Terri Shiavo, your opinion

[MatthewAlphonso]

Do you have any major philosopher who would back up that idea? Please, I don't want to come off as condescending, but that doesn't make any sense.

I don't need to provide a philosopher to back it up, it is a tenet of my faith

Why are you placing your belief in an afterlife in a religion that offers you little more than a "what if?":

Why are you placing your belief in a religion at all? what does any religion have to offer more than a what if?

Does it give you a sense of personal well being? Mine does. Does it make you feel good to be here? Mine does. Does it liberate you from the ties that bind you? Mine does, this is all far more than a what if, with a hell of a lot less fear to boot. I would rather love a God (or gods) for who they are than fear them for what they will do to me.

How many people would play the lottery if you had no assurance of getting the money if you won. What if the philosophy was "What is to say that the government will not grant you $5,000,000 if all your numbers match up?"

Plenty of people would, saying that it "adds to the excitement". these aren't people, they're Sheeple.

The Christian religion is the ONLY religion that offers to it's people assurance of eternal life...

Almost every religion offers eternal life, hell even Buddhism does (living in Nirvana) my own, Druidism (which predates Christianity by centuries) has the Celtic Summerland. Asatru has Valhalla. All of these are places of eternal life (ie. Heaven) and they all predate Christianity by at least a century.

... and is the ONLY religion (and call me a bigot, but I invite you to prove me wrong) that can stand up to scrutiny. It is a matter of historical fact that Christ lived and was crucified. No educated historian disputes that fact. It is up to you to decide if you believe he was raised from the dead.

It's a historical fact that Sidharta (the first Buddha) existed as well, and the stories of Buddha are quite a bit more believable than those of Christ.

[Hikage]

Almost every religion offers eternal life, hell even Buddhism does (living in Nirvana) my own, Druidism (which predates Christianity by centuries) has the Celtic Summerland. Asatru has Valhalla. All of these are places of eternal life (ie. Heaven) and they all predate Christianity by at least a century.

Read again:

The Christian religion is the ONLY religion that offers to it's people assurance of eternal life...

It's a historical fact that Sidharta (the first Buddha) existed as well, and the stories of Buddha are quite a bit more believable than those of Christ.

Yes, I am not disuputing that he, or any other person, as well lived. What I am asking you to do is to decide whether or not you feel that Jesus died and was raised.

-Hikage

[Hikage]

I never said that all faiths lead to the same place, on;y that they are all correct. the Lord and Lady (in their many forms) have appeared to all of the races of the Earth, they merely have different names. It's like the Hindus say, "there is a whole, withing the whole is a whole, if you take the whole out of the whole, it is still the whole." In other words, God appears in many forms but it is still God, even the Christian Satan is only a manifestation of God

Ok, two problems here...
1) How can they all be correct? As I stated, they each claim to be the true way. The Jews claim you must follow the law and are awarded eternal life through flawless life. The Christians believe in salvaion through Christ, and the Muslims that you work your way into heaven through righteous living and by going enough good. Much more, while many Muslims believe we all pray to the same God, they do not feel that our method will earn us salvation since we have rejected their prophet. None of these overlap and I can't understand how they can all lead to the same place.

2) I am sorry, but I cannot reconcile the gods of the pagans to be the same God of the Christians. There are personalities revealed in each god, and they quite plainly do NOT overlap.

And the idea of most Faiths claiming exclusivity is in itself flawed. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are really the only faiths that claim that (and even Islam says that Jews and Christians will go to heaven)

Not true. How can Taoism, for example, embrace Christianity or another religion. Taoists believe they will live with their ancestors in the afterlife whereas Christians believe they will be with God. Again, direct contrast. In order for the Taoist to be able to rationalize his or her beliefs, he or she must believe that Taoism is exclusive from other religions.

-Hikage

[MatthewAlphonso]

Read again:

The Christian religion is the ONLY religion that offers to it's people assurance of eternal life...

I'll need you to explain that I don't quite understand what you are getting at. I just explained how other religions assure to their followers eternal life.

Yes, I am not disuputing that he, or any other person, as well lived. What I am asking you to do is to decide whether or not you feel that Jesus died and was raised.

-Hikage

You did dispute that, you stated that Christianity was the only faith that had stood up to scrutiny and asked me to prove otherwise, I did.

Ok, two problems here...
1) How can they all be correct? As I stated, they each claim to be the true way. The Jews claim you must follow the law and are awarded eternal life through flawless life. The Christians believe in salvaion through Christ, and the Muslims that you work your way into heaven through righteous living and by going enough good. Much more, while many Muslims believe we all pray to the same God, they do not feel that our method will earn us salvation since we have rejected their prophet. None of these overlap and I can't understand how they can all lead to the same place.

