What is the common christian belief about entering heaven and whats said about it in the new testament, and if being in a relationship married or not with someone who is of a different religion/atheist would be an auto ticket into hell according to the bible or whatever.

Anyway what I had thought was that christians just had to believe in god and jesus as their lord and savior and repent sins to him and all that crap to get into heaven? would that be correct?

(this is *not* going to earn anyone who replies truthfully a flame, this dude has encountered this issue - please reply someone with knowledge!)

Hugz cron

Yeah, looking for truthful replies, facts on whats said in the bible about the issue. Thanks.

Btw Get on msn Grumblin

In *most* sects of Protestant Christianity (including the one I was raised in, which was, in case anyone cares, Episcopal), all one is required to to in order to be 'saved' is to accept Jesus as the son of God and (in most cases) to have been baptized. Whether your mate is 'saved' is immaterial to your salvation, although mixed-faith marriages are frowned upon in many denominations and in some denominations it would be your duty to 'witness' to your significant other and attempt to convert them. Different sects/denominations of Christianity, save the requirement that one accept Jesus and the Resurrection, vary *widely* in their degree of literalism, what portions of the Bible they emphasise, and what they expect of their followers...

Hope that is of some assistance.

Sincerely,
Deborah A. Dixon
'Nydia Ywalmoriel'
Autonomous Collective

Btw, I just spoke to my partner (Faervas) about this; he is a Roman Catholic. Neither our 'living in sin' nor the fact that I have not been a Christian (as one is usually defined) for many years is an 'express ticket to hell' for him; but because I am not a Catholic, we could not be married *in the Catholic church*. He says that in his particular faith, if he should die without confession and last rites, he'd have to go to purgatory; but that *my* faith (or lack thereof) is immaterial to his salvation.

Regards,
Nydia

As mentioned previously, there are many "flavors" of or interpretations of Chrisitianity. However, the one underlying basic principle is accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior.

Can you be of a different faith and still make it to Heaven? I'll answer that question with a question and then try to explain.

What about Messianic Jews?

Messianic Jews (in my feeble understanding) still follow many, if not all, of the Jewish beliefs and methodologies. The main difference is that they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Messianic Jews still have Passover, Bar Mitzvahs, eat kosher food, and many of the other traditional Jewish habits and ways of doing things.

According to the Bible... every person must "work out their own salvation in fear and admonition before the Lord". This means that... you're on your own Sparky. Your salvation or ticket to Heaven or Hell is of your own doing, and not dependant upon the status of your mate/spouse/pet/next door neighbor etc.

There are some Christian organizations/sects that have a very rigid set of rules to follow. For example, there are some who believe that unless you are a member of their organization/sect/church, you are going to burn for eternity. There are some who will tell you that they are the only ones who will make it to Heaven.

There are those who have "weird" religious practices. Weird being defined as something that most reasonable people would find...uhh.. different. For example, there are some who handle snakes as part of their worship or service. There are those who have very lively music during their services, and there are those who have no music at all, and all singing is done without music.

Whatever your belief or "flavor", the very term Christianity implies that you believe in Jesus Christ. Again, quoting from the Bible.. "My people will be called by my name" (paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording)... hence.. Christianity.

Most Christian belief systems will require that you not only accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, but that you live a moral life and strive to be like Christ, "without spot or blemish". Obviously that would be impossible for us, but the effort is expected. And that brings us to the topic of living under grace.... but that's a whole different argument. <chuckle>

In short... believe and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior, live a good and moral life, and get the Express Ticket to Heaven. Otherwise, better pack your fire resist gear.

In *most* sects of Protestant Christianity (including the one I was raised in, which was, in case anyone cares, Episcopal), all one is required to to in order to be 'saved' is to accept Jesus as the son of God and (in most cases) to have been baptized.

You know honestly, I dont get this. Where do these churches come up with their own variations of what is needed when they all base their information on the bible and almost without exception pick and choose what they want to believe from the exact same book? Seems to me if youre going to be Christian, to play it safe you better follow everything the book says.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Well the different variants of Christianity were formed by time, and regime, rather than two bishops in a pub going "I reckon Jesus was divine, AND a man". "No he bloody wasn't, he was completely divine!"
For example, Orthodox christianity was the dominant, original form of christianity under Constantine I of Constantinople. The bishops, some 500 or so, set out to form a "doctrine" of the definition of Jesus, citing that he was both a man and of the divine. But, of course, people in different parts of the known world would disagree, and the official clergy of those people would defend their own definition, being that Christ was purely divine, or actually just human, and so forth.
And then you cue about 2, 000 years of different, dominant views of that eternal argument, under different regimes.

So under these eternally formed views, you have different interpretations and beliefs of what exactly the bible says, and such. To put it to a modern day example, it would be similar to the way people interpret the head of state, depending on whether they were catholic/protestant, conservative/labour.

which book?

The bible is the selected writing of many many people over hundreds of years.
At some point some council (whos name escapes me atm) chose certain writings to include from a vast library.

This doesnt even include the multiude of interpretations and versions and translations over the years.

The whole reason for a clergy class was because back waay long ago, before Atari, books were pretty rare things. Hard to make, expensive. And most people couldnt read or write anyway. Now the bible isnt "light" reading to begin with. Its full of contradictions, and symbolism and hidden meanings. People have spent hundreds of lifetimes building and understand of this book and its message and purpose. So the reason for a priest was to interpret this book for the uneducated people.
We really dont need priests or anyone else telling us what meaning to derive from the bible, if any. Experience it youself, the way it was intended to be.
Live your own life, come up with your own conclusions.

'come up with your own conclusions'

- It's all bullshit? :P

- It's all bullshit? :P
Fair enough.

So if someone were to say the bible is flawless and without contradiction, would they be wrong?
And does it say anywhere in the bible at all that being with a non christian leads you to hell?
and whats the issue with sex before marriage?

