Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

HOMOSEXUALITY: A Manifesto! The Time Has Come! - John Shelby Spong

2 views

Skip to first unread message

I

unread,

Nov 3, 2009, 7:37:09 PM11/3/09

from
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/10/manifesto-from-our-friend-bishop-john.html

Thursday October 15, 2009

A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality
in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance
that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible
condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility.
I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how
homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a
"chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling"
homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of
my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of
those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are
somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who
believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting
the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I
will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable
claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant."
I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian
leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and
overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That
statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie
designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and
fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with
the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and
absolutely false statement. I will no longer temper my understanding of
truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the
appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where
the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices
against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is
"high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply
come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to
it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the
Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness
lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but
themselves. I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness
by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and
oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a
resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that
the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was
to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.

I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek
to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new
and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a
new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings,
who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a
community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people
with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in
which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for
the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is
preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go
unchallenged.

In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted
by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue
"equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to
the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the
advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact
that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still
being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media
to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity
for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual
people can be compromised any longer.

I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the
present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform
and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with
embarrassing ineptitude. I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior,
intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it
comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal
in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds
and hearts of so many of our world's population. I see no way that ignorance
and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow
less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy
of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such
would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell,
Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church
have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to
accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even
tolerable.

I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over.
The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final
outcome of this struggle will be. Homosexual people will be accepted as
equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that
both church and society have to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will
become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church.
"Don't ask, don't tell" will be dismantled as the policy of our armed
forces. We will and we must learn that equality of citizenship is not
something that should ever be submitted to a referendum. Equality under and
before the law is a solemn promise conveyed to all our citizens in the
Constitution itself. Can any of us imagine having a public referendum on
whether slavery should continue, whether segregation should be dismantled,
whether voting privileges should be offered to women? The time has come for
politicians to stop hiding behind unjust laws that they themselves helped to
enact, and to abandon that convenient shield of demanding a vote on the
rights of full citizenship because they do not understand the difference
between a constitutional democracy, which this nation has, and a
"mobocracy," which this nation rejected when it adopted its constitution. We
do not put the civil rights of a minority to the vote of a plebiscite.

I will also no longer act as if I need a majority vote of some
ecclesiastical body in order to bless, ordain, recognize and celebrate the
lives and gifts of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. No one
should ever again be forced to submit the privilege of citizenship in this
nation or membership in the Christian Church to the will of a majority vote.

The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying
prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite
clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a
debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this
moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant
prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer.
From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms
of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or
who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and
this issue is now settled for me. I do not debate any longer with members of
the "Flat Earth Society" either. I do not debate with people who think we
should treat epilepsy by casting demons out of the epileptic person; I do
not waste time engaging those medical opinions that suggest that bleeding
the patient might release the infection. I do not converse with people who
think that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans as punishment for the sin of
being the birthplace of Ellen DeGeneres or that the terrorists hit the
United Sates on 9/11 because we tolerated homosexual people, abortions,
feminism or the American Civil Liberties Union. I am tired of being
embarrassed by so much of my church's participation in causes that are quite
unworthy of the Christ I serve or the God whose mystery and wonder I
appreciate more each day. Indeed I feel the Christian Church should not only
apologize, but do public penance for the way we have treated people of
color, women, adherents of other religions and those we designated heretics,
as well as gay and lesbian people.

Life moves on. As the poet James Russell Lowell once put it more than a
century ago: "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good
uncouth." I am ready now to claim the victory. I will from now on assume it
and live into it. I am unwilling to argue about it or to discuss it as if
there are two equally valid, competing positions any longer. The day for
that mentality has simply gone forever.

This is my manifesto and my creed. I proclaim it today. I invite others to
join me in this public declaration. I believe that such a public outpouring
will help cleanse both the church and this nation of its own distorting
past. It will restore integrity and honor to both church and state. It will
signal that a new day has dawned and we are ready not just to embrace it,
but also to rejoice in it and to celebrate it.

- John Shelby Spong

--
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

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 12:37:56 AM11/4/09

On Nov 3, 4:37 pm, "I" <me@home000000000000483> wrote:
[...]

> I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to
> the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the
> advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact
> that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still
> being quoted frequently on each of these subjects.

I especially like this point.

Barry OGrady

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 6:08:22 AM11/4/09

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:09 +1100, "Mark Tindal" <nobody@home> wrote:

>from
>http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/10/manifesto-from-our-friend-bishop-john.html
>
>Thursday October 15, 2009
>
>A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!

I have no time for Spong. He has enough knowledge to reject Christianity
completely but he can't let go of the security blanket.

The world has moved on but Spong has not.
The only way to fix Christianity is to abandon it.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 12:54:40 PM11/4/09

"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8496014-aad3-4ca3...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

ABOL-freaking-LUKELY! That we KNOW that slavery is immoral that the bible
clearly says that it was God sanctioned shows the level of cognitive
dissonance a FundaMENTAList must bear to continue to believe that the whole
of the bible reflects God purely.

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 2:23:21 PM11/4/09

When all is said and done we still cannot escape the fact that homosexual
practitioners are still guilty of "fornication" and of abusing each others
bodies, with one another, and that no unrepentant fornicator or adulterer
will enter God's Kingdom.

"9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy
nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Cor 6:9-10 (ANIV)

Thus it would be reckless and foolishness to ignore sound Scripture teaching
merely because the present day PC ungodly world has decided to embrace and
tolerate the wickedness of homosexual abomination as was done long ago in
the days of Sodom & Gomorrah.

-------------------------------
"I" <me@home000000000000483> wrote in message
news:4af0ccb8$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 3:56:15 PM11/4/09

"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com>
wrote in message news:7le2lgF...@mid.individual.net...
: When all is said and done we still cannot escape the fact that homosexual

: practitioners are still guilty of "fornication" and of abusing each others
: bodies, with one another, and that no unrepentant fornicator or adulterer
: will enter God's Kingdom.

You're so smart. Tell us all WHY "fornicating" is a big "no no" according
to Moses? I can't wait to hear this! lol

Either answer the above or let us believe that God just makes willy nilly
laws with out any rational reason.

Hint: The Golden Rule.... (if you can get it.. doubtful)

Barry OGrady

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 5:08:13 PM11/4/09

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:23:21 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>When all is said and done we still cannot escape the fact that homosexual
>practitioners are still guilty of "fornication" and of abusing each others
>bodies, with one another, and that no unrepentant fornicator or adulterer
>will enter God's Kingdom.
>
>"9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
>not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
>nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy
>nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
>1 Cor 6:9-10 (ANIV)
>
>Thus it would be reckless and foolishness to ignore sound Scripture teaching
>merely because the present day PC ungodly world has decided to embrace and
>tolerate the wickedness of homosexual abomination as was done long ago in
>the days of Sodom & Gomorrah.

You are right. Rather than try to adapt Christianity to our modern
world we should abandon Christianity altogether.
John Sprong and Mark T have enough information to know Christianity is
fake and evil but it seems they need the security blanket.

=-=-=
Barry

See the website Gladys hates
Find out why she fears it so
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

Chris Bell

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 5:26:03 PM11/4/09

Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:37:09 +1100, "Mark Tindal" <nobody@home> wrote:
>
>>from
>> http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/10/manifesto-from-our-friend-bishop-john.html
>>
>> Thursday October 15, 2009
>>
>> A Manifesto! The Time Has Come!
>
> I have no time for Spong. He has enough knowledge to reject Christianity
> completely but he can't let go of the security blanket.
>
> The world has moved on but Spong has not.
> The only way to fix Christianity is to abandon it.
>

So why don't you Barry? Why spend so much time here posting snide or
silly comments to people who don't care what you think?

*snip*
>
> Barry

Chris

Chris Bell

unread,

Nov 4, 2009, 5:37:37 PM11/4/09

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> When all is said and done we still cannot escape the fact that homosexual
> practitioners are still guilty of "fornication" and of abusing each others
> bodies, with one another, and that no unrepentant fornicator or adulterer
> will enter God's Kingdom.
>
> "9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
> not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
> nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy
> nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
> God."
> 1 Cor 6:9-10 (ANIV)
>
> Thus it would be reckless and foolishness to ignore sound Scripture
> teaching
> merely because the present day PC ungodly world has decided to embrace and
> tolerate the wickedness of homosexual abomination as was done long ago in
> the days of Sodom & Gomorrah.
>

It seems to me that the even more prevalent abuse of our bodies in the
modern world by the greedy, that of obesity, also condemned in the
passage above, should be a major target. There are many more obese
people in the world than homosexuals. Should you not be saying the same
things to them? Why not target them on the streets, in the shopping
malls, even in church, berating them in public for the harm they are
doing to their bodies and pointing out that they too will undoubtedly go
to hell if they don't repent and stop their immoral practices!

*snip*

Chris

Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 12:44:20 AM11/5/09

A Jew named Mohammed

Has Mohammed (Muhammad) ever existed ?
Enquiry on monotheism
http://bernard-raquin.fr/spiritualite/Jew-Muhammad.html

Bernard Raquin
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://forms.aweber.com/form/
49/385318849.js"></script>

Presentation
Thanks to archaeological discoveries, to the translations from
sumerian, egyptian and aramaic, each and everyone can at last discover
the origin of the "sacred texts". Far from being the word of " God",
the revealed religions recycled archaic old myths. One will see why
they have provoked so many slaughters, by drawing their followers in
the trap of ignorance and vanity.
This work, very different from the official legends, takes us into one
of the most fabulous human creations, the invention of myths and
prophets. The author invites you to a fascinating inquiry into the
heart of monotheist religions.
You will discover that, as other biblical prophets, Mohammed seems to
be one of the most famous historical hoaxes. You will also learn why,
in which period and in which language the Coran was written and with
which aim.
Indispensable for human beings in quest of spiritual authenticity, and
also for every person wishing to understand current events and defend
the freedom of expression.

Bernard Raquin, psychotherapist and teacher in many seminars, has
published a number of books on spirituality and personal development.
Following the murder of his sister by her son and husband claiming to
be from "Islam", he decided to unveil the falsification and to shed
light on the spiritual path and historical truth.

"The ones who take in broad daylight any new proposition are first
called heretics."
(Montesquieu)

Contents

Chapter 1 : Farewell to a beloved woman

Chapter 2 : How to fabricate a religion

Chapter 3 : Jesus revisited by Islam

Chapter 4 : How heretics invented Islam
Retrospective theology
Allah's origin
The descent into hells : an ancestral myth
The coranic paradise
Allah's fall
Califs are warriors and not rabbis

Chapter 5 : Conquering Jerusalem!
Let us rebuild the Temple!
Mohammedans turn to Jerusalem

Chapter 6 : Divine or human violence?
Sacrifice
Slavery
Theology or superstition?
The hatred for women

Chapter 7 : Who wrote the Coran?
Chronology
The religious contexts in the seventh century
The different redactors of Coran
The fiction of illiteracy
How two fabricate surats
Why Arabic language did not exist at that time
How the Coran was drafted ?
Is Coran anything else than a compilation ?
The superstitions of Coran
Inimitability of Coran ?
A few excerpts of the true Coran

Chapter 8 : Mohammed's legend
Gabriel's theology or laborious elaboration?
The cave
The legend of the Seven asleep
Mohammed's celestial journey
The legend of Mecca
The legend of Medina
The Battle of the Ditch
The charter of Medina
The aggravation of fiction
All religions are polytheist
No trace of Mohammed whatsoever...
How the name of Mohammed was invented
Abu Bakr decrees Mohammed's death

Chapter 9 : the Great Godess of the Kaaba
The pilgrimage

Chapter 10: For the cessation of holocausts
About forgiving
Nostalgia
Let us make a dream
Fatwa

Annex 1 : Those books which were used to write the Coran
Annex 2 : The redactors of the Coran
Annex 3 : How was fabricated the Coran?

Short bibliography

Does monotheism lead preferentially to crime? The question was often
asked by specialists of religions. The nine first Califs of Islam
perished assassinated. Preventing to think never served human
dignity, neither the cause of God. Scholars wondered if certain
religions are not constitutively violent. But more than monotheism,
it is the prophetic neurosis which is so often devil's mouthpiece...p.
23

Unfortunately for the beliefs of Christians, the historian Philo of
Alexandria, who was Jesus' contemporary and wrote several volumes, do
not quote him, and if the Messiah is famous until Syria, should we
believe Matthew, and until Egypt or Babylon since the Mages have come
from there, while is he not quoted anywhere in the chronicles? For the
past 2000 years, billions of Christian have wondered : why are we
still obliged to commit evil and suffer it, and indeed live, as if
Christ had never come?...

[The author put a few paragraphs a little more on the right to
indicate more personal and psychological reflections]
At the beginning was the lie : lies of prophets who forced visions and
voices to serve a political cause. I do not doubt visions, an eternal
and dream perception of the world. But a vision giving even
instructions about food, laws, hygiene and war is an illusion, because
nothing is more fluctuating than the customs and beliefs. Visions are
images drawn from the collective unconscious, teachings of wisdom,
they are allegorical and not ready-made answers to circumstantial
problems.
The three "biblical" religions have in common the destruction of
sources, the disregard for others and their pretension to detain the
revealed truth. Revealed by whom ? Not by a hoary sage full of
wisdom, polished by decades of asceticism and ennobling acts, but by
vociferous prophets. If God exists, it may be doubted that He chose
personality as controversial as Moses, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, David or
Mohammed, such as described by the tradition. The prophetic points to
his victim, the sage shows the path.

In what monotheism has served the cause of the unique God, who may
well have done without this wicked homage? Even the Gospels contain
rages. Some claim that the apostles represented a movement of
rebellion... Simon the Zealot, who became later Peter, was, as his
name indicates, an activist. His brother Judah (not Judah the
traitor) was called Iscariot, i.e. holder of the dagger with a bent
edge... Then this group was destroyed and consequently divinized,
according to a mechanism which was well analyzed by René Girard. The
exceptional person becomes a devil, a hero or a saint.
In which way polytheist were pagans ? Pagans, the Sumerians ,
inventors of writing, of laws, of the wheel, of most of the myths
which forged our civilization? They who have created schools and the
very first parliament? Pagans, the Babylonians, inventors of
astronomy, of medicine, of treatises on plants and of the fabrication
of therapeutical drugs?
Ignorant, the Egyptians, where men and women were equals? It is
sufficient to go in any museum to become immediately struck by wonder,
and modest.
Idolatrous, the Zoroastrians, without image of God, inciting to go
beyond oneself through "good thoughts, good words and good actions"?
Pagans, Krishna's devotees, seeking forgiveness and goodness in the
cult of fecundity, intoxicated with the gratitude for the boons from
heaven? Infidels, the worshippers of Vishnu, good ascetics who where
detached from the appearances of the world, who wanted to realize the
Atman, and merge into the deep consciousness of the Whole ?
Pagans, the Amerindians and their prestigious civilization? The
Aztec ?!
Idolatrous, the Celts and their refined conception of the divine, who
have dominated the world during several millennia and which have
elaborated myths taken again by Christianity?
Ignorant, the Buddhist, whose spirit glides above the feelings of
villainy? Idolatrous, the Jains, who do not kill animal and forbid to
themselves any violence ?
How much base feelings this despise, this self-conceit expresses. My
Goodness! Free us from these desert prophets, hellish creatures,
presumptuous, wicked, ignorant, who come out from the dark age heading
hosts of warriors of apocalypse, with foam at the mouth, with erected
sticks, the very servants of Satan!
"The prophets, these goats with a long beard, cannot pretend to any
intellectual or spiritual superiority... Their duplicity is obvious by
their very contradicting each other... As for the Coran, it is only a
bundle of nonsensical fables... The treatises of the Ancients such as
Plato, Aristotle, Euclides or Hippocrat have rendered greater services
to humanity." (Ibn Warraq quoting Abdel Razin Why I am not a Muslim, p.
324)

The soul who is seeking ecstasies against the others, end in the cul-
de-sac of mad anger. And the mystic who is petrified by awe will more
surely meet the "lower astral plane", the universe of those deities
which are evoked in the Tibetan Book of the Dead rather than bliss and
wonder.
The savior god was hardly a new thing when Jesus (whose name means I
save) appeared : Apollo, Adonis, Osiris, Serapis, Tanmuz in Sumer and
Syria, Odin in ancient Germany, Dionysos-Bacchus, Orpheus, Mithra and
Horus were around....(p.55-56)
When monotheism has inevitably lead to wars against the inevitable
heresies, young saplings sprout, a fresh wind from the human spirit,
who rediscovers the psychic functions of the old gods. And for that,
no need of books or ancient idols: the functioning of the brain is
sufficient. Any person is able to rediscover them by listening to his
unconscious. Monotheism, opposed to the functioning of the brain,
does not exist in any religion. Our brain needs, to transform the
thoughts in words, to elaborate representations. This explain, to my
eye, why pure monotheism, which was meant only for rare sages,
produces so many pathologies among ordinary believers, by pushing them
towards schizophrenia.56

Among the other influences on Jesus, the room is lacking to evoke
Apollonius of Tyan, and overall Mithra whose cult has been entirely
copied by the Christians. [Raquin quotes many details and proofs of
this well-known fact]
56

This Manichaeism appears again in the concept of dar-ul-islam
and dar-ul-harb. The land which have been conquered by Islam are
"land (House) of submission". The other countries are "lands of the
war". Intoxicated herds, which have been rendered mad by heinous
preachers, are allowed to plunder, kill, destroy the countries of the
"infidels" - who in fact they are themselves. Just as Mohammed was
put above God by making him speak, one puts Muslims beyond the others,
and the vociferous preacher feels he is superior to the one who is
good. Thus, a stupid person feels authorized to abuse a girl if she
eats during the Ramadan. Any pretentious fellow, because he
prostrates before nothingness, feels that he has the power to judge
the scholar. Here lies undoubtedly the biggest tragedy, and the basis
of every tyranny: to give to mediocre people the power to judge their
neighbors...67

People are summoned not to believe in jinns, but if they believe, they
are punished. Here is a constant feature of the Coran: pretending
everything and its opposite, installing a series of double binds which
prevent reflection, paralyze logic, to force the acceptance of any
theological contortion. These permanent contradictions are strong
evidence that the Coran is a collective work. Every religion has its
own contradictions. But the Coran is false and contradictory on
almost everything. And neither the Bible or the Gospels claim to have
an unique author. Or one should admit that Gabriel had become doting.
The "double bind" means receiving two opposite orders, which provokes
a stupefaction and paralyze intelligence: Allah agrees only to Islam
as a religion - but he says "no coercion in religion". Don't force
your women into prostitution - but if you do it, Allah will console
them. Be stoned to death if you don't believe in Allah - but anyhow
everything comes from Allah. Don't be among those who associate Allah
with other divinities - but anyhow your destiny is already written on
a tablet since your birth. Allah does not like that we divulgate
wicked words - unless one is being victim of them. "We have divided
the earth into communities: among them there are the right ones - and
others which are not" (Co 7, 168 ). There is no other God than God -
and still, there are angels, jinns, ogers; now, coming from Allah,
they incite to disagree with him.
But other assertions are still worse : "There is refuge against
Allah only in Him" (Co 9, 118) or "Who defends you day and night
against the Benefactor?" (Co 21, 42) or "I am seeking the protection
of the Lord of the Dawn against the evil he has created..." (113)
This reminds of the child beaten by his or her mother, and who, having
only her, goes and seek refuge near her. Neurosis and despair are
guaranteed. Take refuge against Allah in Allah ? Defend oneself
against the Benefactor? Ask from the creator of evil for protection?
p. 68-69

At the beginning Islam had no vocation to universality. Every prophet
addressed his own community: "... When we have sent a witness to every
community, and we have made you a witness for those people." (4, 41)
The religious leaders of primitive Islam which indeed were Samaritan
or Ismaelian rabbis, forbade the conversions to the new sect of non-
Arabs for two centuries, since one cannot convert to become the
descendant of Ismael, just as one could not become the children of
Israel. Then, the conversion system became exploited to dominate,
when the Caliphs understood the interest to make people’s mind
submissive to the Arabic domination disguised in Allah, when 600,000
words, hadîs, came out to justify their political agenda, when
Mohamed’s life was invented. (p.71)

Allah's origin :
Allah has got about one hundred "beautiful names". A poem from the
12th century B.C. grants to the Babylonian God Marduk about 50 names,
coming from the defeated and assimilated deities. Most of these will
qualify Allah.
The word Allah comes from the Sumerian divinity Lilitu, evolving
in Lilith (the Mother-Goddess of the Hebrew), and then in Al-ilat
(that of the Arabs), but also in El, God, in akkadian. One finds also
in Arabic Ala, 'to be terrified'. The name Allah has certainly been
the masculine form that the original name Al-ilat has taken.(p.71)

Devil's fall in the Coran
Later, Mohammed will get the authorization from Allah to use deceit,
lie and dissimulation (taquyya). "Hide what you have in the heart."
A verse (16, 91) asks not to break one’s oath, but another (5, 89)
allows perjury or incites to commit it (96). The development of this
devastating doctrine comes still more from the hadîs....
All this has its origin in the Bible : Michea has the vision that
Yahve holds a counsel with the heavenly hosts, allowing the Spirit to
become the spirit of lying against the adversaries of Israel. God
asks from his angels to help him to seduce the king Achab. "Then, one
of them appeared before the Lord to tell Him : 'I am the one who will
seduce him. And the Lord told him : 'In which way'? He answered: 'I
will go and be a spirit of lie in the mouths of all his prophets. The
Lord agreed : 'You will seduce him, since indeed you have this power.
Go and do in this wise." (1 Kings 22 19)
Yahve agrees to seduction, which is nonetheless the characteristic of
Satan. The CoTran will take again this theme, which is a blaspheme but
still natural for the superstitions of that time. The more one
invokes, the less one respects...

These intrigues provoke serious spiritual disorders. For sin is
Allah's work, while Satan is there only to fix the practical
details... Fanatics are basically victims of an individual neurosis,
but when they come together to intoxicate themselves and share their
hatred, they fall into psychosis, prisoners of themselves, rendering
themselves mutually mad. (p.76)

Allah's fall
Never spiritual discussions are to be found in the Coran or Mohammed's
life, except boring slogans. Never mystical preoccupations are
present, which would enable one to accord himself with a superior
moral code. Never renunciation to illusions and passions is hinted
at. Never the ultimatum aim of humanity is the object of
questioning. Forgiving is granted according to Allah's whims; the
absolution of sins does not come from an inner transmutation, but from
a mechanical profession of faith, all the more claimed and shown that
it is not put into practice by good actions in life. One finds only
the crazy frailty of an anxious Allah, because his subjects could
start venerating a secondary divinity, whom still He has created. In
the text one can only find the proclamation of the tragic despair of a
unique God, killing his own creatures after sending Satan to them to
have them doubt; obliged to slaughter people to force survivors to
prostrate before Himself. One sees in this book only Allah's
vertiginous fall into absolute nothingness, at war against its own
creation, having for satisfaction only servile people, robots devoid
of consciousness and without freedom. One reads only devilish
pleasures, threats and revenges.
The rights of the human creatures are threaded upon, betrayal is
sanctified; deceit is recommended; cruelty, baseness, possessiveness,
cupidity are encouraged; lie and dissimulation are favored.
Psalmody is there in lieu of piety. Recitations take the place of
reflection, litanies that of elevation. And all that is chanted until
entrancement, to forget, if only for one hour, the tragic condemnation
for the sin, not Adam's one, but still worse, for the sin of living,
because the very life of a human being is unbearable to Allah, indeed
jealous not to exist himself.
A human being will not be allowed the temptation to show love, on the
contrary, he will have to reject his own family : "Don't take for
friends your fathers or your brothers, if they prefer incredulity to
faith." (9, 23) "It is not befitting to the prophet or the believers
to implore God's forgiving for polytheists, be they their near and
dear, while they know that these people will be inmates of the
Furnace." (9, 113) "You will not find people believing in God and in
the Last Day, and showing love to those who oppose God and his
prophet, be they their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or members
of their clan." (83, 22). And woe to music, dance and joy! Woe to
love and long life to death! That is the war cry of those sects which
court death.
Those verses are only a remake of the Deuteronomy : "If your
brother, nephew, niece, your wife who rests on your chest, or the
friend who is as yourself, incite you to serve other gods and not me,
you must kill him; let your hand be the first to put him to death.
Lapidate him, let him die... If iniquitous people serve other gods
than Me, you will exterminate their town and you will slaughter all
its inhabitants by your sword." (Dt, 13)
Forced into a destiny "attached to its neck" whose aim he ignores,
the human being is now under surveillance to accomplish rituals which
are empty of meaning, to cry out of rage and bitterness before this
scorn of divine creation and this ontological incomprehension of the
world. Let it be submissive, this bunch of scoundrels ever ready to
rebel against Allah so that He " may send a messenger to warn them"
and feel the pleasure to destroy them: "There is no city that we will
not destroy and torment with the strongest torture before the Day of
Resurrection. That was fixed in the Scriptures." (Co 17, 58)
The human being believed to be free: he is only an alien on this
earth, a prostrated slave. But in his curse, he will have also to be
wary of his best friend, who may be inhabited by a djinn; or of his
son who will judge him not believer enough and who will send him to
hell. He will have to see his mother and sister humiliated and
struck, this sister which is soft, beautiful, loving, consoling, the
only one which in fact deserves Allah's beautiful names. How difficult
it is, the coranic demand which teaches to despise woman; to transform
the mother, deity of our childhood, into an inferior creature, just
waiting to people the hell...
And to crown all that, the very foundation of spirituality -
compassion - is absent from Coran. Mercy, love, the thrust of the
heart towards the one who suffers, the care towards the soul who is
searching, are substituted by sinister vociferations. Ceaselessly,
Allah is called merciful; but he never demonstrates mercy. In the
description of ignorant redactors, he has become a conceited and cruel
being. The most he can do is to accept servility as a proof of
submissiveness; and his forgiving is only for doubts about his
existence, since acts are secondary. At last, intoxicated with
Himself, Allah falls in the supreme sin of pride, without any feeling
for His own tragic destiny of a burning king. Thus blinded by his own
glory, Allah takes the place of Lucifer. He went beyond is likes,
such as Odon, Kali, Shiva, Nergal, Yahve, Satan, and ends up alone in
the world.
Under the pretense of absolute submission, the Coran represents
eventually God's murder, by rejecting Him outside humanity. So, these
legend-makers who wrote it have been the root cause of innumerable
crimes against the true Allah. That is why the Coran is received by
the technique of overfeeding and stuffing memory; faith is not
necessary because faith is a choice, whereas there, only submission is
expected. We can notice that the end of the theological debate in
Islam, in the 14th century, triggered a long lasting regression of
this culture which had been able, by translating Greek and Persian
authors, to reach the summits of civilization.

Reconquering Jerusalem!
[In 614, the last Persian emperor of the dynasty of Sassanides,
Chosroes II, takes Jerusalem from the ruler of Byzance. He hands its
administration onto the Jew, but they are so violent towards
Christians that he has to remove it from their hands. In 630, the
capital is taken again by Heraklios, the ruler of Byzance, to be lost
a second time in 638. Meanwhile, the Jews had enrolled more and more
Arabic tribes of mercenary and taken them on their side by having them
believe the myth that they were descendant of Ishmael and thus that it
was then their duty to reconquer Jerusalem, which had become in their
new understanding their own holy land. Before, the Arabic tribes had
nothing to do with this city. There were two groups, Ishmaelians and
Agarenes, the latter were supposed to descend from Ishmael’s mother
and Abraham second wife, Agar. According to the historians
specialists of this period, there has been a confusion of words,
between hegirian, that is the migrants, and agarenes, Agar’s
descendants. These “migration” which was in fact of Arabic tribes into
Syria and the West of Persia was interpreted much later as the one
from Mecca to Medina, two towns which just did not exist in the 7h or
8th century according to historians. The group of Agarenes gave birth
to the Shiites, while the Ishmaelians gave birth to the Sunnis
Muslims : Ismaelian and Mussalman have indeed the same etymology.]
They had been distinct right from the beginning, so the story of the
early schism between the two is again another myth.
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://forms.aweber.com/form/
49/385318849.js"></script>

Publishers : translate Un Juif nommé Mahomet it worth it !
And the other books of Bernard Raquin
Write to : bernard...@gmail.com
Bernard Raquin

This page "A Jew named Muhammad" and all the pages of Bernard's
Raquin site are copyrighted Bernard Raquin - french and international
laws, convention de Berne, etc.

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 8:09:20 AM11/5/09

On Wed, 11/04/09, at 1:23:21PM,

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> When all is said and done we still cannot escape the fact that homosexual
> practitioners are still guilty of "fornication" and of abusing each others
> bodies, with one another, and that no unrepentant fornicator or adulterer
> will enter God's Kingdom.
>
> "9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
> not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
> nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy
> nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
> God."
> 1 Cor 6:9-10 (ANIV)
>
> Thus it would be reckless and foolishness to ignore sound Scripture
> teaching
> merely because the present day PC ungodly world has decided to embrace and
> tolerate the wickedness of homosexual abomination as was done long ago in
> the days of Sodom & Gomorrah.

This is correct

--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 9:40:37 AM11/5/09

"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2JedndulE6HiU2_X...@giganews.com...
: On Wed, 11/04/09, at 1:23:21PM,

Okay, smarty, since the WHOLE of the law can be summed up with loving God
with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, tell me how
"fornicating" breaks the law.

Since the WHOLE of the law is summarized by the "golden rule" offenses
aren't just pulled out of the air. There is no such thing as a willy nilly
law just made up for no reason.

So, tell us why "fornicating" breaks the law and use the "golden rule" to
explain it. :)

I

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 3:41:31 PM11/5/09

Do not be deceived by Randy � Young

dolf

unread,

Nov 5, 2009, 4:09:23 PM11/5/09

I <me@home000000000000490> wrote:
> Do not be deceived by Randy ® Young
>
>

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ
and God the Father who raised him from the dead)--a former persecutor
and murderer of Christians says: "...the spirit who now works in the
sons of disobedience, among who also we all once conducted ourselves in
the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the
mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he
loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together
with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised up together, and
made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, THAT IN THE
AGES TO COME he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness
towards us in Christ Jesus." [Ephesians 2:2-6]

A variation of the 22/7 {= 3.1428571...} equation as rational PI
computation and the 364 day cycle from the DATE(1996,3,20) + (5 * 364) +
182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) gives the Equinox of Saturday
DATE(2001,9,23) as commencing the Sabbath year and the reprise
associated to the following schema as a transcendent negation of the
Gregorian cycle of 400 years as the basis for replacement theology,
which is as 146097 days evenly divisible by seven:

#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS autonomic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to series #15, #34,
#65, #111, #175, #260, #369 ... #2000 Y2K

#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.

