All Comments (146)

Sir, am I understanding you correctly, that only husband-and-wife may have sex and then only with the express purpose of creating new life?

But Sir, then all of the following are sinful behaviours and should be condemned in the strongest terms possible:

1) a husband-and-wife sharing intimacy for the sake of showing their love to each other.

2) a wife inviting her husband to share sex in order to relieve his tension from a hard day's work, et vice versa.

3) a husband-and-wife just making love, for the sake of giving each other emotional and physical pleasure.

I could go on in that vein, but the point is that none of those interactions between husband-and-wife have the creation of new life as their first or even conscious goal.

rhqs kvyeahr yzws ykmofxp pjtuskn qipveyzak usgqtrl

I have no religion, and I don't know what's what, and I don't know the limit, the limit of what we've got

U2

Ba'al

It is very easy to use oppressive language like "you are oppressig large segments of population" that's called a power play with words. Your intent here is not to understand the christian message with in it's own context it is to use politically charged words to illicite emotional identification. "see I am for those who are oppressed by the majority" as opposed to trying to understand christians from their own perspective. it's easy to bash what one refuses to understand.

mike

Ba'al,

You are correct, to stop at the salvation experience, to not grow in Christ, to not earn a crown, to not be close to the Beloved, to just be free of the CURSE of the law, to escape by the "skin of our teeth" is possible. Although,it is infinately better than the alternative: eternal damnation, and separation from God forever.

By the way - funny stuff about the pillows! 'Laughter doeth the heart good like a medicine'! I don't know what the women were doing with the pillows & handkerchiefs, but it was obviously part of idolatry, and we both know He hates that.

"Oppress large segments of the population"? Hardly, the point is to set people free from a prison that they don't know they are in.

Sharon,

Oh Really? Christians are "free from the curse of the law" as you put it?

Not the case, not unless you want your toenails to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in the Kingdom of Heaven. For example, Matthew 5:19-19 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

I am sure you will find passages that say something else, since the Levitical purity laws are messy to say the least, what with all the animals you need to kill. Taking communion is easier. I am very much aware of the contrary passages. They are replete in the Epistles attributed to Paul.

And that is the point. The New Testament is not even internally consistent on what it takes to be saved or condemned, which one might think is pretty fundamental. The fact that people pick passages, take them literally, and then use them to oppress large segments of the population who are harming no one is an abomination.

Joe Campbell,

I think you were responding to ME when you addressed your above comments to "We", but if not I apologize.

There is absolutely no way another human is born without having a female egg and a male sperm. I don't think anyone will dispute this. What I want to know is how do you know people are born some way that is not naturally "attracted" to the opposite sex or more specifically solely "attracted" to the same sex. I am only talking about humans at this point. I am not really interested in Koala bears or Seahorses at this juncture.

Ba'al
Obviously, ba'al, you haven't been to the right school to get the "true" meaning of this passage. You see, unlike the passage on homosexuality, this passage is not to be taken literally. Well, it's completely obvious.

I think that Mr Colson should be speaking out against pillows. And women. There is this from the book of Ezekiel describing these abominations (and it comes from the same authority that Mr. Colson uses to condemn homosexuals):

Ezekiel 13:18 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

Woe I say!!!!!!!! Why do the Faithful keep silent about pillows!

Mavadatt & Ghostbuster

Mankind, Adam, (in Hebrew: red,ruddy,race of man); was created perfect, in God's image. Adam was given choice whether to obey God. Mankind disobeyed,sinned against God. The spirit of God left man. Man had rejected the authority of God to be wise for himself, no longer reliant on God. Mankind, no longer under the rule of God, had given themselves over to the rule of Sin.

When we are born, we have a conscience. You remember your moral clarity, and indignations as a small child. The problem is that because we now are ruled by the law of sin with in our persons,our minds become progressivly corrupted by that sin nature, and the acts of that nature, and the nature (spirit) of others.

The law was set up by God to be a mirror to us, a standard, so we could see how far we fall short of the mark of righteousness, and turn back to God. That was the Old Testament.

In the herculean attempt to get Mankind to turn back to Him, He sent His Son do die in our place for our sins, and free us from the consequences of the Law, to satisfy its requirement that the penalty for sin is death.

Now that we are free from the curse of the law, God can still keep justice, and put his spirit back in us. When we believe in His Son, we are born again, not of the perishable seed of sin and death, but of the spirit of God. We are now back under God's authority, and have, once again, His Spirit within us - bound for His Kingdom of Heaven, not for eternal damnation, and separation from Him forever.

