So ... how do you peeps feel about that?

In a move that threatens to split the denomination, the Episcopal Church has ratified the nomination of its first openly gay bishop. While the Rev. Gene Robinson called his ratification "not so much a dream as a calling from God," one opponent said the controversial vote left a "grief too deep for words." From CNN (http://cnn.com)

No big deal to me. Don't really partake in church, let alone the the Episcopal Church ..damn holy rollers. I did read aids is on the rise signicantly in the gay community though..so sad



Ibudin

Sweden allready has 2 or 3 openly gay of that high rank, was alot of fuss about it a few years ago.. but it's rather toned down by now. Rather logical step forward I'd say, proves that atleast some people realise that times are changing and you can't pretend to be living in the years long gone..

//Izola

gg...gaa...GAYS?!?!?!
OH MY!!11
OH NOSSS!!! PPLS R GAYS???

Ah, the speed of society.

Well, the speed of religion in catching up to society actually.

It doesn't impact me at all, but I suspect if Paul showed up today he'd have an apoplectic fit over it. Well, after going, "You're all still here?"

Its no big deal really.
maybe 2% of the population gives a crap.. and those people are mostly in the South and Midwest..
New Hampshire is a *very* live and let live state

The bible says that homosexuality is a very bad sin. That's why it is a big deal folks.

I could care less though myself. We're all sinners, as long as it's not anything involving children and etc, don't see why people would think it is too sinful for a bishop to be.

The bible says that homosexuality is a very bad sin. That's why it is a big deal folks.

It's not being Gay that is the sin, it's the lifestyle.

So long as the Bishop is leading a celebate life style I'd see no problems with acceptance, I think alot of folks are just hung up on the fact that he's gay and is open about it. If he is not celebate but actively living the gay lifestyle then I can see where alot of the church is going to have some real issues, that could even lead to a schisim.

The part of Gay being a sin is old testament shit.. and really.. half that shit you need to take a grain of salt with (LOL get it.. salt.. as in Sodom and Gam.. ahh forget it)

If a person is a good person and is in a loving and honest relationship with a person of the same sex.. good for them, I think to look at it through Jesus words you would see that a person who is gay and lives a good life would be closer to god than a person who tried to enforce his or her own morality and intreptation of the bible on people.

This could be an interesting issue for the next few years; there was a somewhat interesting discussion of this on Graffe's back when Canada first OK'd gay marriages.

The pastor at my girlfriend's church actually had a sermon that touched on this, but he did it in a VERY stealthy manner. He was referencing the fact that other churches in the community were OK with this, and that the pastors of those churches were "misleading" people. When he was done, my girlfriend didn't even realize what he'd really been talking about. I'm curious to see if he tries to bring this up in the next few Sundays.

Silvermaine is correct, btw. I believe this bishop is going to be celibate.

Mirdorr & Silvermaine

This particular bishop isn't going to be celibate and hasn't been for the last 13 years. He's been living openly with his male partner since his divorce. That is the reason for all the excitement and the frequent use of the term "openly gay".

There have been closet gays in the church for decades. Some actively sexual, some not but all publicly denying their homosexuality until caught or tired of hiding what they were.

Mukaz, thanks for that bit of info.

To me, Openly Gay means.. one's out of the closet, not necessarly living the gay lifestyle which is to me seperate from openly gay. I can see where a large body of the church is going to have issues with this.

Interesting. This came up last night at the bar with someone who is very pro-Episcopalian. I don't follow that religion, so I usually defer to her. Now I can point out that she was wrong. And she freaking hates that.

Just to clarify...

I know Episcopalean priests can be married. Can I assume they're NOT expected to be celibate?

I thought a bishop should not have sexual desires of any kind, straight or gay...

Hell the Catholic church has had gay/pedophile bishops for years.

Not all references to homosexuality are OT, L2. Check out Romans 1. It seems to me from reviewing verses 25+ that Paul decries even having the "unnatural lust" for other men, along the lines of the "thinking it is just as bad as doing it" idea that sometimes crops up in Christian philosophy.

no..

of course they still have them, unless they have been manufacturing robotic priests for the last 1000 years or so.

I dont even think its a "sin" persay for a priest to have sex with a consenting adult.. it just means they cant be a priest anymore.

As I recall, Episcopal priests are not required to be celibate. For this and other reasons, the church is often referred to as Catholic Lite.

jamman,

Catholic priest has to be celibate, holy roller preacher doesnt have to be celibate.

Since bishops are suppost to abstain from sex anyways why the hell would he come out and say he was gay? I don't get the point...

Episcopalians operate under a different ruleset than Catholics.

Episcopalian clergy can marry, Catholic clergy cannot. If a married Episcopalian priest converts to Catholicism, when his wife dies, he cannot remarry.

If I remember my church history correctly, the Anglican Church was formed by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury when King Henry wanted a divorce and the Catholic Church wouldn't grant it.

So, the reference to Catholic lite is very close. I wouldn't consider the Episcopalian Church holy rollers however.

As near as I can recall right now, among Christian denominations only Catholic and Greek Orthodox priests are required to take a vow of celibacy.

Celibacy itself has its roots in Paul's assertion that he wished that all of Christ's disciples be so consumed by their desire to do God's will that they wouldn't have sexual desires, but continued on to say that since that wouldn't happen he would be happy if people would marry to "keep each other from sin".

I do not recall a specific scripture that prohibits ministers from marrying.

Why has no one here made the very obvious references of Bishop Buttplug, Gene "The Rumpwrangler" Robinson, The Backdoor Bishop, The Episcopalian Posterior Penetrator, etc?

Am I the only one that appreciates a joke in poor taste?

