PROBLEMS WITH BIBLICAL INERRANCY
I
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm
Why biblical inerrancy is critical:
A major concern occurs when the Bible is considered to be totally inerrant,
in its teaching of theology, morals, beliefs, geology, geography, history,
etc. If it is so considered, then it leaves the individual's faith
vulnerable. Even one proven error can shatter the whole belief system and
make the Bible seem useless to some believers: "If in actual fact Caesar
Augustus did not really order a census while Quirinius was governor of
Syria - if it turns out there really was only one Gadarene demonaic rather
than two - then the entire Bible becomes worthless and every tenet of
Christian faith falls flat. If one single discrepancy emerges, it's all
over. This makes Christian faith an easy target for skeptics, and drives
believers to unimaginable lengths to 'defend' the Bible."
Problems with inerrancy
Interpretation Conflicts:
This is perhaps the most serious problem associated with inerrancy. Some
biblical passages can be interpreted in so many different ways, that there
is no way to know which interpretation is the correct one.
People bring different foundational beliefs to the Bible. This causes them
to reach very different conclusions about what it says. ....
A second, more widespread, example involves the Christian faith groups in
North America, which number in excess of 1,000. All or essentially all
believe that their group's beliefs are based on the Bible. Many take the
position that they are the "true" church. Yet their belief systems differ.
There appears to be no way to resolve these different interpretations. Some
have suggested that believers assess the will of God on theological matters.
But this appears to be ineffective.
Translation errors due to source ambiguity:
Inerrancy of the Bible refers only to the original, autograph copies of each
book, as written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew is an extremely
ambiguous language. Some passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
may be interpreted in many different ways. At most, only one of those
translations would be correct, and thus be inerrant. But there is no way in
which we can know for certain which translation is the correct one.
...
The inclusion/exclusion of the Apocraypha:
The Bible used by Jesus, his disciples, and the early Christian movement was
the Septuagint (a.k.a. LXX). This was a Greek translation from the original
Hebrew. It included a number of books that are commonly called the
Apocrypha. These books appear in the translations of the Bible used by Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some Anglican churches, but have been deleted
in the translations used by Protestants and most Anglicans. One reason for
this rejection was a passage which implies the existence of Purgatory. Thus,
the range of books in the Bible which are to be considered inerrant is open
to debate among Christians. However, in any given denomination, the official
canon is firmly established.
The selection of the Christian Scriptures:
There were three main movements within early Christianity: the Jewish
Christians, Pauline Christians and Gnostics. Among them, there were on the
order of fifty gospels, probably hundreds of epistles (letters), and many
examples of apocalyptic literature similar to Revelation. All were
considered authorative by various early Christian groups. When the Bishops
fixed the official canon, they selected the Hebrew Scriptures, and 27 books:
four gospels, Acts, 21 epistles, and Revelation. The concept of inerrancy
requires that they did not err in their selection: that the authors of
precisely these 27 books were inspired by God and wrote without error. This
would imply that their selection process must have been guided by God so
that fraudulent books were not chosen. The Gospel of John was almost
rejected by the early Church because of its Gnostic content. Revelation
almost did not make it into the Bible either, because it described God in
angry, hateful terms that seemed incompatible with the loving Abba (Dad)
that Jesus prayed to. When Emperor Constantine ordered 50 copies of the
Bible to be copied, they included The Letter of Barnabas and The Shepard of
Hermes -- two books that do not appear in today's Bibles.
"The Canon evolved obscurely over many centuries. Books were accepted by
some and banned by others. Books accepted for centuries were rejected later.
Rival church factions excluded each other's scriptures. Personality clashes
and rival ambitions were responsible for the disappearance of much that
scholars would like to read today."
Grammatical errors:
Biblical scholars have noted that almost every page of the Bible, whether
written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek contains both spelling and grammatical
errors. Although some spelling errors could be attributed to mistakes by
later copyists, it appears reasonable to assume that some of the grammatical
errors were in the original copy. If one assumes that the Bible is not
inerrant, then one would expect errors of all types to creep into the Bible:
errors in fact, errors in belief, errors in spelling and errors in grammar.
But if the Bible is inerrant, one wonders why the original writings were not
free of errors in grammar.
Intentional translation errors:
No Bible translation is free of bias. Essentially all versions are the
product of translators who come from a similar theological background. Being
human, they sometimes produce versions
of the Bible that tend to match their own belief systems. ....
Many Bible translations contain what appear to be intentional errors in
relation to some acts. ....
Copying Errors:
A small number of conservative Christians believe that a particular English
translation of the Bible is inerrant. Often this is the King James Version,
prepared in 1611 CE. Most believe that it is only the original autograph
copy as written by the author in Hebrew, Aramaic and/or
Greek which is inerrant. This leaves open the possibility that subsequent
manual copying introduced mistakes into the book. Thus, later copies may be
errant. Often, we have no way of detecting where errors or later insertions
have occurred.
Symbolic vs. Literal Interpretation:
Not all passages in the Bible can be interpreted literally.
...
Multiple Authorship:
Some passages in the Bible appear at first glance to be completely written
by a single author: e.g. the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) state that
they were written down by Moses. The book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah;
the Book of Daniel by Daniel; the Gospel of Mark by a single author. But
analysis of content and style reveals that the Pentateuch was written by
several authors from different traditions over many centuries. The books
were probably edited later by still other unknown persons. Isaiah also
appears to be written by multiple authors. The Book of Daniel appears to
have been written over 4 centuries after Daniel's death by an unknown
author. The Gospel of Mark originally ended abruptly at Mark 16:8. Some
other writer subsequently added verses 9 to 20, to make a "longer ending" to
Mark; it was apparently based on Luke, John and some other sources. 5
Another writer created a "shorter ending" consisting of two sentences after
verse 8. It was a later addition, probably based on Matthew. Some
translations include both endings. Still other Bible versions include
additional material after verse 14. All of this multiple authorship raises
the question whether the later additions by unknown authors are inerrant, or
merely attempts by later believers to augment the text to better match some
early Christian group's belief system.
Multiple Versions:
There appears to have been two versions of Mark: "Secret Mark", "for those
who had attained a higher degree of initiation in to the church than the
common crowd." 6 and the shorter, edited version that has survived to the
present time. The latter was the freely available, public version, and was
probably a later, smaller version. This raises the question
as to which version should be considered inerrant.
....
Internal Conflicts:
Various passages in the Bible appear to be in conflict with each other. To
liberal Christians, these disagreements are inevitable because they believe
that the various books of the Bible were written over a period of about 1
millennium, by authors with very different religious
views. But to conservative Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy,
conflicts present a problem. If all passages of the Bible are inerrant, then
no passage can truly contradict any other passage. Most conflicts can be
handled by interpreting one passage in its literal sense, and other,
apparently conflicting passages either in some narrow sense or symbolically.
Some passages cannot be harmonized in this way. Conservatives usually
believe that the latter passages can be resolved, but not with our present
knowledge. Books harmonizing hundreds of apparent conflicts have been
written. One attempts to solve over 500 such difficulties.
Nature of Truth - Absolute or Relative:
It is sometimes not obvious whether a portion of the Bible refers only to a
particular society and era, or whether its teaching is applicable for all
locations and all time. ...
...
Conclusions:
The combination of source ambiguity, intentional translation errors, copying
errors, symbolic vs. literal interpretation, multiple authorship, multiple
versions, interpretation conflicts, internal conflicts, the nature of truth,
etc. make it quite impossible to prove that a particular passage in an
English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Or if it is regarded as
inerrant, it is not necessarily obvious how the passage is to be
interpreted.
One can hope to minimize the effect of intentional translation errors by
accessing many versions of the Bible to compare the full range of
translations. One can hope to understand passages better by comparing verses
on the same topic in other parts of the Bible in order to get a consensus of
what the Biblical authors wrote. But we are largely stuck with the remaining
factors.
Cactuswailer
> The combination of source ambiguity, intentional translation errors, copying
> errors, symbolic vs. literal interpretation, multiple authorship, multiple
> versions, interpretation conflicts, internal conflicts, the nature of truth,
> etc. make it quite impossible to prove that a particular passage in an
> English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Or if it is regarded as
> inerrant, it is not necessarily obvious how the passage is to be
> interpreted.
>
> One can hope to minimize the effect of intentional translation errors by
> accessing many versions of the Bible to compare the full range of
> translations. One can hope to understand passages better by comparing verses
> on the same topic in other parts of the Bible in order to get a consensus of
> what the Biblical authors wrote. But we are largely stuck with the remaining
> factors.
Also Biblical inerrancy is a downer psychologically. It promotes
Biblical inerRANTcy.
Seriously, deeming Scripture perfect in all ways, like over-the-top
verneration of
saints, undercuts one's worship of the truly Perfect One, God. One's
Ultimate
Concern, is after all your God. Like money, where your treasure/
money is there lies
your heart. I mean don't make the Bible some sort of God.
Even time-wise, a bust-your-gut defence of Biblical inerrancy wastes
time - its dogged pursuit of shimmering
water mirages above the torrid desert wastes, Yes wasted time that
could be profitably used
in spinning up one's faith by reading modern New Testament scholars,
e.g. Marcus Borg.
If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
dropping
Biblical inerrancy. On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.
I
> Also Biblical inerrancy is a downer psychologically. It promotes
> Biblical inerRANTcy.
>
> Seriously, deeming Scripture perfect in all ways, like over-the-top
> verneration of
> saints, undercuts one's worship of the truly Perfect One, God. One's
> Ultimate
> Concern, is after all your God. Like money, where your treasure/
> money is there lies
> your heart. I mean don't make the Bible some sort of God.
>
> Even time-wise, a bust-your-gut defence of Biblical inerrancy wastes
> time - its dogged pursuit of shimmering
> water mirages above the torrid desert wastes, Yes wasted time that
> could be profitably used
> in spinning up one's faith by reading modern New Testament scholars,
> e.g. Marcus Borg.
> If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
> dropping
> Biblical inerrancy. On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
> Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.
Yep! Also read John Dominic Crossan.
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
gladys swager
> "Cactuswailer" wrote:
> > Also Biblical inerrancy is a downer psychologically. It promotes
> > Biblical inerRANTcy.
>
> > Seriously, deeming Scripture perfect in all ways, like over-the-top
> > verneration of saints,
All Christians are God's saints. Paul addressed the Christians in the
areas to
which he sent his epistles as 'saints at Ephesus ...... etc'
The first Australian saints were Rev. Richard Johnson, Church of
England
chaplain to the First Fleet (due to anti-slavery William Wilberforce's
intervention)
and all the Christains who sailed with him and began the first English
colony
in Sydney in 1788. Captain Arthur Phillip who was in charge of that
epic journey
had orders from the British government to be helpful to the
Aborigines
and as far as he was able he fulfilled those commands.
undercuts one's worship of the truly Perfect One, God. One's
> > Ultimate Concern, is after all your God. Like money, where your treasure/
> > money is there lies your heart. I mean don't make the Bible some sort of God.
> > Even time-wise, a bust-your-gut defence of Biblical inerrancy wastes
> > time - its dogged pursuit of shimmering
> > water mirages above the torrid desert wastes, Yes wasted time that
> > could be profitably used
> > in spinning up one's faith by reading modern New Testament scholars,
> > e.g. Marcus Borg.
> > If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
> > dropping
> > Biblical inerrancy. On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
> > Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.
