Stop Hurting People in God's Name

THOMAS: "Personally, I would say that God is more important than anything that is written about Him, don't you?"

You do not understand Thomas. The Bible is God speaking to us and as such it is the truth and integrity of God that you put to question by your "personal" opinion.

THOMAS: "See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth."

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Corinthians 6:9; see Eze. 3:18 and Rev. 218)

THOMAS: "You seem to confine God to a book whereas that book should help open you to God."

The book does open us to God (Romans 10:17). That is the point. It is more sure than your revelation that has nothing but your word to back it up. Why would I, or anybody, believe your word over that of God's?

THOMAS: "Jesus said that there was work to be done but He did not say that we all had the same "job"."

And that work is not tearing down what He has already said to us.

"For NO ONE can lay ANY OTHER FOUNDATION other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on THIS foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his WORK will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light." (1 Corinthian 3:11-13a)

Thomas, you are building on a different foundation. How many times have you been warned by Scripture?

THOMAS: "Do you know that on the cross Jesus said, "It is finished" and that this is translated as "PAID IN FULL", interestingly, this same statement that was made by Jesus was found in a different context in an archeological dig concerning tax records?"

I have no idea what you are talking about concerning tax records?

Paid in full for whom? "But whoever does not BELIEVE stands CONDEMNED already because he has not believed in God's One and only Son." (John 3:18)

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Revelation 22:14-15)

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage....I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19, 21b)

THOMAS: "God works in lots of ways, God does not have to use only the ways that some want God to use to get thru to us."

"Jesus answered, 'I am THE WAY and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me.'" (John 14:6)

"Enter through THE narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is THE gate and narrow is THE road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

"Salvation is found in NO ONE ELSE, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given to men by which WE MUST BE SAVED." (Acts 4:12)

Salvation and the kingdom is NOT for everyone.

""She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, for HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

Notice the distinction made here to "His people." Logically that infers that not all are His people.

"Then He will say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.....They will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty....Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25:41-46)

Do you see the distinction Scripture makes. There are two groups. There are so many examples I could give throughout Scripture that I would be here a long time.

Hi Thomas,

THOMAS: "Peter, I find it rather amazing that you have not met God but you nevertheless have God all figured out."

Not in the same way you have Thomas. But He speaks to me through the Scriptures and in my circumstances and answered prayer. What I find amazing is that Scriptures is the highest authority given to man, for it is the integrity of the word of God, and yet your authority is higher than Scripture. That is hard to figure????

THOMAS: "God said, "My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts", does this not mean anything to you?"

Yes He did. He also speaks in language that has meaning and can be understood. Words in context have meaning and so often you change that meaning.

THOMAS: "I have met God and I do not even try to figure out God, I know that the statement, God Is Love, is literal and not just describing an attribute of God."

God does not speak contradictory messages to different people.

Thomas love is not all that God is. Yes, He is a Being of pure love, but He is more than that. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. Glorious and majestic is the Lord God Almighty. Merciful and just is the Lord God Almighty. Gracious and trustworthy is the Lord God Almighty.

THOMAS: "Since I have met All Three Persons of the Trinity in a way that God made very clear to me, I know that God is a Trinity, if it were not alluded to in the bible that God is a Trinity and that Jesus said, "I and the Father are One", I may have thought that there were three gods but no, there are not three gods but there is a God that is a Trinity and yet One."

Is God three distinct Persons or One Thomas?

THOMAS: "I may not be able to explain the Trinity but I do not have to, it just is."

If God made it clear to you you are certainly NOT coming off as clear on this matter. The Trinity is not an "it."

THOMAS: "The bible, in my opinion, can help lead us to God but the bible is not God. The bible cannot contain God but it can help us on our journey."

In your opinion Thomas, but God says through its pages that it is His word to us.

That is right, the Bible is not God, it is God's revelation to us, and as such it is entirely trustworthy. Without His written revelation to us we would not have an objective standard of truth to point to. It is His very word speaking to us.

peterhuff

Peter, I find it rather amazing that you have not met God but you nevertheless have God all figured out.

God said, "My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts", does this not mean anything to you?

I have met God and I do not even try to figure out God, I know that the statement, God Is Love, is literal and not just describing an attribute of God.

Since I have met All Three Persons of the Trinity in a way that God made very clear to me, I know that God is a Trinity, if it were not alluded to in the bible that God is a Trinity and that Jesus said, "I and the Father are One", I may have thought that there were three gods but no, there are not three gods but there is a God that is a Trinity and yet One.

I may not be able to explain the Trinity but I do not have to, it just is.

The bible, in my opinion, can help lead us to God but the bible is not God. The bible cannot contain God but it can help us on our journey.

Jesus said many things, one of which is: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do", Jesus was not just speaking of those that were physically present at the time.

Do you know that on the cross Jesus said, "It is finished" and that this is translated as "PAID IN FULL", interestingly, this same statement that was made by Jesus was found in a different context in an archeological dig concerning tax records?

God works in lots of ways, God does not have to use only the ways that some want God to use to get thru to us.

You seem to confine God to a book whereas that book should help open you to God.

Jesus said that there was work to be done but He did not say that we all had the same "job".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

nikosd99

You wrote, "As gently as I can say it, I'm afraid the man is deranged."

If you remember, that is exactly what some of Jesus's Day said about Jesus, was it not?

You then wrote, "By his own admission, he won't take God's Word (the Bible) as being the source, and the final test on Truth."

Personally, I would say that God is more important than anything that is written about Him, don't you?

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

peterhuff

You wrote, "Which Jesus are you believing Thomas?"

The "Jesus of the Eucharist" just like He told us point blank.

You then wrote, "You say your source is God, which god? A god you have made up or the One true and living God who has revealed Himself in Scripture"

I would say that the God, Who is a Trinity and a Being of Pure Love, Who personally revealed Himself to me.

You then wrote, "How can anyone be sure of anything Thomas, when there are so many people claiming a false Jesus? The answer to that Thomas, is through the Word of God, the Scriptures. God has revealed Himself through what has been created and through His special revelation."

This sounds strikingly similar to what the "religious" of Jesus's Day said to Him, doesn't it? Are you putting a "cap" on how God can be God?

You then wrote, "You are reading meanings into the text that are not there. That is poor interpretation of what God is saying."

Your opinion is that you have the "unpoor interpretation", fine, my "job" is to follow God, not you.

You then wrote, "I know you are being sincere, but there are lots of people who are sincere but wrong."

You can take that up with God, I have been given a "job" by God to do and I am counting on God to see me thru.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Saying "you are wrong, I will pray for you..." is passive aggressive, rude, and politically hostile, It is a statement of contempt disguised as a friendly gesture.

This kind of ugly attitude is partly why politcally conservative religious people have such a bad reputation. This sort of statement is inappropriate, and inserting it arguments does not gain you any ground, but sets you back even more.

There are a couple of people posting here who seem a little deranged, but Thomas Baum is not one of them, and neither am I.

Peter Huff, when you picked apart my argument, you left the most difficult part untouched.

And this is it:

The interdiction against "a man lying with a man" does not apply to straight people since they have ZERO interesst in homosexual activity. Do you think you should get credit with God, simply by allowing your own nature to operate freely, with no restrictions, as far as this one rule is concerned?

The rule has no meanng for straight people. You do not need a rule from God, threatening you, to keep you from engaging in homosexual activity. Being straight is part of your nature, the way you have been created. You do not refrain from homosexual activity because you are making a deliberate choice to be "good." You are refraining from homosexual activity because it holds no interest for you, that you could not pursue, even if you made a consciious decison to do so. It is just not within your nature, not because you are trying to please God, but just because that is a feature of your persaonality, over which you basically have no control.

The only interest you could possibly have in this rule, is by the persecution of gay people who violate the rule, and who by their very natures, and the way in which they were created, cannot but violate the rule in order to exist.

This rule was obviously invented by men, to persecute other men.

That is plain. It is a false doctrine and a lie to teach that gay people are wicked, evil, sinful, and "abominations." If this is the foundation of your belief, or if a great part of your belief system depends on this, then your foundations of belief are rotten, and cannot be sustained.

Perhaps you do not believe that now. However, you will find out, in time. I am sure of that.

Someday you will be regrettful of the many false things you have believed and said against your fellow man. come back and talk to me then.

peterhuff

You wrote, "What is more Thomas, you come across as one who does not want to upset the apple cart. You don't want to offend anyone, but the gospel message is offensive to those who are perishing (2 Corinthians 2:15; Luke 2:34)."

First off, it seems as if you and quite a few others are offended and this includes both those that believe in God and those that do not believe in God.

Second, when Jesus was born the Angels delivered two messages: "This is Good News for all people" and "Peace to whom God's Favor rests", two seperate messages with two seperate meanings.

You also wrote, "The context is important. It is referring to the Old Testament Book of Isaiah in which God is saying that He is the only God, the first and last and apart from Him there is no other (Isa. 44:6-8). And Jesus is this very God. Jesus is also referred to as the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, showing that He is the sovereign Lord over all things"

Jesus is also referred to as "The First-Born", is He not?

You also wrote, "God's plan is revealed from Genesis to Revelation and Christianity is a relationship with the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in which it is revealed as to how a person can be made right with God. It is a salvation and redemption message as well as a relationship, all planned by God before the foundation of the world."

The Jews also had and still do have a relationship with God since they are still the "Chosen People", this relationship is between God and a People. Christianity is a relationship between God and a person and God is the One Who choses what "job" someone has if that someone has a particular "job" to do.

God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

It is "God's Will that ALL be saved", ring a bell?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

peterhuff

You wrote, "God has given us His word as a fixed reference, His written source of truth
on earth. Now you come along claiming you are a messenger of God who is contradicting what He has said through the prophets and more importantly through His Son. Where is your credibility?"

Do you remember when Jesus was being tempted by satan and satan used what was written in the bible verbatim and what did Jesus say to him?

You then wrote, "God is not a God of confusion. He doesn't say one thing one minute and the exact opposite the next. There is a clarity in what He says,"

Didn't Jesus say that many would not understand? Didn't Jesus say something about why He spoke in parables? Isn't there something about a "veil" that has not yet been lifted?

You then wrote, "And many other Christians have mentioned this to you though these posts, but you are oblivious to what they are saying."

And there have been many "Christians" that totally disagree with you, I am not here to follow "Christians", I am here to try to do what God chose me to do. Jesus never said, 'follow those that say they are following me' or 'follow those that believe in me', the invitation that Jesus extended was, "Come follow Me", was it not?

You also wrote, "That is the closest I have come to anything like you are claiming.".

Apparently, this is something that God chose for you to do but that is between God and you, God chose me to speak, therefore I speak. Just as it says, there is different work for different people, God chose me, I did not choose me.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

peterhuff

You wrote, "You are not making sense Thomas. How can the omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Lord lose?"

If all are not in God's Kingdom then that would mean that satan won, if only a partial victory, and satan's defeat is total.

You then wrote, "The Lord Jesus Christ has won the victory for those who believe in Him. That is not everyone, and the Bible makes that clear, over and over again."

So you know God's Plan, the mysterious plan of God, in all of it's details or do you? What do you think Christianity is about? What do you think the "new heavens and the new earth are about? Do you think that Christianity is about some getting a "get out of hell" card? Or could it be about carrying on the work that Jesus started just like He said?

As I have said before, I look past heaven to the "new heavens and the new earth", which happens to be mentioned in Revelations.

You then wrote, "You never went back to the last forum we were on."

Actually I did, but it did not accept my reply, it seems as if, at least some times, they refuse comments after two weeks time, I tried a few times to send a reply but it was rejected.

You then wrote, "So now you come along and deny that the Scriptures are the very word of God"

If you actually read what I wrote, what I said was that the "Scriptures" themself say that Jesus is the "Word of God", do they not? "And the Word became Flesh".

You wrote, "The Holy Spirit teaches us,"

When the Holy Spirit came into my body, He revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, this was not by words, I just knew.

I have also found out that the Holy Spirit speaks to me thru people and that at least some of the time, the person does not even know it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Nikosd99,

The reason I have contended with Thomas was to show from Scripture that what Thomas was saying is not true, because he is misleading people into a false sense of security. That is to say that you can do whatever you want to in life and in the end that it will lead you into the kingdom and arms of a loving God. That goes against the hundreds of warnings in Scripture.

As you said, he seems to ignore what Scripture is saying. Sometimes he will sign off by words to the effect of "see you ALL in the kingdom."

Matthew makes it plain that not all will enter the kingdom. (Matthew 7:21 or John 3:5)

He is a universalist, a position that goes contrary to Scripture. Scripture is again plain that we must repent and believe in the One He has sent, the Lord Jesus Christ, to have eternal life. When you have the wrong king, you have the wrong kingdom and Thomas is preaching a message of another kingdom.

Blessings in Christ Jesus!
Peter

PETERHUFF

Unfortunately, we seem to be fighting a losing battle with THOMASBAUM. As gently as I can say it, I'm afraid the man is deranged. He totally lacks the ability to reason. As you said, we need to pray for him.

By his own admission, he won't take God's Word (the Bible) as being the source, and the final test on Truth. He just rambles on and on about how God has said many things, as if that nullifies anything that is written in The Word. And yet, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Mr. Baum could be likened to those like Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy who founded the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, and Christian Science respectively. They all supposedly had visions or visits by God or angels. They all rejected the scripture that states, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galations 1:8,9)

In your many writings to Mr. Baum you have shared these same scriptures with him but they go right over his head. I think that it is time to shake the dust off our feet in regards to Thomas Baum. Reasoning will not reach him. We need to heed the following scripture, "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:9-11)

Yes, continue to pray for him.

THOMAS: "I believe Jesus and that is why I believe that it was thru Jesus that I met Dad."

Which Jesus are you believing Thomas? There are many out there (2 Corinthians 11:4). There is the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witness, the Jesus of the New Age movement, the Jesus of the Church of Scientology, the Jesus of the Muslims, the Jesus of the Baha'i, the Jesus of the Mormons, to name a few, and then there is the Jesus of the Bible. Now the Jesus of the Bible you are not presenting on these posts Thomas.

You say your source is God, which god? A god you have made up or the One true and living God who has revealed Himself in Scripture?

How can anyone be sure of anything Thomas, when there are so many people claiming a false Jesus? The answer to that Thomas, is through the Word of God, the Scriptures. God has revealed Himself through what has been created and through His special revelation.

Now you are mixing words and claiming that what the Bible is saying is untrue. You are reading meanings into the text that are not there. That is poor interpretation of what God is saying. In order to get the Author's intent you must take the meaning that He is giving, not the meaning you want to read into what He is saying, for the Author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit.

I know you are being sincere, but there are lots of people who are sincere but wrong.

What is more Thomas, you come across as one who does not want to upset the apple cart. You don't want to offend anyone, but the gospel message is offensive to those who are perishing (2 Corinthians 2:15; Luke 2:34).

THOMAS: "Another thing that Jesus said, "I Am the First and the Last", sounds kind of inclusive to me, what do you "make" of this statement?"

The context is important. It is referring to the Old Testament Book of Isaiah in which God is saying that He is the only God, the first and last and apart from Him there is no other (Isa. 44:6-8). And Jesus is this very God. Jesus is also referred to as the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, showing that He is the sovereign Lord over all things.

THOMAS: "Christianity is not about receiving a "get out of hell" card, it is part of God's Plan."