#1 = [the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of
Universal Law}, which contains the law of that will:

7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to
the 'constant sequence of sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day
intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days] +

#2 = [the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity - HEAD OF STATE}, which contains the command to behave in
accordance with the law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the
law:

x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox
Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and] +

#3 = [the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of
Autonomy}, which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as
right in the case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth
as 122J3W1D) = Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2]:

has #369 with Septet #41 {ie. #81 - #27 - #9 - #3 - #1} centric on {ie.
20 March 1996 + (5*364) + 182 = 12 Sept 2001 as 1st day of 7th solar
month = #0 - Zero point} 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri
5762. ref: "On [Sunday 16 September 2001 as] the 1st day of the [21st
priestly] course of Jachin {he that strengthens and makes steadfast} on
the 29th day of lunar month, on the 5th day of the 7th solar month."
[4Q321]] +

#4 = 'OTH Chronological Elements = #10 as {Totality of Nature = Formula
of Progression of individual phenomena: #1 = {0: 1} + #2 = {0: -1, 1: 1}
+ #3 = {0: 0, 1: 1} + #4 = {0: 1, 1: 1} = #10 = {0: 1, 1: 0, 2: 1}}

vCube Balanced Ternary System distribution: #1 = {0: 1}; #41 = {0: -1,
1: -1, 2: -1, 3: -1, 4: 1}; #81 = (0: 0, 1: 0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:1}

Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 topical years) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2]

"For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man
(image of male and female)--and birds and four-footed beasts and
creeping things." [Deuteronomy 4:15-19; Romans 1:20]

#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE

The "Angel of the presence, who went before the camp of Israel" which is
here described in the Book of Jubliees by association to an
understanding of the 10 Commandments and chronology is further related
to a circular reality as technology and the most sacred names of God
derived from 3 Biblical texts of [Exodus 14:19-21] which each contain 72
letters: "And the angel of the presence, who went before the camp of
Israel [Exodus 14:19], took the TABLETS OF THE DIVISION OF YEARS FROM
THE TIME OF CREATION OF THE LAW AND TESTIMONY ACCORDING TO THEIR WEEKS
(OF YEARS), ACCORDING TO THE JUBILEES, year by year throughout the full
number of Jubilees, from the DAY OF CREATION UNTIL THE DAY OF THE NEW
CREATION WHEN THE HEAVEN AND EARTH AND ALL OF THEIR CREATURES SHALL BE
RENEWED ACCORDING TO THE POWERS OF HEAVEN AND ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE
NATURE OF EARTH, until the sanctuary of the LORD is created in Jerusalem
upon Mount Zion.

And all of the lights will be renewed for healing and peace and blessing
for all of the elect of Israel and in order that it might be thus from
that day and unto all the days of the earth." [Book of Jubilees 1:29]

These 3 Biblical texts of [Exodus 14:19-21] describe the miraculous
parting of the Red Sea before the people of Israel as they fled the
bondage of Pharaoh's Egypt.

First, the 72 Names are a technology for asserting the power of the
human consciousness over physicality. That is, the power of mind over
matter, which Kabbalah has always understood and which science is just
now beginning to grasp. However, the Names themselves depend on your
individual consciousness, and on your commitment to what the kabbalists
call proactive behaviour.

What is proactive behaviour? First and foremost, it is a stepping back
from reactive impulses, for there is no way we can have consciousness of
God--to say nothing of God's consciousness--unless we step back. Without
this proactive behaviour, even this most powerful of all technologies
cannot possibly work for us. Whenever it seems that misfortune has
suddenly been thrust upon you, step back. This does not mean acceptance
of the circumstances--if someone slaps you in the face, you might indeed
hit them back--but it does mean a level of consciousness above mere
reactivity. The technology of 72 Names can and will work for you, but
not without proactive behaviour.

My second point is related to the problems caused by reactive impulses,
specifically difficulties related to ego. In the biblical text that is
the foundation of the 72 Names, ego is personified by the Pharaoh of
Egypt. As the ego-driven impulses in our own lives draw away from growth
and transformation, Pharaoh gives the Israelites their freedom, but then
changes his mind and sends his army after them and ultimately into the
waters of the Red Sea. Ego will always play this game, particularly if
we make an effort to be proactive. Once again, step back from this
impulse. Be aware that your normal state of being in the physical world
is reactive consciousness. We are always being called upon to play ego's
game. With the ego it is always a lose-lose situation. If we are
concerned with winning, that's ego. If we are concerned with losing,
that's ego too. Using the 72 Names helps us to move beyond the ego's game.

When you commit yourself to proactive behaviour and to the renunciation
of ego games, the technology of the 72 Names is truly within your grasp.
Very simply put, this is the power of mind over matter. This is the
ability to eliminate every kind of chaos, whether in the form of
intangible fears and negative emotions, or the all-too-tangible
challenges of cancer and other serious illnesses. Consciousness is the
power that underlies every action and event in the material world.
Whether it is the simple act of raising your arm or the spontaneous
healing of life-threatening disease the process begins in consciousness.
The 72 Names of God are the bridge between this power of consciousness
and its manifestation in the physical realm." [(c) 2003 Kabbalist Rav
Yehuda Berg, 'The 72 Names of God -- Technology for the Soul (tm)' p xiii]

One who rebukes his fellow should not (at the start) speak with him so
harshly that he shames him, as it is stated, '[You shall surely rebuke
your fellow] and you shall not bear upon him a sin' (Leviticus 19:17).
So [too] did the Sages say, 'I might think you must rebuke him [while]
his face is turning colors, [the verse] comes to teach us, 'and you
shall not bear upon him a sin' (Talmud Erchin 16b). From here [we see]
that it is forbidden to shame a Jew, all the more so in public.

"Even though one who shames his fellow does not receive lashes, it is a
terrible sin. So did the Sages say, 'One who shames (lit., 'makes
white') the face of his fellow... has no share in the World to Come'
(Pirkei Avos 3:15). Therefore, one must be careful in this matter --
that he not embarrass his fellow publicly, whether a small or great
[person]. And he should not call him a name which shames him, nor should
he speak before him about a matter which embarrasses him.

"When does all of this apply? In matters between a person and his
fellow. But in matters of heaven if he did not repent [after you rebuked
him] privately, we shame him publicly, we publicize his sin, we execrate
him to his face, and we disgrace and curse him until he returns to the
better -- as did all the Prophets to Israel." [(c) 2009 By Rabbi Dovid
Rosenfeld, Crying Out, Project Genesis 2009.8.10]

Randy ® wrote:
> On Sun, 11/01/09, at 11:33:46PM,
> In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I find it strange that you keep changing the subject. Where did you
>> establish that the Bible is 100% from God? Oh, you just assume it,
>> don't you?
>
>
> Once again, the Satanic sock-puppet continues his attack on the word
of God. "Yea, hath God said" has been the preferred lie of Satan since
the beginning:
>
> Genesis 3:1 KJV
> (1) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God
said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
>
> Meanwhile, homosexuality is an abuse in every way, shape, and form:
>
> a·buse
> 1. to use wrongly or improperly...
> 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way...
> (Dictionary.com)
>
> To abuse something means to use it in a manner for which it was not
designed, or in a harmful or injurious way. Homosexuality, and
promoting the false gospel that unrepentant homosexuals will inherit
eternal life, is clearly abuse.
>
> 1) Homosexuality is an abuse of God's natural design for sexual
relations:
>
> Romans 1:24-27 NASB
> (24) Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to
impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
> (25) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Amen.
> (26) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for
their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
> (27) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function
of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men
committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty of their error.
>
>
> God's word says the natural function God designed is for male/female
sexual desires and relations. Same sex relations are called
"unnatural". Homosexuality, is therefor an abuse of sexual relationships.
>
>
> 2) Homosexuality is an abuse of men's bodies:
>
> The above verses also note that to practice homosexuality is to
"dishonor" one's own body. The consequence is often that the homosexual
receives "in their own person the due penalty of their error". Many
homosexuals die of aids and other illnesses, brought about by their
immoral lifestyle. Homosexuality is clearly a degrading, dishonoring,
and abuse of one's own body.
>
> 3) Homosexuality is an abuse of men's souls:
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB
> (9) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
> (10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
>
> Ephesians 5:3-5 NIV
> (3) But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual
immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are
improper for God's holy people.
> (4) Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking,
which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
> (5) For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy
person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of
Christ and of God.
>
> 1 John 3:7-8 NASB
> (7) Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who
practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
> (8) the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has
sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to
destroy the works of the devil.
>
>
> These passages clearly state that we should not be deceived! No one
who practices unrepentant homosexuality, immorality, or any kind of
impurity, will inherit the kingdom of God!
>
> If someone tries to justify homosexuality, and preaches you can go to
heaven while remaining an unrepentant homosexual, that person is
promoting a gospel that will result in men's eternal damnation! We are
instructed not to be deceived about that, because such people will not
inherit the kingdom of God!
>
> Homosexuality is abuse, because it results in the eternal damnation
of those who refuse to repent and accept Christ's atonement for it.
>
>
> 4) Homosexuality is an abuse of men's faith:
>
> These passages above say not to be "deceived" about the consequences
of homosexuality. To "deceive" means to lead men astray. God did not
design or intend for men to be led astray from the truth. Those who are
deceived about homosexuality, are in danger of failing to inherit the
kingdom of God. "Do not be deceived". No homosexual or immoral person

will inherit the kingdom of God.
>

> Someone who tries to lead men astray from the truth of Scriptures, is
abusing men's faith.
>
> It is indisputable that homosexuality is sexual immorality, and that
failure to repent will result in eternal damnation. Homosexuality, is
therefore an abuse of God's design for sexual relations, men's bodies,
men's souls, and of men's faith in Scripture.
>

ProfQ

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 2:55:42 PM11/6/09

UTTER CRAP!

I

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 3:51:43 PM11/6/09

"ProfQ" <pse...@intelligence.info> wrote:

> Randy � wrote:
> UTTER CRAP!

What else would one expect from Randy � Young EZXCEPT utter crap????!!!

"I LUV ME BIBLE!" by Randy � Young

(Sung to the tune of Donovan Leitch's "I Love My Shirt")

I have me bible that I really luv,
One that I quote so piously.
I even think that it's "God's Word",
That only makes me luv it more.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
Dribble, dribble
Fart fart
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.
I luv me bible, I luv me bible
Me bible is Fundamentally holey.

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 6, 2009, 5:26:46 PM11/6/09

You gave me my best laugh of the day. Thanks :)

"I" <me@home000000000000505> wrote in message
news:4af48c62$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

:
:
:

dolf

unread,

Nov 7, 2009, 2:56:11 AM11/7/09

Paul, an Apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ
and God the Father who raised him from the dead) [Galatians 1:1]--a
former prosecutor, persecutor and murderer of Judaeo-Christians in 60-62
CE says: "...the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among

who also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh,
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature
children of wrath, just as the others.

#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE

#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.

#1 = [the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of
Universal Law}, which contains the law of that will:

7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to
the 'constant sequence of sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day
intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days] +

x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox
Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and] +

as 122J3W1D) = Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + cï¿½ [9(9ï¿½+1)/2]:

vCube Balanced Ternary System distribution: #1 = {0: 1}; #41 = {0: -1,
1: -1, 2: -1, 3: -1, 4: 1}; #81 = (0: 0, 1: 0, 2:0, 3:0, 4:1}

Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 topical years) = Arch (re'shiyth

as 3W1D) + cï¿½ [9(9ï¿½+1)/2]

The "Angel of the presence, who went before the camp of Israel" which is
here described in the Book of Jubilees by association to an

understanding of the 10 Commandments and chronology is further related

to a circular reality as technology and the most sacred Names of God

game. With the ego it is always a lose-lose situation. It we are

concerned with winning, that's ego. If we are concerned with losing,
that's ego too. Using the 72 Names helps us to move beyond the ego's game.

Yehuda Berg, 'The 72 Names of God -- Technology for the Soul (tm)', p xiii]

The point within the circle occurs when radius = 1 and in the Jubilee
year 49J7W, where the circumference = 22/7 commences as #0 (ternary
number) with the new Moon on Wednesday 20 March Equinox and on every 364
x 294 or 365.2425 x 293 days thereafter. The last of 1996 CE as grafting
into the 6D cycle and the determination of an Infinity Loop made in
relation to a rational cosmological understanding intrinsic to God
having given Moses two tablets of stone written with the finger of God.
The point within the circle also plays a role in German Philosopher
Heidegger's (1889ï¿½1976) cogito as the starting point of philosophy and
the pervasiveness of the hermeneutic circle and Aboriginal protests
against the mistreatment of Jews in pre-war Nazi Germany made to the
German consol general in Melbourne on 15 December 1938.

That aboriginal art conception of vast distance, their land and
cosmology demonstrates, if one considers the designation of the year
into seven portions:

ONE: 1, 2, 3
TWO: 0, 3, 6
THREE: 0, 9, 18
FOUR: 0, 27, 54 = Chinese Tetragrammation (Yang, Yin, Zhun) of Number
(Imperial Governance of male - dragon, female (consort) - phoenix: 206
BCE to 220 CE published 2 BCE); cf: [Deuteronomy 4:1-20]
FIVE: 0, 81, 369 = 9(9ï¿½+1)/2 - Organisation of the Myriad of things
SIX: 0, 243, 729 = Appraisals within vCube (9 x 9 x 9)
SEVEN: 0, 729, 2187 = 17 March (Saint Patrick's Day and ipso facto 25
March) + 2 x 'OTH CYCLE of 1092 (6 x 364 = 6D) days as Genesis and
substantiation of Christian identity.

A preservation of a rational natural and common law mind by nomadic
peoples--And that the usage of the latin term Terra Nullus cannot then
be used and understood as claimed in 1770 by Captain James Cook as
meaning that Terra Australis was "land belonging to no one" or
unoccupied land which was subsequent by Letters Patent of 1900 (since
revoked by new Letters Patent of 21 August 1984) as Terra Formus into
the Commonwealth of Australia."

dolf

unread,

Nov 7, 2009, 3:00:40 AM11/7/09

- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/toth9.gif

Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 topical years) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + cï¿½ [9(9ï¿½+1)/2]

The "Angel of the presence, who went before the camp of Israel" which is

v1_0

unread,

Nov 14, 2009, 9:47:31 PM11/14/09

> Okay, smarty, since the WHOLE of the law can be summed up with loving God
> with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, tell me how
> "fornicating" breaks the law.

This is a non-sequitur argument. Fornication does not require love.
Love does not require fornication.

Perhaps you would point to some circumstance where "two people in love
fornicate". Even if this were true - and they are not merely
infatuated, or in lust - there is a precedence in the law. God is
primary - we are instructed to love him with ALL our heart, ALL our
soul, ALL our strength, and ALL our mind. And instructed to love our
neighbor as thyself. Do you see the difference between the two?
(See Matt.22:37-39 as well) Our love to God - and his commandments -
comes first. THEN our love to others and ourself.

An additional point here is that you are admittedly using a summary.
And a summary is just that - it skips over much. In this case, too
much to be used as a "proof". We could summarize further - say "the
WHOLE of the law can be summed up with loving" - and use that to
justify all manner of things. Gluttony, for example ("how can love
of food be wrong"), etc.

-V

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 15, 2009, 9:32:17 AM11/15/09

"v1_0" <v1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fa1fda5-c564-4a32...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
:
: > Okay, smarty, since the WHOLE of the law can be summed up with loving

God
: > with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, tell me how
: > "fornicating" breaks the law.
:
: This is a non-sequitur argument. Fornication does not require love.
: Love does not require fornication.

Are you stoopid or something? The WHOLE of the law is Love God with all
your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Tell me how "fornicating"
breaks that "golden rule" law.

You don't have the answer. That's why you come up with this sort of reply.
:
: Perhaps you would point to some circumstance where "two people in love

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist

unread,

Nov 15, 2009, 2:48:18 PM11/15/09

> "v1_0" <v1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fa1fda5-c564-4a32...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : > Okay, smarty, since the WHOLE of the law can be summed up with loving
> : God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, tell me
> how
> : > "fornicating" breaks the law.

Because God has forbidden it, so it is immoral and sinful to fornicate,
therefore any who love God with all their heart will obey His command and
will not fornicate. Thus both hetros and homosexuals must not fornicate if
they profess to love God.
__
Veff...

--
Disclaimer:
I am no man's personal enemy in merely secular matters.
But when they approach me on the premises of the Truth, then they are either
my friends or my foes, and I am theirs.
I am their friends for the Truth's and the Gospels sake, or I am their foe
for the Truth's sake.
Indeed, the most dangerous enemies to Christ are those who pretend to be his
friends,
but are not faithful to his doctrine or the doctrine of his ordained
Apostles.

Michael James

unread,

Nov 15, 2009, 6:21:25 PM11/15/09

On Nov 15, 2:48 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "v1_0" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Still beating the same drum that you have for the past five years and
quoting the same text (which is iinaccurately translated) and you
pretend you are not obsessed.

You never talk about anything else

Why not quote something from the Gospels for a change...although that
is really unlikely since you and not a Christian but a Paulian.

BTW Paul was an ordinary human being and could be in error.
Better put your trust in Jesus and his teachings and focus on them for
the rest of your life.

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 7:59:50 AM11/16/09

"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com>

wrote in message news:7mb47vF...@mid.individual.net...
:> "v1_0" <v1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

: >
news:3fa1fda5-c564-4a32...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
: > :
: > : > Okay, smarty, since the WHOLE of the law can be summed up with
loving
: > : God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, tell
me
: > how
: > : > "fornicating" breaks the law.
:
: Because God has forbidden it, so it is immoral and sinful to fornicate,
: therefore any who love God with all their heart will obey His command and
: will not fornicate. Thus both hetros and homosexuals must not fornicate if
: they profess to love God.

Try another crap sandwich. This is an act from one person to another, not
to God. The 3 laws was love God, don't have other gods, remember the
Sabbath. DUH The others were for mankind.... how we treat one another.
DUH

Now try again, Veff!

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 8:00:31 AM11/16/09

"Michael James" <michae...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cffffd16-d254-4093...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Thank you. Jeff is the MOST obsessed with homosexuals than any other Fundie
I know on the net who posts at newsgroups!

v1_0

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 8:49:24 AM11/16/09

> Are you stoopid or something? The WHOLE of the law is Love God with all
> your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Tell me how "fornicating"
> breaks that "golden rule" law.
>
> You don't have the answer. That's why you come up with this sort of reply.

On the chance that you really don't understand my answer, I will spell
things out.

If you read the verses that the summary refers to (Mark 12:28-34;
Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 10:25-28) you will see that there is an order
of things given. First comes the love of God with your whole.
Second comes love your neighbor as yourself.

Being that there is an order, it must be understood that if there ever
is a conflict - between loving your neighor, and loving God - then
loving God must come first.

We also know that part of loving God is to keep his commandments. (1
John 5:2-3). Since this is true, we can expand things out a bit: The
Whole of the law is Love God and keep his commandments with all of
your heart, and second love your neighbor as yourself.

So, loving your neighbor (2nd level) cannot take precidence over
breaking the commandment of not fornicating with them (1st level).

At any rate, it is moot because we are told that fornication is a sin
against our own bodies (1 Cor 6:18). And instructed to flee it..

In this case, the golden rule would mandiate against fornication -
because, out of love, the one neighbor should help the other to flee
from it.

But that's not all. We are also told that fornication "joins" one to
the other (1 Cor 15-17).

Again, the golden rule would prevent fornication: so as to prevent the
one neighbor from being joined to the other neighbor's sin!

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 9:10:48 AM11/16/09

On Nov 15, 11:48 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "v1_0" <v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:3fa1fda5-c564-4a32...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> > :
> > : > Okay, smarty, since the WHOLE of the law can be summed up with loving
> > : God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, tell me
> > how
> > : > "fornicating" breaks the law.
>
> Because God has forbidden it, so it is immoral and sinful to fornicate,
> therefore any who love God with all their heart will obey His command and
> will not fornicate.

Do you have proof God has forbidden it? Let me guess - you can only
quote books that you ~believe~ are from God.

A woman having sex with a man who does not ~own~ her is a sin.
Just like it would be a sin for a man to not take his brother's widow
as his wife (no matter how many other wives he has) and try to get her
pregnant - right?
A man who rapes a woman (in the field) should be punished by paying a
fine to her ~father~ and being forced to marry her - right?

It's so perfect. It's so flawless. These rules remind you of a
sunset (made by God) rather than a traffic jam (made by men).

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 10:14:27 AM11/16/09

On Mon, 11/16/09, at 8:10:48AM,

In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Do you have proof God has forbidden it?

"Yea, hath God said?" (Satan)

1) Because they hate having their evil exposed

John 3:20 NIV
(20) Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come
into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

2) Because they are "natural" men, not spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14 NASB
(14) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Because they are "hostile toward God"

Romans 8:5-8 NASB
(5) For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on
the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the
Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
(6) For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on
the Spirit is life and peace,
(7) because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for
it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even
able to do so,
(8) and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

4) Because they are blinded by Satan

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NIV
(3) And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who
are perishing.
(4) The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so
that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God.

5) Because they are under Satan's control

Romans 10:17 KJ2000
(17) So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Genesis 3:1 NIV
(1) Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals
the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say,
'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

1 John 5:19 NIV
(19) We know that we are children of God, and that the whole
world is under the control of the evil one.

Satan knows that faith in God comes through hearing God's word.
From the beginning, he has been attacking God's word. The first
step in leading men astray from God, and into a path of eternal
ruin, is to promote doubt about what God has said. "Did God
really say...?", is the lie by which Satan has been opposing God,
and leading men to hell since the beginning. It is to be
expected that Satan will constantly attack, try to undermine, and
promote doubt about what God has said, and natural, unregenerate
men lie under his power, doing his will (1 John 5:19).

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 10:24:53 AM11/16/09

On Nov 16, 5:49 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you stoopid or something? The WHOLE of the law is Love God with all
> > your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Tell me how "fornicating"
> > breaks that "golden rule" law.
>
> > You don't have the answer. That's why you come up with this sort of reply.
>
> On the chance that you really don't understand my answer, I will spell
> things out.
>
> If you read the verses that the summary refers to (Mark 12:28-34;
> Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 10:25-28) you will see that there is an order
> of things given. First comes the love of God with your whole.
> Second comes love your neighbor as yourself.
>
> Being that there is an order, it must be understood that if there ever
> is a conflict - between loving your neighor, and loving God - then
> loving God must come first.
>
> We also know that part of loving God is to keep his commandments. (1
> John 5:2-3). Since this is true, we can expand things out a bit: The
> Whole of the law is Love God and keep his commandments with all of
> your heart, and second love your neighbor as yourself.

You have just reversed the saying attributed to Jesus. According to
the gospel, Jesus tossed out all those commandments by giving us his
version of the Golden Rule. Now you turn the Golden Rule into
following the commandments Jesus tossed out. But the gospels paint
Jesus as condemning the rule makers - the hypocrites and brood of
vipers. But along comes another anonymous writer and that is undone.

> So, loving your neighbor (2nd level) cannot take precidence over
> breaking the commandment of not fornicating with them (1st level).

And we know that must be God's command because men told us so. Men
would never lie or spread false information, especially not about God
telling us to do or not do something.

> At any rate, it is moot because we are told that fornication is a sin
> against our own bodies (1 Cor 6:18). And instructed to flee it..

By Paul. So Paul gets to decide what God's opinion is?

> In this case, the golden rule would mandiate against fornication -
> because, out of love, the one neighbor should help the other to flee
> from it.

Based on the assumptions you mention above about what various men tell
us about God.

> But that's not all. We are also told that fornication "joins" one to
> the other (1 Cor 15-17).

Where God cites the book of Genesis? If 1 Cor is such an authority
then why does it cite another source?

> Again, the golden rule would prevent fornication: so as to prevent the
> one neighbor from being joined to the other neighbor's sin!

The Golden Rule might have something to say about fornication but you
go in the wrong direction. Instead try looking at what is best for a
potential baby.

Jude Alexander

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 10:43:50 AM11/16/09

"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:CcWdnT2ri9rM8ZzW...@giganews.com...
: On Mon, 11/16/09, at 8:10:48AM,

: In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Do you have proof God has forbidden it?

:
You avoid answering why it "fornicating" is a sin! You just like to
condemn! It's is your "forte!"

WHY IS FORNICATING A SIN?

It has to be classified as a act against another person given that the whole
of the law (as it applies person to person) is to do to others as you would
have them do to you!

You're so saturated with religious ignorance, you STINK!

Here's the answer, IDIOT! Because it was an offense against the father of
the woman who fornicated because he couldn't get his $!!!

The offense of "fornication" was all about the woman being the PROPERTY of
another men from birth to death, from father to husband!

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 4:04:40 PM11/16/09

"Michael James" <michae...@videotron.ca> wrote in message

>BTW Paul was an ordinary human being and could be in error.

Not so, he was personally called by God and Christ and he conversed with him
a number of times throughout his Christian life, thus all of Paul's writings
have been endorsed both by God and the Lord Jesus.

As Paul told the wise....."37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord." 1 Cor 14:36-37 (KJV)
So how "Spiritual" are you today, Michael?
__
Veff...
--
Disclaimer:

I am no man's personal enemy in merely secular matters.
But when they approach me on the premises of the Truth, then they are either
my friends or my foes, and I am theirs.

I am their friends for the Truth's sake, or I am their foe for the Truth's

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 4:08:52 PM11/16/09

On Nov 16, 7:14 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11/16/09, at 8:10:48AM,

> In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you have proof God has forbidden it?
>
> "Yea, hath God said?" (Satan)

Then give Mark T. your home and your car. He has asked for them. The
Bible tells you to give them to whoever asks. Prove you believe
~through your actions~ or admit it's not what you claim it is.

::: Jesus is LORD :::

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 4:34:53 PM11/16/09

Randy � pulpi...@gmail.com wrote in
CcWdnT2ri9rM8ZzW...@giganews.com

Correct!

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 4:53:12 PM11/16/09

On Nov 16, 1:04 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Michael James" <michaelrja...@videotron.ca> wrote in message

> >BTW Paul was an ordinary human being and could be in error.
>
> Not so, he was personally called by God and Christ and he conversed with him
> a number of times throughout his Christian life, thus all of Paul's writings
> have been endorsed both by God and the Lord Jesus.
>
> As Paul told the wise....."37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or
> spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
> commandments of the Lord." 1 Cor 14:36-37 (KJV)

We know these things about Paul must be true because ~Paul claims~
they are true.

Just like when Joseph Smith claims to have received a divine
revelation then it must be true as are everything Joseph Smith
claimed. The same can be said for Jim Jones, David Koresh and
everyone else who has ever claimed that they received a message from
on high. If they claim it then it must be true. For a human being
could never lie or make false claims about receiving a divine message.

That way is madness.

I

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 4:59:43 PM11/16/09

"In My Fathers House" wrote:

> Randy young wrote:
>> "Yea, hath God said?" (Satan)
>
> Then give Mark T. your home and your car. He has asked for them.
> The Bible tells you to give them to whoever asks. Prove you believe
> ~through your actions~ or admit it's not what you claim it is.

Yep!

JESUS COMMANDED IN "GOD'S WORD" at Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh
thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

I have REPEATEDLY asked Randy Young for his house and car and to borrow his
most prized possession. He has refused to do so by REINTERPRETING what
Jesus commands and what the Bible irrefutably teaches.

RANDY YOUNG DOESN'T FOLLOW "GOD'S WORD" OR JESUS' COMMAND.

RANDY YOUNG IS A HYPOCITE.

Michael James

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 5:13:39 PM11/16/09

On Nov 16, 4:04 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Michael James" <michaelrja...@videotron.ca> wrote in message

more and more everyday, and I don't follow your way as I don't follow
any man alive now or 2000 years ago, but only Christ who is the only
one who is perfect and worthy to be followed.
Every one else including your hero is not perfect and can be in error
no matter his inner experience, which anyone can have and consequently
have a clue about that which he was saying.
If you dont have the same type of experience then you can not possibly
understandwhat he was saying.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 9:03:41 PM11/16/09

On Nov 16, 10:24 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:49 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > We also know that part of loving God is to keep his commandments. (1
> > John 5:2-3). Since this is true, we can expand things out a bit: The
> > Whole of the law is Love God and keep his commandments with all of
> > your heart, and second love your neighbor as yourself.
>
> You have just reversed the saying attributed to Jesus. According to
> the gospel, Jesus tossed out all those commandments by giving us his
> version of the Golden Rule.

Matthew 5:17-19 clearly states what Jesus came to do in that regard.
In his own words - that is, if you believe that the record is
accurate. I gather you do not accept parts of it - perhaps just Pauls
writings?

We see several places where Jesus seemingly *strengthens* several of
the commandments, such as in Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-28.

> Now you turn the Golden Rule into
> following the commandments Jesus tossed out. But the gospels paint
> Jesus as condemning the rule makers - the hypocrites and brood of
> vipers. But along comes another anonymous writer and that is undone.

Jesus does condemn them, but perhaps not for the reasons that you
believe. Matthew chapter 23, for example, is a strong
condemnation. And yet, Jesus instructs the people to follow the law
(Matthew 23:3 "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do" ) If you have verses that you wish to share, I am
interested in seeing Jesus condemn the rule makers for *following the
given law* but not for adding their own things to it.

Anyway, you are creating an inconsistant God with your false delema.
I reject the choice that you present - EITHER the law OR the Golden
Rule. It is both - reading Matthew 22:37-40, the key is verse 40.
To rephrase a bit, the law and the prophets hang on the Golden Rule.
In short, they must be compatable if the one hangs from the other.

>
> > So, loving your neighbor (2nd level) cannot take precidence over
> > breaking the commandment of not fornicating with them (1st level).
>
> And we know that must be God's command because men told us so. Men
> would never lie or spread false information, especially not about God
> telling us to do or not do something.
>
> > At any rate, it is moot because we are told that fornication is a sin
> > against our own bodies (1 Cor 6:18). And instructed to flee it..
>
> By Paul. So Paul gets to decide what God's opinion is?

First, there are other statements on fornication (Revelations, Matthew
15:19/Mark 7:21, Jude, Ezekiel,..) Paul's statment agrees with
those, at leastwise that it is a sin.

Second, you could pretty much say this about any book of the Bible -
for instance, "So, Ezekiel gets to decide what God's opinion is"...
etc. After all, the Bible doesn't have an internal checksum - a self
verification - that says "this is in, this is out". No table of
contents, the books do not reference each other very often (in fact,
some references are missing)..
My question to you is, what reason do you have to accept any part of
the Bible as being the word of God? How have you determined "what is
in" and "what is out"? This is an important question.

>
> > In this case, the golden rule would mandiate against fornication -
> > because, out of love, the one neighbor should help the other to flee
> > from it.
>
> Based on the assumptions you mention above about what various men tell
> us about God.

Well, one of those who was telling us that fornication is a Sin was
Jesus. Matthew 15:19-20 -

19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen
hands defileth not a man.

Note that fornication is included in the group of things that defile a
man...

>
> > But that's not all. We are also told that fornication "joins" one to
> > the other (1 Cor 15-17).
>
> Where God cites the book of Genesis? If 1 Cor is such an authority
> then why does it cite another source?

I believe that Jesus himself quoted scripture.

>
> > Again, the golden rule would prevent fornication: so as to prevent the
> > one neighbor from being joined to the other neighbor's sin!
>
> The Golden Rule might have something to say about fornication but you
> go in the wrong direction. Instead try looking at what is best for a
> potential baby

Are you somehow driving towards the ends justifying the means?

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 11:07:27 PM11/16/09

On Nov 16, 6:03 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:24 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 5:49 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > We also know that part of loving God is to keep his commandments. (1
> > > John 5:2-3). Since this is true, we can expand things out a bit: The
> > > Whole of the law is Love God and keep his commandments with all of
> > > your heart, and second love your neighbor as yourself.
>
> > You have just reversed the saying attributed to Jesus. According to
> > the gospel, Jesus tossed out all those commandments by giving us his
> > version of the Golden Rule.
>
> Matthew 5:17-19 clearly states what Jesus came to do in that regard.

Yes, the Bible is inconsistent on that point.

> In his own words - that is, if you believe that the record is
> accurate. I gather you do not accept parts of it - perhaps just Pauls
> writings?

I think some of the things Paul wrote were good, wholesome and
beneficial. Paul is not the only one who wrote things that were not.

> We see several places where Jesus seemingly *strengthens* several of
> the commandments, such as in Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-28.
>
> > Now you turn the Golden Rule into
> > following the commandments Jesus tossed out. But the gospels paint
> > Jesus as condemning the rule makers - the hypocrites and brood of
> > vipers. But along comes another anonymous writer and that is undone.
>
> Jesus does condemn them, but perhaps not for the reasons that you
> believe. Matthew chapter 23, for example, is a strong
> condemnation. And yet, Jesus instructs the people to follow the law
> (Matthew 23:3 "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that
> observe and do" ) If you have verses that you wish to share, I am
> interested in seeing Jesus condemn the rule makers for *following the
> given law* but not for adding their own things to it.

I cannot name a verse that will prove Jesus said anything at all. The
best I can do is demonstrate common themes of an author who wrote
about Jesus. And that is problematic since who knows how many editors
have come along since then to add their two cents.

> Anyway, you are creating an inconsistant God with your false delema.

