Sex and the Single God

fzrdqsumo ldqfaorvu durijq cqborgaip nwvpeozt kcidg vzfnhcxqu

fzrdqsumo ldqfaorvu durijq cqborgaip nwvpeozt kcidg vzfnhcxqu

fzrdqsumo ldqfaorvu durijq cqborgaip nwvpeozt kcidg vzfnhcxqu

Huh?

HI, I'M ANGELGIL, WHAT I CALL MYSELF, BECAUSE OF BEING "BLESSED OF GOD", AS FROM "NDES", VISIONS, DREAMS, HOLY EXPERIENCES. BECAUSE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH HOLYINESS, I CAN BEHOLD THE PAST, PRESENT, "PROJECTED FUTURE", AND "CHANGE SOME THINGS", "IN ADVANCE", OF "THE ACTUAL OCCURANCES". NOW, ABOUT THAT, GARDEN OF EDEN THANG (WHICH BYE THE WAY, WAS IN AMERICA, NEAR SPRING HILL MOSOURI). ADAM AND EVE WAS MARRIED BY GOD (I AM, JEHOVAH, JESUS CHRIST)FOREVER! THEY WERE COMMISSIONED TO "MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH". BUT, AS "INNOCENT IMORTALS" THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW. BUT THE SECRET WAS IN THE "FRUIT OF GOOD AND EVIL", BUT IF THEY ATE IT, THEY WOULD SURELY DIE (SEPERATION FROM GOD AND IMMORTALLITY), WHICH SATAN ALSO, KNEW, AS FROM OTHERS WORLDS THAT HE TRIED TO SCFEW UP. HIS PLAN WAS TO GET JUST "ONE OF THEM" TO EAT THE "FRUIT OF THE TREE OF GOOD AND EVIL", THEN THAT "ONE PERSON" WOULD "GET KICKED OUT" OF THE GARDEN OF EVIL! ADAM TURNED SATAN DOWN, BUT EVE LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING "WISE AS THE GODS:, SO SHE ATE. WALLA, SHE BECAME WISE, AND MORTAL, AND NOW, SHE KNEW "HOW TO HAVE CHILDREN", WHICH KNOWLEDGE SHE SHARED WITH ADAM, WHO LOVED HER, SO HE ATE AND "BOTH WERE CAST OUT OF THE GARDEN". OOPSIE, SATAN WAS "FOILED AGAIN"! NOW, GOD SAID THAT IN THE "DAY"*(1) THAT THERY DID EAT THAT FRUIT, THEY WOULD SURLY DIE, AND THEY DID.
*(1) A DAY IN THE LORD IS "1,000 OF OUR YEARS", AS THE GOVERNING PLANET-KOLOB, OF THE UNIVERSES, NEIGH UNTO THE LORD'S "CELESTIAL KINGDOM")THE ONE THAT PAUL, OF THE NEW TESTIMENT, WAS "CAUGHT UP INTO", "THE 3RD. KINGDOM OF GOD".) WAS SO HUGH, THAT "ONE DAY OF ROTATION", WAS "1,000 OF OUR EARTH YEARS". FIRST THEIR "TRANSGRESSION" WAS "NOT A SIN",AS "SEX IS NOT SIN". IS IS ACT GOD CREATED SO THAT WE MORTALS COULD REPLICATE, TO BECOME AS HE IS, "PERFECT". SURE MOTALITY IS HARD, BUT GOD DID NOT SAY OUR LIVES WOULD BE EASY, BUT IT WOULD "BE WORTH IT" FOR TO BECOME "PERFECT" LIKE GOD, MEANING WHAT GOD, THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS, IS NOW, WE WILL BECOME, AS WHAT WE ARE NOW, AS HE ONCE WAS PART MORTAL, PART GOD. (OUR SPIRIT IS FROM GOD, OUR BODY CAME FROM ADAM AND EVE, PARTS GOD'S). SATAN, WHO WAS KICKED OUT OF "HEAVEN"(KOLOB'S GRAND COUNCIL, WHERE 1/3 OF HEAVEN, 3/2 RDS. OF MALES
WERE KICKED OUT, FOR SIMPLY "REJECTING GOD'S PLAN OF "FREE AGENCY"). ALL GOD'S WOMEN SPIRITS, REMAINED, MAKING IT 3-1, FEMALES OVER MALES. ALL SATAN'S GOT TO DO IS PERSUADE ALL THOSE NIEVE WOMEN IS THE "SCREW WITH MAN'S MIND, BODY AND SOUL", THEN THE WHOLE FAMILY OF GOD IS GONE! JUST THINK, PREMATERIAL SEX, PORN, IS CONTROLLED BY MEN OVER WOMEN, WHO IN TURN CONTROL MEN DOWN UNTO HELL! SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, FOR TO RETURN TO GOD "PERFECT", IS TO LEARN, AND OBEY GOD'S TRUE WAYS. SEE MY WEBSITE: ANGELGILS-INSTANT-HEALINGS.COM, FOR A GREAT START, THEN EMAIL ME YOUR RESULTS,OK? THANKS,PAL.GILSIMS2@MSN.COM . AMEN. ANGELGIL.

Meg,
Catholicism (the religion, and the people that knowingly continue in its deception, not the innocent who are mislead by it) is rebuked heavily by God. It is full of blasphemy and things that clearly go against what the Bible teaches us. So the fact that you started to question it is a good sign, one that you should have followed up on by reading the Bible yourself. In so doing you’d spot the obvious blasphemies the Catholic Church has set up.

About confession: You are right. The only one that can give you forgiveness for your sins is God. Not a preacher. There’s one of the blasphemies. This is what the Bible says, the Word of God:

Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The Bible even tells you to do so in private, not to someone else.

You said, “How could I possibly believe in a God who would create humankind, give us a brain to think and reason with, then send us to a lake of fire because we don't believe one particular way?”

How many ways are there to believe? Do you believe you get there by good works? Or do you believe, as the Bible points out, that you are a sinner, Jesus bore the punishment for your sins, and to accept that gift you need only accept it? It’s laid out clearly in the Bible:

Romans 10:9-10 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

Can’t get any clearer than that. It’s not by our own works that we get saved. It’s not by being a good person (our works) that we get saved. It’s by placing your trust in Jesus Christ. How many ways do you need to believe? Other ‘ways’ are right there alongside the Catholic church: man-made rules meant to deceive and keep people separate from God’s grace, from Jesus Christ’s most amazing gift.

You said, “If we're all saved, how come only a certain number are supposed to be raptured? What happens to the Christians beyond that number?”

Being called a Christian does not mean you are what the title implies. If you did what the Bible said, *and meant it sincerely*, then you are saved, no matter what title you give yourself. If you didn’t mean it, or never did it, who cares if you call yourself a Christian or not? You’re not saved. It’s not titles that save, it’s what’s in the heart, and whether we’ve *sincerely* done what the Bible tells us that will save us. God knows our hearts, and God knows who’s truly saved. And believe me, not all ‘Christians’ are saved. It’s why I don’t really even care for the word. That title means nothing. What means everything is what’s truly in your heart, and if you sincerely are placing your trust in the Lord to save you after you’ve sincerely admitted you are a sinner, that you need to be saved, and called on the Lord to save you.

And again, once you are saved, you cannot lose that salvation. You will continue to sin in different ways. But you continue to pray, repent again from your sins (privately to God, not to a person). If you were sincere about being saved, you will go through some serious changes. You can almost always tell who’s sincere because you begin to see serious changes in their life. I saw amazing changes in my own life – habits that were instantly stopped. I couldn’t even believe it myself. If you don’t change at all, and keep doing what you were doing, chances are you really weren’t sincere to begin with, hence never were saved.

You said, “If a person is good and helpful to others and lawful and does their best in this world but is not Christain/Born Again does that mean they won't go to "heaven," but a convicted criminal who repents at the eleventh hour and accepts Jesus into their life WILL go to heaven? Why would God do that to the person who was truly "Christ-like" their whole life?”

The moment a person *sincerely* calls on Jesus to save him, as the Bible outlined, yes he is saved. Sincerely is the key word here. Was that person sincere? They can say they are all they want. We can guess if they were sincere, but we won’t know.. but GOD WILL KNOW. He can read our minds and hearts. He will know. If that person was sincere, they will now go through incredible transformations from the inside-out.

And again, we get to heave not by our own works, but by trusting in Jesus Christ. It’s great that a person is good and helpful. But they are still a sinner in one way or another. And thus yes, they must confess this before God (not before man), and call out on Jesus to save them from their sins. Why wouldn’t they want to? Pride? You want to risk eternal damnation over pride?

You said, “And, I agree, quoting the Bible to prove your point accomplishes nothing when the person you're quoting it to doesn't believe it is the Word of God, but more a moral compass for the times in which it was written.”

A moral compass? How would *anyone* *ever* be saved if all we have is a moral compass that’s several thousand years out of date, and not one person on the planet not really knowing what God’s plan is, and thousands of people that are just left to guess?! What about all those passages that talk about God Himself? About Jesus being the Son of God? Is that just fabricated as well?!

God created the heavens and the earth. He’s given us his Word in the Bible. It’s survived for thousands of years. Read more out of the Bible, go to a Bible-preaching place of worship, and allow yourself more time to get to know the Bible before you just flat out reject it as having anything to do with being the Word of God.

Why do you think most Catholic masses avoid preaching messages in the middle of mass about what the Bible tells us and what the passages mean? I can tell you one reason: so that more people continue to come to their preachers to confess their sins, and be made to feel guilty about it.

You said, “I'm a very happy person with a strong faith that doesn't happen to be Christianity. I don't fear what will come after I die because of my beliefs, and the love and joy they bring into my life.”

Perhaps consider getting over the word “Christianity” and start looking more towards the Bible. It answers every question you brought up here. It matches some of the very things you yourself have observed. I’m surprised you have faith but think the Bible is not the Word of God.

It’s great that you’re happy. It would be a shame if you relied on your finite happiness here to blind you to what you’re setting yourself up for on where you’d spend eternity. Am I trying to scare you? Let me answer that with this: CAN YOU AFFORD TO BE WRONG? I seriously encourage you to read the Bible, and seek out a place of worship (notice I didn’t even say Baptist or Christian) that **preaches the word of God**.

You said, “So, Kaman, thanks for the breath of fresh air, and the logic and sanity of your comments!”

Part of the problem is people can’t seem to comprehend that God’s logic is very different from our own. According to our logic, we should get mad and even at people that have wronged us. According to God’s logic,

Luke 6:29 “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.”

God’s logic is very different from our own. There are many more examples of this in the Bible. To some it seems insane. It’s yet more ways people continue to rationalize, keeping themselves separate from God, and one step closer to an eternity separate from God in the lake of fire.

I will pray that you continue to figure things out for yourself and read the Bible.

Praise the Lord!

It can seem like circular logic to rely on the Bible that God exists, but the same logic is used on everything you say is true.

We’re told Ben Franklin invented the light bulb. Well who said? Well we read it in a book. Who told the Author? He read it in another book. Well who told that second author? Well he heard it from his professor. Well who told that professor? Well he read it in a different book. And the list goes on. At some point you just take faith that it’s actually fact. Because the fact is, you don’t know for sure, but you just choose to believe it’s a fact. And it was passed down from when it happened to us by “word of mouth” or recorded word. Welcome to the Bible. The inspired Word of God. So the circular logic approach applies to everything we know today. If we lived our life by that principle, it would be a wonder we could believe any facts were are brought up on for our history. So please don’t bother trying to use that argument to just instantly discredit the Bible, because in doing so you discredit a huge percentage of what you claim you know as fact right now.

But even so it goes beyond the Bible. The Bible has it survived for thousands and thousands of years. Pretty amazing if it’s completely false. How do you explain something so completely wrong surviving for that long?

What about the miraculous changes in people’s lives? The creation of the world and the universe? The perfection that exists around you all the time in nature? The miracle of life? The miracles that have happened throughout history? Do we honestly believe we magically appeared out of nowhere after some big bang, and that we’re a meaningless descendant of pond-scum and monkeys (that also magically appeared out of nowhere to live on a planet that is perfectly set up to sustain life)? This takes even more faith to believe in than that God exists and is our creator. And it has nowhere near the same amount of proof that we have all around us that God does in fact exist.

Kaman >> “And to answer RR, hell yeah, Christianity is all about guilt, rules, and never being good enough. That is what I got out of it growing up. Going to the altar to "pray through" sobbing the whole time, because the preacher I've disappointed God and I am going to hell along with the slow music to enhance the emotions.”

If this was your experience of following the Word of God in the Bible, then your experience was by that of men, not of following God. Once you are saved, you never lose your salvation. It sounds like you were never saved. Once you’re saved, you don’t go to hell for sinning again. God wants you to repent privately in prayer of course, and commit to try to *not* continue in the exact same sin, and to ask for His help in doing so. So reading what you wrote, it sounds like you were part of a religion, not part of what the Bible teaches.

“But the churches rules and unreachable goals of sactified life is a recipie for never being good enough and never-ending guilt. “

You said it yourself. The “church”’s rules. You need to figure out what it means to put your trust in Jesus Christ, and live that way. How do you figure that out? Read the Bible. The Bible tells you that, not a church. Sounds like the church you picked is a “religion” Jesus himself would rebuke. The Bible teaches us that we cannot attain this righteousness on our own – that we need to lean on Jesus Christ for His help with this.

“ I'm through with that garbage. I dont' want anypart of a God that treats his creations that way and then sends them to hell. I don't believe he/it/the force/whatever is like that. “

If you don’t believe God is like that, maybe you’re right and it was the church you were a part of that was misleading? Read the Bible, and find a church that preaches the Word of God, not their own version of driving guilt into you as you describe. That’s not what our church is like at all. Our church is based on truth: what’s in the Bible that we could all read about whether we were at church or not. They don’t add rules to it. They don’t take things away. They just preach the truth, and it’s been available to us all the time.

”But Christians have to live up to these types of unrealistic standards, fail, and sob at the altar to ask for forgiveness every week.”

You live up to these standards with the help of God. And that’s a mistake many people make. It says in the Bible we cannot do that ourselves. We need God’s help to do that, and he wants us to ask for that help. But many people try to do it themselves, without praying to God often at all, and then wonder why they fail.

“ And yes, it is incredibly arrogant to assume Christianity is the ONLY way to God, and the rest of the world be damned. “

There is only one way to God. Don’t try to blind yourself by ascribing a name to it, and then acting like that method is *not* the only way. If you read the Bible, you’d know exactly what that way is. Here, I’ll quote it for you.

How you get to heaven (also known as: how save yourself from judgment of being a sinner):

[1] Admit you are a sinner
Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous, no not one.”
Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

[2] Believe that Jesus Christ bore the punishment for your sin on the cross and rose from the dead.
Romans 10:9-10 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

[3] Call on the Lord to save you.
Romans 10:13 “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

If you do this, and mean it sincerely, then you are now saved.

Many people are fooled into thinking there are other ways to get into heaven. By just being good. By works of their own. They couldn’t be more wrong. It is by the grace of God that you can get into heaven, and no other way. It’s not me saying it. It’s not a church. It’s not a religion. It’s the BIBLE.

Please don’t allow yourself, all in the sake of your personal comfort, to avoid the truth that is in the Bible. I will pray for you!

Read the Bible, friends.
Praise the Lord!

RE: "Judge not...."."Thou shalt not judge.." and
etc.
Thorough Bible Study based on the entirety of the Bible, not just picking a verse here or there in an attempt to justify an opinion, will show that there are two (2) types of judgement discussed therein as follow:
1. JUDGMENT OF DISCERNMENT where we as Christians recognize that a person professing to be christian is not living some part of his/her life as Christ taught. As a Christian I should approach that person in a kind way to point out that their behavior isn't "Christ-like." Hopefully they will consider it as an act of "love" and give serious thought to correcting it through Christ.
2. JUDGEMENT OF CONDEMNATION where Christ, and Christ alone, determines the sin (offense) and the punishment that will be meted out.
Many professing Christians use the "Thou shalt not judge..." as an escape to avoid the "discernment" part of a Christian's responsibility.
Your thoughts, please.