God's plan is revealed from Genesis to Revelation and Christianity is a relationship with the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in which it is revealed as to how a person can be made right with God. It is a salvation and redemption message as well as a relationship, all planned by God before the foundation of the world.

THOMAS: "I was wondering: Have you ever met Dad? Have you ever met the Holy Spirit? Have you ever met satan? Have you ever experienced hell and /or spiritual death?"

Not in the same way you claim to have. I have met Him through the Scriptures and by His Spirit at work within me. I speak to Him constantly (prayer) and He answers my prayers, rebukes me at times and cause circumstances in my life that teach me more about Him. I was once listening to Isaiah 58 on audio tape when I hear an audio voice saying "Peter, feed the poor." I played the tape back because I knew that there was no such command to Peter in the Book of Isaiah. That is the closest I have come to anything like you are claiming.

THOMAS: "Pulling verses out of the bible and saying that God said this, means nothing to me for the simple reason that that is not the only thing that God said."

God has given us His word as a fixed reference, His written source of truth
on earth. Now you come along claiming you are a messenger of God who is contradicting what He has said through the prophets and more importantly through His Son. Where is your credibility? God confirmed His message through these people and the Lord Jesus Christ in many ways, but you are right out there in the dark.

THOMAS: "Knowing what a verse "says" does not necessarily mean that one knows what a verse means. Not only that but God being God can say more than one thing in one saying,"

THOMAS: "I am not here as a "teacher", I am a messenger."

God is not a God of confusion. He doesn't say one thing one minute and the exact opposite the next. There is a clarity in what He says, for He does not change, and He is the Master in communicating. He knows that words in context have meaning and also that if you take the words out of context you change the meaning. That is what you keep doing Thomas. Taking what He says out of context. And many other Christians have mentioned this to you though these posts, but you are oblivious to what they are saying.

Hello Thomas,

THOMAS: "If God is the "loser" that you think that He is and, (maybe, maybe not, want Him to be) then you can have Him because I do not want to have anything to do with the God of "your conception"."

You are not making sense Thomas. How can the omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Lord lose?

The Lord Jesus Christ has won the victory for those who believe in Him. That is not everyone, and the Bible makes that clear, over and over again.

You never went back to the last forum we were on. Now you are rehashing some of the same things you have said before without answering my previous questions.

THOMAS: "I have met God, the Trinity, and I have met satan and I do not know what every verse in the bible means and for that matter I do not care for the simple reason that God will somehow let me know what I need to know to do the "job" God gave me and also that Jesus asked us to follow Him, not to follow the bible."

Yes, Jesus did ask us to count the cost, deny ourselves and follow Him, but He also said that His sheep listen to His voice (John 10:27), that if they follow His teaching they are really His disciples (John 8:31) and that the whole of the Scriptures speak about Him (Luke 24:25-27; 44-46). The Holy Spirit teaches us, as He did the early apostles, about Jesus from the Scriptures (John 14:26; 15:26). That is what the apostles did. They related to the Jews through Scripture what was said about the Messiah and the reason He came, as well as His triumph over death for those who believe in Him. The apostle Paul commended the Bereans for being noble in checking out what he said against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and he also warned about those who bring a false message in Galatians 1:6-8 and elsewhere throughout the Scriptures.

So now you come along and deny that the Scriptures are the very word of God and put your own message on a plain above that of what is called the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), breathe of God (2 Timothy 3:16), word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), sword of the Spirit ((Ephesians 6:17) and this word, the Scriptures (John 5:39), did not come about by the prophets own interpretation, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21).

You are constantly contradicting this message.

peterhuff

You wrote, "Hi Nikosd99,

I'm glad to see someone else on these posts that is willing to point out the deceptive teaching of Thomas Baum. Pray for him.

Peter"

I appreciate your prayer, we should pray for ALL and we should pray for GOD'S WILL.

There were many in Jesus's day that pointed out not only His "deceptive" teachings but His out and out "blasphemies", did they not?

Isn't this what the "religious" of Jesus's day use to bring "capital charges" against Jesus?

If God is the "loser" that you think that He is and, (maybe, maybe not, want Him to be) then you can have Him because I do not want to have anything to do with the God of "your conception".

I have met God, the Trinity, and I have met satan and I do not know what every verse in the bible means and for that matter I do not care for the simple reason that God will somehow let me know what I need to know to do the "job" God gave me and also that Jesus asked us to follow Him, not to follow the bible.

I was wondering: Have you ever met Dad? Have you ever met the Holy Spirit? Have you ever met satan? Have you ever experienced hell and /or spiritual death?

God is not a "loser", satan is.

Pulling verses out of the bible and saying that God said this, means nothing to me for the simple reason that that is not the only thing that God said.

Knowing what a verse "says" does not necessarily mean that one knows what a verse means. Not only that but God being God can say more than one thing in one saying,

I am not here as a "teacher", I am a messenger.

The Trinity is referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even tho I can not explain the Trinity, the Trinity is One and one way to look at it is: The Father is the Creator of All, The Son is the Saviour of All and The Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier of All. And yet God is One, I suppose that is why they call it a "mystery, in as much as even after meeting the Trinity, one cannot really "explain" the Trinity but nevertheless can know that God Is a Trinity.

Another thing that Jesus said, "I Am the First and the Last", sounds kind of inclusive to me, what do you "make" of this statement?

Christianity is not about receiving a "get out of hell" card, it is part of God's Plan.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

nikosd99

You wrote, "PETERHUFF
Amen and amen, Brother Peter. Jesus Christ is that Rock! He is The Way, The Truth, and the Life and no man comes unto the Father except through Him. He said so Himself. God Bless."

I believe Jesus and that is why I believe that it was thru Jesus that I met Dad.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

peterhuff

You wrote, "Thomas is a hard person to get through to.

God got through to me.

Then you wrote, "I agree with your last post but Thomas believes he is a messenger of God, even though he contradicts God's word to us over and over again."

I have NOT said that I believe that I am a messenger of God, what I said was that I am a messenger of God, in other words, I know that I am a messenger of God.

Believe and know are two different words with different meanings.

"God's word" as you put it happens to be LOVE which is what God happens to be, a Being of Pure Love.

The bible is not God and it is not the word of God, God happens to be the Word of God, isn't that what it says in the bible, "And the Word became Flesh"?

The bible can help lead someone to God but apparently it leads some somewhere else.

Didn't Jesus say, "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me"?

Jesus did not say that the bible is the way to the Father, did He?

You then wrote, " He wants a God of love who has no justice"

First off, God is not a God of love, God is a Being of Pure Love, Love is not an attribute of God but is His Very Being.

Second, Justice is not blood-sucking revenge.

Third, what about Mercy?

You then wrote, "What Thomas neglects here is who Jesus won the keys to death and hell over, and that does not include unbelievers who die in their unbelief."

"Faith", belief, will pass away, Hope will pass away but LOVE REMAINS", you seem to put "faith" above Love, you are putting a "gift of God" above God.

Did Jesus take the sins of all upon Himself or not?

Did Jesus die in vain?

Didn't Jesus win those "keys" from satan fair and square since we gave them to satan?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

nikosd99

You wrote, "Why did you stop there? Why didn't you add the next two sentences? "....This is the second death. And WHOSOEVER was not found written in the book of life WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE."

Apparently you like to pick and choose scriptures that support your false philosophy."

Why do you seem to take "for granted" that there are some people that are created in the Image and Likeness of God not listed in the "Book of Life"?

Do you know exactly what the "Book of Life" is?

Have you seen the "Book of Life"?

As it says, "But as for the cowardly, the faithless,* the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’".

Don't we all fall into one or more of these categories during our life?

Didn't Jesus also say that ALL SINS except one would be forgiven?

Are you God? I know that I am not God but I have met God and I will not bind God by your or anyone else's interpretation of the bible.

You then wrote, "Something that you might want to consider."

It is not your place to tell me how I should interpret the bible, as I have said there is plenty in the bible that I do not know what it means but I have met God and God is not the petty, vindictive, revengeful being that some "conceive" of God to be.

Actually, we should not even attempt to "interpret" the bible, Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us and without that "Guidance" we are blind.

I place myself in God's Hands and in His Justice and in His Mercy.

So many speak of God's Justice as if it were modeled on man's thirst for "getting even" and not only is this wrong but then they completely seem to forget about God's Mercy.

Remember, "You have heard it said, a eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (besides the fact that so many don't have a clue what this means), I say Forgive your enemies..."

God Is Love, it is that simple and it all flows from this fact.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Nikosd99,

I'm glad to see someone else on these posts that is willing to point out the deceptive teaching of Thomas Baum. Pray for him.

Peter

FREESTINKER: "See what I mean. You think your book is the word of a god just because it says so. That's just your subjective opinion. Fair enough but please don't appeal to logic while advancing such claims with no supporting evidence."

I appeal to the highest authority there is to appeal to, the word of God. What authority do you have to say there is a higher authority yet? Do you have any fixed standard at all that you can point to? If you do, please supply it and show me that it is objective.

I point to the God of Christianity as the basis for making sense of anything, on the impossibility of the contrary, and I challenge you to answer the important questions of life such as why are we here, how do you know, what difference does it make and what happens when you die if you think you can make sense of this world and the evil and good in it other than through the Christian God?

FREESTINKER: "You think your "interpretation" is correct but that is just your subjective opinion because there's no way to verify your accuracy except hearsay from a book that only begs the question. Every interpretation is subjective, including yours. That why they call it interpretation and not fact."

There again you make another logical fallacy in that we cannot arrive at a correct interpretation of Scripture. But you correctly interpret many things I have said to you. Why do you have this double standard? And any fact is what it is because God made it so.

FS: "I do admire the way you have appointed yourself as the ultimate arbiter of objectivity though. (I know. It's not your opinion, it's what God really thinks ... according to your interpretation). You must be very proud to hold such a high position of biblical authority. Right up there next to your god. How convenient for you."

Well, you have not even arrived at how you know what is true. Maybe we should investigate that and what makes it true before you make too hasty a judgment. How does any subjective opinion arrive at what is true?

What is the origin of life and the universe? There are four possibilities. 1) Everything came from nothing accidentally. 2) Everything came from nothing supernaturally. 3) The universe and life has always been here. 4) This is all an illusion. So how did we get here?

FS: "And putting a capital "G" on the word is really convincing too. Just capitalize the word and it's meaning is unassailable. That's Priceless with a capital "P"!"

There is a distinction made in the Bible between the One true and living Being who created everything and small "g" gods, who are just the figment of human minds. When I use the capital "G" I'm making the distinction between the two - One real, the other false.

Hello again Freestinker,

I couldn't post on the other forum. I think it is shut down.

FREESTINKER: "Maybe but you can't seem to agree on the precise nature of the Spirit of your God and you can't seem to agree on what your standard means. Just read a few post here to see what I mean. If the message was so clear and objective and if it was communicated to each of you by the same God, why can't you seem to agree on even the basic nature of your God or it's message? Because each of your interpretations is by definition, subjective and therefore different."

I appeal to the word of God, that there is a correct way of interpreting or handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2: 15; 3:16).

I, nor any man is the standard, but we have access to His standard and with any language, when rightly interpreted can know the truth. And the Spirit of God leads the Christian into the truth of His word. Paul reasoned with the Jews of his time on the Scriptures. Any time you feel I am pulling a verse of Scripture out of context or changing its meaning, please call me on that verse and we can examine it more thoroughly.

You make a logical fallacy in equating differing interpretations and opinions of Scripture as not being able to arrive at a correct view of what it says. The Body of Christ has been fighting heresy from its beginning. There is always someone out there trying to pervert what the Scriptures say, but we do have God's objective standard, His written word as our reference.

Hi Daniel,

DANIEL: "Since they cannot get extra credit for that, should they then get extra credit for persecuting gay people? But the actions and words of many politically conservative religious people, one would think so."

With respect to your feelings Daniel, to me it is not a question of persecution but standing for what is true and morally right. The question becomes where does right come from? If every man determines it for themselves we have either anarchy or dictatorship for the one(s) holding the most power.

DANIEL: "This is all to point out, that there is more to religion than memorizing what you think are God's rules. Doctrine base on many of these Bible quotes leads to a logic which is absurd. If do not believe that God is absurd, then further reflection is necessary.

I view religion as man's worshiping a god or gods that he has created, whereas Christianity is a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind in natural revelation by what has been made and in a special revelation, through His word and by His Son and Spirit.

When you say that much of the logic that comes through quoting the Bible is absurd, I say to you that it is much of the logic that comes from man that is the absurd thing. Again, who sets the rules and why "should" they govern other human beings? Our Creator certainly has that right, but do you have the right to determine for yourself what is "good?" If so, is the standard you use fixed or varying? If its varying then why "should" or why "ought" your set of rules be the standard? That is what wars are fought over and is the cause of a lot of the strife and hardships in the world today, everybody forcing there own idea of right on others.

DANIEL: "I know that it is not a sin to be gay, and that in fact, there is nothing wrong with being gay. I know that all of the religious rules against gay people are man's rules and not God's. I know that straight designed these rules and integrated into a theology for the purpose of isolating and persecuting gay people, with the supposed, but false, blessing of God."

How do you KNOW these things?

DANIEL: "That would probably be the best solution to this intractable problem, that of separation of the bigoted from the unbigoted."

You talk like you are neutral and unbiased in your thinking. Unbigoted means without opinion, but you are certainly expressing one now. Why is your opinion the right opinion?

For Peter Huff, Nocosd, MGT1

Straight people have ZERO interest in engaging in homosexual activity. The rule against it does not really apply to them since they have not interest in it anyway.

However gay people have no interest in heterosexual activity. Therefore the rule agains "a mab lying with a man" is designed to as an obstacle to gay people.

Should straight people get extra credit in Heaven for complying with a rule that is part of their nature anyway? I do not think so.

Since they cannot get extra credit for that, should they then get extra credit for persecuting gay people? But the actions and words of many politically conservatie religious people, one would think so.

This is all to point out, that there is more to religioun than memorizing what you think are God's rules. Doctrine base on many of these Bible quotes leads to a logic which is absurd. If do not believe that God is absurd, then further reflection is necessary.

I know that it is not a sin to be gay, and that in fact, there is nothing wrong with being gay. I know that all of the religious rules against gay people are man's rules and not God's. I know that straight designed these rules and integrated into a theology for the purpose of isolating and persecuting gay people, with the supposed, but false, blessing of God.

These points are not negotiable or arguable. Gay clergy is inevitible. IF the politically conservaitve church members don't like it, then they can cause their various churches to fragment and separte into factions. That would probably be the best solution to this intractibale problem, that of separation of the bigotted from the unbigotted.

PETERHUFF

Amen and amen, Brother Peter. Jesus Christ is that Rock! He is The Way, The Truth, and the Life and no man comes unto the Father except through Him. He said so Himself. God Bless.

Hi Freestinker,

I see you posted again on the other forum. I haven't checked it for a while. I will reply to it as soon as I can.

Peter.

Hi Nikosd99,

Thomas is a hard person to get through to. I agree with your last post but Thomas believes he is a messenger of God, even though he contradicts God's word to us over and over again. He wants a God of love who has no justice and who minces His words, one minute saying one thing, then the next, through another messenger saying something totally contradictory to His written revelation to us.