Mukaz, your absolutely correct in the fact that scripture does not prohibit priest from marrying. This is from Catholic Church doctrine, the Orthodox Greek church broke off from the Catholic Church over a different schisim many many moons ago but kept to 95% of the orginal Catholic doctrine.

valorindel, those are humorous, and I'm sure some in the Episcopal Church has made some of those very comments. I tend to stay away from name calling as that is what I'm trying to teach my children, name calling isn't nice, etc..



Corrected myself, hehe, sorry Mukaz.

Silvermaine,

Maybe you typoed or misread what I posted but I can't recall a scripture anywhere that prohibits priests from marrying.

Aaronites, the first Israelite priests weren't prohibited from marrying. They were, in fact, expected to marry, since Israel's priests could only come from this family.

Paul was celibate simply because he was so involved in spreading the Gospel he didn't think about or desire sex. He wished other disciples could achieve that same level of devotion but did not require it of anyone. Jesus himself never prohibited his disciples from marriage.

Celibacy to me is a clear example of reading more into scripture than is actually there. It went from Paul saying "I wish we could all be like this" to "Paul says you must be this way to be a real disciple"

edit: went and found the pertinent scripture

1 Corinthians Chapter 7
Celibacy advocates usually start with this verse and leave it at that:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

But if you read the passage in context Paul goes on to say:
2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.*

*bolded for emphasis

Paul here clearly states that this is his own teaching not any special command from God.

See, that is the kind of thing that leads to someone making themselves infallible.

I was raised Episcopal, and can tell you that there have been gay *priests* in that denomination for years. In fact, about 10 years ago, there was a similar scandal in the church involving a couple of bishops who were not gay, but were ordaining non-celibate gay priests (my grandmother's cousin, the recently retired Bishop of New Jersey, was one of them). There's been a gradual evolution going on in the American Episcopal church for about 20 years now on this issue (first it was ordaining celibate gays, then non celibate gays), and this would seem to be the culmination of this trend. Twenty years ago a huge stink was made about the ordination of the first female bishop (the Rt. Rev Barbara Harris of Boston, the Diocese of Fort Worth refused to recognise her when she came to visit back in 1985), but the church seems to have weathered that just fine.

(btw, Episcopal (and Anglican) priests are allowed both to marry, and to divorce, thanks Henry VIII)

My personal feeling on this issue is that if the diocese *wants* to have this person for their Bishop, that he is qualified for the position otherwise, and is living in a long-term committed relationship with his partner (and would be married were that option available to him), than there is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to serve.

One has only to look at the huge mess going on in the Catholic church to see what a policy of both disallowing marriage and condemning homosexuality has resulted in (covert and not-so-covert homosexual activity is a huge problem at several of the American Catholic seminaries, and has been well-documented, and lets not even talk about the pedophilia :/). I think that, all things considered, it is much healther, both for the priest and the denomination, if priests are allowed to choose their own life partners and not completely suppress their sexuality, whether they be hetero *or* homosexual.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

(btw, Episcopal (and Anglican) priests are allowed both to marry, and to divorce, thanks Henry VIII)

Are they still allowed to behead their wives? Because that would be a huge selling point for me.

I'm not sure about the catholic church, but in the protestant religion, all sinners are equal. Telling your brother to go fuck himself when he asks to borrow your car is as just as bad a sin as dressing up in an energizer bunny suit and having your same-sex significatn other cram produce up your rectum with his fuckstick.

The thing is, does he admit it's a sin, or does he say it's just plain kosher? It's the same as if a pastor was banging a chick out of wedlock.

That's my take at least.

The bible says that homosexuality is a very bad sin


It says it's a sin, interesting that you're trying to quantify what kind of sin. Used to work with a baptist preacher a few years back, talked about this sort of thing all the time...a sin is a sin.

Since it also points out that everyone has sinned...well homosexuality isn't as bad as some of the preachy types try to make it out to be. Same as wanting someone else's spouse, or tripping old ladies or something.

That being said, the bible also talks about teachers(priests) being judged more harshly.

Who knows..who cares..I don't go church, let alone that particular church.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Dear 'wein:

Look at the two words that you just bolded in that quote. It says 'homosexual offenders', not 'homosexuals'. What constitutes a 'homosexual offence'? Since none of us were around when that passage was written, can you be certain that the author's intent was to be read in the broadest possible sense? Consider that homosexuality (in a specifically prescribed fashion, that being a mature man taking a younger man as a lover) was commonplace and socially acceptable in Greek society at the time that passage was written...

The Episcopal church, even in its more conservative Anglican dioceses, tends not to get terribly hung up on literalism in any case, but I'd say that passage you just highlighted isn't particularly damning of folks who just happen to *be* homosexual. The new Bishop in question here doesn't have a history of hanging out at bathhouses, molesting underage boys, or anything else terribly offensive, despite a last ditch attempt by some folks to get some dirt on him by connecting him to a website that had a link to some porn on it that didn't even exist until four years *after* he was no longer affiliated with the organization in question (it was found to be groundless in any case). My guess is that the Church has concluded that he isn't a 'homosexual *offender*', and moved on...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

The bible is an interesting thing..
Gotta remember.. Corinithians is Pauls, an apostle, letters to a group of Christians, encouraging to organize better, amoung other things. Im sure it was never meant to be some guide for life 2000 years later, it is was it is.. Letters from one man to a group of men, a long long time ago.
Did you know it (the bible) has 25 different and active versions in english? All interpretations of the same passages from the original, dialectical greek, from 2000 years ago..
heres from reading for you

The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

but.. all things considered.. Pauls letters have some really beautiful sections in them.
I like this one.
— " In everything commending ourselves, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; in pureness, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in the Holy Ghost, in love unfeigned, in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by glory and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed ; as sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things."