>
> Yep! Also read John Dominic Crossan.
>
<snip - see first posting>
Isn't it strange that the Bible that is now being dissected and
bisected
and subjected to every form of modern day literacy criticism
is the same Bible that went with the missionaries of previous
generations,
and helped to bring indigenous peoples of the countries to which they
went
to better standards of living, along with the benefits of the
Agricultural and
Industrial Revolutions in England from the mid 1700's with many of
those changes coming from the work of the Christians who took perilous
journeys to reach their destinations?
Yes, before there is a protest, not all was perfectly accomplished,
but let it be said that the KJV of the Bible gave peoples a new views
of themselves and what they might and did accomplish in those past two
and half + centuries.
I must read the history again of how the British and Foreign Bible
Society
(now the Bible Society) was formed from the inspiration of a Welsh
teenage girl
who walked a long distance so that she could buy a Bible for herself.
Gladys Swager
James
>Re: PROBLEMS WITH BIBLICAL INERRANCY
>Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.\
Hello,
The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could God
hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings, because
they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
Sincerely, James
If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I do
not follow all conversations in ng threads
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses Questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Frankie
> >Cactuswailer <cactusw...@hotmail.com>
The problems with Jehovah witnesses were,they had corrupted the
scriptures,and not knowing what they affirm or disbelief.Their
interpretation of scriptures always borders on everything in
scriptures as Symbolic,and cannot see the difference between what is
and what is not.
What is teachings of the word,and what is account from history,they
just cannot understand.
Give them any passage of scriptures,they will make it a mountain out
of the molehill,with all sorts of interpretations,mostly wrong and had
poor comprehension skills.
No one in the right mind will pull from verses that are difficult to
decipher to make it a kind of doctrines,and moreover,as they are dry-
up spiritually,how on earth can they understand the scriptures?
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could God
> hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings, because
> they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>
> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
I
>>If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
>>dropping
>>Biblical inerrancy. On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
>>Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.\
...
> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can.'
The bible cannot do that as it is an inanimate object.
> how could God
> hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings, because
> they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
"test everything and hold on to what is good "
This means one must use one's God-given mind.
Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
gladys swager
> "James" wrote:
> >>If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
> >>dropping Biblical inerrancy. On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
> >>Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.\
> The bible cannot do that as it is an inanimate object.
>
> > how could God
> > hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings, because
> > they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
> "test everything and hold on to what is good "
> This means one must use one's God-given mind.
> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
selves:
it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
Liberalists ans Jesus Seminar intellectuals to determine whether
Jesus ans Paul would ahve actually said those verses????
> The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
> some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
> of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
> by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
> want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
> each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
> we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
> "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
Is that your Christian faith??
Gladys Swager
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
> and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
> "For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
> selves:
Still ignoring Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel
18:27, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:17,
Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29, Romans 2:6, 13, 2
Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15, Philippians 2:12, James 2:14,
James 2:17, James 2:21-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation
20:12-13, and Revelation 22:14 Gladys?
You can repeat John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 all you like, but that
fact of that matter is they contradict the above that I have given
you: like so much of your death-cult mythology does.
> So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
Reflect on that, Gladys, as you eat shellfish or speak up in church.
Terry Cross
> PROBLEMS WITH BIBLICAL INERRANCY
> fromhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm
>
> Why biblical inerrancy is critical:
>
> A major concern occurs when the Bible is considered to be totally inerrant,
> in its teaching of theology, morals, beliefs, geology, geography, history,
> etc. If it is so considered, then it leaves the individual's faith
>
> Problems with inerrancy ...
Well, at least this an openly hostile attack. But since you proceed
immediately to attack the faith you consider "vulnerable," why do you
pretend it is a "concern?" In reality, those "vulnerabilities" are
avenues for you to reach your goal.
Therefore, this "concern" verbiage" is pure hypocrisy. Why should be
believe you -- or your copy/paste web pages -- when your first words
are a lie?
TCross
gladys swager
> On Sep 11, 12:15 pm, gladys swager wrote:
> [snip]
> > And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
> > "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> > that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> > but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
> > and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
> > "For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
> > selves:
>
> Still ignoring Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel
> 18:27, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:17,
> Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29, Romans 2:6, 13, 2
> Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15, Philippians 2:12, James 2:14,
> James 2:17, James 2:21-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation
> 20:12-13, and Revelation 22:14 Gladys?
>
> You can repeat John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 all you like, but that
> fact of that matter is they contradict the above that I have given
> you: like so much of your death-cult mythology does.
>
Salvation first and the good works should follow.
> > So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>
> Reflect on that, Gladys, as you eat shellfish or speak up in church.
Speaking up in a church. It is quite some time ago, but I did do that
by circumstances with a probability rating in those times at zero,
before any media coverage of the topic.
I had prepared and given a talk to young people about ten years
previously
and still had my notes. The broad outline had come from a teaching
manual
of the Children's Special Services Mission (now called Scripture
Union)
and had three points; Salvation is free from the penalty of sin, then
follows
free from the power of sin - an ongoing process throughout our lives
and finally free from the presence of sin in Eternity,
I am sure you will be able to slot your verses into the right points
given above.
Gladys Swager
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Sep 11, 1:01 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 12:15 pm, gladys swager wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
> > > "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> > > that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> > > but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
> > > and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
> > > "For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
> > > selves:
>
> > Still ignoring Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel
> > 18:27, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:17,
> > Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29, Romans 2:6, 13, 2
> > Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15, Philippians 2:12, James 2:14,
> > James 2:17, James 2:21-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation
> > 20:12-13, and Revelation 22:14 Gladys?
>
> > You can repeat John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 all you like, but that
> > fact of that matter is they contradict the above that I have given
> > you: like so much of your death-cult mythology does.
>
> No, not contradict. They are the pre-requisite.
That may be the case for James 2:17, but not for the others in the
list I gave you. Or other like John 12:25.
Go on Gladys, actually read your bible. Dont just regurgitate the
simplifications and niceties you rote-learnt all those years ago.
> > So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>
> > Reflect on that, Gladys, as you eat shellfish or speak up in church.
>
> I am not aware of your reference to shellfish
Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10, Gladys.
Again, you really ought to read the dribble your cult is based on.
> Speaking up in a church. It is quite some time ago,
Better start praying, Gladys: you went against 1Corinthians14:34-36:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as
also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
church."
gladys swager
> On Sep 11, 4:35 pm, gladys swager wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 1:01 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > > Still ignoring Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel
> > > 18:27, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:17,
> > > Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29, Romans 2:6, 13, 2
> > > Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15, Philippians 2:12, James 2:14,
> > > James 2:17, James 2:21-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation
> > > 20:12-13, and Revelation 22:14 Gladys?
>
> > > You can repeat John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 all you like, but that
> > > fact of that matter is they contradict the above that I have given
> > > you: like so much of your death-cult mythology does.
>
reject
the Christian faith and then go on to use as much denigration as you
can
in the hope you have proved your point. But your words do not
constitute proof
against Christianity. You have used verses out of context and must be
considered
within a wider reference. .
Matthew 12 : 31 Jesus said "Wherefore, I say to you, "All manner of
sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against
the Son of man
(Jesus Himself) , it shall be forgiven him:
but whosoever speaks against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven
him,
neither in this world; neither in the world to come.
If you are not willing to accept that you are a sinner and that God is
willing to forgive you
and give you Eternal Life as you state your faith in Jesus Christ
then you shut the door on God's forgiveness for you.
> > No, not contradict. They are the pre-requisite.
>
> That may be the case for James 2:17, but not for the others in the
> list I gave you. Or other like John 12:25.
>
> Go on Gladys, actually read your bible. Dont just regurgitate the
> simplifications and niceties you rote-learnt all those years ago.
>
Rote-learning is a part of the educative process. Or was it that you
were taught 'just think for yourself, whatever ideas you come up with
will be okay, as long as you don't commit a crime against another
person?
Earlier rote-learning can be assessed with other information available
later
and changes to your ideas may or may not be made.
> > > So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
> > > Reflect on that, Gladys, as you eat shellfish or speak up in church.
>
We need to make the right choice as we have picked through the many
that
are available to us.
> > I am not aware of your reference to shellfish
> Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10, Gladys.
Thank you. I just couldn't recall it at the time of my first reading.
> Again, you really ought to read the dribble your cult is based on.
>
I am not in a group named as cultish
> > Speaking up in a church. It is quite some time ago,
> Better start praying, Gladys: you went against 1Corinthians14:34-36:
> "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
> unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as
> also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
> their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
> church."
I do not have a husband, I have never had a husband.
Some of us do choose to remain unmarried for reasons often known to
ourselves and a few others. I did give reasons in this newsgroup a
long
time ago.
I would think there were reasons of domesticity that made it difficult
for
woman to speak in Christian groups of those early years and
especially
to be the leaders of them.
And Paul was writing from that perspective,
Societal organisation has changed in the intervening centuries.
You have given me a lot of references some of which I have not
considered
as yet.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Sep 11, 9:57�am, "I" wrote:
>> "James" wrote:
>> >>If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
>> >>dropping Biblical inerrancy. �On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
>> >>Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.\
>> > The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can.'
>> The bible cannot do that as it is an inanimate object.
>>
>> > how could God
>> > hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings, because
>> > they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>> "test everything and hold on to what is good "
>> This means one must use one's God-given mind.
>> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>>
>And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
>"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world.
>and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
>"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
>selves:
>it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
>we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
>Liberalists ans Jesus Seminar intellectuals to determine whether
>Jesus ans Paul would ahve actually said those verses????
What we should do is observe that faith is useless but good works
can extend and enhance our lives.
>> The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
>> some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
>> of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. �We don't do that
>> by imitating these responses slavishly. �I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
>> want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. �He wants us to respond to him,
>> each of us in our own unique way. �And we can use the Bible to do that, but
>> we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
>> "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
>
>So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>Is that your Christian faith??
That is the modern PC way. Every Christian does it.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Fred A Stover
You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
Barry OGrady
<fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
>>> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
>>> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>>>
>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>>
>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>
>You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
The bible is written at a sub 3rd grade levek.
>--
>His,
Sounds gay.
>Lord
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a brain damaged child, he shall not enter therein.
> (Mark 10:15)
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
><)))))))><
>
==============
Barry
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 11, 9:57�am, "I" wrote:
>> "James" wrote:
>> >>If I read Borg right Job One for Christian intellectual development is
>> >>dropping Biblical inerrancy. �On the whole, Bible stories, Old and New
>> >>Testament, are definitely not always newspaper reporting.\
>> > The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can.'
>> The bible cannot do that as it is an inanimate object.
>>
>> > how could God
>> > hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings, because
>> > they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>> "test everything and hold on to what is good "
>> This means one must use one's God-given mind.
>> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>>
>And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
>"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
>and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
>"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
>selves:
>it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
>we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
>Liberalists ans Jesus Seminar intellectuals to determine whether
>Jesus ans Paul would ahve actually said those verses????
No, but the interpretation is entirely yours.
>> The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
>> some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
>> of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. �We don't do that
>> by imitating these responses slavishly. �I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
>> want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. �He wants us to respond to him,
>> each of us in our own unique way. �And we can use the Bible to do that, but
>> we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
>> "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
>
>So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>Is that your Christian faith??