Mavadatt & Ghostbuster

Mankind, Adam, (in Hebrew: red,ruddy,race of man); was created perfect, in God's image. Adam was given choice whether to obey God. Mankind disobeyed,sinned against God. The spirit of God left man. Man had rejected the authority of God to be wise for himself, no longer reliant on God. Mankind, no longer under the rule of God, had given themselves over to the rule of Sin.

When we are born, we have a conscience. You remember your moral clarity, and indignations as a small child. The problem is that because we now are ruled by the law of sin with in our persons,our minds become progressivly corrupted by that sin nature, and the acts of that nature, and the nature (spirit) of others.

The law was set up by God to be a mirror to us, a standard, so we could see how far we fall short of the mark of righteousness, and turn back to God. That was the Old Testament.

In the herculean attempt to get Mankind to turn back to Him, He sent His Son do die in our place for our sins, and free us from the consequences of the Law, to satisfy its requirement that the penalty for sin is death.

Now that we are free from the curse of the law, God can still keep justice, and put his spirit back in us. When we believe in His Son, we are born again, not of the perishable seed of sin and death, but of the spirit of God. We are now back under God's authority, and have, once again, His Spirit within us - bound for His Kingdom of Heaven, not for eternal damnation, and separation from Him forever.

We,

We are not all heterosexual. Neither are all animals. There are gay animals. There are gay people.

BUT...there is no god.

If “we” is agnostic and without a definitive moral clarity, it would be reasonable for one judging the situation you described to rely on his/her own knowledge, experience and insight to judge if the child is mentally capable of choosing his own parents. Most weighing in on a decision would likely consider the child’s age, development, and mental capabilities and logically reason that it would be better if mature adults (parents) picked the child instead of vice versa.

As for those who claim they did not have moral clarity, but now do possess it in a dynamic way, if that change is evident, it ought to be possible to observe outside of their own personal experience. For example, if there is truth to Sharon’s paradigm shift her life-long friends and family would be eye witnesses. They would have know her before, during the time of dramatic change, and after encountering the catalyst (Jesus in this case). They could use their own knowledge of the situation, experience with Sharon and insight into her life to determine how much (if any) of her life was dramatically altered by this encounter at a church. Of course, they can’t “feel” the release of the burden she described being lifted, but they could see the life change and reasonably come to a conclusion that something did or didn’t happen one way or another I suppose. Of course, some witnesses may have personal bias toward the situation. One saying it is all in Sharon’s head because they do not believe that anything like this is possible and another basing their assumption of the life change being real because of a previous similiar experience or because they desperately want to believe it in spite of the evidence (Aside, sometimes I think most of us are more close minded then we like to admit. We see what we want to see and ignore what we want to ignore).

Sharon: I hope you don’t mind that I just used you as an example.

Mavaddat,

I used the word "gay" for a reason.
We are all heterosexual (procreate by intercourse with opposite sex). That is not in question. My question is that of "attraction" or whatever it is being claimed is innate for some.

Ghostbuster,

We can be agnostic about whether have "moral clarity" for the moment. (Suppose we just don't know whether we have moral clarity, and we are seeking it.) Now suppose someone tells you that they know that they DID NOT have moral clarity, but that they now have it, and that you too can have the moral clarity that they now possess. You might rightly wonder how they came to such clarity! And how can they be sure that they have such clarity?

If they say they were blind, then how do they actually know that they see? By what standard? By whose description of 'seeing'? Who are they trusting to tell them what seeing is ACTUALLY like?

If they say they trust the Christians to tell them what is moral, then their argument is circular. For it is equivalent to saying, "I was immoral, but now that I am a Christian I am moral, and by 'moral' I mean 'being a Christian.'" So yes, such a person is 'moral', but only in virtue of the fact that by 'moral' he or she tacitly means 'Christian'.

On the other hand, if the standard of morality is some inherent intuition, social construct, evolutionary tendency, etc., then religion (any religion) is merely an encapsulation of the values at one time held in esteem by some group of people. In this case, the so-called 'morally agnostic' is shown to be a fiction if he or she is an adult. We are all morally capable beings, some of whom are weaker than others in living up to what we know (in virtue of our having reached adulthood) to be right.