It's a religious group, folks. They have the right to include or exclude anyone if they feel like it, much like the Boy Scouts. And if they feel that an openly gay, sexually active bishop should not be a representative of their denomination, good for them.

Frankly, I would not have the slightest bias against homosexuals if they did not choose to parade around as they do. A week ago, I encountered an obese guy who looked EXACTLY like Bismarck wearing translucent skintight clothes :x If someone wants to have sex with members of their own gender, good for them, but is there really that great of a need to nauseate the rest of society?

Spandex: It's a privilege, not a right, Wil?

//Kiv

It's a religious group, folks. They have the right to include or exclude anyone if they feel like it, much like the Boy Scouts.

So you can discriminate against anyone aslong as you call it a religion?
And what do you do with people from a different religion, that have some customs you're religion does not like/discriminates against?
You ignore them? you fight them? You kill them?

Seems to me that if this is true religions are a good excuse to discriminate against anyone you don't like.
Just start a new religion and write in you're "holy book" that all black/whites/Jews/Asians/Hispanics should be killed and its all allright.
Very convenient.

Why even bother making a constitution if every "holy book" overrules that? Or does a "holy book" only overrules the first amendment?

But I guess that is all just a question off freedom.

I took a few years of bible study and am continuing this year so I do know a fair deal about the bible. Anyways, I have absolutely nothing against gays, but the bible says the act is a sin. Do I care if it's a sin? Not really, I'm not gonna be able to change someone's mind even if I thought it was. I was taught that the lifestyle is un-sinful as long as you don't do the act also L2, but my point was that is why the media was going nuts over it. They freak out over the smallest shit, I can't stand the media at all. >:

Sodom and Gommorah (sp?) was destroyed and basically the theme of it was that every single man in the two cities were gay. They wanted to rape the angels that visited Lot. I even remember it said "every last man" in the cities went to Lot's house to demand it. There were no accounts of murder or stealing or anything else, just that story.

Willgatus is right, religions do have the right under US law to exclude/include anyone they wish based upon the tenets of their religion. Since there is no state religion, the state has no say in the specific rules of the religion except where it may impinge upon the safety and well being of others.

The government may not direct, say, the catholic church to accept a Shinto priest as it's bishop. It is up to each and every church to decide what is acceptable for it's membership. In the case being discussed, a number of the adherents of the church take issue with the gay clergyman because of their view his activities are directly contrary to the teachings of their church. That is an issue internal to their church and is not in the rights of the government to dictate a resolution.

I'm not sure about the catholic church, but in the protestant religion, all sinners are equal.

Which Protestant religion? There are dozens of them, and even they can't agree 100% on what is a sin and what is not.

And.. if they are ALL RIGHT (as they claim to be) then who is wrong?

Well.. Toothy..

If you adhere to the old testament.. then, ok...
But lots of things are in the old testament..
Floods that covered the earth for example..
Did you know that Babylonian mythology has the EXACT same story, it had to with the geographical location of Babylon.. in the Floodlands of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Its from a oral tradition that carried down throughout mankinds history.. there are several other stories like that, that have been co-opted in the Old Testament.
Men that live 100s of years...
The "rightous judgement" of Gods to explain natural disasters.
A paradise spoiled by man.
Giants slain by a single shot from a man who would be king
A man living in the belly of a whale
Walls falling from the blast of a horn

Man back then needed to explain his universe just as all the other cultures did with mythology and Oral tradition. But the jewish people did it in a Monothesitic manner. The old Testament books are base.. a starting point, a proclaimation of belief if you will.
No religion really pays that much attention to them.. and they shouldnt.
The Jews go to the Torah
The Muslims go to the Koran
And Christians go to the new Testament.

The Old Testament is nice... but its not meant to be taken seriously..

What you should put your faith in, is the direct words of Jesus.
Jesus said, If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.

And as far as I know.. Jesus didnt end the Sermon the Mount...
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
..with.. "except all you faggots, your all screwed"

Men that live 100s of years...

Hmmm... doesn't the age become much more reasonable if you switch to a lunar calendar (such as was used by some early civilizations).

Wouldn't surprise me if the unit of measurement became "years" instead of "months" somewhere along the way, and the number never got changed.

Look at that passage about homosexuality, note it says it's just as bad as "drunkards". A sin is a sin, that particular one is just hyped by both people wanting to make christianity look bad, and morons claiming to be christian (like Fred Phelps for example).

The Old Testament is nice... but its not meant to be taken seriously..

But L2, Jesus is recorded in the Gospels as taking the OT quite seriously. Matthew particularly goes to great pains to link OT sayings to Jesus (often with absurd or comical results). And really, there is practically nothing in the Gospels that is original outside the notion of an omnibenevolent god inflicting eternal torment. A selective reading of the Gosels reveals some nice sentiments on Jesus' part but ignores much that is of questionable value.

A sin is a sin

I thought Jesus died to forgive all sin? So... if all sins are forgiven.. they don't matter, much like a crime that has been decriminalized... it becomes a moot point.

So Jesus died for nothing?

thats why its.. "the Gospel According to..."

Remember.. these men (apostles) were putting together a faith, a revolution in Judism..
The message of Jesus was a brand new way and the God he introduced was a total departure of that depicted in the OT.

In Matthews linking Jesus to the OT, its his attempt to show people that he comes from the same place, the same god.

He is no doubt trying to ease the process of converting people from judism... showing to them that the leap is not that wide..
Think about it.
People must have been saying.. "what is this new cult, whos followers say this man Jesus is God?"
People had to be able to see that is wasnt something heretical, or unfamilar, draw correllations between the common and the familar and get people in the door, and THEN show them the message that Jesus had.

amorach..
Jesus died so all your sins COULD be forgiven..

contract law bud.. its all in the wording.

contract law bud.. its all in the wording.