That's exactly what you do, gladys.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:13:01 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
><fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
>>>> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
>>>> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>>>>
>>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>>>
>>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>>
>>You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
>
>The bible is written at a sub 3rd grade levek.
Is a levek like an onion but longer?
duke
wrote:
Yep, gladys is a good example of that.
gladys swager
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 11, 9:57 am, "I" wrote:
> >> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>
> >And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
> >"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
> >but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
> >and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
> >"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
> >selves:
> >it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
> >we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
> >Jesus and Paul would have actually said those verses????
> No, but the interpretation is entirely yours.
>
I would say that it is perfectly clear what they mean.
And how can we put our own interpretation into those verses and still
name ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ and His apostles?
> >So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
> >Is that your Christian faith??
> That's exactly what you do, gladys.
>
And the Roman Catholic Church follows in every minute detail the
correct teachings?
Is that what you mean, Duke?
If the Church at Rome had not added to the New Testament teachings
from 310AD
then there would not have been any need for the Protestant
Reformation.
But the hierarchy at the Vatican has never understood or have not
wanted
to understand that the responsibility for the divisions were due to
them.
They were even willing to slaughter Christians who did not agree with
them
in the Inquisitions. And, yes, at times, some Protestants acted in
the same way.
And Duke don't come back and tell me that I have not stated what those
incorrect
teachings were.
Gladys Swager
Parry Normal
When you have a partially inspired book that was written and edited by
humans, picking (discerning) what parts are actually true is the only sane
thing to do.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
> >> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
> >> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>
> >> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>
> > And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>
> You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
Coincidentially the level and approximate age that the simplified
fairy tales of Noah, various goblins, and various bogey-men are thrust
on impressionable young minds.
And 3rd Grade comphrehension is all that is needed to realise that pi
does not equal three like the bible says it does, or that animals need
food and latrine services ti survive 40 days of rain and an
unspecified number afterwards, or that koalas and other animals that
only survive on one plant type acnd ambulate quite slowelt could not
possibly have made the trek that your mytholoigy suggests, or ....
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Sep 11, 2:48 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:> On Sep 11, 4:35 pm, gladys swager wrote:
> > > On Sep 11, 1:01 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Still ignoring Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel
> > > > 18:27, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:17,
> > > > Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29, Romans 2:6, 13, 2
> > > > Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15, Philippians 2:12, James 2:14,
> > > > James 2:17, James 2:21-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation
> > > > 20:12-13, and Revelation 22:14 Gladys?
>
> > > > You can repeat John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 all you like, but that
> > > > fact of that matter is they contradict the above that I have given
> > > > you: like so much of your death-cult mythology does.
>
> I am not involved with a 'death-cult mythology'.
yes you are: Christianity is a cult based on mythology based around a
death. Death - in its various forms - is the underpinning thing of
your cult. You say so yourself when you babble about salvation and
everlasting life and all that dribble.
> your words do not constitute proof against Christianity.
I use three things to mock Christian beleifs:
- everyday observations
- science
- the Christian bible itself.
> You have used verses out of context and must be
> considered within a wider reference. .
Nice claim. Shame you cant and wont support it with regards to the
plethora of versus I gave you that show that:
1) you are wrong. Again.
2) your bible contrdicts itself on almost everything.
> > > No, not contradict. They are the pre-requisite.
>
> > That may be the case for James 2:17, but not for the others in the
> > list I gave you. Or other like John 12:25.
>
> > Go on Gladys, actually read your bible. Dont just regurgitate the
> > simplifications and niceties you rote-learnt all those years ago.
> Rote-learning is a part of the educative process.
For you, it was all that you did. You have admitted it yourself on
numerous occassions.
> > > > So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
> > > > Reflect on that, Gladys, as you eat shellfish or speak up in church.
>
> We need to make the right choice as we have picked through the many
> that
> are available to us.> > I am not aware of your reference to shellfish
> > Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10, Gladys.
>
> Thank you. I just couldn't recall it at the time of my first reading.
So I expect you'll be campaigning against shellfish soon?
Picketing 'shellfish-emporium' anytime soon?
Putting as must effort into eradicating the shellfish "abomination" as
you do trying to indoctrinate your creationist delusions into
children?
> Again, you really ought to read the dribble your cult is based on.
>
> I am not in a group named as cultish
Your church meets the definition of a cult. Just because it does not
have "cult" at the top of the semona page does not mean it is not a
cult you belong to
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck .....
> > > Speaking up in a church. It is quite some time ago,
> > Better start praying, Gladys: you went against 1Corinthians14:34-36:
> > "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
> > unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as
> > also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
> > their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
> > church."
>
> I do not have a husband, I have never had a husband.
Your religion says you are not very honourable, then (Hebrews 13:4).
You also defy your bible's teachings:
"let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband." in 1 Corinthians 7:2
> I would think there were reasons of domesticity that
> made it difficult for woman to speak in Christian
> groups of those early years and especially
> to be the leaders of them.
> And Paul was writing from that perspective,
> Societal organisation has changed in the intervening centuries.
So you are now reinterpreting scriptures, and picking which bits to
believe and follow?!?!?!?
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> they mean. And how can we put our own
> interpretation into those verses and still
> name ourselves as followers of Jesus
> Christ and His apostles?
Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
gladys swager
> On Sep 12, 11:12 am, gladys swager wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I would say that it is perfectly clear what
> > they mean. And how can we put our own
> > interpretation into those verses and still
> > name ourselves as followers of Jesus
> > Christ and His apostles?
>
> Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
> shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
I will not be picketing seafood places for the simple reason
that as you quote from the Old Testament of the Bible you are quoting
from what is stated as the Covenant of Law - rules for those times.
The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
accepted
as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
we should
become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if
I had never
sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God paid the price for sin
which is death
and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the
third day
He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
Have you accepted that Eternal Life? .
For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
***it is the gift of God***. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:01:34 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:13:01 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>><fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>>>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
>>>>> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
>>>>> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>>>>
>>>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>>>
>>>You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
>>
>>The bible is written at a sub 3rd grade levek.
>
>Is a levek like an onion but longer?
Is the moon made of cheese?
>The Dukester, American-American
==============
Barry
Barry OGrady
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 11:48�am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 11:12�am, gladys swager wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I would say that it is perfectly clear what
>> > they mean. And how can we put our own
>> > interpretation into those verses and still
>> > name �ourselves as followers of Jesus
>> > Christ and His apostles?
>>
>> Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
>> shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
>
>I will not be picketing seafood places for the simple reason
>that as you quote from the Old Testament of the Bible you are quoting
>from what is stated as the Covenant of Law - rules for those times.
>
>The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are accepted
> as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that we should
>become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if I had never
>sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God paid the price for sin which is death
>and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
>He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
Who decided the penalty for sin is death, and why does the victim
suffer the penalty?
>Have you accepted that Eternal Life? .
Have you accepted God's gift of suffering and death?
That was a real gift because God did not need Jesus nor did God feel
the need to ask us if we wanted the gift.
>For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>***it is the gift of God***. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
You never did explain why we need saving, and why God could just put
us on autosave.
>Gladys Swager
==============
Barry
gladys swager
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 12, 11:48 am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>
> >The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are accepted
> > as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that we should
> >become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if I had never
> >sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God paid the price for sin which is death
> >and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
> >He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
>
> Who decided the penalty for sin is death, and why does the victim
> suffer the penalty?
Adam and eve were the perpetrators of the wrong actions.
> That was a real gift because God did not need Jesus nor did God feel
> the need to ask us if we wanted the gift.
>
rules
for His creation, especially the humans. .
When I was doing Ceramics as a hobby I determined
how the clay would be fashioned ie the rules I set for the finished
piece of work.
So why not God doing that for His creation?
> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >***it is the gift of God***. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
>
http://www gotquestions.org/seven-deadly-sins.html
If the website does not come onto your monitor from this posting
you know to enter it in your Computer Search
Gladys Swager
Fred A Stover
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:13:01 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
>>>> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
>>>> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>>>>
>>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>>>
>>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>>
>> You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
>
> The bible is written at a sub 3rd grade levek.
LOL. Compared to the Author, the bard's a bubba.
>
>> --
>> His,
>
> Sounds gay.
Pervert.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
Fred A Stover
ROTFL!!!! Reading it with 3rd grade comprehension would explain your
missing all of it.
Wallace
Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback justice for
errors.
Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make terrible
things a reality
Where does one purchase a ticket to oppose the payback dude oif imagination
a big que
"Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7h1ci8F...@mid.individual.net...
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 12, 6:56�am, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 11, 9:57�am, "I" �wrote:
>> >> This means one must use one's God-given mind.
>> >> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>>
>> >And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
>> >"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>> >but have everlasting life." �John 3 : 16
>> >and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
>> >"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
>> >selves:
>> >it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
>> >we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
>> >Liberalists and Jesus Seminar intellectuals to determine whether
>> >Jesus and Paul would have actually said those verses????
>
>> No, but the interpretation is entirely yours.
>I would say that it is perfectly clear what they mean.
Yet the Church that Christ founded and was there at the time disagrees with you.
>And how can we put our own interpretation into those verses and still
>name ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ and His apostles?
Yeah, why do you do that?
>> >So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>> >Is that your Christian faith??
>> That's exactly what you do, gladys.
>And the Roman Catholic Church follows in every minute detail the
>correct teachings?
Yep. We were there.
>Is that what you mean, Duke?
>If the Church at Rome had not added to the New Testament teachings
>from 310AD
It didn't and you can't name so much as one of them.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 12, 11:48�am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 11:12�am, gladys swager wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I would say that it is perfectly clear what
>> > they mean. And how can we put our own
>> > interpretation into those verses and still
>> > name �ourselves as followers of Jesus
>> > Christ and His apostles?
>>
>> Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
>> shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
>
>I will not be picketing seafood places for the simple reason
>that as you quote from the Old Testament of the Bible you are quoting
>from what is stated as the Covenant of Law - rules for those times.
>
>The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
>accepted as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
>we should become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if
>I had never sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God
Jesus was not perfect man. Heb 4:15. He was a man IN EVERY WAY except that he
never sinned.
>paid the price for sin which is death
>and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the
>third day
He paid the price to show you what you had to do as your part.
Colossians 1:24 (New International Version)
Paul's Labor for the Church
24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is
still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which
is the church.
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:39:40 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 12, 11:48�am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 11:12�am, gladys swager wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> > I would say that it is perfectly clear what
>>> > they mean. And how can we put our own
>>> > interpretation into those verses and still
>>> > name �ourselves as followers of Jesus
>>> > Christ and His apostles?
>>>
>>> Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
>>> shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
>>
>>I will not be picketing seafood places for the simple reason
>>that as you quote from the Old Testament of the Bible you are quoting
>>from what is stated as the Covenant of Law - rules for those times.
>>
>>The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are accepted
>> as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that we should
>>become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if I had never
>>sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God paid the price for sin which is death
>>and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
>>He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
>
>Who decided the penalty for sin is death, and why does the victim
>suffer the penalty?
The victim doesn't. The perpetrator does.
duke
Where was it edited?
Parry Normal
news:f3bna5l73e1mcq6f3...@4ax.com...
Almost all of it has some form of editing.
I don't understand how people could think that it could not be edited.
Parry Normal
Do you actually still believe the old misunderstood dogma that our Creator
charges a price of death for sins?
I don't believe that anyone in the 21 century could still be sustaining such
a strange and barbaric belief without having given up their thinking
processes.
