) that brings Glory to God? or I guess you could say… “Why are we here?”
I know that it is to bring Glory to God, but HOW.
again, good verses.
John:
When you say Cris, are you referring to me?
and if so, i don’t understand your last post.
Oh, and what about the 24 principles do you disagree with?
(the 24 priciples can be found by following a link from http://www.theblindshallsee.blogspot.com)
And Lauren. Just to make sure we are clear about God’s Word.
Jesus is the Word of God. Not the Bible.
Many Christians today have elevated the Bible to the 4th person of the Trinity.
However…the trinity can only be 3, else it would be the quarintity. :)
Seriously though, we need to make sure we give Scripture its proper place. As a guide to the “Word of God” not the “Word of God” itself.
thanks.
Oh and Dan.
Mencia is a rip off artist, he steals jokes and then pretends that they are his.
google it. there is a myspace page for it and everything. I didn’t want to believe it, but after watching the videos it is undeniable.
check it out.
Chris, have any ideas for me?
Stay Pink!
And what of women who do not want to have children? What about women who are infertile? What about women who are celibate? Do they not bring glory as well?
Wow, this is a good one…
Keep in mind this is from a Catholics viewpoint.
Again, I bring up Theology of the body.
Does anybody remember when I talked about receptivity?
God (male/gives) Church (female/receives)
Jesus (male/gives himself in the Eucharist) the people (female/receive)
Man (penis/male/gives sperm) Woman (uterus/female/receives)
The idea here is that males and females are different. They are meant to complement each other. They are equal in dignity, yet different in form.
Let me repeat that so no ones yell mysoginy…
They are EQUAL in DIGNITY, yet different in form.
Males give/Females receive.
Now Mary remained a virgin even after she gave birth to Jesus. Joseph and Mary are considered the ideal married couple. But they never had sexual relations. So what gives.
Well, we must understand that the purpose of sex is to mimic the act of love shown between God the Father and God the Son. Perfect love. To imitate the love of God the Son and his people. Perfect Sacrifice.
God the Son GAVE his life for us, and we must RECEIVE it. Just like a man gives his sperm to a woman and she receives it.
The Eucharist is the Body of Christ. It is GIVEN to us by a priest, and we RECEIVE it.
Mary and Joseph, but more so Mary, have forgone the physical relationship granted to a married couple in order to have that relationship with God.
Which is, in essence, what heaven is all about.
Becoming united mind, body, soul and spirit with God after we die.
Some people choose to have that relationship while still alive. They give up the “right” to physical sex and instead transcend this particular expression of love, and enter into a spiritual union (exactly like sex but without the body) with God. This is why priests are celibate.
Sometimes, people are called, or asked by God to join in this spiritual union even though they may not have chosen it for themselves. God says, will you love me in this complete and total personal bond, and forgo the same bond with another human being?
Of course the person can always say no. But in the case of infertile couples, or homosexuals it’s a little tougher. It may not seem fair. But God is inviting these people to a very special, and very beautiful union with Him.
Always remember, that we are not interested in happiness here on earth. Our goal is to have this extremely personal and holy bond with God forever.
I know this is really deep, and might strike some of you as totally ridiculous, but this is the reason we hold sexual relations in such high regard.
It is NOT that we don’t like sex or think that it is dirty. We just believe that sex is a mirroring of our relationship with God and is not to be taken lightly.
Does any of this make sense?
Anybody else out there read Theology of the Body?
mk
Chris,
In the Catholic faith, and I’m just not sure about all Christian faiths, The Old Testament IS the word of God.
This is why it was kept in a tabernacle.
Then the WORD was made “flesh”. And in the New Testament Jesus is the Word.
Which is why when HE is in the form of the Eucharist (the true body of Christ) He is now kept in the tabernacle.
MK
Chris I meant in terms of the question I asked earlier :P
I think that sex is actually a representation of our creative abilites.
not a representation of the Love of God the Father and Jesus.
and don’t women “give” the egg???
cool story though, the giver and taker.
and if women are equal in “dignity” from a catholics point of view, then why isn’t their a woman pope???
Pink:
you mean the racist showtime/hbo thing?
yes.
MK, that particular view on sex is why I left the Catholic church. I dislike the idea that I am simply seen as recieving. I might not have male genetilia, and therefore might be different in form…but I can do anything a male can do. I’m more than my womb.
I understand your point, I just diagree.
Chris, you asked if there was anything in the book you posted a reference to, that anyone disagreed with. I have not read the entire thing, but one thing has already jumped out at me.
I disagree with Article XIII in the book you posted. http://www.kenkleinproductions.net/free/24_Principles.pdf
If our eternal salvation depended on our dedication and our endurance, that would therefore make it by our works (not Jesus finished work on the cross), and our salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast”.
“”For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
And yes, I do believe that faith, without works, is dead. You cannot have faith without works. Once you’re born again in Christ, you have new desires, and the will to serve our Lord in any way we can.
All of our righteousness is as “filthy rags”. There’s nothing we can do, there’s nothing we can accomplish that can ever amount to anything worth anything to God. The only thing that we can do as sinful people is to accept the gift that God gave us through Jesus Christ…He gives it freely and once we are regenerated through his blood, we are a new creature…’all old things are passed away, behold all things are become new’. If we believe we could lose our salvation due to not “doing” anything , then we are calling Jesus a liar when He said, “It is finished” on the cross.
If we have to work for our salvation, then are we finishing an unfinished work?
Anyway, that was my thoughts on one of the articles from your site. I may have misinterpreted it, so let me know.
Hi Chris, yeppers t’was you I was talking to …
…. please try to reflect about the scripture passages you are quoting … we are temples of the Holy Spirit … all true, but why does he use the word ‘temple’ and not ‘housing’. The word temple connotes space … lotsa space and air to breath, and room to grow!
You are right on about the Word being Jesus. Jesus also reveals the He is the Way, Truth and Life … and our courage and our peace. So most Christians need understand that Truth is not a bunch of words nor is it quoted texts, but a Person. Similarily peace is not lack of war but a Person.
One theologian wrote: ‘the glory of God is man fully alive.’- kinda like that!
I can understand why you would have trouble with my post-above … besides your principle #1 … the rest are fanciful conjecture …. I’ll let HisMan take shots … he’s working on his doctorate in theology!
Ahhh Chris,
First of all the women don’t “give” the egg, the egg “receives” the sperm.
Second of all, I specifically repeated the phrase “Equal in Dignity” because I knew questions like yours were coming…
Jesus was a man. The pope is Jesus’ representative here on earth.
While God is not a “man” per se, He is male in the sense that the male “gives” and the “female” receives.
Again this is not about penis’ and vaginas. These organs are simply physical expressions of “God/the giver/the male) and Us (His people/the receivers/female) relationship.
Our bodies are a physical expression of God/Us.
The pope is a giver/male, and the church, which is Christ’s bride is a receiver/female, therefore the pope must be a man.
This is not what the church teaches. This is what Christ taught the church.
Priests being married is called a changeable law.
Because it was something “created” by the church.
At any time the church can change this rule. In the beginning priests were allowed to marry, and indeed in the Eastern Rite, they still can.
Priests being men is an UNchangeable law, because the priesthood being all male was instituted by Jesus Himself.
We can’t change anything that He established.
There were plenty of women available for the job, but woman are receivers, not givers.
Who better than His mother, or Mary of Magdela to be a priest. For heaven’s sake, it was they who stayed at the cross till the bitter end.
But He created them male and female. And for a reason. They are (We are) different. Yet we are equal. We each have a different role to play in the physical imitation of His love. But both roles are equally important. Different in form, yet Equal in Dignity..
MK
Less,
MK, that particular view on sex is why I left the Catholic church. I dislike the idea that I am simply seen as recieving. I might not have male genetilia, and therefore might be different in form…but I can do anything a male can do. I’m more than my womb.
Of course you are more than your womb. But the womb is a receptacle whether you want it to be or not.
This does not in ANY WAY make you less important, or less awesome than a man.
I really think part of the problem with the world today is that instead of celebrating the awesome differences between men and women we are trying to eliminate them and make us a “unisex”…
I don’t want to be a he/she. I want to be a woman. I like being a woman and all the differences that come with it. And having a uterus is one of those differences.