Mate, just read a bloody bible.

I think a chapter you may wish to read is titled "Ye Willth Burneth in Helleth If Ye Shall Take A Wife Before Marriage And In Particular If She Be-eth A Non-Christian.. eth."

Chapter five, or something.

'and whats the issue with sex before marriage?'

- Condoms.

So if someone were to say the bible is flawless and without contradiction, would they be wrong?
-"an Eye for an Eye"
Old Testament.
-"Turn the Other Cheek"
New Testament.
The bible is full of flaws. But thats because its about people who are flawed. It is a reflextion of ourselves in alot of ways.
It was written by men, about mankind and being interpreted by men. As we are imperfect, so is it. Dont look for perfection in a book. Look for truth. Where does it ring true to YOU, not someone else YOU. IMO that ringing of truth, if it happens is divine. And its personal. Not to foisted on others.
And does it say anywhere in the bible at all that being with a non christian leads you to hell?
Probably nowhere. That sounds like a Old Testament thing. , and probably a re-interpretation of Jewish Law. Christians should really concentrate on what Christ taught and said.
and whats the issue with sex before marriage?
Use a condom.
This more a tradition thing. Remember back in the day the only worth a woman had to her Family was in marrying off to someone. Virginity was the trade for some cash, or a cow or land or whatever. Virginity was proven on the wedding night by the blood on the sheets. In Italian neighborhoods the bloody sheets were hung out to rdry the morning after as a boast and testament to the girls purity.
As far as male abstinence. Heh.. whats the worlds oldest profession.

Anyway what I had thought was that christians just had to believe in god and jesus

Step back a second and look at what you are asking.

1. Are you asking the dictionary or, say, me, what a Christian is? If so, you're exactly right.

2. Are you asking the minister or fervent attendee of a conservative evangelical protestant church (fastest growing sect in US) what a Christian is? If so, you'd better be attending a protestant church and you'd better look at him and proclaim that you're saved to be Christian.

The answer to your question will vary from person to person and church to church. Religion is VERY subjective.

If you DO encounter crap like people saying you're not "saved" or something, I like to ask them "Did Jesus teach you to insult me?" or "Did Jesus teach you condemn your fellow man to hell?" They usually start to stammer.

As we are imperfect, so is it. Dont look for perfection in a book. Look for truth. Where does it ring true to YOU, not someone else YOU. IMO that ringing of truth, if it happens is divine. And its personal. Not to foisted on others.

Hm I didnt realize that you could pick and choose what you like and didnt like from the Bible. I guess since the only part of the Bible that I like is the part about women being deferential to men thats just as valid as your interpretation. Im going to Heaven! Score!

Nicea.

That council had nothing to do with what books went into the bible however, it was a council to decide the nature of the trinity(was Jesus man, divine man, or divine) and to better establish the hierarchy of the church(the bishop of Rome became the pope, etc).

www.equip.org/free/DN206.htm (http://www.equip.org/free/DN206.htm)

Well the reason I ask is because im agnostic, I believe religion to be as much of myth as anything else, but my *psuedo-ex-sorta-girlfriend(18, living at home[*with her parents) is christian, and from a strict sheltering christian family, everything has been fine for the last 6 months until her family got involved in breaking us up, they've beaten the idea that god will reject her and send her to hell if she stays with me(and that it says so in the bible, which is a book of pure fact without error or flaw) into her head so much that shes believing it.
Not looking for advice or anything(got plenty of that already), just giving reason for my questions.

*=edits

'but my girlfriend(18, living at home)'

- Score.

god will reject her and send her to hell if she stays with me(and that it says so in the bible, which is a book of pure fact without error or flaw) into her head so much that shes believing it.

Here, read them a few Bible passages and point out that they themselves are rejecting the word of God and so they shouldnt be so worried about just one more reason for hellfire-

(Thanks Mandari for most of these)

Luke 12:33

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Mark 10:10-13

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1Corinthians 11:6-9

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1Peter 3:1-2

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

1Corinthians 14:34-35


As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Titus 2:4-5

Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.


1Timothy 2:9-15

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Ephesians 6: 5-9

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22-24

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord....It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

Titus 2:9-10

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

And of course, the Coup-De-Grace:

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Give em hell!!! (hehe I made a funny)

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Thanks, anyway is that old or new testament, she admitted that she needs to go by the new testament, not the old.
And where the hell can I get a bible?

That is, of course, New Testament.
Dont waste your cash - bible.gospelcom.net/bible...assage=all (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=all)

Yes, that was The New Testament.

Also.. "an eye for an eye" was under the Old Testament, under the law of Abraham.

"Turn the other cheek" is New Testament, where we live under grace.

The law, as was given to Moses, was full of requirements and religious hoops to jump through. For example, when the high priest went into the temple to prepare the sacrifice, he had to be absolutely sure that he had his life in order.

If the priest entered the Holy of Holies and did not have his life in order, God would strike him dead. For this reason, priests entered the Holy of Holies with a rope around their ankle and bells sewn into the hem of their robe. If the bells stopped making noise, then they dragged the dead body of the priest out of the Holy of Holies.

It was the priest's duty to offer the sacrifice each year for the sins of the people. Atonement for sins was done by the priest in a ceremony once a year after a great deal of pomp and circumstance. There was a great deal of preparation that had to be done prior to the ceremony.

This was under the Law of the Covenant.

Since the crucifixion of Christ, we no longer live under the Law of the Covenant. Jesus was the sacrifice given to bring atonement for all our sins. He took the sins of the world upon himself so that all could be saved.

Hence... the requirement to believe and accept Jesus as your Savior.

The scriptures posted earlier from the books of Timothy and Thessalonians were letters from the Apostle Paul to his protege Timothy, and to the church at Thessalonica. The church there was mostly gentiles who had never really had any kind of religious training or exposure. After the church was established, Paul was sending them instructions on how to treat husbands, wives and each other.