Notice Thomas says: "Didn't Jesus say, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build My Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it",

but in quoting this Thomas ignores what the rest of the Scriptures say on the subject and even who is in the church, only those trust in the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thomas has all kinds of ways to twist the Scriptures.

THOMAS: "I said that Jesus won the keys to hell and death, the netherworld, and will use them in due time, God's Time."

What Thomas neglects here is who Jesus won the keys to death and hell over, and that does not include unbelievers who die in their unbelief.

Thomas has no accountability for what he says,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/robert_parham/2009/07/sbc_is_more_partisan_than_southern_baptist_republican_senator_on_sotomayor.html

THOMASBAUM, You wrote: "You also wrote, 'And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.'

Why did you stop there? Why didn't you add the next two sentences? "....This is the second death. And WHOSOEVER was not found written in the book of life WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE."

Apparently you like to pick and choose scriptures that support your false philosophy.

You also wrote, "By the way, there are other things spoken of in the Book of Revelations."

You bet there is and one is the following verse in Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Something that you might want to consider.

nikosd99

You wrote, " I don't know which bible you read, but the one that I read has many, many scripture that speaks of Hell being a real place."

Just because one builds the hell that one occupies does not make it any less real, on the contrary, one will realize that one has no one but oneself to blame.

You also wrote, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire."

Didn't Jesus say, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build My Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it".

I said that Jesus won the keys to hell and death, the netherworld, and will use them in due time, God's Time.

The occupants shall be released and as you said, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.".

God's Plan which God has had since before Creation is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

By the way, there are other things spoken of in the Book of Revelations.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

THOMASBAUM, I don't know which bible you read, but the one that I read has many, many scripture that speaks of Hell being a real place. And, as far as everyone being saved, I offer the following scripture, which is but one, that teaches differently than what you do.

Revelation 20:4-15 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

It is quite apparent that you are just another "Religious Philosopher" who has departed from the teachings of Holy Scripture.

You might want to consider the following verse. Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

nikosd99

You wrote, "Please explain. Are you saying that everyone is going to be in the Kingdom? Is everyone "saved"?"

For the short answer to both questions, YES.

This is not to say that we will not be judged because we are responsible for how we use our free will.

If we are sincerely sorry for what we do wrong and ask for forgiveness, we will be forgiven but as Jesus taught us in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us", if we are forgiven then do not extend that forgiveness toward others then it is ourself who nullifies our being forgiven for not being forgiving in return.

If we are sincerely sorry for what we do but don't even know that there is One to ask for forgiveness but nevertheless are sorry then God most definitely takes that into account, God is not the egomaniac that some seem to think and this includes some that know God's Name.

If one were to die and go to hell, one would come to realize that they have built the hell that they are in and have absolutely no one but themself to blame.

Hell is not some kind of monolithic place that some seem to think that it is but is "custom built" by it's occupant.

Hell is not separation from God but is going to God and seeing oneself and all of one's crud in the Light of Pure Love, this is at least one of the reasons that God wishes people to "repent", since God is a Being of Pure Love that Love will burn rather than caress, it is our choice.

Spiritual Death is separation from God, Hell and Spiritual Death are not the same.

Jesus won the keys to both and will use them in due time, God's Time.

Jesus died for us and He in turn asked us to die for others, that is what Christianity is about, it is not about getting a "get out of hell" card.

It speaks of "the mysterious plan of God" in the bible, well, part of God's Plan is that God has invited us to be active participants in His Plan.

Two of the things that I have said many times I will repeat here: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

I am just a messenger, I do not know all of the details nor do I have a desire to know all of the details, one could say that that is God's Plan which God has had since before Creation and is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

I know and have known for quite some time that I, by myself, can not do what God chose me to do but I do not have to. Jesus said, "Take My Yoke upon you...", I guess you know what a yoke is and Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you...", I am counting on God to see me thru.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

THOMASBAUM, You wrote:

"God chose me to speak, so I speak, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom."

Please explain. Are you saying that everyone is going to be in the Kingdom? Is everyone "saved"?

Freestinker

You wrote, "Since gods are just beliefs and nothing more, they can take any form the believer wishes them to."

This is just your opinion and nothing else and one day you will find out that it is wrong.

You also wrote, "Your belief is completely yours and as such, is just as valid as any other."

As I have said, I used to believe in God until I met God and now I know that God Is.

God chose me to speak, so I speak, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Rabbi:

"The ancient rabbis teach that every human being, by virtue of being an image of God, possesses infinite value, total uniqueness and complete equality with every other human being. Sounds good, right? Except that recognizing the infinite value and uniqueness of any one person can easily become an excuse of riding roughshod over anyone else - if I am THAT important and exceptional, then how can I possibly be limited by your needs or ideas? Infinite value and uniqueness can easily degenerate into the worst kind of narcissism."

I just don't see, (in spite of other things said that would have been too long to quote...) How it's possible to interpret these ideas in that way, unless you're starting from a standpoint that people *aren't* unique, valuable, and valuable in their uniqueness.

It always seems that certain views, perhaps too much based on a unitary model of people and behavior, can't really escape a sort of hierarchical sense of humanity: that all platitudes about snowflakes aside, it's always seen as vain and selfish to actually be one of those snowflakes, in full knowing of the wonder of all the others.

Just as false humility can be the most insidious form of narcissism, so, too, I think can be the presumption that all difference *must be about betterness or worseness, even if you don't like that.* I think that's part of why our society tends to love to tear down 'heroes' and 'luminaries' pretty quickly after they're made. First, safely 'more than human' then safely 'less than.'

Never meeting the real challenge of all that our uniqueness may require. We've stoped being proud of each other, as a broad culture. Often looks more like ritualized jealousy, to me. Makes those 'bushel baskets' some book people talk about into kind of the dress code.

"Not only is God a Trinity and yet One and is a Being of Pure Love but God also has a Plan and has had His Plan since before Creation and God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

God is neither a He, a She nor an It, even tho God-Incarnate was a Male, so my use of the masculine pronoun is not exactly accurate but it does come in handy."

--------------

ThomasBaum,

Since gods are just beliefs and nothing more, they can take any form the believer wishes them to.

Your belief is completely yours and as such, is just as valid as any other.

It is obvious that Farnaz (and her probability waves) for some strange reason is trying her best to bolster the rapidly diminishing membership in orthodox Judaism. Strange in that she is a professed Jewish atheist who should be shouting for joy for said demise.

She attacks the theology of Rabbi David Wolpe (an On Faith panelist) again for some strange, unknown rationale. Rabbi Wolpe's theology/beliefs are well documented and presented in the Times article, "The New Torah For Modern Minds, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 which is a nice synopsis (and worthy of repetition) of the thinking of many Conservative Jews and their rabbis. A deeper insight into Rabbi Wolpe's views and analogous Jewish exegetes can be found on the Beliefnet.com site.

And for those who follow the commentaries on these On Faith topics, it is obvious I am equally critical of the foundations of Christianity to include Mormonism and Islam. The foundations of these religions will also crumble as more members become aware of the myths and embellishments in their holy books.

CCNL1's has endlessley trolled OnFaith with a 2002 Times book review opined on the "OT" notwithstanding that he is entirely ignorant of it, endlessly pasted on "Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant" (sic), though not so recently on his man-god.

The bigoted homophobe's feewings are hurt. Awwwww.....Perhaps, he'd do well to read a bit more widely on the "NT," and to leave the Tanakh to those for whom it was intended and who know it. As for R. Wolpe, he knows zilch about his theology save what he's pasted from a 2002 Book Review. Knows nothing of Judaism at all.

Ah, perhaps, there's nothing for it but for to begin posting on the non-existence of "Jesus Christ," about whom, whether he existed or not, CCNL1 is a without any coherent view.

IN the name of the father, the uncle, the mother, daughter, sister, ghosts of all types past and present--holy and otherwise-- we wish him well on his way, requesting only that he get on his way ASAP.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Please, update and splash all over those Christian blogs!!! It will be nothing that has not already been presented by the many avid readers of Christian documents and reviews of said documents. And no doubt you will enlist some probability waves along the way in your "a little late" updating.

And don't forget to touch base with Rabbi David Wolpe on these threads and over at Beliefnet. It is obvious he has a lot to teach you about Judaism.

CCNL1, a professed "atheist Catholic," who for years misrepresented a 2002 New York Times book review, and now posts for perusal (a word he recently cribbed from yours truly--his vocabulary is limited) a web site provided by moi.

This self-professed Crossan idolater rises to the position of defender of the faith, champion of the vatican, quite suddenly of late.

He does not do as we have asked: post on the fiction of the Eucharist, the NT trial that never was, the stick figure Pharisees who knew not Jesus, the bruhaha in downtown Jerusalem that did not happen.

Instead this self-styled fidei defensor, unwanted by the Vatican, Catholics and atheists the world over, obsesses over the Tanakh, posting an ancient book review all over OnFaith.

WE gave him to opportunity to mend his ways.
-------------------------
Crossan, CCNL1's idol, shares the view of his contemporaries regarding the fictitious dining of the "Last Supper," the nonsensical resurrection, all the rage of the time period among mythical man-gods, etc. Likewise, Crossan and his less controversial contemporaries, readily acknowledge that there was no "trial." CCNL1, before he stopped taking his meds, attributed the millenia of Christain Jew killing to this mythic to-do.

CCNL1, himself has posted on the foregoing, but refuses to do so in any consistent way on the threads of Catholic/Christian panelists.

INstead he posts a 2002 Times review of a book, pasting passages, etc., on the Tanakh.

As for the Infidels link, which I gave him, it does contain some of the fictional material in the fictional NT.
------------------------------------
Last on this. I'm updating my NT bibliography, selecting key quotations, and shall be pasting them all over every Christian/Catholic, atheist panel thread until CCNL1 changes his ignorant tune.

In the meantime CCNL1, Catholic atheist, posted a memo written by B16 directing priests to keep silent on pedophile priests.

I have emailed a friend on this; perhaps, CCNL1 can paste it again in the meantime.

In the name of the father, mother, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts, uncles, ghosts, witches, goblins--holy and otherwise--go in peace, CCNL1.

A_V_G

You wrote, "So, the "God" of believers, in the contemporary sense of the word "believers", is the product of limited cognition."

I do not know what you mean by "the contemporary sense of the word "believers"", but I would say that it simply means someone who believes that there is a God.

As far as "limited cognition" considering that "cognition can mean "the act or process of knowing; perception", back when I believed in God, I had no "knowledge" of God "personally" but I did "believe" that there is a God, so I did not have "limited cognition" of God, I had no cognition of God but I did have a "belief" in God.

After I met God, I, most definitely, had a "knowledge" of God.

God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love, which means that Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being.

Belief and knowledge are two distinct words with two distinct meanings even tho many seem to interchange them.

You then wrote, "And the "God" of prophets, in the contemporary sense of the word "prophets", is the product of limited knowledge of the relation between cognition and the universe (whatever that relation and it's laws might actually be)."

The "laws" of the universe are the laws of the universe for the simple reason that that is how God created the universe.

One does not need to "know" the "laws" of the universe for those "laws" to be, does one?

Not only is God a Trinity and yet One and is a Being of Pure Love but God also has a Plan and has had His Plan since before Creation and God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

God is neither a He, a She nor an It, even tho God-Incarnate was a Male, so my use of the masculine pronoun is not exactly accurate but it does come in handy.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

One more thing, Rabbi Brad:

"The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions,"

"People have the fundamental right to take an argument to the point where somebody is offended by what they say. It is no trick to support the free speech of somebody you agree with or to whose opinion you are indifferent. The defense of free speech begins at the point where people say something you can't stand. If you can't defend their right to say it, then you don't believe in free speech. You only believe in free speech as long as it doesn't get up your nose."
-Salman Rushdie

Folks will feel hurt whether or not that is the speakers intent.

My position is that defending one's beliefs and convictions does not amount to an intent to cause hurt.

Rabbi Brad,

I understand your argument to to say let the so-called wheat and the so-called tares grow together and God, in the end, will do the harvesting. That in the meantime, we should accept each other regardless of perceived vices or foibles.

From my point of view, and in agreeing with one of your fellow contributors, it makes no sense, as a community, for the church to appoint someone who does not share their fundamental beliefs and convictions, to become their leader. And neither are they obligated to do so.

The hurt, I think foams to the top when
1. people are caricatured and labeled as bigoted, intolerable and various other derogatory things for sticking with their convictions, and
2. people of faith do not show the requisite compassion and love for those believing otherwise.

But to the crux of the debate, to insist that people of faith accept as their leader, someone that disagree with their core beliefs, is unreasonable.

Bah, re-read what I have written and the second and third posts don't really make much sense, as they are.
I suppose a better way of putting it would be that the early gods were the product of limited knowledge of natural laws - some natural events were considered miraculous in the beginning and had some deity(s) associated to them.
And after that, gods became the product of limited knowledge of the relation between cognition and the natural world - when natural events lost their magic, some cognition-related events became more noticeable and more prominent, and had a deity attached to them and/or a redefinition of an old deity who was in mythological existence already.

So, the "God" of believers, in the contemporary sense of the word "believers", is the product of limited cognition. And the "God" of prophets, in the contemporary sense of the word "prophets", is the product of limited knowledge of the relation between cognition and the universe (whatever that relation and it's laws might actually be).

This is not to say that people should stop looking at events of any nature as if they are not miraculous, quite the opposite - people should recapture the sense of awe and genuinely seek to see the miraculous side of the universe (weather natural or cognition-related or some other). Just stop attributing things they don't initially understand to things that are beyond them - it's a tautological nonsense.

And a list of the biblical atrocities can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html.

Said atrocities are the reasons that Farnaz is (by her own admission) a professed Jewish atheist.

BTW, I am a professed "Crossanized Catholic".

And indeed Farnaz continues in her attempts to distract us from the reality of Judaism. Said realism is addressed by Rabbi David Wolpe, an On Faith panelist, in great depth on Beliefnet.com

CCNL1, a professed "atheist Catholic," who for years misrepresented a 2002 New York Times book review, and now posts for perusal (a word he recently cribbed from yours truly--his vocabulary is limited) a web site provided by moi.

This self-professed Crossan idolater rises to the position of defender of the faith, champion of the vatican, quite suddenly of late.

He does not do as we have asked: post on the fiction of the Eucharist, the NT trial that never was, the stick figure Pharisees who knew not Jesus, the bruhaha in downtown Jerusalem that did not happen.

Instead this self-styled fidei defensor, unwanted by the Vatican, Catholics and atheists the world over, obsesses over the Tanakh, posting an ancient book review all over OnFaith.

WE gave him to opportunity to mend his ways.

nikosd99

You mentioned "Sodom and Gomorrah", did you ever notice that the people there were "forcing" themselves on others?

Something to think about.

God gave us free will and we should not use free will in a coercive way toward others.

"Love one another as I have Loved you", Jesus forced Himself on no one.

If you think that something is wrong than don't do it.

"I have not come into the world to condemn the world but that the world might be saved", sound familiar?

God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and the world will be saved, maybe not in the way that you imagine, but in God's Way.

The seventh day is coming but the night of the sixth day will precede it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

DanielintheLionsDen

You said, "You can call bigotry religous belief and demand respect for that belief. But it is still bigotry and does not deserve respect. And it does not deserve consideraton in a calm discussion."

(Sigh)

You know what is really, really sad about what you are doing? You do not even see that you have become much worse than what you are accusing me of, even though you are so, so wrong about what I am saying.