This shows that what we mean by 'moral' intimately has to do with the responsibility that we assume in adulthood. Therefore, the Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc. in continuing to seek external guidance for their moral life are seeking to return to a state of childhood where they are told what is right or wrong by an organization or body of scripture. If we are right that they have a moral sense (which, indeed, they presume to have if they say they have chosen a 'moral' religion), then these people are merely deluding themselves about where their sense of morality comes from.

Thus, while the religious are merely seeking to be held accountable, and they confuse this weakness with an lack of moral sensibility. However, the ability to adhere to one's inherent sense of morality (which religion often confers to its members; though not uniquely, since any community of people can hold their members accountable) is different from the ability to discern right from wrong (which religion can never teach us, since we presuppose having such a sense in choosing a moral religion).

Me,

What evidence do you have that people are born heterosexual other than the anecdotal claims of the so-called "breeders"? If you refer to evolution, then can't we refer to the same theory to explain how homosexuality might arise? After all, isn't "mutation" one of the driving forces of evolution by natural selection? There is no need for offence at this suggestion. Heterosexuality was itself a mutation on an earlier form of reproduction called "asexual" reproduction. Does that mean that heterosexuality was immoral when asexual reproduction was the norm?

Not that what is "natural" matters, really. I do not see why a desire is somehow moral because a person was born with some genetic predetermination to desire it. Or shall we say that an act is moral simply because it is normal? For at one time (if not today), war was quite normal and frequent. Some even say that war is the natural state of humanity. Does that make it moral? Does that mean that civilization, insofar as it is an unnatural union of humanity, is immoral?

For those who say people are born "gay", what evidence do you offer besides the anecdotal claims of the so-called "gay"?

My initial response is emphatically NO, we could not trust a child to make a decision that important with that little knowledge.

However, your question is: would "we" trust. So I need to know a little bit about "we". In this society, do "we" have moral clarity? Also, did "we" have the same opportunity to choose our parents as the 4-year old did?

This is fun Mavaddat, thanks for chatting.

Ghostbuster,

Now just imagine if this child, who is completely without moral perception, were to choose his own parents. I mean, literally he had all these parents to choose from, the full gamut of moral and immoral people, and he chose the ones that he liked best. Would we trust a four-year-old to choose the parents that would raise him well?

Mavaddat,
I'm not trying to jump into this conversation, but I don't understand your reasoning here:

"...if you were truly morally lost before you found Christianity, then you could not know what is right from what is wrong. Thus, you cannot possibly be trusted to have found any kind of moral truth, since your moral perception was worthless..."

A young child doesn't know right from wrong and must be taught, right? If a four year old is a chronic liar but is corrected and learns to tell the truth I would argue that the child has a greater moral perception because he now knows right from wrong.

Sharon: To follow up on M's points though, when you were living this former lifestyle you described did you feel that you were doing "wrong" and just did it anyway? Just curious.

Sharon,

You can apparently find videos of Sathya Sai Baba performing his miracles on YouTube. He has millions of witnesses. Far exceeding those of Jesus. But who cares?

You still haven't told me why any of this matters. Who cares if Jesus or Sathya Sai Baba were resurrected or able to resurrect? What does that have to do with being a moral authority or knowing anything about what is true? Why does that matter so much to you?

Now, if you were truly morally lost before you found Christianity, then you could not know what is right from what is wrong. Thus, you cannot possibly be trusted to have found any kind of moral truth, since your moral perception was worthless. In this case, I must reject Christianity because it cannot possibly be right if so many immoral people follow it.

If, on the other hand, you did posses the inherent sense of right and wrong that you speak of, then you didn't actually need any religion (or "relationship") to tell you what you already knew (since you already knew it). In this case, Christianity is just another set of superfluous dogmas that we should rid ourselves of in the name of parsimony.

In reality, all you needed was an ideal that you could commit yourself to (i.e., a god) and a community of people that you could trust and love. As Phaedrus points out, you don't need religion for that. In fact, there are a growing number of people that claim the same life-changing results from therapy and self-help books/sessions as you ascribe to your Jesus. With all due respect, it's obvious to me that it's all in your head from where I sit.

Sharon, sounds like you have swapped addictions.

Ghostbuster,

20 years ago

Phaedrus,

I am not in a religion, I am in a relationship. I did not work for the miracles that I received. They were a gift. I can claim no credit. A parachutist is so very free, until he finds that he doesn't have a parachute. Yes, God is, and since He made the universe, it will run by His rules whether we like it or not

Sharon: I'd say that story certainly explains your zeal. How long ago did all this transpire?