Every time we try to try to emulate men, claiming that we want to be their “equal” we actually demean ourselves.
I already AM their equal.
But I’m still different. And I like it that way.
MK
Chris, if you were to film all comedians you would see they all steal jokes, his theft is FAR over publicized and ridiculous. Not to mention jokes on race are typically all similar or the same no matter who tells them or how. Its undeniable that all comedians take jokes from one another. Comedians come up with their own material and take jokes from other people, it is extremely common. He doesnt claim credit for all of his jokes, Ive heard some of his jokes topld to me by friends before he even touches them. Jokes are recycled and modified slightly if at all to fit with a persons unique style.
Ive seen the videos, and its really a load of bs in terms of solely pointing out mencia. Others show Lopez doing similar if not the exact same bits, people making a big deal out of it just need to get over themselves.
as for John, that post was interesting, but it is philosophical, it isnt exactly hard proof. I personally believe, but I also think it is completely a matter of faith, there is no evidence
that points to His existance
MK, I respect your opinion, but I have no desire to live the way you do. My uterus might be a part of me, but hopefully it won’t be a recepticle for anything. It’s an organ, nothing more. It can serve as a recepticle for a fetus, but I chose to not allow that.
I might be different than a man, but I have every desire to be equal to a man. The relationship I have with my fiance is one of equality. The career I want to go into is male dominated, and for that reason I will have to work harder to get ahead. It’s worth it, however: I don’t believe it to be demeaning because I want to be able to do everything that the opposite gender does.
Dan,
exactly what do you mean by hard proof? Maybe you have a personal problem with identifying God as human … cannot answer you until I get some idea of what would qualify as supernatural – for you. As one very small example … all processes have a beginning and ending … why do people age all the same way? Why don’t some people get physically younger while chronologically older?
I believe in most of what is deemed to be the “supernatural” but hard evidence is more like someone who is credible has actually seen Him and had another few credible witness, a picture, etc. That would be deemed hard evidence.
as for answering your question John, that is because of a variable that we have called time. Who says we arent really getting younger anyway? how do you define whats older or younger? it gets into the realm of “well maybe our definitions are wrong” chronology doesnt really prove much.
Less,
I was responding to Chris when I wrote that post.
(Not that you shouldn’t have read it or responded to it)
Just that it was in answer to a question he asked.
I wouldn’t expect you to relate to it because it completely encompasses the whole Christianity thing and you have already made it clear that it’s not for you.
So it’s cool. It’s just the way Pope John Paul II saw it, and subsequently the way the Catholic church sees it…
I’ll agree to disagree. Most other Christian denominations won’t agree with it either. I just personally love it.
It’s like turning the page of a really deep book and going AHA!, one of the mysteries has been explained…
mk
Fair enough, MK!;)
Okay. my computer stopped working so i have a lot of catching up to do.
Wow. Bethany. yes that would be a misunderstanding. Faith / Works, huge topic. However it is clear that Jesus says “He that endureth until the end, the same shall be saved.” And Paul writes that we need to “run the race to finish” and of course James is more works than faith.
It is both. Faith and Works. But we definatly need the works. Look at the story of the sheep and the goats. “you fed me when i was hungry, you gave me something to drink….” you get the point, Jesus doesn’t say….
“you believed in the trinity” you are in. Just an example.
I hope that answers your question.
Okay.
John.
1. God is not a man
2. The pope was not commissioned by Jesus
3. and Faith without works is dead.
Chris, works alone cannot get you into the heaven, faith is the utmost requirement, dominant I dare say, along with the acknowledgment that you are not perfect and are at His mercy. Works only earn you rewards in heaven.
I have to go for the night, but please post any questions or remarks on my site.
http://www.theblindshallsee.blogspot.com
under 24 principles
not true dan.
re-read the bible.
Hi Dan,
thought so … please reflect very slowly on the limitations of your witnesses … first one last … a photo divulges only what is tangible, …. can it view the wind or deep space? If God is like His universe, then He is mostly emptiness … there are very few planets and millions of miles of emptiness even between planets. [The nearest star is 1000 light-years away from our sun. Our universe is 30 billion light years across. How large is this photo?]
You have a Star Trek notion of God as energy … God reveals Himself (in the majority of faiths) as a God of relationship not of energy. So a credible witness is who? Einstein; S. Hawking … then who?
If you get a room filled with 70 year-olds and 7 year-olds. Would you be able to separate the two? Would you have any difficulty pointing out those who were chronologically 70?
MK –
I hope you don’t mind me jumping in and adding to your priest are men post.
As the Pope and Priest are a representation of Jesus. Nuns are the representation of the Virgin Mary.
What is it that Nun’s do? They do everything that is associated with education and healing. Nuns are the principals of the schools. Nuns are the hospital administrators. Nuns run the missionaries and set up orders in places that need them. Nuns are the nurses. Nuns are the caretakers of the young, sick and elderly.
(side note – Look up Sister Antona Ebo she was a remarkable woman who participated in the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights March in 1965.)
You see, Mary and the women who followed and helped her were the ones who actually worked with the people. They got their hands dirty and left it to the men to do the preaching.
Look at Nuns today. Oh – wait – that’s really hard to do now a days in America. Because during the feminist movement it became ‘bad’ to be anything relating to a Nun. Then they screamed about equal rights and how the Church was mysonginistic even though women were running most of the show. They didn’t bother to educate themselves on the function of a nun before they told all the little girls growing up how bad the Church was. It was the Nuns who ran everything. Men do the preaching and organizing and everything related to the Church. Women do the rest. They do the missionaries. They run the orders. They physically take care of the people. Ever see the movie ‘Sister Act’ with Whoppi Goldberg? All the Nuns wanted to do was to go and help the people and bring them back to the Church. Notice that the Priest stayed inside? It is the different roles of a Man and a Woman. The man is in charge of the organization and the congregation as a whole. The woman is in charge of the individual; the education, healing and nurturing. There is nothing demeaning in this.
Here’s an example: There was a very quiet Nun who started her own order. She told her Bishop she was going to do this, she didn’t ask. As time passed she bacame respected in certain political circles. Do you know what this woman did? She wrote a letter to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. And they read the letter in that meeting. The Pope wrote a letter, and they summerized his. But they read her letter word for word. The Pope himself genuflected to her. Many of Englands royality considered it an honor when she visited. Princess Di visited her often. And all she did was start a small order of Nuns in Calcutta. The Blessed Mother Teresa. She is the true representation of Women in the Church.
So, to go back to what MK said. Jesus was a man, therefore priests must be men. Jesus’ mother was a woman, therefore Nuns are women.
To quote MK “Who better than His mother, or Mary of Magdela to be a priest. For heaven’s sake, it was they who stayed at the cross till the bitter end.”
To finish – the women started the order of the nuns. They receive the people of the church and care for them.
In our terms of chronologically, no, but in gods view? who knows.
I dont see God as Energy, God is simply God who would look similar to a man in our eyes when we go for judgment.
certain photographing devices can do the things you described, woulda been better off going with an emotion, such as love or sadness ;)
As for God as emptiness, it would make sense as to how little He has intervened in world affairs, certainly an interesting thought, or perhaps we are a part of Him, some otherworldly atom.
Or maybe we’re a marble in His collection, who knows
God does not look similar to a man. Are you kidding me?
Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment; Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain;
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning.
Here in James we have God, the Father of Lights, which in some way makes him Light, and then the reference that there is “no shadow of turning”.
There is no shadow because there is nothing physical about God, infact the Bible also states that He is shouded in Light, and invisible. John chapter 1, “no man has ever seen God, at any time” You may say, no man has, but that doesn’t mean that he is invisible, but the chapter then goes on to say that… “jesus declares Him” It doesn’t even say that Jesus has seen God.
Anyways…God is pure love that is for sure (1 Jn.) And if you ever try to draw love, or put pen to paper to “define” love, you immediatly “limit” it.
The heaven of heavens can not contain Him. (Isa.)
and you say he looks like a man???
I don’t want to be rude, but No He doesn’t.
First of all Preists and Nunns didn’t exist in the first century church. the first writings that we even have record of such a church heirarchy is after the “dark ages” of the Church. After the destruction of the temple in AD 60. There is no Biblical backing for the Catholic Church’s Pope, or Nunns.