They do overlap, why would God send any of his chosen faiths to a place of punishment without warrant? and Muslims do believe that Christians and Jews will go to heaven, merely a different layer. Most Jews simply see the Christians as another, more militant, sect of Judaism (which is actually a good point) Simply the fact that they are all dedicated to the same God is proof that they overlap

2) I am sorry, but I cannot reconcile the gods of the pagans to be the same God of the Christians. There are personalities revealed in each god, and they quite plainly do NOT overlap.

The gods of the pagans are simply the many manifestations of a singular entity (God, Yahwhe, Jehova, whatever) This entity simply chose to appear to these people in this way.

Not true. How can Taoism, for example, embrace Christianity or another religion. Taoists believe they will live with their ancestors in the afterlife whereas Christians believe they will be with God. Again, direct contrast. In order for the Taoist to be able to rationalize his or her beliefs, he or she must believe that Taoism is exclusive from other religions.

-Hikage

This is not direct contrast, who is to say that they will not be with their ancestors and with God? Again, the Entity, chose to appear to these people in this way and made a religion to fit with them.

Is it beyond God's power to do this? would it be beyond his power to create different heavens for each of the religions? For if God created everything then It must surely have created all of the worlds religions as well.

[Hikage]

Matt,

I said assurance because the Christian is ASSURED entrance into heaven. There is no assurance in other religions. The practioner is left hoping that they did enough good things, or whatever the faith requires, to enter heaven or atain the ultimate goal of the religion. Christianity tells it's followers straight out that once they have accepted Christ, there is nothing more to do. They are assuredly in the fold.

By standing up to scrutiny, I am referring to the holes and contradictions that are inherrent to the other major religions. The Bible is the only Holy work that is completely in harmony with itself. Written by so many authors over such a long period of time and yet holds no contradictions. Now yes, you could take a single passage and twist it in isolation to appear to negate something else. But when you look at the entire context, all is in agreement. For example, the Old Testament, which obviously was written hundreds of years before Christ, contains well over 400 prophesies about Christ's life and death. All of which are found true in the New Testament. You'd think that having all these authors and with the massive time interval between the books that some would have been missed, if it were written by man. But no, as I said, the book is in harmony with itself.

They do overlap, why would God send any of his chosen faiths to a place of punishment without warrant?

You start a theme in here that I'm beginning to understand. Let me see if I can get this right. You feel that the "god", whoever the supreme being happens to be, has created multiple religions, each complete with its own Heaven, hell, demons, angels, etc.

Assuming I understand you right, I must say that there are a number of fundamental problems with this. First and foremost, why would a god establish so many ways and demonstrate love to one people, wrath to another, astrangement to a third, and who knows what to a fourth?

... and Muslims do believe that Christians and Jews will go to heaven, merely a different layer. Most Jews simply see the Christians as another, more militant, sect of Judaism (which is actually a good point) Simply the fact that they are all dedicated to the same God is proof that they overlap

Much of what you say here is news to me. I'd love to see your source.

[MatthewAlphonso]

Matt,

I said assurance because the Christian is ASSURED entrance into heaven. There is no assurance in other religions. The practioner is left hoping that they did enough good things, or whatever the faith requires, to enter heaven or atain the ultimate goal of the religion. Christianity tells it's followers straight out that once they have accepted Christ, there is nothing more to do. They are assuredly in the fold..

So, Hitler, as a Christian, is in heaven while Ghandi is not? Beyond that, I know several Christians who, according to thier own beleif and dogma are condemned to hell, for mortal sins and breaking of the commandments (isn't that a mortal sin on its own?

By standing up to scrutiny, I am referring to the holes and contradictions that are inherrent to the other major religions. The Bible is the only Holy work that is completely in harmony with itself. Written by so many authors over such a long period of time and yet holds no contradictions. Now yes, you could take a single passage and twist it in isolation to appear to negate something else. But when you look at the entire context, all is in agreement. For example, the Old Testament, which obviously was written hundreds of years before Christ, contains well over 400 prophesies about Christ's life and death. All of which are found true in the New Testament. You'd think that having all these authors and with the massive time interval between the books that some would have been missed, if it were written by man. But no, as I said, the book is in harmony with itself.