Sharon, with due respect, you seem well-meaning, the best sense of freedom I ever felt in my life is when I realized that there was almost certainly no god, and that all of the baggage of growing up in a religious household could simply be set aside. The world opens up in its natural beauty and complexities, and these can be progressively understood. There is no more need for willful ignorance, for taking the word of others and kneeling to their devices. One becomes one's own, and finds that opinions can, and should be based on solid ground, not mythology. ethics are founded on reason, such as not discriminating against others for things that hurt no one else. Therefore, homosexuals deserve all of the rights of heteros, including the right to marry.

I find that my experience is shared the world over by others who have shed these threadbare superstitions. Freedom is theirs as well.

I am glad that you were able to get your life back together. Maybe you should take more of the credit for having done so, rather than giving it to non-existent deities.

Mavaddat,

Do you really want to know, or do you prefer to talk about it? You are so close. You are right - the Gospel is simple, we make it complicated.

The Bible says that in the end times there will be false prophets with signs and wonders. God says that we all have an inherant knowledge of Him, so we are without excuse. However, I don't know that many people have risen from the dead, and how many witnesses does SathaiSai Baba have to his resurrection?

The resurrection of Jesus is important in that it bought us eternal life by His victory over death.

There is so much that I could tell yopu, but He can say in one word - in His revelation to You, what would take me pages. Don't be afraid. If I am wrong, then you have lost nothing. Ask HIM!

God bless You

Ghostbuster,

I was an alchoholic, sexually immoral, profane, and self righteous. Against my better judgement, I allowed someone to take me to church,to get them "off my back". "Spitting angry" at allowing
myself to get into the church scene, I sat down in the pew. Within seconds, thousands of pounds were lifted from my shoulders, it felt like a physical lifting of weight. I hadn't known the weight was there, nor had I ever heard about the weight of sin. I was immediately transported into a cacoon of peace.

I went back to that church. This time, I had a revelation - an all consuming understanding and knowledge that permiated every cell of my body & every inch of my soul. My entire being went "nova" with light. That light relayed to me that Jesus is alive! Imagine that! Not a ghost, not a fable, but alive! Survived! Actually existing!

A couple of weeks passed, and I went to that church each week. At the alter, all my pains and hurt from the past were healed. I had grown up in orphanages and foster homes, my parents were both alcoholics. I had been molested as a child, and raped as an adult. My marriages had ended in failure, but God healed it all. I was set free. I became so hungry for the Bible that it was to me like a banquet to a starving man. I was learning to pray. I was learning to repent.

Soon, it became time for me to be baptized. I had stopped doing many things that I had done before, they were repulsive to me now, but I was still drinking, unable to stop, and not even really wanting to stop, to give up my old comfort.

Unknown to the Pastor, I went into the tank with a hangover. I came out of that water fresh & clean as a just washed baby. Imagine that! A 'stinkin' old sinner like me. Two weeks later I realized that I wasn't drinking nor did I want to.

Do you see the grace of God? His compassion? His mercy? Jesus died so that we can have this type of freedom. He paid the price for our sin. I did not ask for this mercy. Someone else prayed for me. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus, and He wants everyone else to be free too. He went to the cross for us.

Hell is real. Heaven is real. Jesus is real.

Seek Him - Seek Him - Seek Him

Sharon,

Many people have risen from the dead. And I'm not kiddin' neither!

The South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba claims to have walked on water, raised the dead, flown without the aid of technology, materialized objects, read minds, foretold the future, etc. He was even born of a virgin! So there is definitely some competition for you.

Furthermore, Muslims and Buddhists don't think that rising from the dead is a prerequisite for our regarding someone as a representative of god. They have different standards for deciding what a Messiah has to do in order for us to trust him (in Islam, a messenger of God is called a "Rasul," and a "Buddha" is an enlightened moral guide). Whose standard is the right one? How do we know?

But honestly, I don't see why it matters that Jesus rose from the dead. So what? Does that mean that he had insight into how I should live my life? What is the connection between rising from the dead and being a moral authority? Or should we presume that your conception of your god is the right one?

If we do not know anything about your god prior to knowing our Messiah or his book, then there is no way that we can decide what the Messiah will do or what his book will look like. If we can know about god prior to the Messiah or book (however that might be), then we don't need the Messiah/book, because we already know about god.