Valerie, nice.
You know in Catholic school we visited a convent in Tulsa, and I remember wanting to be a nun because they gave us lemonade and cookies. I remember thinking, hey lemonade and cookies for free!! XD
But then I realized I’m too radical for the nunnery. I volunteered at a nursing home for the underprivaleged run by nuns freshman year. I remember trying to talk to them about music. I felt the Beatles would be a really safe topic even, and then she said, “I think the Beatles are responsible for the moral downfall of America.” Wow. I wish I could be the rogue Goldberg character even, having debauchery in the past and then coming in and being able to bring fresh air into the convent while gaining the chance to help out the community. Sadly enough I think they would disown me!!
Chris, how about “You are a rock, and upon this rock, I will build my church.”?
1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) — also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) — also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) — also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) — Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican’s official list) omit him.
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45) Benedict IX appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice removed and restored (see below)
147. Sylvester III (1045) — Considered by some to be an antipope
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
157. Alexander II (1061-73)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30)
165. Innocent II (1130-43)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81)
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
205. Innocent VII (1404-06)
206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005?)
The first pope was Peter and I’m pretty sure he lived when Jesus lived, not 60 AD. I seem to remember some stories about Him and Jesus talking…
As you can see the succession of popes continues unbroken from that point on until today.
As for nuns, nobody claimed they were biblical.
Valerie simply said that they represented the female side of the church. By receiving the poor, receiving the uneducated, receiving the hungry.
Priests, on the other hand administer/give to the church.
As for priests not existing, what do you think the apostles were? From the moment of the pentecost the priesthood has existed. From that point on they had the power to heal the sick (Sacrament of anointing of the sick), to baptize, hear confession and consecrate the bread and wine. This is the priesthood.
As for God being a man? I wouldn’t say He was a man so much as He is male. There is a difference.
The Holy Spirit (God) impregnated Mary. If He wasn’t male, then this was a lesbian relationship.
Mary gave birth to a son. When Jesus took human form, he chose to be a man
And finally, we call God, Our Father. Male.
And don’t anyone bother talking about Mother Earth, because we are discussing Christianity here. I realize that different faiths see God as a woman or as a woman and a man.
mk
“Yes,” he said. “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon
In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as mediators between God and men. This, again, is the very definition of a priest. For example, after the Resurrection, Jesus appears to the apostles in the upper room and says to them:
“
SAMANTHA,(and Valerie)
Today is Divine Mercy Sunday…
3:00pm…Divine Mercy Chaplet.
mk
Chris, you post references to scriptures without bothering to look at the surrounding context of the passages.
Salvation is clearly NOT of works, it is by faith. You are the one who needs to reread the Bible, my friend.
He that endures to the end shall be saved. What is the surrounding context of that passage?
“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
Jesus was talking about the tribulation which the disciples would shortly have to go through, and he was letting them know that if they endured to the end of it, they would be saved. This particular word “saved” in this passage comes from the Greek word, EKOWSW (“sozo {sode’-zo}”). “from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, “safe”)”
The first definition for this word is:
1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
What destruction and dangers was Jesus talking about in the above passage? Was he talking about eternal salvation, or was He talking about being saved (preserved) through tribulation?
It was obviously the latter.
Chris you cannot read scripture by just reading one verse and making it state what you mean. That is a VERY dangerous way to read the Bible.
God does not look similar to a man. Are you kidding me?
Psa 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment; Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain;
Let’s look at that passage. Do you actually believe this is to be interpreted literally?
“Psa 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Psa 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psa 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
Psa 104:4Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:”
This passage is a poetic worship of God. David uses these types of metaphors all the time.
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning.
This clearly is not speaking of God’s physical likeness. It’s speaking of his Holiness, His Character, which would allow His perfect gift to come from above.
Now, here are some passages for you:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
……but that doesn’t mean that he is invisible, but the chapter then goes on to say that… “jesus declares Him” It doesn’t even say that Jesus has seen God.
What? Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God as we speak.
“No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (John 1:18)”
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (KJV)
Psalm 110:l: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
I would encourage you to read the rest of any of these passages in their context as well.
Anyways…God is pure love that is for sure (1 Jn.) And if you ever try to draw love, or put pen to paper to “define” love, you immediatly “limit” it.
That’s right, God is pure love. That’s His Character.
The heaven of heavens can not contain Him. (Isa.)
and you say he looks like a man???
Another poetic verse. Chris, you need to realize that the Bible is full of poetic passages and metaphors which describe God’s essence and Character. We already have verses which explain His literal image. What you need to do is compare scripture with scripture. Do you interpret Ezekiel in a literal way?
Do you not see how God uses metaphors consistently in the Bible to make deeper truths easier for us to understand?
“Making a Correct Genre Judgment
A “literal” approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.
Biblical genres include the historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry (e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic writings (e.g., Revelation).
Obviously, an incorrect genre judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting Scripture.
A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative.
The wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text.
In this way, he can accurately determine what the biblical author was intending to communicate to the reader.
Now, even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed literal statements to convey their ideas.
Where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas – namely, a literal approach.
A literal method of interpreting Scripture gives to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage – whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.
Without such a method, communication between God and man is impossible.”
The seventh thing that Proverbs mentions that the Lord hates
is: “He that soweth discord among brethren.” You will note that this
person is described as one who “soweth.” A sower makes plans; he
must cultivate and prepare the soil. He then spreads the seed. His
work is premeditated, it is planned action. That is the way Jehovah
describes one who spreads discord among brethren. You mean to tell
me that someone would purposely plan to disrupt and sow discord
among brethren? Evidently so. Isn’t that what the Proverb says? His
or her discord is not accidental, it is planned. There are some who
if they cannot have their own way they will seek to destroy. They
cannot control what is happening, so they go about to discredit or
defame others. And generally they commit the sin just before this
one, in that they offer lies and falsehoods. God hates one who would
sow discord among brethren. God’s desires for His family is to be at
peace. Listen to the Psalmist, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it
is, for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1).
http://home.att.net/~jackthompson/page898.htm
Chris, I believe you have come to this board with one intention: To sow discord among those of us who have faith in God. You are trying to plant seeds of doubt in God’s word, you are trying to pit believers against other believers. As a supposed Christian, you should not be doing this kind of thing. You should be encouraging others to read the Bible, and not to try to trust YOUR opinion over what the Bible says. Telling people the Bible isn’t even God’s word, then quoting Bible verses, by the way, is contradictory. Either the words came from God, or they didn’t.
“15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
Beth & Ryan … forgot to name you as a huge helpers on this site …. very much appreciated
John, I’m actually very relieved to hear that. ;-)
For some reason I had the idea that you were offended with me for something. I don’t know why.
I appreciate you too! :)
Hi Dan,
sorry for the hit-and-miss of my posting on this subject, but that has been my lifestyle for the last few days ….
in your 04/14/07/11:05 PM post you say ‘from God’s perspective, who knows?’ these are very telling words. I am a human being and my experience of reality is with time and space. Such restrictions do not seem to apply to God because Jesus can just appear in a locked-closed room and He can walk on water … But my comprehension of God’s existence must be as I experience reality without referring to God’s powers.
I feel for you, because thinking about the being we call God can easily get a person all flabbergassed. It is much easier (I think) to claim ‘God does not exist!’…. and not even think about this. Or proclaim ‘separation of church and state’ as an primary principle.
The solution to this dilemma is to comprehend God in philosophic terms and not religious terms – if possible. In such a mindset God is comprehended strictly in rational terms. In terms of any faith, this is called religion … the view of God is complimentary (most often) but can be radically different. … eg. a committed pacifist being drafted.
Chris, I don’t even believe in the Trinity. I’m Oneness Pentecostal. (Though not UPCI) If you know anything about us, we believe the bible to be the infalible Word of God. The bible itself supports this claim.
Ps. 19:7-8
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing they heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure,enlightening the eyes.
Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written four our learning that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
2 Timonthy 3:15-17
[b] …The holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instuction in righteousness.[/b]
God is very clear about false doctrine:
2 Ti 4:2-5
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke,exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
Chris, works alone cannot get you into the heaven, faith is the utmost requirement, dominant I dare say, along with the acknowledgment that you are not perfect and are at His mercy. Works only earn you rewards in heaven.