It's not a false dilemma. Something cannot be simple and complicated
at the same time. We know that there were hundreds of Jewish
religious laws at the time. Some Bible verses describe Jesus
eliminating that to set up a new simpler and higher standard. Now
instead of all the rules with all the loopholes a person is
responsible for their mindset and priorities. But you are quite right
one can cite other parts of the Bible to prove something entirely
different and that is why people have been using the Bible to prove
racism, slavery, genocide and all kinds of other problems over the
centuries.

> I reject the choice that you present - EITHER the law OR the Golden
> Rule.

It's complicated, rigid, filled with loopholes, focuses on the
external and it's also simple, flexible, based on personal priorities/
responsibility, and focuses on the internal - all at the same time.

What you are looking at is different Bible authors who did not agree
with each other. They have passed their disagreement on to us.

> It is both - reading Matthew 22:37-40, the key is verse 40.
> To rephrase a bit, the law and the prophets hang on the Golden Rule.
> In short, they must be compatable if the one hangs from the other.

When a husband felt jealous. He would have a priest feed his wife
muddy water. If the wife became sick this was taken as proof that she
had cheated on her husband. Does this strike you more as a law made
by men or as a law made by God?

I could go down a long list. There are many that don't fit the Golden
Rule.

> > > So, loving your neighbor (2nd level) cannot take precidence over
> > > breaking the commandment of not fornicating with them (1st level).
>
> > And we know that must be God's command because men told us so. Men
> > would never lie or spread false information, especially not about God
> > telling us to do or not do something.
>
> > > At any rate, it is moot because we are told that fornication is a sin
> > > against our own bodies (1 Cor 6:18). And instructed to flee it..
>
> > By Paul. So Paul gets to decide what God's opinion is?
>
> First, there are other statements on fornication (Revelations, Matthew
> 15:19/Mark 7:21, Jude, Ezekiel,..) Paul's statment agrees with
> those, at leastwise that it is a sin.

NIV doesn't mention fornication in Matt 15:19 or Mark 7:21 According
to Strong's in both cases it seems to be the generic Greek word
"porneia". If you are trying to establish that fornication was taboo
in the culture that wrote the Bible that is not disputed. I will be
happy to stipulate that.

> Second, you could pretty much say this about any book of the Bible -
> for instance, "So, Ezekiel gets to decide what God's opinion is"...
> etc.

Yes, that is a major problem.

> After all, the Bible doesn't have an internal checksum - a self
> verification - that says "this is in, this is out". No table of
> contents, the books do not reference each other very often (in fact,
> some references are missing)..
> My question to you is, what reason do you have to accept any part of
> the Bible as being the word of God?

I can think of none.

> How have you determined "what is
> in" and "what is out"? This is an important question.

I can't determine what is in. I find some of the Bible inspirational
but it's been altered so much that we have no way to know which parts
are from God. However if part of the Bible is in conflict with what
God created I think we can safely rule it out. Example: We can
verify that God made earth a bulging sphere. Any word that claims
Earth is flat must come from a human. Another example: we can verify
that Earth and our universe are billions of years old. Any word that
claims Earth is only a few thousand years old must have come from a
human.

Of course this assumes that God doesn't lie, doesn't mess with us,
does not deceive us, along with other assumptions including theism.

> > > In this case, the golden rule would mandiate against fornication -
> > > because, out of love, the one neighbor should help the other to flee
> > > from it.
>
> > Based on the assumptions you mention above about what various men tell
> > us about God.
>
> Well, one of those who was telling us that fornication is a Sin was
> Jesus. Matthew 15:19-20 -
>
> 19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
> fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
> 20: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen
> hands defileth not a man.
>
> Note that fornication is included in the group of things that defile a
> man...

The list changes from one translation to another. As I understand it
in the original Greek this is the generic term "porneia". And we are
back to the other question. Is the meaning of porneia rigid and
focusing on the external or could it be based on the situation and
focus on responsibility/priorities? If we were looking for the human
author's intent then I'm sure it was ridged. However I don't believe
God wants us to think that way. It may be slow but we do make some
progress over time due to our use of our God given minds and I don't
think God would have us throw that away.

> > > But that's not all. We are also told that fornication "joins" one to
> > > the other (1 Cor 15-17).
>
> > Where God cites the book of Genesis? If 1 Cor is such an authority
> > then why does it cite another source?
>
> I believe that Jesus himself quoted scripture.

He certainly does in the stories and that is troubling as well for the
same reason. Perhaps the early gospel writers didn't realize what
Jesus would become hundreds of years later.

> > > Again, the golden rule would prevent fornication: so as to prevent the
> > > one neighbor from being joined to the other neighbor's sin!
>
> > The Golden Rule might have something to say about fornication but you
> > go in the wrong direction. Instead try looking at what is best for a
> > potential baby
>
> Are you somehow driving towards the ends justifying the means?

No. People throw that phrase around a lot so we should save it for a
different topic. What I was driving towards is whether married or not
in order for procreation to follow the Golden Rule it would have to be
in the best interest of the resulting child. That is often not the
case even for married couples.

God bless,

House

v1_0

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 9:00:54 AM11/17/09

Errr... This is getting long, so with your permission I will snip
things out, with the following disclaimer: for those who follow, if
any, please read the thread to understand the discussion so far.

> > How have you determined "what is in" and "what is out"? This is an important question.
>
> I can't determine what is in. I find some of the Bible inspirational
> but it's been altered so much that we have no way to know which parts
> are from God. However if part of the Bible is in conflict with what
> God created I think we can safely rule it out. Example: We can
> verify that God made earth a bulging sphere. Any word that claims
> Earth is flat must come from a human. Another example: we can verify
> that Earth and our universe are billions of years old. Any word that
> claims Earth is only a few thousand years old must have come from a
> human.

Here is the root of our disagreement. As long as this remains, it
will always play a part in any subsequent discussions. It is
certainly a very valid concern.

By what yardstick should we judge what is truly inspired? As humans,
we are limited beings. Our judgment is comprimised, mostly by just
our own desires and emotional patterns. Our love of self makes us
overemphasise our strong points and misview our own weaknesses - at
best case. At worst case, it can be an arrogant pride.

I do not mean to say that it is impossible, nor to engender dispair.
It just means that we have to work hard and to be dilligent in
reducing our own self-generated "noise". It also means that we have
to learn to trust others, and to really trust God.

It seems inefficent to me that God would expend effort in
communicating to us, and then allow that communication to become
unusable. And one way that the communication would become unusable
would be to mix in unreliable information. The best that I have
heard this described is as follows:

A drop of wine placed into a cup of sewage yields a cup of sewage.
A drop of sewage placed into a cup of wine yields - a cup of sewage.

I, for my part, believe that the Bible is entirely inspired. I have
three reasons for this, two I will share with you and one that is
personal:
My first reason, you have already seen - I believe that a God that
expends the effort to communicate with us, and that knows our
limitations, would engineer things so that the communication would
remain usable. The most reliable method would be to provide guidence,
such as through the Holy Spirit.
My second reason is that the bible, especially the new testament, has
the continouous testamony of a fairly large group of people - called
the church. Again, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

It is true, that we could all be individually provided with
guidence. However, then there would be no need for us to rely on
others, to search for things ourselves - to excercise our own reason
and to learn judgement and discernment. And to learn humility, which
is an excellent way of quieting ourselves.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 9:53:28 AM11/17/09

On Nov 17, 6:00 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Errr... This is getting long, so with your permission I will snip
> things out, with the following disclaimer: for those who follow, if
> any, please read the thread to understand the discussion so far.

You always have the right to snip things you do not want to address.

You say this but you disagree with me regarding the Bible? I do not
understand how you can go this far and then not take the last step to
draw the conclusion. Are you assuming something about the Bible when
it should need to be demonstrated?

> I, for my part, believe that the Bible is entirely inspired.

Is that your starting point? Do you begin with this belief and use
your three reasons in order to believe that your belief system is
solid?

If it's not the starting point the argument takes on a whole different
look:
-A drop of sewage placed into a cup of wine yields - a cup of sewage.
-Edit [insert reference] is sewage that was added to the Bible
-[insert conclusion]
QED

> I have
> three reasons for this, two I will share with you and one that is
> personal:
> My first reason, you have already seen - I believe that a God that
> expends the effort to communicate with us, and that knows our
> limitations, would engineer things so that the communication would
> remain usable. The most reliable method would be to provide guidence,
> such as through the Holy Spirit.
> My second reason is that the bible, especially the new testament, has
> the continouous testamony of a fairly large group of people - called
> the church. Again, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Do you realize that if you had been born in a different part of the
world you would feel the exact same way about a different holy book?
You would have a completely different religion. And you would be just
as convinced that it was the right one. From this we can conclude
that humans are very good at creating religion. How do you know you
were born on the right side of Earth? The kicker is of course do we
even know there is a right side? Believing is not knowing.

> It is true, that we could all be individually provided with
> guidence. However, then there would be no need for us to rely on
> others, to search for things ourselves - to excercise our own reason
> and to learn judgement and discernment. And to learn humility, which
> is an excellent way of quieting ourselves.

I'm for all of those things - relying on others, searching for
ourselves, exercising reason, learning good judgement, learning
discernment, leaning humility, and quieting ourselves.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 1:06:49 PM11/17/09

On Nov 17, 9:53 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 6:00 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Errr... This is getting long, so with your permission I will snip
> > things out, with the following disclaimer: for those who follow, if
> > any, please read the thread to understand the discussion so far.
>
> You always have the right to snip things you do not want to address.
>

I do want to address them, but it would be fruitless - we must first
find some common ground in the way of authority to work forward from
and build from there.

There is at least a bit more that I would need to know before
undertaking your demonstrations, again in order to get to a good
starting point.

Do you accept any part of the Bible as being inspired by God, and
credible? If not, I will need to understand what you believe about
God...

>
> > I, for my part, believe that the Bible is entirely inspired.
>
> Is that your starting point? Do you begin with this belief and use
> your three reasons in order to believe that your belief system is
> solid?

I state my assertation first. Then present my reasons. In terms of
logic, it is merely a different form of presenting an argument.
If I had a "chain" of reasoning - statement 1 leads to statement 2
leads to statement 3 .... leads to the conclusion, then I agree, it is
easier to conceptualize in order of the chain. This is more along the
lines of "Statment" then supporting "bullet items". Perhaps I have
spent too much time making business presentations.

>
> If it's not the starting point the argument takes on a whole different
> look:
> -A drop of sewage placed into a cup of wine yields - a cup of sewage.
> -Edit [insert reference] is sewage that was added to the Bible
> -[insert conclusion]
> QED
>
> > I have
> > three reasons for this, two I will share with you and one that is
> > personal:
> > My first reason, you have already seen - I believe that a God that
> > expends the effort to communicate with us, and that knows our
> > limitations, would engineer things so that the communication would
> > remain usable. The most reliable method would be to provide guidence,
> > such as through the Holy Spirit.
> > My second reason is that the bible, especially the new testament, has
> > the continouous testamony of a fairly large group of people - called
> > the church. Again, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Do you realize that if you had been born in a different part of the
> world you would feel the exact same way about a different holy book?
> You would have a completely different religion. And you would be just
> as convinced that it was the right one. From this we can conclude
> that humans are very good at creating religion. How do you know you
> were born on the right side of Earth? The kicker is of course do we
> even know there is a right side? Believing is not knowing.

It would be an entirely different starting point. Would I have
reached the same point as I am now? The only answer to that would
depend on what you believe about God - I believe that I would have
been presented with a choice at some point. Some people do make the
journey, after all. (Yes, in all directions...)

One thing that we can be certain of is that there IS a right side.
That there IS a truth. We can also be pretty sure that we will not
have certain proof, at least not while in this form - as then it would
be knowledge, and not faith (and, there would be no choice). If you
do not agree that there is one set of things that is "true", whatever
they may be, then this is what we should discuss first.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 2:28:45 PM11/17/09

On Nov 17, 10:06 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> I do want to address them, but it would be fruitless - we must first
> find some common ground in the way of authority to work forward from
> and build from there.

Common ground I can understand but why do we need authority?

[...]

> There is at least a bit more that I would need to know before
> undertaking your demonstrations, again in order to get to a good
> starting point.
>
> Do you accept any part of the Bible as being inspired by God, and
> credible? If not, I will need to understand what you believe about
> God...

I believe some passages in the Bible might be inspired by God. But I
have no way to prove they are or even identify which ones. At best I
can only identify what I find to be good, wholesome, inspirational and
so on. On the other hand we can demonstrate that some passages are in
conflict with reality. I think we should consider those to be purely
human in origin. I don't have a list.

> > > I, for my part, believe that the Bible is entirely inspired.
>
> > Is that your starting point? Do you begin with this belief and use
> > your three reasons in order to believe that your belief system is
> > solid?
>
> I state my assertation first. Then present my reasons. In terms of
> logic, it is merely a different form of presenting an argument.
> If I had a "chain" of reasoning - statement 1 leads to statement 2
> leads to statement 3 .... leads to the conclusion, then I agree, it is
> easier to conceptualize in order of the chain. This is more along the
> lines of "Statment" then supporting "bullet items". Perhaps I have
> spent too much time making business presentations.

I don't think the two supporting reasons you provided lead to your
conclusion.

[...]

> > > I have
> > > three reasons for this, two I will share with you and one that is
> > > personal:
> > > My first reason, you have already seen - I believe that a God that
> > > expends the effort to communicate with us, and that knows our
> > > limitations, would engineer things so that the communication would
> > > remain usable. The most reliable method would be to provide guidence,
> > > such as through the Holy Spirit.

This reason rests upon a belief and is conflict with known facts about
the Bible.

> > > My second reason is that the bible, especially the new testament, has
> > > the continouous testamony of a fairly large group of people - called
> > > the church. Again, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

All the people who testify against it or for a different Bible are of
course heretics. Do you see the problem with this?

> > Do you realize that if you had been born in a different part of the
> > world you would feel the exact same way about a different holy book?
> > You would have a completely different religion. And you would be just
> > as convinced that it was the right one. From this we can conclude
> > that humans are very good at creating religion. How do you know you
> > were born on the right side of Earth? The kicker is of course do we
> > even know there is a right side? Believing is not knowing.
>
> It would be an entirely different starting point. Would I have
> reached the same point as I am now? The only answer to that would
> depend on what you believe about God - I believe that I would have
> been presented with a choice at some point. Some people do make the
> journey, after all. (Yes, in all directions...)
>
> One thing that we can be certain of is that there IS a right side.
> That there IS a truth. We can also be pretty sure that we will not
> have certain proof, at least not while in this form - as then it would
> be knowledge, and not faith (and, there would be no choice). If you
> do not agree that there is one set of things that is "true", whatever
> they may be, then this is what we should discuss first.

Yes I believe there is one truth.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 4:52:21 PM11/17/09

On Nov 17, 2:28 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > There is at least a bit more that I would need to know before
> > undertaking your demonstrations, again in order to get to a good
> > starting point.
>
> > Do you accept any part of the Bible as being inspired by God, and
> > credible? If not, I will need to understand what you believe about
> > God...
>
> I believe some passages in the Bible might be inspired by God. But I
> have no way to prove they are or even identify which ones. At best I
> can only identify what I find to be good, wholesome, inspirational and
> so on. On the other hand we can demonstrate that some passages are in
> conflict with reality. I think we should consider those to be purely
> human in origin. I don't have a list.
>

Fair enough. Let us take as common ground that we both believe that
God has communicated to man, at least through inspiration. And that
God is omnipotent, all powerfull, all knowing, etc., has an
intellegence and is a being. (As opposed to an impersonal force of
nature, or karma, ...)

I assert that the communication(s) of God consist of communication to
a specific individual, communication meant for a specific group of
people, and communication meant for people in general.

I also assert that God is issuing these communications for a reason -
that there is a purpose, or affect, that God intends to achieve with
the communication.

Given that God is all knowing, he would easily forsee and avoid any
impedements to his communications. At this point, I would assert
that God's communication will be received, and achieve its purpose as
intended - despite any action of man. I would further assert that
God is totally capable of using exactly those imperfections of man
that would distort his message in a way that actually helps the
message achieve it's goal. But that assertation is not necessary.

Next we should consider the aspect of "duration". At first thought,
it looks as though a message - once the intended affect was achieved -
could be allowed to be distorted or be lost. I assert that even
then, a message would not be allowed to be distorted (but could be
lost) - much like a careful hunter will not take a shot if there is
the possibility that the arrow/bullet goes astray.

If the purpose of one of the messages were to give guidence on the
behavior of a group, then it is logical that the message should exist
- undistorted - for near as long as the group itself. For the third
category of message - to people in general - then the message should
be undistorted for as long as people exist. Otherwise its purpose
is not achived.

So, where does this leave the Bible? If it contains even one of
God's messages, then by this logic that message cannot be distorted in
any way and must be able to achieve its purpose of guiding (a group,
or all people) or be a record of guiding an individual (or group).

I have found that many of the "disconnects" in the Bible that people
present are due to misunderstandings (if the people are genuine,
sometimes they are not). For example, you brought up the "muddy
water" - I believe you reference Numbers, chapter 5. The spirit of
jealousy that you refer to here is the suspicion that the husband has
that his wife has been cheating on him. These verses provide a means
of testing if she has or not. Yes, the testing is a bit arcane to
our standards, but notice that the women is left alive at the end of
the test. I suspect that the alternative, pre this law, could have
been a bit worse. And, it is not "free" in that it costs the husband
something to have this test performed, and also "neither she be taken
with the manner" (ie: late), so this isn't a test that you do on a
whim and there is something that is making you suspicious.

I would say that this is a communication to a group. Here, we see
many of the things we do today - we generally do not decide the matter
on our own (although we can, correctly and incorrectly - just as
then. The husband has the opportunity to forgive.. Stated as "if"
the spirit comes upon him. This law would have been in use in the
case of Joseph and Mary.... We see Joseph resolving things a bit
differently). So, the specifics are a little different - but in
general, we bring our issues/accusations to a third party that somehow
resolves them. And, there is always the option to forgive.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 11:57:45 PM11/17/09

On Nov 17, 1:52 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> Let us take as common ground that we both believe that
> God has communicated to man, at least through inspiration. And that
> God is omnipotent, all powerfull, all knowing, etc., has an
> intellegence and is a being. (As opposed to an impersonal force of
> nature, or karma, ...)

I can't join you in omnipotence/all power. That is my preferred out
for the Problem of Evil.

> I assert that the communication(s) of God consist of communication to
> a specific individual, communication meant for a specific group of
> people, and communication meant for people in general.
>
> I also assert that God is issuing these communications for a reason -
> that there is a purpose, or affect, that God intends to achieve with
> the communication.
>
> Given that God is all knowing, he would easily forsee and avoid any
> impedements to his communications. At this point, I would assert
> that God's communication will be received, and achieve its purpose as
> intended - despite any action of man. I would further assert that
> God is totally capable of using exactly those imperfections of man
> that would distort his message in a way that actually helps the
> message achieve it's goal. But that assertation is not necessary.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that we know the message has been
distorted. You can wish it wasn't so but that doesn't do any good.

> Next we should consider the aspect of "duration". At first thought,
> it looks as though a message - once the intended affect was achieved -
> could be allowed to be distorted or be lost. I assert that even
> then, a message would not be allowed to be distorted (but could be
> lost) - much like a careful hunter will not take a shot if there is
> the possibility that the arrow/bullet goes astray.

I suppose that can't be ruled out. However since we have no originals
we can't know what the original message was intended to do.

> If the purpose of one of the messages were to give guidence on the
> behavior of a group, then it is logical that the message should exist
> - undistorted - for near as long as the group itself. For the third
> category of message - to people in general - then the message should
> be undistorted for as long as people exist. Otherwise its purpose
> is not achived.
>
> So, where does this leave the Bible? If it contains even one of
> God's messages, then by this logic that message cannot be distorted in
> any way and must be able to achieve its purpose of guiding (a group,
> or all people) or be a record of guiding an individual (or group).

Ignoring known facts is not logic.

> I have found that many of the "disconnects" in the Bible that people
> present are due to misunderstandings (if the people are genuine,
> sometimes they are not). For example, you brought up the "muddy
> water" - I believe you reference Numbers, chapter 5.

Yes, starting in verse 11.

> The spirit of
> jealousy that you refer to here is the suspicion that the husband has
> that his wife has been cheating on him. These verses provide a means
> of testing if she has or not. Yes, the testing is a bit arcane to
> our standards, but notice that the women is left alive at the end of
> the test.

It belongs in a Salem Witch Trial. If I ~suspect~ my wife cheated on
me she might be completely innocent. Yet I get to have the priest
poison her anyway. And if the innocent gal survives whatever illness
that hits her she then becomes an outcast. That is a fine reward if
she is completely innocent.

> I suspect that the alternative, pre this law, could have
> been a bit worse. And, it is not "free" in that it costs the husband
> something to have this test performed, and also "neither she be taken
> with the manner" (ie: late), so this isn't a test that you do on a
> whim and there is something that is making you suspicious.

It could be the husband's paranoid delusions which are making him
suspicious. What he has to pay a fee? It's not exactly equal to
having an innocent woman get e-coli and should she survive she becomes
an outcast for life.

Do you think this was the best plan that an all-knowing God could come
up with? It sounds to me like a plan men would dream up.

> I would say that this is a communication to a group. Here, we see
> many of the things we do today - we generally do not decide the matter
> on our own (although we can, correctly and incorrectly - just as
> then. The husband has the opportunity to forgive..

Who is going to forgive all the evil husbands who poisoned innocent
women because they could not trust?

> Stated as "if"
> the spirit comes upon him. This law would have been in use in the
> case of Joseph and Mary.... We see Joseph resolving things a bit
> differently).

Not forcing your wife to drink muck water is a ~bit~ different than
doing so?

> So, the specifics are a little different - but in
> general, we bring our issues/accusations to a third party that somehow
> resolves them. And, there is always the option to forgive.

The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing for poisoning his
wife. That strikes you as a plan invented by the all knowing creator
of the universe - or by men who wanted to keep women in their place?
You just got done telling me that you think God could protect the
Bible from being distorted over all these years but God could not come
up with a better plan on how to handle jealousy than this?

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 6:39:37 AM11/18/09

On Tue, 11/17/09, at 10:57:45PM,

In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I can't join you in omnipotence/all power. That is my preferred out
> for the Problem of Evil.

Get your own Bible, your own "God", and start your own religion,
cult-boy. Quit trying to proselyte Christians from the Bible to
"Reality" by House.

dolf

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 6:52:46 AM11/18/09

Randy ï¿½ <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11/17/09, at 10:57:45PM,
> In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't join you in omnipotence/all power. That is my preferred out
>> for the Problem of Evil.
>
> Get your own Bible, your own "God", and start your own religion,
> cult-boy. Quit trying to proselyte Christians from the Bible to
> "Reality" by House.
>

The days of proof text obsessive compulsive disordered 'christian'
evangelism on the Internet are now numbered. As we can associate STRONGS
numbering to all our computed Categories of Understanding as the basis
for our own religious belief, the typical argumentation of
circumlocution is now rendered ineffectual by our technological
achievement. That offensive dogmas about our not regarding Yahweh and
his son Jesus of Nazareth is rendered a lie--whoever has the father has
the son. The likes of Randy Young ought to do us all a favour, that if
they can't shut their dammed pompous mouth, they ought to think
carefully before they proffer an uninformed opinion again. This chapter
exhibits our achievement with the embedded bible technology.

According to ABC's Stateline (New South Wales) the Labor Party is not
the only political party infected with the disunity virus, even the
Christians are split.

"Our interest is in values ... not in fundamentalist bigotry" said Dr
Gordon Moyes

This week the Dr Gordon Moyes recently expelled with 12 others from the
Reverend Fred Nile's Christian Democrats, announced he'd head up the
Family First Upper House ticket for the 2011 State election.

Doctor Moyes has accused Reverend Fred Nile who has been a fixture in
the Upper House since 1981 of bigotry and allowing the CDP to be
infiltrated by extreme right elements who are now running a hate
campaign against Australian Muslims.

"There is no doubt that it has been effective in getting people, but it
hasn't been Christian. There was some people led by people expelled from
the Liberal Party for their extremist views who basically took over the
running of the CDP and the CDP moved to the extreme ultra right." said
Moyes.

"Family First [by comparison] is not a Christian Party and it doesn't
seek to get all its votes from Christians. In point of fact it is a
family values, middle of the road party. It is conservative in its
nature and it appeals to people of all cultures and faiths. Not just
Christian but who [those] value families. Now in this regard I have
invited representatives from the Muslim community, Jewish community,
[and] from the Latter Day Saints. All of whom are known for their strong
emphasis on family values. To actually join on my State council and they
have been responding very positively."

The Reverend Nile whose current upper house term will end in six years
time, rejects Gordon Moyes charge.

"I've never had attitudes of bigotry," responded Reverend Nile.

So whether its Labor, Christian, [or] Liberals ... there is disunity a
plenty. Still, preferrable to a dictatorship isn't it? [(c) 2009 ABC
Stateline NSW 2009.11.13]

As flippant as this state centric fascist comment may at first seem to
be, academic Peter Van Olsen commenting on the Western Australian police
pursuit of new search powers says, ""You don't have to be a civil
libertarian to oppose giving police the powers to indiscriminately stop
and search people without so much as a reasonable suspicion of
wrongdoing." The newly elected state Liberal MP Peter Abetz (when he
isn't referring to the actions of Adolf Hitler to improve law and order
in fascist Germany) says, "When it comes to the crunch, people prefer to
be safe than to have freedom."

But a large component of safety is protection against an all powerful
state. That is why the term 'reasonable suspicion' is a bedrock of
policing standards [as 'parliamentary privilege' is for democracy]
across the globe." [The Australian 2009.11.17 "Absurd attack on
freedoms", p 7]

Mark [I] Tindall (me@home557): "Fundamentalists never allow you to have
your own opinions and this is a defining characteristic of their evil.
Fundamentalism is not about co-existence but the utter destruction of
the other by whatever means possible. Their biggest weapon in the past
has been censorship. It is much more difficult today to censor other
people's views so they use the Randy Young method of attacking the
individual for supposed flaws."

I have a present example of this, where my internet services were
disrupted and withdrawn by Soul Communications following involvement by
the telecommunications ombudsman just prior to the 24 November 2007
Federal Elections.

Despite telephony being included in Section 51 of the Constitution, I
cannot get a response from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South
Wales about the possibility that this action was the consequence of my
telephone messaging two candidates from the Christian Democrats who
objected to my advice, that if they were going to engage in
anti-homosexual rhetoric as the basis for their religious
fundamentalism, they would need to differentiate such view from fascism.

Here is my correspondence to a recent debt-collector who sought to
recoup the remainder of the terminated contract.

Impact Financial Services (Aust) Pty Ltd
ABN 93 084 120 276
PO BOX Q1015
Queen Victoria Building NSW 1230

Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW
Level 4, 175 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000.

September 27, 2009 .jackNote@zen: 4, row: 5, col: 7, nous: 63 [Super:
#317 / #26 - Ambiguous Reversals, Virtue of Gravity; I-Ching: H3 -
Initial Difficulties; Tetra: 3 - Mired, Ego: #232 / #63 - Origins in
Reversal, Consider Beginnings; I-Ching: H51 - Thunderclap; Tetra: 62 -
Doubt]

I refer to a letter dated 22 September 2009 as purporting to be ï¿½Final
Demandï¿½ for a debt $979.21 owed to Soul Communications Pty Ltd in
relation to client number 2350577.

I have included the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW to whom a complaint
of discrimination in the provision of good and services was made against
Mr. Andrew HIPE as the Compliance Officer for Soul Communications.

Whilst telephony is included within Section 51 of the enabling
legislation to the Australian Constitution of 1901, there has been some
reluctance by the Anti-Discrimination Board to deal fairly, impartially
and expeditiously to that outstanding complaint.

From the statement of account [and initial details of complaint] it is
apparent that a disruption of service occurred as the withdrawal of the
PPP protocol (to which photographs refer) and this was precipitated by
involvement by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. It is alleged
by me that this was a deliberative action as censorship which is related
to my having text messaged two candidates in the November 2007 Federal
Elections who identified with Christian religious identity and were
associated with professional political lobbyists.

That this action was unlawful in being not only a breach of my autonomic
and HAN natural and common law rights under the Constitution, but
lacking the pre-requisite good [faith] for any contract to occur and
succeed. Accordingly, when this breach of contract occurred, I formally
advised Soul Communications in writing of my termination of the contract.

Soul Communications has never formerly advised me of any outstanding
account and [the] consequential occurrence of an adverse credit
reference [which] is likely, as in the equivalent circumstance of
Telstra failing to provide a statement of account, to result [in]
further discrimination in the provision of goods and services.
Accordingly the matter ought to be completely addressed.

Furthermore, I advised that an administrative fee of $120 per page of
document would be sought. Accordingly, should the matter not be
addressed by appropriate apology and explanation of those events and
outstanding debt a further fee of $50K will be applied to furnish a copy
of my WWW-page in pursuit of a remedy in a court of law."

Guardian Snow (American Yahwehist): "I am not going to be so arrogant to
think to tell Christians, 'your belief system is wrong'. Rather, I say
to my Christian brother, 'If your belief system works for you, I am
happy for you but I have no desire to share your understanding, so
instead of arguing with me about what you believe, go put your faith
into practice.'"

(ru) dolf: "Snow, what are we to assume of your own religious belief
when you yourself make a distinction of your religious belief from
Christians?"

Guardian Snow (American Yahwehist): "You should take only that which you
find useful and put it into practice in your own life. If you find I
have no value to you then ignore me as most people do. If you find that
I have the occasional bit of wisdom that inspires you to be a better
person, then use it. The only purpose that I post my messages is to help
my fellow man in his walk of life and if I'm not helping--what am I
doing? By extension anything that is not helpful should either be
ignored or discarded as hurtful.

My belief is just that, "my belief" and I do not think to command any
man to take on my belief. I only ask that you treat me with the common
respect of a fellow human being that like you has concerns and worries
about other people. If a religious view doesn't help to make people
better than who they were yesterday, it too needs to be discarded in the
ash heap of history alone with dictators and tyrants."

(ru) dolf: "Thank-you that was very informative. And you do have
excellent oratory and teaching skills. The gematric based algorithm is
still in development, but what I was interested in looking at is the
type of temporal connections which you make to the paradigm--it speaks
well of you."

Guardian Snow (American Yahwehist): "If I have any gift, it is the
ability to listen and parrot back that which I have learned from those
greater then myself. I stand on the shoulders of my all ancestors that
have raised me up to be the individual that I am, which is no different
or special than any other person with the exception that I do listen.

If anything speaks well of me, it is making a friend like you and the
many other beautiful individuals of Elohim's creation while respectfully
attempting to learn what you are trying to demonstrate to me. Is it
possible to simplify this paradigm you are attempting to illustrate to
me? I find your thought patterns too advanced for me to grasp onto and I
apologize for my ignorance but all of these numbers seem abstract to me."

(ru) dolf: I can't simplify the paradigm but basically each portion of
text has a @memeBrain equivalent. These produce categories of
understanding which are progressive (ie. accumulative). Because your
speech is eloquent and fulsome of ideas, these tend to be rather expressive.

For example: You said, "I only ask that you treat me with the common
respect of a fellow human being that like you has concerns and worries
about other people."

.jackNote@zen: 2, row: 6, col: 9, nous: 10 [Date: 2009.11.14, Super:
#414 / #69 - Profound Use, Function of the Mysterious; I-Ching: H34 -
Strength of Greatness; Tetra: 22 - Resistance, Ego: #292 / #10 -
Impossible Advice, What can Be Done?; I-Ching: H30 - Clinging to
Brightness; Tetra: 41 - Response]

@memeBrain [Telos: #9884, Super: #18 - Origin of Ethical Concepts,
Palliation of Vulgarity; I-Ching: H33 - Withdrawal; Tetra: 49 - Flight,
Ego: #2 - Contrast of Terms, Self-Culture; I-Ching: H11 - Peace; Tetra:
16 - Contact]

In this instance they produce categories of understanding which are
common with ideas from the BIBLE referenced by STRONGS number and your
narrative has a lot of temporal connectivity.