Kaman-
I grew up in a loving home and love my parents also, and went to 12 years of Catholic school. Catholicism is good at guilt, too. Although we didn't "pray at the altar" we had "confession." Then I began to question why someone had to hear my confession, why couldn't I just talk to God myself and tell him how sorry I was? That was in grade school, and the questions didn't stop, nor were they ever answered in a way that made sense in all the years since. How could I possibly believe in a God who would create humankind, give us a brain to think and reason with, then send us to a lake of fire because we don't believe one particular way? Are all the billions of people on Earth supposed to become Christian? Missionaries go out to convert others to save them. If we're all saved, how come only a certain number are supposed to be raptured? What happens to the Christians beyond that number? If a person is good and helpful to others and lawful and does their best in this world but is not Christain/Born Again, does that mean they won't go to "heaven," but a convicted criminal who repents at the eleventh hour and accepts Jesus into their life WILL go to heaven? Why would God do that to the person who was truly "Christ-like" their whole life? And, I agree, quoting the Bible to prove your point accomplishes nothing when the person you're quoting it to doesn't believe it is the Word of God, but more a moral compass for the times in which it was written. And no, before anyone mentions it, I'm not morally bankrupt and awash in a sea of whatever - I'm a very happy person with a strong faith that doesn't happen to be Christianity. I don't fear what will come after I die because of my beliefs, and the love and joy they bring into my life.

So, Kaman, thanks for the breath of fresh air, and the logic and sanity of your comments!

I've a law degree from Harvard, because I wrote in on my resume. Resume MUST be true because I said it was. What I say MUST true because my resume says so.

<<<and betrays again, the same bankrupt and morally insufficient reasoning of the skeptic.<<<

So Maddog must think my law degree is valid. My statement above (declaration of law degree) is cleary and obviously flawed. Why? Because it is a circular argument. What Maddog is saying is by discounting my law degree statement by pointing out that it's the circular fallacy, is "bankrupt and morally insufficient reasoning of the skeptic".

Sir, the logical fallacy called "circular reasoning" is accepted by virtually everyone in the world as an ineffective means of arguing a point. It isn't not some bankrupt and morally insufficient reasoning. You know where I learned about fallacies of logic? In a Principles of Logic course, at a Christian college, by a Christian professor, who was a Rev., who had a doctorate of divinity, who wrote textbooks about Christianity and for the his denomination, and was very highly respected. HE taught me that circular reasoning (along with other fallacies like ad hominem, etc) is flawed logic. Perhaps, my prof (and everyone else in the world except MadDog) is bankrupt and morally insufficient for explaining the pitfalls of circular reasoning.

I can see why he wants to keep the "simple things" off the table.

<<<The issue IS whether the Scriptures say what they say.<<<

I don't think anyone here doesn't think when you quote a scripture, that you didn't quote it accurately. If you told me that John 3:16 said "For God so loved the world...", I would believe you. I think that the Bible actually said that verse. But I do not believe it is true just because the Bible has those words in it.

And to answer RR, hell yeah, Christianity is all about guilt, rules, and never being good enough. That is what I got out of it growing up. Going to the altar to "pray through" sobbing the whole time, because the preacher I've disappointed God and I am going to hell along with the slow music to enhance the emotions. So I go home feeling good for a few days and then the word "sh" "it" pops into my head. Now I am a sinner again. Over about a month I do "un-Christian" things like jealousy, or think something bad about someone. Or I try to shortcut doing my chores. Then after a month, the preacher preaches another "Disappointed God" sermon again, and I start crying and go to the altar, because I wasn't good enough, and had backslidden. And the cycle continues. Always looking over my shoulder (figuratively) because something bad popped into my head or I didn't read my bible, or pray for lunch, or tithe my allowance or close my eyes during prayer.

That is what Christianity is to me and a lot of people. And yes, I resent this brainwashing/conditioning and Christianity's "mental abuse" I grew up with. I still deal with this today. I love my parents, and grew up in a loving home. But the churches rules and unreachable goals of sactified life is a recipie for never being good enough and never-ending guilt.

I'm through with that garbage. I dont' want anypart of a God that treats his creations that way and then sends them to hell. I don't believe he/it/the force/whatever is like that.

BTW, I do not claim to be a non-zealot, non-judgemental or whatever. I would not back myself into a corner like that. But Christians have to live up to these types of unrealistic standards, fail, and sob at the altar to ask for forgiveness every week.

And yes, it is incredibly arrogant to assume Christianity is the ONLY way to God, and the rest of the world be damned.

After glimpsing over the first page of the website, it became clear this guy “Bill” is using warped logic, passing it off as truth.

“I'm probably not 100% accurate on dates but doubt I'm any farther away than the experts who guess a lot. I don't hold a PhD from Harvard in Archaeology or ancient studies. I’m sure you understand.”

There are a bunch of experts that give us dates. Bill decides on dates of his own, admit he’s probably not accurate, but just figures he’s “probably better than all those other experts, as I claim they just guessed”.

So everyone’s supposed to just believe Bill that all those experts guessed. And now Bill’s guesses are even better than all those experts, according to Bill of course, and so we should believe Bill’s guesses instead?! This website is obvious a joke.

The site go on to say:
“The above graph represents my best guess about when the original stories of the Bible first appeared in writing.”

Your best guess? So now Bill even *admits* he’s guessing. Probably why he assumes all experts must just guess as well, since Bill clearly thinks guessing makes one an expert, and Bill thinks spending a few years learning about computers makes him a theological expert. It’s becoming clear what’s really going on here, and proving *anything* based on guesses and heresy is not it.

Here’s the first thing you refuse to accept: these writings are the inspired Words of God. God pretty much did the writing. Or are you going to give us more proof as to why no one was alive in the future to tell us the future’s “history” very accurately? i.e., the book of Revelation. That sounds even harder to do than writing about what happened so far in the past. It’s the inspired Word of God that has been preserved through the ages. Or do you think to a Holy God that created the universe that preserving his Word is too hard for Him to do?!

One last look at Bill’s logic: He postulates:

“What if they could not read it very well?”

.. then goes on to act like it is suddenly a fact:

“So what we have in the Bible is the same story told over and over
again by people who could barely read whatever writing they had”

So suddenly Bill’s “what if” has become a fact in the span of 10 seconds?! You almost have the laugh at the humor of it all.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
- Romans 1:22-23

It’s obvious Bill is using anything but logic. At this point I stopped reading. It’s clear there’s no logic here, and just a bunch of opinions thrown down as facts to make a weak attempt discredit what is clearly making Bill and people like Bill feel more than a little uncomfortable: that you are a sinner in the eyes of God. That your soul is in jeopardy.

People at the time had all the proof they needed. Jesus healed the sick. People were raised from the dead. Right in front of their eyes. It was not enough for them. They kept asking for more proof. It was NEVER ENOUGH. And anything anyone on this planet today could say won’t be enough for Bill or you either. After all, if being witness to someone being raised from the dead, or being given sight after a lifetime of blindness is amazingly not enough for some people, it’s obvious mere words are not going to be enough to those same people; to you. Why? Because those types of people are more interested in being able to continue in their sin-filled lifestyle than in the truth. The truth was right in front of the Pharisees, and they rejected it time and time again. They liked their stature. They liked their power. So they were blind to accept the truth. And we’re not talking just rejection of words – we’re talking miracles right in front of their eyes. It was the Pharisees that were blind.

Jesus was well aware of people like that, and says it all:

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
- Matthew 15:13-14

Only a person blinded with the need to not believe in God, to not be made aware of the sinners they really are, would possibly believe such a poorly crafted argument against the Bible. What’s sad is that Bill clearly believes what he writes. What’s sadder is the few people that might be lulled in by the foolish logic Bill proposes.

I can only imagine how amazing to Jesus it must have been when he saw the Pharisees demanding still more proof of who He really was even after he had performed so many miracles right in front of their eyes. It does become clear that mere words are not going to be enough for such lost people.

Read the Bible, friends!
Praise the Lord!

Do you seriously think I can't? Really, I must be one of those dopey evangelicals who believe in a hoax or a pack of lies. I love language like that. Proves a general proposition I maintain but I'm always hoping a skeptic will surprise me one day.

BGone, I'd hope one day we could work through your enmity and hopelessness but if I write at this point, I merely clutch at the wind. It serves no purpose. From your site, I see (from your own testimony) your heart is fixed against God. You're conscience is seared and burnt shut.

I know you think me a fool. I'm more than ready to receive your condemnation: what more could you really do but condemn? But I won't play into a ploy you have (the silly straw-man game) where you provoke me into simple, ordinary monosyllables to explain a profound truth of the Scriptures you have no interest in believing in or receiving.

I fear your "knowledge and reason" are those things at the end of your fingertips. You know what you THINK you know and your epistemology is simply unlike mine. Why should I help you out in a course of study you wouldn't possibly accept? I don't imagine a skeptic as being "unreasonable" or "stupid." You do of me, however, and while I might take advantage of another forum (where this kind of discourse is INVITED) to elaborate on points, this PARTICULAR place is probably not prudent. Have we not heard from Ms. Susan Brooks Thistlethwait here? What might she have to say, I wonder.

Hey MADDOG: Time to upgrade your knowledge. http://www.hoax-buster.org fills in the tiny missing points in your Christian education.

Are Christians ignorant? How come the virgin Mary isn't God? Ever see a critter not mothered by it's own kind? The list of ignorance is far too long for a blog. We can cover them one at a time. Explain the mother of God not being God and we'll take if from there.

Now I'M tiring. You didn't listen closely, Kaman. Your points don't anger me nor confuse me. They TIRE me. I liked your "Bob" and "Alice" convo. It's as old as Moses, I think, and betrays again, the same bankrupt and morally insufficient reasoning of the skeptic. Kaman, kind sir, this isn't the first time I've danced with your generation. Why provoke me?

I like you folk. I really do. You're interesting to some degree but after a certain point—the point where you keep banging the same drum that the Christian is somehow intolerant, uncaring, uneducated, and somehow failing to graduate from a degree-granting institution—I start to feel dingy and gray. In the arena of free ideas (and I reference only THIS area), watching you reach conclusions is like watching a train wreck. While I seem to be arrogant and judgmental to you, it's clear from my own testimony I judge no person. I don't even claim a special "knowledge" or even a fancified seminary degree.

But I know for certain your circular logic argument is flat wrong. The issue IS whether the Scriptures say what they say. It's NOT whether the Scriptures are adequate enough for your speciously supported rule of measurement. You've been left to make up your mind on whether they can be measured as valid (arrogance) and good luck with that. But to suggest the Scriptures are the ONLY evidence that "prove" the validity of its claims is to work that same, tired Bob and Alice act on me. RR is going to put you to bed on this one. Already has, I think though I didn't peek hard at it. I will when I'm less tired although I don't think I could be any more bored. Didn't I ask politely to keep the simple things off the table? Thanks for the dance, though. I mean that.

Kaman:
As you yourself pointed out, there’s more than just the Bible to point to God’s existence.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” - Romans 1:20

And if the Bible is so completely wrong, why has it survived for thousands of years? How can you explain the miraculous changes in people’s lives? The creation of the world and the universe? The perfection that exists around you all the time in nature? The miracle of life? The miracles that have happened throughout history? Do you honestly believe you magically appeared out of nowhere after some big bang, and that you’re a meaningless descendant of pond-scum and monkeys (that also magically appeared out of nowhere to live on a planet that is perfectly set up to sustain life)? This takes even more faith to believe in than that God exists and is our creator. And it has nowhere near the same amount of proof that we have all around us that God does in fact exist.

And here’s what you did:

MADDOG: >>> The creation is flawed.>>>
KAMAN>>> I’m starting to get the message.

Arrogance.

RR: >>> there is none good but one.>>>
KAMAN>>> I’m really starting to feel like a pile of poop.

Your take on it does not equate everyone else’s take on it.

RR: >>> There is none righteous, no, not one.>>>
KAMAN >>> The toxic pollution that is called “humans” shouldn’t exist. We are the most worthless pieces of compost in the universe. I think I need to kill myself and rid the world of my cancerous scourge of existence. Agent Smith must have been a Christian.

Arrogance and stereotyping.

STAN: >>> The word of God must be true as it came from the minds of the men who believe in the self-created God.>>>
KAMAN >>> Irrational.

Arrogance.

STAN: >>> There are so many stupid people in the world that don’t understand sex … Missionary style is the only acceptable way.>>>
KAMAN >>> Irrational, stupid and arrogant at the same time.

More arrogance.

See how easy and yet pointless that is? It doesn’t make a person’s points any less valid. You seem to want us to believe you are as arrogant as you proclaim other’s to be. It gets you nowhere. Let’s be bigger than that and disagree without resorting to such hateful methods to try debasing someone’s beliefs.

Oh, and
RR: >>> it seems Lucy is anything but Christian.>>>
KAMAN >>> Again, judgmental.

If you read what she wrote, I hardly think you’d come to the conclusion that she believes in God. Not judgmental, but rather a rational observation of a most likely truth based on the words that came out of her own mouth. And notice I said “seems”.

RR: >>> The real problem seems to be people wanting to hold onto sin and being able to do so, all in the name of enjoying themselves and not feeling guilty doing so.>>>
KAMAN >>>Giving up enjoying yourself and taking on a ton of guilt.

Clearly you don’t understand what it’s about. And guilt is not part of it. When you learn more from the Bible, you’d understand that. I’ve not felt much guilt since being saved. As a Christian, if you feel a ton of guilt you’re doing something wrong.

KAMAN >>> Let’s see if I want to join Christianity:
KAMAN >>> Judgmental
Yes, God will judge us in our sin. This is why we need the redemption of Jesus Christ. But once you have that redemption, you’ll be fine if you’re sincere about your desire to turn away from sin.

KAMAN >>> Arrogance
So you see a few people make, in your opinion, arrogant remarks, and now ascribe arrogance to the entire group? Stereotyping is a bad for a reason. And you seem to want us to believe you’re arrogant as well, so if that’s true, this would be a plus for you if it was true of Christians, as you’d like us to believe?

KAMAN >>> Being made to feel like manure
Sorry you feel this bad about it. Your reaction seems rather extreme.

KAMAN >>> Intolerant
You seem to want us to believe you’re no less intolerant, so perhaps for you this too would be a plus if it was true?

KAMAN >>> Irrational
Have you shown any rational reason why God doesn’t exist? Have you shown any rational reason why we should believe you are a descendant of pond-scum and monkeys?

KAMAN >>> Naïve
It’s fine that you don’t believe. But suppose you end up being wrong? Naïve is one word I suppose that might describe you when you find yourself shocked that you’re one day judged and cast into the lake of fire.

KAMAN >>> Inaccurate propaganda
See above.

KAMAN >>> Can’t question God
Sure you can. Question him all you want. I just pray that the question of your salvation is settled before it’s too late. After that, you can question him, and pray to him all you want as well. He encourages it.

KAMAN >>> No porn
Well, it’s not good that so many people are exploited, used and abused all in the name of people’s lust of the flesh. A.k.a., porn.

KAMAN >>> Constant surveillance by God
When you become a child of God, you’ll realize you really don’t have anything to hide.

KAMAN >>> No more fun
A seeming lack of understanding. I have quite a bit of fun every day!

KAMAN >>> Never Ending Guilt
What is this guilt you speak of? I haven’t felt much guilt since I was saved.

KAMAN >>> WHERE DO I SIGN UP?
See previous posts. I go into detail.

Thanks for posting!
Praise the Lord!

“If you believe me to be a sinner and my actions to be vile and depraved, that is all very well for you. However, as long as my actions are not doing any harm to anyone ..”

I’m sorry if you took offense to this. I was not speaking to you directly, and was just providing information from the Bible in response to another poster who offered inaccurate information about God and his gift of Salvation.

If I’m not mistaken, if we violate the commandments that God gave us we are pretty much harming others. I only point this out because this seems to be a quality even you admit has some importance. So we do agree on some things!

“.. (other than my own "soul"), you do not have the right to prevent me from committing them, or to force me to behave in a way YOU consider more appropriate.”

I’m not forcing you to do anything. How could I? I’m not anywhere near you. I’m merely providing information that’s in the Bible. I’m quoting the Bible. People around you will frown upon you when you take actions that hurt others, I’m sure, whether they are Christian or otherwise.