In conclusion, either god's will is utterly indiscernible, or else it is so obvious that everyone would already know it (without any need for looking in the Bible or any book).

Sharon,

...and I thought my type-o's were bad :)

Seriously though, why are you so certain? How did Jesus reveal himself to you?

Mavadatt,

Indeed I accidentally left out "not". Good catch.

I was going to add to your addendum, but I don't think it is necessary. No need to nitpick.

I find the first section in your response to Sharon interesting. Most people on these boards either defend the authenticity of scripture or battle fiercly against the bible. Maybe your viewpoint is an anomoly, or maybe it just shows that I don't hang out here very often.

Mavaddat,

I'm not kidding! Unlike Mohammed, Buddah, or anyone else, Jesus rose from the dead! He can answer for Himself. This is the difference - He is the son of the one true God - He Is Alive, and through His omnipresent Holy Spiit He will reveal himself to you if you are serious, and ask Him to.

Sharon,

I do not deny that the stories in the Bible are true. The suggestion that they have any significance to our lives, however, I do deny. I just don't think it matters whether they are true or not.

There are millions of people in the world (or in history) that claim to be just as important as Jesus. All of them we might consider to be good people that lead good lives. Thousands of them claim to perform or (to have performed) miracles. How are we to decide between them? How shall we say who amongst them is the true representative of God's will?

Click my name above to read my latest blog about this matter.

Mavadatt,

Jesus Himself proves that the ancient text is true. Ask Him in His name to show you that "He is, and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". He is alive, and the Holy Spirit,sent by Him, will bear witness to that Truth, if you truly want truth, and not just agreement with your own opinion.

Ghostbuster,

Although you have the idea of what I am saying quite clearly, I would caution anyone in saying that ancient religions (or religion in general) are irrelevant. Though religion may not be a source of universal moral truths, it is still a mode of thinking into which many people continue to invest a great deal of emotional commitment. Though it is unnecessary to look to religion for moral guidance, I do not deny that many people do and that it is an important source of motivation for them. Therefore, insofar as people still use their conception of their god (or some higher truth to which only their privileged group has realized) to justify what they do, religion is a relevant topic of discussion. Heck, we're talking about it now!

Also, I think you meant to write that there is NOT enough evidence to suggest that the ancient text is true, is that right?

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible

Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our old sinful nature, but in a new nature: cleansed, and set free from the power of sin and death

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible

Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, and prepared the way; (repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven,born again, not in the desires of ou

"Modern Western culture has its view of sin because Christians have made us think that theirs are the only set of goals worth having."

Looking globally, I would argue that all evangelistic religions are guilty of trying to monopolize truth.

I'm sorry for copying your name into the "Name" line Mavaddat. I meant to copy it into only the first line of my text. Next time I will attempt spelling it myself instead of copy/paste :)

Mavaddat:

So if I'm reading this right, what you saying is that good and evil, right and wrong, true and false (when it comes to moral belief systems) are basically a result of socio-biological evolution?

Basically, a certain culture or group of people adheres to a certain moral code based on it's value to a society in the present day. Thus making most ancient belief systems irrelevant because:

A) There is enough evidence to suggest that the ancient text is true
B) Even if the text has moral value, many of the intended meanings are lost because the texts have been altered or edited and were originally intended for the ancient audience
C) Believing in these belief systems may have unfortunate consequences on both society at large and possibly individual freedom

If I am understanding, I would assume that this theory would cover most religion? Are there any exceptions in your opinion?

Mavaddat: Oh, the Gospel of Truth and the Book of Jubilees rock very hard. Nice to see Pistis Sophia in there too. I've only read about a third of that lot, and now I'm thinking I need to look up the Nag Hammadi library online again...

I don't care if James Cameron finds his tomb, I just want someone to prove that Jesus was Gnostic and dealt heavily in allegory. That'd stop all this silliness.

Yes, Tonio, you are right. Modern Western culture has its view of sin because Christians have made us think that theirs are the only set of goals worth having.

However, the worth of any goal is decided by the individual who might choose to commit his or her self to it and not externally.

Ghostbuster, I believe that if there is any morally universal good, it can only be universal in the sense that a large portion of humankind will tend to value such goals. But that does not mean such goods are "true." It just means that they tend to be valued. It's an empirical matter of statistics and not a philosophical matter of ontology (i.e., what choose to value vs. what is true).

Such widespread tendencies are merely manifestations of the path that humanity took in developing its cultures and they do not correspond with any higher truth. Or if they do, then we could never know them (or know that we know them), so they cannot matter.