Again, we go into interpretation. What interpretation you have of that whole thing depends what subset of christianity you are dealing with, and the "contract" they have to get you into heaven.

For some, it just depends how much money you send up to HQ.

Moot point for me: I don't hold that there is any such thing as "sin"

This really doesnt qualify as interpretation for a number of reasons.

the Lapses in interpretation are almost exclusivly in dialetical regional and time differences..
For example..
If I said.. "He was very gay when he had a faggot"
That sentence is TOTALLY different if I said it in 1930s England and in NYC in 2003
Same language.. same words.. 2 different times and places. 2 totally different meanings.

A word used as an auxillery verb is pretty straight foward and singular in its meaning..

Besides.. in the 25 active versions of the Bible.... none that I have ever heard of... or any sect (non David Koresh-ish) of Christianity believes that "Sin" (the concept of) is irrelevant or doesnt exist.
If you want to believe that.. cool.. its your faith to come to grips with as you will.. but it has no base in any passage of the bible, its your personal interpretation.. and there is nothing wrong with that.

It doesn't matter much what the reasons for interpretation are; the fact that this document that is supposed to guide our lives and save us in death is so open to interpretation on so many fronts is deeply problematic. Compare views on atonement between Augustinians, Calvinists, Universalists, Evangelicals, and Unitarians; their views differ, often wildly, and each can present verses demonstrating the truth of their claims.

Biblical interpretation is very messy business. The best one can do is find a belief system one is comfortable with and go with that, the 'guesswork and wishful thinking' road to belief.

BTW, Esbat (amhorach) isn't a theist. Obviously, 'sin' is a major component and obsession in Christian belief.

But L2, earlier in the thread you contend that the Old Testament isn't meant to be taken seriously, and that is where the primary foundation of the concept of sin, what it is and the consequences of sinning, is laid.

Without that foundation, the laws passed on to Israel through Moses, the consequences of breaking those laws and the process of reconciliation with God through sacrifice, the ministry of Jesus is just nice words and a neat moral and philosophical discussion. Nothing more.

What you should put your faith in, is the direct words of Jesus.

If you can find any, I'd sure love to see them. They might shed light on some things for me.

Everything I've seen in the bible is second hand. Not only that, it was most likely written down decades later.

While I believe much of the bible is VERY important, I cannot recount any conversations or speeches from 10 years ago, and anything I could recount would certainly be colored by by the times I live in.

Mukaz.. Jesus pretty much did away with the commandments as given by Moses

1. Jn 15:10-12 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
2. 1 Cor 14:37 "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." Specifically in the context, the prophet’s wives were forbidden to ask questions in the assembly. This was called the Lord’s commandment, clearly not one of the 10 commandments!
3. Mt 28:20 "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you". This certainly would include baptism and the Lord’s supper!
4. John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. This commandment was not part of the 10 commandments! 2 John 5 says, "And now I ask you, lady, not as writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another." 1 John 1:1 proves that the beginning was not the garden of Eden, but the words of Jesus in 30AD. Notice that when Jesus introduced this commandment in 30 AD it was new. But John in about 95 AD said it was not new, since Jesus was the originator. When Adventists try to say "love one another" was a summary of part of the ten commandments, the contradict Jesus who said it was NEW!
5. 2 Pet 3:2 "that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles"
6. Jesus said the greatest commandment was not part of the 10! Mt 22:36-40 (Too bad for Sabbatarians: Great place for Jesus to quote the Sabbath law!)

o Matthew 22:36-40 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets

Or maybe he liked the commandments:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." [Matt v, 17-18.]

Mat 19:16-21: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 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. Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

Mat. 19:17 is particularly interesting, as Jesus distances himself from God and denies his own "goodness." But in any case, the above quotes both show Jesus' support for OT doctrines. Of course, it may be that Jesus is being duplicitous here, feigning support to gain adherents while conspiring to elevate his own doctrine, but that tends not to be a popular view for Christians.

EDIT: Also, L2, your response regarding Jesus' doing away with the commandments, even if defensible, doesn't answer Mukaz' primary point, which is that the OT cannot be dismissed by Christians because it's the source for the very reason of Jesus' coming:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, ... even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. ... Through the offence of one many be dead. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans V, 12-15, 19)

Is it possible for someone to give a quote out of the original bible? and not out of the one that has been translated and subsequently changed a million times?

I don't think so.
And even if you could you would most likely not be able to read it due to the language it's in.

Allot is lost and changed in translations and then there is the tendency of the author to add his own interpretation into the translation.
Then offcourse there is the issue of interpretation as a whole.
Do you take everything that is written down literary or as a general guide?

I personally think the bible is a nice book of stories with a moral in them that is not to be taken literary.
So literary quotes of interpretations of translations are meaningless to me.
I think common sense and decency is the issue here.
Do you really believe all men should be treated equal regardless of there sexual preference or not?

I believe you should.

hmm.
Good points Thorim.

On one hand.. your totally right.. It was a mis-statement by me to say that OT should not be taken seriously.. it definitly has relevance.. its just my opinion that its more about fable and hidden messages...
Some REALLY good ones.. the stories of Abraham and Jonah are incredible and have a powerful message that rings revelvant today... But I take them with a grain of salt and try to see the artistic license taken in them.

On the other hand..the Matthew 19:16-21 quote is take totally out of context..
If you continue on the passage you see that the young man balks at jesus' suggestion and leaves..
The lesson he gives to the people there is that the commandments are not enough.. they are too inward.. to be a good man your actions must be outward reaching. "inaction" so to speak will not open the doors to heaven. What you DIDNT do is not as important as what you DO.
And thats Jesus Commandment..
Dont just not harm him, or covet is property, LOVE him. Help your fellow man.
And your right.. Jesus never destroyed the commandments.. he just said that they were not enough.. alone.. and the actions in them are incorperated in his 1 commandment.
As far as the Romans comment.. Its interesting.. Lots of thought and discussion has gone into the notion of original sin.. Is the story of Adam a device used to illustrate mans innate imperfection?
As babys, we are all born as Adam was.. spirtually perfect, but our greatest gift, our freewill, makes us imperfect as we grow older, yet at the same, offers us the key to our own salvation.