But if my post had enough of an impression on you that you felt you were in some way being prevented from doing something, perhaps your conscience is trying to tell you something? Perhaps God is trying to speak to you through the Holy Spirit? Something to consider as a possibility. While I’m unable to prevent you from doing anything, your conscience has far more sway in that category.

“If your God exists, than HE will judge me.”

This is true. I am and was in no way judging you (or anyone) based on what the Bible says. I was merely providing information from the Bible about God, and about His judgments. It is one of our tasks (Christians) to make known the Gospel. To spread His word so that all may at one time or another hear it and be potentially capable of making a choice concerning God. Those that have heard the gospel will be without excuse when faced with judgment by Him.

“That said. I am not a Christian, but I have no objection to the beliefs of my Christian friends and co-workers. Not everyone is out to "convert" me or shove their beliefs down my throat”

No one can convert you, save yourself and God. We can only make known the Word of God that is in the Bible. Saving you is out of any of our own hands.

You are doing no different than I: you are presenting your beliefs. Should I then get angry that you’re trying to “shove your beliefs down my throat”? Of course not.

“However, as long as there are aggressive zealots out there, and as long as they continue to try to push their agenda through legal and social channels .."

Aggressive zealots? You have your own opinion; you voice it quite strongly (which is fine). Does that make you a zealot? Of course not. Are we to now label everyone a zealot who presents their beliefs for all to see? Or is this just a convenient way to try discrediting a person when no valid arguments are available?

“.. there needs to be opposition to them.”

Why does there *need* to be? You seem quite capable of making your own decisions. Do you not think other people are just as capable? Your admitted need to present opposition to faith in Christ seems to be somewhat personal. After all, if you were truly fine with your sense of faith in Christ (or lack thereof), why take such personal offense to it? Why feel the *need* to make sure there’s opposition? So that no one else will get saved? Is your "religion" "dont believe in Jesus Christ or God"?

“Christianity may be true. It may not be true. But one thing is certainly true, and that is that when you place interpretation of God into the hands of men, the only agenda that is served is that of power. “

Many religions in the name of God have been created for exactly that reason. The Bible even warns of this. Do you think that is the *only* agenda of people who have knowledge of the Bible?

“You yourself may not see it that way; you may have an earnest and tender desire to "save" me.”

I think this answers the question. So you seem to realize that power is not the only agenda served when the Word of God is placed into the hands of men.

And actually, I’m not trying to save you. I can’t save you or anyone. Only you and God can do that through the Holy Spirit. I’m merely helping to make sure people are at least aware of the gospel. In the end, as you clearly realize, it’s up to you to accept or reject it. And I fully realize that is well out of my control. Doesn’t change the fact that I want to at least make sure as many people as possible are at least *aware* of the gospel.

“...and if you must argue with us, stop quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Nothing makes an atheist laugh harder than circular logic. “

I don’t quote the Bible to prove it’s true. I already believe it’s true, and quote it to give information about the gospel. Individuals will then accept or reject it. You’re right: the fact that I quote it doesn’t make it true. But that’s not the reason it gets quoted.

Thanks for posting!
Praise the Lord!

Well, I couldn’t resist.

MADDOG: >>>You may not like it but it's not "circular." A history book tells me Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg. I may not like the speech, even deny the man existed but it's useless to say the history book doesn't assert what it does.>>>

No? Not circular? I…can’t…hold back…anymore…must jump back in the fray. This is a meatball waiting to be hit out of the park. This is so simple; I don’t even know why I bother. Oh well. In for a penny…..

Corbie isn’t saying that the Bible doesn’t assert what it asserts…lol. The circular logic he is talking about is the logical fallacy that says the Scriptures are valid. Below is a perfect example that very clearly illustrates “circular logic”, ”begging the question”, “circular reasoning”, “petitio principii” or “vicious cycle”.

Alice: God created the world.
Bob: How do you know that?
Alice: Because it says so in the Bible.
Bob: How do you know that the Bible is correct?
Alice: Because the Bible is the word of God in written form.
Bob: How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?
Alice: Because it says so in the Bible.
Bob: How do you know that the Bible is correct?
Alice: Because the Bible is the word of God in written form.
Bob: How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?
Alice: Because it says so in the Bible.
Bob: How do you know that the Bible is correct?
Alice: Because the Bible is the word of God in written form.

THIS is the fallacy of circular reasoning Corbie is talking about. The conclusion also appears as the premise. (Excuse me, Corbie, for putting words in your mouth) If you can’t see that, then you are truly blind. Until the validity of the Bible is established (other than God says so), it is totally meaningless as a device to prove your point. And until the validity of God is established (other than the Bible says so), it is also totally meaningless as a device to prove your point. This “I am God, because I say I am God” argument is the most commonly used example to illustrate circular reasoning when logical fallacies are explained or taught.

I can assert that I have a law degree from Harvard University. Why? Because it is on my resume, which I wrote. Let’s say a potential employer is looking for a Chief Counsel for his corporation. As he is interviewing me, he doubts I am being honest about my education. He asks me what documentation I have to support my assertion. How silly would it sound if I were to point to the 11th line on the first page of the resume and say “See, it says so right here…’Law Degree – Harvard University’.” And if he says that he needs more proof than my resume and wants a copy of my transcripts, I tell him “Trust me. I wrote the resume myself. It is accurate. All you need is a little faith.” Until I prove my resume is valid with transcripts or other documentation, my resume has zero credibility and is rubbish to him. Maybe my resume is right and maybe it’s wrong. But I sure as hell ain’t getting the job unless I produce something from another source to substantiate my own claims, both verbal and written. It would be foolish for him risk such an important decision based solely on what I say or write, especially if there are questions as to the validity of my claims. Likewise, it is foolish for humans to risk such an important decision based solely on the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God.

Christians need to realize that as soon as they refer to the Bible, the game is over before getting up to the plate. As the recipient of many attempts by Christians to “show me the way”, believe me when I say that you will get tuned out immediately. That is why Corbie says it is laughable for you to think quoting Scripture is the trump card. To you it may be the ace of spades, but to your audience it is the joker card. Know your audience. It would be more effective (but not much) in convincing non-believers if you , appealed to “God reveals himself in nature”, or “I have personally seen God move in my life” type of arguments, instead of “John 1:1 says, ‘In the beginning was the word…” or “God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush.”

CORBIE: >>> and if you must argue with us, stop quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Nothing makes an atheist laugh harder than circular logic.>>>

MADDOG: >>>You're laughing but no one else in the room is laughing with you.>>>

I’m laughing with Corbie, although I consider myself an agnostic (doesn’t know if God exists or not), rather than an atheist (believes/knows God doesn’t exist).

MADDOG: >>>MEN do not interpret God. God reveals HIMSELF.>>>

LUCY: >>>We Christians, who know what God thinks...>>>

From the comments gleaned from the Christian-minded responses, it looks like Lucy did some serious misinterpreting. (Presumably, Maddog intended “MEN” to mean women and men). “God told me tonite that there is a special place in hell for people who blasphemes Him… God talks to me everyday… We Christians know that God does not like their "kind"”

If mankind doesn’t interpret God, then why such the variations within Christianity itself on the nature of God? After all, if he reveals himself to mankind with no interpretation necessary, how could there be differences? Some folks must have perverted God’s revelation by trying to interpret God. So who is correct? Catholics? Protestants? Baptists? Methodists? There are just so many to choose from.

*************************

GREG: >>> At best Lucy is a Christian in name only>>>
Judgmental.

RR: >>> it seems Lucy is anything but Christian.>>>
Again, judgmental.

MADDOG: >>> You SHOULD be angry at "Christians" who deny this premise. They are rank pretenders.>>>
[sigh] Judgmental once more (anyone seeing a pattern here?)

MADDOG: >>>shows you're not understanding.>>>
Arrogance.

MADDOG: >>> Your premise … is flawed.>>>
Arrogance again.

SOLID NOX: >>> Does that make sense to you or do I need to break out the "black" board?>>>
Know-it-all. Definitely arrogant.

MADDOG: >>> Lord have mercy on His poor servant: an unlearned man…. I am not a novice. I have no patience for cheap quibbling. Make good points, please.>>>
Incredibly arrogant.

MADDOG: >>> The definition of "human" is not necessarily "sinner" except that our own pride, arrogance, and depravity has secured that tag FOR us.>>>
Now that’s uplifting.

MADDOG: >>> The creation is flawed.>>>
I’m starting to get the message.

MADDOG: >>> Mankind is enmity against God and there it is (Romans 8:7)>>>
This reinforcing rhetoric is pervasive.

RR: >>> there is none good but one.>>>
I’m really starting to feel like a pile of poop.

RR: >>> There is none righteous, no, not one.>>>
The toxic pollution that is called “humans” shouldn’t exist. We are the most worthless pieces of compost in the universe. I think I need to kill myself and rid the world of my cancerous scourge of existence. Agent Smith must have been a Christian.

MADDOG: >>> It is enough to assert Jesus who declared that "I am the way, the truth, and the life." There are no other ways to approach a Holy God except through THAT intercessor. HE said it. I repeat it. Sorry if I offend. I know there are a great many who would call me "intolerant.">>>
Intolerant.

SOLID NOX: >>> I am sorry, but this feminist dogma only serves to perpetuate divisions. I do not want to hear that crap … My God, you self-centered selfish white feminists could not see your hand in front of your faces if it had not been for so-called civil rights legislation that was diverted to equality between white men and white men. Get outta here with that!>>>
Very intolerant.

MADDOG: >>> Mormonism is a direct assault against the Scriptures as far as orthodox Christian soteriology goes.>>>
Sounds like Mormons are going to hell. Not very tolerant at all.

STAN: >>> The word of God must be true as it came from the minds of the men who believe in the self-created God.>>>
Irrational.

STAN: >>> There are so many stupid people in the world that don’t understand sex … Missionary style is the only acceptable way.>>>
Irrational, stupid and arrogant at the same time.

THOUGHTFUL: >>> Don't try to actually comprehend it because you'll hurt yourself.>>>
Don’t think. Just blindly follow.

BOB: >>> Keep up with the news and articles on the Internet and you'll find as time goes by archaeologist and historians keep finding more and more evidence that the Bible is accurate.>>>
Where’d he get this from, Jack Van Imp? I guess I’ll put this in the irrational section, but it is more inaccurate than irrational.

MADDOG: >>> Still, if God should so choose to condemn men who live in far off places, who is to place an accusation against Him? Who is so bold? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "why have you made me this way?!?">>>
Truly irrational and naïve. And to answer your question: If God condemns man based on where he was born, then I will be “bold” and place an accusation against him and ask “Why has God made us this way?”

THOUGHTFUL: >>> When one treats every object they come in contact with, animate or inanimate, sexual partner or bowl of ice cream, as God then every act is sacred. Every act becomes a prayer and an offering.>>>
Huh? This is just plain weird. But it is thoughtful, I’ll give you that.

TED: >>> That's hot. Doesn't sound like it's anti-sex to me.>>> [referring to Proverbs 5:18-19]
Trading Proverbs for porn? I’ll take porn. Ted needs to get out more if the Bible gets his rocks off.

RR: >>> God can see into the minds and hearts of these 5 billion people.>>>
That’s reassuring. Constant surveillance to catch you doing something wrong.

RR: >>> The real problem seems to be people wanting to hold onto sin and being able to do so, all in the name of enjoying themselves and not feeling guilty doing so.>>>
Giving up enjoying yourself and taking on a ton of guilt.

******
Let’s see if I want to join Christianity:

Judgmental
Arrogance
Being made to feel like manure
Intolerant
Irrational
Naïve
Inaccurate propaganda
Can’t question God
No porn
Constant surveillance by God
No more fun

And to top it all off…

Never Ending Guilt

WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

“Umm... RR? Appreciate the post. I think we sort of caught you in a mood, though :-) “

Actually I enjoyed the chance to clarify what I thought was a major misunderstanding. I thoroughly enjoyed how much clearer things became to me when I was talking about it. :-)

“I know you were on a roll this morning but it's my opinion the "Christ was murdered" line is an overstatement. According even to HUMAN logic and reasoning, this couldn't possibly be true. Could the Christ have died? Yes. Murdered? Nope. No one takes His life. He lays it down and has the power to take it up again. That was an important NT theoological point. Cheerfully review that one for me?”

No, you are exactly right. It was misleading when I said he was murdered. It was his choice to die (as I did say), so of course if it’s his choice he wasn’t technically ‘murdered’. It was completely voluntary by Jesus to die on the cross (for our sins). In fact, it was pre-ordained way before he was ever born that he would do so. So yes, my use of the term “murdered” was misleading. Thank you for pointing that out.

“Also I'm a little confused on the issue of "He’s offering you a way to avoid this" line of reasoning. It just seems thoroughly inconsistent with the idea of redemption. Either God saves men or He does not. I'm pretty sure He's not wringing His hands up in heaven worrying about the "choices" the dead will make (yet even this argument is inferred). They will always make one choice and one choice only: to remain dead. There IS no other choice. “

Not sure I completely follow you (and I’m no expert). Free will seems to be a part of that equation: when offered the chance, we must choose to take it. Admit we are sinners; Repent from our sins; Believe that Jesus Christ bore the punishment for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead; and call on the Lord to save us.

Are you talking about people that weren’t saved, but have already died (here on Earth)? Are those the people whose only choice is to remain dead? Not sure I followed you on that.

God saves men who are willing to admit they are sinners, believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died so that our sins might be forgiven, and that we call on Him to save us. For those people who have already died, their eternal fate has unfortunately already been sealed. Hopefully they were already saved. So not sure if I understood your question.

Praise the Lord!

Hey Corbie.

Your premise that sin involves only yourself is flawed. Is not a nation "damaged" by the unwise and unholy actions of its leader? If it is sin to ignore the plight of the sick and starving and a national leader does so, isn't this just a sin of omission? Hardly, for even though the leader does "nothing" (as you suggest), there are ramifications. I cannot imagine a sin that does not carry with it stain of a communal sense. Yet, leave it to man to assume he is an island. It smacks of arrogance but I'll leave it at that.

Force you to behave in a way I consider more appropriate? How would this be done? Sin comes from the inner part of man and even if I might be able to coerce you into OUTWARD piety, the ugly truth is: you won't be turned. Cannot. Your sin keeps you from it. You SHOULD be angry at "Christians" who deny this premise. They are rank pretenders.

I'll hear you out on the issue of the "Christian Agenda." I'm not pleased at evangelicals mingling in secular issues. Are we not called out to be apart from such things, brothers? Influence? I would hope. But to have friendship with the world is enmity with God. I would encourage evangelicals to back off. The GOSPEL is OUR job. We should attend to it first before other distractions.

Christianity cannot be POSSIBLY right or wrong. It either is, or it is not. It cannot be "mostly" right either. The Scriptures themselves prohibit such a base conclusion. Your statement, "when you place interpretation of God into the hands of men" thing shows you're not understanding. MEN do not interpret God. God reveals HIMSELF. You may be uncomfortable with that and even deny His being but I can assure you myself right now: it doesn't matter what I personally THINK about God (except for my own benefit): He simple "is." What may be known of God has been made manifest to you: even the Godhead, but you suppress this knowledge in iniquity. The Scriptures say so. As I've told others: quit griping at ME. I'm only repeating what has been spoken against you from the Scriptures. I have no axe to grind. I'm not even angry with you.

Again with the flawed logic: I, myself, cannot save you. I cannot do anything in the heart of man. This is accomplished entirely and utterly by the Holy Spirit through Christ our Lord. If you are angry with Him and deny Him, then so be it. You're performing true to type, really. The atheist is the worst kind of two-dimensional paper doll. They are inevitably predictable and do only what their nature commands. I'm not disgusted nor am I condemning them. I have no power over them and wouldn't appreciate the responsibility even if I did. But you persist in the notion that the atheist is merely a sceptic and a reasonable creature after all. False. The atheist ALWAYS proves to be a creature of half-truths and prejudices. When you poke a stick in the eye of the evangelicals, I always hear you out. Shouldn't all men (even the redeemed) be under the microscope? Shouldn't we ALL be judged on our testimony? I think that's only fair. I'm ready to submit to this examination. Why does the atheist always believe they'll be given a free pass? I, myself, condemn no one. I throw no brimstone. But if I assert the Scriptures, I do so on IT'S authority and you are more than welcome to rail against it. Truly, do you have any other choice?!? I will refute your broken notion that I am out to exercise power. I simply bring a message. Do with it what you please.