See? All those years of religious studies and Bible history paid off for something....

Cronus, if you're getting and studying the Bible to convince her parents that you're right and they're wrong, just give up already.. ain't gonna happen.

If you're really wanting to work it out between her parents, their daughter, and Christ, the first thing you need to do is understand their beliefs using their version of the Bible. If you didn't know it, there are many... the Catholics have their own, and then theres the King James, New King James, NIV, American Standard... some churches don't care, some do. That's probably the first thing you can do to start down the road to being accepted by them.

The next is the toughest, get your ass out of bed on Sunday mornings and go to church with them or whenever they go. Their daughter and they will be really impressed, maybe.

... or you can try and steal their daughter from them, and they will forever hate you for it. Your girlfriend will probably end up divorcing you anyway if you go that route, and leave you with no house, no car, and she'll take your dog just for spite.

Nah they hate me and won't have anything to do with me already, I have told her I would support her religious views and go to church with her even though I don't believe, Im not looking for an arguement with her parents, just looking for information on the subject so I can understand more about it. Her brother was going to be a youth minister but changed his mind to become a plumber or something like that, so she trusts her brother's views on what will and won't get her into heaven, and hes told her that being with me will lead her to hell.

Here's the scripture they're probably going by from 2nd Corinthians (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr006.html):
2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,

2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Some people apply this to all sorts of unequals. Baptists can't marry Presbyterians, Methodists can't have eat turkey with Catholics, whatever... but mostly its used to make sure both husband and wife are saved, and at the least with the same basic agreement on their foundations of faith.

The main fear is, and mostly like the truth, you'll pull their daughter away from her faith. You're supposed to be head of the household and not the reason to stay home on Sunday's to watch Nascar, play EQ, or whatever.

And it also sounds like you have a big brother that doesn't like you as well. Don't laugh at his job :b

For example, Orthodox christianity was the dominant, original form of christianity under Constantine I of Constantinople.
Dominant, yes; original...only in its dominance. Early Christianity was a fractured mess of competing gospels, cults, and interpretations of things like the nature of Jesus (man, god, something in between?), the nature of god (a single entity, Trinitarian, gnostic Demiurgos?), and doctrines of salvation.

The most immediate idea we have of early Christian life comes from Acts, where they're portrayed as living mostly apart from non-believers in small, communistic societies (God not being that big on democracy really ;) ). What we consider early Orthodox Christianity ascended into dominance through organization and political coups, such as the alliance with Constantine. However, it was but one mode of thought among many.

So if someone were to say the bible is flawless and without contradiction, would they be wrong?
The term "biblical inerrantist" applies to anyone who believes the bible to be without error. This is most commonly the viewpoint of evangelical fundamentalists, and a number of books attempt to deal with "Biblical difficulties" (a couple authors come to mind, Gleason Archer and Norman Giesler). What I find, however, is that their explanations strain credulity. Indeed, one could make any holy book of any religion equally inerrant by applying their methods of interpretation.

And does it say anywhere in the bible at all that being with a non christian leads you to hell?
akipt provided some useful verses that suggest just this kind of thing. The quote he emboldened is particuarly used by Jehovah's Witnesses as reason to interact as little as possible with "unbelievers" (though they also rely on their own dubious translation of the Bible). Will it lead you to hell? Not in and of itself. The concern is mostly that you'll be corrupted by worldly things and drawn away from salvific faith.

and whats the issue with sex before marriage?
It's bad but forgivable, a worldly artifice that can tarnish the soul and draw one away from clean living and perfect faith.

I was in a similar position once, though the girl wasn't at all tied to her parents' beliefs. They really, really hated me. =) Given what you've stated thus far, you're in for a very uphill battle. Unless the girl in question reconsiders her views on life and religion (possibly causing a break with the parents) or you convert, then the most probably outcome is decidedly poor.

As an aside, Slant posted a link to Gospelcom. It's a very good site for one looking for specific verses. I haven't explored whatever else is there, but being able to access numerous versions of the Bible online at a keystroke is invaluable. For those interested in perusing the Bible from the skeptic's point of view, you might check out SAB (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). Two caveats:

1) They use the KJV, which can make your eyes bleed.
2) A lot of the points they highlight aren't very good points, and they do miss some pertinent, deeper details. Overall, though, SAB serves as a decent starting point when checking out an array of biblical issues.

Good luck in your decision making, Cronuus.

so I can understand more about it

Here's the thing I find that's most constructive to do.

Have her attempt to talk to her parents, and get them to mark the passages they're referring to in a Bible (this puts the burden on them, and might even make them think about what they're saying). She can then bring the Bible to you and the 2 of you can talk about it together.

You'll often find that people like this pull a single sentence out of a paragraph or passage. The single sentence could say an entirely different thing by itself than it says when part of the passage.

Overall, the big picture is that the Bible teaches her to get along with you and set a good example to show you the right thing to do. Their CHURCH is telling them to reject you.

'Overall, the big picture is that...'

- ...it just sounds like far too much work.

the first thing you need to do is understand their beliefs using their version of the Bible. If you didn't know it, there are many... the Catholics have their own, and then theres the King James, New King James, NIV, American Standard...

Like the toilets?

- ...it just sounds like far too much work.

I agree here with Halo. Crap. Self-destruct sequence initiating.

Methodists can't have eat turkey with Catholics, whatever


I attended a Methodist church when i was growing up, let me assure you that we were not forbidden to eat turkey with Catholics, it is just a matter of having standards.


leave you with no house, no car, and she'll take your dog just for spite.


You mean some of them actually need an excuse like this?