Dan, I couldn’t agree more.
Dont worry about it John, everyone has some kind of life away from this blog, or at least so I hope.
Personally I think it is far easier to believe in a God, or some sort of being. I (personally) cant understand being atheist from my point of view, but attempting to see it from their view it can make sense, it just scares me too much to think there cant be a God at all, but once again, thats my personal thought on the subject. Though I still believe separation of church and state should be followed, otherwise there is showing a preference of religion, and the whole melting pot theory goes out the window.
Chris, as for your posts about God, then how would be made in His image? He has to have at least some of the features of mankind or else it wouldnt make sense.
As for your biblical verses, they seem more to be telling of His powers rather than of how He looks. He is omnipotent, He can do anything He wants, like wear light as clothing or stretch the heavens. It all is nothing to Him
and Bethany thank you, we agree! lol
and MK, thanks for those replies, kept me from having to try and look up verses to prove my point, though in my personal beliefs the Bible is pretty much moot, I simply rely on faith, His mercy, and my heart to tell me what is right.
and MK, thanks for those replies, kept me from having to try and look up verses to prove my point, though in my personal beliefs the Bible is pretty much moot, I simply rely on faith, His mercy, and my heart to tell me what is right.
Your welcome…
You do realize of course, that the proof of the inadequacy of relying on oneself for the definition of right and wrong is that you are pro-choice, don’t you?
And relying on His mercy is sort of taking advantage of the Ol’ Guy, don’t ya think?
You say you rely on faith? Well without falling back and relying on His mercy and trusting your heart, can you tell me what your faith entails? And how you come by it?
Cuz it kind of sounds like you’re saying “I believe in God, but I’m smarter than He is, so I’ll make up my own rules as they fit my needs.”
Show me where I’m wrong. Who is your ultimate Truth. What is your ultimate source for what is right and wrong?
If you tell me that you are, then I think you do indeed belong to a specific church. The church of Dan…
mk
Mk, for the pro choice part, Ive already made it clear that most likely I wouldnt want my wife/girlfriend/whomever to get an abortion, but I realize that the world doesnt revolve around me and my thoughts on the subject, not to mention it isnt my life and body at stake but someone else’s
MK, we ALL rely on His mercy, otherwise we are all condemned because all humans are naturally sinful. I realize that I am inherently sinful and that Ill make mistakes, I can only hope they will be forgiven.
I rely on my conscience, it comes preinstalled on all models and cant be tampered with unless you choose to. I find it much more reliable than a book that has been passed on for generations.
I already refer to my religion as Dan-ist on facebook, its simply that I draw inspiration mainly from Christianity, I believe in the Lord and Jesus which I guess would technically make it a version of Christianity, but thats a fairly large generalization. I follow no church, because if any single person is corrupted in the church, the whole congregation becomes corrupt. If I am knowingly or unknowingly corrupted it is by no one’s fault but my own.
How do you reconcile your belief in Jesus, while dismissing the main source of information about Him?
Why do you believe He even exists. How do you know what He stands for. If you exclude the bible, then where do you come up with your info??
I’m bbbbaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccckkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have this weird ‘gift’ …. it often helps-explain some difficult notions in scripture … for example: people get all hung up about the use of anamorphic-language used in descriptions of God. We translate the word Logos as Word but it means sorta ‘the mind of God’ but even in the English language such concept as ‘mind’ is not very tangible. The use of ‘Word’ is spiritually-brilliant.
In Jesus’ day, the only source of light (besides the sun) was fire. The flame on a lantern would be just right … there were no light bulbs, no tvs, nothing else acting as a source of light. So in these times explaining God’s relationship to man was probably that of a flame to a candle. Each is of a very different nature … the flame is the source of light; the candle is built for the flame; it dies to the flame [St Francis knew exactly what was going on, so he turned upside-down to burn faster.]; the candle becomes one(fulfills its destiny) in the flame [It can also be thought of as the root of peace.]
Put several flames together there is but one flame. So, we become one in God …. this analogy can go on and on.
Please understand that these images are only meant to build your faith … if they just create confusion …. just forget them, OK?
That is a great analogy, John!
You know, we’ve all been talking about love a lot on this site lately and what it means.
Brotherly love, sexual love, God’s love, Christian love, married love.
Thought I’d share this with you…
When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn’t bend over and paint her toenails anymore.
So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That’s love.”
Rebecca- age 8
“When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different.
You just know that your name is safe in their mouth.”
Billy – age 4
“Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and they go out and smell each other.”
Karl – age 5
“Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs.”
Chrissy – age 6
“Love is what makes you smile when you’re tired.”
Terri – age 4
“Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK.”
Danny – age 7
“Love is when you kiss all the time Then when you get tired of kissing, you still want to be together and you talk more.
My Mommy and Daddy are like that. They look gross when they kiss”
Emily – age 8
“Love is what’s in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen.”
Bobby – age 7 (Wow!)
“If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate,”
Nikka – age 6
(we need a few million more Nikka’s on this planet) “Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday.”
Noelle – age 7
“Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well.”
Tommy – age 6
“During my piano recital, I was on a stage and I was scared. I looked at all the people watching me and saw my daddy waving and smiling.
He was the only one doing that. I wasn’t scared anymore.”
Cindy – age 8
“My mommy loves me more than anybody
You don’t see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night.”
Clare – age 6
“Love is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken.”
Elaine-age 5
“Love is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford.”
Chris – age 7
“Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day.”
Mary Ann – age 4
“I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and has to go out and buy new ones.”
Lauren – age 4
“When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come out of you.” (what an image)
Karen – age 7
“Love is when Mommy sees Daddy on the toilet and she doesn’t think it’s gross.”
Mark – age 6
“You really shouldn’t say ‘I love you’ unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget.”
Jessica – age 8
And the final one — A four year old child whose next door neighbor was an elderly gentleman who had recently lost his wife.
Upon seeing the man cry, the little boy went into the old gentleman’s yard, climbed onto his lap, and just sat there.
When his Mother asked what he had said to the neighbor, the little boy said,
“Nothing, I just helped him cry”
Put several flames together there is but one flame. So, we become one in God …. this analogy can go on and on.
I just read this idea today.
God is light. You have the choice to stand in the light. If you go into a cave, you have chosen to be in the dark. ooohhhhhh scary!
But the light has not left. You have. The light is still there, shining bright as ever. All you have to do is come back out of the cave.
mk
HisMan,
I thought you’d like this…
The seven practices of Catholic charity toward our neighbor
Bethany,
First of all, I have no intentions of “sowing discord”, I agree with you on that point, it is wrong and unity must be pursued above all. If anything by looking back at my posts I have calmed down “His Man” and have thought to make a good connection with “Les” (from my perspective) My #1 Goal is unity, not discord. I am so sorry that from your perspective that is the case.
I would like to say that your logic is wrong in regards to my take on Scripture:
I believe that the Bible is “inspired” by God, however God’s word has been filtered through people, and in a sense distorted. We as believers are instructed that we must “rightly divide” the Word of God. What would you suggest this means???
I assume that you view the Bible as “infallable”??? (You can say for yourself.)
How is it infallable when Paul writes:
1Co 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
He is saying that this part of the “Word of God” is from him not from the Lord….. So you have to admit that there may be things in the Bible that are not “of the Lord”.
I know that this actually takes a “relationship” with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but there is no other way to read the Holy Scriptures than with the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise you will be lost in a maze of contradictions, God kills but He is love. Jesus says to Peter to pick up your sowrd, and then 5 min. laters says, What do you think you are doing my kingdom is not of this world. (paraphrase)
anyhow… you get the point. You can’t just read the Bible blindly, the purpose of the Bible is to tell about the “Word” not to be the word.
A great theologian that wrote about this topic was Immanual Kant.
Sorry again for any discord, but please adress specific issues, and don’t speak in generalites, it is quite hurtful.
Thanks.
Chris.