Leaving you "alone" is not an option. I may stop talking with you if that annoys you and that's only polite and orderly. But you exist in the same pond as me and as long as the atheist persists in having a seat in the marketplace of free ideas, I will be there alongside you. I'm not your enemy, after all, but a still, small voice pleading in the wilderness. Or do I not have the same consideration we seem to want to share with YOU?

Your "circular logic" assertion is technically wrong. The Scriptures explain themselves and this is not a tautology. They assert what they do. You may not like it but it's not "circular." A history book tells me Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg. I may not like the speech, even deny the man existed but it's useless to say the history book doesn't assert what it does. We know you don't acknowledge the Scriptures. We're not ENTIRELY fools! LOL But if you're engaging us in ideas, you're equally foolish if you think we're going to stray from the premise that the Scriptures tell us what is necessary for salvation. Good grief? Should I suggest you can never quote Darwin? Geez, Corbie. Let's get a good grip on things. You're laughing but no one else in the room is laughing with you. We may be considered wrong but we're consistent, I think. Aren't we? Don't we evangelicals ALSO perform true to type?

Or have I said something you didn't expect?

Lucy,

You write great copy. When will we see you on Saturday Night Live?

And why are you named after Lucy, the human progenitor who resided in Africa 6,000,000 years ago? Just think: that Lucy evolved into the you-Lucy! Marvelous!

"Judge not, that ye be not judged..."

The largest problem I have with Christianity is simply this.

If you believe me to be a sinner and my actions to be vile and depraved, that is all very well for you. However, as long as my actions are not doing any harm to anyone (other than my own "soul"), you do not have the right to prevent me from committing them, or to force me to behave in a way YOU consider more appropriate. If your God exists, than HE will judge me.

That said. I am not a Christian, but I have no objection to the beliefs of my Christian friends and co-workers. Not everyone is out to "convert" me or shove their beliefs down my throat-- and my boss's little statue of the Ten Commandments on his desk doesn't offend me in any way. However, as long as there are aggressive zealots out there, and as long as they continue to try to push their agenda through legal and social channels, there needs to be opposition to them.

Christianity may be true. It may not be true. But one thing is certainly true, and that is that when you place interpretation of God into the hands of men, the only agenda that is served is that of power.

You yourself may not see it that way; you may have an earnest and tender desire to "save" me. You are doing me, and every other heathen, liberal, and sinner, much more of a favor by leaving us alone and continuing to believe that we'll face our "judgment" at God's hands. Don't condemn us, don't try to convert us, don't try to make our behavior and beliefs illegal if we're not doing anyone but ourselves any harm.

...and if you must argue with us, stop quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Nothing makes an atheist laugh harder than circular logic.

Umm... RR? Appreciate the post. I think we sort of caught you in a mood, though :-) I'm understanding your points and I'm not really wanting to be such a bother (especially out here in the open marketplace) but I don't have a way to talk offline. You make salient points: I'm concerned sometimes with the language. I'll explain.

I know you were on a roll this morning but it's my opinion the "Christ was murdered" line is an overstatement. According even to HUMAN logic and reasoning, this couldn't possibly be true. Could the Christ have died? Yes. Murdered? Nope. No one takes His life. He lays it down and has the power to take it up again. That was an important NT theoological point. Cheerfully review that one for me? Please?

Also I'm a little confused on the issue of "He’s offering you a way to avoid this" line of reasoning. It just seems thoroughly inconsistent with the idea of redemption. Either God saves men or He does not. I'm pretty sure He's not wringing His hands up in heaven worrying about the "choices" the dead will make (yet even this argument is inferred). They will always make one choice and one choice only: to remain dead. There IS no other choice.

I really won't be critical since there is nothing to be gained by it. Maybe another cup of coffee or two :)

Cheers.

Kaman, if you read carefully, it seems Lucy is anything but Christian, and is probably just trolling to give Christian's a bad name. It’s unfortunate that you didn’t read carefully enough and so quickly assume that’s a Christian, let alone that all Christians are just like that. Already you give the impression your opinions and judgments are easily and carelessly formed. And now you want us to seriously consider that your thoughts and opinions about how God is holds some weight?

“Lucy and all her friends here confirmed to me that I have made the right decision.”

If you’re so quick to condemn hundreds of millions of people based on your personal observation of even 100 of those 100+ million (100 being the number of true Christians you got to know really well, and even if we made that number 1000, the argument is the same), it seems to me you’re doing an even graver injustice than you claim God is doing. At least God can see into the minds and hearts of these 5 billion people. At least God can already see what these 5 billion people (and the billions that came before) are capable of. All of them. Not to mention that you falsely assumed Lucy was a Christian. So your assumption on a small number of Christian people includes people that aren’t even part of the group you seek to judge.

Consider modifying your own ability at rational and theological discourse before drawing such serious conclusions as to the nature of God, a divine being you’ve never even met and have little chance (just like the rest of us) of ever being able to understand him with our limited intellect. Conclusions that will have *serious* implications to the fate of your soul.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
- Matthew 7:1-2

“Tell me I’m the greatest/nicest person in the world at I’ll give you a million dollars. If you don’t, I’ll blow you away. It's your choice”

Your analogy is bad, in my opinion. God is not the one that blows you away, in fact no one blows you away. But someone wants to torture you for eternity (even more cruel than just being blown away, as you agree many people will *want* to be blown away when they realize where they’ll end up spending eternity). He’s offering you a way to avoid this. But in spite of this offer, you and others will reject Him.

You consider that cruel. But would it not also be cruel to *allow* those who reject Him, who clearly have no desire to avoid sin, to then torture those of us who wish to be as Righteous as possible, as sinless as possible, and live by laws of brotherly love, by allowing them to come along and torture everyone else for eternity? That’s already happening. It’s called Earth. Need we remind you of all the evil that exists in the world today because of those that sin? (death, murder, rape, torture) Need we remind you of all the torture everyone has to suffer through because of those who want to sin? You want heaven to be the same way?! *Someone* is going to get the short end of the stick, and as it stands now, it’s only those who *choose* to continue to sin (and reject God in the process). A person wants to sin, and have all the “fun” that entails can do it for eternity when their life continues in the lake of fire.

So your analogy is seriously flawed in my opinion, and hence any conclusions you propose based on that analogy.

And put aside for a moment being *born* into sin. Even if we were born sinless, we would have gone on to sin anyway. Adam and Eve were born sinless. They weren’t even brought up in a sinful world like we are. They had God walking physically alongside with them as a *physical* person. You expect us to believe that people, being brought up in a sinful world, without God right next to them physically, having never physically even met God, have more chance to not sin than Adam and Eve, whose only path to sin was being given free will, who had no knowledge of Good and Evil, and *one* choice of temptation, while living with God Himself being a very real friend beside them?

The fact is, we will all sin. God is the only one that is perfect.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one
- Romans 3:10

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
- Romans 3:23

Even Jesus says this:

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
- Matthew 19:17

The fact is, we are going to either accept or reject God’s offer to help us from this state. God is a Holy God. He is righteous. He is perfect. If we want to entertain the thought he could choose to change everyone, that might be akin to brainwashing, to electric shock therapy, to mind-control, to torturing someone until they are forced to be sinless, to lock you in a padded cell, only giving you very few things so that you do not sin, all in the name of ‘helping’ someone. People have done this now and in the past, all in the name of ‘helping’ someone. I can assure you to most outsiders that is considered anything but help, anything but good.

Or we can just choose to reject sin and accept Jesus Christ, and God will then help us become more righteous, and more Christ-like, with the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s called being a Christian.

God is choosing to *not* just ignore our wishes, override free-will, and just take us prisoner in a place some of us clearly *choose* to not want to be: heaven.

God offered the life of his only Son, to be tortured and humiliated and murdered for all to see to offer us this gift. Jesus Christ offered to be tortured, humiliated and murdered for all to see to offer us this gift. But this gift only applies to individuals that want to believe in this gift. Would any of us offer our life to save complete strangers? Would any of us offer to be tortured and killed to save complete strangers? To save evil, wicked people? And we need only believe he did this to save us from our sins to receive the gift.

Or we can continue to rationalize how bad God really is, so that we don’t have to take a look at ourselves and turn away from our sinful ways. Now we get to feel more comfortable about living a sin-filled life. Judging a Holy and all-powerful God, all in the name of feeling more comfortable living in our sin. And only when we end up in the lake of fire finally wish we had chosen otherwise.

The real problem seems to be people wanting to hold onto sin and being able to do so, all in the name of enjoying themselves and not feeling guilty doing so. So we rationalize. In the end, we can rationalize all we want. It won’t change the fact of where we’ll be spending the rest of eternity until we finally face our sin, and choose to start living a life rejecting sin by accepting Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry but anytime you start talking group activity, obviously you are going for quantity and not quality. What is your point? What is your problem? You have allowed your mind to get f@#ked is what has happened to you. You want the rush of group activity? Use your mind to play it safe...expand yourselves into the fourth diamension and have a room full of you waiting in line for her or vice versa. You see where I'm going with this? One on One is plenty for anyone, but y'all have your balls and do not come back to polite society until you've cleaned up your acts.

QUOTE Christianity can not and will not lift itself out of the false dogma of sexual negativity -- certainly it is a long way from accepting masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, homosexuality (for those who are so inclined), partner swapping, and all other activities consensually maximizing sexual variety, as the gifts from God in the way that PanDeism embraces these pleasures!! UNQUOTE That is all fine if everyone is on the same page, but what of someone who is just curious? Is that young soul persuaded with false promises of heart-felt intimacy? You see, you are no more immune to the pitfalls of human sexuality...for all of your variety...than are the rest of us, and frankly uhgg! How base can you get? Dont answer that piece of meat....have fun, and please play safe cause I don't want any pandemics of nasty little pathogens you pulled out of one hole to stick into another. Hope you find whatever it is you are pumping each other for ya Freaks! Please keep your communal crap to yourselves.

I do apologize for an earlier posting: equality between white men and white men should read equality between white men and white WOmen MY MISTAKE! GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH MY RANT.

At best Lucy is a Christian in name only. She speaks only for herself Kaman...

Just chill already. What's the point of getting all riled up over other people's postings? Does this help anything? ...

*smiles grandly* Yah, Kaman. Gotta love those "Christian folk" huh? LOL. Secretely, I think Lucy is one of my unbelieving cohorts stoking a fire ;-) Oh, maybe I'm too cynical for my own good.

Truly, I wish you good fortune. I cast no fireballs at you but desire only good things. Now it is natural for me to claim that no sins go unpunished and if there is no one to "settle your tab" you'll end up making the payment yourself but know that I do not say these things to hurt but to encourage.

Please do judge "Christians." If they are rude, crude, and delight in your misery then you are free to assert they are not "in the light." I fear there is a lot of pretense out there, friend. A lot of posturing and lies. But if I am worthy of your attention a little more, please read me for what I assert through the Scriptures. "You will know them by their love" and that's ANOTHER faithful saying.

No thoughts on Jesus' penis, however. LOL
Wow. The public forum is an odd place, isn't it?

Go well, friend.

--yours in Christ

Wow...Lucy is quite the spokesperson for God. Since God talks to her, everything she says must be true. You Christians must feel lucky to have someone like Lucy on your side who is so in tune to what God is thinking.

But I will not respond anymore. Lucy and all her friends here confirmed to me that I have made the right decision.

I appreciate the efforts of Maddog to be civil and thoughtful. I wonder if he has any thoughts on Jesus' penis...LOL

To Phil Wyman
Re: Your blog at http://squarenomore.blogspot.com/2007/02/christian-sexuality-part-5.html

Phil, I tried polyamory once, and I found that it only works if you've got a damn-near perfect body.

To Thoughtful:

"That is, if you drew a circle and inside the circle was 'everything that exists'. That includes the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Outside the circle is everything that doesn't exist. We can't comprehend it or think of it because by it's very nature is that it doesn't exist in material reality or in thought form either. God is the sum total of the inside and outside of the circle and more...."

I personally like to think of God as both sides of the Möbius Loop, which is not so different from your elegant description.

Kaman I can speak for all us Christians here that we all know you are going to HELL! I rebuke you in the name of the Lord!! Your blasphemy will be struck down by the swift hand of the Almighty God. God told me tonite that there is a special place in hell for people who blasphemes Him.

Your words from your forked tongue come straight from Satan himself!! We Christians, who know what God thinks, and his fury will come down, you imp of the devil. All us Christians here morn the loss of your soul as the never-ending flames torment you forever.

I am disappointed in my fellow Christians here who don't have the balls to SPEAK UP FOR YOUR LORD!!! Jesus Christ Almighty. We Christians, who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb, bask in the crimson which consumes us, permeating all our pores with his blood. Praise be to the Lord!!

Kaman's post is obviously being controlled by his penis. We Christians here say in unison...MAY YOU AND YOUR PENIS ROT IN HELL!!! We Christians know our Lord Jesus came to earth without a penis. God knew a penis would corrupt Jesus. This is widely accepted by scholars who truly believe. Jesus was a perfect man. Praise be to God!!!

Thank you, Jesus, for being the perfect example. This poor soul cannot control his wood, and those who can't control their wood it will face the wrath of God. God talks to me everyday.

And yes all the muslims will be next to you in hell. We Christians know that God does not like their "kind". He only loves clean and pure souls.

a) The creation is flawed by a pure act of free will on the behalf of mankind. After Adam's sin, mankind did inherit—not just a propensity—but a carnal will that is bent to sin. This was a just condemnation for open defiance. If mankind wants to argue the point with God that He is unfair, stand in line. There are many before you. Frankly, I couldn't imagine why you'd try. He said what is just, right, and holy. Mankind is enmity against God and there it is (Romans 8:7)

b) Adam INDEED screwed all of us. It was really Adam's fault. I'm not going to give a pass to Eve but I will say this: Eve was deceived and ate. Adam WANTED to eat. Why do you think we hear of sin being referred to as "Adamic." (I didn't give a pass to Eve, though LOL) And please don't lump me in with those "women haters" out there passing themselves off as Christians. PLEASE! *smiles politely*

c) God didn't need to look a "few years ahead" because He had already declared all things to come to pass before He started the work. Adam's sin didn't "surprise" God. Think for a moment... if I (or my ilk) accept Jesus as existing in the Godhead before the foundations of the world, why was there a Jesus if sin hadn't entered the world? We believe all the matters we speak of are foreordained and yet I am a free agent. I lift this mouse or I do not. I don't believe God "makes" me do so. Nor do I believe anything is "right" or "wrong" about me lifting this mouse. I just "do." But even as the words escape my lips I wonder, would God BE God if He did not know nor decree that I would?

d) I would try not to generalize your study as "shoddy." That just seems rude of me. Please accept a humble apology if I was too flippant (I was aiming at "folksy." Did I miss? ;-)

I will affirm only what one may discover through a proper Biblical interpretation. As you might guess, I have no real arguments of my own. I say nothing except those things many of my forefathers would have also asserted. As well, I have no righteousness of my own nor any authority but I do appeal to the academic precedence set by Bible scholars. You or others may scoff at them and that's your right: I do not condemn you for doing so but so that you know, I maintain hermaneutics is not entirely unlike, say, the precepts involved in the study of anthropology or archeology. At the risk of appearing glib, I respond:

1. Yes (I don't understand it but I receive it by faith)
2. Yes. It stands to follow.
3. Yes. Ibid.
4. Yes. We, however, exist in the envelope of time and cannot know the mind of God.
5. Yes. It is His right to do so.
6. Yes. Conforms with boolean logic. Also brings up the point: if God did NOT know Satan would reject Him, it would deny His stated omniscience and make Him look somewhat like a dork, don't you think?
7. Yes. There would be no need of a redeemer if there were no one to redeem though this is a bit flippant. I'm sorry I even wrote it like that. Sin is an awful and terrible thing. God is not the author of it nor could be.
8. I don't believe in "instinct" except when you refer to the animal kingdom. Humans are free agents. They are endowed with the ability to reason (flawed reasoning, though, by way of the sin nature).
9. True. Jesus Himself declared it. You don't have to believe it. I do. I believe I have good reason to believe just not in the way mankind EXPECTS me to reason. Further, I would elaborate on a point. Christ didn't die "hypothetically" for the "possibility" of saving His elect. He died PRECISELY and EXACTLY for those that were given to Him before the foundations of the world. Just don't expect me to explain supra- vs. infralapsarianism. Waaaaaay too much for here.
10. "Turned His back?" Okay. I'll allow it for here. No need to get picky. I'll say this: God did take out upon the Christ all His righteous indignation and wrath. Jesus did not deserve it nor was it "right" in the human sense. It was "right" because God DECLARED it to be right. Sent Jesus to hell? Hmmm... I am a reader of Greek in the New Testament (doctrine of original languages). I'm not exactly sure you can get to "hell" from the Greek I think you're quoting. "Into the earth?" Hmmm... this one deserves a much closer look from a linguistics point of view and this is just NOT the forum for that.
11. This I believe: Jesus arose on the third day by the power of the Holy Spirit: the same Holy Spirit that raises spiritually dead men and women to believe on Christ. He arose later into the sky and it was witnessed by many people. Again... I can't imagine what this looked like or felt like. It is, however, consistent with other supernatural events of the first century. I have no real reason to doubt it.
12. Necessary. If Jesus inherited the Adamic nature, He would have truly been "only man." Strange story, though, isn't it? Another thing I must understand with a healthy dose of theology and much Bible reading. I believe it, though.
13. Yes. I am certain the Scriptures declare this in John 3:18 et al.
14. I don't know about "all Muslims" in that I cannot, nor DO not know the mind of God in future events. It is enough to assert Jesus who declared that "I am the way, the truth, and the life." There are no other ways to approach a Holy God except through THAT intercessor. HE said it. I repeat it. Sorry if I offend. I know there are a great many who would call me "intolerant." I don't believe I am. If I tell you the key to your locker is on my desk and you go digging around in the closet, what can I tell you? The dang key is on the desk, son. You can choose to call me an idiot or claim I don't know what I'm talking about but unless you've got that key in your hand, you'd best be looking on my desk.
15. Kind sir (and I say this with a pure heart), I don't know. I simply do not know the future will of God. If you die in your sin, surely you will perish. It is the just condemnation for your sin nature (and don't tell me you're without sin). I truly do not wish it. I truly do not. I have no other message for you, my friend, except the "foolishness" of the cross (using Paul). I am not exceedingly wise but I am confident in the Son. Bury me for it, if you please.
16. Romans 1:17-23. It has been quoted before here in this thread. And in citing this, I will excuse myself for brevity's sake.
17. I don't know what "Christian influences" are. Maybe I'm daft. Before He changed my heart and took me from spiritual death unto spiritual life so that I might excercise faith unto justification, I hated Him. I hated church. I maliciously did everything BUT believe in Him yet I did all of this within the politcal boundaries of "Christian America?" Americans truly have some edge because there is a tradition of freedom in our land but that seems to be the ONLY edge and it is squandered, it seems, by our human pride and arrogance that "goeth before the fall." We have much to repent of, this nation.
18. Hmmm... a logical fallacy, I think. I would have to agree this number (80%) represents people who believe in Biblical Christianity. I think the number MIGHT represent all people claiming a kind of "cultural" Christianity but I posit a poor substitute, IMHO. That would also presuppose all men and women had equal moral ability before God. The Scriptures cannot and DO not assert this. NO man searches out God. They have ALL become corrupt. The Gospel goes out to ALL the corners of the earth. If you say a culture or a "way of culture" is predisposed to hate God, I might go there though I'm not precisely sure I would. To say that men and women (individually) do not have a guilty knowledge of God wherever they may be is just demonstrably false (according to the Scriptures, of course). Still, if God should so choose to condemn men who live in far off places, who is to place an accusation against Him? Who is so bold? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "why have you made me this way?!?" Be not so uncautious before Holy God.
19. Logical fallacy. Presupposes moral equipoise. Scripturally inadequate supposition.
20. Again, I will not fall trap to judging a sect except on the merits of their confession. Mormonism is a direct assault against the Scriptures as far as orthodox Christian soteriology goes. Let the Scriptures defend themselves on this matter. I withdraw my hand of judgment.

Now surely I am a fool! Yet I have spoken and my conscience is clear. You must know how I am wrong and biased. Am I judgmental? Do I hate my brothers or do I hold to the profound mystery of the faith with a clear conscience? It is not important for me to be "right" but that God be always found right. I reason from the Scriptures. You have every opportunity to take your swings: you live in the same "batter's box" as me, after all. You are worthy to be heard. If the Scriptures teach otherwise than I've said, please do tell. Yet remember: I am not a novice. I have no patience for cheap quibbling. Make good points, please.

Let me also say this: I regret a little bit that the topic has strayed from its initial course. It started out well, I think. I'm guilty of writing much and saying (most likely) little. I only hope our Deliverer make use of it somehow. My writings here betray a certain indulgence, worse luck.

Hi Zillah. I am at your service. The short answer to one of your questions is, no, God cannot sin. But it brings up the point I think may be a stumbling block. While God, in His eternal council, did indeed make necessary the atonement for sin and while this could only be accomplished through an intercessor (a substitute to stand-in for mankind who is unable) and while this was in accordance with God's decree that it be His only son, Jesus... it is not necessary for God to be (in spiritual condition) identical to man. In fact, this would have made Jesus (by definition) inappropriate in the atonement and we'd all be visiting His earthly grave to this day—skulking around the dust for His bones. But praise be to God who sent His son who was WITHOUT sin (but human in every other way, yet God) to be offered up as a "spotless lamb" to take away the sin of the world. Through the resurrection, we can have assurance that God received the payment that Christ paid for on the cross. Simple, yes. Simplistic, no. It is a profound truth.

I believe the key part of understanding an Adam/Second Adam concept is to arrive at the conclusion that sin is not "natural" nor a simple "misunderstanding" between God and man. Sin brings condemnation (human death) and follows on to eternal condemnation when there is no "answer" for sin. One does not need to sin in order to understand being a human being. We have hope, through this Jesus, that we might be what God would want us to be, namely, righteous before Him. Since we cannot be righteous before Him by our own righteousness, effort, or ability we must appeal to an intercessor. Jesus fulfills that office and by our repentence (changing of mind about sin), belief, and faith unto justification, mankind may (by God's power) be DECLARED righteous. Not that the Christian is now without sin, but that righteousness is IMPUTED to the sinner.

I don't have to contract cancer to develop a cure for cancer (this is also very unlikely since I am a simple fellow) nor is my cure for cancer any less valid because I, myself, do not have it. It was necessary for Christ to be in the form of man yet it was absolutely necessary for Him to be without sin. Sin is OUR issue and not one we should be proud of. The definition of "human" is not necessarily "sinner" except that our own pride, arrogance, and depravity has secured that tag FOR us. Remind yourself, though: Adam was not conceived in sin. This is something he used his "free will" to do. Makes it exceedingly bad, doesn't it?

And once more... I don't think I could adequately cover the whole of Christian doctrine on God's decree in a post. Needless to say, I would summarize the Scriptural teaching (Lord have mercy on His poor servant: an unlearned man) as this: 1) God did decree all things to come to pass even the acts of free agents; 2) The statement of this includes also those things that God detests but has allowed to come to pass so that the fulfillment of His eternal plan of redemption might be complete in Christ; 3) That the decree is fully consistent with the free agency of His creation [Acts 2]. It is more complex than that (of course), but that's how I would have started out a conversation of the teaching if asked. I was.

Thank you for asking. You put forth challenging, relevant, and appropriate questions.
I gotta get to my patient cohort Kaman now. I hope you don't feel I'm short-changin' ya! LOL

Mad, If God is perfect, pure, flawless, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, I AM, etc. etc. etc., then why are his creations so "flawed"? It is ironic that through his own perfect hand, either directly or indirectly, produced something so ugly and repulsive as humans and our instincts of "self". Perhaps we're just a trial run and he wasn't really trying that hard.

As for Adam, if he actually existed, your post makes it sound like only Adam screwed all of us. Sure Adam disobeyed, but it really wasn't Adam's fault, right? I believe the Bible is crystal clear that a woman didn't even have the will power to resist the smooth talk of a snake/serpent. It was the weaker woman who started humans down the slippery slope. After all, the serpent didn't approach Adam. Predators always go after the weakest prey. In fact, according Gen 3:16 God knew that the woman was weak-willed and needed close supervision by a man..."thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." I'm assuming God meant this for all women, not just Eve, right? After all, all women have pain in child bearing thanks to Eve.

(btw, I personally don't view women in this way, just quoting scripture...don't shoot the messenger)

It didn't sure take long for God's perfect handiwork to mess it all up. Couldn't the omniscient God see just a few years ahead and know this was going to happen? or did he, but didn't care? After all, being God and all, he could have erased Adam and Eve after they ruined everything and made new ones.

You seemed surprised at my shoddy recollection of the Bible ("Where'd you get this stuff?") Let me ask if these the following are universal Christian beliefs(yes/no). Maybe I'm all washed up in my understanding of Christian beliefs. I want to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. I know you will not be ashamed to declare if your beliefs match this list. (yes/no is fine). I know all Christians here will be willing to profess to each of these items if they believe them, or will all the believers just quietly read the list.

-God created the world
-God created the angels
-God created Lucifer
-God knows everything, including the future
-God has the ability to do any manipulations he chooses in our universe both physical and spritual.
-God knew Lucifer was going to go bad before he created him
-God knew Eve (and Adam) was going to disobey before he created them
-God knew from the beginning his creations were going to be faulty and with the instinct of "self"
-God sent his son, Jesus to atone for mankind's sin
-God turned his back to Jesus and sent Jesus to hell
-Jesus went back to heaven after going to hell
-Jesus was conceived by emmaculate conception
-The only way to God is to believe in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation
-The Muslims are all going to hell, because they did not accept Jesus for their salvation.
-I am going to hell, if I were to die right now
-Even though the Muslims/Buddhists/other religions are aware of Jesus, they have been conditioned since their birth to be a Muslim. In order to avoid eternal damnation, they need to somehow throw away everything they have been taught, and accept Christ, even though their lives are surrounded by Muslim influences, epecially tough living in the Middle East.
-It is much more likely for Americans to accept Christ as opposed to someone living in a Islamic theocracy because it is more likely they were raised under Christian influences.
-Depending on whose statistics you believe, If your an American, your chances quite high (80% claimed they were a Christian according to census bureau)you will escape hell. But if you live in Middle East-say Iran, your chances of eternal life are close to nil (2% Christian according to CIA World Fact Book)
-Making it to heaven/eternal life is due primarily to where you are born.
-Mormons are going to hell

Maddog:
You say "and I declare that God became man, lived as we did but without sin, did complete and fulfill all matters of God's law, was put on the cross by lawless hands, gave up the ghost, and did rise again by the power of the Holy Spirit three days later and by doing so, did legally purchase a people of His own who are drawn by His call (so they may have life and life abundantly)"

One thing I have always asked myself is this, how could he live as we do, as a human, without sin? Is it possible for god to sin against himself? and if he did truly exist in this sinless state, was he ever truly human? Or if he lived and sinned some like any other human, (and it was overlooked) was he really divine? again, can god sin against himself? If the definition of a human is a sinner, then he could not have been like us or one of us, truly,but if he did, he could not have been divine in reality (just a prophet as the muslims believe). Not truly able to appreciate and experience the actual reality that is a human life, all the bad and all the good. For many people (all? I dont know) their misery and joy is what defines them, the guilt at having done things they know intrisically to be wrong - and pride or joy at doing things they know instrisically to be right.

If someone cannot or does not (by choice) experience the very things that are the very difinition of what makes us human, what is the use in the whole story in the first place? I find no inspriation in it, if he takes away the sins of all the people, he takes away that which made them who and what they are, why could god not accept his people as they are completely? He made them that way, did he not?

.....I think I have lost track of where I was going with this but those questions I think are worth thinking about.....

Thanks for reading me, :)

Z

Kaman-
Your questions are the very same questions I've asked, and I've come to the same conclusions as you. Thanks for expressing them so well.

Ah, the ol' "Christianity will be extinct in 150 years" thing. How long has this been claimed? My friend, Kaman: what is with this theology you claim? Where did it come from? The Scriptures? I'm not recognizing any of it... Your first principles and conclusions seem flawed. What is this "summary judgment" you suggest? That He punished Adam for openly defying Him? Yes. I will give a hearty "amen" there. But are you suggesting Adam was innocent? Was he not told? "Eat of it and you will truly die" is not a vain warning but a condemnation of the human choice to sin. "I will be like God," Adam surely thought. Hmm... Also, your portrait of God's eternal decree seems less than orthodox. Do we reformed also admit of an "active" will (one that God acts upon with positive volition) and a "passive" will whereby He allows certain things to come to pass by way of second causes? And are they not ONE decree of God? The decree to act is not the act itself... but this will labor in the point. Too much for here, I humbly suggest.

Your "loaded gun" proposition is just fundamentallly flawed from the beginning. I'm not angry nor hurt—it's that it's drawn from some severely damaged theology and that theology just isn't derived from an adequate biblical hermaneutic. The REAL concern I have is the ridiculous proposition that Christianity has to be in lock-step with the cultural imagination of the time. Was the atonement based on your "feelings?" Did Christ arise on the third day based on your "cultural mores?"

"What may be known of God has been made manifest to them" the Scriptures declare and this is faithful and true. What is hidden in God may be impossible for me to get my arms around, yet I am not cowed by such a realization. My inability to understand the hidden things of God does not NEGATE God but merely underscores my mental inadequacies (you'd probably agree with THAT diagnosis, *laughs*)

I shudder when I hear mankind discussing "free agency," "free moral will," and "human responsibility" because I am more than apt to hear a most un-orthodox, un-Christian, and certainly un-Biblical rendering. I do not think you're a "bad" person (far from it) but certainly I'm going to have to accept your own critique about your knowledge of the Bible. Good gracious, Kaman! LOL Where'd you GET this stuff? Still, I appreciate your post and your insight. It seems you're examining things as best you might. I wish you'd rethink your position about "defining God." Personally, I think it's the bane of modern man. Mankind really desires to put God in a little fenced-in area and say, "here he is! This is what God 'is'". The only real problem with this idea is this: man doesn't define God—God declares HIMSELF and has for a long, long time. Your interpretation matters naught. "I AM that I AM" is a scary thing to realize once you get over the fact that God didn't MAKE evil nor did He condone it, nor is He happy you or I are indulging IN it. Did He decree all things that will come to pass? Yes. Do you sin of your own volition? Absolutely. And there's the rub. The unbelieving are NOT innocent, Kaman. You don't have to teach a child how to lie. They just DO. And such is ALL disobedience. It isn't taught and we do it continually.

Also: please don't suggest God "offers" man the chance to go to heaven and avoid hell. The external call is exactly that: a call. But only those who are drawn to the Father will know the shepherd's voice. I'm not exactly sure how all you folks missed Romans chapter nine. It's in the book.

I'm sure I typed too quickly here. I'll probably regret it later. But I've appreciated your viewpoint. "Wrongheaded" and "speciously supported" I'd say, but I'm not trying to be mean. I'm merely suggesting it from an "academic" point of view. Thank you, kind poster.

As a clarification to my legthy post above, I am not asserting that God doesn't exist. I disagree with how Christians define him.

I thought I would clarify before being labeled an "athiest friend".

When you look at the Christian God objectively, it boils down to one of these conclusions. Pick your poison (I choose #3).

1) God is evil.
2) God is apathetic to evil.
3) Christian definition of God is wrong.

Bear with me as I explain my "Loaded Gun Theory" to illustrate how I look at this whole situation. I was born and raised in a conservative protestant home and graduated from a conservative Christian college (accounting). I was quite active in my local church (worship team, finance board member, Sunday school teacher, etc) for many years, until I slowly began to liberate myself from Christianity. The point is that I am fairly knowledgeable about Christianity, but I am no means a Christianity “expert”, whatever that means. I do not know much about Islam, but I suspect their religion could just as easily be included here as well.