I was bored sitting in a church waiting for this past weekends' wedding to begin so I started thumbing through a Bible. Well I turned up an interesting passage that you might find interesting -

1Corinthians 7: 12-16

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Even if its not technically the 'word of God', it is the word of Paul, so unless they think they know better than an apostle.... (I think he was? what do I know) Anyways, hope its not too late to be usefull, just figured you could use some more ammo.

i agree with halo,just back away and let it go.shes 18,shes free to chose whoever she wants.if shes so afraid of her family ostracizing her over you.then its really not worth all the hassles,that it will cause.
last thing you want is to get sucked into the world of extreme religious wackos.I've been there and lived it,my family sounds alot like this girls family.
based on my own family,I've never seen more angry and hate filled people if your views or beliefs don't conform to there own.
its amazing to me how they overlook the love and forgiveness of the "the actual Jesus stuff".
but dwell on the old testament and latter parts of the new testament writings, aka Paul's bullshit.Deuteronomy seems to be a favorite chapter they spew out.with all its intolerance and stoning this and stoning that type crap. /em rolls eyes and shakes head.

best thing to do is rip the bible in half,separating the old and new testaments and then trimm off the latter half of the new testament.then you'll have the real religion, without all the bullshit.
but thats just me.
just do what ever you feel is right.follow your own path to what ever belief you choose.

Just to touch quickly on Slant's question:

You know honestly, I dont get this. Where do these churches come up with their own variations of what is needed when they all base their information on the bible and almost without exception pick and choose what they want to believe from the exact same book? Seems to me if youre going to be Christian, to play it safe you better follow everything the book says.

Aside from the already stated comment that the Bible is the work of many individuals, over several centuries, and much of it having been passed down by word of mouth way before anything was written down, the difference in the dogma, or the interpretation of the the Bible's words was also very much influenced by people who wished to remain in a position of power.

One example would be Pelagius vs the Emperor Augustine (about 400 or so AD). ~~sidenote this is 400 years after Christ had roamed the earth, lots and lots of translations, rewrittings, word of mouth, went on during that time ~~

Pelagius believed and taught that man wasn't born a sinful creature, but had the ability to sin or not to sin (Free will). The original sin (the Adam and Eve thing) wasn't transmitted to man because the soul is created by God. So, man choses to sin or not to sin because of Free will, not because he was born sinful.

Basically he believed in the inate goodness of man as opposed to blaming nature for it's inate evil. And many people to this day do believe this to be a much better interpretation of Jesus Christ's teachings than most.

Another part of his teachings, again having to do with free will , was that man had the ear of God, without need of a priest to talk to God for them. Since man wasn't born fallen from Grace he didn't need a conduit that was in a state of Grace to talk directly to God. (back to the not being born in sin thing)

Now, by 400 AD, the Emperors of Rome had adopted Christianity but never abandoned the precept that Emperors were divine beings. So, of course whatever the Emperor did was basically God doing it thru the Emperors.

The problem with Pegalius's teaching was that it basically told the illiterate peasants that the Emperor wasn't divine, and that priests weren't very much in need. Now Pegalius wasn't a rabble rouser, in fact he was a priest of some type and very much believed in doing good for it's own sake, and leading a moral and acesetic life, and was a pretty saintly guy by most standards.

At the time the Roman Empire was pretty well crumbling all over the place, uneducated folks were the norm, and people who could read and write were people in positions of power, and for the most part were priests/monks/whatever you want to call them.

Augustine didn't very much like a doctrine that threatened his power - if he's not divine, then it wasn't God working thru him but just himself. That wasn't a good thing for people to think while his empire was in utter chaos. It's much easier to rebel against a plain old ordinary man than to rebel against God himself ;p

So, Augustine's Dogma was that man was born with sin and egro man's free will was totally impaired by this sin, and only men such as himself who were divine, or priests (that state of grace thing) had the right way of doing things, since they were direct conduits of God. A very good way to keep the masses down and in control, since Augustine was divine and well they weren't :P Who questions the will of God? :P

Priests certainly didn't want to become unecessary since they were basically fed, housed, clothed and in many cases made wealthy by simply "being in a state of grace" - the only people that could hear your confession, pass it on to God, and forgive you for your sins.

There was a big hooplah and Augustine declared Pegalius a heretic I think, and basically banned his teachings, though Britain being isolated never completly got rid of the basic teachings of Pegalius.

After that the world kinda went in the dark ages for awhile, while the Roman Empire imploded - and the Church used Augustine's doctrine or dogma as a means to control the populace. Tell a bunch of illiterate, uneducated folks that outnumber you 10,000 to one that you are in effect God's messanger, and supersitious people will be afraid of rising up against you and killing you.

Now, Pegalius and Augustine are just one tiny wave in the two thousand years since Christiany began. There's many more examples, and every ruler, be it a pope or a king, used religion as a tool to maintain his power and dominance over the masses. Hell, Henry the 8th simply wanted to get remarried so he'd get an heir and the Pope told him no, so Henry told him to fuck himself and created his own dogma :P

So...basically over time, because of imperfect translations, and distorted word of mouth, and men simply using religion to their own ends, you end up with a bazillion interpretation as to what Jesus was trying to teach.

For every one thing in the bible, there's another rewritten version that interprets things in a different way. For every quote that Paul tells you is the rules, Matthew contradicts etc etc.

Sorry for being so long winded :P Basically, if you're religiously inclined, and like the basics of what Jesus was teaching, do unto others is a pretty good dogma to go by, and skip all the other unecessary bs. :p

*edit*

Forgot to mention that for awhile there was 2 Emperors, one in Constantinople and one in Rome. And of course both Emperors would be "divine", which basically began the seperation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox. Both Emperors were christians but with different ideas :p

Sorry, it's awfully late and I just wanted to stress the fact that Pegalius was according to Augustine's dogma perfectly correct because Pegalius was in a state of grace, being a priest, so God was speaking to him :P~~ No contradiction there huh ? :P

/swoon Kaerila

When you speak you speak volumes eh?;P

Fandros

This is a second hand account cause I don't religion personally, but....

For a protestant to go to heaven with their mate, both must believe jesus is the son of God and both must be baptized.