Parry Normal
> On Sep 12, 4:20 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 11:48 am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote: [snip]
>>> The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
>>> accepted
>>> as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
>>> we should become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified
>>> = just as if I had never sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect
>>> God paid the price for sin which is death and as He conquered death
>>> and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
>>> He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
>>
>> Who decided the penalty for sin is death, and why does the victim
>> suffer the penalty?
> That penalty was stated in Genesis 2 : 16 -17
>
Who wrote Genesis? And when?
I look forward to your answer on this.
>
> Adam and eve were the perpetrators of the wrong actions.
>> That was a real gift because God did not need Jesus nor did God feel
>> the need to ask us if we wanted the gift.
>>
> As God was the Creator wouldn't you think that He should decide the
> rules
> for His creation, especially the humans. .
>
How do you know what God's rules are?
I'm sure you will point to the Bible now.
>
> When I was doing Ceramics as a hobby I determined
> how the clay would be fashioned ie the rules I set for the finished
> piece of work.
> So why not God doing that for His creation?
>
Do you threaten to destroy or torture your clay figures if they don't do
what you say?
Is God a hobbyist?
gladys swager
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
> >accepted as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
> >we should become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if
> >I had never sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God
>
> Jesus was not perfect man. Heb 4:15. He was a man IN EVERY WAY except that he
> never sinned.
He never sinned = He was perfect as I have stated above. .
> >paid the price for sin which is death and as He conquered death
> > and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
>
> He paid the price to show you what you had to do as your part.
>
Yes, after we have accepted Him through faith
and that is not be crucified on Calvary as He was.
And wha twe have to do is not the observation of the additions to
the Chrsitan faith made from 310AD to 1950AD, the last being the
assumption of Mary
bodily into heaven for which in the New testament there is no record
and had it happened
John would have recorded it in his writings as he outlived Mary.
.
Salvation first and then go in good works.
Salvation is the ***gift of God*** to us as we place our trust in
Jesus Christ.
> Colossians 1:24 (New International Version)
> Paul's Labor for the Church
> 24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is
> still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which
> is the church.
>
KJV Colossians 1 : 19 - 24
For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell
And having made peace through His blood of the Cross;
by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, by Him, I say,
whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.
And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by
wicked works,
yet now has He reconciled
In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and
unblamable
and unreprovable in His sight
If you continue in the faith grounded and settled
and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. which you have
heard
and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven,
whereof, I Paul, am made a minister
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you.
and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my
flesh
for His body's sake, which is the church.
Please note - it is not Peter who wrote the above.
We can only lose our salvation if we say we had made a mistake about
Jesus.
we no longer have faith in Him and the salvation He offers us.
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
Gladys Swager
Parry Normal
Was Christ a perpetrator too?
Fred A Stover
> Missing of what?
> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
> justice for errors.
> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
> terrible things a reality
????????????
You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't follow, and
know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
Wallace
> Wallace wrote:
>> Missing of what?
>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>> justice for errors.
>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
>> terrible things a reality
>
>
> ????????????
>
> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't follow,
> and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
>
A Father one needs rescuing from is not a father worthy of respect.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
> Wallace wrote:
>> Missing of what?
>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>> justice for errors.
>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
>> terrible things a reality
>
>
> ????????????
>
> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't
> follow, and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
Correct!
Barry OGrady
<jesus-...@lycos.com> wrote:
>Fred A Stover fst...@tx.rr.com wrote in
>7h420fF...@mid.individual.net
>> Wallace wrote:
>>> Missing of what?
>>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>>> justice for errors.
>>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
>>> terrible things a reality
>>
>>
>> ????????????
>>
>> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't
>> follow, and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
Satan can rescue you from God.
>> --
>> His,
Sounds rather gay.
==============
Barry
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:58:33 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:01:34 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:13:01 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
>>><fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
>>>>>> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
>>>>>> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>>>>>
>>>>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>>>>
>>>>You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
>>>
>>>The bible is written at a sub 3rd grade levek.
>>
>>Is a levek like an onion but longer?
>
>Is the moon made of cheese?
Don't know. Haven't been there.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 12, 6:56�am, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 11, 9:57�am, "I" �wrote:
>> >> This means one must use one's God-given mind.
>> >> Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.
>>
>> >And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
>> >"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>> >but have everlasting life." �John 3 : 16
>> >and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
>> >"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
>> >selves:
>> >it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
>> >we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
>> >Liberalists and Jesus Seminar intellectuals to determine whether
>> >Jesus and Paul would have actually said those verses????
>
>> No, but the interpretation is entirely yours.
>I would say that it is perfectly clear what they mean.
>And how can we put our own interpretation into those verses and still
>name ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ and His apostles?
Yet that's exactly what you do - nail your own interpretation to the door. You
weren't there, nor lut nor jw.
But the CC was. And they say you're wrong.
>> >So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>> >Is that your Christian faith??
>> That's exactly what you do, gladys.
>And the Roman Catholic Church follows in every minute detail the
>correct teachings?
Yes, but not by self declaration, but because they were there with Christ when
he revealed these things, and much more that was not specifically written down.
But the CC knew he said more.
>Is that what you mean, Duke?
>If the Church at Rome had not added to the New Testament teachings
>from 310AD
>then there would not have been any need for the Protestant
>Reformation.
The RCC did no such thing, and lut didn't know better.
>But the hierarchy at the Vatican has never understood or have not
>wanted to understand that the responsibility for the divisions were due to
>them.
Lut was wrong.
>They were even willing to slaughter Christians who did not agree with
>them in the Inquisitions.
What few capital punishments that were carried out were for blasphemous
teachings about Christ by unrepentant baptized Christians.
> And, yes, at times, some Protestants acted in
>the same way.
>And Duke don't come back and tell me that I have not stated what those
>incorrect
>teachings were.
You have made some erroneous listings, but nothing of truth.
duke
He died on the cross, didn't he.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 13, 12:11�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
>> >The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
>> >accepted as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
>> >we should become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if
>> >I had never sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God
>>
>> Jesus was not perfect man. �Heb 4:15. �He was a man IN EVERY WAY except that he
>> never sinned.
>He never sinned = He was perfect as I have stated above. .
But he was a normal, but not perfect, man in every other way.
And still he gave complete obedience to his father, which was his saving action
and demonstration.
>> >paid the price for sin which is death and as He conquered death
>> > and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
>> He paid the price to show you what you had to do as your part.
>Yes, after we have accepted Him through faith
>and that is not be crucified on Calvary as He was.
Right, to live in his spirit with deeds of love is a requirement, not the
cross.
>And wha twe have to do is not the observation of the additions to
>the Chrsitan faith made from 310AD to 1950AD, the last being the
>assumption of Mary bodily into heaven for which in the New testament there is no record
>and had it happened
Not an addition, as I've told you so many times. It was rock solid belief by
the first Christians, but not written down. So the Pope, with infallibility,
made it official.
>John would have recorded it in his writings as he outlived Mary.
Why? John had a specific purpose for his gospel, and acknowledging Mary's
pureness nature was not it.
>Salvation first and then go in good works.
Yet non-Christians are saved, like Moses and Elijah. Now what?Mat 17:1-0, Mark
9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36. Your argument is full of holes.
>Salvation is the ***gift of God*** to us as we place our trust in
>Jesus Christ.
Required for the expressed Christian, but not for those that never heard of
Christ.
>> Colossians 1:24 (New International Version)
>> Paul's Labor for the Church
>> �24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is
>> still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which
>> is the church.
>KJV Colossians 1 : 19 - 24
It doesn't change when one turns to the kjv, gladys.
>For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell
Wow - fullness dwell. That's the very issue you deny.
>And having made peace through His blood of the Cross;
>by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, by Him, I say,
>whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.
>And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by
>wicked works,
>yet now has He reconciled
>In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and
>unblamable
>and unreprovable in His sight
>If you continue in the faith grounded and settled
>and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. which you have
>heard
>and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven,
>whereof, I Paul, am made a minister
>Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you.
>and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my
>flesh
>for His body's sake, which is the church.
>Please note - it is not Peter who wrote the above.
No, it was Paul.
>We can only lose our salvation if we say we had made a mistake about
>Jesus.
Like rejecting our ability to still reject his teachings and hence suffer the
eternal fires of hell.
>we no longer have faith in Him and the salvation He offers us.
>1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
Right, like I said, faith without deeds of faith is dead faith. And dead faith
is worst than no faith at all.
>Gladys Swager
duke
Obedience is absolutely required. Scripture doesn't change with time.
>I don't believe that anyone in the 21 century could still be sustaining such
>a strange and barbaric belief without having given up their thinking
>processes.
You tell Christ you don't believe what he said.
duke
Nope.
>I don't understand how people could think that it could not be edited.
When you can show the editing, you can then discuss the issue. I say you don't
have a fart's chance in a hurricane of doing that.
Parry Normal
But he didn't do anything wrong.
Its silly to punish an innocent one instead of the guilty ones.
Parry Normal
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:08:48 +1000, "Parry Normal" <f...@nutballville.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
>>> accepted
>>> as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
>>> we should
>>> become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if
>>> I had never
>>> sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God paid the price for sin
>>> which is death
>>> and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the
>>> third day
>>> He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
>>>
>>> Have you accepted that Eternal Life? .
>>> For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>>> ***it is the gift of God***. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
>>> Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>>> Gladys Swager
>
>>Do you actually still believe the old misunderstood dogma that our Creator
>>charges a price of death for sins?
>
> Obedience is absolutely required. Scripture doesn't change with time.
>
People could have misunderstood God right at the start and changed the
scriptures, thinking that God was very domineering.
99% of religions misunderstand God. That's why there are so many religions.
>
>>I don't believe that anyone in the 21 century could still be sustaining
>>such
>>a strange and barbaric belief without having given up their thinking
>>processes.
>
> You tell Christ you don't believe what he said.
>
I did and he said I was right.
He then smiled and said we just have to let the Christian religion learn
from their misunderstandings of the Father.
gladys swager
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 12:11 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>
> >> >The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are
> >> >accepted as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that
> >> >we should become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if
> >> >I had never sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God
> >> Jesus was not perfect man. Heb 4:15. He was a man IN EVERY WAY except that he
> >> never sinned.
> >He never sinned = He was perfect as I have stated above. .
> But he was a normal, but not perfect, man in every other way.
> And still he gave complete obedience to his father, which was his saving action
> and demonstration.
> >> >paid the price for sin which is death and as He conquered death
> >> > and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
> >> He paid the price to show you what you had to do as your part.
> >Yes, after we have accepted Him through faith
> >and that is not be crucified on Calvary as He was.
> Right, to live in his spirit with deeds of love is a requirement, not the
> cross.
> >the Chrsitan faith made from 310AD to 1950AD, the last being the
> >there is no record that it had happened
> Not an addition, as I've told you so many times. It was rock solid belief by
> the first Christians, but not written down. So the Pope, with infallibility,
> made it official.
In 1950AD and the infallibility of the Pope was declared in 1870AD
Papal Infallibility came in after the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception
of Mary had been decreed in 1854AD. Common sense would state that
doctrine was decreed to prevent any debate against the 1854AD
proclamation
and aslo was used to prevent any further discaussion against the
1950AD
proclamation.
> >John would have recorded it in his writings as he outlived Mary.