****The Christian Belief****

According to "the word of God" or the Bible or the "holy" scriptures, God is all knowing and all powerful. When Lucifer got too big for his britches, God cast him to hell. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he created Lucifer and knew that he would go Satan on him. God is responsible for the whole situation (Lucifer, selfishness, arrogance, envy, hell, etc) or knew it would happen and allowed it. After he made humans, he issued a summary judgment that everyone was guilty from birth and would suffer the same fate as Lucifer. But he gave humans a choice (free will, prevenient/divine grace, etc) that if we accept and follow him, but ONLY through his son, Jesus, we will spend eternity in heaven with him.

****The Analogy****

Putting it that way that doesn’t sound too bad, but let me offer a different perspective. If someone held a loaded gun to your head and said, “Tell me I’m the greatest/nicest person in the world at I’ll give you a million dollars. If you don’t, I’ll blow you away. It's your choice.” I imagine most people would tell him he’s awesome, take the million bucks and then run straight to the police. The shooter would justifiably be locked away for a long time because he created the situation. The fact that criminal showed grace and gave you a choice to live or die, would be irrelevant. . He would be considered an evil person. In fact, if this stickup could somehow be repeated, you might actually start to believe it and be grateful. This analogy would be even more relevant, if it was parent/child rather than stranger/stranger, but I felt it would be a bit much for this forum.

****My Conclusions****

==>What a Christian may say:

From the mindset of a Christian, when asked about this heaven/hell dynamic, thy will invariably say that God is gracious and offers us a chance to avoid hell and be with him. It doesn’t matter we were automatically born into sin through no fault of our own. The important thing is God offers us a way of being cleansed, through his son, Jesus, so we can be acceptable to him (without sin) and be admitted to heaven.

==>My response:
This myopic view is drilled in constantly each Sunday and through Christian publications. Seeking to explore and understand other/opposing viewpoints, especially from a non-believer, is discouraged. In fact, Christians are encouraged to disassociate as much as feasible from the rest of the world, unless they are proselytizing/reaching to the lost. (i.e. Be in the world, not of the world) Could it be if they started to think outside this paradigm, they may have second thoughts? Like it or not, this common tactic of information control is taken to the extreme by dictators like N. Korea’s Kim Jong-il to maintain control.

As I alluded to earlier, the issue with the shooter isn’t that you were given a choice. Even if you became "conditioned" and developed an affection for the shooter and were genuinely grateful to him, any objective third party would find the criminal’s behavior cruel, unacceptable and torturous. This is exactly what God does, as defined by Christianity. By definition, he knows all and controls all (except free will apparently); he is therefore 100% responsible for creating the situation of REQUIRING everyone to choose him or eternal torture. There is not an option for those who don’t want either. If this is true, then it is incredibly cruel and sadistic. Why does the other option need to be horrific suffering until the end of time?

==>What a Christian may say:

Christians might also say, if everyone automatically went to heaven, then we would all be automatons and lose the ability to choose or have free will. We would cease to be unique creatures.

==>My response:

I wholeheartedly agree with this. But I don’t agree that you must get the death penalty, if you don’t believe. Actually a death penalty would be a delight compared to the eternal, agonizing, torturous suffering…forever. Perhaps my analogy would be better if, instead of being shot in the head, he would filet your skin very slowly while you beg and plead for mercy. The “consequence” of God's “crime” of simply not believing is so incredibly insane, it defies any human, divine, or other logic. Why can’t the choice be to follow him and get rewarded with heaven, everlasting peace, seeing him face to face, etc. vs. choose to do your own thing and simply not get his goodies. This God supposedly made everything, including this “choice” and “consequence”, either by actively making it, or allowing it to happen. If so, then GOD MUST BE EVIL or GOD DOES CARE ABOUT EVIL. I refuse to believe in a God who eternally tortures his creations, or allows them to be eternally tortured. I want to believe in the Christian God, but I cannot reconcile this in my mind. I have genuinely sought to find the “his truth”, I am certain this cannot be it. It is illogical and simply doesn’t make any sense to me he would be like this. I am fairly certain that I will never be able to internalize this Christian view anymore nor never truly “believe” in it, even though I have earnestly tried. So because of this and the way my brain is wired, I am eternally damned to hell. I can’t comprehend how intelligent people actually believe this nonsense.

==>What a Christian may say:

Some might say that God’s ways are so much higher than humans that we could never dream of comprehending all about God. Trying to apply human logic is pointless because it will never come close to explaining God or how he works. God’s logic is not necessarily human logic. The Christian has faith that God is a just God to those who believe in him. There is nothing to lose being a Christian. If Christianity is right, then you’ve hit the jackpot. If not, then you simply die and fade away along with everyone else.

==>My response:

The human logic vs. God’s logic comparison may be valid. If so, what’s to say the Christian’s current understanding of God is correct? If our minds are so infinitesimally smaller than God’s then the likelihood of getting anything right about God is exceedingly low. The Bible is the “word of God” spoken to man XXXX years ago, much was passed down through oral tradition before being written down. If someone dismisses my analysis just because I can’t (nobody can) fully comprehend God, then how can he/she truly think the writers of scriptures with their vastly inferior human minds fully understand what God was saying and then accurately express it their limited human language? In the unlikely event he got it right, did each re-telling by everyone down the generations accurately reflect how God said it originally? (Heck, when I tell my best friend about my modest blind date, I’ve ended up scoring with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders by the time it gets passed on to the third or fourth person.) Then many, many generations later in another part of the world, a group of guys sit around and determine which books should be canonized as gospel. How did they determine which ones were truly the word of God? Were they swayed, even in the tiniest, by contemporary pressures?

****Wrapping it up****

This is why I think the answer is #3. If Christianity is expect to survive long term, it will need to re-adjust its view about God. Some of this has already happened over time. For instance, most Christians today don’t think the world is literally 5,000 years old or sell their daughters into slavery, or believe a divorced woman is an adulteress and anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. These changes in views are rationalized by Christians by saying things in the Bible are written under the lens of the author’s times, but the underlying “truths” remain. But Christianity will need to go much further than that to have a chance of longevity. Christianity feels like it is “under attack” by the liberals, Hollywood, media, homosexuals, and the world in general. What they fail to realize is Christianity’s inflexibility (i.e. Jesus or hell) and its unwillingness to keep up with an ever-changing world (i.e. sex issues) are its own biggest enemy. To her credit, it appears from her article that Rev. Brooks realizes this. But I do not think Christianity is capable of such fundamental changes. This is why Christianity will be extinct within 150 years.

Ah Meg, I would gently disagree with some of your assertion. While I will admit that nothing I "say" might convince someone dead in the spirit (Ephesians 2:1) of the substitutionary atonement of—a task only accomplished by the Holy Spirit (as we "intolerant" ones confess)—we should try to begin understanding that any moral or ethical belief necessarily stems from a law giver. Now a person can establish a righteousness of their own (and in an unregenerate state, MUST) but this invariably steals from some other codified forms of right behavior and even still more, usually the Judeo Christian perspective. As I mentioned, though, it is rarely acknowledged as an authority since sinning mankind can only imagine themselves and arrogantly affirm their OWN righteousness. Sadly, I'm going to have to disagree with your ecumenical sensibilities since Christianity itself (as a form of thought and belief) is truly separate from (and of) other forms of thought and belief. One "golden rule" is not the same as the other (we'd say) and I can't labor my conscience by at once denying the Godhead and also claiming the moon and the stars have some magical power in them. Christianity separates. Christ Himself proclaims it. "It will set mother against daughter, father against son." I often wonder how our own religious right balance that against all the "family values" noise out there. Still, Christ speaks not of disobeying ones parents nor being actively hostile against temporal authority, but speaks of a philosophical dividing line. "And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:38). I assert that any discussion of sexuality cannot be adequately examined without declaring where "right" sexuality and "wrong" sexuality come from. My atheist friends seem to suggest THEY determine what is right and wrong and I assert the Scriptures declare what is right and wrong. The atheist claims God has no say in such matters (because they're sceptical of His being) and I declare that God became man, lived as we did but without sin, did complete and fulfill all matters of God's law, was put on the cross by lawless hands, gave up the ghost, and did rise again by the power of the Holy Spirit three days later and by doing so, did legally purchase a people of His own who are drawn by His call (so they may have life and life abundantly). They scoff at me—I weep for them; but not because I am better or "more worthy" but because theirs is a philosophy of hopelessness. They have no way but their own and they have no righteousness but their own and it fails them signally. Unless they repent, they will never really know what "good sexuality" and "bad sexuality" are. Yes, I believe vain ranting and name calling is pointless but I also assert there will be no answer to right and wrong until a discussion of "who says" is in the mix. It is not enough (in my view) to suggest a course of moral relativism is either a) healthy, or b) useful to anyone in any concrete way. I won't intrude into your bedroom (thank you very much) and what you do there is YOUR business. But I'm not going to tacitly agree that "whatever works for you" can be called "morally right" just because someone has a god of their own imagination. Sorry. But thank you for the post. I read it with an open mind.

I have been writing about this same subject on my blog, and am very interested in discussion on the reformatting of the theology of sexuality for our society today, without losing the beauty of our ancient traditions in Christianity.

http://squarenomore.blogspot.com/2007/02/christian-sexuality-part-5.html

It appears the original article's message has devolved into the arguement of Christians vs. Non-Christians. Christians and Non-Christians will rarely convince each other to see things as they each see them. The real challenge seems to be letting everyone believe in whatever makes them a better person. Why waste your breath telling someone how wrong they are, when you could just say you'll have to agree to disagree and move on? I imagine most faiths/beliefs feel they are degraded and put down by others, but do they to the same back to those others? Just about every belief system has a "golden rule," though worded in different ways, that means the same thing: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Everyone has something to bring to "the table," which can make us all better as a whole, if we could just get past the "you're wrong because you believe this or that."

"RR. I don't hate people of faith only people who use there so call faith to insult and control others"

Ah, then the part where you added "like the rest of the religious right" was misleading.

But then again, I don't consider myself religious. I associate the term 'religion' as being something man-made (and such organizations have shown their potential to be anything but God-like). Believing in God, His Son Jesus Christ (and what He did for us on the cross) and the Holy Spirit is something born of the evidence that exists all around us and in the Word of God, preserved for quite some time in the Bible. If a group of people get together to worship God and His Word, I’ll join them. We’re Christians (striving to be Christ-like, as He intended, emphasis on striving). :-)

"Hey RR, just where did we get the idea that the sun revolved around the earth in the first place?"

If I can believe what's been handed down over the generations for me to read after many people have continued to edit the information (there's faith again), Aristotle. A form of science at the time: a Philosopher.

RR. I don't hate people of faith only people who use there so call faith to insult and control others

I'm liking RR more and more. Is it not curious the vitriol of the unbelieving? It comes down to the central idea of the Scriptures. One is either found "believing" in the propitiation or not. It is the natural "will" of man to not believe (except in themselves, which is true irony) though every man (and woman) has guilty knowledge of God. It is also fundamentally true that our "non-faith" cohorts do, indeed, believe and practice faith every day. Truly, the "non-faith" holders co-opt their moral and ethical presuppositions from the Christian faith yet never give them credit. Do my atheist friends agree with their great father of scepticism, Hume? For they go to bed every evening believing tomorrow the sun will rise in the east yet not having evidence it really will. Their very LIFE is a practice of some faith, grounded in their human wisdom (practical, though flawed by the sin nature) and acted upon with volition. They believe, yes, but they do not give the credit to God. Such is man. It is a story as old as the Scriptures. There are none who seek out after God. They have all gone astray. There is none who seek righteousness. Praise be to God for His mercy and salvation and for the gift of belief through His Son who is that savior of men. Ewww... I hear rear ends puckering out there :)

Hey RR, just where did we get the idea that the sun revolved around the earth in the first place?

Hey RR, just where did we get the idea that the sun revolved around the earth in the first place?

"Stan you are an idiot like the rest of the religous right."

Whether you agree with Stan or not, it's sad that you resort to hate as your only ability when it comes to disagreeing with someone. Hate and stereotypical bigotry it seems.

Since you seem to imply you're not religious, should we then assume everyone who's not religious is also hateful and a stereotyping bigot like you're behaving? Of course not.

Consider not letting your anger getting control of you in the future and keep it constructive. :-) We're allowed to disagree with each other.

"Faith has no scientific support that’s why it is called faith"

You’ve got to love science and the whole 'scientific support' idea. As much as it may surprise people, it actually takes faith to believe science as well. Science is hardly the end-all of what is true and what is not in terms of where things came from.

I recall a time where science told us the Earth was at the center of the Universe, and everything revolved around us. How wrong we were. Science still cannot explain a great many things, and science is mostly likely still wrong on many things we take on faith that they're right about.

Science informs us that the universe was created by the big bang. Do they know this for a fact? No. They just theorize that it's what most likely happened. Scientific extrapolation to the nth degree to say the least.

And come to think about it: it's a good thing we were given ears, or we'd have no clue sound existed, and would just have to take it on faith that it did. Or some of us would then just categorize it right alongside God: “Sorry: Can't experience it, science can't show it to me? Then it doesn't exist.”

It seems that no one has noticed that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" was given before sin, thus sex is NOT the result of sin. Paul is often used as an example of a Christian leader who was against sex, but he encouraged younger women to marry and raise families (I Tim 5:14).
In Heb 14:4 he says that marriage is honorable.
Yes there are plenty of verses against adultry and fornication, but none against married love.

Stan you are an idiot like the rest of the religous right.

Faith has no scientific support that’s why it is called faith. For those of us who have faith it is a convincing argument that God is the alternative to the Big Bang. After all what are the odds of everything just falling in place like it has in just 14 billion years. Common sense suggests that after such an explosion no life could ever exist. Every ocean, stream, lake, and pond should be free of any scum or algae. The entire universe should be pristine and free of any form of life. It is hard to accept that germs and bacteria could ever exist, let alone evolve into any type of animal. It is much easier to just accept the idea the Universe was created by a God who created himself. The word of God must be true as it came from the minds of the men who believe in the self-created God. It would seem to follow, that any man who is inspired by God should have the right to establish the moral code and make the laws that guide us. This is the logic of faith.

There are so many stupid people in the world that don’t understand sex. This world needs leaders who understand the mind of God. Missionary style is the only acceptable way.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. - Romans 1:22

Read the Bible, friends. We live in a sin-filled world *because* we wanted to be separate from God. If we want to continue to be separate from God, then we can “continue to stifle the truth God naturally reveals to us in order to believe anything that supports our own self-centered life-styles.” (1) However, we may regret it when we realize where we’re spending eternity because of it. We should be careful what we wish for: separation from God. We may dearly regret it when things go beyond obvious and become reality for us.

" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
- Romans 1:18-21

Simple choice: do we want to be children of God? Or do we want to live separate so we can live out our own vain ambitions? He won't stop us from making that choice, but it's one we’ll quickly regret when all becomes beyond obvious to us when our flesh body dies and we realize the eternity we’ve set up for ourselves.

This has nothing to do with man-made religions and their rules. It has to do with the Bible: the Word of God.

" Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. "
- Romans 1:22-25

Read your Bible. God created the world. The Bible is the Word of God. If we think he was unable to prevent his word from being preserved from the mere acts of people, it’s clear the real problem is our lack of faith. And this is not my opinion. I’m merely quoting scripture. This comes from the Word of God.

I'm glad I ended up reading this thread and the original article that started it.. Made me even more aware of what it is that continues to lead us into sin and keep us from God and more importantly where we should really be looking to for the will of how we should live our lives. God Bless!

(1) Life Application Study Bible, KJV, Tyndale, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1996

Just remember all religion started as away to scare people into thinking and acting as a society.It is only a way gather power over others.

Bob, you sir are an idiot. Please visit www.ravingatheists.com, we love to talk to people like you.

xxoo

Unless Xtians can accept masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality(for those inclined), and other sexual activities that many couples enjoy, then they are just blowing smoke. It is nice to see that at least some forward-thinking Xtians can see, as another poster stated, their false dogma of sexual negativity.