There are several contradictions in the bible, all you need to do is to look for them. As for those prephesies having come true, it would have been quite easy to, over the years, twist events and words in Christs life. The earliest gospel we have dates back to 150 years AFTER we believe Christ died

You start a theme in here that I'm beginning to understand. Let me see if I can get this right. You feel that the "god", whoever the supreme being happens to be, has created multiple religions, each complete with its own Heaven, hell, demons, angels, etc.

Assuming I understand you right, I must say that there are a number of fundamental problems with this. First and foremost, why would a god establish so many ways and demonstrate love to one people, wrath to another, astrangement to a third, and who knows what to a fourth?

Why would it not? perhaps it is a test. Perhaps they started out similar but changed over time. Why would this changing affect it's love for us (I prefer to view the Entity as being genderless). Or perhaps just for entertainment (mebbe that's our higher purpose). Now, the greater question is, why would any loving being creat so many people but want to save only so few?

Much of what you say here is news to me. I'd love to see your source.

For the Jewish thing, ask a rabbi. for the Muslim thing, read the Qu'ran or ask a Sheik

[Hikage]

So, Hitler, as a Christian, is in heaven while Ghandi is not? Beyond that, I know several Christians who, according to thier own beleif and dogma are condemned to hell, for mortal sins and breaking of the commandments (isn't that a mortal sin on its own?

There's more to it than that. Hitler would need to come to a point where he understands that what he did was wrong and accept that there is nothing that he can do to reconcile his sins, or wrong doings, and instead turn to the death of Christ for recompense.

You've heard John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him shall not die, but have eternal life.
There's more to it though, which applies to Ghandi:

18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Which Ghandi has not done, and therefore stands condemed. Picture for a moment, there is the brand new disease in the world, that would probably destroy most of the world's population. The good part is, it only has shown up in one person. Only problem is, the one person is your only son. You can erradicate this disease by killing your son, and so you do it. Then, 10 years down the road, you see someone on the street who tells you they don't believe the disease ever existed and denies that you must of ever had a son. Wouldn't you be a little angry with this willful disregard for your sacrifice?

There are several contradictions in the bible, all you need to do is to look for them.

Show me one of these contradictions that is not misconstrued and taken out of context.

As for those prephesies having come true, it would have been quite easy to, over the years, twist events and words in Christs life. The earliest gospel we have dates back to 150 years AFTER we believe Christ died

Not even Tolkien could right a book without making mistakes (admited in his own editorial found in most copies of the trilogy). How could so many authors across so long a time coordinate their story flawlessley?

Why would it not? perhaps it is a test. Perhaps they started out similar but changed over time. Why would this changing affect it's love for us (I prefer to view the Entity as being genderless). Or perhaps just for entertainment (mebbe that's our higher purpose). Now, the greater question is, why would any loving being creat so many people but want to save only so few?

Now you're just reaching for explanations to try to rationalize your theory. You come off as a teenager explaining to her parents why her new boyfriend isn't going to ruin her life.

For the Jewish thing, ask a rabbi. for the Muslim thing, read the Qu'ran or ask a Sheik

No, I think I'd like to see your source.

You obviously aren't a moron and are well organized in your thoughts, but it seems to me that you've eaten up someone else's theory that Christianity is the greatest deception of all time and is one big joke, perhaps even reading more about how wrong it is. After listening to this, you turned your back on it, without really talking with someone who knows something about it. Instead, you've based your opinions of Christianity on what you've heard and on these wannabe's out there (yes, most Christians out there are not following the Bible and are an embarassment).

Give it some more thought, you don't know it well enough yet to turn it down. You're asking the right questions. I recommend The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith both by Lee Stroeble. In the first, Lee starts out as a journalist trying to prove Christianity false. He goes through many of the same stages you are in. In the end, as so often happens, though he tried to prove it wrong, he found he couldn't and signed-up. In The Case for Faith, he asks the tough questions, like the Hitler/Ghandi thing, to the world's most foremost theologians to see how they handle it. Read them in order I listed them. I think you'd really enjoy both works, even if you end up with your current beliefs.

-Hikage

[MatthewAlphonso]

There's more to it than that. Hitler would need to come to a point where he understands that what he did was wrong and accept that there is nothing that he can do to reconcile his sins, or wrong doings, and instead turn to the death of Christ for recompense.

Above you said that all they had to do was accept Christ, nothing more.