For you, people must either agree with you or they are all those terrible things you call them.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that you have become bigoted, dogmatic, intolerant and unreasonable in your position. The very thing you are accusing others of.

Can you see that? It is not difficult. Just step back for a moment, yea, not even that, and if you are open to any sound but that of your own voice, you'll see.

Why, don't you think it is possible for anyone to disagree with your opinions without being prejudiced or hateful? Or are you simply playing out your hatred for Christians?

If you have friends, do they have to agree with everything you say or do? Do they have to agree with every aspect of your lifestyle? Are they allowed opinions that differ from yours?

What you do not realize but have so clearly demonstrated, is that you will not allow any room for differences of views or individual preferences without ascribing subversive intent to other people's motives if those views and preferences differ from yours. It is your way or no way. And that is really, really sad.

Hmm...such a pity.

And a list of the biblical atrocities can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html.

Said atrocities are the reasons that Farnaz is (by her own admission) a professed Jewish atheist.

Some added addresses from the Secular Web library not previously given by Farnaz or others:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/resurrection.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Your excessive zeal for Judaism continues to ooze from your pores. Again, this is so strange coming from a professed atheist who, by definition, does not believe in anything related to the "god-inspired" torah.

From the Secular Web site (one of Farnaz's favorite reference sites):

"THE Word of God a forgery! I can understand the bewilderment of a religious reader, but let him consider coolly what the statement means. It does not mean that God forged a book. It means that men forged a book in God's name. That can be examined dispassionately by anybody."

The Secular Web's library also has books reviewing the forgeries made by the authors of the NT.

"I have addressed all your issues in this and previous threads. I recommend you reread them."
===================================
Don't bother playing it again, Sam. Either you post w/sources on the faux Eucharist, trial that never was, etc., etc. or I will. I don't mind.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

I have addressed all your issues in this and previous threads. I recommend you reread them.

What does it mean to be a rabbi, a theologian, or any of the myriad of teachers who think that they can teach us anything about God and righteous living when they totally reject the teachings of the Bible? Rabbi Hirschfield would have us all encouraging anyone and everyone regardless of their lifestyle. Let us all pitch in and help the thieves, the drunkards, the adulterers, the liars, the extortioners, etc., etc., ad nauseam build their churches next to ours so that they can not only continue in their abominable ways but to proselytize others to join them.

Yes, mankind was created in the image of God, but because of Adam's sin, we have all inherited a sinful nature. Has Mr. Hirschfield forgotten that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that brought judgment continually throughout the Old Testament? It was that same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a worse sin than some of the others that I cited, but I believe that when a nation accepts it as a good, moral and normal lifestyle, then perhaps that nation has moved beyond the point of no return. Could that have been the reason God destroyed the aforementioned? Are we next?

People, you do not have to continue in a lifestyle that the Bible calls evil. No matter what your sin is, God loves you and died for you on the cross. He took your punishment and by accepting Him, He will grant you the Holy Spirit so that you no longer have to give in to your evil desires. To reject that free gift is to reject God and to be eternally separated from Him. The choice is yours.

Many of these commentators are religious philosophers, but they are not teachers of God's Word. Many of Hirschfield's ancient rabbis were false teachers also.

R. Hirschfield writes:

Practically speaking in this case, it means that when a church, or other religious institution, decides to go one way on an issue as divisive as gay ordination, they should help those who lost the debate to build a new church next door when they say that they must leave.
-----------------------------
I have given this recommendation considerable thought, and I must respectfully disagree. The granting of full enfranchisement to gays is long overdue. Once we finally give them the rights of full citizenship, we cannot permit "exceptions."

Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. that refuse to ordain gays must, at the very least, lose nonprofit status. A refusal to ordain a gay Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., is tantamount to refusing to ordain an African American.

In opposition, it may be argued that there are Black churches and White churches. It is true that almost unconsciously mindful of the history that created this segregation and, in the absence of protest, we have not interfered. However, the door for civil action against these churches remains open.

On the matter of gay clergy, the issue is different. There has been no historic division between gay and straight religious institutions. Hence, excluding gays from ordination may justly be seen as tantamount to denying gays or any other group employment or housing on the basis of his/her sex, race, etc.

Mgt2

You can call bigotry religous belief and demand respect for that belief. But it is still bigotry and does not deserve respect. And it does not deserve consideraton in a calm discussion.

I have taken a hard line with you because I am done trying to be reasonable with people like you. As I said before, the world is filled with people like you armed with your cobbled-together Bible quotes, seeking justification from God and God's permission to promote a personal anti-gay agenda.

So, I repeat what I know to be true, without polite argument, that your politically Conservative religion spreads false doctrines and lies about gay people which destroys families and ruins lives.

This is not tolerable, and will not be tolerated by, at least, a large segment of the population. If you did not know it before, you know it now.

BRAD HIRSCHFIELD

Just read your post, I really do not know who came up with the separate but equal thing that became enshrined in American law known as segregation but did you steal their script for this post?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

With agriculture and urbanization people lost their connection to wild nature and their awe of the world. Gods began to dwell solely in the remaining myths and people's imagination. They became distant and unknowable. More importantly, agriculture and building cities progressively raised people's awareness of natural forces, laws, and how to use them, and gods were less and less an obvious explanation of various phenomena.
At this point, the nature of God(s) begins to change, and "God" morphs into something else. "God" becomes the product of the limits of human cognition. For the last two or more millennia, theology uses "God" as an explanation of phenomena that are for all intents and purposes cognitive or cognition-related. The nature of "God", as induced and described in more recent theology reflects that change.
We are therefore in a position that is somewhat analogous to the position of the early humans. "God" is not an explanation. Miracles do happen, but to smack the "God" label on them would get us nowhere. On the other hand, the majority of people are oblivious to that fact that miracles do happen (in the sense of acausally but meaningfully related events, that are very unlikely).

If you look at the world as if you see it for the first time and know nothing about it, like people did thousands of years ago, then you'd see some really interesting things. Small versions of all the animals and humans pop out of them all the time, and it takes two varieties of each animal to do this. Similarly (by a stretch), plants come out seeds in the ground. This is something that seems prearranged, so it doesn't take much to conclude that an invisible female entity must exist, that decided that things would be this way.
With time it may become established that the dwelling of invisible all-powerful entities is in the sky. It can't be reached or touched and strange things go on there, unlike things on the ground. Rain, light and thunderbolts do reach the ground, so they must be special attributes of the designers of the earth, that establish a connection between the two worlds. If it wasn't for thunderbolts, the deities would probably still be female, but a thunderbolt does not fit well with a female character.
What this all means is that the early humans did not believe in gods - gods were the product of the limits of human understanding and knowledge, and the work of the gods was obvious for all to see, no faith required.

The deeper problem is that merely using the word "God" is idolatrous, because it conjures the image of Zeus. I know, no sane theologian would limit "God" to anthropic and biological attributes, properties, functions and modes of existence, but no one really appends fifty pages disclaiming Zeus when using the word "God". Ordinary people end up with Zeus, when they hear "God".
It's the same as the counter-arguments for crucifixes and icons. "Of course we know that they are not accurate or in any way exhaustive depictions of 'God', nor do we believe that the idol is itself a source of magical and godly emanations". Yet, 99% of the people who portend to believe in "God" see them in exactly this way, and crucifixes and idols do not come with warranties and disclaimers either.
The result of using the word "God", even if the user attaches a meaning to it that is not idolatrous, is the likes of W. and Ahmadinejad - obsequious spineless worms who seek to serve the highest possible power in a bid to get some of it delegated to themselves. And since Zeus does not tell them what to do, they stick to holy text legalism to justify to themselves and to everyone else the usage of any power they may lay their hands onto. And they wouldn't really lay their hands on any power if it weren't for vast numbers of similarly deluded people, at least in some parts of the world.

CCNL1's attention span is inevitably hindered by his refusal to stay on his meds. Hence, he has not addressed the points in my post.

I repaste it in hopes it will encourage him to take his Thorazine. We await his postings with references on the fiction of the Eucharist, the "trial" which never occurred, etc. If he does not post as requested, I shall do so, and all over OnFaith.
=========================================

Once again, CCNL posts his excerpt from a 2002 New York Times review. As always, CCNL1 is irrelevant.

Oddly, CCNL does not post some facts about the NT, given that he is an "atheist Catholic." Oddly, he does not post them on all the Christian/Catholic panelists' discussions, on the atheists' discussions, Hindus, et al. NO. TOO BAD. Because if he doesn't, I WILL. AND we don't cite the same sources.

He should concern himself, as an "atheist Catholic" with the "New Testament." He should post sites showing that the Eucharist derives from the Mystery religions of the region, not Judaism, and he should give sources. That is, never at any "Last Supper," never at any event in six thousand years would any Jew on the face of the earth have equated blood with wine or meat with flesh. It was unthinkable for any Jew to ingest any blood at all under any circumstances, etc. See the Tanakh, "OT." (Kosher meat has NO BLOOD.) The significance of the Kashrut is to radically inculcate a sense of the divisions of life and death. It was inviolable long before the first century.

If Jesus existed, if he was a Jew, he had nothing to do with anything equating blood/wine, flesh/meat, symbolically or otherwise.

The foregoing is the longheld view of reputable mainstream "NT" scholars.

CCNL should also point out that NO TRIAL ever occurred, no Sanhedrin. IT WAS PASSOVER.

To repeat for the repeater, to reinforce, as an "atheist Catholic" who knows the Eucharist is meaningless, but who nevertheless takes communion, btw, he should deal with his own "Testament," post sources all over OnFaith, or, again, I WILL.

Better idea for CCNL1: Take my suggestion and learn something about Judaism if you are interested. Otherwise stop worrying to death this ancient Times review, and post relevant comments.

PART II

But it is foolish to take the Bible literally as the word of God. Doing that is a large part of why we still have these conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians.
Posted by: rohitcuny | August 7, 2009 12:40 PM
=================================
There is no mention of Yerushalayem (Jerusalem) within Quoran, although it appears thousands of times in the Tanakh. It has been "introduced," however, in translations from the Arabic, thus allowing for some Palestinian extremists, though not all Palestinians, to find Quoranic justification for their wish to eradicate Israel.
-----------------
As I have posted to RohitCUNY before, perhaps, one of the best examples of religious oppression is to be found in the democratic nation of India, his nation.

India has three hundred million Dalit, "untouchables," who live in squalid misery beyond human imagination. I have posted on them before in detail and will do so again.

While some reform efforts are underway, they are few and far between and have no effect on the masses, who die young. THEY DIE YOUNG.

Rohit/CUNY might also wish to post on the Gujarat massacre of TWELVE HUNDRED MUSLIMS BY HINDUS, WHILE THE POLICE STOOD BY AND WATCHED.

This atrocity of a few years back has been called genocide.

The religious basis, Rohit?

And then there is the second-class status of Muslims, in general, in India. Hence, the Mumbai attack.
----------------------------
Rohit will no doubt wish to explain the religious bases for dowry death, bride burning, female feticide, etc.
---------------------------
Homosexuality in India, Rohit? Tell us how many from India condemn it just as you do.

And, Rohit, I await your reply to my oft-asked question about how your homophobia goes over at CUNY, if you are really there. A liberal institution, CUNY.

And according to Professor JD Crossan's thorough analysis, there was no trial for the simple preacher man aka Jesus:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

PART I

But it is foolish to take the Bible literally as the word of God. Doing that is a large part of why we still have these conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians.
Posted by: rohitcuny | August 7, 2009 12:40 PM
-----------------------------
As I have mentioned, as others have mentioned, the reasons for the Palistinian-Israeli conflict are complex. When one deals with the Tanakh, you are dealing with a text that is internally interpretive and that has been reinterpreted for thousands of years. Before you refer to Moses, etc., study the Talmud, subsequent commentators, etc.

While Rohit/CUNY's posting on the Torah and the Palestinian conflict is ill founded, so are comments seeking to justification for homophobia within the same text.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the point of homosexuality, Christians/Catholics who wish to refer to the Bible would do better to use the "NT" with which they are, one assumes, more familiar. (Most Christians/Catholics are not learned, or even familiar with Judaism, and, thus, are unaware that the Torah HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. Neither does the NT, but that isn't a Jewish issue. HOMOSEXUALITY, as a construct, as a social fact, did not enter the Western social imaginary until the nineteenth century. The concern of the Torah was to end MALE-ON -MALE RAPE, which was at the time, all the rage, by a socially more powerful man of a weaker one.

For a famous mythical instance, see the ancient Egyptian text, "The Contending of Horus and Seth." The Ramisside version is worth reading in any event, and both it and the version from the Book of the Dead (so called) are available on the web. Use google.
-----------------------
For Christians/Catholics, et al, who wish to debate the "NT" on homosexuality, these are the chapters and verses most commonly used by those who "abominate" homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7

Previously on the On Faith Blog:

How can anyone leave Judaism and its mostly mythical books out of a discussion of religion since it serves as the "foundation" of two of the largest religions of the world while itself continues to shrink?

To wit:

But the Holy Land is not so holy anymore based on recent studies by many Jewish and Christian exegetes i.e. no Abraham, no Moses, David was not a king but a local leader if that, the walls did not come tumbling down due to Joshua's horn blowing and there was no trial for Jesus and there were no physical resurrection, ascension or assumption.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=766
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html

And from the class notes from a large Catholic university's graduate religion class:

"Heaven is a Spirit state (no physical bodies abide so where is the resurrected, ascended body????)

Christ's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos)."

Farnaz's memory is apparently clouded by the many probability waves she deals with every day. Once again for her perusal:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology, all male hierarchies and strange banking and funding.

Once again, CCNL posts his excerpt from a 2002 New York Times review. As always, CCNL1 is irrelevant.

Oddly, CCNL does not post some facts about the NT, given that he is an "atheist Catholic." Oddly, he does not post them on all the Christian/Catholic panelists' discussions, on the atheists' discussions, Hindus, et al. NO. TOO BAD. Because if he doesn't, I WILL. AND we don't cite the same sources.

He should concern himself, as an "atheist Catholic" with the "New Testament." He should post sites showing that the Eucharist derives from the Mystery religions of the region, not Judaism, and he should give sources. That is, never at any "Last Supper," never at any event in six thousand years would any Jew on the face of the earth have equated blood with wine or meat with flesh. It was unthinkable for any Jew to ingest any blood at all under any circumstances, etc. See the Tanakh, "OT." (Kosher meat has NO BLOOD.) The significance of the Kashrut is to radically inculcate a sense of the divisions of life and death. It was inviolable long before the first century.

If Jesus existed, if he was a Jew, he had nothing to do with anything equating blood/wine, flesh/meat, symbolically or otherwise.

The foregoing is the longheld view of reputable mainstream "NT" scholars.

CCNL should also point out that NO TRIAL ever occurred, no Sanhedrin. IT WAS PASSOVER.

To repeat for the repeater, to reinforce, as an "atheist Catholic" who knows the Eucharist is meaningless, but who nevertheless takes communion, btw, he should deal with his own "Testament," post sources all over OnFaith, or, again, I WILL.

Better idea for CCNL1: Take my suggestion and learn something about Judaism if you are interested. Otherwise stop worrying to death this ancient Times review, and post relevant comments.

For everyone's perusal one more time:

"New York Times
ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

New Torah For Modern Minds

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation."

"The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.''