Baloghdarogue... We still have copies of the NT that are fairly close to the original.. the problem lies not in authenticity, but in recreating a language that isnt spoken anymore..
There are grey spots in the language though that in some versions have been mis-interpreted and in other versions exploited.. But they are very few and far between and overwhelmingly consist of a word or 2.. and that word or words pertain to descriptions of things that are no longer part of this world, references that may have been common at the time of writing, but are at the time of translation, obsolete..
The discussion on Homosexuality illustrates this perfectly if you read the passage I quoted.

I always found the story of Abraham rather cruel, hardly the picture of morality it's propped up as (but that's another debate).

Yes, the young man balks, because he's got a lot of nice things and doesn't want to give them away as Jesus commands. Of course, at another point Jesus is getting the oil treatment; one of his disciples asks why not sell it to the poor; Jesus responds that the poor shall always be about, but Jesus will not be, as if that made it right and consistent.

I like the idea of taking an active role in doing things; that's a good point that few commandments address, unless you propose that the sinful nature of man makes acting against the commandments natural, and that man must actively not sin. Hmm...that may be a defensible point.

Jesus and Paul seem to believe in the OT (Matthew goes to great lengths to make it seem as if the OT believed in Jesus). The trick in the modern day is to reconcile the mythology of Adam & Eve with Original Sin, a feat theologians do not relish. Of course, I consider the Garden of Eden story a moral device (as I'm sure you do as well); same with Noah ("Daddy, where do rainbows come from?" "Let me tell you of Noah..."). It seems that the Babylonians (or their predecessors) created these stories, and the Hebrews adopted them and added a strong moral element to them. Very sensible.

Without the originals, how can we know that our NT texts are "very close" to the originals? In fact, the question becomes: What do we consider "original" sources? While the Pauline epistles are probably very close to the originals and are the earliest extant Christian scriptures, they spend very little time on Jesus and much more time on doctrine (some scholars, in fact, wonder if Paul's conception of Jesus was at all based on a living, breathing, walking being at all).

The gospels were written lsome decades later with the intention of putting the collected sayings of Jesus into context, forming a narrative of his life to serve as an example for the flock. Mark seems to use Homer's writings as a framework for his Gospel*, setting Jesus as a superior moral counterpoint to the classic Greek heroes. Matthew and Luke draw from Mark and a traditional collection of sayings scholars call the Quelle or Q gospel (German for "source", and this is called the "two-source theory").

So it seems that the closest we get to "originals" is Q, a theoretical (but well-accepted) collection of sayings that tell nothing of Jesus' life or death (they're just his words), espouse the imminent coming of God's rule, but have nothing to say about a Risen Christ or incarnation. It's not until roughly two decades later that we get our first gospel, Mark. And even Mark shows signs of tampering with; 16:9-20 seem to have been added at a later date in order to harmonize it with the other gospels.

Figuring out just what counts as "original" is more difficult than it seems. Well, a simple response turned into a treatise; that Mountain Dew Livewire stuff really keeps you going. Cheers,

*theory originates in Prof. Dennis McDonald's The Homeric Epic and the Gospel of Mark, a review of which can be found here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html)

Jesus came to COMPLETE the old testament law. The old testament predicted his sacrifice on numerous occasions.

SIN in the new testament is a condition not an action you are either in Christ or you are a sinner.

Wonder why Jesus taught against the religious leaders of his day. Cause they were clean on the outside and dirty on the inside. They conserned themselves with traditions that had the apperance of self imposed religion but were of no value against the things of the flesh.

Paul also says in his letter to the Corinthians "All things are lawful but not all things edify" Gay striaght murderer rapist ... everyone has fallen short of the glory of God.

Jesus is the mediator who reconsiles people to God by grace. Not the Frigging POPE nor any other man.

Jesus came to COMPLETE the old testament law. The old testament predicted his sacrifice on numerous occasions.

God gives out incomplete laws? Very kind of it. I've read these alleged predictions and find they fall far short of having any prophetic value. All of them are easily disputed. What sacrifice? Jesus = god per Christian belief. Where is Jesus now? In Heaven, per Christian belief. Not a lot sacrificed there!

SIN in the new testament is a condition not an action you are either in Christ or you are a sinner.

Murder = masturbation then?

Wonder why Jesus taught against the religious leaders of his day. Cause they were clean on the outside and dirty on the inside.

So? Sounds like they were still ahead of the game on the sin scorecard, given that "we're all sinners."

Gay striaght murderer rapist ... everyone has fallen short of the glory of God.

How can you NOT? Seriously, this is asinine. Your god expects us to be as glorious as its omnipotent self then punishes us when we are not?

Jesus is the mediator who reconsiles people to God by grace. Not the Frigging POPE nor any other man.

Yet Jesus = god, so he's in essence reconciling people to himself through brief self-inconvenience and through the introduction of confused and questionable doctrines open to multiple interpretations culminating with the promise of an imminent return that some people of his day would witness but which is 2,000 years in the pass.

Pardon my skepticism. =)

Cmon Thormir.. too easy.

What sacrifice?

After his arrest, Jesus was struck about the face by one of the Temple guard. Then a cover was put on his face and he was further beaten about the face. Blows to the face such as these would cause severe facial bruising and cause his eyelids to be swollen almost shut. The result would have been that he was probably unrecognizable.