[QUOTE=You've heard John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him shall not die, but have eternal life.
There's more to it though, which applies to Ghandi:

18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Which Ghandi has not done, and therefore stands condemed. Picture for a moment, there is the brand new disease in the world, that would probably destroy most of the world's population. The good part is, it only has shown up in one person. Only problem is, the one person is your only son. You can erradicate this disease by killing your son, and so you do it. Then, 10 years down the road, you see someone on the street who tells you they don't believe the disease ever existed and denies that you must of ever had a son. Wouldn't you be a little angry with this willful disregard for your sacrifice?[/QUOTE]

Ghandi did believe in Christ. his ideas towards Christ can be summed up in the quote. "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

And as far as the second scenario goes, I would not be angry at that person, merely at his ignorance. Furthermore the Druid views on death and birth are reversed. We mourn birth, for it is the beginning of pain and it is the result of a death within the Summerland (a spiritual world, similar to this one where you live between stints on Earth, until you reach the source). And we celebrate death, for it is the end of pain and results in a new birth in the Summerland. Further, we pray that the person has finally reached the Source.

So the death of my child would present no grievance beyond the immediate (as cold and impersonal as that may sound.

Show me one of these contradictions that is not misconstrued and taken out of context.

In the old testament God is a vengeful and angry God, in the New Testament he is nice, and loving, and forgiving.

Furthermore, on the old testament. All of the bad things happen because of God: the flood, plagues upon the Egyptians (which was understandable) all of the bad things that happened to the Hebrews, etc. Satan is pretty much a betting buddy with God ("20 shekels says you can't keep Job worshipping you!"). In the new testament Satan is the source of all evil and all the bad stuff that happens to you.

The Gospel of Matthew has the angel announcing the birth (and explaining matters) to Joseph (Matthew 1:20), while Luke has the angel visiting Mary (Luke 1:28).

we have the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are the Acts of the Apostles, and there are letters written by various individuals. Thus, regarding the coming birth of Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew has the angel announcing the birth (and explaining matters) to Joseph (Matthew 1:20), while Luke has the angel visiting Mary (Luke 1:28).


We have grossly varying accounts of the birth and early years of Jesus. Matthew tells of wise men (the magi) coming from afar to find the baby Jesus lying in a manger and give him gifts. Herod the King is having babies slaughtered left and right in order to eliminate the prophesied King of the Jews who he thinks will dethrone him. Joseph dreams of the danger and whisks his little family away to Egypt. Eventually Herod dies and the Holy Family can safely return to Israel and settle in at Nazareth.

In Luke's version of the tale, shepherds pay him homage and then, 8 days later, he is presented in the Temple (where he is prophesied over by saints), after which they return to Nazareth. There are no magi, not even later on. What's more, in Luke's version there is no slaughtering of innocent babes (historians agree with Luke).


However, the discrepancies in the story of Jesus are not to be found only in the narration of his early years. In fact, some of the conflicts present in the Gospels and other accounts make it difficult to understand what exactly Jesus' mission and philsophy was:

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace...
(Ephesians 2:13-15)

versus:

[QUOTE=Bible]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19) [/QUOTE

"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
(Exodus 21:23-25)

versus

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
(Matthew 5:39)

Not even Tolkien could right a book without making mistakes (admited in his own editorial found in most copies of the trilogy). How could so many authors across so long a time coordinate their story flawlessley?

Simple, they didn't it has long been known that several passages in the bible have been edited. Furthermore, for just the new testament there are 300,000+ different manuscripts, plus all of the apocryphal texts. The stories are not coordinated flawlessly, they have been bent and modified to conform.

Now you're just reaching for explanations to try to rationalize your theory. You come off as a teenager explaining to her parents why her new boyfriend isn't going to ruin her life.

Actually I am a teenager, hehe. But no I don't see myself as reaching for explanations, I see these as serious points. Why would he give all of these people different ideals just to punish them for beliving them?

No, I think I'd like to see your source.

I know this is going to sound like Bullshit but I'm going to say it anyway. My sources are people. I conversed with my Muslim friend back when I was a Christian (last year, we still talk about religion), and a Jewish friend more recently. Perhaps I will look into the Qu'ran later (when I'm not as fatigued) and find an essay by a rabbi.

You obviously aren't a moron and are well organized in your thoughts, but it seems to me that you've eaten up someone else's theory that Christianity is the greatest deception of all time and is one big joke, perhaps even reading more about how wrong it is. After listening to this, you turned your back on it, without really talking with someone who knows something about it. Instead, you've based your opinions of Christianity on what you've heard and on these wannabe's out there (yes, most Christians out there are not following the Bible and are an embarassment).