The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.''

explorers100 nails it

we are under attack by an enemy no less diabolical and sinister than al-Queda and the Taliban and with equally dangerous theocratic designs on our freedoms

Our democratic republic and the Revolution that birthed it and carries on to this very day is under attack. At least a third of this nation follows a belief system that this existence and this nation are temporary way points on a larger journey. They could care less about the great American experiment in government that tries to balance the needs of the many against the selfish interest of the individual.

They do after all seek a "Kingdom of God" not a democracy. Their God, often vengeful and downright schizophrenic demands adulation and worship. They are all too willing to leave all personal responsibility to the King. Humanity, flawed and of this earth is "not worthy" even to be in the King of Heavens presence.

Indeed, for this third of America, their belief system renders their lives so wretched, so judgmental they yearn for the "end times" and have conjured up bizarre explanations of how it will all end with they, the chosen, being at God's right hand side while he passes judgment on the rest of us sinners.

Their temporary digs here on earth have to be somewhat comfortable though. These religious people way in on taxes, health care, gun rights, war and politics in general. Its not enough to be wayfarers on a holy journey. They must tell the rest of us how to live, how we are doomed if we don't and how we should turn the country over to them

I really don't know if the nation has faced a greater enemy, this enemy within that seeks to replace the democratic republic so painfully won and held with this Kingdom where no one really has to think for themselves and all is already fated to occur.

and, yes, Greenstheman, I am intolerant of the intolerant. The difference is I admit it and don't run around claiming to be "holier than thou" and a superior, condescending "person of faith" in the name of poor old Jesus.

ROHITCUNY writes:

"We should take from the Bible what is good and reject what is not."
_________________________

Again, who decides which is which and what gives these mortals this authority to decide and dictate to others?

For those who say it is the word of God, tell me: are you willing to stone your child to death for being disobedient??

If so, I'd like to know whether you feel, as you're rotting in one of our prisons, that God will appear and magically fart you out jail because he endorsed it in the first place?

"....according to His word in the Bible."

And, because the bible contradicts itself and "people of faith" don't take it all literally (like putting Senator Ensign to death for committing adultery with his best friend's wife - Leviticus 20:10), who gets to decide what part is "His word" is and what part is not?

Do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God? All of it? If you do, do you believe we should open our borders to ALL the immigrants from Latin America? (Leviticus 19:33).

Herein lies your hypocrisy - you pick and choose what is convenient for you and your political agenda. And even though Jesus teaches you not to judge, you're going to do it anyway because you are right and have "God on your side" and, therefore, are "holier" than the "non-believers"

Civil law in the US is defined by the majority and not by your Bible.

Some here have brought up Buddhism. My experience at a Buddhist wedding (Thai) will throw cold water on all those practitioners of the Semitic religions that extrapolate from their own tradition in assuming all other major religions also bother with the rather mundane business of sex, sexuality, gender roles and family life. The happy couple stood before the seated head monk who admonished them calmly, but in no uncertain terms, that their marriage, based as it was on desire like all marriages, would bring them no happiness if they became attached to it. End of the joyous ceremony. In the Buddhist view, all desire is a self-perpetuating trap and it's all fundamentally alike. A very hard pill for modern Westerners, especially Americans, to swallow but hardly unknown in the classical West before Christianity. It makes no difference what the object is, even, horror of horrors, a person of the same sex.

I pity you, Brad Hirschfield, you do not have the backbone to stand straight and let the mother fukking gays know they are insane.

Posted by: Dikaiosune | August 7, 2009 3:01 PM

Reading your post, you sound like the one who needs serious pychiatric help. It's nice to have religious nutjobs like yourself prove so many of the sterotypes about Christians.
So I guess what I am saying is that I think that some of you mother fukkin Christians are insane.

"Jesus Christ Loves the sinner but hates the sin."
How pompous and condescending as well. Who are you to tell others what "sin" is? Are you God?
You cherry-pick your scriptures all you want to judge and condemn others and ignore those scriptures that apply to your arrogance and hatefulness.
Hypocritical "people of faith"
Posted by: coloradodog | August 7, 2009 3:03 PM

I do not tell you what sin is God has told us what sin is according to His word in the Bible.

Where is the hypocracy? condesending??

You are every bit as intolerant of me as you accuse me of being.

But it is foolish to take the Bible literally as the word of God. Doing that is a large part of why we still have these conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians.
Posted by: rohitcuny | August 7, 2009 12:40 PM

I disagree with you, you cannot pick and choose what to believe or not believe in the Bible.

the post you were replying to:

Thus we read in the Book of Numbers that the Jews "waged the campaign against Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and they put every male to death... the sons of Israel took the Midianite women captive with their young children, and plundered all their cattle, all their flocks and all their goods. They set fire to the towns where they lived and all their encampments... Then, when they took the captives, spoil and booty to Moses..., Moses was enraged.... 'why have you spared the life of all the women...? So kill all the male children. Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves".Num 31:7-19.

God had declared his judgement on those people and ordered the Israelites to kill. The Israelites disobeyed God's order that is why Moses responded the way he did.

Remember God spoke to him directly, Moses did not have to interpret anything on his own. God told him specifically whom to kill, and the reason God judged agains the Medians was because they where corrupt and sinful in God's eyes.

"Jesus Christ Loves the sinner but hates the sin."

How pompous and condescending as well. Who are you to tell others what "sin" is? Are you God?

You cherry-pick your scriptures all you want to judge and condemn others and ignore those scriptures that apply to your arrogance and hatefulness.

Hypocritical "people of faith"

Brad Hirschfield, if gay marriage is acceptable to a church and judiciary andlaw makers , then Warren Jeffs should be allowed to do whatever he deems fit for his own community. Lawmakers should enact laws to legalize Warren Jeffs activity too. The church should accept Warren Jeffs creation as God's creation.

I pity you, Brad Hirschfield, you do not have the backbone to stand straight and let the mother fukking gays know they are insane.

Light12345 pontificates:

Coloradodog wrote: "As it well should be. The Constitution trumps your bible when it comes to the law of the land. Even though your agenda is theocratic dominion over the rest of us via cherry-picked scriptures, the law of this land is religious freedom and that includes freedom for your sanctimonious dictates."

A perfect example of your rebelliousness and godlessness. You think your constitution trumps God's Word??? Indeed!!

If your own very heart stops pumping forever the next minute, the next day or the next week, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Yet, in your arrogance, you deny God. Who are you and where will you be a hundred years from now? Nothing but dust.

You talk about freedo0m? Yet, you spend more than half of your working life in your employment, a dictatorial set-up, constra blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
______________________

Well my goodness, may your small and shallow Abrahamic god bless your little heart for assuming my "godlessness" Look you pompous freak, I didn't volunteer to fight and die for my country for the likes of you to take away my freedom to believe as I like.

Who says I deny God? That is your ASSumption, you sad, deluded and hateful "person of faith" You worry about you and I'll worry about me. I have no problem with you primping, pretending, praying, and pimping poor old Jesus all you want but your freedom stops there. Capiche?

Despite whatever excuses / justifications people make for their actions, hate is hate - religious or otherwise.

"Stop Hurting People in God's Name"

Don't you think that to be as good advice for the treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Ghetto as it is for the terrorists sending rockets into Israel?

Finally,

Concerning "Speaking for God"

I think everyone should just lay off and say what they think God is saying to them on a personal level (whoever believes in God).

Some accuse others of the hubris of speaking for God while some deny that this is possible, yet these very people turn around and say what they, themselves, think God is saying, which makes their arguments kind of silly.

When we start respecting the right of other peoples' convictions and acknowledge that those convictions that disagree with ours are not necessarily prejudicial or malicious or are intending to harm, but are simply sincere, personal convictions on moral and spiritual issues, a truly enlightening conversation may ensue.

Understandably, people believe different things--and it is not just with religion. Consequently, each of us will live according to our convictions and respond to a host of issues within that schema.

Three points:

1. If two people find themselves in the same threatening life-and-death situation, each person will react according to their own conviction as to the correct way out of danger. In the end, who is correct will be clearly seen. But until then, each may try to convince the other of their own conviction.

2. It is only natural and right for a person to resist any attempt for anyone to force them to accept as part of their personal belief system anything they consider to be objectionable.

3. Impugning the intelligence, integrity and veracity of those who resist forced intrusions upon their personal beliefs is an act of agression that should not be tolerated by reasonable people.

To MGT2, let us assume for the breifest of moments (because thats about all I can take) that your correct. Nowhere in either the Christian or Hebrew bibles will you find the idea or the assertion (literal or figurative), "take what God has said in the past and ostracize from society or beat to death" homosexuals. On the contrary, no matter what slight intolerance or momentary aversion you may find in the bible against homosexuality it would be overwhelemd by the mass of sections imploring you to love others as you love yourself. To treat others as you would treat yourself. That would include homosexuals. Anyone who reads and misses that part of the bible is illiterate.
Ok..the moment has passed. Here's some bad news. The bible was written by people. People with flaws like the rest of us who sometimes imparted their prejudices and hates into the book. To pull those pieces out and use them to hurt others is to spit on the vast majority of a very old and beautiful book that implores us to find a way to live together.

To MGT2, let us assume for the briefest of moments (because thats about all I can take) that your correct. Nowhere in either the Christian or Hebrew bibles will you find the idea or the assertion (literal or figurative), "take what God has said in the past and ostracize from society or beat to death" homosexuals. On the contrary, no matter what slight intolerance or momentary aversion you may find in the bible against homosexuality it would be overwhelemd by the mass of sections imploring you to love others as you love yourself. To treat others as you would treat yourself. That would include homosexuals. Anyone who reads and misses that part of the bible is illiterate.
Ok..the moment has passed. Here's some bad news. The bible was written by people. People with flaws like the rest of us who sometimes imparted their prejudices and hates into the book. To pull those pieces out and use them to hurt others is to spit on the vast majority of a very old and beautiful book that implores us to find a way to live together.

To MGT2, let us assume for the breifest of moments (because thats about all I can take) that your correct. Nowhere in either the Christian or Hebrew bibles will you find the idea or the assertion (literal or figurative), "take what God has said in the past and ostracize from society or beat to death" homosexuals. On the contrary, no matter what slight intolerance or momentary aversion you may find in the bible against homosexuality it would be overwhelemd by the mass of sections imploring you to love others as you love yourself. To treat others as you would treat yourself. That would include homosexuals. Anyone who reads and misses that part of the bible is illiterate.
Ok..the moment has passed. Here's some bad news. The bible was written by people. People with flaws like the rest of us who sometimes imparted their prejudices and hates into the book. To pull those pieces out and use them to hurt others is to spit on the vast majority of a very old and beautiful book that implores us to find a way to live together.

The better thing to do would be to ban your fear and ignorance, but since that probably is impossible, you do the easy thing and try and segregate us and make us less than who we are. Won't work.

Thus we read in the Book of Numbers that the Jews "waged the campaign against Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and they put every male to death... the sons of Israel took the Midianite women captive with their young children, and plundered all their cattle, all their flocks and all their goods. They set fire to the towns where they lived and all their encampments... Then, when they took the captives, spoil and booty to Moses..., Moses was enraged.... 'why have you spared the life of all the women...? So kill all the male children. Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves".Num 31:7-19.
/////////////////////////
Isn't this utterly charming? i mean, who wouldn't want to be part of such a loving religion?
Posted by: obx2004
---------
This is a great quote. But we should not use that quote to conclude that the Bible is completely wrong about everything. After all, even Einstein was wrong about some things. We should take from the Bible what is good and reject what is not.

But it is foolish to take the Bible literally as the word of God. Doing that is a large part of why we still have these conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Shariputra, you should know that at the start I took a vow hoping to make all persons equal to me, without any distinction between us, and what I long ago hoped for has now been fulfilled." The Lotus Sutra
Posted by: edbyronadams
---------
Thanks.

But you did not answer my part about "in ALL ways." I still think that he is dead and I am not, so we are not equal in that way. And I still cannot buy milk in a hardware store.

I suspect that the Buddha is talking about some sort of spiritual equality which is also endorsed by Krishna in the Bhagavadgita.

Krishna says, "Vidyavinayasampanne, brahmane gavi hastini, shuni chaiva, shvapakecha, panditah samadarshini."

As you can see, Sanskrit goes in for long words. And the meaning is, "A polite and learned Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a (low caste) eater of dogs; they are all the same to the wise."

But Krishna would not have endorsed gay marriage and I do not know if the Buddha would have. I suspect not from some other things he said about sex. He was not a fan even of hetero sex.

A distinction is always made between allowing pragmatic distinctions which are OK, and making spiritual distinctions which are not OK since we are all spiritually equal.

Thus we read in the Book of Numbers that the Jews "waged the campaign against Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and they put every male to death... the sons of Israel took the Midianite women captive with their young children, and plundered all their cattle, all their flocks and all their goods. They set fire to the towns where they lived and all their encampments... Then, when they took the captives, spoil and booty to Moses..., Moses was enraged.... 'why have you spared the life of all the women...? So kill all the male children. Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves".Num 31:7-19.

/////////////////////////

Isn't this utterly charming? i mean, who wouldn't want to be part of such a loving religion?

"Shariputra, you should know that at the start I took a vow hoping to make all persons equal to me, without any distinction between us, and what I long ago hoped for has now been fulfilled." The Lotus Sutra

How about this? Could God be the expression of one's awareness of the activity of one's own corpus collosum...that area of the brain that fosters communication and mediation between experience based reason and emotion and attempts to offer the best information a person can muster to guide behavior. I am sure our awareness of this process is the origin of the idea/power of any god, no matter how religion has taken its power from it, for good and for bad.
Posted by: hcandide
----------
The trouble with the theory is that people talked about God long before they ever heard of the corpus collosum.

"Absolute equality can degenerate into the flattening of all difference and diversity, using equality as the excuse for genuine oppression of individual expression."
In Buddhist teachings, equality is expresed in the Lotus Sutra as all equal to the Buddha in all aspects of life and death. Patrick
Posted by: patmatthews |
---------
Can you give a direct quote from the Lotus Sutra which substantiates your point? I am skeptical about the "ALL aspects of life and death."

There is many a time I have tried to buy milk at a hardware store, claiming that everything is equal, and never succeeded! :)

I am a teacher and some of my students get A's, some get B's and an occasional student might even get a lower grade. Am I going against the Buddha? Would he disapprove?

I am a Buddhist myself, and do not think that the Buddha ever intended to approve of the "anything goes" mentality of some anti-Christians. I am not saying you are one, but would appreciate it if you explain yourself.

There is some circumstantial evidence that Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. His call to the apostles to leave their families and follow him is very much against Jewish tradition. But it falls squarely within Buddhist tradition. His renouncing of "an eye for an eye" seems also much closer to the Buddha than to the Old Testament.

What can I say...that is what Christians believe; it is called faith MGT2 said

yes we have "faith" but not a blind faith!!
FAITH-belief and trustin GOD;KNOWING that GOD is real.

Here is what the Buddha said about the existence of God:

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create happiness but only discord?

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

"If the creator of the world entire
they call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail! "

But note that the Buddha never denied the importance of morality. Indeed morality if one of the three pillars of Buddhism.

Also, the Buddha does sometimes refer to the "uncreated". This could be taken to be a reference to a spirit underlying this world. But the Buddha did not want to assert the existence of a white haired God hurling thunderbolts.

I didn't know that the Christian God believed in the principle of separate but equal. How many heaven's does He have? Certainly if He didn't want us to live together on earth He wouldn't want us to share the save heaven.