> Why? John had a specific purpose for his gospel, and acknowledging Mary's
> pureness nature was not it.
So you think that if Mary had ascended into heaven as Jesus had done
then John would not have written about it???
http://www.bereancall.org/newsletters/heresy.htm
> >Salvation first and then go in good works.
>
> Yet non-Christians are saved, like Moses and Elijah. Now what?Mat 17:1-10, Mark
> 9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36. Your argument is full of holes.
Those are accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Most likely
a similar situation to the dead who left their graves at the time of
the Crucifixion. Matt 27 : 51 -53
> >Salvation is the ***gift of God*** to us as we place our trust in
> >Jesus Christ.
> Required for the expressed Christian, but not for those that never heard of
> Christ.
And who failed to tell them of Christ?
.
> >KJV Colossians 1 : 19 - 24
> >For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell
> >And having made peace through His blood of the Cross;
> >by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, by Him, I say,
> >whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.
> >And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by
> >wicked works, yet now has He reconciled
> >In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and
> >unblamable and unreprovable in His sight
> >If you continue in the faith grounded and settled
> >and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. which you have
> >heard and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven,
> >whereof, I Paul, am made a minister Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you.
> >and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my
> >flesh for His body's sake, which is the church.
> >Please note - it is not Peter who wrote the above.
> No, it was Paul.
>
> >We can only lose our salvation if we say we had made a mistake about
> >Jesus.
> >we no longer have faith in Him and the salvation He offers us.
> >1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
The deeds of faith follow on AFTER salvation. Salvation is not faith +
works.
Gladys Swager
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 5:13am, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> >>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >>> [snip]
> >>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how could
> >>>> God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred' writings,
> >>>> because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>
> >>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>
> >>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible .....
>
> >> You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
>
> > Coincidentially the level and approximate age that the simplified
> > fairy tales of Noah, various goblins, and various bogey-men are thrust
> > on impressionable young minds.
>
> > And 3rd Grade comphrehension is all that is needed to realise that pi
> > does not equal three like the bible says it does, or that animals need
> > food and latrine services ti survive 40 days of rain and an
> > unspecified number afterwards, or that koalas and other animals that
> > only survive on one plant type acnd ambulate quite slowelt could not
> > possibly have made the trek that your mytholoigy suggests, or ....
>
> ROTFL!!!!
Your avoidance of the mere handful of biblical contradictions I have
mentioned is noted.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Sep 12, 11:48 am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 11:12 am, gladys swager wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > I would say that it is perfectly clear what
> > > they mean. And how can we put our own
> > > interpretation into those verses and still
> > > name ourselves as followers of Jesus
> > > Christ and His apostles?
>
> > Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
> > shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
>
> I will not be picketing seafood places for the simple
> reason that as you quote from the Old Testament
> of the Bible
Try reading Matthew5:17, Gladys.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> But he didn't do anything wrong.
> Its silly to punish an innocent one instead of the guilty ones.
Not according to the bible: punishment is regularly visited on the son
for the sin of the father.
Post ministerial giggle fit
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:12:26 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> >And when in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus said.
>>> >"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>>> >that whosoever believes in Him should not perish,
>>> >but have everlasting life." John 3 : 16
>>> >and when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2 : 8 - 9)
>>> >"For by grace are (we) saved through faith, and that not of (our)
>>> >selves:
>>> >it is the gift of God. Not of works. lest any(one) should boast"
>>> >we don't take those verses as truth but check with modern-day
>>> >Liberalists and Jesus Seminar intellectuals to determine whether
>>> >Jesus and Paul would have actually said those verses????
>>
>>> No, but the interpretation is entirely yours.
>
>>I would say that it is perfectly clear what they mean.
>>And how can we put our own interpretation into those verses and still
>>name ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ and His apostles?
>
> Yet that's exactly what you do - nail your own interpretation to the door.
> You
> weren't there, nor lut nor jw.
>
> But the CC was. And they say you're wrong.
>
Don't be silly. The Catholic church didn't exist then.
When are you going to do some study so you don't keep making a fool of
yourself?
>
>>> >So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>>> >Is that your Christian faith??
>>> That's exactly what you do, gladys.
>
>>And the Roman Catholic Church follows in every minute detail the
>>correct teachings?
>
> Yes, but not by self declaration, but because they were there with Christ
> when
> he revealed these things, and much more that was not specifically written
> down.
> But the CC knew he said more.
>
Fool.
I suppose you think Christ actually set up the Catholic church, even though
he made it clear he hated organised religions.
>
>>Is that what you mean, Duke?
>>If the Church at Rome had not added to the New Testament teachings
>>from 310AD
>>then there would not have been any need for the Protestant
>>Reformation.
>
> The RCC did no such thing, and lut didn't know better.
>
Dream on.
>
>>But the hierarchy at the Vatican has never understood or have not
>>wanted to understand that the responsibility for the divisions were due to
>>them.
>
> Lut was wrong.
>
So you think the practice of indulgences was a good practice and was fully
supported by God?
I guess you do.
>
>>They were even willing to slaughter Christians who did not agree with
>>them in the Inquisitions.
>
> What few capital punishments that were carried out were for blasphemous
> teachings about Christ by unrepentant baptized Christians.
>
A few capital punishments. Ahuh.
Duuupe!!!
>
>> And, yes, at times, some Protestants acted in
>>the same way.
>>And Duke don't come back and tell me that I have not stated what those
>>incorrect
>>teachings were.
>
> You have made some erroneous listings, but nothing of truth.
>
Duuupe!!!
gladys swager
I am not come to destroy,-***but to fulfill***
The law and the prophets is still there in the Old Testament for
reading
and for teaching that is still applicable today.
There are still animals and plants that people do not eat today,
due to toxic and other hygiene considerations.
Paul gave a ruling that women were not to teach in the church,
that, I believe, was applicable for his times and for centuries up
to more recent times. Women today have a different domestic situation
to the women of almost two thousand years ago that enable us to take
roles in our societies different to those of the earlier years. .
Gladys Swager
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Sep 14, 8:15 am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:> On Sep 12, 4:39 pm, gladys swager wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 11:48 am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > > > Well, when you start picketing seafood places and you keep your mouth
> > > > shut in church, we'll know you are following the words of your bible.
>
> > > I will not be picketing seafood places for the simple
> > > reason that as you quote from the Old Testament
> > > of the Bible
>
> > Try reading Matthew5:17, Gladys.
>
> Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets;
> I am not come to destroy,-***but to fulfill***
> The law and the prophets is still there in the Old Testament for
> reading and for teaching that is still applicable today.
Shame that you, a ardent beliver and as someone who seeks to thrust
their cult onto others, does not follow it then eh?
Good enough to indoctrinate children with, but not good enough to
follow yourself, eh, Gladys!!?!?!?
> There are still animals and plants that people do not eat today,
> due to toxic and other hygiene considerations.
> Paul gave a ruling that women were not to teach in the church,
> that, I believe, was applicable for his times and for centuries up
> to more recent times. Women today have a different domestic situation
> to the women of almost two thousand years ago that enable us to take
> roles in our societies different to those of the earlier years.
And so you have just reinterpeted scripture, takenand promoted which
bits you like, and ignored which bits you find inconveinient.
You have shown yorself to be a 'pick-n-mix' type follower: a
'cafeteria-christian' who says "I'll have a bit of this and a bit of
that, but none of that icky stuff over there"
How you can argue biblical ineerancy when it comes to a 6000 year old
earth and global floods, and yet say "nah, cultural values have
changed" in the next breath is quite staggering.
gladys swager
> On Sep 14, 10:49 am, gladys swager wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 8:15 am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > > Try reading Matthew5:17, Gladys.
> > Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets;
> > I am not come to destroy,-***but to fulfill***
> > The law and the prophets is still there in the Old Testament for
> > reading and for teaching that is still applicable today.
>
> Shame that you, an ardent believer and as someone who seeks to thrust
> their cult onto others, does not follow it then eh?
>
'Never beLIEve a lie'. Did you learn that at school?
and 'an' before a vowel.
I am not in a cult. I am an advocate of true unity among Christians.
> Good enough to indoctrinate children with, but not good enough to
> follow yourself, eh, Gladys!!?!?!?
I have never taught the whole Bible to any child.
> > There are still animals and plants that people do not eat today,
> > due to toxic and other hygiene considerations.
> > Paul gave a ruling that women were not to teach in the church,
> > that, I believe, was applicable for his times and for centuries up
> > to more recent times. Women today have a different domestic situation
> > to the women of almost two thousand years ago that enable us to take
> > roles in our societies different to those of the earlier years.
>
> And so you have just reinterpeted scripture, taken and promoted which
> bits you like, and ignored which bits you find inconveinient.
>
I was not the one who wrote the Sunday School manual for teachers.
> You have shown yourself to be a 'pick-n-mix' type follower: a
> 'cafeteria-christian' who says "I'll have a bit of this and a bit of
> that, but none of that icky stuff over there"
>
I have given the basic concepts of the Christain faith as they are
written in
the New Testament.
> How you can argue biblical inerancy when it comes to a 6000 year old
> earth and global floods,
I have stated that the evidence for a young earth and a global flood
need to
be investigated from the scientific evidence that is available,
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3000/
about which you and other secularists/atheists do not want children
and adults
to be given any information.
> and yet say "nah, cultural values have
> changed" in the next breath is quite staggering.
>
I do not live in a Jewish society of 2000 to 4000 years ago.
I would think
if they could back to earth now, they would not want to return
to the social conditions they had known in their previous human
existence, .
There has been the Christian faith. Jesus told His disciples they
would do 'greater things'. From the history that I have read the
greatest impact
for improvements has come from the time of the Protestant Reformation
of
the early Sixteenth Century with an impetus for that from the work of
John Wycliffe in England in the late Fourteenth Century.
All sins can be forgicen except sins against the Holy Spirit.
For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2 : 8
If you refuse to accept God's gift of salvation then there is nothing
else
available for you.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, (Jesus
Christ)
so that whosoever BELIEVES in Him should not perish (eternally)
but shall have Everlasting Life. John 3 : 16 .
Gladys Swager
Wallace
"misanthropic_curmudgeon" <misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com>
wrote in message
news:2baecc5f-fcc6-4849...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
That is sort of immoral isn't it?
is unethical in sciety these days
Parry Normal
news:4aada85e$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
It most certainly is!
Which pretty much shows that Christians are slightly insane, and their
religion is a cult.
Alex
> Wallace wrote:
> > Missing of what?
> > Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
> > justice for errors.
> > Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
> > terrible things a reality
>
> ????????????
>
> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't follow, and
> know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
>
> --
> His,
>
> More @www.selah-tx.net
>
> ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
> Lord
> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
> shall not receive the kingdom of God
> as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
> (Mark 10:15)
> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> <)))))))><
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:7h1ci8F...@mid.individual.net...
> >> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> >>> On Sep 12, 5:13am, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 11, 3:43am, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>> The Bible wants us to verify whatever we can. Otherwise, how
> >>>>>> could God hold us accountable for believing in other 'sacred'
> >>>>>> writings, because they also claim to be from God? 1 Th 5:21,
>
> >>>>>> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)
>
> >>>>> And when the proof disproves the words and teachings of bible
> >>>>> .....
>
> >>>> You're reading at the 3rd grade level......