In response to "Bob" who said:
"
To all the Christian haters...

I really wish you all wouldn't make statements about our faith when you obviously haven't a clue about the true history of Christianity or legitimacy of the Bible. Keep up with the news and articles on the Internet and you'll find as time goes by archaeologist and historians keep finding more and more evidence that the Bible is accurate; not the contrary and maybe there's a reason for it."

Most of the people you're accusing of not knowing your "true" history of "Christianity" were once "Christians" themselves. You, sir, are the one who needs to get his facts straight before you speak.
The Bible is, by its very nature, an anthology of stories collected over hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Many of those stories, I'm sure, were based on fact. However, all of the stories were once handed down by word of mouth, translated and retranslated by imperfect humans. I will not dispute that what is in the Bible is what its authors believed to be true. As far as its being totally accurate, I say that is impossible to verify because, as a professor once said, there's no video tape. WE weren't there so we can't ever say "for sure."
As far as keeping up with the "news" and articles on the Internet remember one thing - for every event there are three sides: Party A's side, Party B's side and the Truth. Rarely do all three ever happen in any news item in any media.
Back to your "Christian haters" statement. I don't mean to question your intelligence, sir, but that has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. Just because someone doesn't AGREE with you, it doesn't mean that person HATES you. Please, get over the persecution complex already. The fact of the matter is, there are people in this country who prefer to think for themselves and to question the traditions of the past. This, I think, is what bothers you and others like you the most.

Brava! To Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite for such an enlightened article!

Soja, above, has said that "sex outside marriage is condemned by all religions. What is sacred in marriage is considered sin outside it." This is untrue -- PanDeism, while more of a philosophical approach than an organized religion, embraces sex outside of marriage to the same degree that it embraces all mutually pleasurable activities between consenting adults competent to decide to engage in those activities....

PanDeism combines the Creation aspect of Deism and the Universality of God of Deism to describe a God who created the Universe by becoming the Universe in order to share in the experiences of a Universe.... sexual experiences are about the best experiences that we can have, and we fulfill a moral obligation and provide a great gift to God when we have as much sex as possible, as pleasurable as possible, and as varied in the kinds of pleasure that we experience as possible!!

Hmmm... a rather awesome collection of wishful thinking, bad theology, and presumption. A little presuppositional apologetics thrown in, just for a taste I see. The discussion of sex here (oh, like every other topic I can probably imagine) has to be mitigated in the context of the Gospel and the Gospel only. For I never knew what sin was until the law came and I never understood what the model for physical behavior was until my heart was changed by the Holy Spirit. My atheist friends out there cringe when I bring up the Holy Spirit. He can't be tested in a test tube and can't be measured by their poor instruments yet I walk anew and in the light. Sinner? Oh yes. I admit my humanity, but my conscience no longers admits to sin the power it once held over my life. If we evangelicals were more about the business we were given to do, the topic of sex would be moot among us. There is no sin in sex save for the sin we ascribe to it. For some, meat to eat is sin and for others, not as much. But for the person who believes the eating of meat is sin, it is sin for him and all must be patient with him for the scriptures plainly declare there is no sin in "things" made by God. Such is the topic of sex. We know what the teachings are of marriage and pre-marital "involvements." Follow those (in deference to my atheist friends) and you will be obedient. In other sexual matters? Make up your own mind and let your conscience be clear. Yet, I feel I must add we all succumb to disobedience if we discuss and teach on such matters without the overarching structure of the Gospel to give "color and form" to it. There be my Parthian thrust. Oh, and Jake B.? What is the answer for sin? Can I "think my way through it?" Teach me, please :)

I find the attitude of defensiveness in some of these posts very interesting.

The tired old shtick of "you haven't read the Bible, so you can't judge it" really doesn't help one's cause any. Most people -have- read it, as a work of literature if not as a religious requirement. Though its bias against women is MOST obvious in the Epistles of St. Paul, ("I do not permit a woman to speak; she must be silent..." etc), the fact is that both Christianity and Judaism before it are patriarchal religions. Women are submissive at best and chattel at worst. I'll spare you any more Bible quotes.

Though the Song of Songs is certainly a very beautiful poem, and not in the least anti-sex, to try to use it as proof that Christianity is not prejudiced against women is spurious. The Catholic Church, and the Protestant, etc, splinter groups after it, are not founded on the Song of Songs but the teachings of Paul.

Now that I've got that out of the way, we should also remember: there doesn't NEED to be a Scriptural bias against sex for there to be a RELIGIOUS bias against sex. The Bible doesn't condemn birth control, or abortion, or even masturbation (the "sin of Onan" lay in defying God's command to impregate his half-sister, not in pleasuring himself), but most Christian groups decry all those things. Why? Because sexual energy is a very powerful force, and most Christian churches would prefer to see that energy channelled toward their own ends (unless of course you are homosexual, in which case you should never have sex, ever, and probably should stay out of the church, too--sarcasm.)

Religions like Wicca, which treat sex as part of faith and not a distraction from it, can thus hold great appeal.

I feel sorry for all of you so called Christians that do not wish to beleive in their own capsity to think and use common sense. Here's the truth: Nobody knows how we got here, why we got here, and where we go after we die! You might beleive in something, but you don't know! I beleive there's nothing after we die. I beleive we are all just a big accident of nature-just like everything else in the solar system. I am also grateful to be on earth and am enjoying every minute of my secular, atheist, humnanistic existence.

When I look around the world including America I'm shocked at all the murder and death and punishment that is caused by religion and thank my lucky stars that I'm an Atheist! I'm very comfortable in not beleiving!

Is sex sinful or sacred? I think that really asks a larger question of "What is sin?" Is it the Mosaic ten commandments or the seven deadly sins? I think it is very confusing to try and navigate all the rules and regulations that have been set down in dogmatic law. It may be easier if we found the essence of sin. A hint to the answer to this question lies in the New Testament. To paraphrase Jesus, "Love God your Father with all your heart, mind, and soul." and, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

These quotes coupled with an approximately correct understanding of God provide the key to what sin is. For clarification when I use the term God I am actually referring to the Infinite Unknowable. That is, if you drew a circle and inside the circle was "everything that exists". That includes the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Outside the circle is everything that doesn't exist. We can't comprehend it or think of it because by it's very nature is that it doesn't exist in material reality or in thought form either. God is the sum total of the inside and outside of the circle and more. In other words undifferentiated perfect unity. Don't try to actually comprehend it because you'll hurt yourself. As it is said the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. Of course the door swings both ways and the infinite cannot comprehend the finite! That is for another discussion.

Since we have established that God includes all things by it's definition, then the one characteristic that actions called "sin" have in common is that the action is motivated by a erroneous belief that the individual is "outside" of God. Put more simply, an individual or a "self" that views existance in a dualistic fashion is existing in sin. The sin is they see the world as at least two things "self" and "other". Since we established God contains all things then both "self" and "other" are part of God. Any action that treats any unit as disconnected from another is sinful because it is a denial of the divine relationship all parts have to one another. Hence the quote, "That which you do unto the least of your bretheren, you do unto me."

What does this have to do with sex? Not much directly but it does turn sex into merely an action. It is just like any other action such eating a bowl of ice cream which can be just as sinful or sacred depending on the motivation and midset of the individual when performing the action. Eating a bowl of ice cream is sinful from the point of view that it could be done entirely for self gratification and not acknowledging the unifying link between "self" and "other". The "self" being the ice cream eater and the "other" being the bowl of ice cream. The ice cream is an object.

With sex the ante is upped mostly because of the snowball effect of mounting desire when engaged in it. It becomes difficult to not slide into the motivation of selfish desire and see the "other" as an object of gratification. When engaged in for self gratification, it is sinful. On the other hand if one can maintain a view of unity and the partner is also a part of God and deserves every bit of respect as such during the act then sex is sacred. When one treats every object they come in contact with, animate or inanimate, sexual partner or bowl of ice cream, as God then every act is sacred. Every act becomes a prayer and an offering.

That is what I think.

Dearest Bob...

I am not what you would call a "Christian Hater" and I do keep up with the internet and news. Your comment about archaelogists and historians finding more to prove the bible is accurate is completely FALSE. In fact the opposite is true. They are finding more evidence that things are not as they have been put forth in the fictional bible.

Maybe it's time we realize that organized Christianity is a SHAM.

"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love." [Proverbs 5:18-19]

That's hot. Doesn't sound like it's anti-sex to me.

I wholeheartedly agree with the article and find it pathetic that some would feel threatened by its benign observations.

Regarding sex's place in religion: it is common sense that God meant for us to enjoy sex, otherwise he would not have given both men and women organs of such pleasure. He didn't HAVE to make us that way. Paul was not into sex-- he went on and on about how vulgar and polluting to the temple of God it was-- so don't tell me there's no scintilla of negativity about sex in the scriptures-- Paul also did a lot of damage with his mysogonistic (sp?) letters which reflected the patronistic attitude toward women of his day (an attitude still ongoing if you read some of these posts). Thank God Jesus himself didn't speak this way. But back to sex: some people believe sex is so wonderful and sacred it should be reserved for the sacred institution of marriage, others are more casual in their attitude toward sex & marriage, others believe the sacred part in theory, but, living in our oversexed virtually post-marriage culture, have caved in to curiosity and social pressure and did not wait for marriage. Most of us probably fit this third category. For you guilt-ridden Catholics out there: don't stress over it; God searches the heart.

Sex, in Judiasm, is very much a sacred act. "Be fruitful and multiply," is considered one of the 613 Mitzvos -- Divinely ordained obligations -- incumbent upon all Jews to fulfill. In the Shulchan Oruch (Code of Jewish Law), there are even guidelines for the frequency of sexual relations between a married couple according to the man's profession: so many times a week for a farmer, for a merchant, for a scholar, etc. For all, relations on the Sabbath, the greatest day of the Jewish calandar, is considered a duty to God. And, by the way, the Oral Law, which Jews believe Moses received concurrently with the Decalogue, requires the man to satisfy his wife, absent which the Mitzvah has not been properly fulfilled.

To all the Christian haters...

I really wish you all wouldn't make statements about our faith when you obviously haven't a clue about the true history of Christianity or legitimacy of the Bible. Keep up with the news and articles on the Internet and you'll find as time goes by archaeologist and historians keep finding more and more evidence that the Bible is accurate; not the contrary and maybe there's a reason for it.

The Quaker faith embraces all human beings as we believe there is that of God in everyone. We call it the Inward Light.

The "curse" of sin was an increase in pain of childbirth, not that childbirth was not painful before or that childbirth was a punishment for sin, or any other of the wrenched out of context verses being quoted here.

King David took Bathsheba, but that was not the "sin" that God punished him for. It was the murder of her husband to cover up his adultery that haunted David the rest of his life.

Maybe all that is needed is for our churches to teach that irresponsibility is sin, and that sex sometimes falls into the irresponsible catagory?

I believe that the religion has been transfer from century to century as transaction, that mean, the believe of the old age humans came from the deep concentration on the surrounding, that makes the believes to as narrow band looking, one of the important matter which it took place in the life method is the sex, and how to act with this important requirement. The idea for that improve step by step, accordingly, the action and the reaction it took a lot of fundamental Methods, since that was a part of what it has been transferred to the followed generations.
According to the discovered archaeology from that civilized orient area, gave the ideas that we are now a part of that ( aged ) ascent believe.
Although, the following religions then, came to organize the life in accordance to their time lived requirements, meaning's direct the humans view's the deep believe in God, but the religion leaders they were not able to escape from their follower requirements.
At the time being, the ideas and the humans practicing of their believes is taking ,in some how, in a fundamental way, that take the humans to unknown future's, if you agree with me!!!!

Billy Jacobs,

You are a true modern day village idiot. I was raised a Protestant and attended a Baptist church in the south until the age of 17 with memories of the church since I was 4 years old.

I decided, once I started to actually "think for myself", that the religion I had grown up with was bogus. I equate my belief in a Protestant gOD to that of a belief in Santa Clause without a non-delusional member of my family to let me in on the secret that the whole Christian thing was false.

So for a moment do what I did, and I know this will be scary for you. You will feel completely naked. You will feel like you are driving without a seatbelt, like you are looking down the barrel of a loaded gun and you are saying, "Pull the trigger." But just once, while you are alone in your room where you are reading this... Just think in your head, "I'm not sure Jesus is the son of God." "I am not sure if God exists."

Now think just for the next minute that Judgment Day won't occur within the next five minutes, because I know that will be keeping you back from doing this and consider for just a couple of minutes, "God is not real."

Keep thinking. I know this is scary. Jake is not the devil trying to pull you away from God. You Billy, you are in control. I just want you to expose yourself. Release yourself from all that you "know" to be true, and just flow with what you are reading.

When you die, when your friends and relatives die, the bodies eventually decay into dust. It is unknown what happens to the memories, but it can be reasonably presumed that they decay along with the flesh.

Sit with that thought for a moment.

If you have actually let go, then you are very brave. You have begun the path of true self awareness. This is nothing to be ashamed of. One day you will be proud of yourself for making the leap.

These thoughts were my thoughts when I began the realization that these thoughts were nothing more intellectual thoughts.

You and many like you including me at one point in our lives have been brainwash and have become delusional to reality. We have succumbed to irrational thought and acted in misguided behavior

My goal is to enlighten you with yourself and facilitate those thoughts that you already have inside you, but with which you have been to scared to think without guide. The rest is up to you with yourself and your thoughts.

Enjoy,

I am not aware of why a religion, any religion would consider sex within marriage a sin. Marriage as far as I know is considered sacred in every religion. Hindus prohibit widow remarriage, Judaism and Islam allow divorce and remarriage, and among Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike allow remarriage after death of spouse, but Catholics do not allow remarriage for divorcees. As a Catholic, I was quite impressed with C S Lewis’ essay that built the best case for remarriage of Christian divorcees.

In Christianity, the Virgin birth is important to confirm the Divinity of Jesus, and does not serve the purpose of portraying Mary as being more holy because she did not have a sexual relationship with Joseph when she conceived Jesus. I have trouble with the implication that seems prevalent in Catholic belief that Mary remained a virgin till the end of her life and lived like a sister with her husband Joseph, as if having a sexual relationship with her husband would somehow make her less holy. Any inference that sex was only meant for procreation is wrong. God created Eve as a companion for Adam first. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God did not mean for Adam and Eve to enjoy their companionship outside of just having children. God found everything He created good. He created sex, so it must be good in His sight as well if sex is an expression of real love.

Religious traditions which do not have monks and nuns look with suspicion on lifelong celibacy. It goes without saying that the priesthood is NOT meant to serve as haven for those who have sexual problems, for example paedophiles or those who do not want to commit themselves to a lifelong relationship to one person. The celibate life style chosen by monks and nuns in religions is not because sex is unholy but in order to be free to devote all their time to God’s work without having to invest effort and time in the cares of family life and in pleasing their partners. It is understood that very few people are truly called to a life of lifelong celibacy – many merely endure it, many make a mockery of the calling.

But sex outside marriage is condemned by all religions. What is sacred in marriage is considered sin outside it. It is easy enough to understand why sex only within the commitment of marriage is considered a good basis for human happiness. The reasons for such happiness have been listed by several. Sex restricted to marriage is an ideal to strive for, and fidelity in marriage definitely is not up for discussion. But since we live in an age when people don’t marry as soon as they reach puberty as in the days of old, and segregation of the sexes in social situations don’t exist, living a celibate life may not be feasible or advisable for the emotional health of the person concerned, when one is not called to celibacy for religious reasons, and marriage may not be feasible in the short or long term for whatever reason. Under those circumstances, would God look upon a sexual relationship as a sin, when the sexual involvement is between two persons who genuinely love each other and are not hurting anyone else in the process? I believe in a God of love and compassion who understands the human condition and weaknesses better than we do and would judge by different standards than we would do.

Sex in itself is an instinct and does not have any moral sense apart from what we choose to give it, as is the case with all our instincts. For example hunger is an instinct, yet most of us don’t steal food that belongs to someone else, we don’t eat more than we need, yet some steal, some are gluttons… So it is with sex. We may or may not submit our sex instinct to higher values. We are free to give free reign to our sexual instinct in an undifferentiated way like the animals, or be self-controlled and submit it entirely to love. The decision is entirely ours. DH Lawrence wrote that lower needs in man drives him to promiscuity, whereas higher needs inspires him to remain faithful to the one he loves. When there is no love we look for the one in the many, and when there is love, we find the many in the one.