Whoever is lacking the belief and/or the baptism will apparently go to hell and not re-unite in heaven with their mate.

So if u want to marry her and don't care about religion, say you believe jesus is the son of god, go get baptized and then u get the girl. )

Ya know a couple interesting tidbits I learned from sermon this sunday.

The entire concept of good and evil in a sort of cosmic struggle was first introduced into judism (and by way of genetics to Christianity) from the influence of the Persian culture and Zoroastrianism. Prior to that the jewish concept of "hell" was Sheol. Sheol was neither a good place or a bad place, just a place the dead went, good, evil, whatever.

Zoroastrianism intriduced the concept of duality. Two opposing forces on which all people must make the concious decision to side. And with that decision came the reward or punishment of afterlife.

Another concept that I was thinking about from reading Kaerils post was the concept of free will. Nowhere in the bible can I think of one time when anyone was forcably compelled to do anything through the power of God. God always seem to give people the choice. Dont take the apple, kill your son, Free my people from Slavery, die upon the cross. Never did God force take force over a persons will, in the end each individual must make up his or her own mind.

Maybe thats the message. God is there, but in the end, its you. Its not God or the Devil, its not good or evil. Its mans conflict with his own free will. The struggle seems to be internal the more I think about it. Freewill both our salvation and damnation. It sets us free and binds us at the same time. But all of that comes from ones self.
anyway, something to ponder if pondering.

You'll find there is actually an overwhelming amount of influence from the earlier forms of religion, such as paganism, that bores itself on christianity. The festivals of easter and christimas, for example.

Christianity isn't at all revolutionary. It's just the recent "trend".

Hmm.. did I just over-extend myself? This could be fun.

Basically, if you're religiously inclined, and like the basics of what Jesus was teaching, do unto others is a pretty good dogma to go by, and skip all the other unecessary bs.

That was a very roundabout and longwinded way of not answering my question -

Youre an intelligent person
You can read
Youve read the Bible

Now suddenly you believe the words in one part of the Bible and ignore the words in another. Why? Are you (not you Kaerila, just in general) some divine theologian, understanding the truths behind the Bible greater than the next person? What gives ANY Christian the right to NOT follow anything in the Bible? If the Bible says sell your possessions and give to the poor, how can you read 'but if thou really likest thou Gameboy, you maest keep it (and your Mortal Kombat 3 cartridge)' in between the lines....

Zoroastrianism intriduced the concept of duality. Two opposing forces on which all people must make the concious decision to side.
This duality extended into the nature of deity as well. With the Persians, good and evil were represented by deities (and I'm drawing a blank as to the names). Obviously, the Jews couldn't imagine an evil deity to rival their god, but the dualistic concept did influence their view of satans.

A satan was, as you may have heard, an "adversary," an angel instructed to present obstacles to man as a test of faith. Over time, this adversary became personified into a single being, Satan, who was blamed for not only natural obstacles and ill fortune but for the many heresies that beset what eventually organized itself into the early Catholic church (see, for example, the apologies of Justin Martyr).

Nowhere in the bible can I think of one time when anyone was forcably compelled to do anything through the power of God.
I'm surprised that at least one didn't occur to you, given its place as one of the great stories of the Bible. Here's a portion:
Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

God not only "hardens his [the Pharaoh's] heart" so that he will not free the Hebrews from their slavery, but he also punishes the Pharaoh (and all of Egypt) for it! Given the number of verses that specifically speak of the Hebrew god "hardening" Pharaoh's heart so that he "would not hearken unto Moses," there can be no equivocation over this direct abrogation of free will.

Here's another, lesser known, example:
Judges 9:22 "When Abimelech had reigned three years over Israel, (23)Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech: (24) That the cruelty done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and their blood be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which slew them; and upon the men of Shechem, which aided him in the killing of his brethren.

God sends an evil spirit to ensure that Abimelech and the men of Shechem deal treacherously with one another.

One might also stretch the argument, suggesting that God-ordained slaughters of the OT grossly inhibited the free will of the men, women and children who were slaughtered.

You'd probably be able to find multiple points in the Bible where God impresses his will upon people. The fun part though is that at any given time we his people have the ability to say, "Y'know what God? Fuck you, and the horse...or donkey...or whatever...you rode in on."

Now suddenly you believe the words in one part of the Bible and ignore the words in another. Why? Are you (not you Kaerila, just in general) some divine theologian, understanding the truths behind the Bible greater than the next person? What gives ANY Christian the right to NOT follow anything in the Bible?
There are a number of rationalizations used to justify adherence to one part of the bible and not the other, such as:

1) That part of the Bible (which we do not follow) is meant symbollically. [Often followed with, "I know this because Jesus/God showed me this through my heart.]

2) Jesus meant that only for that one person he was talking to; it doesn't apply to the rest of us (often used in response to admonissions of poverty).

3) [similar to 1] You don't understand the full meaning of the text because you've not opened your heart to Jesus. (sometimes followed by an explanation of why the text should not be taken at face value).

4) The "real" Greek/Hebrew says this...

I'm not being flippant here; these are common responses I've seen time and time again. These are most common among fundamentalist/literalist Christians. Less strident theists understand full well the bible's shortcomings and, it seems, try to simply adhere to the general theme of the NT. While a nice way to go about life, it doesn't in itself respond to Slant's objection.

What is the bible?
Its an expression of mans faith in a deity in the OT, but in the NT it goes beyond that and becomes a philosophy.
Its a snapshot of the pursuit of understanding the deeper meaning for life and the reason we are all here.

Everything about this world grows, all life evolves. Reality is in a constant flux of situations and nothing is static and nothing exists in a vacuum.