Dan. When you dive into the “human” condition as described by the Bible we find that it is not a good one. Paul actually reffers to our bodies as “bodies of death”…
The verse that the normal Christian uses to build this idea about us being in the image of God, could actually be translated another way, but people ususally freak out about it because they have built some of their faith on this one fact….
that aside, the verse in Genisis, (and this is my interpretation, you should of course study this for yourself.) …is apporached witht the wrong question…
we go to the verse and ask “What am I?” and we get the answer… “in the image of God”
However if we went to the verse with the question… “How was I made?” We would get the answer “By the imagination of God.”
You see the word image, can just as easily be translated “imagination” and then there is a whole new meaning. But it makes way more sense when compared and contrasted with the rest of Scripture that this was How we were made. God created us by using His imagination. It is also funny that we do the same thing. Quantum Physics is proving that our Imagination actually creates the world around us.
Anyhow. We are not in the image of God as humans.
in fact another good verse about this is in Phil. chapter 2 when it talks about Jesus being in the form of God, take on the form of a human.
this is all throughout the Bible.
gotta go.
Peace.
Chris,
1Co 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
Why is this contradictory? Paul was asked what to do if your wife is not a believer but you are and Paul says, this is not a commandment from the Lord, but a recommendation from me. Stay with her if she’ll have ya.
Where is the problem here?
What is your point?
mk
Chris,
“BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
The soul is created in the image of God. God did not “imagine” us into being, He willed us into being. He created us to reflect Him. To image to each other His complete love for us.
mk
Why is this contradictory? Paul was asked what to do if your wife is not a believer but you are and Paul says, this is not a commandment from the Lord, but a recommendation from me. Stay with her if she’ll have ya.
Where is the problem here?
What is your point?
Also, Paul was inspired by God when he wrote these words. MK is right, Chris, there is absolutely no contradiction there.
Whether or not these were a specific commandment is not the issue…what is the issue is whether or not the words he wrote were inspired by God.
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 peter 1:20-21
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
that aside, the verse in Genisis, (and this is my interpretation, you should of course study this for yourself.) …is apporached witht the wrong question…
we go to the verse and ask “What am I?” and we get the answer… “in the image of God”
However if we went to the verse with the question… “How was I made?” We would get the answer “By the imagination of God.”
You see the word image, can just as easily be translated “imagination” and then there is a whole new meaning. But it makes way more sense when compared and contrasted with the rest of Scripture that this was How we were made. God created us by using His imagination. It is also funny that we do the same thing. Quantum Physics is proving that our Imagination actually creates the world around us.
Anyhow. We are not in the image of God as humans.
You seem to forget the words, “In His Likeness.”
What do you think the verse below means, Chris?
“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:”
In his own likeness. After his image. What do you suppose Seth looked like? Was he human or did he have a different form, do you suppose?
The word “likeness” comes from the hebrew word “d@muwth pronounced {dem-ooth’}, which means:
1) likeness, similitude”
2) in the likeness of, like as
And wouldn’t you know it? The word “likeness” in this verse has the exact same Hebrew root which means the same thing!
Yes, if you take a word out of the Bible, and replace it with a different word with a totally different meaning, it will change the meaning of the verse. If I change certain words in your posts, I could easily change the meaning of what you said also.
I believe that the Bible is “inspired” by God, however God’s word has been filtered through people, and in a sense distorted. We as believers are instructed that we must “rightly divide” the Word of God. What would you suggest this means???
The word “divide” in this verse has the Greek root
orthotomeo {or-thot-om-eh’-o}, which means:
1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways
a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly
I believe that rightly dividing the Word of God, is reading it honestly and comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not reading your own opinions of what one thinks God “should” be into it. Correctly reading it, and in it’s context.
Just throwing my two cents in, particularly on the topic of the fallibility of the Bible. There are huge amounts of contraditions, especially within the Old Testament. For example:
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
6And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
11And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth”; and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth”; and it was so.
16And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
21And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth.”
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind”; and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
27So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
29And God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat”; and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Okay, so. In Genesis chapter one, God forms night and day from the original chaos on the first day. On the second day, God forms Heaven and Earth. On the third day, God creates dry land and plants and flowers and herbs, and every green thing. The fourth day stars and the sun and moon came about. On the fifth day the beasts of the sea and air are created. Just the beasts of the sea and air, this is important.On the sixth day, even more importantly, God creates ?every creeping thing,? as the saying goes.
Next, God says: ?Let us (notice the plural) make man in our image (again with the plural)? and let them have dominion over the animals God has already created. Oddly enough, however, God created ?male and female.? Not man and then woman from man?s rib, man and woman.
In Genesis two, however, we have the following verses, directly contradicting with the previous chapter:
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
It seems as though Man (only male) is created, with nothing being mentioned about being made in a divine image. It is only after man is created that God creates plants:
out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food
Next, God creates animals. See the contradiction?
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
It?s only after this that woman is created from the rib of man.
Now, if you believe that the Bible has absolutely no contradictions and that it is perfectly acceptable to believe it as is, please explain why, in the first two chapters of Genesis, there are two creation stories. In the first, the order is: plants, animals, man and woman. The second story is: man, plants, animals, woman. Please explain why this is not a direct contradiction. There are several such contradictions in the Bible: the flood story has two versions, the covenant with Abraham has two versions, the death of Isaac has two versions. I?m not trying to be nasty, but I would really like an explanation, from those of you who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, how these contradictions came to be. I have never gotten one.
Less, I’m not trying to convince you to believe the Bible.
However, since you asked:
Okay, so. In Genesis chapter one, God forms night and day from the original chaos on the first day…..
Here is an explanation from a website that might explain this one better than I can:
“The first chapter of Genesis is a synopsis of creation. The second is more detailed and focuses on the creation of man (and was unlikely intended to be a separate creation account). The NIV translates Gen 2:19 as follows:
“Now that LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man…”
Simply put, the Garden could have initially been without animal life, and God simply brought the animals he had already created to Adam.
As for the plural use of the words when God was speaking of Himself, I personally see no contradiction there, because I believe in the Trinity (three in one), due to many scriptures which back this up, the main one being:
“7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
Here are some links which might help you to understand how other contradictions can be answered, by reading the Bible in context, or by making sure you notice every word in the verse, etc…
143 contradictions answered:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
Scroll down a little bit on this one, it has them all listed in order, and you’ll see it after scrolling.
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
Less, In case I didn’t get the full idea of your question before answering, (I kind of skimmed it)I’m going to read both chapters and your post again, just to be absolutely sure. :)
Okay, Bethany, I can see that. I was just curious as to how you guys reconciled the idea of a perfect word of God with an imperfect text. The way you read it interests me, and even though I disagree, I think it makes sense. Thanks!
MK –
“SAMANTHA,(and Valerie)
Today is Divine Mercy Sunday…
3:00pm…Divine Mercy Chaplet.
mk”
I acutally knew this! But I kinda cheated. My husband is going to be confirmed tomorrow and we had RCIA today and they told us! ;-)
And yes, this is a shameless way for me to give you the exciting news! I’m very proud of him!
okay – you can go back to the biblical debate now, sorry for the interruption.
*smooch*
Ok this site may answer your question better than the last one…(I thought I had made a mistake reading your post. Guess I was right! Sorry about that)!
“In Genesis chapter 2 the order of creation seems to be different to that in chapter 1 with the animals being created (2:19) after Adam (2:7). Doesn
Ahha, I wondered if it didn’t have something to do with translation. I guess you can’t ever really tell, now can you? I’d love to read a word for word, literal, translation of the text. I think it would be facinating! I can see that being part of the reason for the confusion.
I know that one reason scholars put forward for the congradictions in the Old Testament is the idea that the Bible is made up of several different stories, each written by different people and put together sometime right after the exile: the documentory hypothesis.
There are so many issues being brought to the table here it is hard to adress them all.
First of all… the issue of the Bible.
I guess the verse in Cor. just stikes me as odd, due to the fact that in the “Bible” the “Word of God” Paul takes an aside, and says well this is only my opinion… of course you could say that He was “inspired” to write that, but isn’t that going out on a limb, His whole point is that it is NOT from the Lord but from him.???
However there are many more issues. And the couple that I brought up earlier were not adressed.
Less has also brought up a good point with Genises. However, I believe that in the 2nd creation story it DOES NOT SAY THAT ADAM WAS CREATED “IN HIS IMAGE” ONLY IN THE FIRST CREATION ACCOUNT.