EXERDA says:

"the "word of god" is a complete tautology; anyone who knows even basic reasoning skills should be able to see that. It's right because it's in the bible, which is the word of god. And the bible is the word of god because the bible says so, and because it's the word of god, it can't be wrong on that point, eh? Isn't this circular reasoning and its weakness readily apparent?!"

What can I say...that is what Christians believe; it is called faith, and it comes before reasoning because that is what God requires, yikes, which is also tautological. We cannot escape this mire; we can only try to explain by saying God says so, because we have nothing else to turn to.

The truth is, without faith that the things we claim are so, Christianity makes no sense. But then, the Bible says (here I go again) that what we believe is foolishness to the natural man. However, we have the confidence, as the Bible also says, that the "foolishness" of God confounds the wisdom of man.

I guess that dosen't make any sense, does it?

Your opinion on the above three things is based upon what proof? Hopefully it is not based upon some centuries old hand-me-down stories that get translated from one language into another, and then into another langiuage, etc.
Posted by: ahashburn | August 7, 2009 6:32 AM

The Bible.

How about this? Could God be the expression of one's awareness of the activity of one's own corpus collosum...that area of the brain that fosters communication and mediation between experience based reason and emotion and attempts to offer the best information a person can muster to guide behavior. I am sure our awareness of this process is the origin of the idea/power of any god, no matter how religion has taken its power from it, for good and for bad.

The problem with *your* point of view, then, is that you have the hubris to believe that you can fully comprehend what your god wants. If he is as omniscient and omnipotent as you believe, then there is no possibility that any human can ever comprehend so much; we can each only seek to act in a way that accords with how we, as individuals, *interpret* the will of god. God may have only one response, but it is so vast that each of us must interpret that response in his own way. Berating and belittling people for not undestanding god the same way that you do only displays bigotry and hatred; and here I thought your god was one of understanding and compassion. My mistake.

I do not profess that I understand everything God wants, I can only understand the things I have learned over the years of stuying the Bible.

I do believe the Bible is inspired by God. You are correct in your statement that it is impossible for man to understand God.

You are correct in that we have to seek Him and that is a life long process, the thing we have to learn is to interpret Gods word correctly, this is done over a life time of building a relationship with Him.

Please do not assume that I am a biggot or homophobic. I am not, I am hispanic and I have dealt with prejudice in my life time, I have learned over time not to give power to those prejudist people. They have only as much power as I give them, and I do not give any power to them. I have learned not to by my relationship with Jesus Christ.

I do not hate or wish to cause harm to gay people, I think some preachers do not explain the true intent of God's word as is stated in the Bible wich is we are all sinners there are no exceptions, we are all able to get redemption throught Jesus Christ.

JITL - Perhaps you should follow your own advice. There's actually relatively little in the bible about homosexual acts and nothing at all about homosexual orientation, of which the ancient Hebrews had no concept, and if you're going to deny the existence of sexual orientation because it's not in the bible be prepared then to abandon your claim to being heterosexual. There's far more in the bible about things the injunctions against which Christians routinely ignore or even find abhorrent (stoning disobedient children? Wearing cloth woven of more than one fabric? Slaves obeying their masters? Women being silent in church? etc. etc.) You'll be especially disappointed by the gospels. Jesus never bothers to allude to the subject of homosexuality despite living in a time and place dominated culturally by the Greeks where it was commonplace. Surely if it were so important to God (a tiny fraction as important as the subject is to many of today's gay-obsessed Christian bigots) the Word of God made man could have found the time to utter at least one condemnation of it. But, too bad for you, He didn't.

TRAMBUSTO:

You said

"I do know though, that God is everywhere. And that nobody has any business invoking His name to justify their personal biases. Instead, they should look to Him for help and guidance in understanding the great diversity of mankind."

Just reading the words, what you say is theologically sound, in my view, and I am inclined to agree with the sentiments expressed purely on that level.

However, I am not sure what you mean in the context of the topic being discussed.

"If your own very heart stops pumping forever the next minute, the next day or the next week, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Yet, in your arrogance, you deny God. Who are you and where will you be a hundred years from now? Nothing but dust."

Who is being arrogant here? You stand up and proclaim your belief to be above all others and that everyone is wrong except you.

I fell caught between the fundamentalism of some religious people, and the "Anything goes, and I hate God" attitude of some anti-religious people.

Surely we cannot say that killing or bearing false witness are "OK" simply because the Bible forbids them? Many things in the Bible are GOOD. We need to find some proper compromise and balance between following the Bible blindly and treating it with contempt. We need a balance between morality and freedom.

As we game theorists know quite well, society is going to break down without morality. Ever hear of the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons?

Why do we have a 50% divorce rate and 40% of children in one parent households? Because religion, whatever its faults, has lost its role as the agent encouraging people to act morally. It is NOT good for the children and it is not good for the parents.

So we NEED morality simply for practical reasons. On the other hand, we cannot have one religion forcing its dogmas not only on the non-religious but also on the other religions. So I would say, Balance, Balance, Balance! And I say it to both sides.

trambusto

you need to sit down and read your bible..just because the bible dose not fit someone's life style dosn't mean the bible is wrong!! oh.. maybe it's there life style??? thats why people say how can you believe that book..1. they never READ the bible 2.it cramps there life style! so if i don't believe in GOD HE will just go away.. i dont think so!! HE IS HERE TO STAY.

Let's substitute race here for sexual orientation. I doubt Mr. Hirschfield would make the same argument and there have been plenty of Christians, in this country at least, who found biblical justification for both slavery and the system of racial apartheid that followed it. Yet basic sexual orientation is no more chosen than a person's skin color. Do celibate heterosexuals cease to be heterosexual? Of course not, because their orientation is inherent and abides. So too with homosexuals. So this is fundamentally about what people ARE, not what they DO, and despite dishonest intellectual arguments to the contrary the bigotry is in fact aimed at the state of being homosexual, not any sexual conduct that arises from it. No gay basher ever bothered to ask his victims if they were sexually active. Given that, the burden of proof should rest on anti-gay heterosexuals to show that being homosexual is inherently harmful. It's not. On the contrary, what often is very detrimental both to gay people and those they share their lives with is their being dishonest about it. So those who cherry pick Leviticus, completely misread the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (the sin there that causes God to wish to destroy those cities was the threat of man on man rape in order to degrade and humiliate, hardly the same thing as having a homosexual orientation) or who rely on Paul (who makes sweeping generalizations about "sexual deviants" that in no way characterize the vast majority of homosexuals) place gay people in a truly untenable and fundamentally absurd spiritual position - to live a life of lies and deceit in order to be morally acceptable in their eyes.

Yes, the phrase "Religious Hypocrisy" reads like a Thesaurus, and the its realities are far from amusing.

coloradodog wrote: "As it well should be. The Constitution trumps your bible when it comes to the law of the land. Even though your agenda is theocratic dominion over the rest of us via cherry-picked scriptures, the law of this land is religious freedom and that includes freedom for your sanctimonious dictates."

A perfect example of your rebelliousness and godlessness. You think your constitution trumps God's Word??? Indeed!!

If your own very heart stops pumping forever the next minute, the next day or the next week, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Yet, in your arrogance, you deny God. Who are you and where will you be a hundred years from now? Nothing but dust.

You talk about freedo0m? Yet, you spend more than half of your working life in your employment, a dictatorial set-up, constrained to be politically correct. How pathetic!

The image of God: compassion, empathy, understanding, tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness and love. Honor him by representing him.

"I have seen the reactions from both sides on the gay issue. The only way I can explain without interjecting my personal view is this way. Jesus Christ Loves the sinner but hates the sin."
*************************

This statement always strikes me as somewhat odd. I remember a scene in one of the Batman movies where Bruce is in a restaurant with two beautiful women who decide to strip naked and swim in a large fountain inside the establishment. Bruce's old girlfriend shows up, witnesses the shenanigans and is obviously not impressed. Bruce offers some half-hearted responce such as "I'm still the same person I was before". And to this she returns something to the tune of "Bruce, one is defined by their actions and the choices they make in life". The essential meaning was it's not possible to separate one from their actions and judge them independently.

To my point, we define a person by their actions and the choices they make. So how is it possible to separate one from their actions and choices? How can one love the person (sinner) but not the wrong actions they do (sins).

"Buddhism also teaches the concept of "many in spirit, and one in mind" indicating the infinite diverse backgrounds of many people, united with a single spirit of equality and individual happiness based on a correct understanding of life andd death to achieve the happines of all people inclusively."

It's too bad many Christians think this way of thinking is BS.

"Absolute equality can degenerate into the flattening of all difference and diversity, using equality as the excuse for genuine oppression of individual expression."

In Buddhist teachings, equality is expresed in the Lotus Sutra as all equal to the Buddha in all aspects of life and death.

Buddhism also teaches the concept of "many in spirit, and one in mind" indicating the infinite diverse backgrounds of many people, united with a single spirit of equality and individual happiness based on a correct understanding of life andd death to achieve the happines of all people inclusively.

I think Christian teachings have been changed by the teachers/preachers/ministers/priests themselves to put the preacher/teacher/minister/priest in charge and the people relagated to an inferior position to the clergy, which I am sure is not the intended outcome for Christianity, Catholism, and Muslim teachings.

Deciding how people should live and die, and what style of life people should live; how many children use of birth control, gay or straight, etc; these are all personal choices, and anyone judging anothers life should start by judging their own life alone and leave others to do the same.

Religion used as a tool to control others is just that, a tool to use and abuse others happiness.

Patrick

Light12345 wrote:

"The US is a godless nation, despite all its pretensions."

As it well should be. The Constitution trumps your bible when it comes to the law of the land. Even though your agenda is theocratic dominion over the rest of us via cherry-picked scriptures, the law of this land is religious freedom and that includes freedom for your sanctimonious dictates.

If your so called "Christians" are the majority, they can vote accordingly (worked real well last November, huh?) If you think you can use the bible to bully the rest of us, you're delusional and need to go find some dictatorial Jesuslandia to live in - maybe Kansas or Utah, for example.

I read this shortly after hearing of another wack job on a killing spree, this time mowing down an aerobics class before turning the gun on himself. Guess what? He had ties to an ultraconservative preacher who believes women are the property of their husbands, blah blah blah.

Enough already! These crazy people need to get psychological help, not more guns.

Indeed. Religion does not justify crazy.

Stop. Hurting. People. In. God's. Name.

If Man is Created in the image of God, it must follow that God has the potential for great evil as well as great good.

Satan and God are two sides of the same coin?

It amazes me how "religious" people who believe their god made everything, including the sex drive, somehow tweaked it a bit as a cruel joke for the entertainment of the majority of his followers. They seem to believe same sex attraction was a gift for them to use to hate, scapegoat, exclude, deride and bash gys to bring them together against a common enemy and, in the case of evangelicals, Mormons and O'Reilly Catholics to bind them together in Christ's love.

It should come as no surprise to readers who believe that the Torah is the word of G-d that the great ancient Rabbis never opened the door to any such "dynamic tension" whatsoever that the writer of this column wants to lay claim to when it came to Jews violating the Torah.

Especially when they violated explicit commandments.

The entire tractate of "Avoda Zara" goes into great depth to explore the prohibition being discussed here. Nowhere does it entertain any consideration of any leniency because of 'His Image' or anything like that.

People breaking the Torah often point to Rabbinic arguments as if to say that anyone's allowed to disagree about anything. This is so disingenuous as to be an insult.

Just because the Rabbis disagreed about exactly how to measure distances of permitted areas on the Sabbath does not mean one can now drive a car on the Sabbath and 'disagree' with the fact that fire is prohibited on the Sabbath.

Likewise no Rabbi of our great Talmudic past anywhere ever allowed this practice being discussed here to be permitted. Period.

Do you think God is happy with someone like, say, Benny Hinn, who manipulates gullible people desperate for some connection to Him, and who has has made millions of dollars off of this desperation? I never hear Christians say anything about this charlatan.

You know, clean your house first. Maybe you'd have more guests.

ccnl1 wrote: Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality.
*******************

Excuse me, Clarissa, but where do you get off saying that a particular expression of a gene is defective?

That's like saying that when the gene for eye color expresses it as "green" that it is defective and must therefore be purged from the gene pool.

Or the gene for blond hair.
Or the gene for male pattern baldness.
Or the gene for high metabolism.

...my point is, you're walking dangerously close to the fine line of "clensing" when you speak maliciously of "defective" gene expression.

Please learn to distinguish between normal ranges of gene expression (phenotypes) and genetic mutations/defects.

Nice article... a bit confusing but the point is clear.

If clergy find value in providing spiritual leadership to the masses, I am left to wonder how they feel when people refuse to worship with them.

I was raised intermittently Christian, until one day when everything gelled and I realized that my moral beliefs and ideologies were not compatible with the teachings of the church I attended.

During my late teens, I went on a spiritual journey, to try and find a faith that mirrored my own beliefs. I tried everything that was available to me, but still felt empty.

Eventually, I resigned to the fact that God did not exist -- that He was created in Man's image. I spent the better part of 10 years introducing myself as an atheist, but in fact I was probably agnostic.

Only recently did I begin to explore my faith again. I still can't find anything that mirrors my beliefs.

I do know though, that God is everywhere. And that nobody has any business invoking His name to justify their personal biases. Instead, they should look to Him for help and guidance in understanding the great diversity of mankind.

Posted by: greenstheman:
"GOD is the same today,tommorow as He was was in the beggining.

God is not politically correct, it is HIS way period.

As the Creator he has the sole right to dictate what is right or wrong and that is the standard we have to live by. "

Your opinion on the above three things is based upon what proof? Hopefully it is not based upon some centuries old hand-me-down stories that get translated from one language into another, and then into another langiuage, etc.

Let me comment on what I know for sure about God- 0
Now let me speak with certanity to you all about what God thinks - 0
When I am done adding 0+0 and frustrated I will just go my way and rely on personal faith.

The NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews or non-Mormons but it should be a major concern to those religious types who believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian/Jewish/Mormon God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality. One might conclude from this that the Christian/Jewish/Mormon God would therefore approve same-sex unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

And just a reminder, reiteration is good for the brain and the soul!!!

You are a deceptive person supposedly speaking up for Christians and the church. But don't you know that the Bible said ever so clearly in many verses about homosexuality as a sin? Example 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, . . , nor swindlers. . ."
The US is a godless nation, despite all its pretensions. Promiscuities, gays etc are everywhere. It is the Sodom and Gomorrah of today. Gays and you can say "Oh, my feelings are hurt!" all you want. You think God cares when He punish Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins!!

Hi Rabbi Hirschfield,

RABBI: "On the other hand, if we are all truly equal, then how could it ever be appropriate for me to make any judgments about anything that others do, or to have any needs which compete with anyone else's? Absolute equality can degenerate into the flattening of all difference and diversity, using equality as the excuse for genuine oppression of individual expression."

The only reason it would be appropriate to make any judgment is when God has said it is right or wrong to do something. Other than that all any judgment would be is one subjective opinion slated against another.

I agree with you in that since man is created in God's image, each one should demand respect and decency, but we have the problem of the Fall, where mankind decided they would know the difference between good and evil, and that happened when mankind believed the lie, instead of what God said was true and good (Genesis 3:1-5) and decided to place their authority over that of the ultimate authority that is God's (Genesis 3:6).