As I said privately when I sent you the corrected analysis--basically it
is possible to determine a person's religious character from the algorithm."

This works on the basis that the forming of speech within the human
experience is tied to a reflexive equilibrium, self preservation and
autonomic function: "Death and life are in power of the tongue and he
who loves it will eat of its fruits. He who finds a wife finds a good
thing and receives God's favour." [(c) 1991 The Order of Saint Benedict
Aramaic Targum of Proverbs 18:21-22]

Basically we speak to save face: "And Adam said, "The woman that you
have placed with me, she gave me from the tree and I ate." And the Lord
God said to the woman: "What is this you have done?" And the woman said:
"The serpent (ie. Egyptians [Jeremiah 46:20-22]; Wadjet was the daughter
of Atum, the first god of the Universe who was revered as the goddess of
childbirth, and protector of children, and in later years she became the
protector of kings; The Going Forth of Wadjet was celebrated on December
25 with chants and songs. An annual festival held in the city celebrated
Wadjet on April 21. Other important dates for special worship of her
were June 21 the Summer Solstice, and March 14. She also was assigned
the fifth hour of the fifth day of the moon [Wikipedia 2009:Wadjet])
deceived me and I ate."

Nous: #15
Time: 18:15 hrs
Date: 2009.12.25
Torah: #40 #2 #5 %81 = #47
Dao: Mastering Guiding Discourse, Revealers of Virtue
Tetra: #1 - Centre
I-Ching: H61 - Inner Truth

Latin: Solus {Alone; Eternal God} Alt: Lakbel {Journey in the Circuit of
God} {
1. HELPS IN CONSOLATION AND THOSE WHO WISH TO HAVE CHILDREN
2. MORALS
3. RELIGION & PIETY
4. Smat
} Partial Solar Eclipse 25 December 2000
Eliud {God is my praise}

Nous: #31
Time: 02:00 hrs
Date: 2009.4.21
Torah: #10 #200 #400 %81 = #43
Dao: Military Stratagem, Quelling War
Tetra: #51 - Constancy
I-Ching: H32 - Endurance

Latin: Spes {God who punishes the wicked} Alt: Saitel {Roaming of God} {
1. PROTECTS AGAINST UNJUST ATTACKS, CONFOUNDING ONE'S ENEMIES
2. PROPAGATES LIGHT, CIVILISATION & LIBERTY
3. PEACE, JUSTICE, SCIENCES & THE ARTS
4. Hepe
Solar Eclipse 4 December 2002 + 28 years}
Amminadab {My people is liberal}

Nous: #42
Time:
Date: 2009.6.21
Torah: #300 #1 #5 %81 = #63
Dao: Generating Things, Reason's Modifications
Tetra: #52 - Measure
I-Ching: H60 - Restraint

Latin: Salus {God who heals the ill} Alt: Alamyah {Vigor of God} {
1. PROTECTS AGAINST FIRE RUIN & COLLAPSE
2. HEALTH & LONGEVITY
3. PRUDENCE
4. Sithacer
Solar Eclipse 21 June 2001}
Nahshon {That foretells; that conjectures}

Nous: #35
Time: 23:35 hrs
Date: 2009.3.14
Torah: #5 #10 #10 %81 = #25
Dao: Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence
Tetra: #19 - Following
I-Ching: H17 - Allegiance

Latin: Magnificus {God master of the Universe} Alt: Ashalyah {Labor on
Errors in God} {
1. CONFOUNDS THE EVIL & GRANTS RELEASE FROM ENEMIES
2. GIVES VICTORY
3. IRON, WEAPONS, SOLDIERS & MILITARY GENIUS
4. Ptibiou
}
#2000 CE

And the Lord God said to the serpent, "...I will put enmity between you
and the woman and between your sons and her sons. And it will come about
that when her sons observe the Law and do the commandments they will aim
at you and smite you on your head and kill you. But when they forsake
the commandments of the Law you will aim and bite him on his heel and
make him ill. For her sons, however, there will be a remedy, but for
you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make
appeasement in the end, in the day of King Messiah." [(c) 1992 The Order
of Saint Benedict, Aramaic Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis 3:12-13; 15]

The four dates associated with the cobra serpent solar disk goddess
Wadjet, appears thematically similar to the Genesis narrative of the
fall of Adam and Eve as the mother of all the living. Three of these
dates had either a partial or total solar eclipse for the years 2000,
2001, 2002. When I say three dates I'm talking about, in one instance,
the daemon #31 in its multi-dimensional form for 21 April having an
interior mapping to 4 December. Was the Genesis Garden of Eden story
perhaps constructed as a children's story as essentially we might view
our present day Christmas natal/nativity story?

Jude Alexander (Onec...@swampland.net): "Randy, Tell everybody why you
don't fight for slavery?"

Mark [I] Tindall (me@home525): "C'mon, Randy! Tell us all why you DON'T
fight for biblical slavery to be re-instated. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY
in both the Old and New Testament. WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE
LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE SLAVERY IS CONDONED IN "GOD'S
WORD"?????"

Randy ï¿½ [Sody] Barbara (pulpi...@gmail.com): "You're still pretending
to believe in a God called "Yahweh", who has a Son called "Jesus", while
you insist you can't know if anything the Bible says is not an error?"

Mark [I] Tindall (me@home525): "I don't pretend. I DO believe In Yahweh
- the Exclusive One God whom Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to
worship. WHY aren't YOU following JESUS' GREATEST COMMANDMENTS?????"

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist (broadb...@ntlworld.com):
"What's all the trouble here? God approves of slavery and His children
owning them, so what is all the fuss about?"

(ru) dolf: "The whole notion of Torah as the giving of the 10
Commandments was that Israel had sovereignty, in being redeemed and led
out from the house of slavery as the furnace which was the
religious/political system in the land of Egypt. [Exodus 20:2]"

Mark [I] Tindall (me@home124): "You can't know for sure what is NOT an
error in the bible."

Randy ï¿½ [Sody] Barbara (pulpi...@gmail.com): "Based on a source you
insist you can't know what is not an error in? Or are you referring to
some other source that identifies a God called Yahweh, who has a Son
named Jesus? <chuckle>"

In My Father's House (hso...@hotmail.com): "Yes Mark let us know that
he believes in Yahweh years ago. Try to keep up. And yes we do have to
live within the confines of what is. Sure it would be nice if things
were different but they are not. So we do the best we can. However
knowledge dispels faith. If you knew the things you think you know you
would have no faith about them."

Randy ï¿½ [Sody] Barbara (pulpi...@gmail.com): "The dolt attacks the
source by which he knows Christ, insists he can't be sure what is not an
error in that source, then claims to trust the same Christ that source
proclaimed to him? Self-evident, self-contradiction!"

Jude Alexander (Onec...@swampland.net): "Randy, tell us why
Fundamentalist Christians don't stand up for the re-institution of
slavery. It is God commanded, God sanctioned and regulated in the bible!
Please, we're waiting!"

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist (broadb...@ntlworld.com): "I
don't avoid it Jude. {;o;}"

Jude Alexander (Onec...@swampland.net): "Then tell me if slavery is
inherently immoral or not."

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist (broadb...@ntlworld.com): "No!
it is not immoral, before God, neither is it wrong in God's opinion for
His children to own slaves, and that is the only opinion that matters,
but homosexual fornication is, indeed it is an "Abomination" [ Hateful &
Disgusting ] before Almighty God."

Randy ï¿½ [Sody] Barbara (pulpi...@gmail.com): "You're illustrating the
point. You don't believe in a God you heard about from a source you
labor to discredit and undermine every single day. You're frauds."

Jude Alexander (Onec...@swampland.net): "Re-read what you just typed
and apply it to yourself. Many of us have answered your questions, some
of which several times. NOW ANSWER ONE QUESTION: Is slavery inherently
immoral?"

Randy ï¿½ [Sody] Barbara (pulpi...@gmail.com): "Why are you asking that
question? To try and undermine the Bible. You again illustrate the
point. You are a fraud if you claim to believe in a God from a source
you labor to undermine and discredit."

(ru) dolf: "Its actually a misunderstanding of the religious mystery
cults, sacred prostitution and the need to maintain survival of the
autonomic right, given that Judaeo-Christian identity was familiar to
Caesar's household who also embraced the gods of Egypt.

Just as the Christian Gospel was known to the Praetorian Guard, so too
as body guards, they would have been aware of Caesar's homosexual
nepotism: "Now I would have you know, brethren, that the things which
happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the progress of the gospel;
so that my bonds became manifest in Christ throughout the whole
praetorian guard, and to all the rest; and that most of the brethren in
the Lord, being confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to
speak the word of God without fear." [Philippians 1:12-14]

To avoid any possibility of nepotism, the Apostle Paul limits his
bestowal of deified prerogative: "I thank God that I baptized none of
you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were
baptized into my name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas:
besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not
to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the
cross of Christ should be made void." [1 Corinthians 1:14-17 (ASV)]

The notion advanced is one of compliance given to Roman
Imperial/Religious governance--The Apostle Paul has baptized a prominent
Roman Citizen. And yet the preaching of Christ appeared to some Jews to
be "...contrary-APENANTI to the decrees-DOGMA of Caesar {ie. as Pontifex
Maximus being the anthropocentric manifest of Divinity}, saying-LEGO
that there is another-HETEROS king-BASILEIA, one Jesus-IESOUS {He is
saved; Jehovah is salvation; a deliver}." [Acts 17:7]

Repeating oneself is getting tiresome."

Randy ï¿½ [Sody] Barbara (pulpi...@gmail.com): "How do you think daily
persistence in trying to undermine the Bible, somehow fails to advertise
the fact you, Mark, and House are frauds for pretending to believe in or
follow the God of that Bible?"

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist (broadb...@ntlworld.com): "I
don't avoid it Jude. {;o;}"

Jude Alexander (Onec...@swampland.net): "Then tell me if slavery is
inherently immoral or not."

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 8:47:45 AM11/18/09

On Nov 18, 3:39 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11/17/09, at 10:57:45PM,

> In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can't join you in omnipotence/all power. That is my preferred out
> > for the Problem of Evil.
>

> Get your own Bible, your own "God", and start your own religion . . . [8<]

No thank you. I will stick with the one I love. It's too bad that
when you tell people what to do it is meaningless. I find it
interesting how hostile you are when someone questions the Bible
today. But when some mortal men added their own opinion to the Bible
in the distant past to you that is the word of God. You love what
they did even though it should be far more offensive to God. How do
you know that God has not been sending people to fix the lies and that
God's true messengers were getting rejected as heretics? Cuz your
Bibles tells you so! Why should you trust God? You can't hold God in
your hand. You can't read God. When you ask God a question you can't
close your eyes, flip through His pages and randomly put your finger
on a verse. God doesn't have pages.

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 9:53:49 AM11/18/09

On Wed, 11/18/09, at 7:47:45AM,

In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're the one showing your hostility towards the God of the
Bible, liar. You do not believe in the God of the Bible. If
you believe in any God, it is one contrary to the Bible. Now,
quit trying to proselyte and destroy the faith of Christians, and
go start your own cult.

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 10:03:21 AM11/18/09

On Nov 18, 6:53 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:

[8<]
>
> > No thank you. I will stick with the one I love. It's too bad that
> > when you tell people what to do it is meaningless. I find it
> > interesting how hostile you are when someone questions the Bible
> > today. But when some mortal men added their own opinion to the Bible
> > in the distant past to you that is the word of God. You love what
> > they did even though it should be far more offensive to God. How do
> > you know that God has not been sending people to fix the lies and that
> > God's true messengers were getting rejected as heretics? Cuz your
> > Bibles tells you so! Why should you trust God? You can't hold God in
> > your hand. You can't read God. When you ask God a question you can't
> > close your eyes, flip through His pages and randomly put your finger
> > on a verse. God doesn't have pages.
>
> You're the one showing your hostility towards the God of the
> Bible, liar.

How can I be hostile to [undefined]?

> You do not believe in the God of the Bible.

I believe in God. I can't help if you use "God of the Bible" as an
undefined tool in order to accuse others.

> If
> you believe in any God, it is one contrary to the Bible.

The Bible is contrary to the Bible. Don't blame me for that. I
didn't write it and I didn't edit it.

> Now,
> quit trying to proselyte and destroy the faith of Christians . . .

I can't quit something I am not doing.

> . . . and

> go start your own cult.

You know I have no interest in that.

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 10:10:00 AM11/18/09

On Wed, 11/18/09, at 9:03:21AM,

In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > You're the one showing your hostility towards the God of the
>> > Bible, liar.
> How can I be hostile to [undefined]?
>

Liar:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:14:46 -0800 (PST),
In alt.christnet.christianlife,
Article
<5cfb13af-4f84-43b2...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

*****************************************************************
However the Bible does make God out to be a dishonest and
or psycho who is messing with us and cannot be trusted...

If God were really like that then we are doomed anyway.
*****************************************************************

You are not a believer in the God of the Bible you claim makes
God out to be evil. And claiming, "If" there is a God, and "God
(if any)", proves you do _not_ believe in God, or are again a
self contradicting liar. Your self-evident, self-contradicting
lies are puke-worthy.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 10:12:25 AM11/18/09

On Nov 17, 11:57 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 1:52 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Let us take as common ground that we both believe that
> > God has communicated to man, at least through inspiration. And that
> > God is omnipotent, all powerfull, all knowing, etc., has an
> > intellegence and is a being. (As opposed to an impersonal force of
> > nature, or karma, ...)
>
> I can't join you in omnipotence/all power. That is my preferred out
> for the Problem of Evil.

Ahh... Yes, I think I understand that "out" for things.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of consequences of going down this
road, such as "the end game" being unknown even to God, and the
possibility that God would not know the full impact of an action of
his, and it "improves" the powers of Satan and gives him a chance to
"win", among other things. It also does allow us to thwart the
intentions of God, and completely invalidates all of my subsequent
arguments in the previous post.

My "out" is slightly different - God allows evil things to occur, not
because he doesn't have the power to prevent them, but because it is
necessary in order for us to have freedom of choice. (I am
deliberately not using the term "free will", as it may be a commonly
used term for this concept, but is not quite accurate). Without the
freedom to choose, we would be similar to computers - moving along
following our programming. Any "love" that we would display would
not be a genuine love, just the same as if we wrote a programming
script to have the computer print out "I love you" on it's screen.

As people, our perspective - and therefore judgement - of the effects
of evil are limited to our this earthly frame. We do not see the
larger picture. The best analogy I can give on this is that of
pulling out a splinter - yes, there is pain ("evil") but it is brief
in the context of the span of our life, whereas leaving the splinter
in could have worse evil effect. Being that we are dealing with a
God that is all powerful (this is preserved by this schema), even the
effects of the evil can totally be healed afterwards. ("no scar from
the splinter, skin/muscle back to pre-splinter state, memory of the
event present but with no 'power' over us).

[...]

> > The spirit of
> > jealousy that you refer to here is the suspicion that the husband has
> > that his wife has been cheating on him. These verses provide a means
> > of testing if she has or not. Yes, the testing is a bit arcane to
> > our standards, but notice that the women is left alive at the end of
> > the test.
>
> It belongs in a Salem Witch Trial. If I ~suspect~ my wife cheated on
> me she might be completely innocent. Yet I get to have the priest
> poison her anyway. And if the innocent gal survives whatever illness
> that hits her she then becomes an outcast. That is a fine reward if
> she is completely innocent.

> > I suspect that the alternative, pre this law, could have
> > been a bit worse. And, it is not "free" in that it costs the husband
> > something to have this test performed, and also "neither she be taken
> > with the manner" (ie: late), so this isn't a test that you do on a
> > whim and there is something that is making you suspicious.
>
> It could be the husband's paranoid delusions which are making him
> suspicious. What he has to pay a fee? It's not exactly equal to
> having an innocent woman get e-coli and should she survive she becomes
> an outcast for life.
>
> Do you think this was the best plan that an all-knowing God could come
> up with? It sounds to me like a plan men would dream up.

Our current system still has problems with this sort of thing! This
is the classic "he said"/"she said" scenario with no witnesses or
means of verifying one side or the other...

Ahhha! I see the issue now. You are leaving God and faith out of
the equasion here!

If we presume that there is a God and he sent the message, then what
the parties are doing here is putting the judgement into God's hands
(faith). Regardless of the method - it is, actually, pretty dramatic
and I suspect that this is the reason it was setup this way. At any
rate, it is God that would cause the illness or lack of illness -
based on the truth of the matter. Once done, this matter would be
totally resolved (one way or the other). Note that this presumption
does require the participation of God to direct the outcome - but this
is a fairly safe assumption if we accept that these instructions are
from God, as he did tell them to do this after all.

Now, if we presume that God did not send the message, then we do not
need to go further. (If it isn't the work of God it must be the work
of man). There is no need to evaluate the method, as it would just
confirm the presumption we started with.

If we are unsure, then we remain unsure - as there is no (internal)
contradiction, or failure in logic, of the first presumption that
would cause us to exclude it. We cannot use a preference - "does not
work the way we think it should/seems strange/etc" - for that
exclusion.

-V

v1_0

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 10:30:09 AM11/18/09

On Nov 17, 11:57 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 1:52 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

Woah! I almost missed this.... Do you not see the difference between
the two?

In the Salem witch trial, it was man who decided the guilt/innocence
of the accused in court, using man's methods. The proceedings seem
to have been fairly formal (complaint filed before a magistrate, if it
was deemed credible by the magistrate the person was arrested, public
interrogation, if things still looked credible the accused was handed
over to the superior court, then a grand jury). Yet despite all of
this, things worked badly.

In Numbers 5:11+, the matter is placed before God. (Regardless of
what you may think about how this actually works, placing the matter
before God is what the husband intends to do. Unless you believe
that there was some conspiricy between the husband and the priests,
etc.)

Given the choice, I would seriously consider drinking the water...

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 10:38:11 AM11/18/09

On Nov 18, 7:12 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:57 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:52 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Let us take as common ground that we both believe that
> > > God has communicated to man, at least through inspiration. And that
> > > God is omnipotent, all powerfull, all knowing, etc., has an
> > > intellegence and is a being. (As opposed to an impersonal force of
> > > nature, or karma, ...)
>
> > I can't join you in omnipotence/all power. That is my preferred out
> > for the Problem of Evil.
>
> Ahh... Yes, I think I understand that "out" for things.
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of consequences of going down this
> road, such as "the end game" being unknown even to God, and the
> possibility that God would not know the full impact of an action of
> his, and it "improves" the powers of Satan and gives him a chance to
> "win", among other things. It also does allow us to thwart the
> intentions of God, and completely invalidates all of my subsequent
> arguments in the previous post.
>
> My "out" is slightly different - God allows evil things to occur, not
> because he doesn't have the power to prevent them, but because it is
> necessary in order for us to have freedom of choice.

I do not see the difference. God lacks the power to grant freedom of
choice without allowing these other evil things to happen.

> (I am
> deliberately not using the term "free will", as it may be a commonly
> used term for this concept, but is not quite accurate). Without the
> freedom to choose, we would be similar to computers - moving along
> following our programming.

I'm not sure that we are not computers following our programing and
our environment.

> Any "love" that we would display would
> not be a genuine love, just the same as if we wrote a programming
> script to have the computer print out "I love you" on it's screen.
>
> As people, our perspective - and therefore judgement - of the effects
> of evil are limited to our this earthly frame. We do not see the
> larger picture. The best analogy I can give on this is that of
> pulling out a splinter - yes, there is pain ("evil") but it is brief
> in the context of the span of our life, whereas leaving the splinter
> in could have worse evil effect. Being that we are dealing with a
> God that is all powerful (this is preserved by this schema), even the
> effects of the evil can totally be healed afterwards. ("no scar from
> the splinter, skin/muscle back to pre-splinter state, memory of the
> event present but with no 'power' over us).

Except of corse for all the people trapped in the lake of fire where
they will be tortured for all eternity. They get a scar.

In order to see it is from God we must assume it is from God.

> Now, if we presume that God did not send the message, then we do not
> need to go further. (If it isn't the work of God it must be the work
> of man). There is no need to evaluate the method, as it would just
> confirm the presumption we started with.
>
> If we are unsure, then we remain unsure - as there is no (internal)
> contradiction, or failure in logic, of the first presumption that
> would cause us to exclude it. We cannot use a preference - "does not
> work the way we think it should/seems strange/etc" - for that
> exclusion.

Oh I do not agree. Do not presume either. This God who can do
miracles and loves everyone and kills people for working on the
Sabbath can't come up with a better plan than this? There is an
internal contradiction or two there.

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 11:01:36 AM11/18/09

The main difference is that ~you believe~ one was of God and the other
was of men. They are essentially identical. The Salem Witch Trials
were based on the Bible and used methods very similar to the Bible.
If you make the same assumption that God was directing their methods
then you will arrive at the same conclusion for them as for the
Bible. I'm sure those responsible for the Trials prayed and believed
they were putting these matters before God.

I imagine back in ancient Judea given the choice of drinking muck
water that she believed would only harm her if she was not innocent,
and being stoned to death most woman would take the water. However
today we know that germs harm us and cause infection whether we are
innocent or guilty. Do you think germs worked differently back before
people knew about germs?

I

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 5:11:57 PM11/18/09

ASK RANDY YOUNG TO FOLLOW JESUS' COMMAND IN "GOD'S WORD"

Randy Young states that one must follow ALL of "God's Word" including JESUS'
COMMAND.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from

him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

Ask Randy Young to give you something and / or to borrow something he owns.

This is an offer too good to miss. It's better than Santa Claus who never
brings you exactly what you want - except if you're a rich kid.

Suggestions for people to ask of Randy Young to give them:
- his computer (he only uses it to attack Christians so it's not like
anything worthwhile will be disrupted by losing it)
- his bible (also the same as his library)
- his camera (he only takes photos of his foot to post on Twitter
http://twitpic.com/bte3m - 6:29 AM Jul 27th from TwitPic )
- his fast food coupons (from his favourite "restaurants - Maccas, Wendys
etc - Eating icecream at McDonald's.http://twitter.com/faithguard 1:36 PM
May 3rd from mobile web )
- his insulation ("insulated basement" http://twitter.com/faithguard 2:45 PM
Oct 19th from txt )
- his free meals (People from our church have been bringing meals to us
http://twitter.com/faithguard 10:07 PM Aug 6th from web)
- his carpets (Just finished cleaning our carpets.
http://twitter.com/faithguard 5:53 PM May 19th from web

ADD YOUR SUGGESTIONS!!!!

--
"All things are probable. Try to believe. Really! Try to believe even if
it's bloody stupid and irrational. Why? Because I said so, that's why!
Don't ask questions. Just believe." - Mark 17: 1- 3 (MTV)

I

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 5:12:14 PM11/18/09

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 5:19:42 PM11/18/09

On Wed, 11/18/09, at 4:11:57PM,
I <me@home000000000000558> wrote:

1 Corinthians 5:11 NIV
(11) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with
anyone who calls himself a brother but is...a swindler. With such
a man do not even eat.

By trying to swindle believers out of their possessions, Mark
shows why we should not associate with him.

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 5:30:42 PM11/18/09

On Nov 18, 2:19 pm, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> 1 Corinthians 5:11 NIV
> (11) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with
> anyone who calls himself a brother but is...a swindler. With such
> a man do not even eat.
>
> By trying to swindle believers out of their possessions, Mark
> shows why we should not associate with him.

Mark has not tried to swindle anyone. He strait forward asked for
your possessions. There was no con. There was no ruse.

Why do you need to lie?

I

unread,

Nov 18, 2009, 5:32:48 PM11/18/09

"In My Fathers House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am only asking Randy Young to FOLLOW JESUS' COMMAND in "GOD'S WORD"

Randy Young states that one must follow ALL of "God's Word" including JESUS'
COMMAND.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."

Ask Randy Young to give you something and / or to borrow something he owns.

This is an offer too good to miss. It's better than Santa Claus who never
brings you exactly what you want - except if you're a rich kid.

ADD YOUR SUGGESTIONS!!!!

v1_0

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 8:39:38 AM11/19/09

On Nov 18, 10:38 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My "out" is slightly different - God allows evil things to occur, not
> > because he doesn't have the power to prevent them, but because it is
> > necessary in order for us to have freedom of choice.
>
> I do not see the difference. God lacks the power to grant freedom of
> choice without allowing these other evil things to happen.

This is going along the "Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't
move it..." path...

To answer your question, I suppose you can say it that way. Its
similar to a parent giving thier child $1 and telling them to spend it
however they choose. If the child decides to spend it on an ounce of
lead paint, the parent cannot forbid it. They may have the power to
do so, but using it would cause them to reneg on their word - and deny
the right that they gave the child to spend the money how they
choose. [The parent could, of course, convince the child to buy
something else and not deny this right, so long as there is no
coercion involved..]

That is the difference. Evil is a consequence of man's actions/
choices.

>
> > (I am
> > deliberately not using the term "free will", as it may be a commonly
> > used term for this concept, but is not quite accurate). Without the
> > freedom to choose, we would be similar to computers - moving along
> > following our programming.
>
> I'm not sure that we are not computers following our programing and
> our environment.

Well, let me play both ends on this. Seems to me that we act too
inconsistenly to be programmed. However if we are, we seem to have
been given the ability to change (reprogram) ourselves. In either
case, we end up having the ability to choose based on our own,
individual, unique, state of being.

>
> > Any "love" that we would display would
> > not be a genuine love, just the same as if we wrote a programming
> > script to have the computer print out "I love you" on it's screen.
>
> > As people, our perspective - and therefore judgement - of the effects
> > of evil are limited to our this earthly frame. We do not see the
> > larger picture. The best analogy I can give on this is that of
> > pulling out a splinter - yes, there is pain ("evil") but it is brief
> > in the context of the span of our life, whereas leaving the splinter
> > in could have worse evil effect. Being that we are dealing with a
> > God that is all powerful (this is preserved by this schema), even the
> > effects of the evil can totally be healed afterwards. ("no scar from
> > the splinter, skin/muscle back to pre-splinter state, memory of the
> > event present but with no 'power' over us).
>
> Except of corse for all the people trapped in the lake of fire where
> they will be tortured for all eternity. They get a scar.

Self inflicted, to be sure - but that is a differrent discussion.
And no scar is noted in scripture, although a lot of discomfort is
implied.

[...]

>
> > If we presume that there is a God and he sent the message, then what
> > the parties are doing here is putting the judgement into God's hands
> > (faith). Regardless of the method - it is, actually, pretty dramatic
> > and I suspect that this is the reason it was setup this way. At any
> > rate, it is God that would cause the illness or lack of illness -
> > based on the truth of the matter. Once done, this matter would be
> > totally resolved (one way or the other). Note that this presumption
> > does require the participation of God to direct the outcome - but this
> > is a fairly safe assumption if we accept that these instructions are
> > from God, as he did tell them to do this after all.
>
> In order to see it is from God we must assume it is from God.

That was part of the premise for that particular block. I am
gathering from your comment here that you missed what I was trying to
say. I apologize for the reiteration here if you did get it, and I
am not understanding the meaning of your reply.

To restate things:

1. We agree that there is a God.
2. We agree that at least some parts of the the Bible are inspired
by God.
3. We do not agree that God is all powerful - that is a parallel
discussion. At this point, this is not a blocking item and I can
continue.

4. I am calling a set of contiguous verses on the same topic in the
Bible "a message".

Therefore, given a message in the Bible, there are three
possibilities: a) It is a message from God. b) It is man made. c

>
> > Now, if we presume that God did not send the message, then we do not
> > need to go further. (If it isn't the work of God it must be the work
> > of man). There is no need to evaluate the method, as it would just
> > confirm the presumption we started with.
>
> > If we are unsure, then we remain unsure - as there is no (internal)
> > contradiction, or failure in logic, of the first presumption that
> > would cause us to exclude it. We cannot use a preference - "does not
> > work the way we think it should/seems strange/etc" - for that
> > exclusion.
>
> Oh I do not agree. Do not presume either. This God who can do
> miracles and loves everyone and kills people for working on the
> Sabbath can't come up with a better plan than this? There is an

> internal contradiction or two there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

v1_0

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 9:52:00 AM11/19/09

On Nov 19, 8:39 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Fumbled on the keyboard, and the post got sent before I was ready...
(redface)

> To restate things:
>
> 1. We agree that there is a God.
> 2. We agree that at least some parts of the the Bible are inspired
> by God.
> 3. We do not agree that God is all powerful - that is a parallel
> discussion. At this point, this is not a blocking item and I can
> continue.
>
> 4. I am calling a set of contiguous verses on the same topic in the
> Bible "a message".
>

Therefore, given a message in the Bible, there are three

possibilities in our framework: a) It is a message from God. b) It is
man made. c) It is a joint effort, in that parts of it are man made
and parts are inspired. This are a number of permutations to this,
including God's message being inserted into a construct of man.

Now, what methodology do we use to try to seperate the wheat from the
chaff, so to speak? In your previous posts, it looks to me that you
use 3 methods.

1. Biblical consistency of the message. Is the message consistent
with the rest of the Bible?
2. External consistency of the message. Is the message consistent
with those things we know to be true?
3. It doesn't make sense (to me).

We cannot use method 1 at this time, as we need to make additional
assumptions on the composition of the Bible (ie: what part of the
Bible is God inspired - little, some, half, much, most, all).
Otherwise we are at a point where we are comparing one unknown (the
particular message) to another unknown (the overall theme of the Bible
- composed of a series of messages of unknown origin).

Method 2 would seem valid, at least for those things that we could
know were true - such as the world not being flat. We must also take
into account any use of figurative ("take him under my wing") and
poetic language ("diamond in the sky"). [These examples were pulled
from common language/song]

Method 3 is highly subjective. But, usually there is an underlying
reason as to why it doesn't seem to make sense. Some of these can be
dealt with using logic, but others are more emotional in nature.
This is something that can be evaluated on a case by case basis, but
this is where many 'dead ends' live...

Ok, if you are with me so far we can go back to taking a look at that
particular message in Numbers.

In its simplest form, this is a message about *behaviors*. I do not
see anything that indicates that it is a message about morals, as it
is already understood that adultery is wrong.

What is being communicated is one way - under the law - of resolving a
husband's suspicion. It does not exclude other methods (ie: no
statement such as "you must do this", there is a conditional statement
<"if"> at the begining as well).

>
>
>
> > > Now, if we presume that God did not send the message, then we do not
> > > need to go further. (If it isn't the work of God it must be the work
> > > of man). There is no need to evaluate the method, as it would just
> > > confirm the presumption we started with.
>
> > > If we are unsure, then we remain unsure - as there is no (internal)
> > > contradiction, or failure in logic, of the first presumption that
> > > would cause us to exclude it. We cannot use a preference - "does not
> > > work the way we think it should/seems strange/etc" - for that
> > > exclusion.
>
> > Oh I do not agree. Do not presume either. This God who can do
> > miracles and loves everyone and kills people for working on the
> > Sabbath can't come up with a better plan than this? There is an
> > internal contradiction or two there.

Well, this particular objection is based on a mixture of method 1 and
3 (detailed above). God doing miracles, loving everybody, the rule
about the Sabbath all come from the Bible - which in your framework is
unreliable. You cannot say which of these are man-made and which of
these are God inspired, so you cannot put some or all of them
together.