Flogging a victim before he was crucified was the Roman tradition. This involved a whip with several leather thongs, 18-24 inches long, with bits of metal, bone or glass embedded in the leather. The prisoner was usually flogged 39 times (forty minus one was a sign of Roman mercy).

The effects of flogging were staggering. Many people died as a result. The skin and muscle were shredded and torn from the back. Large volumes of blood were typically lost.

The Crucifixion

Crucifixion was invented by the Persians between 300-400 BC. It was "perfected" by the Romans in the first century BC. The most common type of cross in the first century was a low Tau. It consisted of an upright pole permanently fixed in the ground, called the stipes; And a crossbar called the patibulum, which usually weighted between 75-100 pounds.
Fixing the Hands to the Cross

For centuries, most artists rendered the crucifixion of Jesus with nails in His hands. However, anatomical studies have shown that this will not support the weight of an adult male. Archaeological discoveries have shown that the nails were placed between the radius, ulna, and carpal bones. By this manner no bones would be broken.

Fixing the Feet to the Cross

After flexing the feet into an extreme position the feet were nailed, usually with one nail, to the stipe, between the second and third metatarsal bones. The result was that the individual was pinned in place with the knees bent, bearing full weight on the nails. This was an incredibly difficult position to maintain due to strain on the thigh muscles (try to stand with your knees flexed for just five minutes.)
Physiological Effects of Crucifixion
Flogging

* Severe dehydration due to blood loss.
* Orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure).
* Muscle tremors and tetany.

Nailing the Hands

* Paralysis of Median Nerve.
* Unimaginable pain at first, then paralysis and numbness.

Nailing the Feet

* Paralysis of deep peroneal nerve of the feet.

Respiratory effects

* Inability to exhale fully.
* Hypercarbia (increased carbon dioxide).
* Muscle tetany creates a viscous circle. To properly exhale required lifting the body. Each respiratory effort required so much muscular effort that muscle fatigue would cause the victim to die by asphyxia.

Cause of death

The primary cause of death by crucifixion is asphyxiation. That is, the victim slowly suffocates until dead.

Other contributing factors:

* Hypovolemic shock
* Exhaustion
* Dehydration
* Stress induced arrhythmias
* Congestive heart failure
* Pericardial and pleural effusions
* Cardiac rupture

Lets not forget the tender mercies of the Crown of Thorns and the jab of the spear in his ribs..

He died a martyrs death.. a death he could have gotten out of 100 times.. he knew his betrayal...

Murder = masturbation then?
no.. But the Murderer = Masturbater. No man is better than another, nor is any man unforgivable if they give themselves truely up to god.

How can you NOT? Seriously, this is asinine. Your god expects us to be as glorious as its omnipotent self then punishes us when we are not?
No.. God doesnt expect us to be perfect.. But he expects to try to strive to an ideal. God is Perfect.. man is Not God..
God expects us to fail.. but he doesnt expect us to ever give up Faith or Hope.
Every day life is a struggle.. a struggle against our own human nature to do the right thing.. to lead a good life.. to forgive our enemies and love our fellow man.
The Life of Jesus is meant to be a beacon, a lighthouse.
Take Martin Luther King for example.... a man, not a perfect one, but one whos faith strengthened him and allowed him to inspire others.

Yet Jesus = god, so he's in essence reconciling people to himself through brief self-inconvenience and through the introduction of confused and questionable doctrines open to multiple interpretations culminating with the promise of an imminent return that some people of his day would witness but which is 2,000 years in the pass.

Brief Inconvience? You make it sound almost fun.

The doctrines are not confusing.. they could not be more straight foward.. Love your fellow man, even your enemies, even the scum of the earth.
Love requires action..

Yes L2, I know all that, but I find it incredibly irrelevant. If Jesus is god, then all the suffering is rather moot. If god is omniscient, then it already knows the nature of suffering and how unpleasant it can be. You did leave out one telling tidbit, btw: victims of crucifixion tended to last 2-3 days; Jesus "gave up the ghost" after several hours. Then, so the story goes, he rose a few days later and went up to Heaven. Again, I'm not impressed by this "sacrifice." A sacrifice entails the loss of something; I see no loss of any sort. I would be far more impressed if the story had Jesus staying in Hell, suffering an eternity of torment on behalf of humanity, rather than returning to easy street. People have throughout history suffered far more at the hands of Jesus' followers than Jesus did on the cross.

Again, what sacrifice?

And this forgets the absurdity of an ominpotent deity requiring blood sacrifice in order to effect a pardon upon its own creation.

no.. But the Murderer = Masturbater. No man is better than another, nor is any man unforgivable if they give themselves truely up to god.

Thus, a non-Christian who has lived a good and generous life can be damned, while a mass murderer who repents may receive salvation. For my money, though, a murderer is far worse than a masturbator. John Wayne Gacy != Howard Stern.

No.. God doesnt expect us to be perfect..

And so we're scheduled for punishment at birth for the crime of being imperfect, and to escape this punishment must venerate the very being who places this absurd condition upon us.

The doctrines are not confusing.. they could not be more straight foward.. Love your fellow man, even your enemies, even the scum of the earth.
Love requires action..

Obviously there is some confusion involved, given the thousands of Christian denominations around the earth, each with its own belief systems. This thread testifies to the confusion surrounding certain issues such as homosexuality, the ordination of women, slavery, the true requirements for salvation, etc. Ironically, we're asked to be far more virtuous than the deity doing the asking; the threat of eternal damnation is hardly an expression of love.

In any case, Jesus was hardly the first to suggest that we should love our fellow man, and we do not need Jesus to live a good life.