>
> >>> Coincidentially the level and approximate age that the simplified
> >>> fairy tales of Noah, various goblins, and various bogey-men are
> >>> thrust on impressionable young minds.
>
> >>> And 3rd Grade comphrehension is all that is needed to realise that
> >>> pi does not equal three like the bible says it does, or that
> >>> animals need food and latrine services ti survive 40 days of rain
> >>> and an unspecified number afterwards, or that koalas and other
> >>> animals that only survive on one plant type acnd ambulate quite
> >>> slowelt could not possibly have made the trek that your mytholoigy
> >>> suggests, or ....
>
> >> ROTFL!!!! Reading it with 3rd grade comprehension would explain
>
> - Show quoted text -
Words of Jesus and God are true.
Revelation is the only Book of Bible which is 100% true.
in the end of the Book is warning! read it. it concerns only this Book
not all the Collection of Bible.
satanists always try to change the truth of original writings.
they propose to remove all passages with critics of jews that are not
but synagog of satan, you know why.
Parry Normal
Yep.
As well as that, most of it has been misunderstood.
God is not what most think he is.
I don't know where you get your information from.
Uhh, actually I do.
>
>>I don't understand how people could think that it could not be edited.
>
> When you can show the editing, you can then discuss the issue. I say you
> don't
> have a fart's chance in a hurricane of doing that.
>
You will only see the errors when you study the spiritual concepts like I
and many others have.
Until then it is futile to show you the errors and misunderstandings. I
have already done it plenty of times with others like you.
You will just arrogantly reject them like your type always do because your
mind is presently closed on the subject.
duke
That's not why he died on the cross. He died out of complete obedience to his
Father - from birth to death never saying "no" to his Father. He is our
example.
"Spare me this cup if you will, almighty Father, not my will but yours."
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 14, 6:40�am, duke wrote:
The Immaculate Conception was a early Christian belief in 33AD.
The Pope clarified that point in 1854, which set the stage for the validity of
the ex-cathedra statement from the Pope as being led by the Holy Spirit, and as
Jesus Christ's Vicar on earth.
>> >John would have recorded it in his writings as he outlived Mary.
>> Why? �John had a specific purpose for his gospel, and acknowledging Mary's
>> pureness nature was not it.
>So you think that if Mary had ascended into heaven as Jesus had done
>then John would not have written about it???
John didn't hold Jesus' hand as he ascended to his Father. Or didn't you know
that.
And not everything that Jesus said and did is written down. But it was strong
Christian belief at the time
Besides, Jesus rose on his own. Mary was raised by Jesus as he does for all of
us following our stop in purgatory.
Or do you believe that somebody else elevates us to God.
>http://www.bereancall.org/newsletters/heresy.htm
>> >Salvation first and then go in good works.
>>
>> Yet non-Christians are saved, like Moses and Elijah. �Now what?Mat 17:1-10, Mark
>> 9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36. �Your argument is full of holes.
>Those are accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Most likely
>a similar situation to the dead who left their graves at the time of
>the Crucifixion. Matt 27 : 51 -53
So others are raised from their graves but not Mary? Moses and Elijah didn't
even accept Jesus as Lord and savior.
>> >Salvation is the ***gift of God*** to us as we place our trust in
>> >Jesus Christ.
>> Required for the expressed Christian, but not for those that never heard of
>> Christ.
>And who failed to tell them of Christ?
Moses and Elijah are good examples, as are all the other peoples of the world
that never accepted the coming Messiah, yet still attained the kingdom of God.
The Transfiguration well shows that.
>> >We can only lose our salvation if we say we had made a mistake about
>> >Jesus.
>> >we no longer have faith in Him and the salvation He offers us.
>> >1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
>The deeds of faith follow on AFTER salvation. Salvation is not faith +
>works.
>Gladys Swager
Baptism + works = salvation is the Christian way. (B+W=S)
Works = salvation for pre Christians. (W=S)
1+1+1=1.
Three great equations.
duke
And space aliens could have zapped the true word and replace it too.
>>>I don't believe that anyone in the 21 century could still be sustaining
>>>such
>>>a strange and barbaric belief without having given up their thinking
>>>processes.
>>
>> You tell Christ you don't believe what he said.
>I did and he said I was right.
>He then smiled and said we just have to let the Christian religion learn
>from their misunderstandings of the Father.
Wow, a comedian.
duke
The Catholic Church was the Church started by Christ. We have the Holy Mass, 7
sacraments, and the Papacy, all given by Christ.
>>>> >So we can pick and choose what we want to believe??
>>>> >Is that your Christian faith??
>>>> That's exactly what you do, gladys.
>>
>>>And the Roman Catholic Church follows in every minute detail the
>>>correct teachings?
>>
>> Yes, but not by self declaration, but because they were there with Christ
>> when
>> he revealed these things, and much more that was not specifically written
>> down.
>> But the CC knew he said more.
>Fool.
>I suppose you think Christ actually set up the Catholic church, even though
>he made it clear he hated organised religions.
Well, he clearly gave his organized faith on earth the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments,
and the Papacy.
>>>Is that what you mean, Duke?
>>>If the Church at Rome had not added to the New Testament teachings
>>>from 310AD
>>>then there would not have been any need for the Protestant
>>>Reformation.
>>
>> The RCC did no such thing, and lut didn't know better.
>Dream on.
Oh, oh. I sense "lost for words".
>>>But the hierarchy at the Vatican has never understood or have not
>>>wanted to understand that the responsibility for the divisions were due to
>>>them.
>>
>> Lut was wrong.
>So you think the practice of indulgences was a good practice and was fully
>supported by God?
>I guess you do.
It still is in AD2009. The problem was the misuse of some 400 years ago, when
you protest_ants left Christ's Church.
>>>They were even willing to slaughter Christians who did not agree with
>>>them in the Inquisitions.
>>
>> What few capital punishments that were carried out were for blasphemous
>> teachings about Christ by unrepentant baptized Christians.
>A few capital punishments. Ahuh.
>Duuupe!!!
Latest estimate - 3500.
>>> And, yes, at times, some Protestants acted in
>>>the same way.
>>>And Duke don't come back and tell me that I have not stated what those
>>>incorrect
>>>teachings were.
>> You have made some erroneous listings, but nothing of truth.
>Duuupe!!!
Haahaahaahaahaa.
duke
So show me rather than play kingsies.
>I don't know where you get your information from.
>Uhh, actually I do.
Where?
>>>I don't understand how people could think that it could not be edited.
>> When you can show the editing, you can then discuss the issue. I say you
>> don't have a fart's chance in a hurricane of doing that.
>You will only see the errors when you study the spiritual concepts like I
>and many others have.
So bring up a thing or two for discussion.
>Until then it is futile to show you the errors and misunderstandings. I
>have already done it plenty of times with others like you.
You don't stand a chance against me.
>You will just arrogantly reject them like your type always do because your
>mind is presently closed on the subject.
You will have to do more than say "Jesus didn't mean what he said or meant".
Barry OGrady
>On Sep 12, 4:20�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 12, 11:48�am, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> >The New Testament contains the covenant of Grace, whereby we are accepted
>> > as righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. That does not mean that we should
>> >become lawless. It means that we are counted as justified = just as if I had never
>> >sinned because Jesus = perfect man/perfect God paid the price for sin which is death
>> >and as He conquered death and was resurrected (came alive again on the third day
>> >He now offers us Eternal Life on His terms of faith in Him.
>>
>> Who decided the penalty for sin is death, and why does the victim
>> suffer the penalty?
>That penalty was stated in Genesis 2 : 16 -17
Was that God's first lie?
Why do God's victims have to pay for God's actions?
>Adam and eve were the perpetrators of the wrong actions.
What wrong actions?
Did Adam and Eve put a poison tree in their children's yard?
Did Adam and Eve downgrade all of creation for no good reason?
>> That was a real gift because God did not need Jesus nor did God feel
>> the need to ask us if we wanted the gift.
>>
>As God was the Creator wouldn't you think that He should decide the
>rules for His creation, especially the humans.
When God created beings with thoughts and feelings he took on a huge
responsibility.
>When I was doing Ceramics as a hobby I determined
>how the clay would be fashioned ie the rules I set for the finished
>piece of work.
Did you get angry at the pots when they were not as you intended?
>So why not God doing that for His creation?
When God created beings with thoughts and feelings he took on a huge
responsibility.
>> >For by grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves,
>> >***it is the gift of God***. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
Have you accepted God's original gift of suffering and death?
That was a real gift because God did not need Jesus nor did God feel
the need to ask us if we wanted the gift.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:20:02 +1000, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Who decided the penalty for sin is death, and why does the victim
>>suffer the penalty?
>
>The victim doesn't. The perpetrator does.
In what way does God suffer?
>The Dukester, American-American
Fred A Stover
> "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7h420fF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Wallace wrote:
>>> Missing of what?
>>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>>> justice for errors.
>>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
>>> terrible things a reality
>>
>>
>> ????????????
>>
>> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't
>> follow, and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
>>
>
>
Duh.............our Father rescues us from your father, who doesn't deserve
respect.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
Fred A Stover
> On Sep 13, 6:27am, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Wallace wrote:
>>> Missing of what?
>>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>>> justice for errors.
>>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
>>> terrible things a reality
>>
>> ????????????
>>
>> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't
>> follow, and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
The whole of scripture is His word "Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4), and the
warning is do not add to it or subtract from it:
.Deut. 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your
God which I command you.
Rev. 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Fred A Stover
I'm not avoiding anything. Explain why you think they are contradictions. Do
you think koalas are extinct?
gladys swager
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 6:40 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >> >(Jesus) never sinned = He was perfect as I have stated above. .
> >> But he was a normal, but not perfect, man in every other way.
How was it that Jesus was 'not perfect' - in your opinion.
Did He need the salvation tha tHe came to give on the same basis that
we,
Humans need to accept it?
> >> And still he gave complete obedience to his Father, which was his saving action
> >> and demonstration.
He said. "I and My Father are one. ie We are in agreement.
Jesus never sinned. His saving action was to take the death for sin
and
conquered it in His resurrection and through that gives Eternal Life
to
all who believe in Him.
> >> >assumption of Mary bodily into heaven for which in the New Testament
> >> >there is no record that it had happened
> >> Not an addition, as I've told you so many times. It was rock solid belief by
> >> the first Christians, but not written down. So the Pope, with infallibility,
> >> made it official.
> >In 1950AD and the infallibility of the Pope was declared in 1870AD
> >Papal Infallibility came in after the doctrine of the Immaculate
> >Conception of Mary had been decreed in 1854AD.
> >Common sense would state that
> >doctrine was decreed to prevent any debate against the 1854AD
> >proclamation and aslo was used to prevent any further discussion
> >against the 1950AD proclamation.
>
> The Immaculate Conception was a early Christian belief in 33AD.
>
Who of the named church fathers wrote about it before 100AD and if so
what
assurance would there be that it was not back-dated to make it appear
to be
an earlier doctrine. Who can be reliably shown to have witnessed the
event
as can be for the ascension of Jesus in Acts 1. I have read that the
ossuary that
contained Mary's bones was found to be empty. Nut the bones could have
been
stolen or transferred elsewhere as some were worshipping her with a
cult developing
about her so that worship was being transferred from Jesus, That makes
sense to me.
> The Pope clarified that point in 1854, which set the stage for the validity of
> the ex-cathedra statement from the Pope as being led by the Holy Spirit, and as
> Jesus Christ's Vicar on earth.