As for the method - well, I could walk to the store, I could ride a
bicycle to the store, I could drive my car to the store, I could ride
my lawnmower to the store (do not laugh, this happens around here from
time to time), I could ride a horse to the store (if I had one), or I
could take a goat cart to the store (again, if I had one). Just
because one method is "better" that the others doesn't mean that the
others are invalid. Additionally, which method is "better" depends
on what criteria you are using to evaluate things - walking/cycling is
better if I look at things from the perspective of carbon footprint,
or perhaps of being healthy. From the perspective of time and ease,
the car would be better.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 9:56:22 AM11/19/09

On Nov 19, 5:39 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 10:38 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > My "out" is slightly different - God allows evil things to occur, not
> > > because he doesn't have the power to prevent them, but because it is
> > > necessary in order for us to have freedom of choice.
>
> > I do not see the difference. God lacks the power to grant freedom of
> > choice without allowing these other evil things to happen.
>
> This is going along the "Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't
> move it..." path...
>
> To answer your question, I suppose you can say it that way. Its
> similar to a parent giving thier child $1 and telling them to spend it
> however they choose. If the child decides to spend it on an ounce of
> lead paint, the parent cannot forbid it. They may have the power to
> do so, but using it would cause them to reneg on their word - and deny
> the right that they gave the child to spend the money how they
> choose. [The parent could, of course, convince the child to buy
> something else and not deny this right, so long as there is no
> coercion involved..]
>
> That is the difference. Evil is a consequence of man's actions/
> choices.

Actually, it was not a question. Either you think God did evil or you
think God couldn't stop it or you think God didn't know what would
happen. If you can find a valid alternative you will be famous. With
waht you write above God allowed humans to choose all this evil out of
human ignorance, which would is God tricking humans. The alternative
is God does not have the power to allow free choice without all this
evil happening. Pushing the Problem of Evil back into the issue of
choice doesn't solve it. We must wonder if God didn't know something
(Which by the way is the answer of a few Genesis and Exodus writers/
editors) or God couldn't do something (perhaps due to choice being
beyond) or God choose for all this evil to happen because God knew the
consequences of our choices and let us make them anyway. God duping
humans into unleashing all this evil. (which is strongly implied by
whoever wrote the Garden of Eden story - why was there an innocent
looking thing right in the middle of the garden which would unleash
evil beyond the ignorant humans' wildest nightmares?) This amounts to
giving a toddler a live hand grenade with the hope that they make the
~right~ choice. "You be a good boy now and don't pull on this pin.
See this pin? Don't pull it. Don't pull it. <KA_BOOM!!!> Well, he
made the wrong choice. I warned him and he just would not listen"

[....]

> > I'm not sure that we are not computers following our programing and
> > our environment.
>
> Well, let me play both ends on this. Seems to me that we act too
> inconsistenly to be programmed. However if we are, we seem to have
> been given the ability to change (reprogram) ourselves. In either
> case, we end up having the ability to choose based on our own,
> individual, unique, state of being.

We have an entire science devoted to how society shapes the
individual. There are trends in behavior resulting from certain
conditions.

> > > Any "love" that we would display would
> > > not be a genuine love, just the same as if we wrote a programming
> > > script to have the computer print out "I love you" on it's screen.
>
> > > As people, our perspective - and therefore judgement - of the effects
> > > of evil are limited to our this earthly frame. We do not see the
> > > larger picture. The best analogy I can give on this is that of
> > > pulling out a splinter - yes, there is pain ("evil") but it is brief
> > > in the context of the span of our life, whereas leaving the splinter
> > > in could have worse evil effect. Being that we are dealing with a
> > > God that is all powerful (this is preserved by this schema), even the
> > > effects of the evil can totally be healed afterwards. ("no scar from
> > > the splinter, skin/muscle back to pre-splinter state, memory of the
> > > event present but with no 'power' over us).
>
> > Except of corse for all the people trapped in the lake of fire where
> > they will be tortured for all eternity. They get a scar.
>
> Self inflicted, to be sure -

I disagree. They could not figure out which was the right religion
out of hundreds or even thousands of different religious all demanding
attention and making unsupportable claims. The punishment does not
fit.

> . . . but that is a differrent discussion.

We can table it for another time then.

Okay. We are looking for Bible passages which were originally from
God and which have not been corrupted too badly by all the editing.
Yes I do take it on faith that some still exist.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 10:02:34 AM11/19/09

On Nov 18, 11:01 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:30 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given the choice, I would seriously consider drinking the water...
>
> The main difference is that ~you believe~ one was of God and the other
> was of men. They are essentially identical. The Salem Witch Trials
> were based on the Bible and used methods very similar to the Bible.

Not to my reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

> If you make the same assumption that God was directing their methods
> then you will arrive at the same conclusion for them as for the
> Bible. I'm sure those responsible for the Trials prayed and believed
> they were putting these matters before God.
>
> I imagine back in ancient Judea given the choice of drinking muck
> water that she believed would only harm her if she was not innocent,
> and being stoned to death most woman would take the water.

If they were innocent, certainly. No such choice was given at the
witch trials, unless you are thinking of that stone thing - but that
was to force a plea, not as a punishment.

> However
> today we know that germs harm us and cause infection whether we are
> innocent or guilty. Do you think germs worked differently back before
> people knew about germs?

Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!

Do you not think that God, if he wanted to, could remove the germs
from the dust, or make them inactive, or strengthen the body's immune
system so that they were eliminated there?

Your argument against this test is very similar to the following:

1. Take a fish out of water.
2. Put it on land.
3. The fish dies.

4. Now argue that the fish is not a viable organism, as the fish makes
no sense since it dies on land.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 10:50:28 AM11/19/09

On Nov 19, 7:02 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 11:01 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:30 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Given the choice, I would seriously consider drinking the water...
>
> > The main difference is that ~you believe~ one was of God and the other
> > was of men. They are essentially identical. The Salem Witch Trials
> > were based on the Bible and used methods very similar to the Bible.
>
> Not to my reading:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
>
> > If you make the same assumption that God was directing their methods
> > then you will arrive at the same conclusion for them as for the
> > Bible. I'm sure those responsible for the Trials prayed and believed
> > they were putting these matters before God.
>
> > I imagine back in ancient Judea given the choice of drinking muck
> > water that she believed would only harm her if she was not innocent,
> > and being stoned to death most woman would take the water.
>
> If they were innocent, certainly. No such choice was given at the
> witch trials, unless you are thinking of that stone thing - but that
> was to force a plea, not as a punishment.
>
> > However
> > today we know that germs harm us and cause infection whether we are
> > innocent or guilty. Do you think germs worked differently back before
> > people knew about germs?
>
> Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!

It use to be very popular for people to handle rattlesnakes because
they factored God into that equation. It did not go well. There are
many occasions where we think God told us something, we appeal to God,
we do something dangerous and God doesn't stop humans from getting
hurt. It's almost as if God is trying to tell us not to do dangerous
things.

If God were the author of the passage in question then the issue is
will God keep His promise. If God did not author the passage the
issue is will God step in when Humans are being stupid and hurting
each other - even in His name. We can cite many cases where God does
not step in to stop humans from hurting each other. So you are left
assuming the passage is from God or else it does not look good.

> Do you not think that God, if he wanted to, could remove the germs
> from the dust, or make them inactive, or strengthen the body's immune
> system so that they were eliminated there?

Why not just appear and tell the people what happened? God could do
that or send an angel. But we are at the problem of what God wants to
do.

> Your argument against this test is very similar to the following:
>
> 1. Take a fish out of water.
> 2. Put it on land.
> 3. The fish dies.
>
> 4. Now argue that the fish is not a viable organism, as the fish makes
> no sense since it dies on land.
>
> -V

Your point 4 is not quite right.

4. The fish died because it was placed on land rather than because
God failed to save it because God knew it was guilty.

Let's put it another way. Let's say you were wrongly accused of a
crime of murder and could face the death penalty. Now you know you
are innocent but nobody else does. If you had a choice would you
rather have a modern jury trial - or would you let me pray that God
delivers you and then allow me to point a gun at your head and pull
the trigger in order to prove your innocence? God might see that you
are innocent and intervene. God could make the gun misfire. God
could change the path of the bullet. God could turn the bullet into
water. There are many ways God could save you. Would you factor God
into the equation when your life is on the line? My guess it that you
would pray that God grants the jury wisdom to make the right choice
even though you believe that God gave humans freedom of choice. So
God can change the laws of physics but God won't over ride human
choice but you would rather go with a jury trial than trial by (gun)
fire. Am I wrong?

v1_0

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 8:47:45 PM11/19/09

On Nov 19, 10:50 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:02 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!
>
> It use to be very popular for people to handle rattlesnakes because
> they factored God into that equation. It did not go well. There are
> many occasions where we think God told us something, we appeal to God,
> we do something dangerous and God doesn't stop humans from getting
> hurt. It's almost as if God is trying to tell us not to do dangerous
> things.

We *were* talking about the Bible, in which I do not find any
commandment to handle rattlesnakes. Do you have any knowlege of
someone performing something that was in the scriptures - as
instructed - and was hurt by it wrongly?

Anything else, such as "someone heard voices", "had a vision", etc.
that told them to do something from God doesn't have any bearing on
the logic of my argument - as those actions were not derived from
scripture.

By the way, I have heard of a few cases where appeals to God are made,
and miracles occur.

>
> If God were the author of the passage in question then the issue is
> will God keep His promise. If God did not author the passage the
> issue is will God step in when Humans are being stupid and hurting
> each other - even in His name. We can cite many cases where God does
> not step in to stop humans from hurting each other. So you are left
> assuming the passage is from God or else it does not look good.
>
> > Do you not think that God, if he wanted to, could remove the germs
> > from the dust, or make them inactive, or strengthen the body's immune
> > system so that they were eliminated there?
>
> Why not just appear and tell the people what happened? God could do
> that or send an angel. But we are at the problem of what God wants to
> do.

As I have stated before - walking to the store, driving my car to the
store, riding a horse to the store - will all achieve the same
purpose, and are all valid. Just because we think that driving to
the store is better than walking to the store does not mean that
walking will not work. Without knowing all of the selection critera,
we cannot say why one method was chosen over another.

I don't mind guessing though, but it is just that - a guess. There
may be some reasoning behind it, but still, all things told it is
uncertain. My best guess on this is that it was better to Gods
purpose to use human agents, rather than directly or with angels.

>
> > Your argument against this test is very similar to the following:
>
> > 1. Take a fish out of water.
> > 2. Put it on land.
> > 3. The fish dies.
>
> > 4. Now argue that the fish is not a viable organism, as the fish makes
> > no sense since it dies on land.
>
> > -V
>
> Your point 4 is not quite right.
>
> 4. The fish died because it was placed on land rather than because
> God failed to save it because God knew it was guilty.

Uh, the "fish" is the verse. The "water" is the surrounding context
in the Bible.

The point is that the verse describes a method that God has defined
and therefore supports, and removed that support. Of course the verse
won't make any more sense than the fish would survive.

>
> Let's put it another way. Let's say you were wrongly accused of a
> crime of murder and could face the death penalty. Now you know you
> are innocent but nobody else does. If you had a choice would you
> rather have a modern jury trial - or would you let me pray that God
> delivers you and then allow me to point a gun at your head and pull
> the trigger in order to prove your innocence? God might see that you
> are innocent and intervene. God could make the gun misfire. God
> could change the path of the bullet. God could turn the bullet into
> water. There are many ways God could save you. Would you factor God
> into the equation when your life is on the line? My guess it that you
> would pray that God grants the jury wisdom to make the right choice
> even though you believe that God gave humans freedom of choice. So
> God can change the laws of physics but God won't over ride human
> choice but you would rather go with a jury trial than trial by (gun)
> fire. Am I wrong?

Actually, I would assume that God would NOT save me from gunfire, nor
influence the jury, etc. To what end? Maybe extend my life for a
few dozen years - perhaps a little longer - at most?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a death wish, I don't feel "prepared
to die" or anything like that. I would try to stay alive as long as I
could, and I would be overjoyed if God were to intervene. But I know
that it wouldn't be for me - it would be for a purpose of his.

What is 100 years in the "big picture"? Even 130 is insignificant
when stood next to eternity. 1 Cor 15:55.

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 19, 2009, 9:37:18 PM11/19/09

On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:50 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:02 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!
>
> > It use to be very popular for people to handle rattlesnakes because
> > they factored God into that equation. It did not go well. There are
> > many occasions where we think God told us something, we appeal to God,
> > we do something dangerous and God doesn't stop humans from getting
> > hurt. It's almost as if God is trying to tell us not to do dangerous
> > things.
>
> We *were* talking about the Bible, in which I do not find any
> commandment to handle rattlesnakes.

That would be because it was taken out. The book of Mark use to have
a Chapter 16:17-18. You can't find it in a modern Bible because of
the harm it has done plus the fact that it doesn't seem to be present
in the oldest manuscripts. But some of the people who believed it was
the word of God didn't know that.

> Do you have any knowlege of
> someone performing something that was in the scriptures - as
> instructed - and was hurt by it wrongly?

Scriptures said we could drink any deadly poison and not be harmed.
Wouldn't Jonestown (People's Temple Agricultural Project) qualify?

> Anything else, such as "someone heard voices", "had a vision", etc.
> that told them to do something from God doesn't have any bearing on
> the logic of my argument - as those actions were not derived from
> scripture.

Mark 16:
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.

> By the way, I have heard of a few cases where appeals to God are made,
> and miracles occur.

Okay.

> > If God were the author of the passage in question then the issue is
> > will God keep His promise. If God did not author the passage the
> > issue is will God step in when Humans are being stupid and hurting
> > each other - even in His name. We can cite many cases where God does
> > not step in to stop humans from hurting each other. So you are left
> > assuming the passage is from God or else it does not look good.
>
> > > Do you not think that God, if he wanted to, could remove the germs
> > > from the dust, or make them inactive, or strengthen the body's immune
> > > system so that they were eliminated there?
>
> > Why not just appear and tell the people what happened? God could do
> > that or send an angel. But we are at the problem of what God wants to
> > do.
>
> As I have stated before - walking to the store, driving my car to the
> store, riding a horse to the store - will all achieve the same
> purpose, and are all valid. Just because we think that driving to
> the store is better than walking to the store does not mean that
> walking will not work. Without knowing all of the selection critera,
> we cannot say why one method was chosen over another.

? I'm not following you.

If God sends an angel to tell people then it is ~indisputable~ to all
who see the angel that God has spoken. Any charlatan can toss some
dirt into a glass of water and claim that God has spoken. Witch
doctors do this all the time and they seem to fool their customers
quite well. If you are trying to bring up the issue of God's choice
that is not the issue. The problem is that there is no obvious way to
tell the difference between God telling a priest to use witch doctor
type methods and God controlling the results and charlatans claiming
that God told them to do something and then doing something on their
own.

We can look at indirect evidence. By chance was the guy who claims to
be inspired by God to write down this law also the one who is going to
benefit from it? How does this method compare to things God has done
and cons that man has used to fool other men?

> I don't mind guessing though, but it is just that - a guess. There
> may be some reasoning behind it, but still, all things told it is
> uncertain. My best guess on this is that it was better to Gods
> purpose to use human agents, rather than directly or with angels.

You like to remind me about how important God's role was in this.
Have you considered what would happen if the priest cheated? What if
the priest gave one woman a clean glass of water? What if he have a
different woman a glass of sewage? Imagine the opportunity for
bribes.

> > > Your argument against this test is very similar to the following:
>
> > > 1. Take a fish out of water.
> > > 2. Put it on land.
> > > 3. The fish dies.
>
> > > 4. Now argue that the fish is not a viable organism, as the fish makes
> > > no sense since it dies on land.
>
> > > -V
>
> > Your point 4 is not quite right.
>
> > 4. The fish died because it was placed on land rather than because
> > God failed to save it because God knew it was guilty.
>
> Uh, the "fish" is the verse. The "water" is the surrounding context
> in the Bible.

Oh I misunderstood. I thought you were talking directly about my
critique of this test.

> The point is that the verse describes a method that God has defined
> and therefore supports, and removed that support.

These are your conclusions or are they starting assumptions? That
this method is from God is disputed.

> Of course the verse
> won't make any more sense than the fish would survive.

I don't think it is saved by Biblical context.

> > Let's put it another way. Let's say you were wrongly accused of a
> > crime of murder and could face the death penalty. Now you know you
> > are innocent but nobody else does. If you had a choice would you
> > rather have a modern jury trial - or would you let me pray that God
> > delivers you and then allow me to point a gun at your head and pull
> > the trigger in order to prove your innocence? God might see that you
> > are innocent and intervene. God could make the gun misfire. God
> > could change the path of the bullet. God could turn the bullet into
> > water. There are many ways God could save you. Would you factor God
> > into the equation when your life is on the line? My guess it that you
> > would pray that God grants the jury wisdom to make the right choice
> > even though you believe that God gave humans freedom of choice. So
> > God can change the laws of physics but God won't over ride human
> > choice but you would rather go with a jury trial than trial by (gun)
> > fire. Am I wrong?
>
> Actually, I would assume that God would NOT save me from gunfire, nor
> influence the jury, etc. To what end? Maybe extend my life for a
> few dozen years - perhaps a little longer - at most?
> Don't get me wrong, I don't have a death wish, I don't feel "prepared
> to die" or anything like that. I would try to stay alive as long as I
> could, and I would be overjoyed if God were to intervene. But I know
> that it wouldn't be for me - it would be for a purpose of his.
>
> What is 100 years in the "big picture"? Even 130 is insignificant
> when stood next to eternity. 1 Cor 15:55.

Then (rhetorically) why would God save the women forced to drink muck?

God bless,

House

v1_0

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 10:24:48 AM11/20/09

On Nov 19, 9:37 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:50 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 7:02 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!
>
> > > It use to be very popular for people to handle rattlesnakes because
> > > they factored God into that equation. It did not go well. There are
> > > many occasions where we think God told us something, we appeal to God,
> > > we do something dangerous and God doesn't stop humans from getting
> > > hurt. It's almost as if God is trying to tell us not to do dangerous
> > > things.
>
> > We *were* talking about the Bible, in which I do not find any
> > commandment to handle rattlesnakes.
>
> That would be because it was taken out. The book of Mark use to have
> a Chapter 16:17-18. You can't find it in a modern Bible because of
> the harm it has done plus the fact that it doesn't seem to be present
> in the oldest manuscripts. But some of the people who believed it was
> the word of God didn't know that.

I found it in the KJV, just as you quoted it below. These are
indicated as *signs* not as *commands* for us to do. I think that
there is one place - Acts 28:3 - where this does occur. But if you
note, Paul didn't go out to handle the snake to prove his faith. The
problem occurs when people want to "force the hand of God", ie: use
the snake as a test of faith - for their own purposes. (Such as the
Isralites did at Massah, Exodus 17).

The Jelousy Test is different - it does rely on a general faith in
God, but it is not a test to indicate the level of personal faith that
someone has - it is a test of guilt.

>
> > Do you have any knowlege of
> > someone performing something that was in the scriptures - as
> > instructed - and was hurt by it wrongly?
>
> Scriptures said we could drink any deadly poison and not be harmed.
> Wouldn't Jonestown (People's Temple Agricultural Project) qualify?

Quite the opposite! Had the people survived, this would be a powerful
statement on Jim Jones and his People's Temple movement.

>
> > Anything else, such as "someone heard voices", "had a vision", etc.
> > that told them to do something from God doesn't have any bearing on
> > the logic of my argument - as those actions were not derived from
> > scripture.
>
> Mark 16:
> 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
> they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
>
> 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
> shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
> recover.
>
> > By the way, I have heard of a few cases where appeals to God are made,
> > and miracles occur.
>
> Okay.

In case you are interested, here's one that seems to occur yearly.
Yes, yearly! And at a time we can know beforehand, to boot!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire

>
>
>
>
>
> > > If God were the author of the passage in question then the issue is
> > > will God keep His promise. If God did not author the passage the
> > > issue is will God step in when Humans are being stupid and hurting
> > > each other - even in His name. We can cite many cases where God does
> > > not step in to stop humans from hurting each other. So you are left
> > > assuming the passage is from God or else it does not look good.
>
> > > > Do you not think that God, if he wanted to, could remove the germs
> > > > from the dust, or make them inactive, or strengthen the body's immune
> > > > system so that they were eliminated there?
>
> > > Why not just appear and tell the people what happened? God could do
> > > that or send an angel. But we are at the problem of what God wants to
> > > do.
>
> > As I have stated before - walking to the store, driving my car to the
> > store, riding a horse to the store - will all achieve the same
> > purpose, and are all valid. Just because we think that driving to
> > the store is better than walking to the store does not mean that
> > walking will not work. Without knowing all of the selection critera,
> > we cannot say why one method was chosen over another.
>
> ? I'm not following you.

Well, what I am saying is this: just because we would choose to do
something one way doesn't automatically mean that all the other ways
of doing it are wrong.

I am saying this because it seems to me that you are arguing that the
method used in the passage we are discussing is wrong, because there
are better ways (to our reasoning) of doing it...

>
> If God sends an angel to tell people then it is ~indisputable~ to all
> who see the angel that God has spoken.

Actually, this method is more disputable than the one in the
passage. We are told that Satan can appear as an angel! But there
is no place where Satan cures/prevents disease.

> Any charlatan can toss some
> dirt into a glass of water and claim that God has spoken. Witch
> doctors do this all the time and they seem to fool their customers
> quite well. If you are trying to bring up the issue of God's choice
> that is not the issue. The problem is that there is no obvious way to
> tell the difference between God telling a priest to use witch doctor
> type methods and God controlling the results and charlatans claiming
> that God told them to do something and then doing something on their
> own.
>
> We can look at indirect evidence. By chance was the guy who claims to
> be inspired by God to write down this law also the one who is going to
> benefit from it? How does this method compare to things God has done
> and cons that man has used to fool other men?

I don't think that you have the information to do this. One problem
with this is that in our current methodology we cannot accurately
determine what God has done, since this would rely on trusting the
Bible as a source, which we have agreed not to do as part of our
premise.

>
> > I don't mind guessing though, but it is just that - a guess. There
> > may be some reasoning behind it, but still, all things told it is
> > uncertain. My best guess on this is that it was better to Gods
> > purpose to use human agents, rather than directly or with angels.
>
> You like to remind me about how important God's role was in this.
> Have you considered what would happen if the priest cheated? What if
> the priest gave one woman a clean glass of water? What if he have a
> different woman a glass of sewage? Imagine the opportunity for
> bribes.

I do like to remind you about the importance of God's role.
Let me do so again: the things that you mention would not affect the
outcome of the test if we presume that God is involved with it. You
would accept that God could send an angel to appear before everyone
and proclaim the woman's innocence or guilt. Why do you not accept
that God could likewise cause the 'curse' to occur or not occur -
regardless of what condition the water was?

My basic premise is this:
IF the passage is from God, then it is God that will determine the
outcome of the test.
IF the passage is not from God, then the outcome of the test is
uncertain.

Either way, we cannot use the actual test method itself to determine
if the passage is from God or not.

One premise that I do NOT accept is "IF the passage is from God, then
the outcome of the test is uncertain." ie - the outcome is not based
on guilt/innocence, but on randomness, or on bribes, etc.

[...]

Other than he said that he would? (if we accept that it is from him).

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 11:06:28 AM11/20/09

On Nov 20, 7:24 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 9:37 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:50 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 7:02 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!
>
> > > > It use to be very popular for people to handle rattlesnakes because
> > > > they factored God into that equation. It did not go well. There are
> > > > many occasions where we think God told us something, we appeal to God,
> > > > we do something dangerous and God doesn't stop humans from getting
> > > > hurt. It's almost as if God is trying to tell us not to do dangerous
> > > > things.
>
> > > We *were* talking about the Bible, in which I do not find any
> > > commandment to handle rattlesnakes.
>
> > That would be because it was taken out. The book of Mark use to have
> > a Chapter 16:17-18. You can't find it in a modern Bible because of
> > the harm it has done plus the fact that it doesn't seem to be present
> > in the oldest manuscripts. But some of the people who believed it was
> > the word of God didn't know that.
>
> I found it in the KJV, just as you quoted it below. These are
> indicated as *signs* not as *commands* for us to do.

"They shall . . . "

More of a promise in my opinion. However I think it is safe to
conclude that this passage is not from God.

> I think that
> there is one place - Acts 28:3 - where this does occur. But if you
> note, Paul didn't go out to handle the snake to prove his faith. The
> problem occurs when people want to "force the hand of God", ie: use
> the snake as a test of faith - for their own purposes. (Such as the
> Isralites did at Massah, Exodus 17).

If forcing wives to drink muck is also not from God then that would be
forcing God's hand as well.

> The Jelousy Test is different - it does rely on a general faith in
> God, but it is not a test to indicate the level of personal faith that
> someone has - it is a test of guilt.

Maybe we should test guilt by saying a prayer and tossing a coin.
After all God can intervene and control how the coin lands. And God
knows more than any jury ever could. Furthermore we don't need to
wait for criminals to be caught to use the coin flip guilt test. We
can test people at random to see if they are criminals. A result of
heads means innocent and tails means guilty.

> > > Do you have any knowlege of
> > > someone performing something that was in the scriptures - as
> > > instructed - and was hurt by it wrongly?
>
> > Scriptures said we could drink any deadly poison and not be harmed.
> > Wouldn't Jonestown (People's Temple Agricultural Project) qualify?
>
> Quite the opposite! Had the people survived, this would be a powerful
> statement on Jim Jones and his People's Temple movement.

" . . . if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them . . ."

I would advise you to not try this either. I firmly believe this
passage was ~not~ from God.

> > > Anything else, such as "someone heard voices", "had a vision", etc.
> > > that told them to do something from God doesn't have any bearing on
> > > the logic of my argument - as those actions were not derived from
> > > scripture.
>
> > Mark 16:
> > 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
> > they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
>
> > 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
> > shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
> > recover.

[...]

> > > > > Do you not think that God, if he wanted to, could remove the germs
> > > > > from the dust, or make them inactive, or strengthen the body's immune
> > > > > system so that they were eliminated there?
>
> > > > Why not just appear and tell the people what happened? God could do
> > > > that or send an angel. But we are at the problem of what God wants to
> > > > do.
>
> > > As I have stated before - walking to the store, driving my car to the
> > > store, riding a horse to the store - will all achieve the same
> > > purpose, and are all valid. Just because we think that driving to
> > > the store is better than walking to the store does not mean that
> > > walking will not work. Without knowing all of the selection critera,
> > > we cannot say why one method was chosen over another.
>
> > ? I'm not following you.
>
> Well, what I am saying is this: just because we would choose to do
> something one way doesn't automatically mean that all the other ways
> of doing it are wrong.
>
> I am saying this because it seems to me that you are arguing that the
> method used in the passage we are discussing is wrong, because there
> are better ways (to our reasoning) of doing it...

Better in the sense that it would be clear that what was going on was
not the performance of a witch doctor. Any witch doctor can perform
the guild test described in the Bible. I do find it odd that God
would not come up with something better. I can't conclusively prove
that God did not choose to imitate a witch doctor routine. But it
certainly is troubling. And it does strongly suggest that this test
was invented by humans - probably the ones who would benefit the most
from it by being the arbitrator. I wouldn't go so far to call it
proof but Ockham's Razor is against this passage.

> > If God sends an angel to tell people then it is ~indisputable~ to all
> > who see the angel that God has spoken.
>
> Actually, this method is more disputable than the one in the
> passage. We are told that Satan can appear as an angel! But there
> is no place where Satan cures/prevents disease.

If it's not in the Bible then Satan doesn't have that power? Okay if
Satan did the appearing it still would beat the snot out of the witch
doctor style test mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps God lacks the power
to keep Satan from appearing as an angel at the wrong time. Of course
that calls into question the testimony of angles mentioned in the
gospels. You are still left with a priest who can take bribes and
switch clean water for sewage, and a never ending supply of women who
might be willing to stray and are as desperate as a woman can be.

[...]

> I do like to remind you about the importance of God's role.
> Let me do so again: the things that you mention would not affect the
> outcome of the test if we presume that God is involved with it.

But if I were to slip poison into your glass you would die. God would
not save you today but we must trust that God did save all those women
back then.

> You
> would accept that God could send an angel to appear before everyone
> and proclaim the woman's innocence or guilt.

At least we would know something supernatural was going on. With the
guilt test we have no evidence that anything else is going on.

> Why do you not accept
> that God could likewise cause the 'curse' to occur or not occur -
> regardless of what condition the water was?

Oh I do accept the possibility that God can do many things including
this. Why didn't the test simply require the priest to pray a curse
over the woman without poisoning her?

> My basic premise is this:
> IF the passage is from God, then it is God that will determine the
> outcome of the test.
> IF the passage is not from God, then the outcome of the test is
> uncertain.

Oh drinking muck is not uncertain. The result is contamination.

> Either way, we cannot use the actual test method itself to determine

> if the passage is from God or not. [...]

Why is that? It looks like something a witch doctor would do. Later
on God must have changed his mind because looking at a woman with lust
in your heart is the same as adultery. Yet we don't give teenage boys
the muck water test to see if they have been doing the same as
adultery. There are serious contradictions here.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 5:27:58 PM11/20/09

On Nov 20, 11:06 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 7:24 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:37 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 5:47 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 10:50 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 7:02 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Once again you are neglecting to factor God into the equasion!
>
> > > > > It use to be very popular for people to handle rattlesnakes because
> > > > > they factored God into that equation. It did not go well. There are
> > > > > many occasions where we think God told us something, we appeal to God,
> > > > > we do something dangerous and God doesn't stop humans from getting
> > > > > hurt. It's almost as if God is trying to tell us not to do dangerous
> > > > > things.
>
> > > > We *were* talking about the Bible, in which I do not find any
> > > > commandment to handle rattlesnakes.
>
> > > That would be because it was taken out. The book of Mark use to have
> > > a Chapter 16:17-18. You can't find it in a modern Bible because of
> > > the harm it has done plus the fact that it doesn't seem to be present
> > > in the oldest manuscripts. But some of the people who believed it was
> > > the word of God didn't know that.
>
> > I found it in the KJV, just as you quoted it below. These are
> > indicated as *signs* not as *commands* for us to do.
>
> "They shall . . . "

"These signs shall follow them" precedes that, does it not?

>
> More of a promise in my opinion. However I think it is safe to
> conclude that this passage is not from God.

Have you considered what the purpose of a "sign" is?

>
> > I think that
> > there is one place - Acts 28:3 - where this does occur. But if you
> > note, Paul didn't go out to handle the snake to prove his faith. The
> > problem occurs when people want to "force the hand of God", ie: use
> > the snake as a test of faith - for their own purposes. (Such as the
> > Isralites did at Massah, Exodus 17).
>
> If forcing wives to drink muck is also not from God then that would be
> forcing God's hand as well.

Yes, that is true - but I sense that we are on opposite sides of
"If... not from God".

>
> > The Jelousy Test is different - it does rely on a general faith in
> > God, but it is not a test to indicate the level of personal faith that
> > someone has - it is a test of guilt.
>
> Maybe we should test guilt by saying a prayer and tossing a coin.
> After all God can intervene and control how the coin lands. And God
> knows more than any jury ever could. Furthermore we don't need to
> wait for criminals to be caught to use the coin flip guilt test. We
> can test people at random to see if they are criminals. A result of
> heads means innocent and tails means guilty.

Irrelevent to the discussion. This is not what the passage says to
do.

>
> > > > Do you have any knowlege of
> > > > someone performing something that was in the scriptures - as
> > > > instructed - and was hurt by it wrongly?
>
> > > Scriptures said we could drink any deadly poison and not be harmed.
> > > Wouldn't Jonestown (People's Temple Agricultural Project) qualify?
>
> > Quite the opposite! Had the people survived, this would be a powerful
> > statement on Jim Jones and his People's Temple movement.
>
> " . . . if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them . . ."

"These signs shall follow them".

Ok, I'll spell it out: Had the people survived, this would have been a
sign.

Irrelevant: the passage tells you who to go to. And it isn't a witch
doctor.

> I do find it odd that God would not come up with something better.

This is a reoccuring theme. I would repeat the thing about walking/
bicycling/driving to the store again. Without knowing what criteria
was used to come up with the solution, we cannot evaluate the
solution.

> I can't conclusively prove that God did not choose to imitate a witch doctor routine. But it
> certainly is troubling.

Why is it troubling? Seems to me, this was state of the art back in
that day.

> And it does strongly suggest that this test
> was invented by humans - probably the ones who would benefit the most
> from it by being the arbitrator. I wouldn't go so far to call it
> proof but Ockham's Razor is against this passage.

Ockham's Razor, as you know, is applicable for selecting between two
identical explainations to something. I do not think we have that
circumstance here.