Religions have shown us a way to the highest possible use of the sex instinct, as God meant it to be.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

When Adam and Eve are cast from the garden, they transition from being cared for as children, by a loving father, to being adults. The garden is a metaphor for childhood and leaving it is about growing up, and the burden of responsibilities, learning the truth about the world, and suffering the consequences of being independent and unprotected by one's father. It is easy today to trivialize the way childbirth was regarded, before modern medicine, when having a baby in her thirties was often a deadly mistake for a woman. How could the bible avoid making some kind of statement about this? Religion affirming sex is not exactly synergistic with religion affirming women. In the ancient world, Temples of Astarte, the goddess that the reverend Thistlewaite looks to for her inspiration, were places where young girls were given over to be trained as temple prostitutes. How uplifting was that for girls, Reverend?

Endorphin Annie - Thank you. That was the most enlightening and wisest thing I have read in a very long time.

the religion that doesn't not have a next generation is short lived.

Thank you, Endorphin Annie, for the most insightful and articulately expressed post on this board.

Religion exists because somewhere back in the mists of time, somebody discovered that they could manipulate others' behavior by exploiting their fears. To an untutored but curious mind, nearly every phenomenon lacks an explanation but begs to have one: why is the sky blue, where do babies come from, why do I bleed once a month when I'm not injured?

Back in the same mists of time, opportunistic manipulators of the Karl Rove ilk created the mythology that engendered even more fear in already fearful people. The first myths, taken together into a cohesive and coherent collection, became the first religions, and when the early Karl Roves convinced the tribal authorities to enforce the rules of the nascent religion, common belief and consistent adherence to their tenets became mandatory for all who sought the protection of the tribe.

And so, religion was found to be useful to some men for the purpose of controlling the behavior of other men, even those larger and stronger than themselves. It was a means for inspiring warriors and suppressing the instincts of self-preservation. But then men also found that they could use it to control women, and that great nebulous mystery called women's sexuality. Men used religion to help guarantee that the children they were supporting with their toil were actually the fruit of their loins. Later, as religion evolved, it was used to help assure the sanctity of men's place in the world, and men's entitlement to power and position.

It was thought that women, observed to be of equal intelligence but of inferior physical strength, needed to be domesticated like animals, penned in and restricted in the name of protecting their virtue. Women were kept out of men's sphere of influence, which was the whole world, in order that competition from women not cause men to be made to appear weak or to lose face in front of other men. Women's childbearing ability was made their unique destiny and their sole raison d'être.

I submit that there are no "nature-affirming, sex-affirming and women-affirming" aspects of religious tradition, since religion is a tool of social control, of men but especially of women. There are only two possible things that will affirm nature, sex, and women. Either religion is outlawed as a public, social practice and is restricted to home worship only, or religion must evolve to shed all aspects of itself, however sacred, historical, or reverenced they may be, which seek to render women as chattel, as subhuman, as second-class citizens. Until religion concedes at long last to women their absolute equality with men and their divine right to control their own bodies and their own destinies, religion is a cruel hoax played by the most evil of forces upon the human race.

Rev. Hayden,
Glad to hear that you have watched The Da Vinci Code.
My recommendation would now be to do some of your own research.

The move away from sex as sacred and gods as plural can be seen in Genesis. The story of the Garden of Eden can certainly be interpreted this way, where Adam and Eve are cast out of the garden for Eve’s disobedience and suddenly childbirth becomes a punishment for sin. Sex is no longer sacred, but part of human disobedience of the will of the single God.

This seems to be a humanistic way of looking at one small section of a very complex book. Remember, not only was woman punished with painful childbirth, but the man was punished with having to struggle to obtain food by working the ground. Some translations actually emphasize these being a direct result of Adam and Eve's actions rather then the commandment/punishment of a vengeful God.
As far as a sacred regard for sex, old Mosiac Law forbid a newlywed soldier from fighting in battles until he has been married at least a year (suggesting a reverence for marriage and sex). Additionally, the Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon) is book that graphically details the act of sex between two lovers and glorifies sex. As far as the sinfulness of sex, it is more of a cultural issue concerning christians rather than a doctrinal one. As far as doctrinal limits, most of those regard adultry and promiscuity, and even sex before marriage (fornication) was fairly tolerable, even in the Old Testament. As far a adultry, I suggest that anyone who disagree that trying to prevent adultry is not common sense should fall in love with someone, and then have that someone be unfaithful. The damage it does will explain why it is regarded as dangerous.

Christianity can not and will not lift itself out of the false dogma of sexual negativity -- certainly it is a long way from accepting masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, homosexuality (for those who are so inclined), partner swapping, and all other activities consensually maximizing sexual variety, as the gifts from God in the way that PanDeism embraces these pleasures!!

The reality of the situation is the following. The majority of the interpretations of the bible and religous doctrine over the years has been governed by the need of the church to grow. The real reason that birth control is 'bad' in these religions is that they know a certain percentage of people will stray and some will stay. There will also be a small group that will live it to the 'nth' degree. Those are the people who actually believe the earth is 5,000 years old. So when a catholic or mormon has 8 kids, they are guaranteed at least 2-3 to stay, and one true believer. And thus, the religion will prosper. As the religion ages, and looses hold over people, there will be fewer and fewer true believers. Thus started the missionary period of christianity and now mormons are the ones most bent on it. You have seen a huge decline in catholicism in europe, so now Africa and S. America are the only places in the world where it is growing. It is an endless cycle that will repeat itself with the 'new' religions that will look back and laugh at christianity the way that we now do the greeks and the native americans.
People need to realize that if they really believe in these religions that they need to go beyond what they are told, and try and discover the truth. The funniest thing about the whole 'Davinci Code' phenomenon was that so many of these 'true believers' had no clue about the actual history of their faith. I am not saying that the Davinci Code was accurate, I am saying that it opened a lot of peoples eyes to the fact that a lot of the 'religion' they knew was decided in the last 500 years, and had nothing to do with Jesus. The fact that people can blindly follow something so life determining and not know anything other than what is in the latest edition of the bible is scary. Do they not care, or are they too afraid to actually look and realize it is a man made fairy tale?
I think everyone should be required to learn about and study all of the major, and a few minor religions in grade school as part of history/civics. It would create a much more understanding and tolerant society. I do not know how many times I have heard something along the lines of the following in the last 6 years. 'Well thay can go pray to their Allah all they want...' These mouthbreathers do not even get that Allah is just Arabic for God. It would be akin to an American christian saying to a French Christian ' Well, believe in your dieu all you want...'. These malletheaded redneck Americans do not realize that Christianity and Islam revere the same 'god' it is a difference in Prophets that seperates them (for a simplistic cut at it). It would also allow people to take bits and pieces of several different religions to form their own human experience and relationship with 'god', which in the end is what is really written in the scriptures, and most other religious books.

Well put Mr. Robinson. I think people's arguments against the Bible as a whole are partly due to them just not knowing what they are talking about. First off, in this fellow JDs' post, he refers to the instances of petafelia in the Roman Catholic Church. We need to get something straight JD, I will answer for us Protestants, but the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches are not one in the same, therefore your ranting in those areas are obsolete.

And you say "The rest of us, who can think for ourselves, will continue to determine what is right and wrong based on principle and quality of character." I have to ask, where do you think you got the capacity to determine right and wrong?Surely with this statement you've stuck your foot in your mouth if you claim to be an atheist.
According to atheistic beliefs, something accidentally exploded billions of years ago, somehow developed the ability to think, turned in to monkeys, and some stayed monkeys and some turned in to human beings. These human beings "coincidentally" have dominion over all life on earth, just as the Bible tells us. Yet, if we are just born in to this world without a Creator, then we weren't created for any sort of purpose or meaning, and when we die that's it, our corpses just grow old with the dirt. Yet atheists still submit to some fort of Divine Law, whether you know it or not. When you mention anything about right or wrong, you are admitting you are under a Greater Being. Maybe you do recognize some sort of deity besides Jesus. If that's the scenario, please respond because that's a whole different story.
I hope you non-believers didn't think I wouldn't cap this off with a God-Bless you all from a lowly sinner like me, saved by grace through faith in the Jesus Christ, the One, True, Living God.

People should not change the meaning of the words of the Bible. God (remember, the source word, Elohim, is pleural) said let US make man in OUR image and likeness, . . . male and female, . . . just as Seth would be in the image and likeness of his father, Adam (Genesis 5). So there is a male and female pattern for man and woman. Furthermore, they were joined together to be one flesh, and what God joins, no man should put assunder. Contrary to what people think about the fall, all things were done according to the wisdom of Him who knows all things--the tree of knowledge in the center of the garden wasn't entrapment, but guidance. Marriage, sex, childbirth---all are sacred with sacred obligations and, if we are faithful, presumably should last forever through the resurrection. Why do people want to feel guilty about enjoying what God has given us within the bounds he has set? Why would anyone want to say what God has created is filthy, except to turn people away from God?

I think the article was excellent. The article pointed out that with religion, there often come sexual hang ups. The article pointed out the probable path of the shifting of thought and the change in religious practice and how it affected people's sex lives.

To those of you who feel compelled to lash out against anyone who feels that religion should be kept out of schools and government, then I say to you, continue worshiping the invisible man in the sky. Continue to treat people like garbage, then ask your god for forgiveness. Continue to allow your religion to override your common sense. Continue to put your faith in a system that protects it's leaders from justice for the young children they have abused and scarred for life. Continue to give money to arrogant, radical leaders that continue to try to maintain the dominance of men in society. Continue to tell your daughters that they are good enough to be CEO of a company, Speaker of the house, but not a religious leader.

The rest of us, who can think for ourselves, will continue to determine what is right and wrong based on principle and quality of character. A decent human being does not need a book, or someone screaming from a pulpit about how we're all sinners, to determine how to live her/his life.

Personal I believe in the goddess has a whole but also having different aspects like Venus, Lilith,Isis,Bast, and many others depending on what i'm seeking. No matter who trys controling sex it's going to happen. Married or not people's personal lives should be their's business not any churchs or governments to play with. men/women should be as free as possiable without have anarcy. As americans we should be the most tolerant people in the world but has it is thanks to that 30 to 40 percent of people in the U.S. who cheer on these fascist Dominionists all we have is a power struggle. Who have the goal of taking over the U.S.

All this commentary about what the Holy Writings of one religion or another say is so irrelevant, it hardly bears mention! Who *cares* what one myth or another says about who got what as punishment or not?

Fact: Childbirth is generally a painful affair.
Fact: Sex does not always result in childbirth, nor does it have to.
Fact: Sex does not have to be considered sacred by the participants, but it was considered so for a long time, and still is today, by a great many people.

Observation: the people I know find sacred sexuality to be much, much more fulfilling than any other kind.

Observation: Maybe the most important thing we could focus on is this: If all sex were to be considered, treated, and taught as being sacred, wouldn't that improve the way the people saw each other? I mean we are all typically here as a result of *some* kind of sex.

What a disgrace to a grand old theological seminary to have such a radfem as president!

Don't forget that the Bible/Torah/Koran says that when they ate the Fruit of Knowledge & could discern the difference between Good & Evil they became "fallen". So ignorance is bliss, apparently; if that's fallen then I am proudly one of them!

"Today our challenge in Christianity is to lift up the nature-affirming, sex-affirming and women-affirming parts of our tradition that have been ignored and to explore more fully the multiple natures of God."

Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's heads are going to explode.

One response to fundamentalists who prefer to keep women in a subjugated state on the basis of certain lines in Genesis is to point out the book has two quite distinct creation stories in which the order of creation is different, and which inherently imply a different status for women. Genesis 1:27 clearly suggests that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, both in the image of God, and after the other animals. But in Genesis Chapter 2 God creates Adam first and then creates Eve from his rib (and hilarious hi-jinx ensue). Moreover, in that version God formed the animals after Adam. Actually the King James version of Chap 2 states that God created Eve after he decided that the animals would not be suitable "help meets" for lonely Adam.

Of course I am an atheist, so to me these are obviously two different stories merged from different traditions notable for their beautiful prose and imagery. I can't imagine using them for anything other than literary or artistic inspiration or as a source of great jokes. But I am not Pat Robertson or any of his ilk.

The thing is, is that the Bible has been tampered with from the beginning, starting when Constantine FORCED the different factions of what became Christianity together to settle differences....cause he got tired of all the bickering in his Empire. This is where the major splits really started to form. What we NOW have as a Bible is nothing but jargon...mostly based off of the so-called King James Version...and James as has been proven over time, hated women...mostly because of his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots.

If we are going to talk about history, lets get to the basics...Christianity has always been a farce....Jesus was not a Christian...he was a JEW...and as a Jew, only saw ONE GOD. And all Rabbi's, as he has been called had to be Married and bear at least ONE CHILD. Rabbi's never had to just go to some seminary or whatever to achieve that title, like modern universities. Remember that next time you quote scripture...most scriptures have been changed for the last couple hundred years...the reason is that the Church, didn't want the rest of civilization some sort of literacy and changed many things....

"It has served us well, this myth called Christ"--Some Pope I cant remember now...

Who was there in the garden when Eve spoke to a snake and decided to eat the apple? Who heard God say anything, pain, sin or otherwise? Probably the same fellow who was there with his camcorder when God said, "let there be light." Just as long as it's God's word... Is It? However will people get their sex straight without the Bible to guide them? Did people have any idea about proper sex before the Bible? How about before Wiccans? Is the choice limited to Biblical or Wiccanal? Surely they're not both wrong?

" Sex is no longer sacred, but part of human disobedience of the will of the single God."

Honestly, I think you have zero evidence for this statement. The scripture talks about the pain of childbirth, not sex being sinful.

I read Dr Gno's posting just after I submitted mine at 1:26. He hit it on the head! It is "pain" not "childbirth" that was handed down.

Was it "childbirth" or the "pain of childbirth" that was given as "punishment?"

Since we should evaluate a term or topic within the totality of the scriptural areas dealing with such, where would we find anything to justify sex as "sinful within a marriage." unless such was forced onto a spouse?

>> There is not one scintilla of Scripture
>> that suggests that sex in marriage is sinful
>> OR that childbirth is the result of the fall.

Oh really? ...from Genesis 3:10 - 3:20:

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in child bearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

..
That seems pretty unambiguous: an angry and vengeful G-d inflicts painful childbirth on all women in retribution for Eve's sin.

Seems to get over the bar you've set in re: "one scintilla"... that might be a couple or three scintillae, d'ya think?

- Doktor Gno

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite erroneously describes the Judeo-Christian view of marital sex. There is not one scintilla of Scripture that suggests that sex in marriage is sinful OR that childbirth is the result of the fall. Has she ever heard of the Song of Songs?

Additionally, the monotheistic view of God was around about 4000 years before Christ.

If professors of theology are so ignorant of Judeo-Christian theology, I guess it is no wonder that society as a whole persists in ignorance of the same.

Isn't the University of Chicago where Wong and others demonstrated that the human sperm is really a team that anticipates competing with other sperm teams in the fertilizing event?

I am sorry, but this feminist dogma only serves to perpetuate divisions. I do not want to hear that crap. See God however you need to see God and keep it to yourself. I get tired of being asked to pay for the sins of others over and over and over again. Does that make sense to you or do I need to break out the "black" board? My God, you self-centered selfish white feminists could not see your hand in front of your faces if it had not been for so-called civil rights legislation that was diverted to equality between white men and white men. Get outta here with that! God Bless you but I'm sick that!

For Christianity to "lift up the nature-affirming, sex-affirming and women-affirming parts" of its tradition, I believe, it's going to have to look at some of the "heresies" that were squashed by the Catholic church early on in its history; most of these having to do with Gnosticism and the honoring of the feminine through Mary Magdalene. Until this happens there will always be a schism between the role of the feminine aspects of deity and what St. Peter thought that role should be.

Of course, if this doesn't happen, it will just mean more Christians converting to religions like Wicca which do honor the female aspects of deity.