That is still the same problem we have today, in which each individual is deciding for themselves, with no absolute standard or authority, what is and what is not right and good.

Our equality is in the fact that we, as human beings and different from animals, are created in God's image and likeness, not in that everyone has the equal right and authority to decide for himself/herself what that right and good should be. That is where you make your mistake in equating equality with the "right" to call goodness evil and visa versa (Judges 17:6). Only God establishes what is the standard of good and right. Therefore, because He has said what marriage is to be, I as a human being, can know what is acceptable in His eyes and what is not. And He has clearly said what is right when it comes to marriage and homosexuality. Anything that goes against His standard will be judged by Him as evil; the opposite of good.

Hi Rcubedkc,

RCUBEDKC: "The sooner the human race grows away from the absolute stupidity of any sort of imaginary god, the better off we'll all be."

Yes, the sooner we replace false and imaginary gods with the worship of the one true and living God, the better off we will be!

RCUBEDKC: "And to be honest, if there was a god, what a sick, demented, warped, freak it would have to be."

Honesty requires an objective standard, otherwise it is mere opinion, and why is your mere opinion to be THE ONE validated and valued by the rest of us, as honest? BTW, what is your final reference point in regards to honesty? Whom or what do you measure honesty by? Honesty implies truthfulness, uprightness, integrity and righteousness. You are describing God.

As for "sick, demented, warped," isn't it amazing what humans have done to other humans while suppressing the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18)? For if your claim were true, as you claim, there is no God, then sick, demented, warped, is just what one human being does to another. It is one subjective opinion pitted against another. Where is the justice that you seem to so long for and as your anger implies there "should" be?

Why is this world in such a mess? Why are the rules different from country to country and from era to era? Why so many Mao's and Hitler's and Stalin's and Poi Pot's and Idi Amin's and Castro's and Sadam Hussan's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, who all have their own subjective standard of right and good?

As the rock band King Crimson lyrics in "Epitaph" say,

"Knowledge is a deadly friend
If no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying."

OH JEZUS MARIA DEAR MR HIRSCHFIELD ITS ALL A SCAM THIS JEZUS/GOD HOKUS/POKUS. ITS A MONEY MAKING FRAUD, GAY OR STRAIGHT.ITS DESIGNED TO RIP-OFF GOOD PEOPLE. RELIGION
POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!

Thank you, Rabbi Hirschfield for an excellent article. The main reason I was drawn to a spiritual teaching, rather than religion, was the heaven or hell, saint or sinner judgements of traditional Christian religion. I believe that we will all come together some day and sit with each other in peace as we worship our ideal of G-d, but until then, your words make very good sense.

I agree with former US Senator John Danforth (Republican and an ordained minister) when he says the Christian Right is responsible for the increased polarization of US politics and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality.
It's easy to see why the Christian Right is so intolerant:
1. They are on God's side and anyone who disagrees with them is not.
2. They know God's will and all others do not.
3. They will use the power of government to advance their understanding of God's kingdom.
4. Anyone who opposes them is against God.
Why would religious conservatives compromise with, consider the views of, or even be civil to those who are agents of Satan? By definition, anyone who opposes the Christian Right is so.
Posted by: bpai_99 |
----------
I agree. But liberals have the same arrogance. When they call themselves progressives they seem to be saying, "In the future everyone will be like us and think the same thoughts we are thinking now."

I find this frightening. I would prefer to deal with people who are able to say, "You disagree with me and I with you, but let us discuss, and the future belongs to BOTH of us."

It is also worrisome when liberals are horror stricken at the execution of someone like Saddam Hussein, but seem to be able to take the killings of millions of unborn in their stride.

I would be very happy if both the right and the liberals were able to learn just a little humility.

Consider phrasing it this way; one side wishes to be given an equal opportunity to bring the word of their lord to other believers and the other has decided to demonize and exclude those people because the don't fit their mold of a "moral" person. Which side is closer to the divine?

Forty million foetuses have died in the US since 1973. Were they killed by God? Can we lay these deaths at God's door? If we can, then surely God is evil. If we can't lay these deaths at God's door, then perhaps someone else is evil?

Just a question.

Fascinating debate, but it amazes me that people of any faith can state so emphatically what God will or will not tolerate or condemn or praise. Those who do so have influenced me to at last find peace in the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Simple enough for most folks, I imagine, since "walk a mile in another's shoes" seems to be beyond most folks' imaginative capabilities.

Well, the bible has already "killed" people in the name of GOD. So throw away the Bible or burn it.

Considering the historical and theological flaws and errors in the foundations of all religions, there should be no clergy, straight or gay at all. Next question!!!

i am surprised you haven't heard god does not exist, and if he did exist he is evil to the core, at least if you believe he wrote the bible. how can you idiots believe in a god that can't write his own books and has to use "agents", collect his own money and has to use business agents, and cannot build his own places of worship? for the rabbi: where was your god about 60 years ago? yeah, i thought so.

GREENSTHEMAN wrote:
the problem with this point of view is that you are trying to assume that God has MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE to any of life's important questions. God has ONE response,His response. GOD is the same today,tommorow as He was was in the beggining. God is not politically correct, it is HIS way period.
----
The problem with *your* point of view, then, is that you have the hubris to believe that you can fully comprehend what your god wants. If he is as omniscient and omnipotent as you believe, then there is no possibility that any human can ever comprehend so much; we can each only seek to act in a way that accords with how we, as individuals, *interpret* the will of god. God may have only one response, but it is so vast that each of us must interpret that response in his own way. Berating and belittling people for not undestanding god the same way that you do only displays bigotry and hatred; and here I thought your god was one of understanding and compassion. My mistake.

Rabbi Hirschfield is right in not taking a stance on religion and personal choices. This should not stop him however when a personal choice wrapped in religious packaging is used to physically torment, kill, and dehumanize others. I can not erase photos from my mind of Israeli soldiers beating to death a young child who had spit at them. This was their "religious" duty because Hamas has some terrorists? This is where men of faith, any faith must speak out. End the holocaust now.

The sooner the human race grows away from the absolute stupidity of any sort of imaginary god, the better off we'll all be.

And to be honest, if there was a god, what a sick, demented, warped, freak it would have to be.

"How about if we just all come to the realization that fairy tales are just that; that god's are a figment of ones imagination; that human beings are essentially good creatures and only become vicious and violent when they perceive they are acting in the best interest of their god--"

Wrong, There is only one God, and one savior Jesus Christ. There is no other.

The belief that man is essentially good is mans own perception and is a means to justify his/her disbelief in the Lord. In order to go on doing things that are spiritually immoral, and just be liberal in that anything goes, and all is well.

Be as politically correct as you will, but your unbelief in Jesus Christ does not mean he does not exist.

I have seen the reactions from both sides on the gay issue. The only way I can explain without interjecting my personal view is this way. Jesus Christ Loves the sinner but hates the sin.

I agree with former US Senator John Danforth (Republican and an ordained minister) when he says the Christian Right is responsible for the increased polarization of US politics and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality.

It's easy to see why the Christian Right is so intolerant:

1. They are on God's side and anyone who disagrees with them is not.
2. They know God's will and all others do not.
3. They will use the power of government to advance their understanding of God's kingdom.
4. Anyone who opposes them is against God.

Why would religious conservatives compromise with, consider the views of, or even be civil to those who are agents of Satan? By definition, anyone who opposes the Christian Right is so.

"Practically speaking in this case, it means that when a church, or other religious institution, decides to go one way on an issue as divisive as gay ordination, they should help those who lost the debate to build a new church next door when they say that they must leave."

So, Rabbi, what you're advocating is essentially a "separate but equal" doctrine that will allow those in power (the "winners") to exclude the powerless (the "losers") from their antiseptic little world.

Saying "we don't want you, but we'll help you build a place away from here" does nothing but reinforce bigotry and prejudice while doing nothing to encourage tolerance and understanding.

Well done, Rabbi. You've given the "winners" yet another gold star.

Remove God from consideration of all things political and you'll soon have people who will kill you for any sort of secular reason that comes to hand.

Like being gay. Or not being gay.

MGT2

You did compare gay people to murderers and liars. You did it more than once. But then you said, you love them anyway. That is passive aggressive, and much more insulting than anything I have siad to you. Reflect on your own invective before making unfouded accusations to me.

And to the other fellow so critical of me, I said that since sexual orientation is part of ones personality and identity, the goal to turn gay people straight poses a mortal threat to individual gay people.

That is a fact. If the anti-gay agenda is taken to its logical conclusion, where does that lead?

Faith is really just a gun to your head.

Don't ask for proof, it's a sin. You must accept what we say and believe, or you're going to hell.

What a marketing tool!

MGT2 and all other like minded folk,

The Torah, Bible, Koran are just books... books written by humans. Places of worship are just buildings built by humans who read these books and who think they can find god in these buildings. It is these books and buildings we need to get rid of and learn what god really is within each of us. I can't imagine god cares whether you are gay, straight, or bi, have oral sex or anal sex or no sex. I suspect god cares that we are compassionate, kind and understanding with each other. But what do I know... I haven't read the "book"

Here's a logic problem for those insisting on the "created in god's image" line: what of women? Does (the Christian) god have more than one aspect? Or are only men created in that god's image? And if women can be created in (or not--really, it's irrelevant) god's image, then why not variations of gender and sexuality, too?

The whole argument US-CONSCIENCE posted about the "in god's image" bit being true because the bible says so and the bible is the "word of god" is a complete tautology; anyone who knows even basic reasoning skills should be able to see that. It's right because it's in the bible, which is the word of god. And the bible is the word of god because the bible says so, and because it's the word of god, it can't be wrong on that point, eh? Isn't this circular reasoning and its weakness readily apparent?!

So much intellectual power, time and ink cartridges and paper wasted on what is essentially a worthless pursuit: Explaining god.
How about if we just all come to the realization that fairy tales are just that; that god's are a figment of ones imagination; that human beings are essentially good creatures and only become vicious and violent when they perceive they are acting in the best interest of their god--as in 9/11, the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Crusades . . .?

Posted by: hyjanks | August 6, 2009 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
___________________________________________

You poor soul.

How do we know we were all created in Gods image ??? the answer is a cliche but true - "The Bible tells us so" the Bible is Gods word and God didnt stop talking in the first chapters of Genesis. God has been pleased to tell us many things and through His son Jesus, the very image of the invisible God, He has told us even more.

God has made it clear that certain actions are in conflict with His nature and attributes. These actions are called "sin". They include lying, stealing, murder, dishonoring your parents, using Gods name in vain, loving anything more than you love God, and.... Adultery. But Jesus opened up the law, unfolded its spiritual meaning by showing us for example that even lusting after someone is committing adultery in the heart and that hatred is as murder. As much as people hate the idea, God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, and sin in its fruition leads to spiritual death.

Lets call the kettle black here: homosexuality is clearly shown in Gods word to be a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

If you want to cry "peace, peace" when there is no peace, or just do what ever you want regardless of the consequences, then go ahead. But lets stop saying that the Bible, God, and Jesus does not clearly state what is and isnt sin.

If you dont want to be Christian, then dont, follow your own desires and do whatever is right in your own eyes. But stop being a hypocrite by claiming that you are a Christian.

The god made in man's image is a nationalistic god who cares for our soldiers and sees to it that our country comes out on top no matter what and our collateral damages never have to be repaid. As for body and mind we don't have any, we just have spirit, so forget about sexual identity. We figure it is better to be disembodied than try and merge body and mind. Trying to live with our instincts and our conceptualizations that rationalize all kinds of collateral damage and demonization is just too difficult, it would be better if we were just the cause of our own extinction and get it over with so we can collect our reward.

"If the God in whom we believe is truly infinite, then how can we assume that there is only one finite response to any of life's important questions, including who is fit for religious leadership or what is appropriate sexuality?"

the problem with this point of view is that you are trying to assume that God has MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE to any of life's important questions. God has ONE response,His response. GOD is the same today,tommorow as He was was in the beggining. God is not politically correct, it is HIS way period.

As the Creator he has the sole right to dictate what is right or wrong and that is the standard we have to live by. God gave us the freedom of choice, we either accept His way or not, either way we are responsible for the choice we make.

It is men that attempt to introduce compromise in God's word, a compromise that is fueled by Satan.

Hyjanks- then equally valid is the argument that people who act in their own best interest against another's god are just as vicious and violent.

Grow up, and leave the religious alone as I'm sure you wish they'd leave you alone. Lead by example, it goes a long way.

So much intellectual power, time and ink cartridges and paper wasted on what is essentially a worthless pursuit: Explaining god.
How about if we just all come to the realization that fairy tales are just that; that god's are a figment of ones imagination; that human beings are essentially good creatures and only become vicious and violent when they perceive they are acting in the best interest of their god--as in 9/11, the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Crusades . . .?

Bidalah- you say Mr. Hirschfield's argument is wrong because it technically opens the doors to all sorts of questionable things being considered legit, but really the ONLY solution is to have all these separate denominations with their own unique beliefs, so that people can freely practice their beliefs.

You badge everyone who thinks differently than you in terms of gay clergy to be wrong, yet who are you to make this declaration? What's more, you take it a step further and throw the whole group of those who simply believe this one thing in with those who would truly do harm and repress homosexuals in other daily aspects, which goes way too far and I find to be a bit hypocritical.

If you don't like what one church teaches, go to another one (or none at all). If a church wants to have gay clergy, or DOESN'T want them, leave them be, as long as in our multi-faceted, more secular, shared public area we treat each other with respect.

Among the worst human traits are the beliefs by some individuals that they know that there is a God, and that they can speak for that God. In a word: Madness.

Wow, what a cluster this comments section is.

I pretty much had to stop reading as soon as I realized it was a battle between DanielInTheLionsDen and MGT2, and that one of the first claims the former made in his comments was that apparently a majority of the Christian churches, which he brands as 'politically conservative' (good luck justifying that the Pope is politically conservative), are "MORTAL THREATS" to homosexuals, and advocates the very sort of nonsense that Mr. Hirschfield spoke against.

Evidently Daniel (what a chore your full username is to repeat) skipped the entire article, as the focus of the article was predicated on the issue of *accepting gay clergy*, not the false notion of these institutions wanting to exterminate them. At MOST, the average Christian believes homosexuality (the ACT, not the PREFERENCE) is sinful, and that being in such an *active, open relationship* is immoral and counter to what the role of clergy stands for, whether a priest is gay or not.

The Catholic Church has plenty of gay priests, and though some within would prefer to obviate the issue altogether and prevent gays from being priests, there's really no reason why sexuality has to be in the picture, as this brand of priests are supposed to be celibate anyway.

So in the face of what is clearly fallacious and inflammatory speech, Daniel, I really can't take anything away from what you're saying beyond thinking you're just hardcore trolling this comment board. Which is unfortunate, since that just fans the flames of hate that Mr. Hirschfield is trying to speak against with this article.

I am strongly in favor of gays in clergy, gay marriage etc. This, however is a terrible argument. Mr. Hirschfield is essentially saying that since we are in God's image, then every aspect of humanity is an aspect of God and must be tolerated, respected, and even encouraged with its own church. In trying to counter the "homosexuality is sinful" crowd, Mr. Hirschfield would do away with the very concept of sin. If evil is a human trait, then evil is a God trait...God Bless evil!