Go figure.
Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Thanks Less.
And I am not trying to change the words in the 1st Chapter either… the hebrew term for image can just as easily be translated into “imagination” please consult a Hebrew Scholor.
Bethany: I couldn’t agree more, we should not “read into” the Bible what we want to, and the way you are translating that particualar verse is fine, that is one way to read it, in fact it is the “main stream” way.
G3718
ὀρθοτομέω
orthotomeō
or-thot-om-eh’-o
From a compound of G3717 and the base of G5114; to make a straight cut, that is, (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message): – rightly divide.
Here is the actual text out of the concordance.
i don’t know if you can say exactly what you said…
“a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly”
That is reading “into” the translation a bit much.
Oh and John. It would not be uncommon to use the same word for two different situations, so we must view Scripture in light of All Scripture. I think that Seth was in the “similitude” of Adam, but Adam (although being called the Son of God in Luke, which is interesting) was not made in the image of God, or the angels. I think that I have shown other verses like the example out of Phil. 2, and the reference regarding our bodies as “bodies of death” in fact God has no form and therefore cannot be contained…
1Ki 8:27 But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!
if the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain Him, then how can we say that we are in His image, for we are easily contained with our body houses.
Oh, and how can such a small book, the Bible contain all of God. The heavens of heavens can not contain Him and yet the Bible can, or better yet the minds of 12 dudes.
Not happining. God is much bigger than you think. In fact I will close with this…
Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.
Interesting that John uses the word “should”.
there are books that “should be written”
Peace.
Less as far as the supposed contridiction of “us”
The word translated as God in this section is Elohim. This literally means “Gods”. This name was used because it showed the highest respect. Before YHWH reveled His name to Moses, “Elohim” was used when refering to the God of Israel.
My husband could explain this much better than I, but he is not here. Suffice it to say that this is a translation/ conotation issue and not an issue of biblical contridictions.
Also, I’m sure you’re aware but the OT has several “traditions”. These are the Yahwistic Tradition (J) Elohistic tadition (E) the Deuteronomic Tradition (D) and the Priestly Tradition (P) These interwoven traditions account for the nueances of scripture.
So… Lauren you don’t believe in the Trinity?
Lauren, I’m glad to see that someone besides me knows the JEDP theory. I’m curious, where did you learn it? I’m taking a class on it this semester in college; we read an excellent book called Who Wrote the Bible? that explained the theory very well, I thought.
Actually, El was the head Canaan God before the name was used to refer to the God of Israel.
Well, my beliefs are either very close, or very far away from most Trinitarians depending on their interpertation of the Trinity.
I believe that there is one God. Period. I believe that Jesus is God is the Holy Ghost is the Burning Bush is the Angel of the Lord (insert other manifestations here).
I believe that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man and that his flesh cried out against His spirit, yet he remained sinless.
I believe that the Holy Ghost is “God the Father” within us.
What I don’t believe (and I don’t mean this to be offensive, this is just honestly how I always imagined the Trinity growing up) is that God is setting in Heaven with a big white beard, Jesus is sitting beside Him, and the Holy Ghost is floating around in the background.
The Oneness doctrine is more complicated than I will probably be able to explain, but I’ll give it a go.
I took a course on the Hebrew Bible in college.
El simply means “god” as far as I know. I think it was used pretty widely at that time.
My text is People of the Convenant.
My husband also studied biblical hebrew so he has a much greater understanding of morphology ect. than I do. I have that text as well. His teacher actually wrote the book, so I have a lot of her linear notes. If any one has morphology questions I’ll probably be able to help get things straight.
So you belive that Jesus is the “angel of the Lord” ???
so there is an angelic aspect to him???
I have another question how do you rationalize the whole 200% thing? (other than it’s unexplainable and we will know when we die)
Just curious.
I believe that Jesus is God in all of his manifestations.
Isaiah 9:6 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.
Lauren, that’s the best way to learn. I’m really glad I have the opportunity to take classes like this: we also have classes on Buddism, Islam, and basic classes on Shintoism. I’m enjoying it so much.
In most of my basic religion classes, El has been shown to be the designation of the head Canaanite God. Wikipedia has an excellent article on El, but it’s not the best source for such things.
Less, I see what I was thinking.
El was the canonite high god, but the hebrew people used “el” interchangeably to denote *any* god. I had to go look that up, it’s been awhile.
Lauren:
Your husban is the Hebrew scholor, so… you know that the word “God” can mean different things in the Hebrew language. So, do you think that Jesus is the “Ulitmate Invisible God” (that is how i refer to the God above all God’s)
That’s correct. I find it interesting how they did that: I wonder why? But yup, it’s interesting going back and looking at the reasoning behind these things.
On “200%”
Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. That is, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature. The divine nature was not changed. It was not altered. He is not merely a man who ‘had God within Him’ nor is he a man who “manifested the God principle.” He is God.
I thought that you might want a Scripture reference to “invisible”… Ulitmate is obvious, as well as God. But there was some earlier discusion in regards to us being in God’s image. So… here it is. Oh and also this verse says that Jesus is in the “image” of God, why doesn’t it just say that he is God??? If he is???
Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Yes, I think Jesus is the “ultimate invisible God” just as the Burning Bush was the “ultimate invisible God”…If by that you mean YHWH. Your beliefs seem very new-age to me so I honestly don’t know if you believe in YHWH or not.
But shouldn’t we start with 100% and then go down from there???
It just doesn’t compute. (not trying to be a stickler, just a serious question)
I also believe that He is our God, just not the Invisible God. Or else… well…. you know…. He would be invisible.
Christ. The “image” in this passage could very well be a translation of “manifestation”. I would have to look up the verse. I would have to see the translation before I could make any sort of comment regarding a specific passage.
Less- as far as why the Hebrew People may have used “el”. I have various thoughts on this, but none developed enough to defend.
Ok duh I just re-read the “image of the invisible God” verse again and realized that I was thinking WAY too much about it.
Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” because he is the “invisible God” revealing himself to His people.
Chris, the best way I can illusrate my point is by looking at God as the Burning Bush.
We would say at this point that YHWH was 100% “God” but also 100% manifested as a flaming bush. His biological make up was a plant… ON FIRE. Somehow, we realize that He is existing on one point in time as ALL “invisible God” and ALL “burning bush”
Does that make sense?
Perhaps more clearly, God’s spirit is within the bush, yet the bush is still a bush.
So is the image of the beast… the beast??? (Rev.)
and was the image of Cesar on the coin, truly Cesar.
There are two other biblical “image” verses.
So let’s assume that we are in the image of God…
what does that refer to???
Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
This is in response to a previous post that God somhow has the similarities of a man. He doesn’t.
So, by that same logic.
The spirit of God is in Jesus, but Jesus is still Jesus.
Right?
Also this verse which seems to deliniate between “God” and “Jesus”.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,
So there is one God. And one mediator.
(The way that verse is written is kind of weird in that translation, but the greek is good.)
Also in John, which you quoted earlier, it clearly states that “no man has seen God at any time.”
Now Jesus had already come and gone, and then come and then gone again. (speaking of His death and resurection).
So wouldn’t this be the best time for John to say… We have seen God. Jesus was God. ???
Why does he say just after that Jesus spoke of God, it doesn’t even say that Jesus saw God.
I think that we get confused because there are different uses for the word “God” and we just lump them all into the same catagory “Most High, Invisible God”
Oh, and you never responded to your “angel of the lord” post. Do you think that Jesus does have some sort of angelic tie?
Chris, you have never addressed Isaiah saying that the son will be called the “everlasting father”.
Also, if we looks to the next verse in Colossians we realize that your arguemnt falls apart.
Starting from 1:12
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hat made us meet to be partakers ofthe inheritance of the saints in light:
Who has delivered us from the power of darkness; and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son;
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature:
For by him were all things created that are in heaven that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisibles.
!!
Ok, lets see if I can work this out using the same logic while siding with Lauren just for fun :)
Jesus is Jesus, but is also God, God is perfect, so Jesus must be perfect
as for the God is a spirit part, is that not what we are when we die? our souls simply becoming spirits in heaven? So if He were to have a body He would look to us as any other person correct? So in a way we would be made in His image, I guess simply as “lesser beings” on the heavenly scale.