If Jesus is god, then all the suffering is rather moot. If god is omniscient, then it already knows the nature of suffering and how unpleasant it can be. You did leave out one telling tidbit, btw: victims of crucifixion tended to last 2-3 days; Jesus "gave up the ghost" after several hours.

Indeed.. he knew the entire time what the end result of it all was. Yet..
He was human.. he lived as any other human and suffered the same.. The only moot thing about it would have been lasting 2 days.. whats the point? After a while of intense and extreme suffering the body and mind tend to take measures of shutting down.. Combat doctors can attest to this.

Again, I'm not impressed by this "sacrifice." A sacrifice entails the loss of something; I see no loss of any sort. I would be far more impressed if the story had Jesus staying in Hell, suffering an eternity of torment on behalf of humanity, rather than returning to easy street. People have throughout history suffered far more at the hands of Jesus' followers than Jesus did on the cross.

The object here isnt some junior high game of holding your hand over a open flame the longest to show how tough you are.
You still arent understanding the point.. The reason for Jesus being here was to provide an example. Before he came what were the critera for Heaven? Follow the Laws of Judism?
Now there is a example, albeit a tough one, but an example of how to live, of what is important in life.

Thus, a non-Christian who has lived a good and generous life can be damned, while a mass murderer who repents may receive salvation. For my money, though, a murderer is far worse than a masturbator. John Wayne Gacy != Howard Stern.
A person who leads a good life, leads a good life. Its not my opinion that you need to worship the Christian God in order to go to heaven.. God has been expressed in our culture this way, and has shown himself this way.. I think he expresses himself in Buddism, Hinduism, Islam and virtually every other religion. And Yes.. a Murderer can recieve salvation if his repent is honest.

And so we're scheduled for punishment at birth for the crime of being imperfect, and to escape this punishment must venerate the very being who places this absurd condition upon us.
How are you being punished? Your given life and wonder that it is.. and freewill and choice and the ability to find happiness, even if it is fleeting.
And what Absurd condition? To be decent to your fellow man? To try to love and try not to hate?
That doesnt seem so absurd. Seems like a damn good idea.

In any case, Jesus was hardly the first to suggest that we should love our fellow man, and we do not need Jesus to live a good life.
I couldnt agree more..
We are all individuals.. and I think God expresses himself to us or we understand it.. each in our individual way and time

He was human.. he lived as any other human and suffered the same..

According to standard Christian belief, Jesus was 100% man and 100% divine. Forgetting for a moment the question of how 1+1=1, Jesus being the divine incarnation of god into human form (a point constantly reinforced in John) simply doesn't equate to being human as you and I are. Now, if you believe Jesus was indeed 100% human, divinely inspired but not divine, then we're arguing from different spheres. But I'm looking at it from the standard Christian view.

You still arent understanding the point.. The reason for Jesus being here was to provide an example. Before he came what were the critera for Heaven? Follow the Laws of Judism?

Providing an example was incidental to the whole thing (and there are points in the gospels where I'd say the example he sets should make his PR folks blush). Theologically speaking, his coming and going were, for some reason, necessary for man to receive salvation. Prior to Jesus, Heavan was closed. With Jesus' coming, Heavan is still closed to those who have never heard of him (which has been quite a few people). That's the standard model of Christian belief, though there's been a lot of wagging over these points in the last few decades.

I think he expresses himself in Buddism, Hinduism, Islam and virtually every other religion.

He needs to work on the Islam bit. To me it all seems unlikely, but such a view is difficult (and mostly pointless) to argue against.

How are you being punished?

With eternal damnation, possibly including hellfire, torture and whatnot depending on what view of Hell you buy into.

Your given life and wonder that it is.. and freewill and choice and the ability to find happiness, even if it is fleeting.
And what Absurd condition? To be decent to your fellow man? To try to love and try not to hate?
That doesnt seem so absurd. Seems like a damn good idea.

Again, you're basing this conclusion on a non-standard viewpoint. Biblically speaking, being good (that is, acts of goodness) simply isn't enough ("None come to the Father but through me."). Rather, you must "accept Jesus as your savior" and have faith or you're out, which is pretty damn absurd for those who've never heard of him. I'd also say it's absurd for an omniscient deity to punish a person who doubts the Christian viewpoint based on rational examination of what its proponents offer.

However, rational skeptics and those unaware of the gospel message are (again, according to standard Christian theology) destined for Hell at death, whatever Hell may be.

If god was to be sacrificed in his "Jesus" role play persona, it must be his will, and as such, can't be a sacrifice at all, as it was his INTENT for this to happen.

The extension of this:
Now, if god did NOT intend to die... he must not be omnipotent nor omnicient- in other words, we kicked god's ass.

Pick one.


Esbat
Officer of Prism

I think we just need to find a way to stop priests fucking little boys.

Flawed question Esbat.. there are other alternatives than the ones you mentioned..

The experience of humanity.. the bonding of God to Man...

Plus you keep dancing around the main point of his life.. which is HIS LIFE is the example.. not his death, death is a part of life,...
He LIVE AND DIED so that a light shines to give direction and hope where there was none before.
In his death he never betrayed what he stood for in life, he never went back, never let pain or fear or pride or the oppression of inevitbility back him off his ideals..

We all live.. We also know we are all going to die.. does that make us omnipotent? Him knowing his death is a reality we all must face...
Yet we march on.. with hope and love and compassion.

But I'm looking at it from the standard Christian view.
Im looking at it from my own eyes and my own heart and who I am..

Theologically speaking, his coming and going were, for some reason, necessary for man to receive salvation. Prior to Jesus, Heavan was closed. With Jesus' coming, Heavan is still closed to those who have never heard of him (which has been quite a few people). That's the standard model of Christian belief, though there's been a lot of wagging over these points in the last few decades.
Who says heaven is closed to those who havent ever heard of Jesus? Dont remember Jesus ever saying that... A non buddist can be enlightened..
Remember the lighthouse analogy.. it holds up.. We are ships on the sea.. Jesus is a lighthouse guiding us in.. but some cant see the lighthouse from where they are.. they can still make it into port.. maybe they use the Stars.. or a compass.. The destination is same no matter the journey.