It's easy for a good person to take a position he feels is right. It is harder for a good person to look another in the eye and say "you are wrong". Harder but no less necessary. Those who would deny homosexuals equal treatment, rights and respect are wrong. They need to stop. Period.

DanielintheLionsDen

See what I mean?

You accuse me with "You do not know the first thing about sexual orientation and gay people, yet you make your prouncements as though you are an expert."

Yet, if you follow my posts, I have made no "pronouncements" about sexual orientation or gay people. I know that is what you are baiting me to do.

All I have done is affirm that I stand with the Bible's statements about the act. Because, to be sure, I am no expert on human nature. So I rely on what God says.

Further more, your really dishonest accusation about me comparing gays to murderers and liers is beyond the pale. But I have come to expect that from you; for you to make your point, you have to falsify your opponients' positions and put words into their mouths.

But I realize what is going on. You are so scared of God, so scared to tell him you think HE is wrong and homophobic and bigoted, so scared that he will respond to you and you find yourself on the wrong side of his wrath; you are so scared that you are incapable of bullying and badgering him and beating him into submission to your views, that, like the craven schoolyard bully, you pick on the little guy.

If you are so convinced of your position, TELL HIM.

MGT2

It is you who argue from ignorance, not I. You do not know the first thing about sexual orientation and gay people, yet you make your prouncements as though you are an expert.

You are the one who has no interest in a higher discussion, comparing gay people to murderers and liars, but declaring your false love for them anyway.

I have not called anyone an insulting name. Why would you object to being called "homophobic" if that is what you are? Well then, how about "anti-gay?" You are anti-gay, aren't you?

I have not hurled any invectives at you or anyone else. I am a little tired of anti-gay people, with their PC priviliged positions, treating gay people like crap, and then getting bent out of shape, when there is a push-back. You are the one who compares gay people to murderers and liars.
When you throw down that gauntlet, then expect a reaction.

I have read the Bible, but I also have common sense, something that you lack. Because I dod not let your anti-gay agenda stand unchallenged, then you say that I have a problem with God, and I should take it up with him.

No, the problem is with you, who speak falsely for God and try to impersonate God, in God's own voice. My problem is with you.

In promoting your lies and false doctrines about gay people, please leave God out of it. Please don't drag God and Jesus Christ through the mud.

MGT2

It is you who argue from ignorance, not I. You do not know the first thing about sexual orientation and gay people, yet you make your prouncementes as though you are an expert.

You are the one who has no interest in a higher discussion, comparing gay people to murderers and liars, but declaring your false love for them anyway.

I have not called anyone an insulting name. Why would you object to being called "homophobic" if that is what you are? Well then, how about "anti-gay?" You are anti-gay, aren't you?

I have not hurled any invectives at you anyone else. I am a little tired of anti-gay people, with their PC priviliged positions, treating gay people like crap, and then getting bent out of shape, when there is a push-back. You are the one who compares gay people to murderers and liars.
When you throw down that gauntlet, then expect a reaction.

I have read the Bible, but I also have common sense, something that you lack. Because I dod not let your anti-gay agenda stand unchallenged, then you say that I ahve a problem with God, and I should take it up with him.

No, the problem is with you, who speak falsely for God and try to impersonate God, in God's own voice. My problem is with you.

In promoting your lies and false doctrines about gay people, please leave God out of it. Please don't drag God and Jesus Chrisst through the mud.

DanielintheLionsDen

You said, "And even more, there is no reference to lesbians at all."

It is as I thought. You are arguing from ignorance without any interest in a honest discussion. Calling those who disagree with you insulting names and hurling invectives at them without taking a moment to really read the Bible you criticize, underscores this.

Read Romans 1:18-27. When you are through, you will be even more angry at Christians, and you will call them some more derogatory names, and you will hurl more invectives (hopefully, we will not have to read them).

But in the end, it is what God says--its his words (that is what Christians are bound to believe, you can believe what you want), therefore, your issue is REALLY with God. Christians are just easier targets.

Tell God you do not like what he says. Tell him you think that he is wrong and narrow minded and homophobic and bigoted. Tell him.

Or maybe you are afraid to do so?

If by "lie with" you mean "sleep with" and by if "sleep with" you mean "have sex with," then gay men do not have sex with men like they have sex with women; because gay ment do not have sex with women at all.

Therefore, the person speaking these words in the voice of God is unaware of sexual orientation, and has no concept of being gay.

And even more, there is no reference to lesbians at all. Christian homophobia applies to women by analogy alone, about what these human words, assuming the voice of God, must have meant, or should have meant.

This "clear" proscription on gay people is not so clear at all. It is opaque and cryptic, and depends on inferences and assumptions, about what the meaning "must be."

And isn't it pitiful, that homophobic Christians must reduce their argument to the fine examination of specific verses from the Bible, in which each and every word is analyzed and weighed for any possible meaning or lack of meaning, and from this, base all their religous belief, and hope for personal salvation.

Even more, homophobic Christians imvariably string this verse together with several others, sprinkled thoughout the Bible, creating an insensible narrative, that has no coherency, story, or meaning. They are inventing false doctrines, and then attributing this false doctrinc to Jesus Christ.

In addition, I get a little tired of homophobic people treating gay people like crap, and then getting bent out of shape when there is a reaction. An angry reaction to bigotted persecution is not bigotry. and using that strategy will not work. Gay people are used to being called a lot worse than that.

Being gay is not immoral and it is not a sin.

Being gay is not a defiance against anything, certainly not againsst God, and not against any religion, nor any church.

Ssexual orientation is simply an aspect of personality and identity.

Just a few brief years ago, gay people were a joke, figures of "fun," mocked, belittled, and dismissed. People who suggested gay marriage were the laughing stock of all society, from top to bottom.

My, oh my. How all of that has changed.

Now the politically Conservative religious people are not laughing anymore. In fact they have become increasingly shrill and defensive, as they work harder and harder to block, obstruct, and stand in the way of progress.

"I would not help homophobic bigots build a church next to mine.

I would do everything I could to obstruct, block, and defeat them, in every way, just as they do against gay people."

Ditto."

As you have demonstrated, the bigot speaks many tongues:

“Do not lie with a man as you would a woman, it is an abomination before the eyes of the Lord.” Lev. 18:22

By contrast, the Hellenic world of classical times was quite accepting of homosexuality.

... I meant to say, "Mrs. Drysdale"

That word, "abomination" is what Mrs. Drydale used to call her neighbors, the Clampetts.

That is what it makes me think of, a fancified word that the politically correct elite use to condemn their inferiors, who are simply not as good.

MGT2

"Homosexuality" is a noun, not an adjective, which basically is a clinical, medical term.

Gay is an adjective which describes sexual orientation, which is an aspect of personality.

Being straight is politically correct, and favored. Your sexual orientaiton gives you preferential treatment above gay people. Does that make you better in the eyes of any man or in the eyes of God? NO, it does not.

There is no way around it, that in your proscription of "homosexualiy," you are seeking the suppression of the personal identiy of gay people.

Passive aggressive people like you who "love" gay people, even they are the same as liars and murderers pose a mortal threat to gay people. You are the problem, at least as far as being gay is concerned.

The picture of the sign on this On Faith Forum says, "God Hates Fags." I believe that is a sentiment that comes from your side of the argument, not mine. Why is the term "homophobic Christianity" not a valid and descriptive term?

The goal of anti-gay people is erradication of the personal identity of gay people and nothing less.

Therefore, there is no room in this argument for compromise.

DanielintheLionsDen

And I never said God prohibits "gay" people. Let me say again, and please be honest in your remarks, homosexuality is an adjective describing an act, it is not a person, and this is what God prohibits, not he person, and that is what I said.

God prohibits murder, it is an adjective describing the unjustified taking of a persons life, it is an act, not the person. God prohibits lying (like you ascribing things to me that I did not say), it is the act of speaking untruths but it is not the person.

God loves all the people who commit these acts and but he hates and prohibits the acts. However, he does not prohibit the people, instead, he invites them to stop committing the forbidden acts and obey him.

DanielintheLionsDen

Demagogic ad hominems such as "Homophobic Christianity" neither advances your cause or encourage honest debate. What it demonstrates is a cover up of the ineffectiveness of the arguments against God's word as recorded in the Bible and the inability to prove within the sacred texts that God approves of anyone doing what he prohibits.

So you end up with bluster and shouting and name calling and outright sophistry.

Calm down. You are free to do whatever you want. It does not mean that God has to accept it. Neither do Christians.

MGT2

God does not "prohibit" gay people, as you so snarkilly suggest.

I am not trying to teach YOU anything; I am trying to correct your false doctrines, for the record.

MGT2

I do not have an issue with God. I do have a problem with people who try to speak in God's voice, as though they are God. You are not God; and you do not speak for God.

I also do not want you to agree with me. I am trying to teach you, since you, since you seem misquided. You were quite insulting to gay people, apparently, without even realizing it.

I am sorry for your gay "friends" who I am sure are kinder to you, than you are to them.

When Christians think of gay people, all they think about is the logistics of sex and sexual positions, making assumptions about individuals, which they could have no way of knowing. From this, they make all their judgments. In the first place, this is offensive.

In the second place, being gay has nothing to do with sexual activity or sex positions, between men, or between women; it is an aspect of personality, apart from any mannerisms, acts, or sin. This aspect of personality includes the quality of sexual attraction of men for men, and women for women.

A person's gay orientation cannot be "eradicated" because there is no "there" there to erradicate. Being gay, finally, completely, and simply, is identity and personality. Even to eomment on the possiblitlly of erradicating an innocent person's personal identity is the same as to wish them to die.

The Christian crusade to change gay people into straight people is therefore a mortal threat to gay people, who wish to maintain the only personalities and identities that they have ever known.

DanielintheLionsDen

Ah..therein lies your problem. Totally disregard whatever does not agree with your philosophy.

In spite of the fact that I clearly did not call anyone abominable, and unequivocally said so, you claim that I did. Thus you build a straw man and work yourself into apoplectic fit. You do not want a honest conservation about individual convictions--you want me to agree with yours.

But until you show me that the Bible, the word of God, approves of what it prohibits, I unapologetically stand with God.

Therefore, your issue is not with me, but God. He loves everyone, but promises that those who do what he prohibits will "not inherit the kingdom of God."

There are millions of gay people in the world. In the past they have been mute; they are mute no more. Just by speaking up for oneself gay people have become a "problem." But they are a "problem" that will not go away.

The old taboo against gays is gone, and it can never be brought back. The fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates this to be true. That is the progress of history. There is no tactic that anyone can devise that will undo this fact.

Homophobic Christianity is primitive, backward, and shallow. All it amounts to is assuming the voice of God, and then speaking in a commanding tone to others, as though God is speaking. But such Christians are not God and do not speak for God.

MGT2

You are a hypocrite.

You wouldn't condemn your heterosexual friends and relatives, because all of the sexual positions and practices which you might imagine about them, would you? You wouldn’t visualize and imagine the actual sexual positions that your own mother might have engaged in, would you, even though you know she must have had sex at least once.

If you would not ask your own relatives and neighbors about the physical details of their sex lives, and the sex positions that they engage in, why then would you ask, or even wonder about a gay person's sex life? In all cases, it would be equally none of your business. Even to suggest that you do not approve, and to suggest that they pretend to be "normal" is not your business.

MGT2

I don't think gay people need friends like you. Your passive aggressive hosstility towards gay people is part of the problem.

As I posted previously, being gay is not a biological drive. Nor is it an ideology.

Being gay is not a life style.

Being gay is not immoral and it is not a sin.

Being gay is not a defiance against anything, certainly not againsst God, and not against any religion, nor any church.

As sexual orientation, being gay is simply an aspect of personality and identity.

You, yourself, said:

"I do not equate the act with the person, even if the person is guilty of the act."

What act are you speaking of? the act of being gay? It all goes together the "sin and the sinner." Only, of course, gay people are not more sinful for being gay than straight people are for being straight.

And what do you mean by the word abominable?

To be honest, calling gay people abominable is just plain creepy.

To be honest, I find you entire attitude to be utterly obnoxious.

DanielintheLionsDen

I apologize if it seems I was implying that Gay poeple are abominable. I certainly do not think so. I am friends with several openly gay people. I eat with them, I hang out with them sometimes and I share laughs with them. I even work closely with them. I find those with whom I associate with to be very intelligent, articulate, kind and good.

But while I am comfortable with them, I make it clear as to what I believe the Bible says about what they prefer to do. However, I also make it clear that I feel the same way about lying, infedility, hypocrisy. because, you see, there are a list of things that the Bible considers abominable; homosexuality just happens to be one of them.

I do not equate the act with the person, even if the person is guilty of the act. Does that make sense?

MGT2

Being gay is not abominable.

Implying that gay people are abominable is absurd. Inferring that God has said thus is absurd.

The very word, "abominable" is ridiculous. What does it mean? It does not mean sinful. I guess it means "yucky."

I think common sense trumps the examination and weighing of indivdual words form individual verses of the Bible.

I do not suppose that there will ever be an end to this debate, at least not this side of eternity.

For me, what it comes down to is whether we regard what the standard of the Christian Faith--the Bible--says. Because, contrary to what some would like to see, one cannot disregard Biblical injunctions and remain Christian.

The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. With that in mind, I remind you of the scripture in Jeremiah (either chapter 28 or 29) about a prophet called Hannaniah.

Jeremiah prophesied that God would send Israel into Babylonian captivity because of their sins and that some would die horribly. Hannaniah opposed Jeremiah and prophesied that it would not be so, but that God would save them all.

Of course, Jeremiah was right and Hannaniah, who wanted to appease the people against what God's word clearly stated, was proven wrong. he paid with his life.

This debate seems old. God says one thing and some, even in the church, say another. God's word is and always will be, right.

We like to talk about changing times and ways of doing things...and that is fine because it is the natural progression of all things in the created cosmos. But God, with whom we have to contend, has neither past, present or future--he just is. And no amount of pontificating, regardless of how reasonable it may seem to us can undermine his standards.

He never makes an error, he cannot, and if he says something is abominable it remains thus, regardless of where in time we find ourselves.

Dear Brad Hirschifield

You don't get it. Somehow, all this seems to pass right over your head. The religous enemies of gay people pose a mortal threat of extermination and annihilation. When faced with such a threat, there is no choice but to fight. Peace is not an option,

Being gay is not a biological drive. Nor is it an ideology.

Being gay is not a life style.

Being gay is not immoral and it is not a sin.

Being gay is not a defiance against anything, certainly not againsst God, and not against any religion, nor any church.

As sexual orientation, being gay is simply an aspect of personality and identity.

The Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Baptist Church, and many, many other politically conservative churches would seek to destroy and annihilate the personhood of gay people, by erradiation of their sexual orientation, which forms and sustains a major part of their personalities for all their lives.

These politically conservative religious people are therefore more than merely malevolent, they are a mortal threat to gay people, and in fact, have a history of driving gay people to suicide.

In face of this increasing threat, there can be only increasing resistance, tension, and if forced to to this end, then violence, not a friendly smile and tolerance.

"This is not a good argument.

I would not help homophobic bigots build a church next to mine.

I would do everything I could to obstruct, block, and defeat them, in every way, just as they do against gay people."

Ditto.

This is not a good argument.

I would not help homophobic bigots build a church next to mine.

I would do everything I could to obstruct, block, and defeat them, in every way, just as they do against gay people.

Thank you, Mr. Hirschfield.