Our faith is an almagemation of the theories, the hopes, the dreams and beliefs of all those that came before us. The bible is an instrument to learn. But what is learning? Learning is not the imposition of facts, the imprinting of a pattern of data to be retrieved verbatim at some future point.
Real learning is deeper than that. The ONLY learning of any value is what one has learned in the way of knowledge and skill in one situation that becomes an instrument of understanding and dealing effectively with the situations which follow.
Therefore what good is a bible as learning instrument if it only serves to do the thing which God has done IN NO OTHER PLACE, namely the imposition of his will. Freewill is the most sacred concept in the bible, God never violates it, yet a fundamentalist adherance to the words printed on a page does just that. It removes the need for thought, for discovery and the ability to grow. it renders meaningless mans freewill.

No, I say that the bible is merely a starting point. A springboard for the self to discover the nature of his own faith. Read the bible, learn from it, then take those tools and use it develop a deeper understanding of YOUR life on your own.
Why do we strive to advance science, but then think we are not capable of advancing our own theological struggle?

I think I can argue those points Thormir.

First, my arguement is mans natural willingness to dehumanize the enemy. This is an aspect of human nature that has always existed. Nazi's dehumanized the jews in order to be able to do the most horrible things to them. The author, by inference, shows this. The removal of freewill becomes the dehumanization of the person. Once dehumanized something like killing the first born son doesnt seem that bad, because after all, it God does not extend the same privilages to Egyptians as he does Jews, then what does that say about what God thinks of them.

Secondly, again the use of the spirit to create discord is on tiertiary characters, set against the protagonist in the fable. Again, not a main character and one worthy of "humane" consideration.

Im not going to defend every allegory and fable in the bible. I take the meaning that I can out of it. To attempt to debunk its meaning with calls to accept the strict adherance to it is a excellent way to box the debate into a corner most favorable.
The bible is real as its an honest reflection of a people. It encapsulates everything good, bad and indifferent about the people who expressed it. If you want literal significance, you are looking in the wrong place.

Now suddenly you believe the words in one part of the Bible and ignore the words in another. Why? Are you (not you Kaerila, just in general) some divine theologian, understanding the truths behind the Bible greater than the next person? What gives ANY Christian the right to NOT follow anything in the Bible? If the Bible says sell your possessions and give to the poor, how can you read 'but if thou really likest thou Gameboy, you maest keep it (and your Mortal Kombat 3 cartridge)' in between the lines....

Well I'll answer that question, but you're stuck with my personal beliefs.

To me the Bible, Old and New Testament, is a compilation of stories and parables and letters, all written by human beings who's own beliefs, social mores and perception colour their writings. Add to it the fact that every passage in the Bible was translated from it's original language to greek to roman to english, copied by hand, and that many of the teachings weren't even written down for several centuries - and I simply cannot take the Bible as the perfect, unequivicable word of God. The Bible is the work of man, not God.

The Apostle Paul actually created "original sin". No other apostle I believe writes of this being attributed to Jesus's teachings. Paul also loathed women, and many of his writings show this bias. Matthew, good guy though he is, was a die hard groupie and his writtings border on fanatism. Etc, etc.

Earlier someone pointed out the total diametric opposites of quotes in the Bible, such as "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". How can both be true if it's the word of God? It's an impossibility, ergo there are definite flaws in the Bible, ergo, take it all with a grain of salt.

In reading the Bible, I simply cannot follow every word blindly when my intellect - given by God, tells me otherwise. When man himself uses religion as a tool to hold power over others, and changes words, Jesus's birthday and death, make mistakes in translations etc etc - I simply cannot take every word in the Bible as the absolute end all and be all "truth".

To me the Bible is a teaching tool, and the New Testatment focuses on the life and moral code of Jesus Christ. Do I believe this man was the Son of God? No. Do I believe he had a worthy message that should and has endured the test of time? Absolutely. Do I try to follow most of his teachings? Damned straight I do, because it's a good way to live.

Using any writings such as the Bible to make God an absolute is man's way of trying to understand something they will never understand. However, in making such words absolutes, you limit God, because man is attempting to define God, and to me at least, God cannot be defined except as L2 so eloquently puts it "God is Love". Man is incapable of defining Love in it's fullest, and limiting it to dogma, absolutes, and rules is some people's only way to cope with this God thing.

Nobody likes to feel insignificant and small, yet when confronted with a God that is All - that's how many feel, therefore they feel compelled to define God.

I don't believe everything that CNN broadcasts, I certainly don't believe everything that's written in newspapers, and I don't believe that every word in the Bible is a divine creation as opposed to the work of man trying to teach a way of living your life with dignity and respect for everything and everyone around you.

So ya, Do unto others blah blah blah ain't a bad dogma :p

L2, it seems you are saying this:

Freewill is the most sacred concept in the bible, God never violates it, yet a fundamentalist adherance to the words printed on a page does just that.
but when confronted with a clear cut example of just the opposite, you're saying that
God does not extend the same privilages to Egyptians as he does Jews
thus contradicting your previous statement. You stated that you could find nowhere in the bible where anyone was compelled to do anything through the power of god. Pharoah was clearly compelled not to listen to Moses by the power of god. Now, if you want to say that that is just a story, that's fine (I'd agree with you), but I find it an inadequate defense of your original statement. Instead of arguing against my example you're shifting the grounds, stating that we can't look at the bible literally when your statement was based on examining the bible in just such a way.

It looks like you want to have your cake and eat it, too, providing an example of 1 and 2 from my post above.
The bible is real as its an honest reflection of a people. It encapsulates everything good, bad and indifferent about the people who expressed it. If you want literal significance, you are looking in the wrong place.
But were the canonical books of the bible meant to be taken that way? As nonliteral moral lessons from which you can draw whatever you choose? I would say in many cases, yes (creation story, flood story, Balaam's ass), but the many literalist Christians in the world would not only strongly disagree with your point but likely suggest that you are not a "real" Christian (in the same way that you have stated against others).