He needs to work on the Islam bit. To me it all seems unlikely, but such a view is difficult (and mostly pointless) to argue against.
Actually... Muslims need to work on understanding Islam.. its a beautiful religion that has been exploited horribly.

With eternal damnation, possibly including hellfire, torture and whatnot depending on what view of Hell you buy into.
Only for acting like an asshole... Non Belief doesnt damn you.. Non Action and Actions damn you...
Stepping over a man in the gutter, pretending you dont see him is just as much a sin as putting the man there...

I think youll find most Churches are pretty open and affirming nowerdays.. at least the ones ive been to are.. So if you want to base your skeptism on the worst of the Church.. have at it..
But remember.. if you want to find God.. dont expect him to come to you.. He is in the worst places in the world..
Missions in Liberia.. staffed by Nuns and Priests.
Ghettos
Prisons.
Wars..
Anywhere where people are dying, or starving or suffering in this world.. youll find a christian trying to help.

Flawed question Esbat.. there are other alternatives than the ones you mentioned..

Such as the whole thing being a fable intended to show people how to live- in other words, fiction.

The experience of humanity.. the bonding of God to Man...
The experience of humanity *is* suffering, by and large, I'll grant you that. As for the bonding of god to man- many of the African religions (and derivations, such as vodoo) do it beter.

Plus you keep dancing around the main point of his life.. which is HIS LIFE is the example.. not his death, death is a part of life,...

Jesus as a social reformer and Jesus as a messiah are two very different things.

Stepping over a man in the gutter, pretending you dont see him is just as much a sin as putting the man there...
No such thing as sin. I'd say it is inhumanitarian- a horrible breach of social consciousness.

But remember.. if you want to find God.. dont expect him to come to you.
If the number of people ringing my doorbell are any indication... god is doing is BEST to find his way into my wallet.

Anywhere where people are dying, or starving or suffering in this world.. youll find a christian trying to make converts!

Personally, I don't consider death a part of life. I'm alive; later I'll be dead. The two don't really intersect in my eyes.

He LIVE AND DIED so that a light shines to give direction and hope where there was none before.

We've already established that there are and have been other sources of enlightenment (e.g., Buddha), plenty of which predate Jesus.

In his death he never betrayed what he stood for in life, he never went back, never let pain or fear or pride or the oppression of inevitbility back him off his ideals..

Matt 26:39: Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

More seriously, though, it's pretty easy to face up to the inevitable, especially when you're an incarnated god.

Im looking at it from my own eyes and my own heart and who I am..

Yes, I remember this from previous discussions; it's what I term "wishful thinking Christianity." This view essentially accepts all the happy fun stuff in liberal Christian belief while paying no mind to the negative implications of such belief, both implicit and explicit. Naturally, this means you and I are often addressing different paradigms; since I'm more concerned with conservative, fundamentalist belief systems, my arguments tend to be tailored in that direction. On the plus side, as people we're probably fairly alike; I simply don't require belief in gods and such to live the way I do.

As an aside, I find that most arguments (in the common sense, rather than the debate sense as I use it) primarily result from lack of agreement on the definition of terms.

Who says heaven is closed to those who havent ever heard of Jesus? Dont remember Jesus ever saying that... A non buddist can be enlightened..

John 14, 5-6: Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This is one of a number of passages interpreted as to say that without belief in Jesus one cannot ascend to Heaven. It's rather difficult to believe in someone you've never heard of. If you dispute this notion (which, I think, is rather unsavory when ascribed to an allegedly omnibenevolent being), you'll have to argue with John. =)

As an aside, conservative theologians uncomfortable with the implications I've mentioned try to posit a sort of "divine spark" that lies in everyone. Basically, you've heard of god/Jesus whether you know it or not. You may judge the worth of this argument for yourself; I find it...a stretch.

Actually... Muslims need to work on understanding Islam.. its a beautiful religion that has been exploited horribly.

Islam is effective at building a thoroughly ordered society. However, it's not the kind of society I'd wish to be a part of.

I think youll find most Churches are pretty open and affirming nowerdays.. at least the ones ive been to are..

You live in NYC (IIRC), I live in North Carolina. I've primarily debated fundamentalists who would regard you as a heretic destined for the pit, and believe me, there are a lot of them out there. It's quite a shame they don't share your less complicated form of belief.

But remember.. if you want to find God.. dont expect him to come to you.. He is in the worst places in the world..

Which brings us from the complication of non-belief to the complications of unnecessary suffering and premature death, and their implications for free will and the alleged goodness of god. Sample topics of exploration include:

--Whose free will is more important? The 9/11 hijackers or those who died prematurely at their hands?
--How can a "good" god inflict natural disasters, diseases, and congenital deformities and retardation upon his creation? (NOTE: none of those have anything to do with man's free will)
--How 'bout them Amalekites? (i.e., god-inflicted terror in the Old Testament).

Nope, it's never as easy as it looks. Cheers,

I think I can relate to what God does...

1) Load up Sim City
2) Fill up most of the map with a functioning, happy town
3) Wait for stuff to happen while watching the History Channel
4) Throw around a disaster or two during the commercials/20th rerun of Kennedy's assassination
5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the map looks more like Fallout than Sim City
6) Get bored, go back to step 2

Well, it's a mystery...*meanders off.*

"I think we just need to find a way to stop priests fucking little boys."

I believe the item below would fix that.


http://www.sigarms.com/apps/cmt/img/p229-40-he-large.jpg