>
And the Pope just had to be correct???
Vicar = a person who rules in place of another.
Jesus does not require another to rule in His place,
In fact, how could sinful man, whatever his media coverage may make
him out
to appear, rule in the place of Jesus Christ????.
>
Duke, I have learnt that you will use any tactic that appeals to you
to give credance to the incorrect teachings that you have accepted.
> And not everything that Jesus said and did is written down. But it was strong
> Christian belief at the time
>
And a whole lot of rumours as well.
> Besides, Jesus rose on his own. Mary was raised by Jesus as he does for all of
> us following our stop in purgatory.
>
No purgatory. The believer has Eternal life John 3 : 16
>
> >http://www.bereancall.org/newsletters/heresy.htm
> >> Yet non-Christians are saved, like Moses and Elijah. Now what?Mat 17:1-10, Mark
> >> 9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36. Your argument is full of holes.
Not full of holes. In OT times there was an expectation of a saviour
that was to come later.
> >Those are accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Most likely
> >a similar situation to the dead who left their graves at the time of
> >the Crucifixion. Matt 27 : 51 -53
> So others are raised from their graves but not Mary? Moses and Elijah didn't
> even accept Jesus as Lord and savior.
>
Moseas and Elijah were raised to speak with Jesus about His coming
death,
and to give assurance to Peter, James and John.
> >> >Salvation is the ***gift of God*** to us as we place our trust in
> >> >Jesus Christ.
> >> Required for the expressed Christian, but not for those that never heard of
> >> Christ.
> >And who failed to tell them of Christ?
>
> >> >We can only lose our salvation if we say we had made a mistake about
> >> >Jesus. >we no longer have faith in Him and the salvation He offers us.
> >> >1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
> >The deeds of faith follow on AFTER salvation. Salvation is not faith +
> >works.
> Baptism + works = salvation is the Christian way. (B+W=S)
>
Then why did Jesus emphasise faith in John 3 : 16
> Works = salvation for pre Christians. (W=S)
>
Moses and Elijah had faith before their works.
Their faith in God Almighty was expressed in the works they did.
But faith came first.
> 1+1+1=1.
The expression mathematically, if you want it, is:-
! X 1 X 1 = 1 = the Triune God. as another poster first gave in this
newsgroup.
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 and then faith should be expressed in works
but not in the unbiblical traditions that have been imposed by the
hierarchy
of your church.
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
God is the classic evil dictator.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
God has absolute power.
>The Dukester, American-American
==============
Barry
Barry OGrady
<fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Wallace wrote:
>> "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:7h420fF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Wallace wrote:
>>>> Missing of what?
>>>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>>>> justice for errors.
>>>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to make
>>>> terrible things a reality
>>>
>>>
>>> ????????????
>>>
>>> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't
>>> follow, and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
>>>
>>
>> A Father one needs rescuing from is not a father worthy of respect.
>>
>
>Duh.............our Father rescues us from your father, who doesn't deserve
>respect.
God saves us from himself due to a problem caused by him.
Its your classic protection racket.
>--
>His,
Sounds rather gay.
For verily I doth sayeth unto thou, that thou who doth not speaketh
thou olde King James English shalt not be called a Christian.
==============
Barry
Fred A Stover
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:16:55 -0500, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Wallace wrote:
>>> "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7h420fF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Wallace wrote:
>>>>> Missing of what?
>>>>> Who would want an earthly father who demands death and payback
>>>>> justice for errors.
>>>>> Such is no loving father and to think a God is like that is to
>>>>> make terrible things a reality
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ????????????
>>>>
>>>> You need to read the book. You're following the one you wouldn't
>>>> follow, and know nothing of the One who would rescue you from him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A Father one needs rescuing from is not a father worthy of respect.
>>>
>>
>> Duh.............our Father rescues us from your father, who doesn't
>> deserve respect.
>
> God saves us from himself due to a problem caused by him.
> Its your classic protection racket.
You should have learned to read.
>
>> --
>> His,
>
> Sounds rather gay.
Only to perverts.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:39:18 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:21:07 +1000, "Parry Normal" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
Have you a mathematical proof for that epigram? If not, why do you
quote it?
TCross
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> God saves us from himself due to a problem caused by him.
> Its your classic protection racket.
And an ol' favourite comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> The whole of scripture is His word[snip]
>
> .Deut. 4:2
> Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
> diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your
> God which I command you.
That why the giggly bits about earth being on pillars, hares being cud-
eating animals, and sea-food as an abomination are still there for us
to laugh at!
misanthropic_curmudgeon
Why does the bible say Pi = 3?
How could a koala travel from Australia to the middle east again (when
they cant swim and eat only food found in Australia.
Why does your bible contradict itself on when Jesus was born, or much
of the ressuraction myth, or who his paternal grandfather was
(sidestepping that whole son-of-god thing) or even the colour of his
robe, or....
misanthropic_curmudgeon
wrote:
> "misanthropic_curmudgeon" <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com>
> wrote in messagenews:2baecc5f-fcc6-4849...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 14, 9:21 am, "Parry Normal" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > But he didn't do anything wrong.
>> > Its silly to punish an innocent one instead of the guilty ones.
>>
>> Not according to the bible: punishment is regularly visited on the son
>> for the sin of the father.
>
> That is sort of immoral isn't it?
> is unethical in sciety these days
You'd think!
But not according to the bible. Punishing innocent people is par for
the cause in the bible.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:21:07 +1000, "Parry Normal" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
So you condone mindless ahearnce to a machevallian dictator?
A dictating and insecure god who demands sacrifice on a whim. Who
predestined people to heaven or the hell he created irrespective of
their faith or beleifs or actions or deeds.
You sign off with "American-American"?!?!
American-Taliban would be more appropriate.
Fred A Stover
ROTFL!!!! The Bible doesn't say anything of Pi. Duh............10 + 5 +
10 + 5 = 30.
> How could a koala travel from Australia to the middle east again (when
> they cant swim and eat only food found in Australia.
Who told you there was a travelling koala?
>
> Why does your bible contradict itself on when Jesus was born, or much
> of the ressuraction myth, or who his paternal grandfather was
> (sidestepping that whole son-of-god thing) or even the colour of his
> robe, or....
I don't read your confusion into the Bible, especially your paternal
grandfather.
Fred A Stover
ROTFL!!!!!!!! The usual stupidity, but hooved hares is rare.
duke
wrote:
barry is a spoiled brat just trying to look even more foolish.
duke
To God almighty - absolutely.
>A dictating and insecure god who demands sacrifice on a whim. Who
>predestined people to heaven or the hell he created irrespective of
>their faith or beleifs or actions or deeds.
A whim? Did he tell you it was a whim? I say you're making that up.
>You sign off with "American-American"?!?!
>American-Taliban would be more appropriate.
For following God's teachings!!! Wow.
duke
wrote:
>On Sep 14, 10:54�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>> >On Sep 14, 6:40�am, duke wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>.
>> >> >(Jesus) never sinned = He was perfect as I have stated above. .
>> >> But he was a normal, but not perfect, man in every other way.
>How was it that Jesus was 'not perfect' - in your opinion.
Gladys, do you even read what I say?
Here, once again.
Hebrews 4:15 (New International Version)
15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we
are�yet was without sin.
Jesus was a man, a real man in every way, but never sinned. To sin is to tell
his Father "no", that he'll decide, AS A MAN, that which is right and that which
is wrong. See the save issue in A&E.
>Did He need the salvation tha tHe came to give on the same basis that
>we, Humans need to accept it?
Not need, but heed. He never told his Father in heaven "no". You openly decide
for yourself much of Jesus' teachings. You open admit as much, your being a
"no" making machine to the teachings of God.
>> >> And still he gave complete obedience to his Father, which was his saving action
>> >> and demonstration.
>He said. "I and My Father are one. ie We are in agreement.
>Jesus never sinned. His saving action was to take the death for sin
>and conquered it in His resurrection and through that gives Eternal Life
>to all who believe in Him.
His saving action was his death on the cross in unquestioned obedience to his
Father, not his resurrection, which was to show us our future for obedience.
>> >> >assumption of Mary bodily into heaven for which in the New Testament
>> >> >there is no record that it had happened
>> >> Not an addition, as I've told you so many times. �It was rock solid belief by
>> >> the first Christians, but not written down. �So the Pope, with infallibility,
>> >> made it official.
>> >In 1950AD and the infallibility of the Pope was declared in 1870AD
>> >Papal Infallibility came in after the doctrine of the Immaculate
>> >Conception of Mary had been decreed in 1854AD.
>> >Common sense would state that
>> >doctrine was decreed to prevent any debate against the 1854AD
>> >proclamation and aslo was used to prevent any further discussion
>> >against the 1950AD proclamation.
>> The Immaculate Conception was a early Christian belief in 33AD. �
>Who of the named church fathers wrote about it before 100AD and if so
>what assurance would there be that it was not back-dated to make it appear
>to be an earlier doctrine.
You decide for yourself which of God's teachings to reject, and you laugh at
others making professions of agreement in what Jesus said?
>> The Pope clarified that point in 1854, which set the stage for the validity of
>> the ex-cathedra statement from the Pope as being led by the Holy Spirit, and as
>> Jesus Christ's Vicar on earth.
>And the Pope just had to be correct???
The Holy Spirit wouldn't let his be in error over an item of belief since 33AD.
>Vicar = a person who rules in place of another.
Nope, administrative assistant.
>Jesus does not require another to rule in His place,
Jesus left an earthly Church. The Pope heads up the Church on earth.
>In fact, how could sinful man, whatever his media coverage may make
>him out to appear, rule in the place of Jesus Christ????.
He doesn't. Good grief but you are confused about Christianity.
>Duke, I have learnt that you will use any tactic that appeals to you
>to give credance to the incorrect teachings that you have accepted.
There's no evidence that you are not pushing incorrect teachings. I use
scripture to support my beliefs, and you play cafeteria Christian with yours.
>> And not everything that Jesus said and did is written down. �But it was strong
>> Christian belief at the time
>And a whole lot of rumours as well.
Were you there?
>> Besides, Jesus rose on his own. �Mary was raised by Jesus as he does for all of
>> us following our stop in purgatory.
>No purgatory. The believer has Eternal life John 3 : 16
The mortal sinless will have eternal life after passing thru purgatory.
>> >http://www.bereancall.org/newsletters/heresy.htm
The Bereans?? Shirley you jest.
>> >> Yet non-Christians are saved, like Moses and Elijah. �Now what?Mat 17:1-10, Mark
>> >> 9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36. �Your argument is full of holes.
>Not full of holes. In OT times there was an expectation of a saviour
>that was to come later.
>> >Those are accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Most likely
>> >a similar situation to the dead who left their graves at the time of
>> >the Crucifixion. Matt 27 : 51 -53
>> So others are raised from their graves but not Mary? �Moses and Elijah didn't
>> even accept Jesus as Lord and savior.
>Moseas and Elijah were raised to speak with Jesus about His coming
>death,
But they were Jews, not Christians, and never heard of Christ and never had a
chance to "accept his salvation" which you profess as a requirement.
Now we know that hell is a one way trip. And we know that Jesus is the only way
to the Father. That says that either they were in holding in a "purgatory", or
they were already saved. Either way, your story falls apart.