Consider, too, that if so much was "meant" to be open to interpretation, then how good of a guide is the bible? Clearly, a considerable amount of evil has been done in the name of god and with biblical verses written on the lips of evil-doers, just as much good has been done (and quite a lot in between). We've covered this ground before, so this is more rhetorical than anything else. Obviously I don't subscribe to a literalist interpretation.

I would also argue that "absolute, unquestioning obedience" is the most sacred concept of the bible. To phrase it another way: The story of the bible is that of the covenant between god and man (the old covenant of the OT followed by the new covenant of the NT), whereas the theme of the bible -- demonstrated in practicaly every book (Song of Solomon and Esther may be counterexamples) is, "Obey or suffer."

I don't recall any direct discussion of free will in the bible, more of an indirect allusion and, to (non-Calvin) Christian philosophers, a necessity. However, I posit that it's perfectly likely that we are all pharaohs, hearts hardened in one direction or another, plummeting toward unavoidable fate. Given the major problems with free will existing in a universe created by an omniscient deity, I suggest that the free will position is very weak in a Christian universe.

Removing this god does wonders for that problem, however. ;)

In reading the Bible, I simply cannot follow every word blindly when my intellect - given by God, tells me otherwise

This is all well and good, and I would agree with to some extent. I mean, obviously it is IMPOSSIBLE to both turn the other cheek AND seek out an eye for an eye.

However, it still does not address my base question - How can you decide? There are no 'descriptive titles' in the Bible letting you know that "this story coming up is just a morality play" or "this story here is ironclad gospel truth!" What criteria are you using to differentiate the quality from the dreck? Just your heart? Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

Heres 4000 years of writings and teachings and the word of God and Jesus and Moses and the Prophets and the Disciples, the collective morality and spirituality of the greatest religious minds to ever grace the earth!!!! Ok Im 26 years old and I go to church 3-4 times a month...Ill believe this part, and this part, and this part here but the rest I dont believe and choose not to follow. What magical filtering device are you using? I just dont get it.

P.S. I <3 Thormir hes dreamy

The magic filtering device should be your own intellect/common sense. If you believe in God, you have to believe he gave them to you for a reason. It's up to you to use them.

Instead of arguing against my example you're shifting the grounds, stating that we can't look at the bible literally when your statement was based on examining the bible in just such a way.
You seem to be trying to make the author of the parable and god the same entity. The stories in the bible, at many times, reflect the bias and flaws of the writers. Oral tradition, supersition, myth, influences of other religions, bastardized versions of older fables. All of these are in the bible. The truth and benefit from any lesson would be to learn from the author and then move on and past him your understanding. This is what civilization is BUILT upon, the building upon the accomplishments of those that came before us. Understanding God and "life, the Universe and Everything", one of the most complex questions ever posed by man onto himself (no the answer isnt 42 =P), is a constant building pursuit that we should look to adding upon in the same way man adds to the understanding of science. Galileo was a great man, his work has influenced science for generations, but we constantly challenge and revise it. Why do you act so shocked when these same principles are applied to Paul?
If you believe that God actually said to Moses what he was going to do to pharoh, I think you are taking a narrow and pointed view of the text.
Neither God nor Moses has ever written about these personal conversations, so one can assume that the people writing used a bit of creative license in the telling of the story. Moses finding a safe place to cross a river isnt the as dramatic as him parting the Red Sea. There is truth in beauty. The truth is in the bible, but it doesnt lay itself out for you and make it easy. It is a search for truth, a battle with doubt, uncertanity and fear.
I dont make claims for anyone else, my pursuit is my own and my search is my own. My understanding is my own and my faith is my own.
Look at the bible literally, understand that it was not penned by the hand of God, take lessons in its flaws and flaws of the people who wrote it I did not say to ignore parts that I dont think as literal, rather to create a deeper understanding of the men who wrote it.
but the many literalist Christians in the world would not only strongly disagree with your point but likely suggest that you are not a "real" Christian (in the same way that you have stated against others).
How can I possibly care about what another thinks of my personal search? Once a person starts catering to others wants in his or her beliefs, he has sold out.
And I will stand by my assertion that people who hate, and attack those that do not agree with them are not real Christians. But that is not because of how they believe, but in their actions toward others. You can draw out empty isolated words and quotes, but they lack meaning, they lack the core message of the work as a whole.
Consider, too, that if so much was "meant" to be open to interpretation, then how good of a guide is the bible? Clearly, a considerable amount of evil has been done in the name of god and with biblical verses written on the lips of evil-doers, just as much good has been done
Freewill is a bitch eh?

However, it still does not address my base question - How can you decide? There are no 'descriptive titles' in the Bible letting you know that "this story coming up is just a morality play" or "this story here is ironclad gospel truth!" What criteria are you using to differentiate the quality from the dreck? Just your heart? Seems like a pretty weak argument to me.
How do you know anything?
How do you this is the right person to marry, or your decisions as a parent are the right ones? How do you know the right thing from the wrong.
Make a decision.
This is YOUR life, you have to live it. So make a decision. But dont fuck it up, because you probably dont get another shot at it, unless our Hindu friends got the answer.

How do you know anything?
How do you this is the right person to marry, or your decisions as a parent are the right ones? How do you know the right thing from the wrong.

Through learning, experimentation, trial and error and other human testing methods that apply to everything we do and everything we see.... except religion.

'Through learning, experimentation..'

- Like.. orgies?

You seem to be trying to make the author of the parable and god the same entity.
Okay, let's go back to your original quote: "Nowhere in the bible can I think of one time when anyone was forcably compelled to do anything through the power of God."