No, I've never listened to other peoples anti-Christian propaganda, I don't view it as BS, I respect it as other peoples' path. And I've never turned my back on it. I still follow some of the teachings of your Christ (many of the teaching were adopted from us, so were most of the holidays, ever wonder what shagging bunnies and egs has to do with Christ's ressurection?) I just expanded the beliefs. I have a bible and often read it, I view it as a moral story, and it has several good lessons within it.

And yes, we Pagans do too have our embarassing people. Unfortunatley, all of the non-pagans judge all of us soley based upon thse people. Quite a downer. oh, and we DO NOT worship Satan, I know that no one has said it yet, I'm just getting it out. it's hard to worship something you don't believe in.

Give it some more thought, you don't know it well enough yet to turn it down.

I've given it plenty of thought, I'm not the person to gamble my afterlife on a whim. and I know it plenty well.

You're asking the right questions. I recommend The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith both by Lee Stroeble. In the first, Lee starts out as a journalist trying to prove Christianity false. He goes through many of the same stages you are in. In the end, as so often happens, though he tried to prove it wrong, he found he couldn't and signed-up. In The Case for Faith, he asks the tough questions, like the Hitler/Ghandi thing, to the world's most foremost theologians to see how they handle it. Read them in order I listed them. I think you'd really enjoy both works, even if you end up with your current beliefs.

-Hikage

Meh, I don't listen to Anti-Christian propaganda, nor will I listen to Christian propaganda. Sorry, but that's how I view those types of work. Though, as you gave me works to give me insight into your faith, I will return the favor. I would advise loooking into 2 sites, they can give you better views on my faith, as it is ill understood by most.


www.wicca.com A decent information site even provides secular information, ie: herbal healing, and meditation

and www.witchvox.com another good site, has Pagan personals, news, and I would advise you to look into the Kerr Cuhulain's Witch Hunt series, a series of Essays dedicated to anti-pagan/pro-fundie propaganda and misinformation you find just abouyt everywhere, perhaps you'll find something you like. perhaps it will help you understand us.

[Hikage]

Ok Matt, these posts are getting long...

Above you said that all they had to do was accept Christ, nothing more.

And all I'm doing here is defining what I mean by "accepting." Christians use these terms like "born again" and "accepting Christing" w/o realizing that not everyone is familiar with them.

In the old testament God is a vengeful and angry God, in the New Testament he is nice, and loving, and forgiving.

He is both. If you don't think he can be wrathful, read Revelation.

Furthermore, on the old testament. All of the bad things happen because of God: the flood, plagues upon the Egyptians (which was understandable) all of the bad things that happened to the Hebrews, etc. Satan is pretty much a betting buddy with God ("20 shekels says you can't keep Job worshipping you!"). In the new testament Satan is the source of all evil and all the bad stuff that happens to you.

Ok, you misunderstan Satan's role here in the Job passage. Satan has to present himself before God and make an account of himself. In the first chapters of Job, he is doing such and mocking Job. Satan wants to torment him in order to prove to God that he is not such a good servant. God allows Satan to torment him.

Satan is one of the ways that God allows bad things to happen to you. It is likely that other times in the OT, God used Satan to bring the evil upon the peoples. Just as the angels (see your passages below) bring good to your life, Satan brings the evil. But this is not the only way it can happen. Temptation can come from your mind, someone else can tempt you, etc. Plus, you are still personally responsible for the decisions you make no matter where it comes from. I can find passages to back this up if you need.

The Gospel of Matthew has the angel announcing the birth (and explaining matters) to Joseph (Matthew 1:20), while Luke has the angel visiting Mary (Luke 1:28).

we have the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are the Acts of the Apostles, and there are letters written by various individuals. Thus, regarding the coming birth of Jesus, the Gospel of Matthew has the angel announcing the birth (and explaining matters) to Joseph (Matthew 1:20), while Luke has the angel visiting Mary (Luke 1:28).

This is not a discrepancy, rather we have two details from which both authors chose to add one and omit the other. Let me explain. The angel came twice. Once to Joseph to prevent him from divorcing her.

Matt1:19-20 “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to cpose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit…”

The other time he came to Mary to explain to her how she was to become impregnated. (I don’t feel I need to quote this.)

The complete differences is reasoning behind the angels appearance give prove that he actually came twice. Now why is it not mentioned in both accounts. Firstly, the culturally authored only wrote about facts that are deemed important. For example, after Christ’s death, the Bible reports prominent people being raised from the dead and teaching in the temples. Nothing is ever reported after that. What did these dead dudes look like? Did they die again after living a second full life or just fade away after some time? In the grand scheme of things, it isn’t important and therefore isn’t noted. Joseph’s story was deemed, evidently, unimportant to that author.