"Therefore, the word sin presupposes that some goal is set up which is trying to be accomplished, but is failed to be met."

That is not the meaning as I've always understood it in modern Western culture. Our culture seems to equate "sin" with breaking a rule set down by Christian doctrine, or with enjoying a forbidden pleasure.

MAVADDAT,

What goal do you think is trying to be accomplished?

Do you think there are any moral "goals" or truths that are universal?

Just curious

By the way, for those wondering what the word "sin" means:

In the Hebrew Bible the word "sin" comes from the Hebrew for "slipping" or "misstepping." In the New Testament, it comes from the Greek for "to miss the mark." Therefore, the word sin presupposes that some goal is set up which is trying to be accomplished, but is failed to be met.

Now, if any person does not share the same moral goals as you, then they cannot possibly "sin" in either sense of the word by acting against what you consider to be moral. Why? Because you cannot legitimately fail to hit a mark or step rightly unless you were trying to hit that particular mark or step in that particular way. This does not mean that you cannot see their action as reprehensible. It just means that what they did is not wrong from their perspective.

Here is the history of the Bible, for the uninformed:

Before the fourth century CE, nearly every Christian group adhered to a somewhat different set of scripture. Around the fourth century, however, some Christian groups got together and decided which texts to consider canon (authoritative). They subsequently imposed their views on the other Christian groups, calling the others heretical if they did not follow suit. One church emerged from this mass of Christian groups to rule them all: The Roman Church. The Roman Church chose Jerome's latin translation of their canon (Vulgate) as authorized. At the famous Council of Trent (1545–63), the Roman Church chose the books already contained in their canon as the definitive set of holy scripture.

In summary, a bunch of powerful dudes chose the books they liked best to represent their god's opinions.

Here is a list of books arbitrarily excluded from the Bible by these "Church Fathers":

* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Truth
* Gospel of Philip
* Gospel of Mary
* The Gospel of Judas
* The Infancy Gospel of Mark
* The Arabic Infancy Gospel
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Matthias
* Gospel of Paul
* The Shepherd of Hermas
* Didache
* Epistle of Barnabas
* First Clement (but not 2 Clement)
* 1 and 2 Clement
* Shepherd (or Pastor) of Hermas
* Didache
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Apocalypse of Peter
* The Infancy Gospel of James
* Third Epistle to the Corinthians
* Secret Gospel of Mark
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* Secret Book of James
* Preaching of Peter
* Gospel of the Ebionites
* Gospel of the Nazoreans
* The Egerton Gospel
* Oxyrhynchus Gospels
* Gospel of the Savior
* Epistula Apostolorum
* Acts of Peter
* Acts of Peter and the Twelve
* Book of Thomas the Contender
* Pistis Sophia
* Dialogue of the Savior
* Acts of Thomas
* Acts of Andrew
* Acts of John
* Acts of Pilate
* Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
* Acts of Paul and Thecla
* Acts of Peter and Paul
* First Apocalypse of Paul
* Second Apocalypse of Paul
* Gospel of Judas
* Gospel of Philip
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Mary
* Gospel of James
* Gospel of Bartholomew
* Gospel of Barnabas
* Gospel of Andrew
* Gospel of Nicodemus
* Gospel of Matthias
* Gospel of Radoslav
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* Gospel of the Nazoraeans
* Gospel of the Ebionites
* Gospel of Eve
* Gospel of Truth
* Gospel of Perfection
* Gospel of Four Heavenly Realms
* Gospel of Twelve
* Gospel of Seventy
* Gospel of Thaddaeus
* Gospel of Cerinthus
* Gospel of Basilides
* Gospel of Marcion
* Gospel of Appelles
* Gospel of Bardesanes
* Gospel of Mani

Dear Ambassador, the above was intend for you. My apologies

You say that you are a rational person. You say you try to reason and examine the evidence. Does that mean that you believe your belief system to be entirely rational? Are you dedicated to reason? In other words, would you abandon your faith if you someday decided that there were irrational components to it? Do you believe explaining things in terms of supernatural entities at work in the world to be consistent with rational? I don't. That may be where we simply loose our basis for discussion. If you say you don't believe in supernatural explanations (do we need to define "supernatural" too), how is that you explain the inerrancy of the bible and how it has remained so over the centuries? While I won't speak for you, I will say that the typical answer from a person who shares your belief about the bible is to believe that God has intervened to make it that way. Explanations like the holy spirit guides the translation process, etc. Of course, the holy spirit has not been in involved in EVERY translation, that would cause some logical difficulties. If one permits such supernatural elements into their world view and their rational schema, words like "reason", "logical" and "evidence" simply loose their meaning as the supernatural explanation can overrule anything like a magic wand. This explains much of the disconnect and endless arguing.