Dan.
The Bible says that Jesus was made perfect (Hebrews)
I didnt deny Jesus is perfect. If you go with that He is all God and all man as the discussion has been going, it works in a way. He may be a part of mankind, but is also God in human form, and God is perfect, therefore He can overcome the restrictions of mankind
The humanity of Jesus is “still Jesus” yes. That’s exactly what I was arguing. That is how he can be 100% man and 100% Christ.
As far as the “angel of the Lord” I believe the “angel of the Lord” to be simply a name for a manifestation of God. This is a wideheld belief throughout Christianity. That said, any characteristics that Jesus shares with angels would be limited to the manifestation.
As far as “no man has seen God” this is ridiculous when we look to the multiple ways YHWH reveled Himself throughout the OT. This of course couples with seeing Christ Jesus. I believe that this verse refers to a spiritual vision.
Oh. Sorry.
Everlasting Father. Okay. This is kind of my whole point. The terms God, and Father are used to say different things and for different reasons.
So there is the “Ulitmate Father” and then there is “Jesus”
well actually if you want to get technical. You have…
1. The Most High, Invisible God. (sometimes called the father also)
2. The Father (the first half of the tetragamatren)
3. The Son (which is the second half of the tetragamatren)
numbers 2 and 3 are the same person. Just a higer precense and a lower presence. So you have the revelation of YHVH.
Yaweh is = I AM and I AM
Yavael (Jesus) = I AM (notice just one I AM)
Jesus is the lower precense of the Father. This presence has been represented on earth also as other historical figures (Melchizedeck to name one)
Hope that makes some sense. I know it is complicated, but it is a language thing. We have only one definition for the word God, when in the bible it can refer to angels, magistrates, devils, and of course god.
The Bible states clearly that Jesus became like us in every way.
doesn’t seem like he should be able to use his “god powers” to overcome.
???
Chris, if Jesus were like us in everyway how could he perform miracles? He wouldnt be able to, it couldnt happen. He was a manifestation of God.
Your previous post:
[[As far as “no man has seen God” this is ridiculous when we look to the multiple ways YHWH reveled Himself throughout the OT. This of course couples with seeing Christ Jesus. I believe that this verse refers to a spiritual vision. ]]
Well. I’m not sure exactly how to respond to that. How do you say that John is refering to a “spiritual” vision???
That is reading to much into the text.
it is a simple verse. Here it is…
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
this states nothing of “spiritual” vision.
sorry.
Previous Post of Lauren:
[[Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” because he is the “invisible God” revealing himself to His people.]]
I don’t know how your logic is working here.
the term image is a representation. If He is the “real thing” then why don’t they just say that????
Chris, you lost me on that last part about “god powers” I really have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m also terribly confused by your doctrine.
It seems to me that you have GOD and then sub gods father and son shooting out. This makes no sense when you see the “son” is refered to as BOTH the “mighty God” and the “everlasting father”
1-Son
2-Wonderful Counsellor
3-The Mighty God
4-The Everlasting Father
5-The Prince of Peace
Chris, they go on in Col. to expain that “For by him were all things created that are in heaven that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisibles.”
Given this, the translated word “image” really becomes a non-issue.
As far as spiritual vision, the only possible explanation is that no Man has seen God’s spirit. He reveled Himself. Many times. God’s spirit could be a whirling ball of mass. No man has seen His spirit directly, only how His spirit has manifested itself. That is what I mean by spiritual vision, and it is entirely scriptural.
Lauren, god powers was directed at me, I had been looking at Jesus being Jesus and God manifesting Himself through Jesus, yet the two being separate. I was trying to reconcile mans inherrantly sinful nature by referring to God being able to control anything and everything.
Im off to bed, its bout midnight here, but I’ll be back, and its vacation week, you all get to deal with me much more often then usual, now would be a good time to flee in terror ;)
gnight
Well. the doctrine (that was established at the council of Nicea) states that Jesus is of the “same substance” of God, and yet a distinct person.
i think that states my beliefs pretty clearly.
however the church doesn’t really even believe there own doctrine, they teach that Jesus and God are one and the same. Although Jesus is Our God, and refered to as God of gods. He is not the “most high” god.
He is, like the doctrine states, a distinct person.
here is the reference in regards to the “same substance” – Just because Jesus is “of the same substance” does not make Him the “exact same thing”
Homoousios and Homoiousios
Main articles: Homoousian and Chalcedonian
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 debated the terms homoousios and homoiousios. The word homoousios means “same substance”, whereas the word homoiousios means “similar substance”. The council affirmed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Godhead) are of the homoousious (same substance). This is the source of the English idiom “differ not by one iota.” Note that the words homoousios and homoiousios differ only by one ‘i’ (or the Greek letter iota). Thus, to say two things differ not one iota, is to say that they are the same substance.
Chris, also let’s look a few verses up in John.
1:4
“In Him was life; and the life was the light of men”…”That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we *BEHELD* his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father)”
Let’s follow the train of command here.
God is Word. Within Word is Life. Life is Light of Man. Light of Man made the world. Word was made flesh. We Beheld Word.
Chris, I’m going to sleep. G’nite and God Bless.
The Problem is that God didn’t create the world.
Jesus did.
Or I guess its like looking at the Great Pyramids and saying that a great Pharoe built them. Well, of course he did, but he didn’t actually lift a finger in the process.
In the same way the “invisible god” did create everything, but it was through Jesus, and even then Jesus also had the 144,000 which the Bible states “followed him day and night” sound familiar??? that’s because it refrences Genisis.
“And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Gen 1:5)
God Bless you also Lauren.
thanks for the conversation.
I was brought up in a Christian home and have my degree in Biblical Studies.
Let’s just say I didn’t learn this at school.
But it took me a long time before I could get outside of my own world view.
It’s a good thing we’re not saved by theology.
Praise Jesus!
She’s seriously nuts.
I mean really. There has to be something wrong with somebody who spews this:
Gays and pro-aborts both fight for the same goal: Sex without judgment or consequences.
But gays approach societal aversion to homosexuality far differently than pro-aborts app
Valerie,
My husband was confirmed 5 years ago. He had been raised Catholic but his parents fell away while he was in grade school and he was never confirmed.
I was soooo proud of him too. And I’m proud of your hubby.
My John, started out (after being confirmed) just going to mass on Sunday’s and I thought I had died and gone to heaven. He wouldn’t even look at rosary. Thought it was sissy stuff, but I didn’t care…He was a mass goer…
In five short years, he has fallen in love with the church. He now takes an hour every week at the adoration chapel, prays a rosary every day, just informed me that he does the Divine Mercy Chaplet every friday, goes to confession monthly, and just joined the Knights of Columbus…
Who is this man, and what did he do with my husband.
I LOVE IT!!!!
God Bless You Both,
I envy you your journey.
It’s all rather exciting!
Mk
Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Perhaps God just “imagined” Jesus into being?
mk
I guess the verse in Cor. just stikes me as odd, due to the fact that in the “Bible” the “Word of God” Paul takes an aside, and says well this is only my opinion… of course you could say that He was “inspired” to write that, but isn’t that going out on a limb, His whole point is that it is NOT from the Lord but from him.???
That, my dear, is your problem. Paul did not say it was not “from the Lord”, but that it was not a commandment. That does not mean that his idea is uninspired by God.
Less has also brought up a good point with Genises. However, I believe that in the 2nd creation story it DOES NOT SAY THAT ADAM WAS CREATED “IN HIS IMAGE” ONLY IN THE FIRST CREATION ACCOUNT.
There are not two separate creation accounts. The two go together and are one account.
And I am not trying to change the words in the 1st Chapter either… the hebrew term for image can just as easily be translated into “imagination” please consult a Hebrew Scholor.
No thanks. I am not in the habit of attempting to change God’s words.
Bethany: I couldn’t agree more, we should not “read into” the Bible what we want to, and the way you are translating that particualar verse is fine, that is one way to read it, in fact it is the “main stream” way.
G3718
ὀρθοτομέω
orthotomeō
or-thot-om-eh’-o
From a compound of G3717 and the base of G5114; to make a straight cut, that is, (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message): – rightly divide.