>
> > > If God sends an angel to tell people then it is ~indisputable~ to all
> > > who see the angel that God has spoken.
>
> > Actually, this method is more disputable than the one in the
> > passage. We are told that Satan can appear as an angel! But there
> > is no place where Satan cures/prevents disease.
>
> If it's not in the Bible then Satan doesn't have that power?

I did not say that. Please read it carefully. There is only one
thing that we are told.

> Okay if Satan did the appearing it still would beat the snot out of the witch
> doctor style test mentioned in the Bible.

In your opinion. Why not a lightning bolt from the sky? Or a
meteor? Or spontanious human combustion? There are innumerable
ways we could think of, and we are human. But that's the point - we
are human and do not know the critera. So all we are doing is
speculating. And it is moot. Like I have said before, and will
continue to say each time you go down this path - you can walk to the
store, you can drive your car to the store, you can ride a horse to
the store. If I prefer to ride the horse, and you prefer to drive
the car - that does not make my method invalid. Just not preferable
to you.

> Perhaps God lacks the power
> to keep Satan from appearing as an angel at the wrong time. Of course
> that calls into question the testimony of angles mentioned in the
> gospels. You are still left with a priest who can take bribes and
> switch clean water for sewage, and a never ending supply of women who
> might be willing to stray and are as desperate as a woman can be.
>
> [...]
>
> > I do like to remind you about the importance of God's role.
> > Let me do so again: the things that you mention would not affect the
> > outcome of the test if we presume that God is involved with it.
>
> But if I were to slip poison into your glass you would die. God would
> not save you today but we must trust that God did save all those women
> back then.
>
> > You
> > would accept that God could send an angel to appear before everyone
> > and proclaim the woman's innocence or guilt.
>
> At least we would know something supernatural was going on. With the
> guilt test we have no evidence that anything else is going on.

Isn't it assumed that something supernatural is going on? They were
going to the priest, in the tabernacle, in front of God.

>
> > Why do you not accept
> > that God could likewise cause the 'curse' to occur or not occur -
> > regardless of what condition the water was?
>
> Oh I do accept the possibility that God can do many things including
> this. Why didn't the test simply require the priest to pray a curse
> over the woman without poisoning her?

I dunno. Does it matter? You seem to be very fixated on "form"
instead of the function. It may have been very appropriate for the
times.

>
> > My basic premise is this:
> > IF the passage is from God, then it is God that will determine the
> > outcome of the test.
> > IF the passage is not from God, then the outcome of the test is
> > uncertain.
>
> Oh drinking muck is not uncertain. The result is contamination.
>
> > Either way, we cannot use the actual test method itself to determine
> > if the passage is from God or not. [...]
>
> Why is that? It looks like something a witch doctor would do. Later
> on God must have changed his mind because looking at a woman with lust
> in your heart is the same as adultery.

Sigh... Do you not see that this is actually the same thing? The
law described a behavior. But where does the behavior come from?

From your heart (as in 'core of your being', which is a bit different
than current usage).

You might as well throw that murder/calling your brother a fool thing
in at this point too. It's the same pattern as the other.

As I said, the law of Moses described a behavior. "Don't do x, y,
z". It operated from the outside in. At least some of the Jews at
the time got this, as evidenced in Luke 10:27. Jesus' commandments
do the same thing, but from the inside out.

Take, for example, Exodus 21:24 ("Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand
for hand, foot for foot") and Luke 6:31 ("And as ye would that men
should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."). Seem incompatable,
don't they? Would it surprise you if I said that they both make the
same point, just from different directions? They do.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 20, 2009, 6:36:25 PM11/20/09

On Nov 20, 2:27 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> > More of a promise in my opinion. However I think it is safe to
> > conclude that this passage is not from God.
>
> Have you considered what the purpose of a "sign" is?

I thought it means evidence that something is from God. If that is
what you meant as well the problem is what happens when a human makes
false claims about signs from God?

[...]

> > > The Jelousy Test is different - it does rely on a general faith in
> > > God, but it is not a test to indicate the level of personal faith that
> > > someone has - it is a test of guilt.
>
> > Maybe we should test guilt by saying a prayer and tossing a coin.
> > After all God can intervene and control how the coin lands. And God
> > knows more than any jury ever could. Furthermore we don't need to
> > wait for criminals to be caught to use the coin flip guilt test. We
> > can test people at random to see if they are criminals. A result of
> > heads means innocent and tails means guilty.
>
> Irrelevent to the discussion.

Oh not at all. It's quite relevant. Like you mention above it would
not be a test to indicate the level of personal faith that someone has
but rather guilt. You said this made the Jealousy Test different.

> This is not what the passage says to
> do.

That can be fixed easily enough. All it takes is for an editor to add
it to the Bible and presto - it is part of the Bible just like Mark
16:9 onward.

[...]

> Ok, I'll spell it out: Had the people survived, this would have been a
> sign.

I don't think they would have survived no matter what sect they were a
part of nor who they followed.

[...]

> > > Well, what I am saying is this: just because we would choose to do
> > > something one way doesn't automatically mean that all the other ways
> > > of doing it are wrong.
>
> > > I am saying this because it seems to me that you are arguing that the
> > > method used in the passage we are discussing is wrong, because there
> > > are better ways (to our reasoning) of doing it...
>
> > Better in the sense that it would be clear that what was going on was
> > not the performance of a witch doctor. Any witch doctor can perform

> > the guilt test described in the Bible.

>
> Irrelevant: the passage tells you who to go to. And it isn't a witch
> doctor.

Pardon? How does this make it irrelevant that the trick is something
any witch doctor could do? I find the mundane nature of the trick to
be quite relevant. The modus operandi gives us a clue as to who is
behind it.

> > I do find it odd that God would not come up with something better.
>
> This is a reoccuring theme. I would repeat the thing about walking/
> bicycling/driving to the store again. Without knowing what criteria
> was used to come up with the solution, we cannot evaluate the
> solution.

Ah but we can. If I claimed that President Obama wrote me a letter
and I showed you a sheet of regular notebook paper with poorly printed
script, misspelling were abundant, it's content was compulsive in
nature, unbalanced and focused on my personal greatness relative to
everything, these facts would certainly help demonstrate whether or
not the letter was legitimate. Would you find it convincing if when
people asked me why Obama didn't use White House letter head or why
his signature doesn't match established Obama signatures - my answer
was "Obama wanted to do it this way. We can't know why Obama choose
to do it this way but he did"?

> > I can't conclusively prove that God did not choose to imitate a witch doctor routine. But it
> > certainly is troubling.
>
> Why is it troubling? Seems to me, this was state of the art back in
> that day.

Human technology does not limit or affect God. You believe God is
actively fighting the bacteria, parasites and viruses. God could have
put forward the same effort but done so in a way where we would know
it was actually God working.

> > And it does strongly suggest that this test
> > was invented by humans - probably the ones who would benefit the most
> > from it by being the arbitrator. I wouldn't go so far to call it
> > proof but Ockham's Razor is against this passage.
>
> Ockham's Razor, as you know, is applicable for selecting between two
> identical explainations to something. I do not think we have that
> circumstance here.

Pardon? Two identical explanations? I'm not sure what you mean by
that.

> > > > If God sends an angel to tell people then it is ~indisputable~ to all
> > > > who see the angel that God has spoken.
>
> > > Actually, this method is more disputable than the one in the
> > > passage. We are told that Satan can appear as an angel! But there
> > > is no place where Satan cures/prevents disease.
>
> > If it's not in the Bible then Satan doesn't have that power?
>
> I did not say that.

Of course. I did.

> Please read it carefully. There is only one
> thing that we are told.

Yet I bet you have never raised that objection to any of the episodes
where the Bible claims an angel appeared. Have you ever wondered if
it was satan instead?

> > Okay if Satan did the appearing it still would beat the snot out of the witch
> > doctor style test mentioned in the Bible.
>
> In your opinion. Why not a lightning bolt from the sky? Or a
> meteor? Or spontanious human combustion?

Any of those would demonstrate that this was not just humans making
empty claims.

> There are innumerable
> ways we could think of, and we are human. But that's the point - we
> are human and do not know the critera. So all we are doing is
> speculating. And it is moot. Like I have said before, and will
> continue to say each time you go down this path - you can walk to the
> store, you can drive your car to the store, you can ride a horse to
> the store. If I prefer to ride the horse, and you prefer to drive
> the car - that does not make my method invalid. Just not preferable
> to you.

That doesn't prove that God is behind this Jealousy Test.

[...]

> > > You
> > > would accept that God could send an angel to appear before everyone
> > > and proclaim the woman's innocence or guilt.
>
> > At least we would know something supernatural was going on. With the
> > guilt test we have no evidence that anything else is going on.
>
> Isn't it assumed that something supernatural is going on?

Some people make that assumption. However there is no evidence.

> They were
> going to the priest, in the tabernacle, in front of God.

Your going to the store analogy aside, it's too bad that they couldn't
just pray to God that an unfaithful wife would be punished by God -
that is without the priest taking action to harm her. See the
difference. We can take it on faith that God will save an innocent
woman from the poison we give her but we can't trust God to punish the
guilty without poison. But wait - we wouldn't ~need~ to go to a
priest (or pay) for that.

> > > Why do you not accept
> > > that God could likewise cause the 'curse' to occur or not occur -
> > > regardless of what condition the water was?
>
> > Oh I do accept the possibility that God can do many things including
> > this. Why didn't the test simply require the priest to pray a curse
> > over the woman without poisoning her?
>
> I dunno. Does it matter?

I find it strange that God needs the priest to giver her something to
ingest. It sounds very human.

> You seem to be very fixated on "form"
> instead of the function. It may have been very appropriate for the
> times.

It was a culture that had no modern concept of value for women. God
could tell them that working on the Sabbath would result in the death
penalty but God didn't dare tell them to respect women.

[...]
> > Why is that? It looks like something a witch doctor would do. Later
> > on God must have changed his mind because looking at a woman with lust
> > in your heart is the same as adultery.
>
> Sigh... Do you not see that this is actually the same thing?

Then why is the punishment different? Why did God change His mind?

> The
> law described a behavior. But where does the behavior come from?
>
> From your heart (as in 'core of your being', which is a bit different
> than current usage).
>
> You might as well throw that murder/calling your brother a fool thing
> in at this point too. It's the same pattern as the other.
>
> As I said, the law of Moses described a behavior. "Don't do x, y,
> z". It operated from the outside in. At least some of the Jews at
> the time got this, as evidenced in Luke 10:27. Jesus' commandments
> do the same thing, but from the inside out.
>
> Take, for example, Exodus 21:24 ("Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand
> for hand, foot for foot") and Luke 6:31 ("And as ye would that men
> should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."). Seem incompatable,
> don't they? Would it surprise you if I said that they both make the
> same point, just from different directions? They do.

Yes, that would surprise me.

God bless,

House

v1_0

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 10:55:10 AM11/23/09

Good morning (or whatever time it is for you), I hope your weekend was
to your liking.

With your permission, I'd like to reorganize things a bit and break
this up into two posts - one about the Jealosy Test, and the other on
how the old testamament statement "eye for and eye" and the new
testamant "do unto others" are actually statements of the same thing.

For the Jealosy test,

> 1. We agree that there is a God.
> 2. We agree that at least some parts of the the Bible are inspired
> by God.

> 3. We do not agree that God is all powerful. At this point, this is not a blocking item and I can

> continue.
> 4. I am calling a set of contiguous verses on the same topic in the
> Bible "a message".

A couple of more things:

5. We agree that God has the power to "neutralize" poisons of all
sorts, including snake venom and bacteria that may be in dirt/dust.
6. We agree that God has the power to "know the truth" about
things. Such as if a woman is guilty of adultery or not.

Going forward:

A) I would like to agree that if there are multiple methods of doing
something, one is not invalid simply because another is "better".
This is a succinct statment of what I have been saying about walking,
riding a car, riding a bicycle, riding a horse to the store. Just
because we find riding the car to the store as the better method, that
does not mean that walking to the store is invalid.

B) Although we agree that God does have the power to enforce the
Jealosy test (points 5 & 6 above), this does not automatically mean
that we agree that he will use this power. To resolve this, we must
agree that God himself is truthful and consistent.

***

In my discussion here, I will be using a method of analysis that
involves assuming that the premise is true, then walking through the
implications of that to see if there are any inconsistancies. This
cannot prove that something is true, only that something is not
false. (Although a statement can only be true or false, there are
times that we don't know which of these it is - so the statement can
also be "unknown"). At that point, it is a matter of belief.

To state my objective clearly, I am trying to prove that the Jealousy
test is not false due to inconsistancies. I am not trying to prove
it "true" - the best we could hope to do is prove it "unknown" and
therefore a matter of belief.

***

Given all that, let's walk through the test, found at Numbers 5:11-31.

Verses 11-12 state that it is God speaking through Moses to the
Israelies. This is the chief issue that we have: is this really God
speaking, or is this just some person saying that God is speaking?
This is where I am applying the methodology above - let us assume that
this is God speaking and see if there are any logical inconsistancies
with that assumption.

Verses 13-14 set the conditions for when this test is to be applied.
(1) The man has the spirit of jealousy. (2) There are no witnesses
against the wife. (3) The women is not "taken by the manner". (4) The
husband hasn't 'seen it'.
The spirit of jealousy is the only thing 'under the control' of the
husband - so it does allow for NOT performing the test if the husband
doesn't want to.

Verse 15 specifies *who* performs the test, and what the 'price'
is. Note that they are going to a recognized authority - the priest
- and not just to the first person that they find. It is fairly safe
to assume that they know this priest, having seen him both 'around
town' and during services. This person hasn't self-declared himself
the priest, he has been put there according to the church structure.
I acknowledge that, with only this single verse under consideration,
it is possible that this person, or even the church structure, is
corrupt. However, given 5, 6, and B above, coupled with the premise
that the test is from God, this doesn't matter- as the priest is not
the one determining the outcome of the test in any way. They are
merely an instrument in performing the test.

Verse 16 reinforces who is actually determining the outcome - the
person is set before the Lord.

Verse 17-26 Detail the actual test - the words, the actions, and what
materials are used, and where it takes place. In this, verse 21
specifically states who is determining the outcome of the test.

Verse 27-28, 29-30 are mostly reiterations/summaries.

Verse 31 is most interesting. First off, holds a man blameless IF
the wife is guilty. It does not speak to who has blame if the wife
is not guilty. But curiously it also implies that the man has some
guilt if he fails to act when he is Jealous.

***

Now, I don't see any inconsistancies here within the text, nor with
any science (if we accept that there is divine activity in determining
if the curse occurs or not).

Could God have done things differently? Yup. I have no doubt of
that. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it this way too.

Is there a "better" way of doing it? This all depends on what
criteria we use to determine why one choice is better than another.
There may be some things that seem better to us - but until we know
all the decision criteria, we cannot definitively say. Even if there
were a "better" way of doing it, this doesn't mean that this way is
invalid - just "not better".

You have also indicated that this doesn't seem to be compatable with
"love". There are several points that I'd like to make here.
1. If the husband loves the wife, he would not have the spirit of
jealousy (1 Cor 13), and would therefore not make his wife take this
test.
2. The wife has, possibly, committed adultery after all. Even in the
NT, this is (the one) justification for divorce (Matt 5:32). 3. This
relies on God to settle things, not man.
4. Verse 31 actually resonates quite well with Matthew 5 (vs
22-24). The man is obligated to settle his jealousy - think of what
affect this has on a marriage (and suspected 'parter' of the wife) if
it is unresolved.

-V

v1_0

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 11:04:50 AM11/23/09

It surprised me too, first time I heard it stated...

An "Eye for and eye, tooth for tooth," etc.. is a *negative way* of
stating "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself".
(paraphrasing a bit).

Let's say I'm sitting here thinking about "poking your eye out".
Upon consideration I would refrain from doing so. Under the law, I
could rely on you poking MY eye out. I like my eye, and would rather
keep it... End result: I don't poke your eye out because I don't
want you to poke my eye out.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 12:36:24 PM11/23/09

On Nov 23, 7:55 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Good morning (or whatever time it is for you), I hope your weekend was
> to your liking.
>
> With your permission, I'd like to reorganize things a bit and break
> this up into two posts - one about the Jealosy Test, and the other on
> how the old testamament statement "eye for and eye" and the new
> testamant "do unto others" are actually statements of the same thing.

You have it but of course you don't need it. You are very courteous.

I admire your courage.

I disagree with your assertion that this relies on God to settle
things rather than man. A man mixes the concoction and a man give the
wife this concoction to drink. That is man settling things. They
prayed to God to spare the innocent but that is not the same as
relying on God to settle things. If they had relied on God there
would be no need for the Jealousy test at all. The jealous husband
who relies on God would pray "God if my wife has commited adultery
then I pray you punish her sin" and that is the ~end~ of it. There is
no need for a priest. There is no need for a concoction. If God has
the power to protect an innocent wife then God doesn't need help to
punish a guilty one.

God doesn't need all these theatrics. Would God do all of them for
the sake of a jealous husband? I find that unlikely since supposedly
God has no problems dictating what people will or won't do and
enforcing it with the death penalty.

1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.
2) It's not something God would need.
3) It serves priests and husbands.
4) It creates opportunities for priests to be corrupt in accepting
bribes of cash or sexual favors.

Now I can't proceed to the next step because I can't prove that God
has traits that are not compatible with these four points. We know
that men have added things to the Bible before. If you believe God is
good then this test is a good candidate for "added by men"..

Either way God bless,

House

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 12:55:46 PM11/23/09

Okay I thought you mean something else. I think the positive way if
higher, more difficult but it is also prone to backfiring. The
negative way is simple, less refined but in that it is also more
reliable. I have a better chance of predicting what my neighbor would
find horrible than I have of predicting what he would enjoy.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 1:27:05 PM11/23/09

No. They place her before God, give her something to drink with the
statement that God will cause x,y,z to happen if you are guilty.

> They
> prayed to God to spare the innocent but that is not the same as
> relying on God to settle things. If they had relied on God there
> would be no need for the Jealousy test at all. The jealous husband
> who relies on God would pray "God if my wife has commited adultery
> then I pray you punish her sin" and that is the ~end~ of it. There is
> no need for a priest. There is no need for a concoction. If God has
> the power to protect an innocent wife then God doesn't need help to
> punish a guilty one.
>
> God doesn't need all these theatrics. Would God do all of them for
> the sake of a jealous husband? I find that unlikely since supposedly
> God has no problems dictating what people will or won't do and
> enforcing it with the death penalty.

Ah... This isn't about what God needs.. None of it is - Old Testament
and New. God doesn't need us - our worship does not make him exist,
grant him powers, etc.
God did these things *for the people*. He understands our weakness
of faith, people's guilt, etc. What sort of prayer is "curse my
wife", anyway?

There is also the matter of structure and community. God has set an
order to things, even amongst the angels there are leaders.

As with children, at first it is quite appropriate for them to run to
you with every argument/problem they have. As they mature, this
changes - if you are a good parent, you try to teach them to reason
and make decisions for themselves. Do you not see this sort of
progression between the Old Testament and the New?

>
> 1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.

Not a valid objection. The test does not claim to be different than
anything. Witchcraft is accepted as 'working' (but prohibited) in
the Bible.

> 2) It's not something God would need.

None of it is.

> 3) It serves priests and husbands.

And innocent wives, too. (They will be free and bear seed).

> 4) It creates opportunities for priests to be corrupt in accepting
> bribes of cash or sexual favors.

The test is performed infront of the woman, not behind a screen/etc,
this prevents the priest from pulling a glass of poison out from below
the alter and directly giving it to the woman. The husband also
witnesses, so they priest cannot just give the glass of water to the
woman.

Besides all that, reread my point on verse 15 (above). It deals with
*exactly* this objection you have made. (You have alluded to it
before, and I thought it wise to head you off at the pass, so to
speak).

>
> Now I can't proceed to the next step because I can't prove that God
> has traits that are not compatible with these four points. We know
> that men have added things to the Bible before. If you believe God is
> good then this test is a good candidate for "added by men"..
>
> Either way God bless,
>

> House- Hide quoted text -

v1_0

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 1:29:15 PM11/23/09

I agree. The positive way takes more understanding about yourself
and others. It takes more maturity, more willingness and practice in
"being your neighbor" so that you can predict what they would enjoy.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 2:08:34 PM11/23/09

On Nov 23, 10:27 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> > 1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.
>
> Not a valid objection. The test does not claim to be different than
> anything. Witchcraft is accepted as 'working' (but prohibited) in
> the Bible.

Oh it certainly is a valid objection. The test is suppose to be from
God. It looks like all sorts of things made by man. When Moses
parted the Reed Sea did he send thousands of workers to dig a drainage
channel?

By itself this objection does not prove the test isn't from God but it
does give us legitimate reason to doubt.

I do not see what prohibitions against witchcraft have to do with the
fact that this test can be preformed by any charlatan. We have no way
to know if the Priest tampered with the concoction. He could have
added anything to it or switched it for pure drinking water. My
suggestion that a husband relying on God would simply say a prayer and
trust God to punish the guilty doesn't have that problem.

> > 2) It's not something God would need.
>
> None of it is.
>
> > 3) It serves priests and husbands.
>
> And innocent wives, too. (They will be free and bear seed).

No it doesn't serve them. They get an ordeal out of it which God
might or might not save them from. God certainly lets other bad
things happen to innocent people - especially things other humans set
in motion. For all we know the innocent got contaminated, were
physically damaged from it and shunned by their community for life.
Innocent wives would be much better served by my suggestion. Let God
do the punishing without man's help. Then there is no chance that an
innocent would be punished. But why can I think up a plan that is
better than the one that is suppose to be from God? This is
troubling.

> > 4) It creates opportunities for priests to be corrupt in accepting
> > bribes of cash or sexual favors.
>
> The test is performed infront of the woman, not behind a screen/etc,
> this prevents the priest from pulling a glass of poison out from below
> the alter and directly giving it to the woman.

Was she or her husband watching the alter the whole time? Slight of
hand tricks are well known to exist. When nobody was looking the
priest could have tossed a known contaminant into the dust to be used
or prepared a duplicate with clean water. These things are easy to
accomplish. It only takes the slightest distraction - close your eyes
in prayer.

> The husband also
> witnesses, so they priest cannot just give the glass of water to the
> woman.

Other temples had tricks. Do you think bleeding and crying statues
are new? Thousands of witch doctors have done this sort of thing.
The methods of trickery exist.

Again I can think up a plan that kicks the snot out of this one that
is suppose to be from God. How can this one be from someone better
than me - from my creator? I believe God is smarter than me, I
believe God is smarter than this.

> Besides all that, reread my point on verse 15 (above). It deals with
> *exactly* this objection you have made. (You have alluded to it
> before, and I thought it wise to head you off at the pass, so to
> speak).

And the Bible records that priests were at times corrupt. Would you
like to see some of those verse? I think God would have known the
potential for trickery. I think God would have used a method that
could not be duplicated by men or would have left it completely up to
trusting God.

What I lack is proof of the attributes of God to demonstrate a
contradiction. We might never come to agreement on this.

God bless,

House

v1_0

unread,

Nov 23, 2009, 11:42:46 PM11/23/09

On Nov 23, 2:08 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:27 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > 1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.
>
> > Not a valid objection. The test does not claim to be different than
> > anything. Witchcraft is accepted as 'working' (but prohibited) in
> > the Bible.
>
> Oh it certainly is a valid objection. The test is suppose to be from
> God. It looks like all sorts of things made by man. When Moses
> parted the Reed Sea did he send thousands of workers to dig a drainage
> channel?

The problem for this test for a con man is that the results are not
immediate, and are not *totally* under his control. It seems to me
that the general immune system for that day and age would be more
accustom to dealing with bacteria, and the woman's immune system is
stronger than the males (this is true today) in terms of disease
handling. My point: sickness is not guaranteed (if God does not
intervene in this test). So, why would a con-man choose this
method? As opposed to something like reading tea leaves, or drops of
chicken blood - those things are both immediate and under control of
the con man.

>
> By itself this objection does not prove the test isn't from God but it
> does give us legitimate reason to doubt.
>
> I do not see what prohibitions against witchcraft have to do with the
> fact that this test can be preformed by any charlatan. We have no way
> to know if the Priest tampered with the concoction. He could have
> added anything to it or switched it for pure drinking water. My
> suggestion that a husband relying on God would simply say a prayer and
> trust God to punish the guilty doesn't have that problem.

The problem with this is that the husband can take anything - the wife
gets a pimple, falls and gets a bruise, a bee sting, etc. as a guilty
verdict. Or should he pray that she die?

>
> > > 2) It's not something God would need.
>
> > None of it is.
>
> > > 3) It serves priests and husbands.
>
> > And innocent wives, too. (They will be free and bear seed).
>
> No it doesn't serve them. They get an ordeal out of it which God
> might or might not save them from. God certainly lets other bad
> things happen to innocent people - especially things other humans set
> in motion. For all we know the innocent got contaminated, were
> physically damaged from it and shunned by their community for life.

I don't know how often this test was performed, nor have any knowledge
of the metrics on how it turns out.

> Innocent wives would be much better served by my suggestion. Let God
> do the punishing without man's help. Then there is no chance that an
> innocent would be punished.

IF we presume that God is directing the outcome of the test, then no
innocent will get hurt. (If you recall, that is one of the
assumptions in this discussions. The alternate assumption is that
the test is not from God - in which case there is no need to evaluate
it as we have our conclusion).

> But why can I think up a plan that is
> better than the one that is suppose to be from God? This is
> troubling.

Quite simply, because we do not know all the criteria used to create
the test for. Plus, we see things as humans - not as God. I do not
think God is merely a "smarter, more powerful, human" - but that is
exactly what we make him if we believe he thinks the way we do.

Yup. I recall one about a donkey taking a high priest to task. But
you re-argued the same argument over - to which I again say, that if
God is controlling the outcome then it doesn't matter what the priest
does. Remember, we discussed the verses where God can nullify snake
venom, etc. Also, a con man would want a more reliable method (and
immediate too, if possible). I submit that the con-man could come up
with a better method - and has a much bigger motive to.

> What I lack is proof of the attributes of God to demonstrate a
> contradiction. We might never come to agreement on this.

Yes, it does seem this way. This is pretty much the source of your
objections, it looks. I am guessing that you are in a pretty tough
position - most of our knowledge about God comes from what is written
in the Bible. Without being able to trust the Bible, you have to
discount much if not all of that information. Might I ask what
portion(s) of the Bible you consider "good"?

>
> God bless,
>
> House

v1_0

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 12:21:15 AM11/24/09

Not being a doctor, I can't say for sure. But I did go to the
following site: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/symptoms/abdominal_swelling/causes.htm

I found the following possibilities:
Tuberculous peritonitis
Peritonitis

And both of these do not cause anything that resembles the second
symptom (rotten thigh).

Botulism - does not cause stomach swelling, so can be ruled out.

Soo... the disease caused by the test doesn't seem to be fairly common
(if something like it exists at all).

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 1:59:11 AM11/24/09

On Nov 23, 8:42 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:08 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 10:27 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > > 1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.
>
> > > Not a valid objection. The test does not claim to be different than
> > > anything. Witchcraft is accepted as 'working' (but prohibited) in
> > > the Bible.
>
> > Oh it certainly is a valid objection. The test is suppose to be from
> > God. It looks like all sorts of things made by man. When Moses
> > parted the Reed Sea did he send thousands of workers to dig a drainage
> > channel?
>
> The problem for this test for a con man is that the results are not
> immediate, and are not *totally* under his control.

You mean due to acts of God?

> It seems to me
> that the general immune system for that day and age would be more
> accustom to dealing with bacteria, and the woman's immune system is
> stronger than the males (this is true today) in terms of disease
> handling.

So the priest slips her stronger stuff - or even poisson.

> My point: sickness is not guaranteed (if God does not
> intervene in this test). So, why would a con-man choose this
> method?

If nothing else he gets an extra quart (or whatever) of grain for
every jealous husband out there.

> As opposed to something like reading tea leaves, or drops of
> chicken blood - those things are both immediate and under control of
> the con man.

Just like the slipping her poison that can be done here.

> > By itself this objection does not prove the test isn't from God but it
> > does give us legitimate reason to doubt.
>
> > I do not see what prohibitions against witchcraft have to do with the
> > fact that this test can be preformed by any charlatan. We have no way
> > to know if the Priest tampered with the concoction. He could have
> > added anything to it or switched it for pure drinking water. My
> > suggestion that a husband relying on God would simply say a prayer and
> > trust God to punish the guilty doesn't have that problem.
>
> The problem with this is that the husband can take anything - the wife
> gets a pimple, falls and gets a bruise, a bee sting, etc. as a guilty
> verdict.

What verdict? There is no verdict. My version isn't about informing
the husband. He trusts God. If the husband doesn't like it that
would be his sin against God.

> Or should he pray that she die?

Sure with the condition if God knows she is guilty. The husband does
not know. This would be trusting on God who should know.

[...]

> > Innocent wives would be much better served by my suggestion. Let God
> > do the punishing without man's help. Then there is no chance that an
> > innocent would be punished.
>
> IF we presume that God is directing the outcome of the test, then no
> innocent will get hurt. (If you recall, that is one of the
> assumptions in this discussions. The alternate assumption is that
> the test is not from God - in which case there is no need to evaluate
> it as we have our conclusion).

You have to assume that in order for it to work but you have to put
confidence into a confidence man in order for the con to work as well.

> > But why can I think up a plan that is
> > better than the one that is suppose to be from God? This is
> > troubling.
>
> Quite simply, because we do not know all the criteria used to create
> the test for. Plus, we see things as humans - not as God.

God in his infinite wisdom choose to use inferior methods for reasons
we cannot know and that is all there is to it.

> I do not
> think God is merely a "smarter, more powerful, human" - but that is
> exactly what we make him if we believe he thinks the way we do.

Let me put it another way. I was told that I would be playing
checkers against God. I am disappointed that not only did I not learn
anything, but I easily won. This leads me to conclude that I was not
playing checkers against God but rather against a human. Sorry, but
that God moves in mysterious ways doesn't satisfy.

[...]

> > > Besides all that, reread my point on verse 15 (above). It deals with
> > > *exactly* this objection you have made. (You have alluded to it
> > > before, and I thought it wise to head you off at the pass, so to
> > > speak).
>
> > And the Bible records that priests were at times corrupt. Would you
> > like to see some of those verse? I think God would have known the
> > potential for trickery. I think God would have used a method that
> > could not be duplicated by men or would have left it completely up to
> > trusting God.
>
> Yup.

1 Samuel 2:12-17 & 22

The priests were taking the offering for themselves before the
required ritual for God had been performed and they had sexual
misconduct with the women who served.

If it could happen before it could happen again. Would you want guys
like that handling your sister's trial where what they put in her
drink will either save or destroy her life? I would not.

> I recall one about a donkey taking a high priest to task. But
> you re-argued the same argument over

Well the first few times you kind of ignored the point of it. You do
not address it with your analogy of going to the store. You assume
something that you need to prove.

> - to which I again say, that if
> God is controlling the outcome then it doesn't matter what the priest
> does. Remember, we discussed the verses where God can nullify snake
> venom, etc. Also, a con man would want a more reliable method (and
> immediate too, if possible). I submit that the con-man could come up
> with a better method - and has a much bigger motive to.

What is more reliable that poisoning someone with something they will
drink? How is this motive bigger than what witch doctors have
normally received?

> > What I lack is proof of the attributes of God to demonstrate a
> > contradiction. We might never come to agreement on this.
>
> Yes, it does seem this way. This is pretty much the source of your
> objections, it looks. I am guessing that you are in a pretty tough
> position -

You mean personally? It was very hard at first. But when all the
things I had feared would happen and been told would happen didn't
happen I moved on. It's hard to keep a strait face in Bible study.
Last Sunday I had to read a long passage from John 12 and I couldn't
do it without giggling just a little. I see a lot of dissonance up
close. (Example: we had one who was twisting herself in knots trying
to figure out how Jonah could preach the gospel message before Christ
had come and she was very open about her frustration but she also
clearly wasn't ready to draw the obvious conclusion. I gave her a
hint which seemed to help her.) However it is my belief that I can't
help them if they are not ready for such a burden. I don't have data
but it seems to me that the typical response to seeing through the
theology is atheism. Personally I think there is a way to adjust the
theology so that people don't get that betrayed feeling from it. I'm
still working on that problem.