Secondly, Joseph was included in the second passage because he was a man and Mary was a woman. No one cared what a woman said in those days. Instead, the testimony of the man was required in order for something to be labeled reliable. The author must have felt that including Joseph’s testimony, rather than Mary’s would make his account more appealing to the people of the time.

We have grossly varying accounts of the birth and early years of Jesus. Matthew tells of wise men (the magi) coming from afar to find the baby Jesus lying in a manger and give him gifts. Herod the King is having babies slaughtered left and right in order to eliminate the prophesied King of the Jews who he thinks will dethrone him. Joseph dreams of the danger and whisks his little family away to Egypt. Eventually Herod dies and the Holy Family can safely return to Israel and settle in at Nazareth.

In Luke's version of the tale, shepherds pay him homage and then, 8 days later, he is presented in the Temple (where he is prophesied over by saints), after which they return to Nazareth. There are no magi, not even later on. What's more, in Luke's version there is no slaughtering of innocent babes (historians agree with Luke).

Umm, did you read the passage or are you getting this from a website, because clearly Jesus’s parents did not return to Nazareth eight days after his birth. It is widely believed that Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem nigh on 2 years. Yes, after 8 days he was presented to the temple. It isn’t until 6 paragraphs later until they return. In between there are several of resetting of time sentences…

1. When the time of their purification according to the law of Moses had been completed…
2. Now there was a man in Jerusalem (miles from Bethlehem or Nazareth)…




I need to stop here because I’m out of time, I will pick back up tomorrow.

-Hikage

[Hikage]

[quote]However, the discrepancies in the story of Jesus are not to be found only in the narration of his early years. In fact, some of the conflicts present in the Gospels and other accounts make it difficult to understand what exactly Jesus' mission and philsophy was:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace...
(Ephesians 2:13-15)


versus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bible
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19) [/QUOTE

"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
(Exodus 21:23-25)


versus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bible
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
(Matthew 5:39)

Ok, let me start by saying that the eye for eye, tooth for tooth bit is often used today completely out of context. This was a law of limitation, not of empowerment. I.e., if I pinch you, you are allowed to pinch me back, and nothing more. People of the day were likely to over-react and do something drastic in retaliation. This was to keep punishments fitting the crime, so to speak.

The idea of turning the other cheek is a description of the already existing law of loving your neighbor, which by far supercedes the eye for eye rule. Eye for eye is more meant for a court room, for punishing a criminal and turning cheeks was meant specifically for the Hebrews when persecuted by Romans. (as demonstrated from the entire context of the surrounding chapters.)
The law issue is answered in your quote

… will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Everything was accomplished when he was crucified. As Paul said, he fulfilled the law. He lived flawlessly, as prescribed by God’s law, and was sacrificed, not unlike the goats that the people used to sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. But since his flawless life was worth so much more than a goat, there is enough “forgiveness” leftover from his sacrifice to cover us all, and therefore we need no longer follow the law.

Originally Posted by Hikage
Not even Tolkien could right a book without making mistakes (admited in his own editorial found in most copies of the trilogy). How could so many authors across so long a time coordinate their story flawlessley?


Simple, they didn't it has long been known that several passages in the bible have been edited. Furthermore, for just the new testament there are 300,000+ different manuscripts, plus all of the apocryphal texts. The stories are not coordinated flawlessly, they have been bent and modified to conform.

Actually, in most modern translations, including the NIV from which you are quoting, non-Christians were included on the teams so that no one could make the claim that you yourself are making. The best translations have been made based on the best texts that we have. Those who are truly interested in studying the word study it in its earliest forms and do not even use the English and it is those who set the modern doctrines that we are learning from. I could give you some names and books if you are interested in knowing more about how the manuscripts are utilized for modern translations and instruction. I recommend Robert Alter, who by the way hates the NIV.

Originally Posted by Hikage
Now you're just reaching for explanations to try to rationalize your theory. You come off as a teenager explaining to her parents why her new boyfriend isn't going to ruin her life.


Actually I am a teenager, hehe. But no I don't see myself as reaching for explanations, I see these as serious points. Why would he give all of these people different ideals just to punish them for beliving them?

Precisely, he didn’t and wouldn’t.

Originally Posted by Hikage
No, I think I'd like to see your source.


I know this is going to sound like Bullshit but I'm going to say it anyway. My sources are people. I conversed with my Muslim friend back when I was a Christian (last year, we still talk about religion), and a Jewish friend more recently. Perhaps I will look into the Qu'ran later (when I'm not as fatigued) and find an essay by a rabbi.