Yes, you’re right. Thank you for confirming what I said in my explanation of what it means to “rightly divide”.
Oh and John. It would not be uncommon to use the same word for two different situations, so we must view Scripture in light of All Scripture. I think that Seth was in the “similitude” of Adam, but Adam (although being called the Son of God in Luke, which is interesting) was not made in the image of God, or the angels. I think that I have shown other verses like the example out of Phil. 2, and the reference regarding our bodies as “bodies of death” in fact God has no form and therefore cannot be contained…
So what you are basically saying is that you can read it however you want, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s right, or wrong, as long as it agrees with your belief system, it’s all good.
Plus, you don’t even believe the Bible is inspired by God, so why do you quote particular verses which you believe agree with you, and dismiss others which you do not believe agree with you?
Another thing, the verses you mentioned were poetic worship, and not to be interpreted literally. Just like you wouldn’t expect to see Jesus with a literal two edged sword coming out of his mouth.
Oh, and how can such a small book, the Bible contain all of God. The heavens of heavens can not contain Him and yet the Bible can, or better yet the minds of 12 dudes.
Not happining. God is much bigger than you think. In fact I will close with this…
Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.
Interesting that John uses the word “should”.
there are books that “should be written”
Peace.
Thank you for those verses. The prove just how great God really is. and He is…and if there were enough books to describe all He has done, the world could NOT contain them. I completely agree. However, God knew exactly how much information that we would need, which is why He gave it to us in the books of the Bible, which He has preserved over centuries.
Nothing you have said disproves the fact that the Bible says we are created in God’s image. Nothing you have said disproves that we are saved by Grace. You are a liar and a deceiver, and do not have any intentions of bringing unity to Christians. Notice how you agree with the athiests and disagree with Christians and the Bible. You sound just like an athiest, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you are one.
“God is not the author of confusion”
Everything you have written is confusing and makes absolutely no sense at all. It has no agreement with the Bible whatsoever.
So is the image of the beast… the beast??? (Rev.)
and was the image of Cesar on the coin, truly Cesar.
There are two other biblical “image” verses.
Hmm, funny how you jump from not seeming to understand what “image” means, to trying to explain what it means in it’s literal form. I guess you define things literally only when they suit your purpose.
The Problem is that God didn’t create the world.
Jesus did.
Or I guess its like looking at the Great Pyramids and saying that a great Pharoe built them. Well, of course he did, but he didn’t actually lift a finger in the process.
In the same way the “invisible god” did create everything, but it was through Jesus, and even then Jesus also had the 144,000 which the Bible states “followed him day and night” sound familiar??? that’s because it refrences Genisis.
“And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Gen 1:5)
You’ve lost me.
Chris, I do not believe that Jill would allow you to stay here to discuss and debate the Bible (on a site which is meant to discuss abortion) soley with the purpose of bringing about confusion to the believers on this site. (If you want to discuss the Bible, make sure that it relates to the topic at hand in some way).
At LEAST the people who admit they are athiests on here are HONEST about it.
IMHO, you are a deceiver of the worst kind.
Personally I feel that you are into some pretty “new agey” kind of thinking…which is fine. But please don’t call yourself a Christian.
Bethany is a protestant and I am a Catholic and we agree more with each other than either of us agrees with you.
I’m sorry, but I agree with Bethany. You are only sowing confusion and doubt.
You keep harpin’ on not interpreting the bible through your own lenses and then proceed to do exactly that.
A couple of days ago I told Dan that I thought he belonged to the “Church of Dan”…he replied that this was true. I respect that. He is not trying to get anyone else to join his church…he just admits that he is comfortable with being his own source of truth. But at least he speaks honestly.
You on the other hand, come on here claiming to speak for God and throw around heresy, labeling it Christianity, and to me this is the worst form of deception imaginable.
While you are free to continue to spout your heretical views, lest we be accused of compromising the “right to free speech”, I am exercising my right to tell you exactly what I think of your hypothesis.
Which is:
Phooey!
mk
Yeah, phooey!
Bethany,
a few ideas: One of the stories about Thomas Aquinas had him walking along a ocean-side beech deep in thought. There was a small boy too on this beech who had dug a hole in the sand and filled the hole with ocean water. Thomas asked the youngster what he was doing … so the little one said, “It is easier to put all the waters of the ocean into this hole, than for you to understand the Trinity!” … gotta say that Lauren and her hubby have not engaged in something simple even though many believers just assume belief in the Trinity.
Many of the problems that Chris raised re. image and God can be handled by the flame analogy (as above). A misunderstanding or mathematics is responsible for 100% and 100% means 200%. The word ‘and’ does not mean ‘plus’, …. so, 100% and 100% and 100% and 100% … are still 100%! If One applies the flame analogy to the Trinity the 3 in 1 makes sense …. a person can easily fit flames together as one. In the Trinity each is part-of-the-whole and still remains 100% God. [The burning bush of Horeb might even act as a precursor to Jesus’ manifestation … 100% God and 100% Man.] In some ways we can look at God as a community of persons making One Being – God.
The other stumbling block, that Chris raised was the one of our complete and full knowledge of who Jesus is. Even after the Resurrection Peter had to rely on John saying ‘It is the Lord!’. [We all still do!] Even though we believe that Jesus is 100% God, does not mean we know much about Him at all …. we have a lot yet-to-learn.
MK –
Stu was baptised Catholic but his parents didn’t do anything after that. In the past year, we had our marriage validated by the Church, he went to confession, he had his first communion, and now confirmation tonight. It has been a wild year.
He is thinking of joining Knights of Columbus and I’m trying to get him to do it. It would be good for him to do things without us attatched at his hip! ;-)
John…I completely agree. And you’re right. We, as humans, have so much more to learn about this kind of thing. It’s not something that our minds can easily comprehend.
I think your fire analogy really helps to explain how the three can come together, each being 100 percent flame on their own, and together still being 100 percent flame.
We still have soooo much to learn about God…His ways are truly so much higher than our ways.
I think you guys should get back on topic.
Sorry for the confusion. You can call me what you want. It wouldn’t bother me if I wasn’t associated with the name Christian which was given by Nero.
I’ll stick with child of God. Thanks.
John. Do you think that we are, or become a part of that flame?
soley with the purpose of bringing about confusion to the believers on this site.
Bethany, once again I am sorry if you are confused, I have used mostly Biblical quotes.
This is not my “GOAL” Please refrain from stating my intents. You do not see my intentions, only God does, and HE instructs us to “judge not lest we be judged”
Thanks.
MK, how do you think Jesus got into Mary???
Do you think that God used his “human” attributes to do the duty???
I don’t think so. In fact, I never thought of it that way but you could say that God “imagined” Jesus into Mary. (not that the verses that we are discussing intend that) Basically, thought imaged Him. Or you may just say that he “spoke” Him into her belly. He did create the universe with his spoken word.
Hi Chris,
the whole concept behind the flame analogy was to show that such was experience even in our universe of ‘thing-ness’ … it is just an aid to comprehend a reality that is absolutely stunning … and why no man survives in God’s presence …. we’ve got very little understanding about who God is … especially as the Incarnate Jesus, our spouse is, our-own child is … or who I-myself am …. these are mysteries.
My little flame analogy is intended to help reveal some of this mystery. It can be used as the candle(us) dying to the flame(God). [For disabled or ‘broken’ people the flame becomes even more important, but the process is the same (for the analogy, but for spirituality in God – I ????)]
By far, the most critical aspect is that in the analogy the presence of the flame is dependant on my will. In the spiritual life, God’s presence is His willing it. There definitely is no set process! He comes and stays …. if He wills it.
Chris, I apologize if I have misinterpreted your intentions. I do not know you…I only know what I have seen from this particular post. I came to conclusions by the very words you posted, and nothing more. Maybe you are a sincere individual, and if so, I definitely am sorry for accusing you of purposely setting out to deceive people.
I guess everything is just an anology.
Except Jesus, of course.
So…
How about the abortion thing? Pretty crazy eh?
Marriage: Your License To Screw
Oh it’s fun watching fundies today. I’ve been having my fair share of laughs at the latest American Taliban Production known as stop the federal hate crimes bill. Their supposed reasoning is that a hate crimes bill is somehow akin to ‘thought crimes’ b