>> >The deeds of faith follow on AFTER salvation. Salvation is not faith +
>> >works.
>> Baptism + works = salvation is the Christian way. �(B+W=S)
>Then why did Jesus emphasise faith in John 3 : 16
>> Works = salvation for pre Christians. �(W=S)
Heb 10:26-27 says you're dead wrong.
>Moses and Elijah had faith before their works.
They never heard of Jesus and never accepted his salvation.
>Their faith in God Almighty was expressed in the works they did.
>But faith came first.
Faith in what?
>> 1+1+1=1.
>The expression mathematically, if you want it, is:-
>! X 1 X 1 = 1 = the Triune God. as another poster first gave in this
>newsgroup.
But I'm correct. The Trinity is 3 individual but equal persons called the
Godhead.
gladys swager
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 10:54 pm, duke wrote:
> >How was it that Jesus was 'not perfect' - in your opinion.
> Gladys, do you even read what I say?
> Here, once again.
>
> Hebrews 4:15 (New International Version)
> 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
> weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we
> are—yet was without sin.
> Jesus was a man, a real man in every way, but never sinned. To sin is to tell
> his Father "no", that he'll decide, AS A MAN, that which is right and that which
> is wrong.
>
You have proved my point. Jesus never sinned. He was perfect man
as the Holy Spirit had overshadowed Mary in His human conception.
> >Did He need the salvation that He came to give on the same basis that
> >we, humans need to accept it?
>
> Not need, but heed. He never told his Father in heaven "no". You openly decide
> for yourself much of Jesus' teachings. You openly admit as much, your being a
> "no" making machine to the teachings of God.
>
That's a new one to me - 'a no-making machine'. If you can't win by
your reasoning.
you try to win by your denigrating.
> >He said. "I and My Father are one. ie We are in agreement.
> >Jesus never sinned. His saving action was to take the death for sin
> >and conquered it in His resurrection and through that gives Eternal Life
> >to all who believe in Him.
>
> His saving action was his death on the cross in unquestioned obedience to his
> Father, not his resurrection, which was to show us our future for obedience.
>
The resurrection demonstates that His sacrifice was acceptable to God
the Father,
Who as Spirit could not sacrifice Himself and be seen by humans to
have done so.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of
me)
to do Thy will, O God. Hebres 10 : 7
>
> You decide for yourself which of God's teachings to reject, and you laugh at
> others making professions of agreement in what Jesus said?
>
I do not laugh at others who do not agree with teachings that I have
about the scriptures,
> The Holy Spirit wouldn't let him be in error over an item of belief since 33AD.
>
And the Popes have been men - humans who are prone to error.
And you say they have not erred. What about cremation, banned to
members of the RC Church from 1870 to 1965 - 85 years- with those who
chose it
named as heathen, my grandmother among them. But my mother never told
me
of that until I was nursing her when she was terminally ill - what
courage she had
as she chose to keep the emotional pain to herself!.
And no apologies from the Pope when the change was made! As far as I
know. .
>
> Jesus left an earthly Church. The Pope heads up the Church on earth.
>
To teach what Jesus had taught! Not to add to the teachings not to
redefine them!
> >In fact, how could sinful man, whatever his media coverage may make
> >him out to appear, rule in the place of Jesus Christ????.
>
> He doesn't. Good grief but you are confused about Christianity.
>
The Pope 'rules' whenever he and his cardinals redefine/add to
the Christian teachings.
> >Duke, I have learnt that you will use any tactic that appeals to you
> >to give credance to the incorrect teachings that you have accepted.
>
> There's no evidence that you are not pushing incorrect teachings. I use
> scripture to support my beliefs, and you play cafeteria Christian with yours.
>
I am not playing 'cafeteria' Christianity,
I have given you the teachings of the New Testament
> >> And not everything that Jesus said and did is written down. But it was strong
> >> Christian belief at the time
> >And a whole lot of rumours as well.
>
> Were you there?
>
> >> Besides, Jesus rose on his own. Mary was raised by Jesus as he does for all of
> >> us following our stop in purgatory.
> >No purgatory. The believer has Eternal life John 3 : 16
>
> >> >http://www.bereancall.org/newsletters/heresy.htm
>
> The Bereans?? Surely you jest.
Acts 17 : 11 'they searched the scriptures daily' .
>
> >> >> Yet non-Christians are saved, like Moses and Elijah. Now what?Mat 17:1-10, Mark
> >> >> 9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36. Your argument is full of holes.
> >Not full of holes. In OT times there was an expectation of a saviour
> >that was to come later.
> >> >Those are accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Most likely
> >> >a similar situation to the dead who left their graves at the time of
> >> >the Crucifixion. Matt 27 : 51 -53
> >> So others are raised from their graves but not Mary? Moses and Elijah didn't
> >> even accept Jesus as Lord and savior.
> >Moseas and Elijah were raised to speak with Jesus about His coming
> >death,
>
> But they were Jews, not Christians, and never heard of Christ and never had a
> chance to "accept his salvation" which you profess as a requirement.
>
> Now we know that hell is a one way trip. And we know that Jesus is the only way
> to the Father. That says that either they were in holding in a "purgatory", or
> they were already saved. Either way, your story falls apart.
>
> >> >The deeds of faith follow on AFTER salvation. Salvation is not faith +
> >> >works.
> >> Baptism + works = salvation is the Christian way. (B+W=S)
> >Then why did Jesus emphasise faith in John 3 : 16
> >> Works = salvation for pre Christians. (W=S)
>
> Heb 10:26-27 says you're dead wrong.
>
> >Moses and Elijah had faith before their works.
>
> They never heard of Jesus and never accepted his salvation.
>
They looked forward to the promise of Genesis 3, in faith, that
God would do what He had promised He would do.
> >Their faith in God Almighty was expressed in the works they did.
> >But faith came first.
>
> Faith in what?
In God and His promises.
> >> 1+1+1=1.
> >The expression mathematically, if you want it, is:-
> >! X 1 X 1 = 1 = the Triune God. as another poster first gave in this
> >newsgroup.
>
> But I'm correct. The Trinity is 3 individual but equal persons called the
> Godhead.
>
The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
But are there three Gods? No! There is one God - all three Persons
of God in agreement on all things. It is a difficult concept for us,
as humans, to understand. But God will not set us a test that we must
answer correctly. He asks us to have faith and trust.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3008/
Scroll down to 'Is one God really three persons'
Gladys Swager
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 8:29am, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> The whole of scripture is His word[snip]
>
> >> .Deut. 4:2
> >> Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall
> >> ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the
> >> Lord your God which I command you.
>
> > That why the giggly bits about earth being on pillars, hares being
> > cud- eating animals, and sea-food as an abomination are still there
> > for us to laugh at!
>
> ROTFL!!!!!!!! The usual stupidity, but hooved hares is rare.
I never said hoved hare, I observed the bible says hares chew cud:
Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7.
Do read your bible, Fred. You might learn something about the myth
you beleive.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 8:29am, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> The whole of scripture is His word[snip]
>
> >> .Deut. 4:2
> >> Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall
> >> ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the
> >> Lord your God which I command you.
>
> > That why the giggly bits about earth being on pillars, hares being
> > cud- eating animals, and sea-food as an abomination are still there
> > for us to laugh at!
>
> ROTFL!!!!!!!! The usual stupidity, but hooved hares is rare.
Oh, and I note you avoid the giggle-worthy 'earth on pillars' and
'seafood as an abomination' bits, too.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
How else did it get to Noah to go on the ark?
> > Why does your bible contradict itself on when Jesus was born, or much
> > of the ressuraction myth, or who his paternal grandfather was
> > (sidestepping that whole son-of-god thing) or even the colour of his
> > robe, or....
>
> I don't read your confusion into the Bible, especially your paternal
> grandfather.
Not my paternal grand father: jesus'. Jesus' grandfather on his
father's side was Jacob according to Matthew 1:16, and Heli according
to Luke 3:23.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
[snip]
> >> That's not why he died on the cross. He died out of complete obedience to his
> >> Father - from birth to death never saying "no" to his Father. He is our
> >> example.
> >So you condone mindless ahearnce to a machevallian dictator?
>
> To God almighty - absolutely.
That is just what those guys who blow themselves up or fly into
skyscrapers say, Duke.
> >A dictating and insecure god who demands sacrifice on a whim. Who
> >predestined people to heaven or the hell he created irrespective of
> >their faith or beleifs or actions or deeds.
>
> A whim?
Well, he changed his mind stratight away. Sound spretty whimsical to
me.
> >You sign off with "American-American"?!?!
> >American-Taliban would be more appropriate.
>
> For following God's teachings!!! Wow.
Again, that is just what those guys who blow themselves up or fly into
skyscrapers say, Duke.
God says 'A'. You must do 'A'. All others are sinners and infidels.
God is great. Do and dont question.There is no god but god and
Mohammed/StPaul is his apostle.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> Here, once again.
Gladys does not read. She regurgitates links, can't understand
percentages, refuses to see cause-and-effect, and pretty soon will
start babbling about her early childhood teaching experinces. She was
indcotrinates into her cult as achild, and clings to it now that she
is old and fears death.
Terry Cross
Fred can't yet read Usenet messages. Baby-steps, Miss Anthro.
TCross
Terry Cross
Seafood is NOT an "abomination" -- look up the word before you use it
again.
Trichinosis and brevetoxin ("red tide," or neurotoxic shellfish)
poisonings are no laughing matter. To encode a cultural prohibition
against pork and shellfish is neither superstitious nor stupid.
Not to say that Mosaic law is completely giggle-free, but you should
pick your giggles with full knowledge, else you become a subject of
laughter yourself.
TCross
Terry Cross
<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 12:21 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > >> That's not why he died on the cross. He died out of complete obedience to his
> > >> Father - from birth to death never saying "no" to his Father. He is our
> > >> example.
> > >So you condone mindless ahearnce to a machevallian dictator?
>
> > To God almighty - absolutely.
>
> That is just what those guys who blow themselves up or fly into
> skyscrapers say, Duke.
Do you know the opinion of the US military? It gives people like that
a Medal of Honor. For example:
An enemy grenade landed nearby, and PFC Fernando Luis Garcia jumped
over it, sacrificing himself to save the lives of his fellow Marines.
Garcia died instantly and as a result was posthumously awarded the
Medal of Honor. In addition to the Medal of Honor, PFC Garcia's medals
and decorations include the following: -- http://www.elboricua.com/MedalHonor.html
But no doubt your common sense is much more common and sensible.
TCross
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> On Sep 15, 2:35 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon
>
>
>
> <misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 9:35 pm, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> > > > On Sep 15, 8:29am, "Fred A Stover" <fsto...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > >> The whole of scripture is His word[snip]
>
> > > >> .Deut. 4:2
> > > >> Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall
> > > >> ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the
> > > >> Lord your God which I command you.
>
> > > > That why the giggly bits about earth being on pillars, hares being
> > > > cud- eating animals, and sea-food as an abomination are still there
> > > > for us to laugh at!
>
> > > ROTFL!!!!!!!! The usual stupidity, but hooved hares is rare.
>
> > Oh, and I note you avoid the giggle-worthy 'earth on pillars' and
> > 'seafood as an abomination' bits, too.
>
> Seafood is NOT an "abomination"
Leviticus 11:9-12
"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath
fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them
shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and
in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing
which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They
shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their
flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever
hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination
unto you."