I still recommend reading Lee Stroeble’s works.

Originally Posted by Hikage
You obviously aren't a moron and are well organized in your thoughts, but it seems to me that you've eaten up someone else's theory that Christianity is the greatest deception of all time and is one big joke, perhaps even reading more about how wrong it is. After listening to this, you turned your back on it, without really talking with someone who knows something about it. Instead, you've based your opinions of Christianity on what you've heard and on these wannabe's out there (yes, most Christians out there are not following the Bible and are an embarassment).


No, I've never listened to other peoples anti-Christian propaganda, I don't view it as BS, I respect it as other peoples' path. And I've never turned my back on it. I still follow some of the teachings of your Christ (many of the teaching were adopted from us, so were most of the holidays, ever wonder what shagging bunnies and egs has to do with Christ's ressurection?) I just expanded the beliefs. I have a bible and often read it, I view it as a moral story, and it has several good lessons within it.

And yes, we Pagans do too have our embarassing people. Unfortunatley, all of the non-pagans judge all of us soley based upon thse people. Quite a downer. oh, and we DO NOT worship Satan, I know that no one has said it yet, I'm just getting it out. it's hard to worship something you don't believe in.
Though, as you gave me works to give me insight into your faith, I will return the favor. I would advise loooking into 2 sites, they can give you better views on my faith, as it is ill understood by most.

www.wicca.com A decent information site even provides secular information, ie: herbal healing, and meditation

and www.witchvox.com another good site, has Pagan personals, news, and I would advise you to look into the Kerr Cuhulain's Witch Hunt series, a series of Essays dedicated to anti-pagan/pro-fundie propaganda and misinformation you find just about everywhere, perhaps you'll find something you like. perhaps it will help you understand us.

Easy boy. No one’s accusing anyone of anything. Believe it or not, I have a rather large knowledge and understanding of your religion as I’ve had a lot of contact with it. But, I will, very soon and in all fairness, peruse your sites.

I've given it plenty of thought, I'm not the person to gamble my afterlife on a whim. and I know it plenty well.
Quote:



Meh, I don't listen to Anti-Christian propaganda, nor will I listen to Christian propaganda. Sorry, but that's how I view those types of work.

These two sentences are in opposition to one another. How can you say you’ve given it enough thought if you refuse to listen to those who know what they are talking about. You aren’t going to get an unbiased opinion. Christ himself said anyone who is not with us is against us. Read them.


-Hikage

[Tom Yum]

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19)

My interpretation of this is that those who accept Christ and believe in God will be saved in their day of judgment, BUT those who cannot eventually live perfectly in the commandements (God's law) will have smaller rewards in heaven. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Everything was accomplished when he was crucified. As Paul said, he fulfilled the law. He lived flawlessly, as prescribed by God’s law, and was sacrificed, not unlike the goats that the people used to sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. But since his flawless life was worth so much more than a goat, there is enough “forgiveness” leftover from his sacrifice to cover us all, and therefore we need no longer follow the law.

Does this materialize when the Bible says, "Behold, there is Jesus the lamb of God." This seems very symbolic of the old practice of sacrificial animals (old testament) portraying Jesus as the sacrifice??

I still recommend reading Lee Stroeble’s works..

I think he has authored several books. I am going to read the case for faith this summer. If I'm not mistaken, he was a hardcore athiest whom with life experience and reading of the Bible became reborn.

I am really interested in reading it.

[MatthewAlphonso]

Ok Matt, these posts are getting long...

Agreed

He is both. If you don't think he can be wrathful, read Revelation.

trying to read it cover to cover, off and on, haven't gotten that far yet.

And on your points and my counterpoints on discrepancies within the Bible, I must accept your rationilaztions on these points but it's also a disagreement between us. It's not going to be planished out. let's just drop it before it becomes a shouting match. In the end we'd just end up rationalizing things beyond their proper limits.

Actually, in most modern translations, including the NIV from which you are quoting, non-Christians were included on the teams so that no one could make the claim that you yourself are making. The best translations have been made based on the best texts that we have.

Books were also taken out by the Vatican (early when the Vatican was just about the ONLY Christian power) and in many cases destroyed (or kept in the Vatican Archives) simply because they disagreed with other texts. Unfortunately for modern scholars these texts are unavailable for translation.