How would you come to such an opinion? By looking in the bible, by reading the stories (myths/history/whatever). I presented an example of where someone was forced to do something by god. Whether this truly happened or not is rather moot. You could just as well have said, "I don't remember anyone having sex in "Lady Chatterly's Lover." I pointed out an example of something you claimed not to have found, and now you're telling us that because it probably didn't happen or at least wasn't written by god or Moses that it didn't count. Well, it's in the bible, it counts. God abrogated Pharaoh's free will.
Neither God nor Moses has ever written about these personal conversations
I agree, but many Christians believe the entire Torah was written by Moses (including his own death!).
The truth is in the bible, but it doesnt lay itself out for you and make it easy. It is a search for truth, a battle with doubt, uncertanity and fear.
It certainly isn't a very good truth if it's so open to interpretation, so riddled with contradictions, and so influential in bringing out the worst in man (insert standard "it does nice things, too bit).
How can I possibly care about what another thinks of my personal search?
That's your own question to answer. But clearly you're relying on more than your internal compass in this quest. Also, there are plenty out there who would make your quest their business. *ding donggg* =)

Freewill is a bitch eh?
Especially with such a flimsy document as the bible to make decisions by. At least pharaoh didn't have to worry about it!
How do you this is the right person to marry, or your decisions as a parent are the right ones? How do you know the right thing from the wrong.
Make a decision.
This is YOUR life, you have to live it.
Only, those decisions don't directly have an impact on the state of your eternal soul. According to a number of religions (including many sects of Christianity), the penalty for making the wrong decision lasts an eternity, and it's quite the opposite of pleasant.

It just doesnt make sense Thormir.
You want to throw out the core messages of so many incredible parts of the bible, Jonah, Abraham, Job, Christ, Paul... because of such minor passages?
Is the bible perfect? Of course not. I say it again, it is a work of man. It reflects mans imperfections. It is the catalogization of our beliefs. It is not a work of God.

The bible is not divine. You want to hold it to that standard. You ignore the facts that it is the collected words of hundreds of authors.
There is only one of us here that is claiming an absolute truth, and it isnt me.
I freely acknowledge that I do not have that perfect clairty that you seem to posses and the total knowledge of the nature of our spirtuality. You enter in this debate with the great advantage of your total certainty.
I just dont know the answers, and I can accept that. But I will be content in the belief that the continual asking of open ended questions, and the challenging of my beliefs, about the things I do not know, will, in the end, be more rewarding, TO ME, than the simple comfort recieved from clinging to of an absolute that can never be confirmed.

L2, you're conflating my debating against a point you made with this notion of "throwing out" these "incredible parts" of the bible. One has nothing to do with the other. You stated that you'd never seen god abrogate free will in the bible, and I showed direct and (arguably) indirect examples of just such abrogation.

I'm not throwing out anything; my statements haven't really pertained to the bible's juicy bits (which with rare exception aren't original to the bible in any case). I'm not sure what absolute truth I'm claiming. If I make a claim, I back it up with appropriate evidence. You and I agree that the bible is not divine; I do feel it worth mentioning that many (many many!) Christians disagree. I'm pleased to see you're not one of them.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I feign "total knowledge of our spirituality." While I can analyze the "symptoms" of that sort of thing, the experiential part is too personal and anecdotal to delve into without a lot of deep discussion.

My certainty rests with evidence and what seems to be the best interpretation thereof. It has no impact on matters of pure faith, but I'll dutifully eye evidentiary claims (just as you will dutifully eye claims made regarding the appropriateness of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It's what we do.

Out of curiosity, L2, if the Bible isnt divine, then where do you get your faith from? Did you just wake up one day and believe in Jesus? Are you reciting what you learned from parents/friends/priests? Or does Christianity just seem to best 'fit' your own personal idea of what morality and the afterlife should be?

It comes from living life Slant.
Where else should it come from? Someone else?
Its all of those things that you listed and more.
Everything I know, everything I am is based on experience and the growth and continuity of the that experience.
Nothing occurs in a vacuum.
Make faith a part of everything else, I dont keep it in a box, but try to incorperate it into who I am, and who I am I incorperate into my faith.

2 Corinthians 6:14"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.For what righteousness and wickedness have in common?Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

You wont get past this verse so i would give up!

Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the one true GOD!And believes he was raised from the dead and has invited Jesus to come live inside them!Either you have a personal relationship with Jesus or you don't.And this is the only thing that can save you period.

She wont go to hell for marrying you or being with you,that just isn't taught in the new testament.Its is forbidden though cause your and her beliefs will come into conflict and there will be problems down the road!

proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seem right to a man,but the end it leads to death!"

"Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the one true GOD!"


John 17:3 "And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ." (Bible in Basic English)

john 1:1 "In the beginning was the word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God"

word only means jesus in new testament.

"Logos" (translated into "word" in John) in Greek philosophy represented the rational governing principle of the universe, with a portion thereof residing in the human mind, granting the capacity to reason. Only John uses the term in the NT, IIRC, wherein its alternate definition of primordial creative force comes to represent Jesus.

" but my *psuedo-ex-sorta-girlfriend(18, living at home[*with her parents) is christian"

I had a girlfriend like that once. We use to screw in her parent's Volvo before confession on Wednesdays. Anyways, that is besides the point. You are young and you will find someone else eventually who expresses the same agnostic views that you do. Even if you went to church just to fake expression to her bible thumping parents so that you could date this chick, it is only going to create problems later on in time, or at least it did from my experience. I went to a Catholic grade school and then I was turned loose on a public high school. I had to find balance between both lifestyles in conjunction with the religion I was forced to believe as a child, and I found that in what is today called "Episcopalian". If modern catholic religion was a coke company, Episcopalian would be Diet Catholic. Its nice. God Bless America and God Bless the Coast Guard.

John 1:1, RS: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [also KJ, JB, Dy, Kx, NAB].” NE reads “what God was, the Word was.” Mo says “the Logos was divine.” AT and Sd tell us “the Word was divine.” The interlinear rendering of ED is “a god was the Word.” NTIV reads “the Word was a god”.

What is it that these translators are seeing in the Greek text that moves some of them to refrain from saying “the Word was God”? The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os´ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god.

matters what text you are talking about the textus receptus or the Alexandrian text?

I Grok God.. . .