I avoided answering your other question because it seemed to be getting too far off topic - at the time we were talking about sin and that seemed on topic. As for your question "How do you think we came to exist". I think science has the most reliable approach that we have devised to date to help us with this question. I think the history of what science has brought us in terms of our understanding of world supports my contention of "most reliable". For example, even something as simple as the way I think of our solar system, the way the earth rotates and orbits the sun. This comes from science and not from the discusion in Genesis 1 about light and dark, night and day (which by the way, God managed to create in an earth "day" prior to existence of a rotating earth and a sun.

A few things that claim to be the inspired word of God:

The Bible.

The Kur'an.

Christian Science.

The Book of Mormon.

The Urantia business.

Swedenborgianism (I think.)

How do we know which is and which isn't?

Emm & Mavaddat,
I would like to chat more tonight but my brain is fried after battling to set up DSL on my computer for about the past 4 hours. Quality software you got there Verizon.

However, I'll leave you with this one illustration. When I was in college I took a backpacking class with a person who had a stated goal to die from lung cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. I think he was extremely committed to accomplishing that stated goal quickly. In all honesty, except when sleeping or sometimes eating, he was puffing away like a locomotive. Although this person was an impressive walking human ash tray, he was also a pretty good hiker stopping only on occasion; to light up another one.

Could someone please answer:

i. Christians (and some others - don't mean to exclude them) believe God created Man and all that followed
ii. Colson tells us what is natural
iii. one would expect that since God created Man and had a design of what would be natural, that man would do what is natural
iv. the answer to all the "sinful" stuff that men do is often said to lie in the fact that God gave us "free will."
v. If part of the free will God gave us is to be heterosexual or homosexual, then which is unnatural?
vi. I understand that the free will argument is also used to explain why murder is wrong.
vii. when the world had only cavemen and no priests or Christians, who married whom?
viii. when the notion of marriage was created - don't know when - but at least it's mentioned in Genesis in a round about way when the MAN (not God) says that the Man and the Woman are united -- it appears to have been created by man.
ix. Why can't God control all this stuff if SHE cares at all about it?

Thanks. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Joe Campbell:

Sure, why not?

Firstly, thanks for Mavaddat and Ghostbuster’s kind comments. It is comforting to know that there are thoughtful voices on these threads.

Just to clarify; my position is that moral standards, as well as ethical and legal norms are intellectual abstractions. They might help guide our decision making process or, more likely, justify our actions after the fact, but they are not our beliefs. The person who smokes believes in smoking. He/she may well understand, or not, the probable consequences of smoking, but to say one smokes but does not believe in smoking seems a little strange to me. I think this is a common error in understanding the behavior of people. It basically lets people rationalize all sorts of antisocial and/or self-destructive behaviors under the guise that they are trying to change but don’t have the will etc. I maintain that one’s actions are a perfect mirror of ones true beliefs. A nonsmoker believes in not smoking. A smoker believes in smoking. It’s as simple and straightforward as that. And yes, “changing one's beliefs would imply an immediate manifestation of those beliefs in their actions” or more accurately: one’s actions are a manifestation or confirmation of what one has already come to believe.

I have said elsewhere in these pages that for me, God is more verb than noun. God is not an idea or concept, but an active present force in the universe. I’d also say that love is not primarily an idea or concept. Love too is active. Love is experiential first and foremost. If I had the choice to be ‘in love’ or to be loved, and/or to be ‘in love’ or to be loving, I’d choose to be loved or to be loving. I’ve said many times that “it is easier to love one’s wife or husband, than it is to be loving toward one’s wife or husband.” In our culture we hear a lot about love and rarely have the experience of being loved or acting in a loving way. We have somehow relegated love to an abstraction, thus stripping it of its natural vitality. Those of us who claim to love or to be ‘in love’ and are not acting in a loving manner are trapped in an illusion. My position is that we will know we believe in love when we are behaving in a loving way.

Mommadonna

The answer to your question is, apparently, that Mr. Colson is an expert on sin. At least that's what they tell me.