Those who are truly interested in studying the word study it in its earliest forms and do not even use the English and it is those who set the modern doctrines that we are learning from. I could give you some names and books if you are interested in knowing more about how the manuscripts are utilized for modern translations and instruction. I recommend Robert Alter, who by the way hates the NIV.

These are the people I appreciate (except perhaps Robert Alter, I would support any holy book in any form for the people), I must give many kudos to people studying the original texts (or at least as original as can be found. And I think I would appreciate learning the translation process, especcially for ancient colloquialisms that need to be given modern meaning.

Precisely, he didn’t and wouldn’t.

well then who did? Surely Satan, whom according to the Bible has not the power to create, could not have made these faiths. And if these religions are the creation of man, why did God not set them straight?

Easy boy. No one’s accusing anyone of anything. Believe it or not, I have a rather large knowledge and understanding of your religion as I’ve had a lot of contact with it. But, I will, very soon and in all fairness, peruse your sites.

I did not mean to say that you accused me of anything, as you haven't) it is merely a preemptive thing before someone else does.

[QUOTE=Hikage]These two sentences are in opposition to one another. How can you say you’ve given it enough thought if you refuse to listen to those who know what they are talking about. You aren’t going to get an unbiased opinion. Christ himself said anyone who is not with us is against us. Read them.[/QUOTE

I believe I will get a far more unbiased opinion from self reflection than I will by reading a Christian book. Far too often these authors know what they're talking about only as far as their own faith goes, this is not what I consider unbiased.

Furthermore, I don't really see that quote as being valid, there are plenty of neutral people (myself included) who are not with Christians but are far from being against them.

And I don't see this Convo ending prettily, it's already starting to be an arguement over who's right and who's wrong.

[Hikage]

trying to read it cover to cover, off and on, haven't gotten that far yet.

Don't read it cover to cover, it won't make any sense. Start in the New Testament. I wouldn't concentrate on the OT too much until you understand the NT.

And on your points and my counterpoints on discrepancies within the Bible, I must accept your rationilaztions on these points but it's also a disagreement between us. It's not going to be planished out. let's just drop it before it becomes a shouting match. In the end we'd just end up rationalizing things beyond their proper limits.

Agreed. I appreciate your openmindedness with my explanations. I am only going to reply to your comments in this post and then drop it unless you, or someone else, has further questions...

Books were also taken out by the Vatican (early when the Vatican was just about the ONLY Christian power) and in many cases destroyed (or kept in the Vatican Archives) simply because they disagreed with other texts. Unfortunately for modern scholars these texts are unavailable for translation.

I have heard this before about the destruction of books, but I believe it to be something of a myth. I have seen no evidence of this, anywhere. Then again, I've not researched it much. This will give me something to do.

These are the people I appreciate (except perhaps Robert Alter, I would support any holy book in any form for the people), I must give many kudos to people studying the original texts (or at least as original as can be found. And I think I would appreciate learning the translation process, especcially for ancient colloquialisms that need to be given modern meaning.

Then I really must insist on you reading Alter. He does an excellent translation. He is very hard-nosed and by-the-book. He does not try translating colloquialisms into moden colloquialism. He just says what it says almost to the point of excessive verbosity.

well then who did? Surely Satan, whom according to the Bible has not the power to create, could not have made these faiths. And if these religions are the creation of man, why did God not set them straight?

Nope, not Satan, man. We are pretty good at creating evil:

Romans 1:29-31 (New International Version)

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

God doesn't set us straight. When we start on the path to evil, he allows us to continue. It's the old lesson on free will:

Romans 1:24 - 25

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

I believe I will get a far more unbiased opinion from self reflection than I will by reading a Christian book. Far too often these authors know what they're talking about only as far as their own faith goes, this is not what I consider unbiased.

I don't believe this to be true. Any theologian who is worth their salt has studied apologetics and must be well-versed in all sides of the issue. Defending the faith is something we must all do, and to do it you must research what others think and feel. To say that a leader or author has not done this is to discredit their professional integrity.

Furthermore, I don't really see that quote as being valid, there are plenty of neutral people (myself included) who are not with Christians but are far from being against them.

No, I can't agree with you here. How can someone be for a religion they don't agree with? You can't approach Christianity like a buffet. To accept some of it and not all it to make a mockery of it.

And I don't see this Convo ending prettily, it's already starting to be an arguement over who's right and who's wrong.

Agreed. As I previously stated, I'll end it after this unless you or someone else brings more questions / comments which solicit responses.

-Hikage

PS> Passages quoted from BibleGateway.com: © Copyright 1995-2005 Gospel Communications International

[Sensei Saki]

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. Tell me again what is going on.