> . . . . most of our knowledge about God comes from what is written
> in the Bible.

Unless it is the source of most of our deception about God.

> Without being able to trust the Bible, you have to
> discount much if not all of that information. Might I ask what
> portion(s) of the Bible you consider "good"?

What I find to be good and inspiring. Examples include - the Fruit of
the Spirit, the upside down values attributed to Jesus, the
breakthroughs in valuing human life and rights for children and
women. If there is a good deity guiding us, and I believe there is,
it seems that such things might be from On High.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 10:25:57 AM11/24/09

On Nov 24, 1:59 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 8:42 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 2:08 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 10:27 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > > > 1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.
>
> > > > Not a valid objection. The test does not claim to be different than
> > > > anything. Witchcraft is accepted as 'working' (but prohibited) in
> > > > the Bible.
>
> > > Oh it certainly is a valid objection. The test is suppose to be from
> > > God. It looks like all sorts of things made by man. When Moses
> > > parted the Reed Sea did he send thousands of workers to dig a drainage
> > > channel?
>
> > The problem for this test for a con man is that the results are not
> > immediate, and are not *totally* under his control.
>
> You mean due to acts of God?

No. I am saying that a con man would have selected a better test. I
am arguing that the test isn't the product of a con man using exactly
the same reasoning that you are using for why it isn't a product of
God.

Except, since we understand people - and con men - we can point to
exact reasons why a con man would choose something different.

>
> > It seems to me
> > that the general immune system for that day and age would be more
> > accustom to dealing with bacteria, and the woman's immune system is
> > stronger than the males (this is true today) in terms of disease
> > handling.
>
> So the priest slips her stronger stuff - or even poisson.

If the priest/con man had come up with a better sort of test to being
with, they wouldn't need to. Say something like interpreting drops
of blood - all can see the drops, but only the priest has the 'gift'
to interpret it. Or falling into a trance, or something.

I looked into the witch doctor/shaman/etc. practices that are
documented. All the diviniation ones that I saw fell into the
pattern - the results were both immediate and 'under the control' of
the witch doctor/shaman/etc. Many were also subject to
interpretation - as in, they were pretty general, etc.

>
> > My point: sickness is not guaranteed (if God does not
> > intervene in this test). So, why would a con-man choose this
> > method?
>
> If nothing else he gets an extra quart (or whatever) of grain for
> every jealous husband out there.

I believe that a memorial offering is burned. I know that during the
test, a handful is burned, but there is further law about memorial
offerings.

Even if it isn't, it's the husband that is inititing the test and
loosing the grain - so it costs to do this test from his perspective,
plus whatever the bribe is, if we slip into your framework of
thinking. Seems like it would be cheaper just to issue a bill of
divorcement (Dueteronomy 24:1).

>
> > As opposed to something like reading tea leaves, or drops of
> > chicken blood - those things are both immediate and under control of
> > the con man.
>
> Just like the slipping her poison that can be done here.

Again, you would have to have a poision that acts exactly the way that
the symptoms are described. The symptoms seem to be pretty unique
together. A good con artist would select something more easily
duplicated - say, just death. This allows them to select the method/
poision. Considering that time/place that this occured in, exotic
poisons would be hard to come by (expesive, difficult, etc.)

>
> > > By itself this objection does not prove the test isn't from God but it
> > > does give us legitimate reason to doubt.
>
> > > I do not see what prohibitions against witchcraft have to do with the
> > > fact that this test can be preformed by any charlatan. We have no way
> > > to know if the Priest tampered with the concoction. He could have
> > > added anything to it or switched it for pure drinking water. My
> > > suggestion that a husband relying on God would simply say a prayer and
> > > trust God to punish the guilty doesn't have that problem.
>
> > The problem with this is that the husband can take anything - the wife
> > gets a pimple, falls and gets a bruise, a bee sting, etc. as a guilty
> > verdict.
>
> What verdict? There is no verdict. My version isn't about informing
> the husband. He trusts God. If the husband doesn't like it that
> would be his sin against God.

Remember, the time too. The Israelites didn't really believe in an
afterlife, so wouldn't comprehend a punishment that occured after
death. They were here and now. Plus, the husband has some
responsibilities based on what happens to the wife.

Or did you think that the test always resulted in "life" = innocent
and "death" = guilt. I don't think we can safely assume death is a
result of the test - otherwise, why not just say "the wife will die
and rot" or whatever.

>
> > Or should he pray that she die?
>
> Sure with the condition if God knows she is guilty. The husband does
> not know. This would be trusting on God who should know.

Yes. But the husband has to take certain actions afterwards. Such
as divorcement. The community also has to take certain actions -
there were visible penalties for adultery.

>
> [...]
>
> > > Innocent wives would be much better served by my suggestion. Let God
> > > do the punishing without man's help. Then there is no chance that an
> > > innocent would be punished.
>
> > IF we presume that God is directing the outcome of the test, then no
> > innocent will get hurt. (If you recall, that is one of the
> > assumptions in this discussions. The alternate assumption is that
> > the test is not from God - in which case there is no need to evaluate
> > it as we have our conclusion).
>
> You have to assume that in order for it to work but you have to put
> confidence into a confidence man in order for the con to work as well.

At some point you have to trust someone - you don't have enough time
to become an expert on everything, nor to experience everything.
You are also forgetting the times. People didn't up and move, or
drift around - at least not without being under suspicion. The
priest was most likely well known to the townspeople from the day he
was born. He would be groomed/trained to be a priest. Under
scrutany from other priests and from the townspeople in general.
Where would he learn about poisons, etc - from the church?

>
> > > But why can I think up a plan that is
> > > better than the one that is suppose to be from God? This is
> > > troubling.
>
> > Quite simply, because we do not know all the criteria used to create
> > the test for. Plus, we see things as humans - not as God.
>
> God in his infinite wisdom choose to use inferior methods for reasons
> we cannot know and that is all there is to it.
>
> > I do not
> > think God is merely a "smarter, more powerful, human" - but that is
> > exactly what we make him if we believe he thinks the way we do.
>
> Let me put it another way. I was told that I would be playing
> checkers against God. I am disappointed that not only did I not learn
> anything, but I easily won. This leads me to conclude that I was not
> playing checkers against God but rather against a human. Sorry, but
> that God moves in mysterious ways doesn't satisfy.

The one thing you cannot answer here is: was it Gods intention to win
the game, or did he have reasons to loose it to you.
Do you have children?

>
> [...]
>
> > > > Besides all that, reread my point on verse 15 (above). It deals with
> > > > *exactly* this objection you have made. (You have alluded to it
> > > > before, and I thought it wise to head you off at the pass, so to
> > > > speak).
>
> > > And the Bible records that priests were at times corrupt. Would you
> > > like to see some of those verse? I think God would have known the
> > > potential for trickery. I think God would have used a method that
> > > could not be duplicated by men or would have left it completely up to
> > > trusting God.
>
> > Yup.
>
> 1 Samuel 2:12-17 & 22
>
> The priests were taking the offering for themselves before the
> required ritual for God had been performed and they had sexual
> misconduct with the women who served.

Do you not see the damage that this causes to your point?
1. The mis-deeds of the priests was known to the people, which
matches what I was saying about a priest growing up, and being known
by the people, in a town. (or whatever it was)
2. The Bible reports this incident. If the Bible was edited,
distorted as you say it was this should have been removed by the first
con-man priest to come along. Let alone get there in the first
place..
3. The priests were punished for their inequities by God.
Directly. If you believe that, then it would be true for other
inequities as well. If you don't believe that, then this particular
message is false and cannot be relied on - to disprove any other
messages.

>
> If it could happen before it could happen again. Would you want guys
> like that handling your sister's trial where what they put in her
> drink will either save or destroy her life? I would not.
>
> > I recall one about a donkey taking a high priest to task. But
> > you re-argued the same argument over
>
> Well the first few times you kind of ignored the point of it. You do
> not address it with your analogy of going to the store. You assume
> something that you need to prove.
>
> > - to which I again say, that if
> > God is controlling the outcome then it doesn't matter what the priest
> > does. Remember, we discussed the verses where God can nullify snake
> > venom, etc. Also, a con man would want a more reliable method (and
> > immediate too, if possible). I submit that the con-man could come up
> > with a better method - and has a much bigger motive to.
>
> What is more reliable that poisoning someone with something they will
> drink? How is this motive bigger than what witch doctors have
> normally received?

I do not think you mean to use the term "witch doctor" in its true
meaning, I looked that up when I was doing research. Witch doctors
actually combated witch craft. You might mean "Shaman", but
"Divination" would be more precise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Divination). Here is a list of methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Methods_of_divination) that we know today. I haven't read through
ALL of them, but a fair amount. All of the ones I see fit under
immediate and under the control of the person doing them.

>
> > > What I lack is proof of the attributes of God to demonstrate a
> > > contradiction. We might never come to agreement on this.
>
> > Yes, it does seem this way. This is pretty much the source of your
> > objections, it looks. I am guessing that you are in a pretty tough
> > position -
>
> You mean personally? It was very hard at first. But when all the
> things I had feared would happen and been told would happen didn't
> happen I moved on.

I don't know what you have been told, but that sounds like a "God will
send thunderbolts out of the sky to kill you if you even ask a
question" type of thing.

> It's hard to keep a strait face in Bible study.
> Last Sunday I had to read a long passage from John 12 and I couldn't
> do it without giggling just a little. I see a lot of dissonance up
> close. (Example: we had one who was twisting herself in knots trying
> to figure out how Jonah could preach the gospel message before Christ
> had come and she was very open about her frustration but she also
> clearly wasn't ready to draw the obvious conclusion. I gave her a
> hint which seemed to help her.)

Which passage?

Yes, the western methods have been influenced by the renassance and by
Roman legal concepts and thinking. Throw in the fact that we are
using translations (which is something I really expected you to bring
out in your objections to Biblical accuracy) - and you are almost
guaranteed to misunderstand things.

> However it is my belief that I can't
> help them if they are not ready for such a burden. I don't have data
> but it seems to me that the typical response to seeing through the
> theology is atheism. Personally I think there is a way to adjust the
> theology so that people don't get that betrayed feeling from it. I'm
> still working on that problem.

Ah, this is a very interesting statement. What do you use as a
criteria - something "feels wrong" or, maybe "I don't like what this
says"?

Especially the Old Testament wasn't written for people of our time
frame. We have capabilities, and knowledge, that they didn't dream
of in those times. How do you explain an airplane to a child - "The
air holds the plane up" or something like that? A more technical
explaination "is better", true - but is beyond the comprehension of a
child.

>
> > . . . . most of our knowledge about God comes from what is written
> > in the Bible.
>
> Unless it is the source of most of our deception about God.
>
> > Without being able to trust the Bible, you have to
> > discount much if not all of that information. Might I ask what
> > portion(s) of the Bible you consider "good"?
>
> What I find to be good and inspiring.

What do you think of Proverbs 14:12 is warning us against?

> Examples include - the Fruit of
> the Spirit, the upside down values attributed to Jesus, the
> breakthroughs in valuing human life and rights for children and
> women. If there is a good deity guiding us, and I believe there is,
> it seems that such things might be from On High.

Would such a deity allow their messages to go astray? The New
Testament is relatively recent when compared to the Old Testament.
Jesus makes numerous quotes of the OT (mostly from the Septuagint, but
not all) - using them for their authority. Obviously he didn't have
any issue with scripture. I know you have a little difficulty with
Jesus quoting scripture - why should he, since he "outranks" it?
Well, remember, WE know who Jesus is. The people of that time did
not. They trusted scripture already.

Jesus DID have problems with how scripture - the Old Testament - was
being intepreted/enforced by the authorities. (Even now, the Jewish
rabbis have another book that they work from that contains a lot of
how things are to be done.) At one point Jesus does tell the people
to "do what they say, but not what they do". I do not think that
Jesus would tell them to do something that is incorrect.

As I have stated before, at least some of the people of that day -
using ONLY the Old Testament, in the form that we have it now - came
to the correct understanding ("Love God / Love thy Neighbor"). If
you believe that to be true, then we know that the fruits of correctly
applying/reading the Old Testamant are good! And we know how to
judge a tree/something...

But we also know that the authorities at that time also used the Old
Testament but produced entirely different fruit.

Same Old Testament. Two different fruits/trees. What is the
difference?

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 11:03:07 AM11/24/09

On Nov 24, 7:25 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:59 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 8:42 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 2:08 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 23, 10:27 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > > > 1) It's consistent with what any witch doctor can do.
>
> > > > > Not a valid objection. The test does not claim to be different than
> > > > > anything. Witchcraft is accepted as 'working' (but prohibited) in
> > > > > the Bible.
>
> > > > Oh it certainly is a valid objection. The test is suppose to be from
> > > > God. It looks like all sorts of things made by man. When Moses
> > > > parted the Reed Sea did he send thousands of workers to dig a drainage
> > > > channel?
>
> > > The problem for this test for a con man is that the results are not
> > > immediate, and are not *totally* under his control.
>
> > You mean due to acts of God?
>
> No. I am saying that a con man would have selected a better test. I
> am arguing that the test isn't the product of a con man using exactly
> the same reasoning that you are using for why it isn't a product of
> God.

Yet it isn't the same reasoning. The history of con men and the
nature of poison kill your objection.

> Except, since we understand people - and con men - we can point to
> exact reasons why a con man would choose something different.

The existence of witch doctors the world over is against you. Which
one of them wouldn't want an easy job at a temple? It would be gravy,
as it was for Eli's sons. All the women they want. All the food they
want. A belief system protecting them.

> > > It seems to me
> > > that the general immune system for that day and age would be more
> > > accustom to dealing with bacteria, and the woman's immune system is
> > > stronger than the males (this is true today) in terms of disease
> > > handling.
>
> > So the priest slips her stronger stuff - or even poisson.
>
> If the priest/con man had come up with a better sort of test to being
> with, they wouldn't need to.

Con men don't have miraculous powers. They need a physical catalyst
within the power of men. What do you mean a "better sort of test"?
This one is perfect. The mark ~has~ to drink whatever the priest
gives her. Does it get any more perfect than that?

> Say something like interpreting drops
> of blood - all can see the drops, but only the priest has the 'gift'
> to interpret it.

But then the woman doesn't get sick. Blood drops would ring empty.

> Or falling into a trance, or something.

Something with no power. Here the mark drinks whatever the priest
gives her. And any effect is considered divine! It reinforces that
you have power and you have complete control.

[....]

> > If nothing else he gets an extra quart (or whatever) of grain for
> > every jealous husband out there.
>
> I believe that a memorial offering is burned. I know that during the
> test, a handful is burned, but there is further law about memorial
> offerings.
>
> Even if it isn't, it's the husband that is inititing the test and
> loosing the grain - so it costs to do this test from his perspective,

He would be called a mark as well.

> plus whatever the bribe is, if we slip into your framework of
> thinking. Seems like it would be cheaper just to issue a bill of
> divorcement (Dueteronomy 24:1).

What kind of a bribe is a guilty wife going to offer the priest?
Might she have something he might be interested in?

> > > As opposed to something like reading tea leaves, or drops of
> > > chicken blood - those things are both immediate and under control of
> > > the con man.
>
> > Just like the slipping her poison that can be done here.
>
> Again, you would have to have a poision that acts exactly the way that
> the symptoms are described. The symptoms seem to be pretty unique
> together.

If they already had a known toxin that would do just that . . . .

> A good con artist would select something more easily
> duplicated - say, just death. This allows them to select the method/
> poision. Considering that time/place that this occured in, exotic
> poisons would be hard to come by (expesive, difficult, etc.)
>

[...]

> > > The problem with this is that the husband can take anything - the wife
> > > gets a pimple, falls and gets a bruise, a bee sting, etc. as a guilty
> > > verdict.
>
> > What verdict? There is no verdict. My version isn't about informing
> > the husband. He trusts God. If the husband doesn't like it that
> > would be his sin against God.
>
> Remember, the time too. The Israelites didn't really believe in an
> afterlife, so wouldn't comprehend a punishment that occured after
> death.

Punishment could be here and now. But it's not about giving
information to the husband. Whatever happens to the wife (even if it
is nothing) would be what the wife deserves.

> They were here and now. Plus, the husband has some
> responsibilities based on what happens to the wife.
>
> Or did you think that the test always resulted in "life" = innocent
> and "death" = guilt. I don't think we can safely assume death is a
> result of the test - otherwise, why not just say "the wife will die
> and rot" or whatever.
>
>
>
> > > Or should he pray that she die?
>
> > Sure with the condition if God knows she is guilty. The husband does
> > not know. This would be trusting on God who should know.
>
> Yes. But the husband has to take certain actions afterwards. Such
> as divorcement.

You don't need to divorce a corpse.

[...]

> > You have to assume that in order for it to work but you have to put
> > confidence into a confidence man in order for the con to work as well.
>
> At some point you have to trust someone - you don't have enough time
> to become an expert on everything, nor to experience everything.
> You are also forgetting the times. People didn't up and move, or
> drift around - at least not without being under suspicion. The
> priest was most likely well known to the townspeople from the day he
> was born. He would be groomed/trained to be a priest. Under
> scrutany from other priests and from the townspeople in general.
> Where would he learn about poisons, etc - from the church?

It seems to be how other temples learned how to do their tricks.

[...]

> > Let me put it another way. I was told that I would be playing
> > checkers against God. I am disappointed that not only did I not learn
> > anything, but I easily won. This leads me to conclude that I was not
> > playing checkers against God but rather against a human. Sorry, but
> > that God moves in mysterious ways doesn't satisfy.
>
> The one thing you cannot answer here is: was it Gods intention to win
> the game, or did he have reasons to loose it to you.

That God would allow suffering in order to act like he was of average
human intelligence . . .

Something is wrong.

> Do you have children?

Yes. I wouldn't let one of them die so that another one could beat me
at checkers.

[...]

> > > > And the Bible records that priests were at times corrupt. Would you
> > > > like to see some of those verse? I think God would have known the
> > > > potential for trickery. I think God would have used a method that
> > > > could not be duplicated by men or would have left it completely up to
> > > > trusting God.
>
> > > Yup.
>
> > 1 Samuel 2:12-17 & 22
>
> > The priests were taking the offering for themselves before the
> > required ritual for God had been performed and they had sexual
> > misconduct with the women who served.
>
> Do you not see the damage that this causes to your point?
> 1. The mis-deeds of the priests was known to the people, which
> matches what I was saying about a priest growing up, and being known
> by the people, in a town. (or whatever it was)

This was an extreme case. This does not prove that minor corruption
was known.

> 2. The Bible reports this incident. If the Bible was edited,
> distorted as you say it was this should have been removed by the first
> con-man priest to come along.

Why would he do that? It's risky and provides no reward.

> Let alone get there in the first
> place..

Someone who did not Eli's family - say maybe the new High Priest.

> 3. The priests were punished for their inequities by God.
> Directly. If you believe that, then it would be true for other
> inequities as well. If you don't believe that, then this particular
> message is false and cannot be relied on - to disprove any other
> messages.
>

[...]

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 1:55:10 PM11/24/09

On Nov 24, 7:25 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Okay now I have time for part II

[...]

> > > > What I lack is proof of the attributes of God to demonstrate a
> > > > contradiction. We might never come to agreement on this.
>
> > > Yes, it does seem this way. This is pretty much the source of your
> > > objections, it looks. I am guessing that you are in a pretty tough
> > > position -
>
> > You mean personally? It was very hard at first. But when all the
> > things I had feared would happen and been told would happen didn't
> > happen I moved on.
>
> I don't know what you have been told, but that sounds like a "God will
> send thunderbolts out of the sky to kill you if you even ask a
> question" type of thing.

I was told that I needed the Bible in order to be Christian. I feared
that I would not be Christian without it.

> > It's hard to keep a strait face in Bible study.
> > Last Sunday I had to read a long passage from John 12 and I couldn't
> > do it without giggling just a little. I see a lot of dissonance up
> > close. (Example: we had one who was twisting herself in knots trying
> > to figure out how Jonah could preach the gospel message before Christ
> > had come and she was very open about her frustration but she also
> > clearly wasn't ready to draw the obvious conclusion. I gave her a
> > hint which seemed to help her.)
>
> Which passage?

John 12:37-43 gave me the most trouble. Or did you mean from Jonah?
The hint was that Jonah preached repentance. That was Jonah's gospel.

> Yes, the western methods have been influenced by the renassance and by
> Roman legal concepts and thinking. Throw in the fact that we are
> using translations (which is something I really expected you to bring
> out in your objections to Biblical accuracy) - and you are almost
> guaranteed to misunderstand things.

I don't critique translations because I know I am not qualified.

> > However it is my belief that I can't
> > help them if they are not ready for such a burden. I don't have data
> > but it seems to me that the typical response to seeing through the
> > theology is atheism. Personally I think there is a way to adjust the
> > theology so that people don't get that betrayed feeling from it. I'm
> > still working on that problem.
>
> Ah, this is a very interesting statement. What do you use as a
> criteria - something "feels wrong" or, maybe "I don't like what this
> says"?

It's a little more specific than that. If we can demonstrate it is
false that would be the number one red flag that the dogma will
backfire often. A literal Genesis is an excellent example of this.
We indoctrinate our children with it, then we have to prevent them
from going to a real college or else they will feel betrayed upon
learning the truth and most of them will leave Christianity as a
result. I think if we started telling them that it is not to be taken
literally that would nip the problem in the bud.

> Especially the Old Testament wasn't written for people of our time
> frame. We have capabilities, and knowledge, that they didn't dream
> of in those times. How do you explain an airplane to a child - "The
> air holds the plane up" or something like that? A more technical
> explaination "is better", true - but is beyond the comprehension of a
> child.

Vague but true explanations would be better than vague and false ones.

[...]

> > > Without being able to trust the Bible, you have to
> > > discount much if not all of that information. Might I ask what
> > > portion(s) of the Bible you consider "good"?
>
> > What I find to be good and inspiring.
>
> What do you think of Proverbs 14:12 is warning us against?

Disobedience to the king.

> > Examples include - the Fruit of
> > the Spirit, the upside down values attributed to Jesus, the
> > breakthroughs in valuing human life and rights for children and
> > women. If there is a good deity guiding us, and I believe there is,
> > it seems that such things might be from On High.
>
> Would such a deity allow their messages to go astray?

Yes. We know there is much diversity in religion.

> The New
> Testament is relatively recent when compared to the Old Testament.
> Jesus makes numerous quotes of the OT (mostly from the Septuagint, but
> not all) - using them for their authority. Obviously he didn't have
> any issue with scripture.

Obviously? We have no words from Jesus. We have words from those who
wrote stories about Jesus.

> I know you have a little difficulty with
> Jesus quoting scripture - why should he, since he "outranks" it?
> Well, remember, WE know who Jesus is. The people of that time did
> not. They trusted scripture already.
>
> Jesus DID have problems with how scripture - the Old Testament - was
> being intepreted/enforced by the authorities. (Even now, the Jewish
> rabbis have another book that they work from that contains a lot of
> how things are to be done.) At one point Jesus does tell the people
> to "do what they say, but not what they do". I do not think that
> Jesus would tell them to do something that is incorrect.
>
> As I have stated before, at least some of the people of that day -
> using ONLY the Old Testament, in the form that we have it now - came
> to the correct understanding ("Love God / Love thy Neighbor"). If
> you believe that to be true, then we know that the fruits of correctly
> applying/reading the Old Testamant are good! And we know how to
> judge a tree/something...
>
> But we also know that the authorities at that time also used the Old
> Testament but produced entirely different fruit.
>
> Same Old Testament. Two different fruits/trees. What is the
> difference?

Interpretation.

God bless,

House

v1_0

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 2:22:53 PM11/24/09

On Nov 24, 11:03 am, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > No. I am saying that a con man would have selected a better test. I
> > am arguing that the test isn't the product of a con man using exactly
> > the same reasoning that you are using for why it isn't a product of
> > God.
>
> Yet it isn't the same reasoning. The history of con men and the
> nature of poison kill your objection.

Not really. The con man has to duplicate the expected results of the
test. "Not Guilty" is easy. "Guilty" is much more difficult - there
are two symptoms. It's very specific - and although a lot of things
cause bloating/swelling of the stomach, not many are waterborne. 2
from the list that I found.

A chemical poison may affect the stomach, but that's only one of the
symptoms. I'm not sure how to duplicate the other. And, the test
does not say anything about *death*, which would be the result of the
poison.

[...]

> Con men don't have miraculous powers. They need a physical catalyst
> within the power of men. What do you mean a "better sort of test"?
> This one is perfect. The mark ~has~ to drink whatever the priest
> gives her. Does it get any more perfect than that?

You are absolutely right. I was saying "a better sort of test from
the con-man's perspective". A test that they have more control over,
and that is cheaper to administrate.

>
> > Say something like interpreting drops
> > of blood - all can see the drops, but only the priest has the 'gift'
> > to interpret it.
>
> But then the woman doesn't get sick. Blood drops would ring empty.

What? Ring empty? This is a historical method! It was actually
used (by different peoples). As is reading patterns in tea leaves,
clouds, etc. Some of those would be contemporary to the times we are
talking about.

>
> > Or falling into a trance, or something.
>
> Something with no power. Here the mark drinks whatever the priest
> gives her. And any effect is considered divine! It reinforces that
> you have power and you have complete control.

True. But requires more risk - you run the chance of getting caught
if you administer the test wrongly, or perhaps when you are aquiring
the materials you need for the test (poison). But, I note you've
gone from mud to poison. Plus, poison costs more than having 'the
mark' bring a chicken to you.

>
> [....]
>
> > > If nothing else he gets an extra quart (or whatever) of grain for
> > > every jealous husband out there.
>
> > I believe that a memorial offering is burned. I know that during the
> > test, a handful is burned, but there is further law about memorial
> > offerings.
>
> > Even if it isn't, it's the husband that is inititing the test and
> > loosing the grain - so it costs to do this test from his perspective,
>
> He would be called a mark as well.
>
> > plus whatever the bribe is, if we slip into your framework of
> > thinking. Seems like it would be cheaper just to issue a bill of
> > divorcement (Dueteronomy 24:1).

Did you read this? The husband merely fills out a bill of
divorcement and hands it to the wife. She is sent away. No tests,
no going to the temple, no memorial offerings.

>
> What kind of a bribe is a guilty wife going to offer the priest?
> Might she have something he might be interested in?
>
> > > > As opposed to something like reading tea leaves, or drops of
> > > > chicken blood - those things are both immediate and under control of
> > > > the con man.
>
> > > Just like the slipping her poison that can be done here.
>
> > Again, you would have to have a poision that acts exactly the way that
> > the symptoms are described. The symptoms seem to be pretty unique
> > together.
>
> If they already had a known toxin that would do just that . . . .

Yet, we do not have any knowledge of it.

-V

v1_0

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 3:01:47 PM11/24/09

On Nov 24, 1:55 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I don't know what you have been told, but that sounds like a "God will
> > send thunderbolts out of the sky to kill you if you even ask a
> > question" type of thing.
>
> I was told that I needed the Bible in order to be Christian. I feared
> that I would not be Christian without it.

They really didn't know, or think about history, did they? The
disciples for one had no New Testament, and they were called
Christians. For, what, 30 years or so, Christianity spread by word of
mouth - maybe a few letter followups. Past that, even if the church
had access to some form/parts of the New Testament - most of the
people couldn't read it. Literacy rates were something like, 10% or
so. It was only after 300 years that an "official" list of texts was
acknowledged. There are additional writings - The shepard of Hermas,
The didache, epistles of clement, for example - that were acknowledged
as being contemporary to the gospels, authoritative, correct,
accounts. But were not included as they repeated what was already
stated.

So, for those 300 years - there were people that weren't using all of
what we call the New Testament today. Nor could many of them read it
- or the Old Testament, for that matter.

But I think you may be reacting too far in the other direction.

>
> > > It's hard to keep a strait face in Bible study.
> > > Last Sunday I had to read a long passage from John 12 and I couldn't
> > > do it without giggling just a little. I see a lot of dissonance up
> > > close. (Example: we had one who was twisting herself in knots trying
> > > to figure out how Jonah could preach the gospel message before Christ
> > > had come and she was very open about her frustration but she also
> > > clearly wasn't ready to draw the obvious conclusion. I gave her a
> > > hint which seemed to help her.)
>
> > Which passage?
>
> John 12:37-43 gave me the most trouble. Or did you mean from Jonah?
> The hint was that Jonah preached repentance. That was Jonah's gospel.

The reference to the prophecy in Isaiah 53, and Jonah also being a
foreshadowing of Jesus (along with the repentance of man and the
forgiveness of God)?

Have you also considered Jonah 4? Jonah was judging God's actions
with the wisdom of men.

>
> > Yes, the western methods have been influenced by the renassance and by
> > Roman legal concepts and thinking. Throw in the fact that we are
> > using translations (which is something I really expected you to bring
> > out in your objections to Biblical accuracy) - and you are almost
> > guaranteed to misunderstand things.
>
> I don't critique translations because I know I am not qualified.

And yet, a lot of interpretations depend on the exact meanings of
words. And idioms. And contextual understanding. A good example of
this is the trouble that many people have when they try to reconstruct
the timeline of Jesus' death. If you reconstruct it according to
current methods, you end up with Jesus being early for his
resurrection - it should be on Monday.

>
> > > However it is my belief that I can't
> > > help them if they are not ready for such a burden. I don't have data
> > > but it seems to me that the typical response to seeing through the
> > > theology is atheism. Personally I think there is a way to adjust the
> > > theology so that people don't get that betrayed feeling from it. I'm
> > > still working on that problem.
>
> > Ah, this is a very interesting statement. What do you use as a
> > criteria - something "feels wrong" or, maybe "I don't like what this
> > says"?
>
> It's a little more specific than that. If we can demonstrate it is
> false that would be the number one red flag that the dogma will
> backfire often. A literal Genesis is an excellent example of this.

Although I do not fixate on a literal translation of Genesis, I don't
see any contraditions - more along the lines of the the airplane/air
thing. Are you thinking about the plants then the sun thing? Or the
trees/plants thing then man, then the creation of the garden of eden
and more trees/plants?

> We indoctrinate our children with it, then we have to prevent them
> from going to a real college or else they will feel betrayed upon
> learning the truth and most of them will leave Christianity as a
> result. I think if we started telling them that it is not to be taken
> literally that would nip the problem in the bud.

It's about the messages. I can misspell things, flip words, choose
'weird' words, but yet convey the message. I do not hold to a
doctrine of "biblical innerancy". I hold to "Biblical accuracy to
Gods message". These are not the same.

[...]

> House- Hide quoted text -
>

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 10:01:43 PM11/24/09

On Nov 24, 12:01 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> > > > It's hard to keep a strait face in Bible study.
> > > > Last Sunday I had to read a long passage from John 12 and I couldn't
> > > > do it without giggling just a little. I see a lot of dissonance up
> > > > close. (Example: we had one who was twisting herself in knots trying
> > > > to figure out how Jonah could preach the gospel message before Christ
> > > > had come and she was very open about her frustration but she also
> > > > clearly wasn't ready to draw the obvious conclusion. I gave her a
> > > > hint which seemed to help her.)
>
> > > Which passage?
>
> > John 12:37-43 gave me the most trouble. Or did you mean from Jonah?
> > The hint was that Jonah preached repentance. That was Jonah's gospel.
>
> The reference to the prophecy in Isaiah 53, and Jonah also being a
> foreshadowing of Jesus (along with the repentance of man and the
> forgiveness of God)?

I believe John 12:40 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 10:6

"Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

Essentially people will burn in hell because God didn't want them.
And it's only a few chapters after John 3:16.

> Have you also considered Jonah 4? Jonah was judging God's actions
> with the wisdom of men.

I don't think I am doing that. I see it as learning to tell the
difference between men's deception and God.

[...]

> > > > However it is my belief that I can't
> > > > help them if they are not ready for such a burden. I don't have data
> > > > but it seems to me that the typical response to seeing through the
> > > > theology is atheism. Personally I think there is a way to adjust the
> > > > theology so that people don't get that betrayed feeling from it. I'm
> > > > still working on that problem.
>
> > > Ah, this is a very interesting statement. What do you use as a
> > > criteria - something "feels wrong" or, maybe "I don't like what this
> > > says"?
>
> > It's a little more specific than that. If we can demonstrate it is
> > false that would be the number one red flag that the dogma will
> > backfire often. A literal Genesis is an excellent example of this.
>
> Although I do not fixate on a literal translation of Genesis, I don't
> see any contraditions - more along the lines of the the airplane/air
> thing. Are you thinking about the plants then the sun thing? Or the
> trees/plants thing then man, then the creation of the garden of eden
> and more trees/plants?

I think God has shown us that He made our universe billions of years
ago. IMO Genesis calls God a liar.

[...]

Pastor Dave

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 7:29:49 AM11/25/09

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:01:47 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v1...@hotmail.com>
spake thusly:

> On Nov 24, 1:55�pm, In My Fathers House wrote:
>
>> I was told that I needed the Bible in order
>> to be Christian. �I feared that I would not
>> be Christian without it.
>
> They really didn't know, or think about history,
> did they? The disciples for one had no New
> Testament, and they were called Christians.
> For, what, 30 years or so, Christianity spread
> by word of mouth - maybe a few letter followups.

Actually, the Apostles spread the word and built up
churches and sent others out to do so and they all
preached from a correct understanding of the OT.
They didn't go out just talking about Jesus. They
went out preaching Jesus from the OT Scriptures.

"And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia,
the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to
receive him: who, when he was come, helped
them much which had believed through grace:
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that
publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus
was Christ." - Acts 18:27-28

And furthermore, one was considered wise when
one looked to the Scriptures for proof of what
was being said by the Apostles:

"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul
and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming
thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that they received the word
with all readiness of mind, and searched the
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed; also of
honourable women which were Greeks
and of men, not a few." - Acts 17:10-12

And the letters were written on a fairly regular basis.
You can be sure that what we have now is not the
complete volume of letters that they wrote. And
these letters were circulated throughout the churches.
In fact, letters were always sent with someone that
the Apostles sent and their word that this person was
to be listened to and were authorized to teach them.
And all of this was while they were still alive, let alone
after they died.

So unless you have the Apostles and those they sent
teaching you and doing so with proofs from the OT,
which they did use, which means that yes, they did
use the Scriptures, or at least someone authorized
to teach and to use letters from the Apostles, then
you do not have a valid method of learning Christ.

Now is there a way to do that today? Why yes,
there is! It's called the New Testament! And
we can read their words and what they did and
learn about Christ directly from those who knew
Him and spoke with Him and walked with Him
and in Paul's case, communicated with Him
after He (Jesus) ascended. And that was valid,
as the other Apostles attested to, by accepting
him and sending him out to preach.

The Bible is where we learn about Jesus. We may
hear a preacher preach, but he preaches from the
Bible. We may see a TV program. But it is based
on what the Bible says. We may read a book.
But it is based on what the Bible says. Are they
all perfect? No. But that's why we do like Acts
shows and go to the Scriptures. But guess what?
That means that we are told directly, without any
question, that it is the Scriptures that we are to
go to for truth!

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Timothy 3:16

And yes, that includes the NT, since Peter even
called Paul's writings "Scripture".

The bottom line? What we know about Jesus,
we learn from the Bible. And what this man
learned, he knows from the Bible. So for him,
or anyone, to then turn around and claim that
the Bible isn't needed, is simple foolishness!

One is not a Christian without the Bible, since
one would not even know about Christ without
the Bible, regardless of the method one used
to initially hear about Christ!

Now what you're telling him might make him
feel good about what he's doing, but it doesn't
justify it, because there is no justification for it.

It is simply ludicrous to claim that one can learn
about Jesus from the Bible and then reject the
Bible, while claiming to be a Christian and just
reinvent Jesus the way they want Him to be.
That is not someone worshipping Jesus. That
is someone worshipping their own creation
that just happens to be the exact thing that
lines up with the way they wish things were!

What he is doing, is like reading the rule book
for baseball and then claiming that the rules
aren't necessary to play baseball and claiming
that what they want to do is okay and that all
baseball teams should accept them as valid
baseball players and play with them in a game,
even though they don't observe the rules of
baseball when they play. Yea, okay, right. :)

Pastor Dave

The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.

"When are things going to stop sucking around here?"
- Leland McKenzie (LA Law)

v1_0

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 11:11:01 AM11/25/09

On Nov 25, 7:29 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:01:47 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com>

And, who called Peter's writings scripture? This goes to a point
later.

>
> The bottom line? What we know about Jesus,
> we learn from the Bible. And what this man
> learned, he knows from the Bible. So for him,
> or anyone, to then turn around and claim that
> the Bible isn't needed, is simple foolishness!
>
> One is not a Christian without the Bible, since
> one would not even know about Christ without
> the Bible, regardless of the method one used
> to initially hear about Christ!

I would not make such a judgement about a *person* being or not being
something. Romans 2:13-15 should tell us that there is more going on
than is visible to us in this regard.

As a practice, though, I agree that it seems odd to ignore your best
and most reliable source of information.

Finally, you miss the context of this discussion. In My Fathers
House has established that he does not accept the Bible as being
inerrant. And that he believes it to contain a mix of human made
laws and stories, and messages from God. In this case, you cannot
use general scripture as an authority when you converse, unless you
first establish authority of the particular part.

>
> Now what you're telling him might make him
> feel good about what he's doing, but it doesn't
> justify it, because there is no justification for it.
>
> It is simply ludicrous to claim that one can learn
> about Jesus from the Bible and then reject the
> Bible, while claiming to be a Christian and just
> reinvent Jesus the way they want Him to be.

And yet.. Many have done this with the Church. As you have rightly
said, the Apostles would send both letter and person (to testify about
the letter, and to ensure it was correctly recieved, and to convey
additional information <John 21:25>). So why have people taken the
letters sent this way, removed them from their support - and attempted
to build another church around them?

> That is not someone worshipping Jesus. That
> is someone worshipping their own creation
> that just happens to be the exact thing that
> lines up with the way they wish things were!

As you have said.

-V

v1_0

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 12:12:16 PM11/25/09

On Nov 24, 10:01 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:01 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > It's hard to keep a strait face in Bible study.
> > > > > Last Sunday I had to read a long passage from John 12 and I couldn't
> > > > > do it without giggling just a little. I see a lot of dissonance up
> > > > > close. (Example: we had one who was twisting herself in knots trying
> > > > > to figure out how Jonah could preach the gospel message before Christ
> > > > > had come and she was very open about her frustration but she also
> > > > > clearly wasn't ready to draw the obvious conclusion. I gave her a
> > > > > hint which seemed to help her.)
>
> > > > Which passage?
>
> > > John 12:37-43 gave me the most trouble. Or did you mean from Jonah?
> > > The hint was that Jonah preached repentance. That was Jonah's gospel.
>
> > The reference to the prophecy in Isaiah 53, and Jonah also being a
> > foreshadowing of Jesus (along with the repentance of man and the
> > forgiveness of God)?
>
> I believe John 12:40 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 10:6
>
> "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
> shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
> ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
>

Actually, we are given a reason as to why this is. (John 12:43), plus
we are told that that Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled (v 38), and we
are also given an indication as to who the prophecy is against.

> Essentially people will burn in hell because God didn't want them.
> And it's only a few chapters after John 3:16.

This you can only get if you read the Bible through the lense of
Calvinist doctrine. Here is a good point about relying on the
translation of something as if it used the exact words that were
given. I have been told - from several people - that the Greek words
used to indicate predestination in the NT are those words that include
foreknowledge so that what is predestined is based on knowledge of the
future, rather than the reverse.

>
> > Have you also considered Jonah 4? Jonah was judging God's actions
> > with the wisdom of men.
>
> I don't think I am doing that. I see it as learning to tell the
> difference between men's deception and God.

But what you are not seeing is that your method is based on man as
well, and therefore subject to all the errors and deceptions of man.

>
> > Although I do not fixate on a literal translation of Genesis, I don't
> > see any contraditions - more along the lines of the the airplane/air
> > thing. Are you thinking about the plants then the sun thing? Or the
> > trees/plants thing then man, then the creation of the garden of eden
> > and more trees/plants?
>
> I think God has shown us that He made our universe billions of years
> ago. IMO Genesis calls God a liar.

I didn't get that memo from God. I have seen some people using
various methods of estimation, however. Using both science and
theology. They each make assumptions, though, that affect their
calculations.

And, although this is problematic in logic, we must acknowledge that
the Bible didn't say he created it in a "brand new" state - we can
actually infer that he created each set of things in an operating
state, as it speaks of plants/seeds at the same time.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 2:34:14 PM11/25/09

On Nov 25, 9:12 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> > I believe John 12:40 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 10:6
>
> > "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
> > shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
> > ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
>
> Actually, we are given a reason as to why this is. (John 12:43), plus
> we are told that that Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled (v 38), and we
> are also given an indication as to who the prophecy is against.

It's not a very nice thing to say about God.

> > Essentially people will burn in hell because God didn't want them.
> > And it's only a few chapters after John 3:16.
>
> This you can only get if you read the Bible through the lense of
> Calvinist doctrine.

I'm not fan of Calvin. I'm just going by what the words say.

These people will not be healed. These people will not understand.
Why - because of an act of God. God acts to ensure that these people
are never saved. I find it quite unflattering that the author claims
God would do this to people because they love man's glory more than
the glory that comes from God. Were he to claim I did such a thing I
would find it insulting.

> Here is a good point about relying on the
> translation of something as if it used the exact words that were
> given. I have been told - from several people - that the Greek words
> used to indicate predestination in the NT are those words that include
> foreknowledge so that what is predestined is based on knowledge of the
> future, rather than the reverse.

Personally I doubt God interacts with our time in such a way. What we
experience one drop at a time might be a landscape to his perception.
Time as we know it is God's creation so He would be outside it. Our
free will choices might look like random lines. But perhaps that is a
different topic for a different thread.

[...]

> > > Have you also considered Jonah 4? Jonah was judging God's actions
> > > with the wisdom of men.
>
> > I don't think I am doing that. I see it as learning to tell the
> > difference between men's deception and God.
>
> But what you are not seeing is that your method is based on man as
> well, and therefore subject to all the errors and deceptions of man.

Oh I am well aware that I am human, subject to the human condition,
make mistakes as often as the next guy and so on. I don't see an
alternative that isn't.

> > > Although I do not fixate on a literal translation of Genesis, I don't
> > > see any contraditions - more along the lines of the the airplane/air
> > > thing. Are you thinking about the plants then the sun thing? Or the
> > > trees/plants thing then man, then the creation of the garden of eden
> > > and more trees/plants?
>
> > I think God has shown us that He made our universe billions of years
> > ago. IMO Genesis calls God a liar.
>
> I didn't get that memo from God. I have seen some people using
> various methods of estimation, however. Using both science and
> theology. They each make assumptions, though, that affect their
> calculations.
>
> And, although this is problematic in logic, we must acknowledge that
> the Bible didn't say he created it in a "brand new" state - we can
> actually infer that he created each set of things in an operating
> state, as it speaks of plants/seeds at the same time.

That would be my point. God could lie to us. Maybe God made
everything so that it would look billions of years old and then told
us that it was only thousands of years old because God wants to mess
with us. I don't like believing that about God. I believe God is
good and honest. When God makes everything look billions of years old
I'm going to believe that, for we know humans didn't fake this. If
some human writes a story that is silly compared to what God has done,
and makes God out to be a liar - well it just seems to be that the
story is human.

v1_0

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 5:30:43 PM11/25/09

On Nov 25, 2:34 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 9:12 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > I believe John 12:40 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 10:6
>
> > > "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
> > > shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
> > > ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
>
> > Actually, we are given a reason as to why this is. (John 12:43), plus
> > we are told that that Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled (v 38), and we
> > are also given an indication as to who the prophecy is against.
>
> It's not a very nice thing to say about God.

It's not against God, its against the people.

Look at Isaiah 6 again.

v8 - God asks for a volunteer, Isaiah responds.
v9 - God tells Isaiah what to say to the people. You hear, but don't
understand. You look but don't see. This is an existing condition!
v10 - God strengthens the existing condtion. This is the same as
what happened to Pharoah - his heart was hardened. (Count the times
and by whom) Understand that the word "hardened" has changed meanings
somewhat. It used to mean "strengthen in resolve", not to become
callous and insensitive as it does now. Again, another example of
translation issues.

Isaiah 6:10 is certainly restated in John 12:40.

However, consider John 12:42. Here we see that - nonetheless (of
John 12:40) - many of the chief rulers believe in Jesus!

>
> > > Essentially people will burn in hell because God didn't want them.
> > > And it's only a few chapters after John 3:16.
>
> > This you can only get if you read the Bible through the lense of
> > Calvinist doctrine.
>
> I'm not fan of Calvin. I'm just going by what the words say.

Or what you see them say, just as Calvin did to come to his
doctrine. And many others have come to all sorts of doctrines, many
incompatable with each other, all claiming to be right, all being able
to show proof in the scripture - sometimes using the exact same
verses. This is the fruit of sola scriptura - the fruit of man using
individual wisdom.

>
> These people will not be healed. These people will not understand.
> Why - because of an act of God. God acts to ensure that these people
> are never saved. I find it quite unflattering that the author claims
> God would do this to people because they love man's glory more than
> the glory that comes from God. Were he to claim I did such a thing I
> would find it insulting.
>
> > Here is a good point about relying on the
> > translation of something as if it used the exact words that were
> > given. I have been told - from several people - that the Greek words
> > used to indicate predestination in the NT are those words that include
> > foreknowledge so that what is predestined is based on knowledge of the
> > future, rather than the reverse.
>
> Personally I doubt God interacts with our time in such a way. What we
> experience one drop at a time might be a landscape to his perception.
> Time as we know it is God's creation so He would be outside it. Our
> free will choices might look like random lines. But perhaps that is a
> different topic for a different thread.

You are correct. If you think about God being outside time, you can
reason that such concepts as foreknowledge and predestination are not
anywhere close. "I AM" is actually exactly the best statement of
what is going on. All that talk about days and years and stuff like
that is strictly for us.

>
> [...]
>
> > > > Have you also considered Jonah 4? Jonah was judging God's actions
> > > > with the wisdom of men.
>
> > > I don't think I am doing that. I see it as learning to tell the
> > > difference between men's deception and God.
>
> > But what you are not seeing is that your method is based on man as
> > well, and therefore subject to all the errors and deceptions of man.
>
> Oh I am well aware that I am human, subject to the human condition,
> make mistakes as often as the next guy and so on. I don't see an
> alternative that isn't.

Trusting God is the alternative. That brings me back to one of my
opening points: if God has put forth a message, should we not be able
to trust him to safeguard that message?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Although I do not fixate on a literal translation of Genesis, I don't
> > > > see any contraditions - more along the lines of the the airplane/air
> > > > thing. Are you thinking about the plants then the sun thing? Or the
> > > > trees/plants thing then man, then the creation of the garden of eden
> > > > and more trees/plants?
>
> > > I think God has shown us that He made our universe billions of years
> > > ago. IMO Genesis calls God a liar.
>
> > I didn't get that memo from God. I have seen some people using
> > various methods of estimation, however. Using both science and
> > theology. They each make assumptions, though, that affect their
> > calculations.
>
> > And, although this is problematic in logic, we must acknowledge that
> > the Bible didn't say he created it in a "brand new" state - we can
> > actually infer that he created each set of things in an operating
> > state, as it speaks of plants/seeds at the same time.
>
> That would be my point. God could lie to us. Maybe God made
> everything so that it would look billions of years old and then told
> us that it was only thousands of years old because God wants to mess
> with us. I don't like believing that about God. I believe God is
> good and honest. When God makes everything look billions of years old
> I'm going to believe that, for we know humans didn't fake this. If
> some human writes a story that is silly compared to what God has done,
> and makes God out to be a liar - well it just seems to be that the
> story is human.

That is a good point. As a counter point, Genesis isn't intended to
be a science text. Scientific observations seem to agree with the
order established in Genesis. Most people that I've discussed this
with do not take a literal approach to Genesis. I haven't researched
this subject in depth, there are a couple of commentaries that I know
of that I would like to read. Then, perhaps, I can understand how
best to understand Genesis. Note, though, that I do not discard it
as not being God's message simply because I don't like how it is
stated.

-V

In My Fathers House

unread,

Nov 25, 2009, 10:31:52 PM11/25/09

On Nov 25, 2:30 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2:34 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 9:12 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > > I believe John 12:40 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 10:6
>
> > > > "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
> > > > shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
> > > > ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
>
> > > Actually, we are given a reason as to why this is. (John 12:43), plus
> > > we are told that that Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled (v 38), and we
> > > are also given an indication as to who the prophecy is against.
>
> > It's not a very nice thing to say about God.
>
> It's not against God, its against the people.
>
> Look at Isaiah 6 again.

I do wish you had not asked me to do that. Now that I open it up I
see that the salvation message was not needed. vs 7

How did I ever convince myself that there are no contradictions in the
Bible?

> v8 - God asks for a volunteer, Isaiah responds.
> v9 - God tells Isaiah what to say to the people. You hear, but don't
> understand. You look but don't see. This is an existing condition!
> v10 - God strengthens the existing condtion. This is the same as
> what happened to Pharoah - his heart was hardened.

Where God butchered thousands simply because they had the misfortune
of being ruled by a dictator who was stubborn.

> (Count the times
> and by whom) Understand that the word "hardened" has changed meanings
> somewhat. It used to mean "strengthen in resolve", not to become
> callous and insensitive as it does now. Again, another example of
> translation issues.
>
> Isaiah 6:10 is certainly restated in John 12:40.
>
> However, consider John 12:42. Here we see that - nonetheless (of
> John 12:40) - many of the chief rulers believe in Jesus!
>
>
>
> > > > Essentially people will burn in hell because God didn't want them.
> > > > And it's only a few chapters after John 3:16.
>
> > > This you can only get if you read the Bible through the lense of
> > > Calvinist doctrine.
>
> > I'm not fan of Calvin. I'm just going by what the words say.
>
> Or what you see them say, just as Calvin did to come to his
> doctrine.

Double drat on the NIV translators then.

> And many others have come to all sorts of doctrines, many
> incompatable with each other, all claiming to be right, all being able
> to show proof in the scripture - sometimes using the exact same
> verses.

Which is one reason I finally realized that there are contradictions
in the Bible.

[...]
> > > > > Have you also considered Jonah 4? Jonah was judging God's actions
> > > > > with the wisdom of men.
>
> > > > I don't think I am doing that. I see it as learning to tell the
> > > > difference between men's deception and God.
>
> > > But what you are not seeing is that your method is based on man as
> > > well, and therefore subject to all the errors and deceptions of man.
>
> > Oh I am well aware that I am human, subject to the human condition,
> > make mistakes as often as the next guy and so on. I don't see an
> > alternative that isn't.
>
> Trusting God is the alternative.

That I use a certain technique does not mean I am not trusting God.

> That brings me back to one of my
> opening points: if God has put forth a message, should we not be able
> to trust him to safeguard that message?

If . . .

Do you not see the circular reasoning?

1) Assume that JRR Tolken's The Lord of the Rings is the inspired
word of God
2) Trust God

How do you know when you have made an error?

[...]

> Note, though, that I do not discard it
> as not being God's message simply because I don't like how it is
> stated.

Nor do I.

God bless,

House

Pastor Dave

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 7:19:16 AM11/26/09

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:11:01 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v1...@hotmail.com>
spake thusly:

Jesus personally sent Peter out. That's good
enough for me. :)

And what did Jesus say to those He sent out?

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear
your words, when ye depart out of that house
or city, shake off the dust of your feet."
- Matthew 10:14

Btw, that was a huge insult back then! :)

So when "House" rejects their words, he is rejected
according to Christ Himself.

And speaking of the words He spoke, Jesus said:

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore
hear them not, because ye are not of God."
- John 8:37

So when House does not hear all or part of what
Jesus said, he is "not hearing God's words" and
that is because "he is not of God". And that is
according to Jesus Himself.

But hey, if you're "House", you can just claim
that was added later and dismiss it, right?

How convenient for him. :)

> This goes to a point later.

There's no point that's going to change the facts
about what House and those like him do.

>> The bottom line? �What we know about Jesus,
>> we learn from the Bible. �And what this man
>> learned, he knows from the Bible. �So for him,
>> or anyone, to then turn around and claim that
>> the Bible isn't needed, is simple foolishness!
>>
>> One is not a Christian without the Bible, since
>> one would not even know about Christ without
>> the Bible, regardless of the method one used
>> to initially hear about Christ!
>
> I would not make such a judgement about
> a *person* being or not being something.

One is not a believe by reinventing God and not
believing even part of what He said. The reality
is, that if something in the Bible seems unbelievable,
we have a choice to make.

1) Believe God.

2) Don't believe God.

What we don't get to do, is create our own Bible
that has what we say is true and excludes what
we say isn't.

To be a Christian is to follow Christ. We can only
know how to do that, by what He said. What He
said is found in the Bible. We know what we do
of Christ through the Bible. To reject what it says,
is to reject His words, which is to reject Him, period,
which means that one isn't a Christian, period.

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not My words,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
- John 12:48

It ain't rocket science, dude. :)

> Romans 2:13-15 should tell us that there is more
> going on than is visible to us in this regard.

It says nothing about rejecting the Bible as
God's word, or even part of it. It speaks of
Gentiles in those days who never had it to
begin with.

You have just violated the very thing you were
trying to defend. You don't get to use the Bible.
Not if you're trying to defend someone claiming
that it's okay to reject all or part of the Bible and
still claim to be a Christian. And yet, those who
make that claim always try to appeal to the Bible,
which of course, never says what they claim is
okay, just as House did when I had this discussion
with him directly. After all, how can you possibly
know that those verses are trustworthy? Maybe
they are an error that was added later. Or does
House get to make the choices and decide for
all of us?

The bottom line is that if we all did that, there
would be as many Bibles as there are people
claiming to be Christians.

And gee, isn't it easy to be in a conversation about
what the Bible says and then, every time someone
points out a passage, you get to just reject it as
"later added error" and not have to deal with it?

I am not saying you personally, but whomever.

The truth is, that's cowardice! To pretend to be
interested in a discussion and to pretend to believe
in God's word and then whenever God's word is
inconvenient for you, just wave it away and keep
pretending to be genuine, is just that: Cowardice!

Again, that statement is about whomever does that.

> As a practice, though, I agree that it seems odd
> to ignore your best and most reliable source of
> information.

It is the source of reliable information.

>> Now what you're telling him might make him
>> feel good about what he's doing, but it doesn't
>> justify it, because there is no justification for it.
>>
>> It is simply ludicrous to claim that one can learn
>> about Jesus from the Bible and then reject the
>> Bible, while claiming to be a Christian and just
>> reinvent Jesus the way they want Him to be.
>
> And yet.. Many have done this with the Church.

But we aren't talking about the church and that
type of approach is nothing more than saying
it's okay to do, because someone else is doing it.

That's what we did when we were five, remember? :)

> As you have rightly said, the Apostles would
> send both letter and person (to testify about
> the letter, and to ensure it was correctly recieved

> and to convey additional information <John 21:25>).
> So why have people taken the letters sent this way,
> removed them from their support - and attempted
> to build another church around them?

What does this have to do with House rejecting
what he doesn't want to believe in the Bible?

> Finally, you miss the context of this discussion.
> In My Fathers House has established that he
> does not accept the Bible as being inerrant.
> And that he believes it to contain a mix of
> human made laws and stories, and messages
> from God. In this case, you cannot use
> general scripture as an authority when you
> converse, unless you first establish authority
> of the particular part.

Actually, that's not true. I don't have to prove
every piece of the Bible to everyone I speak to,
before I can quote it. The bottom line is, if one
is claiming to be a Christian, then one cannot
reject even part of Scripture, since it is all surely
bound together.

And yes, it is up to you, if you are in Christ, to tell
someone flat out that what they are doing is wrong,
if it is wrong and that they are not a Christian, if
they are not and you do a great disservice to Christ
when you accept whatever someone says and believes
and their claim that it is "Christian". Christ expects us
to stand up for Him, not to lay down for others who
pervert His word.

You mention how churches pervert the words and
how bad that is and yet, you argue that we have
no right to object to that type of crap, when you
defend House's practice, which you did defend.

And so, according to your defense and claim that
we shouldn't say what he is or is not, you shouldn't
be questioning what those other churches do and
no offense, you are a hypocrite for doing so when
you should be, according to your own argument
about House, accepting them as Christians who
have the right to do that, since if they do qualify
as Christians, then they are right for doing it.

One either accepts the Bible/God's word, or they don't.
And if they don't and claim that stories and errors are
mixed in with it, then they don't get to use it at all and
they don't get to claim to get reliable information from
it, since if it contains errors, then it is impossible to know
what is erroneous and what is not and anyone who claims
to know, is simply creating their own Bible, based on their
own desires of what they want to be true and what they
don't want to be true and they simply do not trust God's
word. And while they claim to worship God, they really
make Him into an impotent hack, who can't even protect
His own word! Yet He was able to create a universe???

I'm sorry, but I really just don't have sympathy for people
like that.

Pastor Dave

The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.

"He who forsees calamities suffers them twice over."
- FlashForward

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 11:02:33 AM11/26/09

On Wed, 11/25/09, at 9:31:52PM,

In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Do you not see the circular reasoning?

On Tue, 10/13/09, at 12:57:00AM,
In Group: alt.christnet.christianlife
Article:
<5f01390c-2518-4639...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*****************************************************************
> How do you know you are measuring things by "reality", rather
> than just your subjective perception of it?

When I discover my perception is wrong I adjust.
*****************************************************************

Randy ®

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 1:11:26 PM11/26/09

On Wed, 11/25/09, at 9:31:52PM,
In My Fathers House <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Where God butchered thousands simply because they had the misfortune
> of being ruled by a dictator who was stubborn.

Do you think people are holy and innocent, and deserve to have
pleasant things happen to them, or do you accept what the Bible
says, which is that all men deserve eternal wrath, and that God
is being gracious by keeping any of them out of eternal
destruction in hell (Romans 3)?

v1_0

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 2:29:33 PM11/26/09

On Nov 25, 10:31 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2:30 pm, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 2:34 pm, In My Fathers House <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 9:12 am, v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > > > I believe John 12:40 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 10:6
>
> > > > > "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
> > > > > shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
> > > > > ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
>
> > > > Actually, we are given a reason as to why this is. (John 12:43), plus
> > > > we are told that that Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled (v 38), and we
> > > > are also given an indication as to who the prophecy is against.
>
> > > It's not a very nice thing to say about God.
>
> > It's not against God, its against the people.
>
> > Look at Isaiah 6 again.
>
> I do wish you had not asked me to do that. Now that I open it up I
> see that the salvation message was not needed. vs 7

Where Isaiah has his sin and inequity purged? (It does not say
"saved".) This is in response to what he said in vs5.

>
> How did I ever convince myself that there are no contradictions in the
> Bible?

We have been given a method to judge things. It was couched in
agricultural words, but the method is very sound.

>
> > v8 - God asks for a volunteer, Isaiah responds.
> > v9 - God tells Isaiah what to say to the people. You hear, but don't
> > understand. You look but don't see. This is an existing condition!
> > v10 - God strengthens the existing condtion. This is the same as
> > what happened to Pharoah - his heart was hardened.
>
> Where God butchered thousands simply because they had the misfortune
> of being ruled by a dictator who was stubborn.

Ok, here you are judging by the "wisdom of man". That wisdom
*fears* death because it is under sin! So, not believing in the life
to come, that wisdom assigns death as being the ultimate punishment,
and therefore evil. You could certainly say that this wisdom has
eyes, but sees not.... As Christians, we have a different way of
looking at death - but this is folly in the eyes of the wisdom of
man.

[...]

>
> > And many others have come to all sorts of doctrines, many
> > incompatable with each other, all claiming to be right, all being able
> > to show proof in the scripture - sometimes using the exact same
> > verses.
>
> Which is one reason I finally realized that there are contradictions
> in the Bible.

No, this just shows that the methods being used are flawed. Look at
the whole "global warming" debate going on. Each side using the same
data pool, yet coming up with different - conflicting - opinions.
Does this mean that we should discard science?

>
> [...]

>
> > That brings me back to one of my
> > opening points: if God has put forth a message, should we not be able
> > to trust him to safeguard that message?
>
> If . . .
>
> Do you not see the circular reasoning?
>
> 1) Assume that JRR Tolken's The Lord of the Rings is the inspired
> word of God
> 2) Trust God
>
> How do you know when you have made an error?

This is not a true analogy of my argument, for one. This would be
closer:

1. Assume that JRR Tolken's "The Lord of the Rings" is the inspired
word of God.
2. Since God choose to inspire "The Lord of the Rings", it follows
that he intended for us to read it.
3. Since he intended for us to read it it follows that he would do
everything in his power to make sure it is available.

I suppose you could summarize all of this as "trust God" if you want,
but that does not convey the logic. You can dispute the assumptions
here, or try to 'break the chain' of the logic, but with counter
points, not with false accusations of circular reasoning.

But here is a point to ponder:

We have been given the standard by which to judge things - by its
fruit - and have seen where people have used only the Old Testament to
reach the understanding of the golden rule (which is what started this
conversation, way back when - so I am assuming that you accept the
golden rule as being inspired). Also by whom, the position of which
would accept *all* of the scriptures, including the Jealousy test.
It was further treated, in the account we are given, as expected
('normal') and not as an exception. I believe we would call this
"good fruit". You would be correct in pointing out that others,
reading the same, arrived at different understandings. (As you can
plainly see, this is true today as well). But the point is, that the
fact that any good fruit came from the tree - and is actually expected
of the tree by Jesus - should be testamony enough about the tree.

-V

I

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 4:19:18 PM11/26/09

Used to be
Re: " Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor...homosexual
offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Cor. 6:9-10

"Randy � Young" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote

> Circular Reasoning by House

It's the type of spam regularly regurgitated by this serial unemployed pest.

I

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 4:20:21 PM11/26/09

"Randy � Young" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you think people ... deserve to have pleasant things happen to them

YES!

--
BIBLE - the Fundamentalist Golden Calf which comes in a Trew Kristyun
version that you can supersize with added fries (in Hell).

dolf

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 4:36:51 PM11/26/09

RIGHTEOUSNESS?

Have you not heard that in the beginning God made them (male and female)?

With this retort Jesus of Nazareth responds with to the testing question
asked by the Pharisees "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
just any reason?" [Matthew 19:3]

Jesus makes it clear that "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, and marries another, commits adultery and whoever marries
her who is divorced commits adultery."

This leaves the disciples to conclude that in such a circumstance, it is
simply better not to marry.

The comparator Jesus makes is to the immutable status of being
experienced by the Eunuch: "For there are eunuchs who were born thus
from their mother's womb, and there are eunuch's who are made eunuchs by
men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept
it." [Matthew 19:12]

According to the Book of Jubilees, which mirrors the Genesis 1:27; 5:2
account of God making humankind in his own in his own image and
likeness, "God made the male ALONE and a rib on the 6th day (THUS
ANDROGYNOUS having both male and female characteristics)--and the female
on the 13th day when she was shown to her husband" [Jubilees 2:14]

HENCE: This is the law for her that has given birth to a male or a female.

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be
unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her
infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his
foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood
of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed
thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be
fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two
weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her
purifying threescore and six days." [Leviticus 12:2-5]

God did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath but
Israel" [Jubilees 2:31]

Circumcision is not a requirement under the new covenant and neither is
there male nor female in Christ.

dolf

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 4:37:01 PM11/26/09

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages