To boldly pray about split infinitives
Timothy
to peacefully accept the things I cannot change;
courage to earnestly change the things I can;
and discernment to wisely know the difference.
Timothy <><
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
news:j8G6g.130$fI1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
He hasn't hearkened to you so far, Tim.
Far, far, from it.....
Jude1: 3 "Dearly loved friends, I had been planning to write you some
thoughts about the salvation God has given us, but now I find I must write
of something else instead, urging you to stoutly defend the truth that God
gave once for all to his people to keep without change through the years. "
(TLB)
Jeff...
Timothy
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
message news:ZGL6g.1037$fI1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
It's you that He hasn't hearkened to, Jeff, since it is you and your
Christadelphians that 'preach another gospel', and reject the Church of
Christ.
I pray that you will become aware of this, in the Name of God, Father, Son
and Holy Spirit.
Amen.
Timothy <><
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
> message news:ZGL6g.1037$fI1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:j8G6g.130$fI1...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>> God grant me the serenity
>>> to peacefully accept the things I cannot change;
>>> courage to earnestly change the things I can;
>>> and discernment to wisely know the difference.
>>
>> He hasn't hearkened to you so far, Tim.
>> Far, far, from it.....
>>
>> Jude1: 3 "Dearly loved friends, I had been planning to write you some
>> thoughts about the salvation God has given us, but now I find I must
>> write of something else instead, urging you to stoutly defend the truth
>> that God gave once for all to his people to keep without change through
>> the years. " (TLB)
>>
>> Jeff...
>
> It's you that He hasn't hearkened to, Jeff, since it is you and your
> Christadelphians that 'preach another gospel',
Well I left them 26 years ago.....but the Gospel I preach is the 'one and
only' which was preached and practiced by the first authentic Christians of
the 1st Century.
Yours or the RCC has nothing to compare with them.
>and reject the Church of Christ.
The supposed ones, yes I CERTAINLY do, those propagated by the infamous RCC
and the Anglican church of fornicating homo-heretics.
Members of the truth Church will never agree with Christ's brethren killing
others or each other, either for heresy, or in fighting wars of the flesh.
Both encouraged their members to fight and kill the enemy in the name of God
in both world wars.
> I pray that you will become aware of this, in the Name of God, Father, Son
> and Holy Spirit.
Stow it Tim.
You don't even know who they really are, or what the TRUTH is even about.
For I hear on the Radio 4 'Sunday' programe there were seven people applying
for the next Bishop appointment in the American Anglican farcical church,
and was it FOUR, where actually wicked Homosexuals?
How 'deceived'......................
[1 Cor. 6:10 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."
.................does such a farcical dummy church have to be, before it
realises it is self-condemned?
Titus 3:10-11
> Amen.
Right on Tim.
Jeff...
Timothy
And there speaks the voice of Godly love and tolerance.
Timothy <><
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Such a dumb but expected response.
No wonder Tim pours out 'his blessings' on deluded Catholic Jim.
The faithful are commanded NOT to tolerate any fornicators including
homosexuals in any of God's Church's. They are to be expelled before the
whole body becomes corrupted by their evil presence.
"No ye not that a little leaven, leaveneth the WHOLE LUMP".
Or... Galatians 5:9 "But it takes only one wrong person among you to infect
all the others."
Anglicans and all other heretical sects refuse to believe this vital but
obvious truth.
Indeed, none of the "deceived" are meant to believe or understand it.
Because they have become corrupted by their own Liberal notions.
So God has promised that He will make sure that such evil minded people will
"Believe a lie" and they sure do.
"Blessed be the name of the Lord". {;o;}
Jeff...
claire....@ntlworld.com
It is interesting. I've had it explained to me but I still do not see
how you can disregard all the bits in the Bible about homosexuality
theologically speaking. I can understand emotionally that we are all
people and naturally loving people do not want to exclude others but
still intellectually I am unconvinced because if the only way to
include others is to water down the message then you end up with lots
of people not getting much. I'd also point out that the Anglican church
is declining still further while many of the 'evangelical' (I use the
word in it's broadest sense meaning the non-established protestants)
churches are growing. I know both sides in the dispute between
Anglicans think that they are morally superior to one another but all I
think about it is that you are probably wrong. I am happy to discuss it
properly though and try to understand both points of view.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147114038.9...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >And there speaks the voice of Godly love and tolerance.
>
> It is interesting. I've had it explained to me but I still do not see
> how you can disregard all the bits in the Bible about homosexuality
> theologically speaking.
Tim can as he has slowly become converted to that corrupted way of thinking.
1 Cor 15:33 "Evil communication corrupts good manners".
Or.... 33 "Don't be fooled by those who say such things. If you listen to
them you will start acting like them.
34 Get some sense and quit your sinning. For to your shame I say it; some of
you are not even Christians at all and have never really known God."
Amen!
Homosexuality was first promoted through the media soon after the start
of the sexual revolution in the early 1960's.
Till then homosexuals were few and far between.
Now kids try it out for 'kicks' and then some become hooked on the
perversion.
Homosexually was no issue in the churches, hardly in the evil world till the
start of the 60's since then a wicked evil spirit of liberalism has
encouraged and propagated such low and immoral lifestyles.
The sensible and God-fearing moral restraints that where operating for the
protection of society have now been lifted by most 'Kristyun' governments
and thus we see the rising tide of Aids and venereal diseases caused by the
rampant evil desires in the hearts of the sons/daughters of men.
Jesus stated nations would be in the same state as the times of Sodom and
Gomorrah prior to his return, and they are.
And Jude warns us of their awesome punishment.
Jude 1:7 "And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their
neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for
other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a warning
to us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished."
AMEN!
Jeff...
Rev.. 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and
idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
claire....@ntlworld.com
>> It is interesting. I've had it explained to me but I still do not see
>> how you can disregard all the bits in the Bible about homosexuality
>> theologically speaking.
>Tim can as he has slowly become converted to that corrupted way of thinking.
>1 Cor 15:33 "Evil communication corrupts good manners".
Well Jeff, you are not very good mannered about Catholics, or anybody
disagreeing with you (if they were all like Jim you might have a point
though I grant you!) ;-) In fact all your posts seem to be about
Catholics and homosexuals and homosexual Catholics ....and homosexuals
who might become Catholics...and Catholics who might become homosexuals
....and -, well you get my point! Still, it is a theological objection
not Jim's sort of supporter's club religious affiliation so I
suppose that is something - at least there is something to work with
in a debate with you whereas Jim does not get further than 'Catholics
are right because I'm one and I'm one because Catholics are
right'!
>Or.... 33 "Don't be fooled by those who say such things. If you listen to
>them you will start acting like them.
I think it is best to understand your opponent's argument as fully as
possible to make your case convincing.
>Jesus stated nations would be in the same state as the times of Sodom and
>Gomorrah prior to his return, and they are.
I know. I wonder what Tim makes of these numerous passages?
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147128653.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
The ancients were no wiser than we are now, and in some ways demonstrably
less so. It's as simple as that. Different belief systems - I don't
believe the ancients had 'special revelation' from God, (except in some
special circumstances), I believe that the Bible reflects a slow learning
process as Mankind learnt more about God and His Creation, and we're still
learning now. The people of Bible times could be and often were wrong, but
they recorded what they honestly thought at the time. Each generation needs
to reinterpret and rediscover for themselves what God revealed in Christ
means to them, in the context of their own time and culture - it's no good
being stuck in the 1st Century. I believe it is un-Biblical to discriminate
against anyone because we are ALL made in the Image of God. Black, white,
yellow, brown, male, female, gay, straight, able-bodied, disabled, blind,
sighted, etc etc.
Whatever the ancients felt in Bible times, treating all people as equal
members of our one human family, all made in the Image of God, is very much
in line with the Rule over all rules, to Love our Neighbour as ourselves.
Discrimination is evil bigotry, made worse when the Holy Scriptures are
misused to 'justify' it, by those who want to point the finger at others to
draw attention away from their own bigotted and sinful lives.
Timothy <><
claire....@ntlworld.com
>misused to 'justify' it,
I don't want to discriminate against anybody. People can't help what
they are but they can help what they do. What they do outside of the
church is up to them but I don't see there can be proud practicing
homosexuals in the church.
> by those who want to point the finger at others to
>draw attention away from their own bigotted and sinful lives.
I agree. The amount of hysteria among some is unreasonable and says
more about them than the issue. Most people just know what they know
and want to leave it at that. Plus even 'liberals' can be bigots,
thinking that they are so preogressive and everybody else is a bigot.
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147156071.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >Discrimination is evil bigotry, made worse when the Holy Scriptures are
>>misused to 'justify' it,
>
> I don't want to discriminate against anybody. People can't help what
> they are but they can help what they do. What they do outside of the
> church is up to them but I don't see there can be proud practicing
> homosexuals in the church.
>
Maybe it's the 'proud' bit that's the problem. For centuries it was just
accepted that some well respected Bishops and clergy had a same sex friend
living with them, and if anything 'went on' it was behind closed doors and
no-one knew about it. Most people would probably have said, "It's good he's
got company, it would be terribly lonely in that big house all alone". It
was the old 'dont ask, dont tell' system. I feel that it is the discretion
about these things that has gone, in the old days the clergy could live with
a companion, and nothing was said. Now, it would be difficult for them to
choose to do so even if the relationship was a completely non-sexual
friendship, and I think that's very sad.
>> by those who want to point the finger at others to
>>draw attention away from their own bigotted and sinful lives.
>
> I agree. The amount of hysteria among some is unreasonable and says
> more about them than the issue. Most people just know what they know
> and want to leave it at that. Plus even 'liberals' can be bigots,
> thinking that they are so preogressive and everybody else is a bigot.
>
That's also true. Personally I recognise that many peoples' beliefs are
sincere on this, and that is why the old don't ask don't tell was better all
round. After all, no-one's life is without sin, so it is better to get on
helping and supporting one-another through life, rather than pointing
fingers. I believe homosexuals (practicing or not) are just as able to help
others as anyone else.
Regarding people who believe homosexual acts to be sinful in all
circumstances, the answer is simple - they should avoid such activity in
their own lives. Of course they are free also to tell others what they
believe, but they should also accept that not everyone in the Church
(spiritual, not physical) shares their belief.
Incidentally, I dont consider myself, or liberalism generally, to be
'Progressive', it's more a recognition that God is big enough to be
accessible to all eras and cultures. As times change and Mankind's
knowledge and understanding changes with it, each generation must
re-interpret what their faith means to them.
Timothy <><
claire....@ntlworld.com
>> they are but they can help what they do. What they do outside of the
>> church is up to them but I don't see there can be proud practicing
>> homosexuals in the church.
>Maybe it's the 'proud' bit that's the problem. For centuries it was just
>accepted that some well respected Bishops and clergy had a same sex friend
>living with them, and if anything 'went on' it was behind closed doors and
>no-one knew about it.
Yes, I think that's it. It is so 'In your face', as is sexuality
in general. It is like the whole place is a cattle-market! I'd rather
not see tits hanging out on the Underground when I'm stuck there
through the need to get to work, it's just gross!!! Aside from the
fact this sort of advertising oneself as open for business in
inappropriate situations is intrusive on others it is intrusive of
every other aspect of social life....it is part of life don't get me
wrong but it's a Pandora's box hijacked for people needing a sense
of identity. It bugs me in the context of church because Christians are
supposed to have found what makes us complete. Nobody says the
Catholics are bigots for demanding their clergymen be celibate do they?
It seems like a very secularist debate and you are right to say it
would be better if it was a case of 'don't ask, don't tell.'
but now the two sides in the debate want everybody to agree with them.
>Most people would probably have said, "It's good he's
>got company, it would be terribly lonely in that big house all alone". It
>was the old 'dont ask, dont tell' system. I feel that it is the discretion
>about these things that has gone, in the old days the clergy could live with
>a companion, and nothing was said. Now, it would be difficult for them to
>choose to do so even if the relationship was a completely non-sexual
>friendship, and I think that's very sad.
Yeah.
>>> by those who want to point the finger at others to
>>>draw attention away from their own bigotted and sinful lives.
>> I agree. The amount of hysteria among some is unreasonable and says
>> more about them than the issue. Most people just know what they know
>> and want to leave it at that. Plus even 'liberals' can be bigots,
>> thinking that they are so preogressive and everybody else is a bigot.
>That's also true. Personally I recognise that many peoples' beliefs are
>sincere on this, and that is why the old don't ask don't tell was better all
>round. After all, no-one's life is without sin, so it is better to get on
>helping and supporting one-another through life, rather than pointing
>fingers. I believe homosexuals (practicing or not) are just as able to help
>others as anyone else.
>Regarding people who believe homosexual acts to be sinful in all
>circumstances, the answer is simple - they should avoid such activity in
>their own lives. Of course they are free also to tell others what they
>believe, but they should also accept that not everyone in the Church
>(spiritual, not physical) shares their belief.
I think the liberal wing on this are divided between those who see
nothing wrong with homosexual sex and those who do but accept we are
all sinners?
>Incidentally, I dont consider myself, or liberalism generally, to be
>'Progressive', it's more a recognition that God is big enough to be
>accessible to all eras and cultures. As times change and Mankind's
>knowledge and understanding changes with it, each generation must
>re-interpret what their faith means to them.
Of course we have a history of religious revivalism but you have to be
careful that you're not just accepting the prevailing secular notion
of post-modernism.
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147286684.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>Regarding people who believe homosexual acts to be sinful in all
>>circumstances, the answer is simple - they should avoid such activity in
>>their own lives. Of course they are free also to tell others what they
>>believe, but they should also accept that not everyone in the Church
>>(spiritual, not physical) shares their belief.
>
> I think the liberal wing on this are divided between those who see
> nothing wrong with homosexual sex and those who do but accept we are
> all sinners?
Well, the 'liberal wing' isn't really one group, there are liberal
evangelicals, as well as liberal 'high-church' people, and for many reasons
they are not a unified group anyway. The real argument is theologcal and
goes much deeper than the homosexuality issue, although that's the current
issue that brings the dispute to the surface. The real dispute boils down
to how we understand and interpret Scripture, in part, and in a wider sense,
what we believe about the nature of God Himself. Certainly I feel it is
central for all Christians to understand the importance of humility and our
utter dependance on Grace - the need to have a contrite heart and understand
the meaning of "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner". My personal view is it is
a matter of priorities, and the greater priority is to ensure we do those
things the ones who said, "Lord, Lord" and were rejected had failed to do,
ie help the needy, love one-another, etc. That is why I say that to get on
and do the Lord's work is more important than pointing accusing fingers - a
faith without works is dead.
>
>>Incidentally, I dont consider myself, or liberalism generally, to be
>>'Progressive', it's more a recognition that God is big enough to be
>>accessible to all eras and cultures. As times change and Mankind's
>>knowledge and understanding changes with it, each generation must
>>re-interpret what their faith means to them.
>
> Of course we have a history of religious revivalism but you have to be
> careful that you're not just accepting the prevailing secular notion
> of post-modernism.
>
I agree that that is a potential trap, but personally I hope I haven't
fallen in to it!! My personal belief is that (a) the Holy Spirit didn't
cease to teach us when the Bible days ended, and (b) that although the Bible
gives us a usual pattern for living it doesn't necessarily mean all other
patterns which are not the usual are automatically "wrong". Modern
knowledge strongly suggests that homosexual orientation is not a choice
(despite the twisting done by some people to try and claim it is) and that
it is hardly ever 'curable' by 'treatments' or 'therapies'. If that is the
case, it would seem (to me) to be immoral to deny such people the fullness
of human sexual love in the only way they can experience it. Thus I
consider homosexual acts acceptable *but only in very limited
circumstances*, ie between people naturally oriented that way and in a
committed and loving relationship. The Bible 'norm' still holds for the 94%
of people (according to recent government survey, apparently) who are
heterosexual - for them homosexual acts would be wrongful.
Timothy <><
claire....@ntlworld.com
>> nothing wrong with homosexual sex and those who do but accept we are
>> all sinners?
>Well, the 'liberal wing' isn't really one group, there are liberal
>evangelicals, as well as liberal 'high-church' people, and for many reasons
>they are not a unified group anyway.
Interesting. Would you say then that the high church liberal people
take the former view and the Evangelical liberal people the latter?
>The real argument is theologcal and
>goes much deeper than the homosexuality issue, although that's the current
>issue that brings the dispute to the surface. The real dispute boils down
>to how we understand and interpret Scripture, in part, and in a wider sense,
>what we believe about the nature of God Himself.
Of course, some people are saying the Gospels are not ....
well....Gospel! ;-)
That only begs the question, what if anything can we take from them as
the truth?
>Certainly I feel it is
>central for all Christians to understand the importance of humility and our
>utter dependence on Grace - the need to have a contrite heart and understand
>the meaning of "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner".
Somebody said that there are two extremes. The Christian Massachusetts
who constantly call on God to mercy and feel a sense of deep shame and
the Christian Sadists who hit people over the head with a Bible and
call on them to repent and be more like them.
>My personal view is it is
>a matter of priorities, and the greater priority is to ensure we do those
>things the ones who said, "Lord, Lord" and were rejected had failed to do,
>ie help the needy, love one-another, etc. That is why I say that to get on
>and do the Lord's work is more important than pointing accusing fingers - a
>faith without works is dead.
It is just not an issue unless it is pushed.
>> Of course we have a history of religious revivalism but you have to be
>> careful that you're not just accepting the prevailing secular notion
>> of post-modernism.
>I agree that that is a potential trap, but personally I hope I haven't
>fallen in to it!! My personal belief is that (a) the Holy Spirit didn't
>cease to teach us when the Bible days ended, and (b) that although the Bible
>gives us a usual pattern for living it doesn't necessarily mean all other
>patterns which are not the usual are automatically "wrong". Modern
>knowledge strongly suggests that homosexual orientation is not a choice
No, but intercourse is. I think it is very bad to confuse the two
things.
>(despite the twisting done by some people to try and claim it is) and that
>it is hardly ever 'curable' by 'treatments' or 'therapies'. If that is the
>case, it would seem (to me) to be immoral to deny such people the fullness
>of human sexual love in the only way they can experience it.
Why? And who is denying it? They can choose whether or not to
participate in a church can they not? It just does not seem a logical
argument you are making here Timothy ... many men have affairs ... in
fact men may even be predisposed to want more than one sexual partner
... does that make monogamy immoral?
claire....@ntlworld.com
Sorry, I meant 'Masochists' - the spell-check is a wonderful thing but
it can't work miricles!
Steve Wilson
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147298115....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> I think the liberal wing on this are divided between those who see
>>> nothing wrong with homosexual sex and those who do but accept we are
>>> all sinners?
>>Well, the 'liberal wing' isn't really one group, there are liberal
>>evangelicals, as well as liberal 'high-church' people, and for many
>>reasons
>>they are not a unified group anyway.
>
> Interesting. Would you say then that the high church liberal people
> take the former view and the Evangelical liberal people the latter?
>
>>The real argument is theologcal and
>>goes much deeper than the homosexuality issue, although that's the current
>>issue that brings the dispute to the surface. The real dispute boils down
>>to how we understand and interpret Scripture, in part, and in a wider
>>sense,
>>what we believe about the nature of God Himself.
>
> Of course, some people are saying the Gospels are not ....
> well....Gospel! ;-)
> That only begs the question, what if anything can we take from them as
> the truth?
>
catholic beliefs. He appears to say the Bible is authoritative then trumps
certain issues, i.e the issue of homosexual practice, by saying that
'science' and 'reason' now show the Bible's statements to be wrong or
incomplete.
The problem I find with this, and which is really highlighted over the issue
with homosexuality, is that there is no consensus on what causes homosexual
inclinations. Some scientists say it is inborn (genetic) whilst others say
it is due to enviromental (bio-chemical, hormonal etc) abnormalities and
others, bad early life experiences. To my knowledge, genetic determinism
has now been ruled out, but the scientific jury is still out on the other
factors; whether it is a single or combined interaction of several
influences . To pronounce science has the answer and then make use of it to
trump the Bible's moral teaching is clearly a mis-use use of science and how
it works.
I prefer to take on board what the latest evidence says but keep an open
mind as it will most likely be superceeded by the futher investigations as
the last word in science is never the last word. I also think a lot of
caution needs to be exercised with the mis-use of the tentative scientific
results by interested groups. It is now well known that the homosexual
protagonists latched on to a few flawed scientific studies to promote the
idea that homosexual tendencies are inate and therefore natural and good.
Many homosexuals were ready to believe this because it confirmed them in
their sinful activities. The homosexual activists have also had some
success in spreading this proganda into society at large in order to further
their agenda of making society approve of their lifestyle and setting it
along side hetersexual marriage.
Steve Wilson
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147298115....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> I think the liberal wing on this are divided between those who see
>>> nothing wrong with homosexual sex and those who do but accept we are
>>> all sinners?
>>Well, the 'liberal wing' isn't really one group, there are liberal
>>evangelicals, as well as liberal 'high-church' people, and for many
>>reasons
>>they are not a unified group anyway.
>
> Interesting. Would you say then that the high church liberal people
> take the former view and the Evangelical liberal people the latter?
Not necessarily. There are a spectrum of views on this. Many take the view
(as I do) that sex in the context of a committed and loving relationship
between two people of the same sex (and both of homosexual orientation) is a
matter for their own personal conscience only. It is a private matter.
That view has its roots in acknowledging that we know more about human
nature and sexuality than they did in Bible times, and that had (for
instance) St Paul had the benefit of such knowledge he would probably have
phrased some things differently. As we believe it would actually be immoral
to prevent such people having complete and fulfilling human loving
relationships, or indeed to discriminate against them, it is an instance
where we would say the *spirit* of the Law is more important than the letter
of the Law. That is, the guiding principles of love, fairness, and a
recognition that we are ALL made in the Image of God and therefore all of
equal value, and the overruling principle of Love thy Neighbour and do good
to others etc, are more relevant than statements written long before human
knowledge about sexuality had reached its current level. Thus we cannot be
sure (despite the written word) that homosexual activity is ALWAYS sinful
and that there are NO exceptions. We believe that there are exceptions, in
the light of modern knowledge and in the *spirit* of the Bible message. The
argument that we are all sinners and therefore we should tolerate sin is a
much weaker one and not one I subscribe to, although we should at the same
time recognise that we are all sinners...
>
>>The real argument is theologcal and
>>goes much deeper than the homosexuality issue, although that's the current
>>issue that brings the dispute to the surface. The real dispute boils down
>>to how we understand and interpret Scripture, in part, and in a wider
>>sense,
>>what we believe about the nature of God Himself.
>
> Of course, some people are saying the Gospels are not ....
> well....Gospel! ;-)
> That only begs the question, what if anything can we take from them as
> the truth?
Yes, I understand why some people would be unhappy about this. Many people
want everything rigidly defined and set in concrete for them, since without
that they feel insecure, and so if anyone attempts to shake that security
they will defend it perhaps literally to the death. Thus when people (like
me) come along and suggest that it is general principles that count, and
that the accounts we have are a mixture of history, mythology or symbology,
and theological ideas, they are naturally hostile. However, I try to look
at the known facts with an open mind, and also try to be honest about what I
*really* believe in my heart-of-hearts, rather than repeating blindly the
indoctrination of other people or equally blindly following the words on the
page, without prayer or thought. It is generally accepted that all the
Bible Gospels were written a long time after the events. Even Mark's Gospel
which was probably the earliest, is likely to have been some 30 years after
the Crucifixion, and John's Gospel was written perhaps as late as 90 AD or
even later. The accounts don't always agree with each other in some
details, and the early Church was fully aware of that. Also Mark shows some
evidence of editing and additions. John's Gospel, particularly the 1st
chapter, shows it is a theological or 'spiritual' document, in the main, and
liberties are taken with the chronology of events in order to strengthen the
*spiritual* Message, which by the end of the 1st Century they had realised
was the important part - Christ had not yet returned and they realised a
long wait, perhaps of generations, was coming. So John's Gospel contains
the basis of 1st Century theology, in much the same way as the Sermon on the
Mount contains most of the basis of Christian teaching and morality.
Today, many even quite fundamental people seem to be reasonably tolerant of
divorce and re-marriage, arguing that things are different now, since in NT
times a divorced woman would have not received the support and assistance
from the Authorities that they can get today. They would argue that,
surely, it is immoral to force people to remain in un-loving, unhappy and
abusive relationships? Yet the very same people can often be really,
perhaps even offensively, hostile to homosexuals and homosexual
relationships. Such an attitude is VERY hypocritical, since the teaching
against divorce is MUCH stronger in Scripture, since it is recorded as
coming from the lips of none other than Christ Himself. However, Christ is
not recorded as having mentioned homosexuality at all, at least
unambiguously. It seems incredible that He didn't, if it is as totally
awful as some people are claiming today.
Personally, I also hold the view that the teaching against divorce was in
the context of the society of the time, and I don't personally believe that
Jesus would have wanted people to be forced to stay in abusive and unloving
relationships in today's context in our society, where a divorced woman and
her children will not be left to starve. We need (I believe) to look upon
individual cases with compassion and understanding, and whilst recognising
the Bible principle that divorce is *normally* wrong, there ARE exceptions,
where the spirit of the Law (love and compassion) overrules the letter of
the Law. Now, the New Testament teaching against homosexuality is much
weaker than the teaching against divorce, only St Paul seems to mention it,
and in the Romans 1 passage it is in the context of using it as an analogy
for turning to non-Christian religions, or endorsing some of their
practices. It is probably an allusion to the Temple male prostitution that
went on in some other religions of the time. The other referrences are less
specific and hard to be certain of the correct translation. St Paul seems
to coin his own word at one point, and also a phrase meaning 'weak' or
'effeminate' or 'soft' seems to get translated as a reference to
homosexuality. That doesn't fit logic, since many heterosexual males are
effeminate in nature, and many homosexual males are not. Indeed, no gender
qualification is applied, so if the 'effeminate' will not enter heaven, it
doesn't look good for the majority of women...
The bottom line (!) is that I believe an honest approach to the Gospels and
NT writings leads me to the conclusion that they are descriptive of general
principles, rather than prescriptive of fixed rules and regulations. Thus,
they need to be understood in the light of reason and knowledge, rather than
blinkered and blind indoctrination.
>
>>Certainly I feel it is
>>central for all Christians to understand the importance of humility and
>>our
>>utter dependence on Grace - the need to have a contrite heart and
>>understand
>>the meaning of "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner".
>
> Somebody said that there are two extremes. The Christian Massachusetts
> who constantly call on God to mercy and feel a sense of deep shame and
> the Christian Sadists who hit people over the head with a Bible and
> call on them to repent and be more like them.
In fact, there *are* two extremes presented in the Bible, held forever in
balance, or tension. On one side of the coin is God's total Holiness, and
perfect judgement, to which only perfection will do. On the other side of
the same coin is God's boundless love and mercy. That's where the Greatest
Story Ever Told comes in: The Word was with God in the beginning, the Word
is God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, the Word as a man
sacraficed Himself for us, to fulfill God's total Righteousness, the Word is
eternal.
The problem is, nearly everyone presents one side or the other! We are
called to believe we are truly 'set free' in Christ, since He has fulfilled
the Law - but if we truly accept and believe that, and truly love Him, then
we will do His will - not out of fear, but out of love.
>
>>My personal view is it is
>>a matter of priorities, and the greater priority is to ensure we do those
>>things the ones who said, "Lord, Lord" and were rejected had failed to do,
>>ie help the needy, love one-another, etc. That is why I say that to get
>>on
>>and do the Lord's work is more important than pointing accusing fingers -
>>a
>>faith without works is dead.
>
> It is just not an issue unless it is pushed.
Yes, pushed by either side.
>>> Of course we have a history of religious revivalism but you have to be
>>> careful that you're not just accepting the prevailing secular notion
>>> of post-modernism.
>>I agree that that is a potential trap, but personally I hope I haven't
>>fallen in to it!! My personal belief is that (a) the Holy Spirit didn't
>>cease to teach us when the Bible days ended, and (b) that although the
>>Bible
>>gives us a usual pattern for living it doesn't necessarily mean all other
>>patterns which are not the usual are automatically "wrong". Modern
>>knowledge strongly suggests that homosexual orientation is not a choice
>
> No, but intercourse is. I think it is very bad to confuse the two
> things.
I consider sex acts between two people other than penis-vaginal intercourse
to come under the heading of masturbation rather than intercourse. Anyhow,
it comes down to words, and it shouldn't be assumed that (a) all homosexual
males practice anal sex, or (b) that all heterosexual couples do not. It
was a well-known 'contraceptive' in the 19th Century among the poorer
classes who could not afford to keep paying for sheaths. What we are really
discussing is whether it is wrong for two consenting people (male or
female), in private, who love one another and have made a commitment to one
another, to fulfill their sexual love for one-another by 'mutual
satisfaction', or masturbation. In the end, that means we really come down
to what we feel about St Paul's statements, and whether they should be
applied to people of homosexual orientation as we understand it today, with
our knowledge of these times, or whether it is morally better to permit
people to have fulfilling loving human relationships.
>
>>(despite the twisting done by some people to try and claim it is) and that
>>it is hardly ever 'curable' by 'treatments' or 'therapies'. If that is
>>the
>>case, it would seem (to me) to be immoral to deny such people the fullness
>>of human sexual love in the only way they can experience it.
>
> Why? And who is denying it? They can choose whether or not to
> participate in a church can they not?
And they will do. If the church they are attending rejects them, they will
join another that won't, or even form their own church.
> It just does not seem a logical
> argument you are making here Timothy ...
I think it is, so it is likely you have misunderstood. I am arguing against
*discrimination* within the Anglican Church against their own Clergy. Such
things as saying they can have a partnership, but they have to promise
celibacy to their Bishop first. Isn't that 'denying'? Sounds like it to
me. I guess they can lie to the Bishop.... Wouldn't it be better not to
ask? And what about sincere people being denied status of Bishop because of
their sexuality?
> many men have affairs ... in
> fact men may even be predisposed to want more than one sexual partner
> ... does that make monogamy immoral?
>
Strawman. We're talking about recognising monogamous relationships between
consenting adults who love and are committed to one-another, and their
rights and responsibilities as full participants in our churches, and indeed
the Church of Christ.
Timothy <><
Timothy
"Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44630...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
The Bible *principles* about all humans being made in the Image of God, and
therefore of equal value, the principle of love, compassion, tolerance and
so on. The Bible is descriptive of general principles, rather than
prescriptive of inflexible rules. ALL rules apart from Love God, Love your
neighbour, CAN have reasonable exceptions, in the *context* of these higher
Biblical principles. I repeat, it would be right to steal insulin to save
the life of a diabetic, even though the Bible very clearly says "Thou shalt
not steal".
>
> The problem I find with this, and which is really highlighted over the
> issue with homosexuality, is that there is no consensus on what causes
> homosexual inclinations.
Who cares? They are there in 6% of people and that's that. Why harp on
about the 'why'?
> Some scientists say it is inborn (genetic) whilst others say it is due to
> enviromental (bio-chemical, hormonal etc) abnormalities and others, bad
> early life experiences. To my knowledge, genetic determinism has now been
> ruled out, but the scientific jury is still out on the other factors;
> whether it is a single or combined interaction of several influences . To
> pronounce science has the answer and then make use of it to trump the
> Bible's moral teaching is clearly a mis-use use of science and how it
> works.
Rubbish. Your 'knowledge' is inaccurate and the Bible's moral teaching
tells us about love, compassion, mutual support and understanding.
>
> I prefer to take on board what the latest evidence says but keep an open
> mind as it will most likely be superceeded by the futher investigations as
> the last word in science is never the last word.
I wish you could keep an equally open mind about peoples' understanding of
Scripture - because that is the underlying question. That is the debate we
should REALLY be having, then irrelevant questions about the causes of
homosexual orientation could be left out of the discussion.
> I also think a lot of caution needs to be exercised with the mis-use of
> the tentative scientific results by interested groups. It is now well
> known that the homosexual protagonists latched on to a few flawed
> scientific studies to promote the idea that homosexual tendencies are
> inate and therefore natural and good.
I don't know how 'well known' that is. It is also 'well known' that
interested fundies will throw in such groundless statements just to prop up
their arguments. (Most scientific thought is that there is a genetic
pre-disposition to likelyhood of developing homosexual orientation, and that
environmental factors also play a part, and the two effects work in
conjucntion in varying degrees. But I consider this irrelevant to this
debate anyway, since it really hinges on how we understand what the
Authority of Scriptue actually means, and how we interpret it, and what
weight we give to different parts of Scripture).
> Many homosexuals were ready to believe this because it confirmed them in
> their sinful activities.
You go off again, stating YOUR belief as fact. Suppose they are *right* in
their belief, and that their activities are NOT sinful in certain
exceptional circumstances? Or would you let the diabetic die in front of
you because of "Thou shalt not steal"?
> The homosexual activists have also had some success in spreading this
> proganda into society at large in order to further their agenda of making
> society approve of their lifestyle and setting it along side hetersexual
> marriage.
Yes, it's good to see progress towards recognising that all people are made
in the Image of God and are equal members of our One Human Family.
Timothy <><
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> mind as it will most likely be superceeded by the futher investigations as
> the last word in science is never the last word. I also think a lot of
> caution needs to be exercised with the mis-use of the tentative scientific
> results by interested groups. It is now well known that the homosexual
> protagonists latched on to a few flawed scientific studies to promote the
> idea that homosexual tendencies are inate and therefore natural and good.
> Many homosexuals were ready to believe this because it confirmed them in
> their sinful activities. The homosexual activists have also had some
> success in spreading this proganda into society at large in order to
> further their agenda of making society approve of their lifestyle and
> setting it along side hetersexual marriage.
> Steve Wilson
Even if it was a 'natural tendency' to be a homosexual, it is still an
'abomination' before God, and so such men were ordered to be put to death in
Israel for their sinful homosexual practises.
Thus 'natural tendency' is no excuse for homosexual fornication, even as
heterosexual desires are no excuse for intercourse unless in a married
situation.
Thus we are warned that all such classes will still be excluded from God's
Kingdom, homosexual or heterosexual.
"Be not deceived: fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers , nor extortioners, shall inherit the
kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:10
Jeff...
Timothy
> "Be not deceived: fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor
> covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers , nor extortioners, shall inherit
> the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:10
>
> Jeff...
>
So women will not inherit the kingdom of God. Well, they might, but only if
they aren't effeminate.
Timothy <><
claire....@ntlworld.com
Why are we discussing it then?
>That view has its roots in acknowledging that we know more about human
>nature and sexuality than they did in Bible times, and that had
Do we?
>As we believe it would actually be immoral
>to prevent such people having complete and fulfilling human loving
>relationships,
Nobody is prevented. You have a choice. You can't always get
everything you want in life ... sometimes you have to prioritise what
is most important to you.
>equal value,
The same value? Yes! The same calling? Doubtful.
>and the overruling principle of Love thy Neighbour and do good
>to others etc, are more relevant than statements written long before human
>knowledge about sexuality had reached its current level. Thus we cannot be
>sure (despite the written word) that homosexual activity is ALWAYS sinful
>and that there are NO exceptions.
I wish that was the case but there are several very strong references
to homosexuality in the Bible and none seem contradictory.
>We believe that there are exceptions, in
>the light of modern knowledge and in the *spirit* of the Bible message. The
>argument that we are all sinners and therefore we should tolerate sin is a
>much weaker one and not one I subscribe to, although we should at the same
>time recognise that we are all sinners...
I think the sin argument makes more sense theologically.
>>>The real argument is theologcal and
>>>goes much deeper than the homosexuality issue, although that's the current
>>>issue that brings the dispute to the surface. The real dispute boils down
>>>to how we understand and interpret Scripture, in part, and in a wider
>>>sense,
>>>what we believe about the nature of God Himself.
>> Of course, some people are saying the Gospels are not ....
>> well....Gospel! ;-)
>> That only begs the question, what if anything can we take from them as
>> the truth?
>Yes, I understand why some people would be unhappy about this. Many people
>want everything rigidly defined and set in concrete for them, since without
>that they feel insecure, and so if anyone attempts to shake that security
To be honest it is not just insecure fundamentalists who have a problem
with your reasoning but most Christians. You appear to be a minority on
this issue (nothing wrong in that) but calling all other Christians
insecure etc does seem rather odd. I think maybe some Anglicans are
insecure about keeping the faith in a very secular society; they are
trying to be all things to all people and are just laughed at by the
people they are trying to impress who accuse you of lacking sincerity
and conviction!
>they will defend it perhaps literally to the death.
Why not, lots of things are worth dying for but not nearly as many are
worth killing for.
>Thus when people (like
>me) come along and suggest that it is general principles that count, and
>that the accounts we have are a mixture of history, mythology or symbology,
>and theological ideas, they are naturally hostile.
True some people are hostile, but I think I'm more bemused than
hostile. I have studied the social sciences when I was a student, I can
think and analyse and criticise but I still think your position is not
logical intellectually even if it feels right emotionally.
>It is generally accepted that all the
>Bible Gospels were written a long time after the events. Even Mark's Gospel
>which was probably the earliest, is likely to have been some 30 years after
>the Crucifixion, and John's Gospel was written perhaps as late as 90 AD or
>even later. The accounts don't always agree with each other in some
>details, and the early Church was fully aware of that. Also Mark shows some
>evidence of editing and additions. John's Gospel, particularly the 1st
>chapter,
See this is where I get deeply suspicious of your argument Timothy
because I hear these arguments used by atheists trying to disprove
Christ so know that that is where these arguments lead! :-( That is
why I agree with both you and Steve when you both point out this is a
far greater issue than homosexuality.
>Today, many even quite fundamental people seem to be reasonably tolerant of
>divorce and re-marriage, arguing that things are different now, since in NT
>times a divorced woman would have not received the support and assistance
>from the Authorities that they can get today. They would argue that,
Strawman! See, you accused me of this but yours just went on and on!
;-)
>Thus, they need to be understood in the light of reason and knowledge, rather than
>blinkered and blind indoctrination.
All beliefs should be measured by their logic and consistency.
Excessively liberal people are just as good at indoctrination from what
I can see in politics at least! :-)
> faith without works is dead.
True enough, although if Martin Luther was an Anglican he'd have said
'Here I stand .... but I will go anywhere else if you want me to!'
;-)
> It is just not an issue unless it is pushed.
Yes, pushed by either side.
>>> Of course we have a history of religious revivalism but you have to be
>>> careful that you're not just accepting the prevailing secular notion
>>> of post-modernism.
>>I agree that that is a potential trap, but personally I hope I haven't
>>fallen in to it!! My personal belief is that (a) the Holy Spirit didn't
>>cease to teach us when the Bible days ended, and (b) that although the
>>Bible
>>gives us a usual pattern for living it doesn't necessarily mean all other
>>patterns which are not the usual are automatically "wrong". Modern
>>knowledge strongly suggests that homosexual orientation is not a choice
> No, but intercourse is. I think it is very bad to confuse the two
> things.
>I consider sex acts between two people other than penis-vaginal intercourse
>to come under the heading of masturbation rather than intercourse. Anyhow,
?it comes down to words
LOL Bill Clinton's lawyers even managed to argue over the word
'is'!!!
>> It is just not an issue unless it is pushed.
>Yes, pushed by either side.
Quite.
>And they will do. If the church they are attending rejects them, they will
>join another that won't, or even form their own church.
Exactly! And if as many appear to, they think that in all honesty it is
contorted logic to say practicing homosexuals are not at odds with the
Christian teaching, they will leave regardless of there being a choice
of churches. So then, that is a problem caused by your logic not just
intolerance.
claire....@ntlworld.com
>The Bible *principles* about all humans being made in the Image of God, and
>therefore of equal value
Maybe I'm just tired and therefore overly sensitive but there is
something rather offensive and somewhat arrogant about the suggestion
that anybody who does not agree with you is some sort of supremacist! I
hope after careful thought you will see that for the prejudice that it
is and retract it as a generalisation Tim? I have a similar problem
with your use of the term 'fundamentalist' which again you seem to
call anybody disagreeing with you. Perhaps you might define this term
and take note that nowhere have I said anything 'fundamentalist'
- it is like calling somebody a fascist almost... a way to be
condescending and dismissive of somebody's views by associating them
with extremism. It loses it's true meaning when used in this way.
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147383483.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The Bible *principles* about all humans being made in the Image of God,
>>and
>>therefore of equal value
>
> Maybe I'm just tired and therefore overly sensitive but there is
> something rather offensive and somewhat arrogant about the suggestion
> that anybody who does not agree with you is some sort of supremacist! I
> hope after careful thought you will see that for the prejudice that it
> is and retract it as a generalisation Tim?
Well, really!! I'm amazed that anyone could see it that way. Are you
playing 'Devils Advocate'? The notion that we are all made in the Image of
God is something held by most Christians, as is the notion that human beings
are of great and equal value - to remind people of those precepts doesn't
mean I am suggesting that they are 'supremacist'! Its just simply an
explanation of why I feel that fair and unprejudiced treatment of all is in
line with Biblical values, as I perceive them. I think you know that is my
intention very well, and you are just doing the Devil's Advocate bit. Don't
forget women also suffer from prejudice in churches even now, and that is
largely because of literalist interpretation of St Paul - and despite the
very same guy saying "In Christ there is neither male nor female". How
about extending that principle to not just their sex, but their sexuality?
> I have a similar problem
> with your use of the term 'fundamentalist' which again you seem to
> call anybody disagreeing with you. Perhaps you might define this term
> and take note that nowhere have I said anything 'fundamentalist'
When I talk about a 'fundamentalist' or 'fundie', I use the term usually in
the context of someone who takes the Bible VERY literally and believes that
their OWN interpretation is 100% right and therefore everyone else who
disagrees with them MUST be wrong. Such a person cannot be reasoned or
argued with in any sense, because as far as they're concerned they've got it
all 'taped'. They are very arrogant, and I agree that you do not fall into
this category. Some posters on here behave that way from time to time, but
we've only got ONE that really fits that description, and it's not you!!
> - it is like calling somebody a fascist almost... a way to be
> condescending and dismissive of somebody's views by associating them
> with extremism. It loses it's true meaning when used in this way.
>
Yes, there is an element of that in the use of the word, I'll admit. But
one poster recently said "Their sinful lives". My immediate reaction is
annoyance, that he is judge and jury and because of HIS interpretation of
Scripture they must be sinning. Also implicit in his wording is that he
himself is NOT a sinner, or less so than they - and he should therefore be
careful because his life is an open book to God, as it is for all of us. He
should watch HIS words, if I am expected to watch mine....
Timothy <><
claire....@ntlworld.com
>playing 'Devils Advocate'? The notion that we are all made in the Image of
>God is something held by most Christians, as is the notion that human beings
>are of great and equal value - to remind people of those precepts doesn't
>mean I am suggesting that they are 'supremacist'!
In a way yes, but it sounds like you are claiming you opinion is based
on that as though those of others were not. I'm sure there are plenty
of bigots and you would not consciously have made that generalisation
but that is how it looked to my sleepy eyes last night!
Regarding women, I think sexism is an entirely differant issue since
your sex is what you are not what you do.
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147381469.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >t is a private matter.
>
> Why are we discussing it then?
Because we moved away from 'dont ask, dont tell' I suppose. But really I
agree that we shouldn't be discussing this issue as much as we should
theological questions about how different Christians view the nature of
Scripture, its relevance and Authority.
>
>>That view has its roots in acknowledging that we know more about human
>>nature and sexuality than they did in Bible times, and that had
>
> Do we?
We've done a lot more studies, have computers now, have spread studies over
times and cultures, and so on. No doubt we have a lot still to learn, but
it is very very likely that we DO know more now, and correspondingly
unlikely that they were more complete in their understanding 2000 years ago
than we are today.
>
>>As we believe it would actually be immoral
>>to prevent such people having complete and fulfilling human loving
>>relationships,
>
> Nobody is prevented. You have a choice. You can't always get
> everything you want in life ... sometimes you have to prioritise what
> is most important to you.
You say that nobody is prevented, but they WERE prevented by law until just
a few decades ago, and in some countries still ARE. That was and is very
unjust, in my opinion. Also don't forget that people such as Geoffrey John
have been denied the role of Bishop for no other reason than their
sexuality, since in his case he declared his celibacy - so it was simple and
unjustifiable discrimination in his case, whatever your views on homosexual
activity are.
>
>>equal value,
>
> The same value? Yes! The same calling? Doubtful.
As with men and women, generally they fit different roles in society - but
that is a generalisation, and some men are good at child care and some women
make excellent truck drivers. So *access* to calling should not be denied
on discriminatory grounds just because individuals may 'buck against the
trend' in some way. But also by the same principle, men and women are of
equal *value*, even if their roles are usually different.
>
>>and the overruling principle of Love thy Neighbour and do good
>>to others etc, are more relevant than statements written long before human
>>knowledge about sexuality had reached its current level. Thus we cannot
>>be
>>sure (despite the written word) that homosexual activity is ALWAYS sinful
>>and that there are NO exceptions.
>
> I wish that was the case but there are several very strong references
> to homosexuality in the Bible and none seem contradictory.
But it doesn't matter unless you believe that *every* word in the Bible MUST
be adhered to and taken as literally true. Since I don't believe that,
there is no need for me to give that argument much weight. The 'several'
you mention amounts to about 6, some of which are doubtful referrences
anyway. Six out of the entire library of books that constitute the Bible,
and since they had no concept or comprehension whatsoever of homosexual
orientation in the way we understand it today, I feel it is entirely
reasonable to question what they *would* have said, had they had the benefit
of today's knowledge. The obvious opposite of this is to say, why should
you give such priority and importance to those few referrences, and ignore
other referrences surrounding them? Why apply this ban, and not the ones on
shellfish or pork, or sexual intercourse during menstuation? Also bear in
mind that Jesus considered the whole matter so vitally important that He
never even mentions it in our Bibles.....
>
>>We believe that there are exceptions, in
>>the light of modern knowledge and in the *spirit* of the Bible message.
>>The
>>argument that we are all sinners and therefore we should tolerate sin is a
>>much weaker one and not one I subscribe to, although we should at the same
>>time recognise that we are all sinners...
>
> I think the sin argument makes more sense theologically.
No doubt others agree with you, and I know people personally who hold to
this view, i.e. that it's not an ideal world and therefore some people find
they need to live with some sin in their lives but it's OK as long as they
go on confessing it and feeling sorry about it. I respect their view and
would never try and claim they are 'wrong' - but personally I feel that it
means those involved have to live a life of feeling guilty because they feel
they have to 'sin' in order to live fulfilled lives. If the sin is
perceived as acting against their *nature*, and their nature is homosexual
orientation, then it is actually *heterosexual* activity that would be
sinful for them - it would be dishonest to themselves and to their
wives/husbands. Homosexual activity, on the other hand, would be in line
with the way they are, their 'nature'. (I have already said I consider
causation to be irrelevant, elsewhere).
>>>>The real argument is theologcal and
>>>>goes much deeper than the homosexuality issue, although that's the
>>>>current
>>>>issue that brings the dispute to the surface. The real dispute boils
>>>>down
>>>>to how we understand and interpret Scripture, in part, and in a wider
>>>>sense,
>>>>what we believe about the nature of God Himself.
>>> Of course, some people are saying the Gospels are not ....
>>> well....Gospel! ;-)
>>> That only begs the question, what if anything can we take from them as
>>> the truth?
>>Yes, I understand why some people would be unhappy about this. Many
>>people
>>want everything rigidly defined and set in concrete for them, since
>>without
>>that they feel insecure, and so if anyone attempts to shake that security
>
> To be honest it is not just insecure fundamentalists who have a problem
> with your reasoning but most Christians. You appear to be a minority on
> this issue (nothing wrong in that) but calling all other Christians
> insecure etc does seem rather odd.
Thanks for acknowledging that being in a minority doesn't amount to being
wrong! I don't think I was calling *most* Christians insecure, only those
who have a very, very literalist belief in the Bible and believe *their* own
understanding of it to be the only perfectly correct one (that doesn't
include you, by the way!). Such people will not enter into debate at all
about the nature of Scripture, and that is the subject we should really be
discussing, in my opinion. The homosexuality issue is a symptom of that
rift rather than its root.
> I think maybe some Anglicans are
> insecure about keeping the faith in a very secular society; they are
> trying to be all things to all people and are just laughed at by the
> people they are trying to impress who accuse you of lacking sincerity
> and conviction!
Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose! I feel that as a State
Church it tries to encompass all Christians of hugely differing views, so
that all people living in Britain who consider themselves to be Christians
can feel welcome and accepted at least somewhere in the Anglican Church.
The real crunch time comes when people of differing views feel they have a
calling to the Clergy, and especially the 'higher' levels of the Clergy.
Few people seem to have much problem with people of differing views being
within the congregations or attending churches, or even taking up positions
in the laity. For Centuries 'dont ask, dont tell' worked, and they should
have just stuck with it, I suppose. Keep sexuality a private matter.
>
>>they will defend it perhaps literally to the death.
>
> Why not, lots of things are worth dying for but not nearly as many are
> worth killing for.
Oh dear!!
>
>>Thus when people (like
>>me) come along and suggest that it is general principles that count, and
>>that the accounts we have are a mixture of history, mythology or
>>symbology,
>>and theological ideas, they are naturally hostile.
>
> True some people are hostile, but I think I'm more bemused than
> hostile. I have studied the social sciences when I was a student, I can
> think and analyse and criticise but I still think your position is not
> logical intellectually even if it feels right emotionally.
It's only 'not logical' if you prioritise half a dozen small passages of
Bible text high enough. So I guess we'll just have to differ over whether
or not my position is logical intellectually. Sometimes it's right to 'go
with the heart' anyway!
>
>>It is generally accepted that all the
>>Bible Gospels were written a long time after the events. Even Mark's
>>Gospel
>>which was probably the earliest, is likely to have been some 30 years
>>after
>>the Crucifixion, and John's Gospel was written perhaps as late as 90 AD or
>>even later. The accounts don't always agree with each other in some
>>details, and the early Church was fully aware of that. Also Mark shows
>>some
>>evidence of editing and additions. John's Gospel, particularly the 1st
>>chapter,
>
>
> See this is where I get deeply suspicious of your argument Timothy
> because I hear these arguments used by atheists trying to disprove
> Christ so know that that is where these arguments lead! :-( That is
> why I agree with both you and Steve when you both point out this is a
> far greater issue than homosexuality.
Yes, I've also heard atheists try and use these facts to poo-poo the whole
idea of Christian faith or belief in God. However, I can be aware of these
facts and still keep my faith - weakens *their* position somewhat, doesn't
it? But yes this is my central point, that underlying these issues is the
fact that many Christians believe and understand their faith in such
different ways that it amounts to almost two different belief systems. For
my understanding, it doesn't actually matter much how much of the accounts
are literally historically true, and how much is theological symbology. My
belief in God, Father Son and Holy Spirit remains, as does my commitment to
Him and to outliving the life He intended for me. The big difference is in
how we view Scripture - but there is also a lot of common ground. I could
stand shoulder to shoulder with many of the people I might consider
'fundies' and recite and believe the same three Creeds of Western
Christianity with them. We might inwardly believe them in differing ways,
but we both share a deep faith in God and the Word made flesh who gave
Himself for our salvation. My point is also, I wouldn't reject them, but
they might reject me. It isn't I therefore that would be forcing the
split...
>
>>Today, many even quite fundamental people seem to be reasonably tolerant
>>of
>>divorce and re-marriage, arguing that things are different now, since in
>>NT
>>times a divorced woman would have not received the support and assistance
>>from the Authorities that they can get today. They would argue that,
> Strawman! See, you accused me of this but yours just went on and on!
> ;-)
He he! I just KNEW you were going to say that! And you didn't disappoint
me. But the point is that the debate is about how we view Scripture rather
than the symptoms of that difference.
>
>>Thus, they need to be understood in the light of reason and knowledge,
>>rather than
>>blinkered and blind indoctrination.
> All beliefs should be measured by their logic and consistency.
> Excessively liberal people are just as good at indoctrination from what
> I can see in politics at least! :-)
Well, let's save political debate for a political Newsgroup.
>
>> faith without works is dead.
>
> True enough, although if Martin Luther was an Anglican he'd have said
> 'Here I stand .... but I will go anywhere else if you want me to!'
> ;-)
Yeah, OK. But that's what an Inclusive Church means, and it's what I
believe in, I would tolerate the 'fundies' for the sake of Unity. After
all, Christ prayed for Unity.
>
>> It is just not an issue unless it is pushed.
> Yes, pushed by either side.
>>>> Of course we have a history of religious revivalism but you have to be
>>>> careful that you're not just accepting the prevailing secular notion
>>>> of post-modernism.
>>>I agree that that is a potential trap, but personally I hope I haven't
>>>fallen in to it!! My personal belief is that (a) the Holy Spirit didn't
>>>cease to teach us when the Bible days ended, and (b) that although the
>>>Bible
>>>gives us a usual pattern for living it doesn't necessarily mean all other
>>>patterns which are not the usual are automatically "wrong". Modern
>>>knowledge strongly suggests that homosexual orientation is not a choice
>> No, but intercourse is. I think it is very bad to confuse the two
>> things.
>>I consider sex acts between two people other than penis-vaginal
>>intercourse
>>to come under the heading of masturbation rather than intercourse.
>>Anyhow,
> ?it comes down to words
> LOL Bill Clinton's lawyers even managed to argue over the word
> 'is'!!!
Thought Clinton would get a mention...
>>> It is just not an issue unless it is pushed.
>>Yes, pushed by either side.
> Quite.
>>And they will do. If the church they are attending rejects them, they
>>will
>>join another that won't, or even form their own church.
> Exactly! And if as many appear to, they think that in all honesty it is
> contorted logic to say practicing homosexuals are not at odds with the
> Christian teaching, they will leave regardless of there being a choice
> of churches. So then, that is a problem caused by your logic not just
> intolerance.
>
Well, I don't want anyone to think the Church of Christ is not for 'them'
and so reject Christ. It doesn't matter whether earthly organisations of
church reject people or not, they will no doubt be judged for turning away
people they should have welcomed, and I continue to believe that the Love of
God is accessible to anyone who will accept Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Timothy <><
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147418121....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Er, the vast majority of homosexuals would probably say that being 'gay' is
what you are not what you do.
Timothy <><
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>The Bible *principles* about all humans being made in the Image of God,
All humans aren't..... only man/males were made in God's actual image, just
as Christ was, and he was no woman.
1 Cor. 11:6 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if
it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image
and glory of God: BUT the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
Woman was created as no ANIMAL could be found suitable as a mate for Adam.
Gen 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to
every beast of the field;
but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
The making of woman and the institution of marriage
21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:
and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and
brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
>and therefore of equal value
" The head [Strongs: Supreme : Chief: Prominent] of every man is Christ; and
the head [Supreme : Chief: Prominent] of the woman is the man; and the head
[Supreme : Chief: Prominent]of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
his head."
Jeff...
Steve Wilson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com>
Newsgroups: england.religion.christian
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: To boldly pray about split infinitives
>
> "Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44630...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> <claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147298115....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
[large portion of post trimmed]
> The Bible *principles* about all humans being made in the Image of God,
> and therefore of equal value, the principle of love, compassion, tolerance
> and so on. The Bible is descriptive of general principles, rather than
> prescriptive of inflexible rules. ALL rules apart from Love God, Love
> your neighbour, CAN have reasonable exceptions, in the *context* of these
> higher Biblical principles. I repeat, it would be right to steal insulin
> to save the life of a diabetic, even though the Bible very clearly says
> "Thou shalt not steal".
>
>
> Timothy <><
>
Tim.
A few clarificatoin questions to help my understanding, they are not trick
questions. I do not intend to reply to them.
Is the above intended to permit all homosexual Christians to live in active
sexual relationships?
Would these permitted relationships still be considered technically sinful,
but not for any practical purposes, or no longer sinful in any way?
Do you think the homosexual, or even heterosexual inclination for that
matter, is part and parcel of the Image of God you speak of?
Steve Wilson
Grandpa Norm
"Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
>I repeat, it would be right to steal insulin to save the life of a
>diabetic,
No! it wouldn't be 'right to steal' at all.....
>even though the Bible very clearly says "Thou shalt not steal".
It would be a sin.....and very wrong to steal, irrespective of the human
excuse.
Romans 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that
loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou *shalt
not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if
there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Indeed, but excludes *stealing for them....
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message news:ncZ8g.19514
> We've done a lot more studies, have computers now, have spread studies
> over times and cultures, and so on. No doubt we have a lot still to
> learn, but it is very very likely that we DO know more now, and
> correspondingly unlikely that they were more complete in their
> understanding 2000 years ago than we are today.
You forget one vital detail.....Almighty God knew, [including all the other
new technologies which maybe to come] yet He still decided that what Paul
and the other Apostles wrote was more then adequate and perfect for this
Christian dispensation, for "All Scripture" has been "Inspired" and approved
of by Almighty God Himself.
>As we believe it would actually be immoral
>to prevent such people having complete and fulfilling human loving
>relationships,
You may well believe it, as you have not the Truth and have "Denied the
faith" as we can see.
The only thing that IS moral, is the permitted relationships that God has
approved of, and it certainly does not include Homosexual unions.
Jude 1:7 "And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their
neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for
other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a warning
to us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished.
8 Yet these false teachers carelessly go right on living their evil,
immoral lives, degrading their bodies and laughing......."
Indeed!!!
But they won't be "degrading their bodies and laughing" for much longer.
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>the context of someone who takes the Bible VERY literally and believes that
>their OWN interpretation is 100% right
Well this "traditionalist" doesn't rely on his 'OWN interpretation' but the
Christ approved and God "Inspired" interpretation, just as Paul and Christ
taught it.
And indeed was accepted by the main Churches for over 1,950 years.
Only since the evil world has changed its views, beginning in the 1960's
when the sexual revolution began and the headlong race for the emancipation
of women, which I remember very well, have the FALSE and HERETICAL Churches
decided to believe men and have renounced what the Scripture teaches
regarding homosexual behaviour and the position of women in the home and the
churches.
>and therefore everyone else who disagrees with them MUST be wrong.
Any who disagree with the words that Paul and the rest of the Apostle taught
'MUST BE' and ARE ! TOTALLY WRONG!!
Yes! they are described as openly self-condemned, SUBVERTED heretics.
Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition
reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
of himself."
and reprobates.......
Thus Scripturally defined as "Bastards and not sons"
> Such a person cannot be reasoned or argued with in any sense, because as
> far as they're concerned they've got it all 'taped'.
Right! they have it 'taped' first hand and have absolute faith in God's
declared inspired Word, and Paul's easy to understand teachings.
As Christ has declared regarding his disciples and choesn Apostles
teachings:
Luke 10: 16 "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."
You don't 'hear' Tim as you have so little faith in the Ultimate powerful
Word of God.
This is your self-inflicted heretical weakness, fired by your determination
to defend homosexual unions, [to which I suspect you have some person
reasons in one way or another] in which God throughout the bible has utterly
condemned and has promised that such evil people will never be allowed into
Christ's kingdom.
1 Corinthian 6:9.
Thus you despise and reject the teachings of the Apostles for today's
men/women, regarding wicked Homosexual unions and women's deportment in the
church and the home, because you have neither a true conviction of the
faith, or the necessary wisdom of understanding such matters.
Jeff...
Timothy
It's not "intended to permit" anything - it's simply a matter of what they
may happen to believe, and as far as they're concerned, your belief in the
matter is irrelevant to them.
>
> Would these permitted relationships still be considered technically
> sinful,
> but not for any practical purposes, or no longer sinful in any way?
Depends entirely on what THEY believe, doesn't it? Not on what YOU believe.
>
> Do you think the homosexual, or even heterosexual inclination for that
> matter, is part and parcel of the Image of God you speak of?
Don't you?
Timothy <><
>
> Steve Wilson
>
>
Timothy
>
> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message news:eaM8g.18491
>> So women will not inherit the kingdom of God.
>
>
>> Well, they might, but only if
>> they aren't effeminate.
>
> Females are feminine.
> Males are effeminate.
>
> Webster's Dictionary
> Ef搭em搏搖ate
> Pronunciation: -n&t
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Latin effeminatus, from past participle of
> effeminare to make effeminate, from ex- + femina woman -- more at FEMININE
> 1 : Having feminine qualities untypical of a MAN : not MANLY in appearance
> or manner
>
Nonsense! The Bible clearly says that the 'effeminate' (English
translation) will not inherit the Kingdom - You're twisting the Word of God
to suit your agenda. Since in your other posts you are running down women,
why not accept the wise words of St Paul that clearly imply that only women
that are "typical of a MAN or MANLY in appearance or manner" will inherit
the kingdom. Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas also agrees with Paul on this
point: Only if a woman becomes 'male' can she inherit the kingdom.
Let's be clear, *I* don't believe the above, but a strict Bible literalist
should, else they're cherry-picking, and boy ain't they good at that...
Timothy <><
Timothy
>
> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message news:ncZ8g.19514
>> We've done a lot more studies, have computers now, have spread studies
>> over times and cultures, and so on. No doubt we have a lot still to
>> learn, but it is very very likely that we DO know more now, and
>> correspondingly unlikely that they were more complete in their
>> understanding 2000 years ago than we are today.
>
> You forget one vital detail.....Almighty God knew, [including all the
> other new technologies which maybe to come] yet He still decided that what
> Paul and the other Apostles wrote
Did He? Did He dictate the Scriptures word for word? Well, YOU believe
that, I don't.
Timothy <><
Robert Marshall
I read this as Grandpa Norn - visions of Jeff in full Wagnerian storm kit
managing his knitting - zerbrisse! (or however you spell it!)
No doubt appropriately apocalptic!
Robert
--
Conformity means death for any comunity. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
Steve Wilson
No I don't, but thanks for your response to my questions.
Steve Wilson
> Timothy <><
>
>>
>> Steve Wilson
>>
>>
>
Timothy
Oh, Ok. That leaves me wondering what the phrase 'Made in the Image of God'
means to you. Does it mean that God is a white Causasian heterosexual male?
Or does it mean that *Mankind* with all our complexity and variety are "Made
in the Image of God"?
Timothy <><
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
> message news:sIq9g.817$qt4...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message news:ncZ8g.19514
>>> We've done a lot more studies, have computers now, have spread studies
>>> over times and cultures, and so on. No doubt we have a lot still to
>>> learn, but it is very very likely that we DO know more now, and
>>> correspondingly unlikely that they were more complete in their
>>> understanding 2000 years ago than we are today.
>>
>> You forget one vital detail.....Almighty God knew, [including all the
>> other new technologies which maybe to come] yet He still decided that
>> what Paul and the other Apostles wrote
>
> Did He?
Absolutely!
2 Peter 1:21 "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"
>Did He dictate the Scriptures word for word?
What sayeth the other man called Timothy, the one whom God HAS approved
of....a faithful and righteous instructor.
" Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works."
>Well, YOU believe that, I don't.
We know, heretics won't, they are too full of their OWN opinions and sinful
interpretations, they don't love God's Word and they undermine it when
preaching to others.
Thus Jesus' forthright condemnation of such horrible people.
"Hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye
neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Matt. 23:13
For as faithful Titus states, such people are SUBVERTED [Dic: to pervert or
corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith] and are thus
"Self-condemned".
Jeff...
claire....@ntlworld.com
>>>to prevent such people having complete and fulfilling human loving
>>>relationships,
>> Nobody is prevented. You have a choice. You can't always get
>> everything you want in life ... sometimes you have to prioritise what
>> is most important to you.
>You say that nobody is prevented, but they WERE prevented by law until just
>a few decades ago,
There is not a lot I can do about the past.
>and in some countries still ARE.
I am British, so there's not a lot I can do about that either. Sorry.
>That was and is very
>unjust, in my opinion.
I think that since God gave us free will then yes people should be free
to choose. It is a matter of individual conscience but now some would
like to do exactly the same as those supporting the criminalisation of
homosexual acts by imposing their morality on everybody in an
intolerant manner.
>Also don't forget that people such as Geoffrey John
>have been denied the role of Bishop for no other reason than their
>sexuality, since in his case he declared his celibacy - so it was simple and
>unjustifiable discrimination in his case, whatever your views on homosexual
>activity are.
I suspect that decent people will get caught up in the argument between
competing ideas in the Anglican church and you will just make people
just dig their heals in. They may say that the best way to insure they
get what they want is to discriminate so that it has no chance of ever
becoming an issue.
>> I wish that was the case but there are several very strong references
>> to homosexuality in the Bible and none seem contradictory.
>But it doesn't matter unless you believe that *every* word in the Bible MUST
>be adhered to and taken as literally true.
But surely all Christians hold the Bible to be the word of God? The
Gospel is the truth? Some things are given more weight than others?
>Since I don't believe that,
>there is no need for me to give that argument much weight.
So I should take only what easily pleases me from the Bible, like
choosing a handbag?! The great shopping mall of life! :-)
>The 'several'
>you mention amounts to about 6, some of which are doubtful referrences
>anyway.
Six is still quite a lot you know!
>Six out of the entire library of books that constitute the Bible,
>and since they had no concept or comprehension whatsoever of homosexual
>orientation in the way we understand it today, I feel it is entirely
>reasonable to question what they *would* have said, had they had the benefit
>of today's knowledge.
Maybe, I'm not convinced though. We don't know that much more, we
just accept more.
>The obvious opposite of this is to say, why should
>you give such priority and importance to those few referrences, and ignore
>other referrences surrounding them? Why apply this ban, and not the ones on
>shellfish or pork, or sexual intercourse during menstuation?
Because those only appeared once and contradict what Jesus said about
it being more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in.
>>>We believe that there are exceptions, in
>>>the light of modern knowledge and in the *spirit* of the Bible message.
>>>The
>>>argument that we are all sinners and therefore we should tolerate sin is a
>>>much weaker one and not one I subscribe to, although we should at the same
>>>time recognise that we are all sinners...
>> I think the sin argument makes more sense theologically.
>If the sin is perceived as acting against their *nature*, and their nature is homosexual
>orientation, then it is actually *heterosexual* activity that would be
>sinful for them - it would be dishonest to themselves and to their
>wives/husbands.
Except that we are called to act against our nature and having failed
to then to call on grace.
>> To be honest it is not just insecure fundamentalists who have a problem
>> with your reasoning but most Christians. You appear to be a minority on
>> this issue (nothing wrong in that) but calling all other Christians
>> insecure etc does seem rather odd.
>Thanks for acknowledging that being in a minority doesn't amount to being
>wrong!
Well, I figure we are all a minority one way or the other!
>I don't think I was calling *most* Christians insecure, only those
>who have a very, very literalist belief in the Bible and believe *their* own
>understanding of it to be the only perfectly correct one (that doesn't
>include you, by the way!).
Yeah.
> Such people will not enter into debate at all.
I know!
>> I think maybe some Anglicans are
>> insecure about keeping the faith in a very secular society; they are
>> trying to be all things to all people and are just laughed at by the
>> people they are trying to impress who accuse you of lacking sincerity
>> and conviction!
>Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose! I feel that as a State
>Church it tries to encompass all Christians of hugely differing views, so
>that all people living in Britain who consider themselves to be Christians
>can feel welcome and accepted at least somewhere in the Anglican Church.
>The real crunch time comes when people of differing views feel they have a
Nice enough but that has its limits! What about the Muslims and Hindus?
>For Centuries 'dont ask, dont tell' worked, and they should
>have just stuck with it, I suppose. Keep sexuality a private matter.
>Yeah.
>>>they will defend it perhaps literally to the death.
>> Why not, lots of things are worth dying for but not nearly as many are
>> worth killing for.
>Oh dear!!
I knew that would make you flinch! There are people willing to be
killed just to proclaim the gospel; they're not part of the English
establishment trying not to cause waves! And Jesus was not averse to
fighting talk 'think not that I come in peace, I come wielding a
sward' - he knew full well that his teachings would cause waves and
that people would have mixed loyalties.
>It's only 'not logical' if you prioritise half a dozen small passages of
>Bible text high enough. So I guess we'll just have to differ over whether
>or not my position is logical intellectually. Sometimes it's right to 'go
>with the heart' anyway!
Sometimes yes ... and your heart also includes your conscience which is
different for different people.
>> See this is where I get deeply suspicious of your argument Timothy
>> because I hear these arguments used by atheists trying to disprove
>> Christ so know that that is where these arguments lead! :-( That is
>> why I agree with both you and Steve when you both point out this is a
>> far greater issue than homosexuality.
>Yes, I've also heard atheists try and use these facts to poo-poo the whole
>idea of Christian faith or belief in God. However, I can be aware of these
>facts and still keep my faith - weakens *their* position somewhat, doesn't
>it?
No, it just makes you look woolly which we do anyway to them to some
extent.
>But yes this is my central point, that underlying these issues is the
>fact that many Christians believe and understand their faith in such
>different ways that it amounts to almost two different belief systems. For
>my understanding, it doesn't actually matter much how much of the accounts
>are literally historically true, and how much is theological symbology. My
>belief in God, Father Son and Holy Spirit remains, as does my commitment to
>Him and to outliving the life He intended for me. The big difference is in
>how we view Scripture - but there is also a lot of common ground. I could
>stand shoulder to shoulder with many of the people I might consider
'>fundies' and recite and believe the same three Creeds of Western
>Christianity with them. We might inwardly believe them in differing ways,
>but we both share a deep faith in God and the Word made flesh who gave
>Himself for our salvation. My point is also, I wouldn't reject them, but
>they might reject me. It isn't I therefore that would be forcing the
>split...
Martin Luther started it! I think because Christianity encourages free
thought that has created many divisions with people thinking different
things. We have to understand that this is the consequences of our
innate right to freedom.
>>Today, many even quite fundamental people seem to be reasonably tolerant
>>of
>>divorce and re-marriage, arguing that things are different now, since in
>>NT
>>times a divorced woman would have not received the support and assistance
>>from the Authorities that they can get today. They would argue that,
>>Strawman! See, you accused me of this but yours just went on and on!
>> ;-)
>He he! I just KNEW you were going to say that! And you didn't disappoint
>me. But the point is that the debate is about how we view Scripture rather
>than the symptoms of that difference.
Oh aye, except for when you say so!!! ;-)
>Well, let's save political debate for a political Newsgroup.
This is all just politics anyway I guess!
>> faith without works is dead.
>> True enough, although if Martin Luther was an Anglican he'd have said
>> 'Here I stand .... but I will go anywhere else if you want me to!'
>> ;-)
>Yeah, OK. But that's what an Inclusive Church means, and it's what I
>believe in, I would tolerate the 'fundies' for the sake of Unity. After
>all, Christ prayed for Unity.
Fair enough!
>Well, I don't want anyone to think the Church of Christ is not for 'them'
>and so reject Christ. It doesn't matter whether earthly organisations of
>church reject people or not, they will no doubt be judged for turning away
>people they should have welcomed, and I continue to believe that the Love of
>God is accessible to anyone who will accept Christ as Lord and Saviour.
That I agree with entirely!
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147603868.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>As we believe it would actually be immoral
>>>>to prevent such people having complete and fulfilling human loving
>>>>relationships,
>>> Nobody is prevented. You have a choice. You can't always get
>>> everything you want in life ... sometimes you have to prioritise what
>>> is most important to you.
>>You say that nobody is prevented, but they WERE prevented by law until
>>just
>>a few decades ago,
>
> There is not a lot I can do about the past.
>
>>and in some countries still ARE.
>
> I am British, so there's not a lot I can do about that either. Sorry.
As British citizens we CAN campaign for fair treatment of people in other
nation states. Ok so they probably won't listen, but that's no reason to
avoid doing what is right.
>
>>That was and is very
>>unjust, in my opinion.
>
> I think that since God gave us free will then yes people should be free
> to choose. It is a matter of individual conscience
Thank you!
> but now some would
> like to do exactly the same as those supporting the criminalisation of
> homosexual acts by imposing their morality on everybody in an
> intolerant manner.
Some might, but I don't personally know of anyone who is campaigning to make
homosexual acts compulsory...
>
>>Also don't forget that people such as Geoffrey John
>>have been denied the role of Bishop for no other reason than their
>>sexuality, since in his case he declared his celibacy - so it was simple
>>and
>>unjustifiable discrimination in his case, whatever your views on
>>homosexual
>>activity are.
>
> I suspect that decent people will get caught up in the argument between
> competing ideas in the Anglican church and you will just make people
> just dig their heals in.
Well, if you remember, I'm an advocate of 'Dont ask, dont tell', which would
mean that no-one will have to dig their heels in.
> They may say that the best way to insure they
> get what they want is to discriminate so that it has no chance of ever
> becoming an issue.
Unfortunately for them, the issue will never go away no matter how much they
discriminate.
>
>>> I wish that was the case but there are several very strong references
>>> to homosexuality in the Bible and none seem contradictory.
>
>>But it doesn't matter unless you believe that *every* word in the Bible
>>MUST
>>be adhered to and taken as literally true.
>
> But surely all Christians hold the Bible to be the word of God? The
> Gospel is the truth? Some things are given more weight than others?
The writing and collation of the Bible was *inspired* by the Holy Spirit -
but not every word of it is God's will - it contains a record of Man's
misunderstandings of God, and then God revealed in Christ, which also
exposes those misunderstandings. We are told which things are given most
weight - namely, Love God, Love Thy Neighbour. Those things first, and then
use our God-given Reason to apply (with today's knowledge) those principles.
>
>>Since I don't believe that,
>>there is no need for me to give that argument much weight.
>
> So I should take only what easily pleases me from the Bible, like
> choosing a handbag?! The great shopping mall of life! :-)
Well, personally I think you will find a lot of other people in that
shopping mall - I've never yet met a fundie who doesn't do precisely that.
So let's be honest, we happily munch on shellfish and pork and work on
Saturdays and we ALL cherry-pick the bits we think are most relevant, so I
pick different bits to you? Big deal!!
>
>>The 'several'
>>you mention amounts to about 6, some of which are doubtful referrences
>>anyway.
>
> Six is still quite a lot you know!
Out of all those writings? I don't think so. Probably amounts to about
0.01% or less, of the Bible that even remotely aludes to the subject. Other
things that are not accepted today get far more attention in the Bible.
>
>>Six out of the entire library of books that constitute the Bible,
>>and since they had no concept or comprehension whatsoever of homosexual
>>orientation in the way we understand it today, I feel it is entirely
>>reasonable to question what they *would* have said, had they had the
>>benefit
>>of today's knowledge.
>
> Maybe, I'm not convinced though. We don't know that much more, we
> just accept more.
Whatever. The fact remains that there are differing opionions sincerely
held by many people, and that will always be the case.
>
>
>>The obvious opposite of this is to say, why should
>>you give such priority and importance to those few referrences, and ignore
>>other referrences surrounding them? Why apply this ban, and not the ones
>>on
>>shellfish or pork, or sexual intercourse during menstuation?
>
> Because those only appeared once and contradict what Jesus said about
> it being more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in.
I would dispute that they only appeared once.
>
>>>>We believe that there are exceptions, in
>>>>the light of modern knowledge and in the *spirit* of the Bible message.
>>>>The
>>>>argument that we are all sinners and therefore we should tolerate sin is
>>>>a
>
>>>>much weaker one and not one I subscribe to, although we should at the
>>>>same
>>>>time recognise that we are all sinners...
>>> I think the sin argument makes more sense theologically.
>
>>If the sin is perceived as acting against their *nature*, and their nature
>>is homosexual
>>orientation, then it is actually *heterosexual* activity that would be
>>sinful for them - it would be dishonest to themselves and to their
>>wives/husbands.
>
> Except that we are called to act against our nature and having failed
> to then to call on grace.
So you are saying that gay people should do what they feel they must, and
then confess afterwards. Ok, if that's what some individuals believe, that
is what those that believe it should do.
Well, I don't think anyone's advocating including them in the Anglican
Communion!! Our Creeds and the 39 Articles would be abhorrant to them.
>
>>For Centuries 'dont ask, dont tell' worked, and they should
>>have just stuck with it, I suppose. Keep sexuality a private matter.
>>Yeah.
>
>>>>they will defend it perhaps literally to the death.
>>> Why not, lots of things are worth dying for but not nearly as many are
>>> worth killing for.
>
>>Oh dear!!
>
> I knew that would make you flinch! There are people willing to be
> killed just to proclaim the gospel; they're not part of the English
> establishment trying not to cause waves! And Jesus was not averse to
> fighting talk 'think not that I come in peace, I come wielding a
> sward' - he knew full well that his teachings would cause waves and
> that people would have mixed loyalties.
Many of us would like to think we would be willing to die for our faith -
some would, but none of us would know for sure unless ever put in that
unhappy situation. Killing, though, well, it DOES say 'Thou shalt not
kill', a bit that the fundie who killed an abortion doctor in the USA
obviously didn't hold in high priority. Yes, fundies CAN be killers, and
sincerely believe they are Christians doing God's will. So I flinch...
>
>>It's only 'not logical' if you prioritise half a dozen small passages of
>>Bible text high enough. So I guess we'll just have to differ over whether
>>or not my position is logical intellectually. Sometimes it's right to 'go
>>with the heart' anyway!
>
> Sometimes yes ... and your heart also includes your conscience which is
> different for different people.
Yes!!! THAT's it! Accepting that others who follow Christ can have
differing views, and yet NOT excluding or rejecting them for their sincerely
held beliefs.
>
>>> See this is where I get deeply suspicious of your argument Timothy
>>> because I hear these arguments used by atheists trying to disprove
>>> Christ so know that that is where these arguments lead! :-( That is
>>> why I agree with both you and Steve when you both point out this is a
>>> far greater issue than homosexuality.
>
>>Yes, I've also heard atheists try and use these facts to poo-poo the whole
>>idea of Christian faith or belief in God. However, I can be aware of
>>these
>>facts and still keep my faith - weakens *their* position somewhat, doesn't
>>it?
>
> No, it just makes you look woolly which we do anyway to them to some
> extent.
Well, your opinion and you're entitled to it.
>
>
>>But yes this is my central point, that underlying these issues is the
>>fact that many Christians believe and understand their faith in such
>>different ways that it amounts to almost two different belief systems.
>>For
>>my understanding, it doesn't actually matter much how much of the accounts
>>are literally historically true, and how much is theological symbology.
>>My
>>belief in God, Father Son and Holy Spirit remains, as does my commitment
>>to
>>Him and to outliving the life He intended for me. The big difference is
>>in
>>how we view Scripture - but there is also a lot of common ground. I could
>>stand shoulder to shoulder with many of the people I might consider
> '>fundies' and recite and believe the same three Creeds of Western
>>Christianity with them. We might inwardly believe them in differing ways,
>>but we both share a deep faith in God and the Word made flesh who gave
>>Himself for our salvation. My point is also, I wouldn't reject them, but
>>they might reject me. It isn't I therefore that would be forcing the
>>split...
>
> Martin Luther started it! I think because Christianity encourages free
> thought that has created many divisions with people thinking different
> things. We have to understand that this is the consequences of our
> innate right to freedom.
Hmm. Martin Luther wasn't a very nice bloke! But he didn't want to cause a
split, it was the Church's rejection of him instead of debating some of his
objections that was the cause of that split - and NO!! He didn't start it.
The Orthodox Christians split from the Church and the Roman Catholic Church
was centred in Rome and the Orthodox in Constantinople, Centuries before
Martin Luther. And then the Orthodox split into Russian and Greek. There
is much in Orthodoxy which seems closer to some of my own beliefs, and there
is much about Roman Catholicism which seems to avoid some of the worst ideas
of Protestantism. Even before that, there were divisions during the time
the New Testament was being written. Some follow Paul, some follow Cephas,
some follow Christ....
>
>>>Today, many even quite fundamental people seem to be reasonably tolerant
>>>of
>>>divorce and re-marriage, arguing that things are different now, since in
>>>NT
>>>times a divorced woman would have not received the support and assistance
>>>from the Authorities that they can get today. They would argue that,
>>>Strawman! See, you accused me of this but yours just went on and on!
>>> ;-)
>
>>He he! I just KNEW you were going to say that! And you didn't disappoint
>>me. But the point is that the debate is about how we view Scripture
>>rather
>>than the symptoms of that difference.
>
> Oh aye, except for when you say so!!! ;-)
Oh, be nasty then, if you want to.
>
>>Well, let's save political debate for a political Newsgroup.
>
> This is all just politics anyway I guess!
Now, THAT's true!
>
>>> faith without works is dead.
>>> True enough, although if Martin Luther was an Anglican he'd have said
>>> 'Here I stand .... but I will go anywhere else if you want me to!'
>>> ;-)
>
>>Yeah, OK. But that's what an Inclusive Church means, and it's what I
>>believe in, I would tolerate the 'fundies' for the sake of Unity. After
>>all, Christ prayed for Unity.
>
> Fair enough!
>
>>Well, I don't want anyone to think the Church of Christ is not for 'them'
>>and so reject Christ. It doesn't matter whether earthly organisations of
>>church reject people or not, they will no doubt be judged for turning away
>>people they should have welcomed, and I continue to believe that the Love
>>of
>>God is accessible to anyone who will accept Christ as Lord and Saviour.
> That I agree with entirely!
>
Peace to you.
Timothy <><
Steve Wilson
>
> "Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:446650c4$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ywr9g.11045$pj4....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:44662441$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>>> news:44630...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>>>> <claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1147298115....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [large portion of post trimmed]
>>>>
>>>> Do you think the homosexual, or even heterosexual inclination for that
>>>> matter, is part and parcel of the Image of God you speak of?
>>>
>>> Don't you?
>>>
>>
>> No I don't, but thanks for your response to my questions.
>>
>> Steve Wilson
>>
>
> Oh, Ok. That leaves me wondering what the phrase 'Made in the Image of
> God' means to you. Does it mean that God is a white Causasian
> heterosexual male? Or does it mean that *Mankind* with all our complexity
> and variety are "Made in the Image of God"?
>
> Timothy <><
>
>
Mankind is a sexual being, but so are all the other animals, reproduction is
a necessary part of a physical and finite created being to perpetuate
itself. And even though some monkeys and humanity, to a much greater
degree, use/misuse sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes, sexual
activity remains intrinsically bonded to its intended purpose of
reproduction. Even though God created reproduction for continuation of the
species none of this is pertinent to God himself for he is not a sexual
being. Our sexuality may have been given to us as one way of expressing
love in the proper context, but I don't think our sexual nature is part of
this limited impartation of some of God's characteristic's to humanity.
What is usually meant by the term 'made in the likeness of God' are those
capacities in man that differentiate him from the animal kingdom and speak
of a higher nature. I would say that an awareness of morality (that there
is such a thing as good and evil) is one of these qualities as there is no
morality found in nature. Moral laws are essentially non-physical and
conceptual and animals do not appear to be aware of these. It is for
this reason we do not hold them responsible for what they do. I would say
our capacity for reasoning and logic would also be part of this image as
again the universal laws of logic are conceptual and non-physical. Animals
are not known for their debates.
I would also say that our ability to go against, or even transcend, our
natural instincts also hints at a higher nature in us. Although it is not
easy to go against instincts we do have the capacity to do so, and an
awareness of its problems, whilst animals are totally controlled by their
instincts. I would also say that the capacity to put someone else's
interest before your own is also part of this image. A recent American
study with apes (heard about it on R4 program a few weeks ago) has shown
that even in the most intelligent of apes, the ability to over-ride the
selfish impulse is completely absent. There might be a few more examples,
perhaps an awareness of our transcience and the reason for existance too,
but hopefully this has given you some idea why I do not think sexuality,
although a gift from God to be expressed within marriage, is not part of
the imprint of God upon humanity.
In Matt 22:29-30 Jesus states that we will not be sexual beings in the next
life, but rather 'as angels'. To me this says sexuality is limited to this
world and although used alongside other avenues by God towards forging a
Christ-like character, does not figure as part of our identity in our
resurrection life.
Steve Wilson
Timothy
>
> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
> news:2qB9g.29310$mX1....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:446650c4$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>
>>> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Ywr9g.11045$pj4....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:44662441$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>>>> "Steve Wilson" <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:44630...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>>>>> <claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1147298115....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [large portion of post trimmed]
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think the homosexual, or even heterosexual inclination for that
>>>>> matter, is part and parcel of the Image of God you speak of?
>>>>
>>>> Don't you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No I don't, but thanks for your response to my questions.
>>>
>>> Steve Wilson
>>>
>>
>> Oh, Ok. That leaves me wondering what the phrase 'Made in the Image of
>> God' means to you. Does it mean that God is a white Causasian
>> heterosexual male? Or does it mean that *Mankind* with all our complexity
>> and variety are "Made in the Image of God"?
>>
>> Timothy <><
>>
>>
> Mankind is a sexual being, but so are all the other animals,
So if you believe God is the Creator, then sexuality is the way He created
it, in His infinite wisdom. Should we, mere potsherds, criticise the way He
made us?
> reproduction is
> a necessary part of a physical and finite created being to perpetuate
> itself.
Yes. But not all sexual activity needs to be either potentially
reproductive or with that aim in mind. People (and animals) have sex for
other reasons than just to reproduce. They do it to express love, because
driven by instinct, because it's pleasurable, because it strenghtens
relationship bonds, and probably other reasons besides. As you say, Mankind
is a sexual being, and so sexuality is a central part of human life. What
right have you to attempt to deny fellow human beings completeness in sexual
relationships, just because they find themselves only attracted to their own
sex?
> And even though some monkeys and humanity, to a much greater
> degree, use/misuse sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes, sexual
> activity remains intrinsically bonded to its intended purpose of
> reproduction.
Says you. However, even though stated as fact, that only remains your
opinion. (Just how much monkeys do non-reproductive sexual activity I don't
know - but there is certainly one species that FAR outstrips humanity in
non-reproductive and indescriminate sexual activity, both homo- and
heterosexual. But then, we are discussing human beings.) How do YOU know
that the only "Intended Purpose" of sexual activity is reproduction? It is
an important consequence of SOME sex acts, of course, but if its the ONLY
purpose then couples should stop having sex once the woman passes
child-bearing age, as sex no longer has any purpose.... Likewise the
otherwise infertile shouldn't have sex either. If you really believe that,
then OK, but I don't share your belief.
> Even though God created reproduction for continuation of the
> species
Do you KNOW that was His ONLY intended purpose? I don't agree with your
opinion on that.
> none of this is pertinent to God himself for he is not a sexual
> being.
How do WE know the nature of God? What precisely is meant by a 'sexual
being'? God is many and all things, WAY beyond our ken.
> Our sexuality may have been given to us as one way of expressing
> love in the proper context,
And it is down to YOU to decide what is the "proper context"? No doubt you
will use the Bible to back up your opinion just as the slave-traders did.
> but I don't think our sexual nature is part of
> this limited impartation of some of God's characteristic's to humanity.
Ok fine. You don't think that. But you dont KNOW it.
>
> What is usually meant by the term 'made in the likeness of God' are those
> capacities in man that differentiate him from the animal kingdom and speak
> of a higher nature. I would say that an awareness of morality (that there
> is such a thing as good and evil) is one of these qualities as there is no
> morality found in nature.
I'd go along with that. But also our awareness of good and evil is a part
of our own rebellion against God - had we not rebelled we would not know,
and could not therefore be held to account.
> Moral laws are essentially non-physical and
> conceptual and animals do not appear to be aware of these. It is for
> this reason we do not hold them responsible for what they do. I would say
> our capacity for reasoning and logic would also be part of this image as
> again the universal laws of logic are conceptual and non-physical. Animals
> are not known for their debates.
And our moral laws of today about fair and just treatment of all, and about
treating all human beings as of equal value and according them all basic
rights, are in many ways superior to moral laws of the past, which did not
recognise we are ALL made in the Image of God.
>
> I would also say that our ability to go against, or even transcend, our
> natural instincts also hints at a higher nature in us. Although it is not
> easy to go against instincts we do have the capacity to do so, and an
> awareness of its problems, whilst animals are totally controlled by their
> instincts. I would also say that the capacity to put someone else's
> interest before your own is also part of this image.
Yes, I'd go along with that, as well.
> A recent American
> study with apes (heard about it on R4 program a few weeks ago) has shown
> that even in the most intelligent of apes, the ability to over-ride the
> selfish impulse is completely absent. There might be a few more examples,
> perhaps an awareness of our transcience and the reason for existance too,
> but hopefully this has given you some idea why I do not think sexuality,
> although a gift from God to be expressed within marriage, is not part of
> the imprint of God upon humanity.
Well, ok now I understand why you believe what you do. I still say God is
so far above anything we can understand that we simply cannot know what or
what isn't a part of us being 'In His Image'. As for the context of
marriage, why shouldn't that include any loving and committed relationship
between two people who love one-another and intend to stay together and
support one-another through life, even if they can't reproduce? Or does the
ability to reproduce need to be a prerequisite? If so, ban any woman over
50 from marrying....
>
> In Matt 22:29-30 Jesus states that we will not be sexual beings in the
> next life, but rather 'as angels'. To me this says sexuality is limited
> to this world and although used alongside other avenues by God towards
> forging a Christ-like character, does not figure as part of our identity
> in our resurrection life.
Yes, but we need to understand and love and support our fellow human beings
whilst they are still THIS side of the grave...
Timothy <><
>
>
> Steve Wilson
>
>
claire....@ntlworld.com
>>>You say that nobody is prevented, but they WERE prevented by law until
>>>just
>>>a few decades ago,
>> There is not a lot I can do about the past.
>As British citizens we CAN campaign for fair treatment of people in other
>nation states. Ok so they probably won't listen, but that's no reason to
>avoid doing what is right.
>> but now some would
>> like to do exactly the same as those supporting the criminalisation of
>> homosexual acts by imposing their morality on everybody in an
>> intolerant manner.
>Some might, but I don't personally know of anyone who is campaigning to make
>homosexual acts compulsory...
seriousness if you are going to be flippant Tim! I suppose you'll
call me 'nasty' again now! :-(
>> I suspect that decent people will get caught up in the argument between
>> competing ideas in the Anglican church and you will just make people
>> just dig their heals in.
>Well, if you remember, I'm an advocate of 'Dont ask, dont tell', which would
>mean that no-one will have to dig their heels in.
Fair enought
>> They may say that the best way to insure they
>> get what they want is to discriminate so that it has no chance of ever
>> becoming an issue.
>Unfortunately for them, the issue will never go away no matter how much they
>discriminate.
It is a shame the issue was forced.
>The writing and collation of the Bible was *inspired* by the Holy Spirit -
>but not every word of it is God's will - it contains a record of Man's
>misunderstandings of God, and then God revealed in Christ, which also
>exposes those misunderstandings. We are told which things are given most
>weight - namely, Love God, Love Thy Neighbour. Those things first, and then
>use our God-given Reason to apply (with today's knowledge) those principles.
No argument there.
>>Since I don't believe that,
>>there is no need for me to give that argument much weight.
> So I should take only what easily pleases me from the Bible, like
> choosing a handbag?! The great shopping mall of life! :-)
>Well, personally I think you will find a lot of other people in that
>shopping mall - I've never yet met a fundie who doesn't do precisely that.
>So let's be honest, we happily munch on shellfish and pork and work on
>Saturdays and we ALL cherry-pick the bits we think are most relevant, so I
>pick different bits to you? Big deal!!
I think that is a big cop out, you are trying to disprove the fundies
bur as you know most people are not fundies.
>> Maybe, I'm not convinced though. We don't know that much more, we
>> just accept more.
>Whatever.
Ah 'Whatever' yourself! ;-)
>The fact remains that there are differing opionions sincerely
>held by many people, and that will always be the case.
O.K.
.
>> Except that we are called to act against our nature and having failed
>> to then to call on grace.
>So you are saying that gay people should do what they feel they must, and
>then confess afterwards. Ok, if that's what some individuals believe, that
>is what those that believe it should do.
If they must, I guess so.
>>>> I think maybe some Anglicans are
>>>> insecure about keeping the faith in a very secular society; they are
>>>> trying to be all things to all people and are just laughed at by the
>>>> people they are trying to impress who accuse you of lacking sincerity
>>>> and conviction!
>>>Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose! I feel that as a State
>>>Church it tries to encompass all Christians of hugely differing views, so
>>>that all people living in Britain who consider themselves to be Christians
>>>can feel welcome and accepted at least somewhere in the Anglican Church.
>>>The real crunch time comes when people of differing views feel they have a
> >Nice enough but that has its limits! What about the Muslims and Hindus?
>Well, I don't think anyone's advocating including them in the Anglican
>Communion!! Our Creeds and the 39 Articles would be abhorrant to them.
Tahehehe.
>>>>>they will defend it perhaps literally to the death.
>>>> Why not, lots of things are worth dying for but not nearly as many are
>>>> worth killing for.
>>>Oh dear!!
>>I knew that would make you flinch! There are people willing to be
>> killed just to proclaim the gospel; they're not part of the English
>> establishment trying not to cause waves! And Jesus was not averse to
>> fighting talk 'think not that I come in peace, I come wielding a
>> sward' - he knew full well that his teachings would cause waves and
>> that people would have mixed loyalties.
>Many of us would like to think we would be willing to die for our faith -
>some would, but none of us would know for sure unless ever put in that
>unhappy situation.
Well quite.
>Killing, though, well, it DOES say 'Thou shalt not
I don't really want to think about it. I don't want to harm anyone
you understand and only would in self-defence maybe or to defend my
loved-ones. It also says 'there is a time for peace and a time for
war'
>kill', a bit that the fundie who killed an abortion doctor in the USA
>obviously didn't hold in high priority.
It is also stupid given that they are arguing about the sanctity of
human life. I think people with a cause sometimes loose the moral
compass, like the animal rights extremists.
> Yes, fundies CAN be killers, and
>sincerely believe they are Christians doing God's will. So I flinch...
I'm lost now... who said killing was a good thing?
>>>It's only 'not logical' if you prioritise half a dozen small passages of
>>>Bible text high enough. So I guess we'll just have to differ over whether
>>>or not my position is logical intellectually. Sometimes it's right to 'go
>>>with the heart' anyway!
>> Sometimes yes ... and your heart also includes your conscience which is
>> different for different people.
>Yes!!! THAT's it! Accepting that others who follow Christ can have
>differing views, and yet NOT excluding or rejecting them for their sincerely
>held beliefs.
I can go along with that.
>>Christianity with them. We might inwardly believe them in differing ways,
>>but we both share a deep faith in God and the Word made flesh who gave
>>Himself for our salvation. My point is also, I wouldn't reject them, but
>>they might reject me. It isn't I therefore that would be forcing the
>>split...
> Martin Luther started it! I think because Christianity encourages free
> thought that has created many divisions with people thinking different
> things. We have to understand that this is the consequences of our
> innate right to freedom.
>objections that was the cause of that split - and NO!! He didn't start it.
>The Orthodox Christians split from the Church and the Roman Catholic Church
>was centred in Rome and the Orthodox in Constantinople, Centuries before
>Martin Luther.
Fair point, I was being rather 'ethnocentric' thinking about
Western Christianity.
>there is much about Roman Catholicism which seems to avoid some of the worst ideas
>of Protestantism.
What are the 'worst ideas of Protestantism'?
>>>He he! I just KNEW you were going to say that! And you didn't disappoint
>>>me. But the point is that the debate is about how we view Scripture
>>>rather
>>>than the symptoms of that difference.
>> Oh aye, except for when you say so!!! ;-)
>Oh, be nasty then, if you want to.
Actually I meant to come over as cheeky rather than nasty, I thought we
were getting on well enough for me to get away with it! Sorry if you
think I'm 'nasty' - actually I quite like you!
>>>Well, let's save political debate for a political Newsgroup.
>> This is all just politics anyway I guess!
>Now, THAT's true!
Yep!
>Peace to you.
And you, good to hear your opinions. I'll leave it now or we will be
going around in circles but please explain the 'worst ideas of
Protestantism' bit won't you!
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147647280.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>Peace to you.
>
> And you, good to hear your opinions. I'll leave it now or we will be
> going around in circles but please explain the 'worst ideas of
> Protestantism' bit won't you!
>
I had in mind the various 'Sola Scriptura' cults that have sprung up since
the Reformation that reject almost the entire Tradition of the Church and
instead hold up the Bible as their 'Golden Calf', claiming it to be 'without
error' and literally true from beginning to end. Such a premise doesn't
appear in any of the Creeds, and leads to them being required to believe
such things as a 6,000 year old Universe, and so on. It leads to a
blinkered single-mindedness that cannot be argued or debated with - because
in their minds all matters are settled, their interpretation of the Bible, a
very literal one, is in their eyes unquestionably 100%. Such people are
dangerous.
The original Anglican Church was the same as the Roman Catholic Church from
which it split, except for rejection of the authority of the Pope and of
some of the practices and Doctrine the reformers deemed heretical. The
Anglican Church still considers it to be 'catholic', and a part of the one
holy catholic and apostolic Church (note the use of a small 'c' to
differentiate from Catholic as part of the title of an organisation).
Indeed some people say, (a bit tongue in cheek) that the Anglican Church is
more catholic than the Catholics!! That is, it carries the principle of
freedom in worship a bit further, thus including more of a spectrum of
beliefs - however the counter to that would be to say it goes too far in
that. Probably it's both its strength and its weakness.
Yes,, I like you too! I don't really think you're nasty!!
Timothy <><
Steve Wilson
Tiscali newsgroups are very unreliable.]
> life. . . .
> . . . . What right have you to attempt to deny fellow human beings
> completeness in sexual relationships, just because they find themselves
> only attracted to their own sex?
>
Of myself none. The teaching of the Bible is my authority on the matter
of sexuality, as it is in other areas. As far as homosexual practice is
concerned, the revisionism of Boswell is dead, being kept going only
by those with a stake in perpetuating his subtle wrong arguments.
Also, your comment comes across as saying you consider sexual completeness
is a right for a Christian. There are many people who never experience
this, its not just homosexuals. I don't see it as a right but rather a
blessing. I think you have a highly secular view of sexuality which puts
sexual wholeness on a pedestal.
>> And even though some monkeys and humanity, to a much greater
>> degree, use/misuse sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes, sexual
>> activity remains intrinsically bonded to its intended purpose of
>> reproduction.
>
> Says you. However, even though stated as fact, that only remains your
> opinion. (Just how much monkeys do non-reproductive sexual activity I
> don't know - . . . .
There is a species of monkey (don't recall what they're called) in which
the males routinely penetrate any female they meet, including
their own mothers. Its all very quick and perfunctory and seems
to be an equivalent way of saying 'hello, pleased to meet you'.
> . . . but there is certainly one species that FAR outstrips humanity in
> non-reproductive and indescriminate sexual activity, both homo- and
> heterosexual. But then, we are discussing human beings.) How do YOU know
> that the only "Intended Purpose" of sexual activity is reproduction? It
> is an important consequence of SOME sex acts, of course, but if its the
> ONLY purpose then couples should stop having sex once the woman passes
> child-bearing age, as sex no longer has any purpose.... Likewise the
> otherwise infertile shouldn't have sex either. If you really believe
> that, then OK, but I don't share your belief.
>
That reproduction is the primary purpose is blindingly obvious by the
design of the sexual organs. However that does not mean it is intended
to be a cold mechanical act. Love and commitment is also intended to go
along with it as humanity is also a complex emotional and spiritual
being and the offspring need extended and stable care.
As a mechanical engineer I understand about design and the dangers of
using of equipment for purposes other than its intended one. Even if
there are other uses to which it can be pressed, this does not
detract in any way from its intended use nor legitimise the wrong and
usually unsafe uses. The designer had a specific purpose in mind and it
will work best and safely when used correctly. Indeed you will quickly
forfeit the warranty from the manufacturer if they find the equipment
has been used for any purpose other than the intended one. I find there
is a direct analogy here to sexual activity as intended by our Creator.
Its an old cliché now, but the advice to Christians should always be;
follow the Maker's instructions; he knows best.
Infertility is a sad fact of life, and I would not wish it upon
anyone, but it is silly to suggest married couples should not do what
comes naturally. An unfortunate malfunction has no bearing on the
rightness of sexual activity within marriage.
And I personally know a couple who were told they could not have
children because of diseased fallopian tubes. After 18 years of marriage
and giving up with fertility treatment, somehow, out of the blue and to
their great joy, she conceived naturally and gave birth to a girl.
None of your suggestions detract from the design purpose in the
anatomy of the male and female sexual organs. Even homosexuals are
perfectly functioning biological males and females fit for their
intended purpose. What has gone wrong is that for some reason they find
their own sex sexually attractive. In such a circumstance the Bible
gives no permission for them to express this abnormal desire.
>> Even though God created reproduction for continuation of the
>> species
>
> Do you KNOW that was His ONLY intended purpose? I don't agree with your
> opinion on that.
>
>> none of this is pertinent to God himself for he is not a sexual
>> being.
>
> How do WE know the nature of God? What precisely is meant by a 'sexual
> being'? God is many and all things, WAY beyond our ken.
>
You tell me if our God has a Goddess wife and has sex with her? How
many child deities do they have? Unless you are an LDS or a pagan this
idea is ludicrous in the extreme. And how do we know? How do we know
anything? From the teaching of the Bible of course. Granted it is not
exhaustive, but it is sufficient and accurate in what it teaches us and
we can deduce a fair amount about Gods nature from what is revealed.
The Bible tells us God is spirit and therefore does not have a body.
Additionally he is sufficient within himself and immortal and therefore
has no need to procreate. This is basic Christian stuff, you perplex
me with your forced agnosticism about the nature of God. There is no
justification for it if you take the Bible seriously. I do not for a
minute think you seriously believe our God is a copulating God, for one
thing it means the basic Christian belief in the oneness of God is
rubbish as God having sex means polytheism, unless that is the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit indulge in a perpetual homosexual orgy (I
feel bad even suggesting such a terrible thing). The very nature of God
excludes the need for sexuality, it is something necessary for this
world only. God as immortal spirit is above and beyond such earth bound
considerations.
>> Our sexuality may have been given to us as one way of expressing
>> love in the proper context,
>
> And it is down to YOU to decide what is the "proper context"? No doubt
> you will use the Bible to back up your opinion just as the slave-traders
> did.
>
Yes indeed not me but the Bible. A man shall leave his Father and
Mother and be joined to his wife. This is as unambiguous as you can
get. It is your view which seeks to exploit silences in order to sneak
in other forms of relationships by the back door.
>> but I don't think our sexual nature is part of
>> this limited impartation of some of God's characteristic's to humanity.
>
> Ok fine. You don't think that. But you dont KNOW it.
>
OK I can deduce it on the authority of what the Bible reveals about the
nature of God. I have no need for your false agnosticism.
>> What is usually meant by the term 'made in the likeness of God' are
>> those
>> capacities in man that differentiate him from the animal kingdom and
>> speak
>> of a higher nature. I would say that an awareness of morality (that
>> there
>> is such a thing as good and evil) is one of these qualities as there is
>> no
>> morality found in nature.
>
> I'd go along with that. But also our awareness of good and evil is a part
> of our own rebellion against God - had we not rebelled we would not know,
> and could not therefore be held to account.
>
Indeed you have hit the nail on the head. Homosexuality, both its
inclination and expression would not have occurred at all, along with
wrong heterosexual desire and activity, paedophilia, bestiality and the
host of other sins which beset humanity. It is a mystery that God
permitted this to happen. We just have to trust that God's intended
end-purpose will be worth it. It must be for God is Good.
>> Moral laws are essentially non-physical and
>> conceptual and animals do not appear to be aware of these. It is for
>> this reason we do not hold them responsible for what they do. I would
>> say
>> our capacity for reasoning and logic would also be part of this image as
>> again the universal laws of logic are conceptual and non-physical.
>> Animals
>> are not known for their debates.
>
> And our moral laws of today about fair and just treatment of all, and
> about treating all human beings as of equal value and according them all
> basic rights, are in many ways superior to moral laws of the past, which
> did not recognise we are ALL made in the Image of God.
>
I think you wrongly assume 'all made in the image of God' and 'equal
value' is applicable to homosexual activity. It is not according to
the Bible. If the Bible gave even the smallest positive hint that
homosexual lifestyle was permissible as an alternative model for those
not attracted to the opposite sex, I would yield to your view,
but I just don't see that the Bible does this. The only way around this
would be to dismiss the Bible's teaching on the matter as outdated, as
indeed you appear to do. I cannot do that as it is a mode of
interpretation which stands in judgement over what the Bible is
permitted to teach in accordance with contemporary morality, in other
words, the Bible is made to say what we want it to say. That is anathema
to me, one might as well do the honest thing and throw the Bible away
and make it all up as we go along.
>> I would also say that our ability to go against, or even transcend, our
>> natural instincts also hints at a higher nature in us. Although it is not
>> easy to go against instincts we do have the capacity to do so, and an
>> awareness of its problems, whilst animals are totally controlled by their
>> instincts. I would also say that the capacity to put someone else's
>> interest before your own is also part of this image.
>
> Yes, I'd go along with that, as well.
>
>> A recent American
>> study with apes (heard about it on R4 program a few weeks ago) has shown
>> that even in the most intelligent of apes, the ability to over-ride the
>> selfish impulse is completely absent. There might be a few more
>> examples,
>> perhaps an awareness of our transcience and the reason for existance too,
>> but hopefully this has given you some idea why I do not think sexuality,
>> although a gift from God to be expressed within marriage, is not part of
>> the imprint of God upon humanity.
>
> Well, ok now I understand why you believe what you do. I still say God is
> so far above anything we can understand that we simply cannot know what or
> what isn't a part of us being 'In His Image'. As for the context of
> marriage, why shouldn't that include any loving and committed relationship
> between two people who love one-another and intend to stay together and
> support one-another through life, even if they can't reproduce? Or does
> the ability to reproduce need to be a prerequisite? If so, ban any woman
> over 50 from marrying....
>
The Bible tells us heterosexual marriage, one man and one woman, is the
only model instituted and blessed by God. As such it produces offspring
in youth as long as there is no disease or malfunction of the sexual
organs to prevent it. It is still the blessed institution for sexual
union whether child bearing is possible or not. The only other Biblical
alternative is celibacy I'm afraid to say. Homosexual unions are not
given any blessing or even spoken of in any positive light in the Bible.
>> In Matt 22:29-30 Jesus states that we will not be sexual beings in the
>> next life, but rather 'as angels'. To me this says sexuality is limited
>> to this world and although used alongside other avenues by God towards
>> forging a Christ-like character, does not figure as part of our identity
>> in our resurrection life.
>
> Yes, but we need to understand and love and support our fellow human
> beings whilst they are still THIS side of the grave...
>
Granted, but that does not necessarily prevent the church teaching that
homosexual activity along with heterosexual activity outside of marriage
is sinful and to be avoided, with Christians being supportive and loving
in this context.
Does your 'Yes, but' mean some kind of agreement or am I just deluding
myself?
Timothy
But what you're saying is that only YOUR personal understanding and
interpretation of the Bible is the 'right' one - ok if you believe that and
live it in your OWN life. The trouble is, you're trying to apply YOUR
belief on this to OTHER peoples' lives.
> As far as homosexual practice is
> concerned, the revisionism of Boswell is dead, being kept going only
> by those with a stake in perpetuating his subtle wrong arguments.
YOUR opinion, and you're welcome to it, and to live it out in your OWN life,
as I said.
>
> Also, your comment comes across as saying you consider sexual completeness
> is a right for a Christian.
It's right for most humans, irrespective of their beliefs, since we are
sexual beings. For some, celibacy is right, if it's their CHOICE.
Homosexuals (including Christians) don't have to be celibate just because
YOU say so - if their belief is that you are wrong rather than Boswell, then
it's a matter for their own consciences.
> There are many people who never experience this, its not just homosexuals.
> I don't see it as a right but rather a blessing.
Whatever. Nevertheless YOU are not entitled to use YOUR understanding of
the Bible to tell others that blessing is not available to them because of
how they are. They are fully entitled to disagree with your OPINION that
you keep on stating as unquestionable 'fact'.
> I think you have a highly secular view of sexuality which puts sexual
> wholeness on a pedestal.
I would use a rude expletive here, but I will do the right thing and not
rise to it. I put God alone on a pedestal, not the Church, not the Bible,
just God. My view of sexuality is not 'secular', it is that sexuality is
God-made and God-given, and intended as a blessing for at least most people
to enjoy. Not on the basis of their sexual orientation, but on the basis of
its completeness in a loving and committed relationship. The secular view
is more likely 'do it like rabbits if you feel like it'.
>
>>> And even though some monkeys and humanity, to a much greater
>>> degree, use/misuse sexual activity for non-reproductive purposes, sexual
>>> activity remains intrinsically bonded to its intended purpose of
>>> reproduction.
>>
>> Says you. However, even though stated as fact, that only remains your
>> opinion. (Just how much monkeys do non-reproductive sexual activity I
>> don't know - . . . .
>
> There is a species of monkey (don't recall what they're called) in which
> the males routinely penetrate any female they meet, including
> their own mothers. Its all very quick and perfunctory and seems
> to be an equivalent way of saying 'hello, pleased to meet you'.
And their males don't confine this sexual attention to females. Arguing
from nature is pointless, though, anyway.
>
>> . . . but there is certainly one species that FAR outstrips humanity in
>> non-reproductive and indescriminate sexual activity, both homo- and
>> heterosexual. But then, we are discussing human beings.) How do YOU
>> know that the only "Intended Purpose" of sexual activity is reproduction?
>> It is an important consequence of SOME sex acts, of course, but if its
>> the ONLY purpose then couples should stop having sex once the woman
>> passes child-bearing age, as sex no longer has any purpose.... Likewise
>> the otherwise infertile shouldn't have sex either. If you really believe
>> that, then OK, but I don't share your belief.
>>
>
> That reproduction is the primary purpose is blindingly obvious by the
> design of the sexual organs.
Sexual expression of love is much more than "Put tag A into slot B", though.
Now it would seem to be YOU who is reducing it to a secular level. Any
couple is capable of expressing sexually their fondness for one-anther,
WITHOUT actual intercourse. This also can be seen in the animal kingdom, by
the way, if that comparison is important to you. Simply because putting A
into B is the primary function of the physical organs, it doesn't make any
or all other sexual practices 'wrong'. Most people, including Christians,
do not consider self-masturbation 'wrong' these days - and many would say
the same about mutual masturbation in the context of a loving relationship.
For instance, is it wrong for a man and his wife to stop at foreplay, or
must every sexual act culminate in intercourse in order not to be sinful? I
think the whole business of talking about specific sexual acts is a red
herring to the real subject - whether sexual context is ok for committed and
loving same-sex couples.
> However that does not mean it is intended
> to be a cold mechanical act. Love and commitment is also intended to go
> along with it as humanity is also a complex emotional and spiritual
> being
I agree fully with this statement - which is where we as Christians differ
vitally from the secular view.
> and the offspring need extended and stable care.
Having offspring is NOT the only reason for sexual activity, though. Even
if you think it's the MAIN natural purpose, it isn't the ONLY reason for
'doing it', it has other purposes.
>
> As a mechanical engineer I understand about design and the dangers of
> using of equipment for purposes other than its intended one. Even if
> there are other uses to which it can be pressed, this does not
> detract in any way from its intended use nor legitimise the wrong and
> usually unsafe uses.
Well, men, boys, women and girls have been masturbating themselves and each
other since time immemorial - and despite the 'old wives tales', it is
generally thought to be emotionally, physically and mentally beneficial, as
long as it does not become an obsession. Sorry, but I was an electronic
engineer and that included mechanical training - and I can't see that there
is ANY risk in masturbation, except if people stick objects into themselves
that are dirty, breakable, large, sharp or otherwise unsafe. Using just
hands to stimulate the body should be safe.
> The designer had a specific purpose in mind and it
> will work best and safely when used correctly. Indeed you will quickly
> forfeit the warranty from the manufacturer if they find the equipment
> has been used for any purpose other than the intended one. I find there
> is a direct analogy here to sexual activity as intended by our Creator.
Well, I don't. We are what we are, and no doubt God accepts that we can
stimulate ourselves and others without putting A into B. The Bible doesn't
forbid masturbation - the story of Onan was about duty to father children
with a brother's widow under OT Jewish law.
> Its an old cliché now, but the advice to Christians should always be;
> follow the Maker's instructions; he knows best.
Well, he hasn't said, "Don't masturbate either yourself or others", has He?
Indeed, it's probably for many an essential safety valve preventing them
from committing serious sex crimes or indiscretions.
>
> Infertility is a sad fact of life, and I would not wish it upon
> anyone, but it is silly to suggest married couples should not do what
> comes naturally. An unfortunate malfunction has no bearing on the
> rightness of sexual activity within marriage.
You COULD argue that a similar 'malfunction' is to be only attracted to
one's own sex, and therefore have to 'marry' someone else who is similar. I
don't see homosexuality as a malfunction, so much as a natural variation
within the diversity of human nature. Nevertheless, according to your own
logic, if you DO consider it a 'malfunction', then it is also equally silly
to suggest that a same-sex couple should not do what comes naturally, for
THEM, and satisfy one-another sexually.
>
> And I personally know a couple who were told they could not have
> children because of diseased fallopian tubes. After 18 years of marriage
> and giving up with fertility treatment, somehow, out of the blue and to
> their great joy, she conceived naturally and gave birth to a girl.
Praise the Lord! I'm very pleased for them that they were blessed in that
way - but it has no real bearing on this discussion.
>
> None of your suggestions detract from the design purpose in the
> anatomy of the male and female sexual organs. Even homosexuals are
> perfectly functioning biological males and females fit for their
> intended purpose. What has gone wrong is that for some reason they find
> their own sex sexually attractive. In such a circumstance the Bible
> gives no permission for them to express this abnormal desire.
Here I find this kind of talk actually offensive, as if you'd said, "Some
races are born to be slaves" and used the Bible to defend that position.
Perhaps nothing has 'gone wrong' at all, perhaps homosexuality is just a
part of the variety of human nature. We should use reason to decide what we
believe the God of Love would permit, knowing that in exceptional (around
6%) of circumstances people are attracted to their own sex. That's NOT
'abnormal', its just unusual, so you should choose your words more
carefully. It is entirely NORMAL for around 6% of human beings to be
attracted to their own sex. We can know that that is so because all surveys
across times and cultures return similar figures, where people are free to
give honest answers. The Bible gives the *usual pattern*, but it doesn't
have to follow that all patterns other than the usual must be deemed
*wrong*. One needs to look into individual case circumstances to decide
that. I simply don't believe in rules with no exceptions - except Love God,
Love thy neighbour.
>
>
>>> Even though God created reproduction for continuation of the
>>> species
>>
>> Do you KNOW that was His ONLY intended purpose? I don't agree with your
>> opinion on that.
>>
>>> none of this is pertinent to God himself for he is not a sexual
>>> being.
>>
>> How do WE know the nature of God? What precisely is meant by a 'sexual
>> being'? God is many and all things, WAY beyond our ken.
>>
> You tell me if our God has a Goddess wife and has sex with her? How
> many child deities do they have?
Don't be silly - it's beneath you.
> Unless you are an LDS or a pagan this
> idea is ludicrous in the extreme. And how do we know? How do we know
> anything? From the teaching of the Bible of course.
And from observation and research, and from tradition, and from a whole host
of other things, and from reason- which God gave us to USE.
> Granted it is not
> exhaustive, but it is sufficient and accurate in what it teaches us and
Sorry, but it isn't literally accurate - the Universe is many many millions
of years old, and not about 6,000 years, which is what you arrive at if you
work it out from the Bible. The Bible permits multiple marriages, slavery,
corporal and capital punishment, and a whole host of other things we would
consider morally unacceptable today - and there is NO age of consent!! The
Bible would say it is perfectly ok to have sex with a 12 year old girl, as
long as you're married to her, along with all your other wives. Why should
we listen to what the Bible prohibits, or appears to, when it ALLOWS such
awful things?
> we can deduce a fair amount about Gods nature from what is revealed.
Revealed in Christ, yes. But not in all the speculative philosophy of the
days before the cross. A God of Love who sanctions mass genocide? I don't
think so. That might be Jeff's god, but it aint mine. No, Jesus came and
revealed the True nature of God to us.
> The Bible tells us God is spirit and therefore does not have a body.
> Additionally he is sufficient within himself and immortal and therefore
> has no need to procreate.
I agree with that.
> This is basic Christian stuff, you perplex
> me with your forced agnosticism about the nature of God.
My view of God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, is entirely in line with the
Anglican position in the 39 Articles, and that of the 3 Creeds of Western
Christianity.
> There is no
> justification for it if you take the Bible seriously. I do not for a
> minute think you seriously believe our God is a copulating God,
You KNOW I don't believe such a thing! But sexuality is part of human
nature and part of our psyche. It is far far MORE than putting tag A into
slot B. People without either set of equipment are still sexual beings in
their nature. It is how we experience a deep inner need for togetherness
with someone special, and that need is what we're talking about, and not
your excessively 'mechanical engineer'. It has a parallel in the deep
spiritual need for Unity of a greater order. "You will be in me and I will
be in you". Not physically, but SPIRITUALLY. Can't you see that parallel
with the microcosm of a relationship with one special person? The thing is
about relationships and love, not about physical sex acts. Don't you see
that?
(I snipped the rest of that thread, as I found it blasphemous and offensive.
Are you incapable of seeing the spiritual side of sexual love, and it's
parallels? It's in the Bible you know, try reading the Song of Solomon.)
>
>
>
>>> Our sexuality may have been given to us as one way of expressing
>>> love in the proper context,
>>
>> And it is down to YOU to decide what is the "proper context"? No doubt
>> you will use the Bible to back up your opinion just as the slave-traders
>> did.
>>
> Yes indeed not me but the Bible. A man shall leave his Father and
> Mother and be joined to his wife. This is as unambiguous as you can
> get.
So if someone DOESNT marry, then they are sinning because they didn't do
what the Bible says. I see.....
>>> but I don't think our sexual nature is part of
>>> this limited impartation of some of God's characteristic's to humanity.
>>
>> Ok fine. You don't think that. But you dont KNOW it.
>>
> OK I can deduce it on the authority of what the Bible reveals about the
> nature of God. I have no need for your false agnosticism.
It's not agnosticism, false or otherwise. It's Biblical. Read the Song of
Solomon. Read the analogies in the Bible about the Church being the 'Bride
of Christ'. Not to have physical sex with of course, but a clear indication
that our human sexuality is a PART OF OUR SPIRITUALITY and a part of our
Image of God. Sexuality is about relationships, love and what it is to be
human.
You have attempted to reduce it to a mechanical process to produce kids.
>
>>> What is usually meant by the term 'made in the likeness of God' are
>>> those
>>> capacities in man that differentiate him from the animal kingdom and
>>> speak
>>> of a higher nature. I would say that an awareness of morality (that
>>> there
>>> is such a thing as good and evil) is one of these qualities as there is
>>> no
>>> morality found in nature.
>>
>> I'd go along with that. But also our awareness of good and evil is a
>> part of our own rebellion against God - had we not rebelled we would not
>> know, and could not therefore be held to account.
>>
> Indeed you have hit the nail on the head. Homosexuality, both its
> inclination and expression would not have occurred at all,
We CAN'T know that, it's hypothetical. We don't know what was and what was
not part of God's intended order.
> along with
> wrong heterosexual desire and activity, paedophilia, bestiality and the
> host of other sins which beset humanity.
Different issues.
> It is a mystery that God
> permitted this to happen. We just have to trust that God's intended
> end-purpose will be worth it. It must be for God is Good.
And we don't know whether homosexual attraction is a 'fault', and we don't
know for sure that it isn't part of God's design. What we do know is it
exists, and people are human beings with a deep need for relationship.
>
>>> Moral laws are essentially non-physical and
>>> conceptual and animals do not appear to be aware of these. It is for
>>> this reason we do not hold them responsible for what they do. I would
>>> say
>>> our capacity for reasoning and logic would also be part of this image as
>>> again the universal laws of logic are conceptual and non-physical.
>>> Animals
>>> are not known for their debates.
>>
>> And our moral laws of today about fair and just treatment of all, and
>> about treating all human beings as of equal value and according them all
>> basic rights, are in many ways superior to moral laws of the past, which
>> did not recognise we are ALL made in the Image of God.
>>
> I think you wrongly assume 'all made in the image of God' and 'equal
> value' is applicable to homosexual activity.
You can think I'm wrong and I can think you're wrong. No problem.
It's when we try and affect the lives of other people by denying them
something THEY believe is right, that it becomes a problem.
> It is not according to
> the Bible.
Well, you can put the Bible on a pedestal and worship it if you want to. Or
you can see it as a record of Mankind's developing understanding of God and
human nature, a process which is still going on today.
> If the Bible gave even the smallest positive hint that
> homosexual lifestyle was permissible as an alternative model for those
> not attracted to the opposite sex, I would yield to your view,
> but I just don't see that the Bible does this.
Ok. At best the Bible only talks about specific sexual acts. At no point
does the Bible say that couples of the same sex cannot share their lives,
share accomodation, make lifelong commitments to one-another, indeed, love
one another. Neither does the Bible appear to prohibit mutual or
self-masturbation, which is what a same-sex couple are limited to as they
don't have the tag A and slot B for sexual intercourse. So it doesn't seem
to prohibit this in all circumstances. Unless you adhere to the "A man
shall leave his parents and be joined to his wife" bit - which I've already
pointed out, means that ANY alternative, including not getting married and
staying celibate, would be wrong by that logic.
> The only way around this
> would be to dismiss the Bible's teaching on the matter as outdated, as
> indeed you appear to do.
Well, new knowledge and understanding means we should *reinterpret*
Scripture in the light of that knowledge, prioritising the greater Biblical
principles over the lesser ones. That leads to the conclusion that there
are reasonable exceptions to the Biblical norm. "The exception that proves
the rule" is one way to think of it - most rules have exceptions, but hold
good in most circumstances.
> I cannot do that as it is a mode of
> interpretation which stands in judgement over what the Bible is
> permitted to teach in accordance with contemporary morality, in other
> words, the Bible is made to say what we want it to say.
What! People have done that for 2000 years! The answer is to see the Bible
as only *a part of * Authority, and not it's only component. There's also
Tradition and Reason. And Reason can use modern knowledge in reassessing
which *aspects* of Bible teaching must be prioritised highest. There are
clues - "These sum up the Law and the Prophets".
> That is anathema
> to me, one might as well do the honest thing and throw the Bible away
> and make it all up as we go along.
Well, it's really a problem with your rigid and fixed mindset, that you
cannot see that each generation MUST rediscover for themselves what Faith
and the Bible means to them.
No it doesn't. It sets that up as the usual pattern, that's all.
> As such it produces offspring
> in youth as long as there is no disease or malfunction of the sexual
> organs to prevent it. It is still the blessed institution for sexual
> union whether child bearing is possible or not. The only other Biblical
> alternative is celibacy I'm afraid to say.
Would you still say that if you were homosexual? I don't know. It's
hypothetical, but most of us could *imagine* what it would be like, and what
about the Spiritual nature of sexuality that I talked about above? What
about that need, in a person of homosexual orientation? I don't believe we
HAVE to interpret the Bible to mean that they can have no fulfillment in a
committed and loving sexual relationship. Not if we get the priorities of
Bible passages right.
> Homosexual unions are not
> given any blessing or even spoken of in any positive light in the Bible.
Love DID occur between people of the same sex, (whether there was any sexual
content or not). So same-sex LOVE is permitted in the Bible. So is
commitment.
>
>
>>> In Matt 22:29-30 Jesus states that we will not be sexual beings in the
>>> next life, but rather 'as angels'. To me this says sexuality is limited
>>> to this world and although used alongside other avenues by God towards
>>> forging a Christ-like character, does not figure as part of our identity
>>> in our resurrection life.
>>
>> Yes, but we need to understand and love and support our fellow human
>> beings whilst they are still THIS side of the grave...
>>
> Granted, but that does not necessarily prevent the church teaching that
> homosexual activity along with heterosexual activity outside of marriage
> is sinful and to be avoided, with Christians being supportive and loving
> in this context.
I suppose most of us will just shop around for a church that says what we
believe on this issue!
>
> Does your 'Yes, but' mean some kind of agreement or am I just deluding
> myself?
I agree there will be no *physical* sexuality otherside of the grave - but
the *spiritual* nature of sexuality is part of our Image. Get the
distinction?
Timothy <><
claire....@ntlworld.com
keep Protestants in line!!! ;-) Think how many types of churches there
are. Christianity has the most devisions of any of the major world
religions.
Glad we did not fall out anyway, I have my hands full enough with Jim!
;-)
claire....@ntlworld.com
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147709371....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Guess that is the danger with too much free-thought, it is difficult to
> keep Protestants in line!!! ;-)
It's quite easy if ONLY 'believer's hearken to what Scripture has commanded
us to preach and practise. But heretics and reprobates have so denounced and
contradicted the teachings of the NT and the writers endorsed by Christ,
that predictably we have reached the point were "Everyone does what is right
in their own eyes" . {;o;}
>Think how many types of churches there
> are. Christianity has the most devisions of any of the major world
> religions.
Yes! of course and WHY?
ONLY because, fallen, proud, arrogant, irresponsible false brethren &
sisters, refuse to directly obey God and His chosen Apostles, as to what He
has determined was, and is, to be preached and practised by those chosen
"few" who are destined to rule the world with His beloved Son.
> Glad we did not fall out anyway, I have my hands full enough with Jim!
> ;-)
Sadly a misguided, coarse-mouthed baby, who hasn't a clue as to what he
believes, or why he even bothers to be a Catholic.
Jeff...
claire....@ntlworld.com
>> keep Protestants in line!!! ;-)
>It's quite easy
Oh dear! ;-)
>if ONLY 'believer's hearken to what Scripture has commanded
>us to preach and practise.
If that is what you mean, I can live with that!
>But heretics
'Heretic' is such a dangerous concept, it is what the inquisition
was about.
> "Everyone does what is right
>in their own eyes" . {;o;}
We should be guided by scripture I agree.
>> Glad we did not fall out anyway, I have my hands full enough with Jim!
>> ;-)
>Sadly a misguided, coarse-mouthed baby, who hasn't a clue as to what he
>believes, or why he even bothers to be a Catholic.
The Jims of this world treat religion like a supporters club, as he
said himself he considers his arguments here to be 'sport'. So long
as you wear the right colours and detest the opposition you will fit
right in. Thought is not necessary to belong for him- it is all about
what you *are* rather than what you think and believe about anything.
Then there is the shear pig-headed desire to be different for the sake
of a slagging match - if he woke up tomorrow to find that we had all
converted to Catholicism - no doubt he would decide he was a
Presbyterian or something!!! ;-)
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147709371....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I have several Roman Catholics counted among my personal friends, (one a
Priest), and none of them exhibit Jim's sectarian outlook. Most are more
able and willing to enter into reasoned debate!
You know, there is ecclesiastical as well as scriptural fundamentalism, and
like all fundamentalism reason and discussion become impossible. One form
puts the Bible before Christ and the other puts Church before Christ.
Timothy <><
Martin
>
> "Timothy" <not...@nilspam.com> wrote in message
> news:MiW8g.18937$mX1....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >The Bible *principles* about all humans being made in the Image of God,
>
> All humans aren't..... only man/males were made in God's actual image, just
> as Christ was, and he was no woman.
This poses some interesting questions...
If that is so, is God white, black, Asian, oriental, hispanic, mongolian, pygmy,
aboriginal, red indian, eskimo, or of some other race I have missed out? Has he
got brown, blue, green or hazel eyes, and how old does he look (white hair and
beard as we all know).
Also, He must be male... but why? Where is Mrs. God?
I won't ask who His parents were, where He was educated, or what he did during
the 15 billion years after the Big Bang... or where He was before it.
Cheers
Martin
claire....@ntlworld.com
>the 15 billion years after the Big Bang...
He was at Eton College!
claire....@ntlworld.com
>Priest), and none of them exhibit Jim's sectarian outlook. Most are more
>able and willing to enter into reasoned debate!
I know, honestly! I have no problem with anybody's religion, just how
they behave. There are Jims in all traditions.
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147900023.8...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >where He was educated, or what he did during
> >the 15 billion years after the Big Bang...
>
> He was at Eton College!
Hmmm. He behaved more like a Harrovian in the OT I thought?
Thanks for your prayers and goodwill Claire... much appreciated. I'm glad to
tell you that it seems to be working, something is anyway. God bless...
Martin
claire....@ntlworld.com
>Hmmm. He behaved more like a Harrovian in the OT I thought?
I think it is daft trying to confine God to our own narrow
understanding of the world or mould him to fit our whims. Remember that
in the days of the British Empire Jesus was depicted as having blond
heir and blue eyes and people believed he had walked 'in England's
Green and pleasant land'!
>Thanks for your prayers and goodwill Claire... much appreciated. I'm glad to
>tell you that it seems to be working,
I'm glad to hear that things are looking better. Your request reminded
me of how in the Old Testament only the Priests were allowed to enter
the innermost part of the Temple past a curtain to commune with God.
>something is anyway. God bless...
I hope you find your way, you seem so close!
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1147989908....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Maybe I have - it could be that I visualise and see and the entity you call
'God' in a slightly different way, and use a different name. The essential
massage of 'goodness' and love I am completely in accord with... surely God will
understand?
Cheers
Martin
Timothy
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:446de...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Jeff won't think so! LOL!!
Tim.
claire....@ntlworld.com
>'God' in a slightly different way, and use a different name.
I would be interested to know what that is? I think we are limited by
language and human understanding and God is much bigger than we could
perceive or describe. I think He is more a force and I could call Him
'It' but it seems rather disrespectful so I will stick with
'Him'!
The essential
>massage of 'goodness' and love I am completely in accord with... surely God will
>understand?
> Cheers
> Martin
Well, it is an interesting question; what happens to the non-believers?
What happens to people who have never heard the Gospel? What happened
to souls before the first Coming? Does Paul mean we *have* to
acknowledge Jesus as Christ in order to be saved and there is no other
way? Or does he mean that Jesus will sit in judgement as an intercessor
for God? I tend to think it would be better to accept Jesus as the
surest way to be saved and find happiness, because if it is even
remotely possible that he did in fact die for your sins than that
cannot be ignored and is so profound that you would want to believe it
with or without the fundamentalists' threats of damnation. And
remember also in case you think we are very arrogant and presumptuous
about our fate, that we are told 'not all those who cry out Lord
Lord, will be saved'
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>
>> "Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote in message it could
>> 'God' in a slightly different way, and use a different name.
No good Martin.
Jesus insisted "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve."
>The essential
>> massage of 'goodness' and love I am completely in accord with...
So are many false Christs and prophets.
>>surely God will
>> understand?
Not so!
"One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism"
> Jeff won't think so! LOL!!
> Tim.
As Jeff always thinks and thus remains spiritually safe!
"What sayeth the Scripture?"
Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Jeff...
Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were *baptized: and the
same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And
they continued *stedfastly in the *apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148062829....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the life, and no-one comes to the
Father but by me".
Taken by some to mean that only committed Christians can ever be saved, if
this statement is viewed from a Trinitarian perspective, it is a statement
rather that Jesus is God, the 'Word made flesh' who was with God in the
beginning and is 'seated at the right hand of God' now. He also said, "If
you have seen me you have seen the Father". He is One with the Father, for
the Father is in Him and He is in the Father.
Now, in that context, Jesus is saying He, and only He, is the One who
decides who is saved. The decision is His, and so we may well be as
surprised by who will be saved as by who will not. I believe that the
statement I quoted above only really makes sense if Jesus is Divine.
Timothy <><
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148062829....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have a problem with Paul, and a problem with seeing Jesus and God as one and
the same. He did not behave like a 'God' even if you believe the scriptures word
for word, and I cannot equate him with Him. the almost complete lack of
historical or archaeological evidence with reguard to JC makes me unwilling to
stake my soul upon his word - which we only have second hand at best, and
recorded long after his execution.
I do believe he existed however, a remarkable, inspirational and exceptional
man - but just a man, ahead of his time, but not a divine entity.
The entity I tend to 'believe' in (for I am uncertain as yet) is asexual and
powerful - but not all powerful. He/She is not alone either, or all-knowing and
omnipresent - there are other forces around, some good, some evil. I choose to
call the male principle of this being 'Allfather', the female part Freya - for
want of better names. I find the confusing state of the world, nature, humanity
and the universe better explained and represented by Norse mythology, than the
Judaeo/Christian/Muslim model of a single God. If you look at it, it is no more
ridiculous or mysterious than the 'truth' which the Bible contains.
I don't of course 'believe' as a Viking would have a thousand years ago, and do
not carry a sword to gain my entry into Valhalla should I be run over or struck
down, nor indulge in 'blood eagle' sacrifices to please Odin! I do however know
that there is a future beyond death, and (normally) invisible powers and
influences are all around us, which may help or hinder. They are all part of
what you call 'God' I suppose, and His 'mysterious ways' become less mysterious
if you visualise different aspects, often at odds with each other - and mankind.
To me, the Universe seems to be ruled by chaos and disorder, not a place ruled
by one great and all-powerful God, but an arena where various conflicting forces
meet and sometimes fight. When they are balanced and neutral, harmony and peace
occur, but never for very long. Things are constantly changing, and we are stuck
in this system whether we like it or not, not just through one lifetime, but
through many.
Unfortunately I can no more assure you that this is the way it works than you
can convince me that Christianity is the truth. I base my 'beliefs' on
observation, experience and reason rather than 'faith' - I see nothing to have
true faith in, I can only marvel at it all, and appreciate what a tiny,
insignificant speck I am in time and space. A 'good' one I hope?
Cheers
Martin
claire....@ntlworld.com
>the same. He did not behave like a 'God' even if you believe the scriptures word
>for word, and I cannot equate him with Him.
It is the mystery of the trinity. But then, there are also some
Christian denominations that do not believe in the trinity I think
I'm right in saying?
>the almost complete lack of
>historical or archaeological evidence with reguard to JC makes me unwilling to
>stake my soul upon his word - which we only have second hand at best, and
>recorded long after his execution.
There is certainly more historical evidence of Jesus than any other
religious deity
>I do believe he existed however, a remarkable, inspirational and exceptional
>man - but just a man, ahead of his time, but not a divine entity.
I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that if Jesus falsely
claimed to be the son of God, he would either have been a liar or a
madman and certainly nor somebody you would want to follow!
>The entity I tend to 'believe' in (for I am uncertain as yet) is asexual and
>powerful - but not all powerful. He/She is not alone either, or all-knowing and
>omnipresent - there are other forces around, some good, some evil.
Do you know, Christians believe in the forces of good and evil too! It
is the force of evil that disrupt those of good.
> I choose to
>call the male principle of this being 'Allfather', the female part Freya - for
>want of better names.
Well, you would not be the first to design an interesting looking idol!
;-)
>I find the confusing state of the world, nature, humanity
>and the universe better explained and represented by Norse mythology, than the
>Judaeo/Christian/Muslim model of a single God.
I think at it's heart all religion tries to explain the same things
and there are similarities but that Christianity goes further. For
example when first thinking about religion, Buddhism sounded appealing
until I thought about it more. And yes, the eight precepts of Buddhism
as a moral code look very similar to the 10 Commandments.
> If you look at it, it is no more
>ridiculous or mysterious than the 'truth' which the Bible contains.
I don't think you are ridiculous (now if you said you were a
Scientologist!), but I do think that your thinking is incomplete and no
I cannot prove objectively that I have the truth but I can explain what
I see as the weaknesses and contradictions in your thinking and do so
in a spirit of respect.
>I don't of course 'believe' as a Viking would have a thousand years ago, and do
>not carry a sword to gain my entry into Valhalla should I be run over or struck
>down, nor indulge in 'blood eagle' sacrifices to please Odin!
Well, that's something of a relief!
>I do however know
>that there is a future beyond death, and (normally) invisible powers and
>influences are all around us, which may help or hinder.
So do I!
>They are all part of
>what you call 'God' I suppose, and His 'mysterious ways' become less mysterious
>if you visualise different aspects, often at odds with each other - and mankind.
Please explain this part?
>To me, the Universe seems to be ruled by chaos and disorder, not a place ruled
>by one great and all-powerful God, but an arena where various conflicting forces
>meet and sometimes fight.
The universe is actually very ordered. Astronomers can predict when the
sun will go supernova, based on their study of the remains of
former-stars. Nature follows mathematical rules, the number of petals
on a flower, the number of offspring a rabbit will have. It is not
really my field all this, but I am transfixed when I see programmers
about this sort of thing. If you look at Chaos Theory you'll see that
it follows mathematical rules even if the results appear to be random.
What you are talking about is the effect of forces you cannot see,
which does not really prove or disprove much.
>When they are balanced and neutral, harmony and peace
Christians are realists about the existence of evil and of human nature
but they would not seak to appease it in this way or want to sarcoma to
it. For example in many more primitive religions they made offerings to
the evil spirits to keep them sweet. We have to keep our natural
capacity for evil as human beings in check whilst aspiring for good.
I'm not even sure you are really talking about good and evil but
extremes. For example lets apply you yin yang theory to Governance. On
your yin yang model we would have complete freedom (anarchy)
represented by white and the most oppressive and intolerable
authoritarian dictatorship represented by black. However if we accept
the bad side of human nature we will conclude that we do need rules,
and police and leaders and that anarchy would be a disaster. So we know
that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' and
our liberal democracy (the freedom of the individual combined with the
rule of the majority looks like a contradiction in terms on the face of
it) has become the norm throughout the world as the least worst form of
Governance. Both the importance of liberty and the theory of human
nature behind our institutions are Christian ones. You would get a very
different picture with a Buddhist or Hindu type of notion that human
beings are essential good but are corrupted by their environment -
that would lead you towards utopian ideas such as communism.
>occur, but never for very long. Things are constantly changing, and we are stuck
>in this system whether we like it or not, not just through one lifetime, but
>through many.
So what is the purpose of life in such a belief system?
>Unfortunately I can no more assure you that this is the way it works than you
>can convince me that Christianity is the truth. I base my 'beliefs' on
That is true but you are thinking along scientific or social-scientific
lines rather than philosophical lines if you think that any debate is
therefore meaningless!
>observation, experience and reason rather than 'faith'
Actually, I consider it superstition rather than reason, as would
atheists, but then I guess atheists think we are both superstitious!
>- I see nothing to have
>true faith in,
How depressing!
>I can only marvel at it all, and appreciate what a tiny,
>insignificant speck I am in time and space. A 'good' one I hope?
But are you insignificant? Is life insignificant? Think of the
excitement when scientists believed the had found life on Mars, even
many atheists would accept that life is rare and precious. It is
chilling to say that anybody's life is insignificant. Once we do that
we end up with concentration camps and killing-fields. And more
immediate than that, what do you get up for in the morning, what do you
want to achieve in life? Even if my own void is filled with a misguided
faith it is still filled! Does that mean shit won't happen to me? Of
course not! :-)
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148123691.9...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I have a problem with Paul, and a problem with seeing Jesus and God as one
and
> >the same. He did not behave like a 'God' even if you believe the scriptures
word
> >for word, and I cannot equate him with Him.
>
> It is the mystery of the trinity. But then, there are also some
> Christian denominations that do not believe in the trinity I think
> I'm right in saying?
I think there are, and although many were denounced as 'heretics' and actively
persecuted in the past, many Christians today still have doubts. Personally, I
have never seen the 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' idea adequately explained? One
God is surely just that - One God?
> >the almost complete lack of
> >historical or archaeological evidence with reguard to JC makes me unwilling
to
> >stake my soul upon his word - which we only have second hand at best, and
> >recorded long after his execution.
>
> There is certainly more historical evidence of Jesus than any other
> religious deity
Mohammed was of course not a 'deity' and never claimed to be, nor were any
Jewish heroes of the OT, or Bhudda, Singh and the founders of most religions. I
can't recall Jesus Christ ever proclaiming himself to be a deity as such, he
seems to have been by all accounts very human, with human weaknesses and
vulnerabilities. Never did he display any almighty power, other than perform
some healing and a few (no disrespect here) 'tricks', which have all been
repeated by modern conjurers before far less naive audiences.
> >I do believe he existed however, a remarkable, inspirational and exceptional
> >man - but just a man, ahead of his time, but not a divine entity.
> I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that if Jesus falsely
> claimed to be the son of God, he would either have been a liar or a
> madman and certainly nor somebody you would want to follow!
In a sense we are all 'sons and daughters' of God if you believe He created us.
I greatly admire CS Lewis, he struggled with his beliefs and learned to accept
in the end that he just 'didn't and couldn't know' here on earth, much as I do.
I remember that in his Narnia books, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy were referred
to as 'sons of Adam and daughters of Eve', effectively making them grand
children of God I suppose? Aslan's sacrifice of himself was surely inspired by
the crucifixion and subsequent return of JC, but I'm afraid I have some
reservations when it comes to accepting that Jc was equipped with knowledge of
magic from 'before the dawn of time'....
> >The entity I tend to 'believe' in (for I am uncertain as yet) is asexual and
> >powerful - but not all powerful. He/She is not alone either, or all-knowing
and
> >omnipresent - there are other forces around, some good, some evil.
>
> Do you know, Christians believe in the forces of good and evil too! It
> is the force of evil that disrupt those of good.
I do, you cannot have one without the other - they are around us and within us,
and always have been it seems. If God truly created the Universe, He must have
created both... why? A tricky question...
> > I choose to
> >call the male principle of this being 'Allfather', the female part Freya -
for
> >want of better names.
>
> Well, you would not be the first to design an interesting looking idol!
> ;-)
Some might say that the white bearded old gentleman on the roof of the Sistine
Chapel is an 'idol', a visualisation of God. We humans need to visualise such
entitites in a form familiar to us, which we are comfortable with. Our
imaginations cannot really encompass entirely spiritual beings, they need to
have some form recognisable to us. Islam rigorously bans any such
representations, which may be one reason I find it sterile, lifeless and
chilling as a faith.
Christianity has the BVM as a token 'mother goddess', and other minor deity's
too from time to time, such as angels (immortal, powerful beings, easy to equate
with Hermes or Mercury... or Valkyries if you wish to get 'Victorian'!). and of
course the mysterious Antichrist, and his host of demons, devils and imps - with
Lucifer the fallen angel (AKA Satan, Old Nick etc.) to back him up against God.
Then there is of course God's right hand man Jesus, His son....
Not all that far away from the Norse gods, although Odin was rather more
prolific when wandering the earth and impregnating female humans.. and somewhat
more supportive of his offspring.
> >I find the confusing state of the world, nature, humanity
> >and the universe better explained and represented by Norse mythology, than
the
> >Judaeo/Christian/Muslim model of a single God.
>
> I think at it's heart all religion tries to explain the same things
> and there are similarities but that Christianity goes further. For
> example when first thinking about religion, Buddhism sounded appealing
> until I thought about it more. And yes, the eight precepts of Buddhism
> as a moral code look very similar to the 10 Commandments.
There are 'moral codes' in all religions, and (not surprisingly) most are
similar to the 10C, as they are the basic rules we humans need to obey in order
to get on with each other as a society. Some have many more 'commandments, some
less, but when it comes down to it, envy, greed, murder, lack of charity and
lack of respect will always lead to disaster - any people, any time, anywhere.
> > If you look at it, it is no more
> >ridiculous or mysterious than the 'truth' which the Bible contains.
>
> I don't think you are ridiculous (now if you said you were a
> Scientologist!), but I do think that your thinking is incomplete and no
> I cannot prove objectively that I have the truth but I can explain what
> I see as the weaknesses and contradictions in your thinking and do so
> in a spirit of respect.
My thinking certainly is incomplete Claire, I'm the first to admit it! I
appreciate your attitude and respect, and hope I offer the same in return. I
think we are here to learn.... learn what, or learn how exactly is difficult to
say. Discussion like this stimulates the mind and opens doors - it can reveal
much.
> >I don't of course 'believe' as a Viking would have a thousand years ago, and
do
> >not carry a sword to gain my entry into Valhalla should I be run over or
struck
> >down, nor indulge in 'blood eagle' sacrifices to please Odin!
>
> Well, that's something of a relief!
>
> >I do however know
> >that there is a future beyond death, and (normally) invisible powers and
> >influences are all around us, which may help or hinder.
>
> So do I!
>
> >They are all part of
> >what you call 'God' I suppose, and His 'mysterious ways' become less
mysterious
> >if you visualise different aspects, often at odds with each other - and
mankind.
>
> Please explain this part?
The fact is, looking at the world, I cannot see it as the creation of a loving,
understanding and benevolent God. It might be better explained if it were a
battleground between various opposing 'gods', for want of a better word. None
has (as yet) gained the upper hand, and things are constantly changing, bioth in
good ways and bad. We may be here to be 'tested' somehow, we may be here to
'choose sides'... I don't know. What it boils down to is this - I see too much
pain, misery, disaster and conflict for this world to be the creation of a
benevolent God.
> >To me, the Universe seems to be ruled by chaos and disorder, not a place
ruled
> >by one great and all-powerful God, but an arena where various conflicting
forces
> >meet and sometimes fight.
>
> The universe is actually very ordered. Astronomers can predict when the
> sun will go supernova, based on their study of the remains of
> former-stars. Nature follows mathematical rules, the number of petals
> on a flower, the number of offspring a rabbit will have. It is not
> really my field all this, but I am transfixed when I see programmers
> about this sort of thing. If you look at Chaos Theory you'll see that
> it follows mathematical rules even if the results appear to be random.
> What you are talking about is the effect of forces you cannot see,
> which does not really prove or disprove much.
I am a keen astronomer, and this also leads me into doubt about the God of
Christianity. Why create such a vast and fantastic Universe, then park your
ultimate creation (i.e., us) in a far flung corner, on an unstable and dangerous
planet, menaced by comets, asteroids and meteorites, with a delicately balanced
eco-system we cannot understand or control, and infest it with a load of lethal
bacteria, viruses, predators and parasites that can kill us in seconds - however
good or bad we are?
Quite a question. I won't go into the matter of why He allowed us nuclear
weapons and rival religions...
> >When they are balanced and neutral, harmony and peace
>
> Christians are realists about the existence of evil and of human nature
> but they would not seak to appease it in this way or want to sarcoma to
> it. For example in many more primitive religions they made offerings to
> the evil spirits to keep them sweet.
'Evil spirits' may be disgusting and vile to us, but if they are there, it is
sensible to respect them? Avoid if possible, but...
Set, the 'evil one' of the Ancient Egyptians (who murdered his brother Osiris
and chopped him up), controlled the desert, so it was wise to 'appease' him
before travelling through it. Almost all religions have 'evil gods',
Christianity included, they are required.
> We have to keep our natural
> capacity for evil as human beings in check whilst aspiring for good.
> I'm not even sure you are really talking about good and evil but
> extremes. For example lets apply you yin yang theory to Governance. On
> your yin yang model we would have complete freedom (anarchy)
> represented by white and the most oppressive and intolerable
> authoritarian dictatorship represented by black. However if we accept
> the bad side of human nature we will conclude that we do need rules,
> and police and leaders and that anarchy would be a disaster. So we know
> that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' and
> our liberal democracy (the freedom of the individual combined with the
> rule of the majority looks like a contradiction in terms on the face of
> it) has become the norm throughout the world as the least worst form of
> Governance. Both the importance of liberty and the theory of human
> nature behind our institutions are Christian ones. You would get a very
> different picture with a Buddhist or Hindu type of notion that human
> beings are essential good but are corrupted by their environment -
> that would lead you towards utopian ideas such as communism.
>
> >occur, but never for very long. Things are constantly changing, and we are
stuck
> >in this system whether we like it or not, not just through one lifetime, but
> >through many.
>
> So what is the purpose of life in such a belief system?
I'm afraid I have to quote Basil Fawlty here, who upon being asked a very
similar question, said: "Beats me. We're just stuck with it!"
I suspect it is the 'choosing sides' or 'being tested' thing, but am unsure as
yet.
> >Unfortunately I can no more assure you that this is the way it works than you
> >can convince me that Christianity is the truth. I base my 'beliefs' on
>
> That is true but you are thinking along scientific or social-scientific
> lines rather than philosophical lines if you think that any debate is
> therefore meaningless!
I like to combine the two if possible - they can be uncomfortable bedfellows, to
say the least! Having a scientific training and education, I tend to go by that
first, i.e., observation, experiment and so on. That has however caused me to
believe that science does not have all the answers, for I have witnessed and
experienced things that are 'scientifically impossible'. Hence my (incomplete)
search for other explanations as to the nature of the Universe, what we are here
for, what happens when we die, and what happened before I was born - and who,
whom or what 'runs the show'.
> >observation, experience and reason rather than 'faith'
>
> Actually, I consider it superstition rather than reason, as would
> atheists, but then I guess atheists think we are both superstitious!
I consider Atheism the strictest, most uncompromising religion of all.
> >- I see nothing to have
> >true faith in,
>
> How depressing!
Not so - I am content (as CS was) to know that I do not know, and cannot know
what it is all about right now. In time, I hope I will, but that will do.
> >I can only marvel at it all, and appreciate what a tiny,
> >insignificant speck I am in time and space. A 'good' one I hope?
>
> But are you insignificant? Is life insignificant? Think of the
> excitement when scientists believed the had found life on Mars, even
> many atheists would accept that life is rare and precious. It is
> chilling to say that anybody's life is insignificant. Once we do that
> we end up with concentration camps and killing-fields. And more
> immediate than that, what do you get up for in the morning, what do you
> want to achieve in life? Even if my own void is filled with a misguided
> faith it is still filled! Does that mean shit won't happen to me? Of
> course not! :-)
In the great scheme of things, and the 15,000,000,000+ yers of the Universe so
far, I am insignificant, which is somehow strangely comforting. Nothing I can
possibly do or say will make any real impact on that Universe, nor any human
(however 'great') who lived their life on this little speck of rock. I will
endeavour to enjoy it however, and will never tire of seeking to know what it is
all about. One day, maybe I will?
Cheers
Martin
>
claire....@ntlworld.com
>persecuted in the past, many Christians today still have doubts. Personally, I
>have never seen the 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' idea adequately explained? One
>God is surely just that - One God?
There is only one God yes.
>Mohammed was of course not a 'deity' and never claimed to be, nor were any
>Jewish heroes of the OT, or Bhudda, Singh and the founders of most religions. I
>can't recall Jesus Christ ever proclaiming himself to be a deity as such, he
>seems to have been by all accounts very human, with human weaknesses and
>vulnerabilities.
Very human yes but consider that he centred his teachings on himself
and some of the claims he made;
John 10
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but
for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said
you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God
came-and the Scripture cannot be broken- 36what about the one whom
the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then
do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do
not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even
though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know
and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again
they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in me will live, even though he dies.''
John 14
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been
among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and
still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living
God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was
not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell
you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of Hades
(skipping Jim's favourite bit!)
There are other examples elsewhere.
Then there are indirect claims. He claimed to be able to forgive sins,
something that only God can do.
>Never did he display any almighty power, other than perform
>some healing and a few (no disrespect here) 'tricks', which have all been
>repeated by modern conjurers before far less naive audiences.
An interesting take on it! You seem to be acknowledging the miracles
but saying they were nor miracles!
> >I do believe he existed however, a remarkable, inspirational and exceptional
> >man - but just a man, ahead of his time, but not a divine entity.
> I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that if Jesus falsely
> claimed to be the son of God, he would either have been a liar or a
> madman and certainly nor somebody you would want to follow!
>In a sense we are all 'sons and daughters' of God if you believe He created us.
>I greatly admire CS Lewis, he struggled with his beliefs and learned to accept
>in the end that he just 'didn't and couldn't know' here on earth, much as I do.
CS Lewis did in fact become a born again Christian despite the many
issues he had with Christianity. In a way he did the reverse of what
you are doing in accepting it rather than rejecting it because as you
say, we just do not know!
>I remember that in his Narnia books, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy were referred
>to as 'sons of Adam and daughters of Eve', effectively making them grand
>children of God I suppose? Aslan's sacrifice of himself was surely inspired by
>the crucifixion and subsequent return of JC, but I'm afraid I have some
>reservations when it comes to accepting that Jc was equipped with knowledge of
>magic from 'before the dawn of time'....
Oh yes, and the river in Narnia was inspired by the River Lagan! It is
a shame they did not film the movie in Ulster though but I guess New
Zeeland's close enough! ;-)
>The entity I tend to 'believe' in (for I am uncertain as yet) is
asexual and
> >powerful - but not all powerful. He/She is not alone either, or all-knowing
and
> >omnipresent - there are other forces around, some good, some evil.
> Do you know, Christians believe in the forces of good and evil too! It
> is the force of evil that disrupt those of good.
>I do, you cannot have one without the other - they are around us and within us,
>and always have been it seems. If God truly created the Universe, He must have
>created both... why? A tricky question...
No, if you accept God existed before creation you can also accept that
evil did.
>Some might say that the white bearded old gentleman on the roof of the Sistine
>Chapel is an 'idol', a visualisation of God.
They did, they were Puritans.
>We humans need to visualise such
>entitites in a form familiar to us, which we are comfortable with. Our
>imaginations cannot really encompass entirely spiritual beings, they need to
We were given such an image with Christ. That was the point. I think we
should try to avoid images of God because it limits him and may
distract us.
>have some form recognisable to us. Islam rigorously bans any such
>representations, which may be one reason I find it sterile, lifeless and
>chilling as a faith.
Certainly less personal and intimate than the Judao-Christian
tradition. But they do have some wonderful art and architecture in the
Islamic world.
>Christianity has the BVM as a token 'mother goddess',
No, *Catholics* have the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' (or BVM, I must
remember that one!).
>and other minor deity's
>too from time to time, such as angels (immortal, powerful beings, easy to equate
>with Hermes or Mercury... or Valkyries if you wish to get 'Victorian'!). and of
>course the mysterious Antichrist, and his host of demons, devils and imps - with
>Lucifer the fallen angel (AKA Satan, Old Nick etc.) to back him up against God.
>Then there is of course God's right hand man Jesus, His son....
Come on Martin, you're just going off on one now - in a very
interesting way I might add! :-)
>>> If you look at it, it is no more
>>>ridiculous or mysterious than the 'truth' which the Bible contains.
>> I don't think you are ridiculous (now if you said you were a
>> Scientologist!), but I do think that your thinking is incomplete and no
>> I cannot prove objectively that I have the truth but I can explain what
>> I see as the weaknesses and contradictions in your thinking and do so
>> in a spirit of respect.
>My thinking certainly is incomplete Claire, I'm the first to admit it! I
>appreciate your attitude and respect, and hope I offer the same in return.
We'll just have to agree to differ (unless you come around to
agreeing with me...tahehehe!!!) because you express a spiritual need
but do not seem to have satisfied it by getting any closer than the
atheists.
>think we are here to learn.... learn what, or learn how exactly is difficult to
>say. Discussion like this stimulates the mind and opens doors - it can reveal
>much.
I agree with you there.
>The fact is, looking at the world, I cannot see it as the creation of a loving,
>understanding and benevolent God. It might be better explained if it were a
>battleground between various opposing 'gods', for want of a better word. None
>has (as yet) gained the upper hand, and things are constantly changing, bioth in
>good ways and bad. We may be here to be 'tested' somehow, we may be here to
>'choose sides'... I don't know. What it boils down to is this - I see too much
>pain, misery, disaster and conflict for this world to be the creation of a
>benevolent God.
Those things are not the creation of God but the creation of man.
>I am a keen astronomer, and this also leads me into doubt about the God of
>Christianity. Why create such a vast and fantastic Universe, then park your
>ultimate creation (i.e., us) in a far flung corner, on an unstable and dangerous
>planet, menaced by comets, asteroids and meteorites, with a delicately balanced
>eco-system we cannot understand or control, and infest it with a load of lethal
>bacteria, viruses, predators and parasites that can kill us in seconds - however
>good or bad we are?
Haw many times have humans been hit by steroids?
>Quite a question. I won't go into the matter of why He allowed us nuclear
>weapons and rival religions...
I'll leave that one for later. I have a feeling it'll come up
again.
>Almost all religions have 'evil gods',
>Christianity included, they are required.
Well, Satin would be a false god but I take your point. But consider
that they are diametrically opposed, hence Satanism (the occult) is a
separate belief system from Christianity.
>I'm afraid I have to quote Basil Fawlty here, who upon being asked a very
>similar question, said: "Beats me. We're just stuck with it!"
And Basil has a miserable life, exasperated, at his wits end, always
cought up in terrible situations which are made worse by his complete
sense of exasperation not to mention his own personality defects! A
great line of his though was 'please try to understand before one of
us dies!'
>I suspect it is the 'choosing sides' or 'being tested' thing, but am unsure as
>yet.
Oh, good!
> > >observation, experience and reason rather than 'faith'
>> Actually, I consider it superstition rather than reason, as would
>> atheists, but then I guess atheists think we are both superstitious!
>I consider Atheism the strictest, most uncompromising religion of all.
As a Jewish guy I went to university with said 'it takes a lot more
faith to be an atheist!'
>>>- I see nothing to have
>>>true faith in,
>> How depressing!
>Not so - I am content (as CS was) to know that I do not know, and cannot know
>what it is all about right now. In time, I hope I will, but that will do.
CS Lewis was only content with his unshakable questions having become a
Christian!
>In the great scheme of things, and the 15,000,000,000+ yers of the Universe so
>far, I am insignificant, which is somehow strangely comforting. Nothing I can
>possibly do or say will make any real impact on that Universe, nor any human
>(however 'great') who lived their life on this little speck of rock. I will
>endeavour to enjoy it however, and will never tire of seeking to know what it is
>all about. One day, maybe I will?
> Cheers
Martin
I have a problem with that. If life has more value the more pleasure we
experience, that means we should maximise our pleasure which may be at
the expense of others.
It also means that you do not know what to do if life is every
unpleasant!
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148153294.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I think there are, and although many were denounced as 'heretics' and
actively
> >persecuted in the past, many Christians today still have doubts. Personally,
I
> >have never seen the 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost' idea adequately explained?
One
> >God is surely just that - One God?
>
> There is only one God yes.
One god who deserves a capital 'G'?
> >Mohammed was of course not a 'deity' and never claimed to be, nor were any
> >Jewish heroes of the OT, or Bhudda, Singh and the founders of most religions.
I
> >can't recall Jesus Christ ever proclaiming himself to be a deity as such, he
> >seems to have been by all accounts very human, with human weaknesses and
> >vulnerabilities.
>
>
> Very human yes but consider that he centred his teachings on himself
> and some of the claims he made;
>
> John 10
> 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but
> for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
> 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said
> you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God
> came-and the Scripture cannot be broken- 36what about the one whom
> the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then
> do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
That is fair enough - the obvious answers would be "prove it then?", or (as I
would have preferred) "if that is true, could I have a word with your Father
please? Just to confirm you are telling the truth you understand, surely not too
much to ask from one so omnipresent, all-powerful and benevolent - or is He
unable to speak up for you?"
I should have been a Pharisee...
> 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even
> though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know
> and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again
> they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
'Unless I do what my Father does' confuses me here?
> John 11
> 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
> believes in me will live, even though he dies.''
Reincarnation, ressurection - an afterlife. Jesus is not the only one to promise
such things, and does not qualify that statement with 'only' I note.
> John 14
> 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been
> among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
> How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Well I'm with Philip here, that really wouldn't do. Phil should have piped up
and said "What's your problem? I just want to make sure - think about it... you
are asking an awful lot of me! Can't your Father spare a moment to back you up
on this?"
> Matthew 16
> 13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
> disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
> 14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and
> still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
> 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
> 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living
> God."
> 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was
> not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell
> you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and
> the gates of Hades
A loyal supporter - who believed, and said what JC wanted to hear. This 'carrot
and stick' approach to faith in Christ makes me most uncomfortable of all, and
is the main reason I cannot believe he was what he claimed to be - the son of
God.
> (skipping Jim's favourite bit!)
>
> There are other examples elsewhere.
>
>
> Then there are indirect claims. He claimed to be able to forgive sins,
> something that only God can do.
I have forgiven many sins directed at me?
> >Never did he display any almighty power, other than perform
> >some healing and a few (no disrespect here) 'tricks', which have all been
> >repeated by modern conjurers before far less naive audiences.
>
> An interesting take on it! You seem to be acknowledging the miracles
> but saying they were nor miracles!
I do not acknowledge JC's activities and feats as 'miracles'. Some were possibly
powerful acts of healing (I know it can be done, and can do it myself to a
limited extent - not quite raising the dead, but....?), others such as water
into wine and the loaves and fishes could have been little more than cheap
conjuring tricks. Walking on water - not bad, but it has been done. I charitably
'went with the gospels' here, in reality I'm afraid that the way accounts of
these miracles was recorded leaves me with even more doubts. As for the big one,
crucifixion is not inevitably fatal...
Imagine if David Blaine or David Copperfield were transported back in time to
1st century Palestine, amazing crowds with levitation, matter transference,
vanishing acts and mind reading? Had they claimed to be sons of God, what would
have been said about them? I have no doubt they would have met a similar fate to
JC...
> > >I do believe he existed however, a remarkable, inspirational and
exceptional
> > >man - but just a man, ahead of his time, but not a divine entity.
> > I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that if Jesus falsely
> > claimed to be the son of God, he would either have been a liar or a
> > madman and certainly nor somebody you would want to follow!
> >In a sense we are all 'sons and daughters' of God if you believe He created
us.
> >I greatly admire CS Lewis, he struggled with his beliefs and learned to
accept
> >in the end that he just 'didn't and couldn't know' here on earth, much as I
do.
>
> CS Lewis did in fact become a born again Christian despite the many
> issues he had with Christianity. In a way he did the reverse of what
> you are doing in accepting it rather than rejecting it because as you
> say, we just do not know!
We are both satisfied to remain unsatisfied perhaps?
> >I remember that in his Narnia books, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy were
referred
> >to as 'sons of Adam and daughters of Eve', effectively making them grand
> >children of God I suppose? Aslan's sacrifice of himself was surely inspired
by
> >the crucifixion and subsequent return of JC, but I'm afraid I have some
> >reservations when it comes to accepting that Jc was equipped with knowledge
of
> >magic from 'before the dawn of time'....
>
> Oh yes, and the river in Narnia was inspired by the River Lagan! It is
> a shame they did not film the movie in Ulster though but I guess New
> Zeeland's close enough! ;-)
It was a nice film I thought (I loved the books as a kid, and still read them on
occasion to cheer me up). I always imagined Narnia as more like the West
Country, Cornwall and Somerset with a touch of North Yorks here and there (where
the giants hang out).
> >The entity I tend to 'believe' in (for I am uncertain as yet) is
> asexual and
> > >powerful - but not all powerful. He/She is not alone either, or all-knowing
> and
>
> > >omnipresent - there are other forces around, some good, some evil.
> > Do you know, Christians believe in the forces of good and evil too! It
> > is the force of evil that disrupt those of good.
> >I do, you cannot have one without the other - they are around us and within
us,
> >and always have been it seems. If God truly created the Universe, He must
have
> >created both... why? A tricky question...
>
> No, if you accept God existed before creation you can also accept that
> evil did.
So who made them, or how did they come to be? It never ends.
> >Some might say that the white bearded old gentleman on the roof of the
Sistine
> >Chapel is an 'idol', a visualisation of God.
>
> They did, they were Puritans.
Like Jeff? Oh dear...
> >We humans need to visualise such
> >entitites in a form familiar to us, which we are comfortable with. Our
> >imaginations cannot really encompass entirely spiritual beings, they need to
>
> We were given such an image with Christ. That was the point. I think we
> should try to avoid images of God because it limits him and may
> distract us.
God seems remarkably evasive when it gets to 'knowing' Him, or understanding
Him. Why should that be - has He got something to hide, or could He be
embarrassed that he created such a mess?
> >have some form recognisable to us. Islam rigorously bans any such
> >representations, which may be one reason I find it sterile, lifeless and
> >chilling as a faith.
>
> Certainly less personal and intimate than the Judao-Christian
> tradition. But they do have some wonderful art and architecture in the
> Islamic world.
Their tiling is superb, I must admit.
> >Christianity has the BVM as a token 'mother goddess',
>
> No, *Catholics* have the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' (or BVM, I must
> remember that one!).
>
> >and other minor deity's
> >too from time to time, such as angels (immortal, powerful beings, easy to
equate
> >with Hermes or Mercury... or Valkyries if you wish to get 'Victorian'!). and
of
> >course the mysterious Antichrist, and his host of demons, devils and imps -
with
> >Lucifer the fallen angel (AKA Satan, Old Nick etc.) to back him up against
God.
> >Then there is of course God's right hand man Jesus, His son....
>
> Come on Martin, you're just going off on one now - in a very
> interesting way I might add! :-)
Well, I'm just trying to show that you cannot have good without evil, light
without darkness, positive without negative, right without wrong etc. etc.
One thing you can perhaps have without an opposite is love, though I'm unsure.
Hate can exist alone.
> >>> If you look at it, it is no more
> >>>ridiculous or mysterious than the 'truth' which the Bible contains.
>
> >> I don't think you are ridiculous (now if you said you were a
> >> Scientologist!), but I do think that your thinking is incomplete and no
> >> I cannot prove objectively that I have the truth but I can explain what
> >> I see as the weaknesses and contradictions in your thinking and do so
> >> in a spirit of respect.
>
> >My thinking certainly is incomplete Claire, I'm the first to admit it! I
> >appreciate your attitude and respect, and hope I offer the same in return.
>
> We'll just have to agree to differ (unless you come around to
> agreeing with me...tahehehe!!!) because you express a spiritual need
> but do not seem to have satisfied it by getting any closer than the
> atheists.
I have largely satisfied my spiritual need, but natural curiousity will always
prevent me from being completely satisfied I suppose - bar some miraculous
revelation. That may yet happen, I discount nothing.
> >think we are here to learn.... learn what, or learn how exactly is difficult
to
> >say. Discussion like this stimulates the mind and opens doors - it can reveal
> >much.
>
> I agree with you there.
>
> >The fact is, looking at the world, I cannot see it as the creation of a
loving,
> >understanding and benevolent God. It might be better explained if it were a
> >battleground between various opposing 'gods', for want of a better word. None
> >has (as yet) gained the upper hand, and things are constantly changing, bioth
in
> >good ways and bad. We may be here to be 'tested' somehow, we may be here to
> >'choose sides'... I don't know. What it boils down to is this - I see too
much
> >pain, misery, disaster and conflict for this world to be the creation of a
> >benevolent God.
>
> Those things are not the creation of God but the creation of man.
Not entirely. Natural disasters and disease afflict us all, no matter what our
beliefs, age, sex, race or penchant for good or evil. IMO a truly loving,
benevolent God would not allow us to suffer so - not One I would wish or care to
worship anyway.
> >I am a keen astronomer, and this also leads me into doubt about the God of
> >Christianity. Why create such a vast and fantastic Universe, then park your
> >ultimate creation (i.e., us) in a far flung corner, on an unstable and
dangerous
> >planet, menaced by comets, asteroids and meteorites, with a delicately
balanced
> >eco-system we cannot understand or control, and infest it with a load of
lethal
> >bacteria, viruses, predators and parasites that can kill us in seconds -
however
> >good or bad we are?
>
> Haw many times have humans been hit by steroids?
Quite a few, myself included (a severe allergic reaction). Or did you mean
haemmoroids perhaps? I am one of the lucky ones who has escaped that particular
evil so far, but countless millions have suffered horribly....
> >Quite a question. I won't go into the matter of why He allowed us nuclear
> >weapons and rival religions...
>
> I'll leave that one for later. I have a feeling it'll come up
> again.
> >Almost all religions have 'evil gods',
> >Christianity included, they are required.
>
> Well, Satin would be a false god but I take your point.
Tempting us with comfortable underwear perhaps? Better than a hair shirt...
> But consider
> that they are diametrically opposed, hence Satanism (the occult) is a
> separate belief system from Christianity.
The 'occult' is not necessarily 'Satanism' Claire, it merely means 'hidden'
(occluded). Much is hidden from us, including God's 'mysterious ways'. Satan (as
'The Devil') is a fallen angel according to the Bible, who clearly has no power
over his creator and one time boss, God. Why God tolerates his mischief, and
even makes bets with him (poor old Job!), is another mystery.
> >I'm afraid I have to quote Basil Fawlty here, who upon being asked a very
> >similar question, said: "Beats me. We're just stuck with it!"
>
> And Basil has a miserable life, exasperated, at his wits end, always
> cought up in terrible situations which are made worse by his complete
> sense of exasperation not to mention his own personality defects! A
> great line of his though was 'please try to understand before one of
> us dies!'
Now Basil IS human! He does however have some faith... and praises God in his
way on the rare occasions things go right for him, with a big kiss.
> >I suspect it is the 'choosing sides' or 'being tested' thing, but am unsure
as
> >yet.
>
> Oh, good!
I try to be - that is the side I tend to lean towards. Alas, sometimes in order
to do good, a little evil is required.
> > > >observation, experience and reason rather than 'faith'
>
> >> Actually, I consider it superstition rather than reason, as would
> >> atheists, but then I guess atheists think we are both superstitious!
>
> >I consider Atheism the strictest, most uncompromising religion of all.
>
> As a Jewish guy I went to university with said 'it takes a lot more
> faith to be an atheist!'
And more severe blinkers than even Jeff wears IMO, but then, I keep an open
mind.
> >>>- I see nothing to have
> >>>true faith in,
>
> >> How depressing!
>
> >Not so - I am content (as CS was) to know that I do not know, and cannot know
> >what it is all about right now. In time, I hope I will, but that will do.
>
> CS Lewis was only content with his unshakable questions having become a
> Christian!
He found his way, I have found mine. Not ALL the way, but I will get there in
time I hope.
> >In the great scheme of things, and the 15,000,000,000+ yers of the Universe
so
> >far, I am insignificant, which is somehow strangely comforting. Nothing I can
> >possibly do or say will make any real impact on that Universe, nor any human
> >(however 'great') who lived their life on this little speck of rock. I will
> >endeavour to enjoy it however, and will never tire of seeking to know what it
is
> >all about. One day, maybe I will?
> > Cheers
> Martin
> I have a problem with that. If life has more value the more pleasure we
> experience, that means we should maximise our pleasure which may be at
> the expense of others.
Not so! Never at the expense of others, one of my greatest pleasures is in
pleasing others, making them happy and bringing them comfort. How pious and smug
you may say, but that is truly what I believe. In practice I often fail to do
that of course, but I do try - and I know instinctively that is the right way to
be, and the way to be happy and fulfilled myself.
It took a long while to realise that I'm afraid, and being human (a mixture of
good and evil) I have been selfish, thoughtless and cruel in the past, which I
regret. All part of the 'learning process' I suppose?
> It also means that you do not know what to do if life is every
> unpleasant!
Make a new one....
Cheers
Martin
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>> Then there are indirect claims. He claimed to be able to forgive sins,
>> something that only God can do.
Not true....God gave his beloved son the same power.
Matt 5,6" I, the Messiah,[2][the Messiah, literally, "the Son of Man."] have
the authority on earth to forgive sins. But talk is cheap--anybody could say
that. So I'll prove it to you by healing this man." Then, turning to the
paralyzed man, he commanded, "Pick up your stretcher and go on home, for you
are healed."
>I have forgiven many sins directed at me?
Me too..........
Luke 11:3 "Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to
us."
Let us ponder a while on the 4th century acceptance of 'Doctrine of the
Trinity'
What sayeth the Scripture.
"For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men,
the MAN Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 2:5
The first scriptural principle to be considered, when approaching the matter
from a scriptural point of view, is the ONENESS OF GOD. God is constantly,
repeatedly, and emphatically stated to be ONE, never three.
There is never a word anywhere in the Bible from beginning to end about such
Greek metaphysics as "Three persons in the Godhead" or any such language.
When asked, "Which is the FIRST COMMANDMENT OF ALL?", Jesus answered (Mark
12:29),
"The FIRST of ALL the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, THE LORD OUR GOD IS
ONE LORD."
And so we find throughout the Scriptures
"Beside Me there is no God" (Isa. 44:6).
"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside Me" (Isa. 45:5).
"I am God, and there is none else" (Isa. 46:9).
"ONE GOD and Father of ALL, Who is above ALL." (Eph. 4:6).
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE LORD" (Deut. 6.4).
Why is not the simple scriptural picture sufficient? Why is it necessary to
go the "Greek metaphysics" to find that the above Scriptures are all very
misleading and actually there are three Gods?
To make Greek metaphysics and Bible testimony agree, it is said that there
are "Three Gods in one." But for those who desire to be guided by the Word
of God, the Bible clearly refutes this compromise. It very clearly
distinguishes Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from the One Eternal God of Whom
the above quotations speak. This is very important, and is fatal to Greek
metaphysics.
"There is ONE GOD, AND one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ
Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
"There is but ONE GOD, the Father, of Whom are all things, AND one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things) (1 Cor. 8:6).
"This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the ONLY TRUE GOD, AND
Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent" (John 17:3).
Note well that this last quotation is Jesus Christ speaking; addressing God
in prayer as the ONE TRUE GOD, and speaking of himself as separate from that
One True God) and sent by Him.
We have seen the deplorable condition of the "Church" in the 4th century.
Paul records:
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie: that they all might be damned that believe not the truth, but
had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:11).
In the light of this statement of Paul, would God permit such men as the
church leaders of the 4th century to understand His holy Truth? It is a
fundamental scriptural principle that the natural man cannot understand the
things of God (1 Cor. 2:14).
When we see these emphatic scriptural declarations of the ONENESS of God,
and the clear distinction between this One Eternal God, and the man Jesus
Christ, His Son, and then we look at the metaphysical absurdities concocted
out of platonic philosophy at this time, the only answer is that God sent
them a strong delusion.
The simple picture the Scriptures present to us of Jesus Christ is that:
He was born a babe (Luke 2:7).
He "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).
He "learned obedience by the things that he suffered" (Heb. 5:8).
He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
He "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto
Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared"
(Heb. 5:7).
Try to honestly harmonize that with the trinitarian idea of omnipotent and
omniscient co-equality and co-eternity. It just does not fit and CANNOT fit.
To make it fit we must break down all the meaning of language. That is what
trinitarians have done. Why should we try to make it fit? The Trinity is not
taught in the Bible. Why then not just accept the scriptural account and
forget about the "Trinity"?
If we regard Jesus Christ as personally existing and possessing all power
and wisdom, before his scripturally recorded birth as a baby, then we simply
deny the actual reality of his birth and his "increasing in wisdom."
The Scriptures declare that God's understanding is infinite (Psa. 147:5). Is
it not then a denial of all the meaning of language to say that a co-equal
constituent of this God "increased in wisdom," as he grew up from a babe to
manhood?
To say that a constituent part of an omnipotent coequal Trinity of Gods
became a helpless babe is an absurdity that the Scriptures do not require us
to subscribe to. He could not be a helpless, newborn babe and an
all-powerful, all-knowing co- equal ruler of heaven and earth at the same
time.
Is God separable from His power and wisdom? Are not infinite power and
knowledge inseparable elements of His very Godhead? (NOTE: "Godhead" is just
an obsolete form of "Godhead" - that is, "divinity," the quality of being
divine.)
We are asked to believe that God changed Himself into a powerless and
ignorant, helpless creature. What happened to His power and wisdom? DID He,
or did He NOT, continue to possess His eternal attributes? But why should we
labour further with such unscriptural ideas?
There are many things that are recorded of Christ that just cannot be made
fit with the idea that he was an all-powerful) all- knowing God - a co-equal
constituent of the "Godhead". It is recorded -
"Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being 40 days tempted of
the devil" (Luke 4:1- 2).
"He himself hath suffered being tempted" (Heb. 2:18).
"In all points tempted like as we are" (Heb. 4:15).
"Ye have continued with me in my temptations" (Luke 22:28).
James declared (and it is surely a self-evident fact) that (James 1:13) -
"God cannot be tempted."
It is impossible to conceive of an all-wise, all-powerful God being tempted
to sin. God could not possibly sin. Yet Jesus Christ was tempted in all
points like ourselves, and if we say he could not possibly have sinned, we
deny the reality of his tempting and of his overcoming.
Jesus WAS tempted; God CANNOT be tempted: therefore the Trinity theory is
false.
Let us carefully consider a few of the many statements of Scripture that
show the "Trinity" theory to be untrue.
"I can of mine own self do nothing. I seek not mine own will, but the will
of the Father Which hath sent me" (John 5:30). This is Jesus speaking. It is
perfectly understandable in the light of the scriptural picture that Jesus
was a man wholly dependent upon God. But how can it be fitted into the
Trinity picture? Let us not run from these clear testimonies, but reverently
ponder them, seeking guidance in truth.
"My Father is GREATER THAN I" (John 14:28).
If we believe the Bible, we cannot believe the man-made doctrine that Jesus
was co-equal with God. The whole record of the Gospels - the plain, literal
record of the life and sayings of Christ is in direct and continuous
variance with this doctrine. How could the "co- equal" Trinity theory be
more directly denied than it is in these words of Jesus? Can black mean
white?
Scores of statements could be given showing that Jesus was truly a man,
truly fighting against sin, truly overcoming; truly learning, truly praying
to the ONE TRUE GOD Who was greater than he.
If he was an all-powerful God just PRETENDING to fight against temptation
when really he could not be tempted, just PRETENDING to pray to someone
greater than himself for help and strength, then we in effect accuse the
whole Gospel record of being a deception and a cruel mockery of man's real
weakness, man's real and bitter struggle against sin.
How can he be held forth as our example and incentive to overcome temptation
and the weaknesses of the flesh - if all the time he was really an all-
powerful and untemptable co- equal God?
Consider the following passages one by one. Honestly take full time to
ponder them and compare them with the suggestion of the Trinity that Jesus
was actually and in reality an eternal, all- knowing, all-powerful God, co-
equal part of an omnipotent Trinity, who could not sin or be tempted.
The Trinity may have been a reasonable hypothesis for Plato in 400 B.C. He
was groping in darkness. He had no divine revelation as has been given to us
in the Scriptures. We have the light of Scripture. We do not need Plato's
ignorant, pagan speculations, from which the Trinity doctrine was admittedly
formulated.
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in
heaven, NEITHER SON but THE FATHER" (Mark 13:32).
How could one omnipotent part of a co- equal Godhead not know something that
another part knew? How, in fact, could there be anything that an omniscient,
co- equal God did not know?
"For since by man came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
"But every MAN in his own order: CHRIST the first fruits, afterwards..." (1
Cor. 15:21).
The fact that Christ was a man is repeatedly emphasized as an essential fact
in the plan of salvation. The purpose required that a man - one of the
fallen race - should truly overcome sin and temptation, and render perfect
obedience to the One True God -
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
OBEDIENCE of one (one MAN, Jesus Christ, 5. 15) shall many be made
righteous" (Rom. 5:19).
It is neither scriptural or reasonable to speak of one omnipotent, co-equal
God rendering OBEDIENCE to another co-equal part of the same one almighty
God. "Obedience" implies distinction, and subjection of the obeyer to the
obeyed.
Note well Jesus' answer when he was tempted -
"It is written, MAN shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD."
He applies this command of God to himself as a MAN who was responsible to,
and owed obedience to, the One True God. Note the even more striking answer
to the 3rd temptation -
"It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou
serve."
Jesus applies this command to himself, as obligated to worship and serve the
One True God revealed to Israel. This is quoted from Deut. 8, just 2
chapters after the command -
"Hear; O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE LORD." Jesus Christ worshipped and
served the ONE TRUE GOD.
"Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it SHALL be forgiven him:
but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall NOT be forgiven
him" (Matt. 12-32).
How then can it be said that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are co-equal,
the glory equal; the majesty co-eternal, none afore or after other, none
greater or less than other?"
"Jesus said to him; Why callest thou ME good? There is none good but ONE,
that is, God" (Mark 10: 18).
Here Jesus plainly distinguishes between himself and the one God, affirming
of God what could not be affirmed of himself, inasmuch as he was of mortal,
human, condemned, sinful flesh (though perfectly sinless in life and
character).
"To sit on my right hand is NOT MINE to give, but it shall be given to them
for whom it is prepared of MY FATHER" (Matt. 20:23).
Again, a clear limitation of Christ's prerogative, and proof of his
subjection to God. Co- equal parts of "One God"? The Bible knows of no such
contradiction.
"He prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (Matt. 26:39).
If Jesus and his Father are really just co-equal parts of the same One God,
then obviously such a prayer could never be prayed. It is meaningless for
the One God pray to Himself, and say "Not MY will but THINE." If both are
part of one God, then there is but one will.
Be sure your conception of Jesus and God is in harmony with what the Bible
reveals. Do not be satisfied with an "incomprehensible" theory, admittedly
borrowed from "Greek metaphysics," that crushes all the beauty and meaning
out of the life of Jesus Christ, the faithful and obedient Son who truly
overcame and submitted to the will of the ONE TRUE GOD, His Father.
claire....@ntlworld.com
>One god who deserves a capital 'G'?
Yes, that is how we distinguish God from the gods you refer to (i.e.
false Gods). By that I do not mean to insult others, lots of religions
have their own name for what they see as the true and fullest accounts
of God, for example the Muslims call Him Allah, the Hindus have
hundreds of names for God because they have a different representation
for each of his personalities and believe he has come in many
carnations.
>> John 10
>> 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but
>> for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
>> 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said
>> you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God
>> came-and the Scripture cannot be broken- 36what about the one whom
>> the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then
>>
>That is fair enough - the obvious answers would be "prove it then?", or (as I
We are told that 'faith comes from hearing' (Rom 10:18) and that if
you do not want to hear there is not a lot anybody can do for you
(Jeff, got a cite for this?)
Numerous times we are told that people were healed by faith.
Mark 10:52
52"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he
received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
I could go on and on, you already accept that Jesus healed people!
>would have preferred) "if that is true, could I have a word with your Father
>please? Just to confirm you are telling the truth you understand, surely not too
>much to ask from one so omnipresent, all-powerful and benevolent - or is He
>unable to speak up for you?"
I doubt you would. If the clouds parted and a booming voice can down
from the heathen's, you would look behind a bush for hidden speakers
and instead of asking Jesus 'Did I just hear what I thought I
heard?' would call David Copperfield or Blaine to explain how this
dishonest man had palled it off.
>I should have been a Pharisee...
It would be a step up from idolatry I guess! ;-)
> 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even
> though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know
> and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again
> they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
'Unless I do what my Father does' confuses me here?
> John 11
> 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
> believes in me will live, even though he dies.''
Reincarnation, ressurection - an afterlife. Jesus is not the only one
to promise
such things, and does not qualify that statement with 'only' I note.
> John 14
> 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been
> among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
> How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
>Well I'm with Philip here, that really wouldn't do. Phil should have piped up
>and said "What's your problem? I just want to make sure - think about it... you
>are asking an awful lot of me!
Philip was happy with the answer.
>> 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was
>> not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell
>> you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and
>> the gates of Hades
>A loyal supporter - who believed, and said what JC wanted to hear. This 'carrot
>and stick' approach to faith in Christ makes me most uncomfortable of all, and
>is the main reason I cannot believe he was what he claimed to be - the son of
>God.
Maybe because you only focus on our fear of God which only comes as the
result of acknowledging His love and his justice. If you trust somebody
you trust that they will be merciful to you - grace goes beyond mercy
even, that is why fear is translated into love. A stick would not be a
very good way to command loyalty.
>>indirect claims. He claimed to be able to forgive sins,
>> something that only God can do.
>I have forgiven many sins directed at me?
>I do not acknowledge JC's activities and feats as 'miracles'. Some were possibly
>powerful acts of healing (I know it can be done, and can do it myself to a
>limited extent - not quite raising the dead, but....?),
Oh????
> others such as water
>into wine and the loaves and fishes could have been little more than cheap
>conjuring tricks. Walking on water - not bad, but it has been done. I charitably
>'went with the gospels' here, in reality I'm afraid that the way accounts of
>these miracles was recorded leaves me with even more doubts. As for the big one,
>crucifixion is not inevitably fatal...
Then you are saying that Jesus deliberately set out to deceive people.
That he was a liar and a fraudster? :-/
>> CS Lewis did in fact become a born again Christian despite the many
>> issues he had with Christianity. In a way he did the reverse of what
>> you are doing in accepting it rather than rejecting it because as you
>> say, we just do not know!
>We are both satisfied to remain unsatisfied perhaps?
Perhaps, but the CS Lewis differed from you, he realised you could not
have it both ways, you cannot call Jesus one of the greatest men in
history on the one hand and a cheating liar on the other!
>, and the river in Narnia was inspired by the River Lagan! It is
> a shame they did not film the movie in Ulster though but I guess New
> Zeeland's close enough! ;-)
>It was a nice film I thought (I loved the books as a kid, and still read them on
>occasion to cheer me up). I always imagined Narnia as more like the West
>Country, Cornwall and Somerset with a touch of North Yorks here and there (where
>the giants hang out).
Some of the English places are similar, but the coastline of Antrim is
much higher. Also, I think he drew on Irish mythology and the Giant's
Causeway with the giants' hang out.
>> No, if you accept God existed before creation you can also accept that
>> evil did.
>So who made them, or how did they come to be? It never ends.
No, there has to be something, some ultimate cause to the very first
thing to have ever happened. Something cannot come from nothing,
something outside of somethingness must have been its cause.
>>>Some might say that the white bearded old gentleman on the roof of the
>>>Sistine Chapel is an 'idol', a visualisation of God.
>> They did, they were Puritans.
>Like Jeff? Oh dear...
I liked the Puritans on Blackadder ...,
'CHAIRS? WE SIT ON SPIKES!'
> >We humans need to visualise such
> >entitites in a form familiar to us, which we are comfortable with. Our
> >imaginations cannot really encompass entirely spiritual beings, they need to
> We were given such an image with Christ. That was the point. I think we
> should try to avoid images of God because it limits him and may
> distract us.
>God seems remarkably evasive when it gets to 'knowing' Him, or understanding
>Him. Why should that be - has He got something to hide, or could He be
>embarrassed that he created such a mess?
You really don't like Him do you?
>Well, I'm just trying to show that you cannot have good without evil, light
>without darkness, positive without negative, right without wrong etc. etc.
You could in Heathen?
>One thing you can perhaps have without an opposite is love, though I'm unsure.
>Hate can exist alone.
Most hate comes with love. You kill my loved one so I hate you, I love
my country so I hate those trying to take it or even just the outsider
etc.
>Not entirely. Natural disasters and disease afflict us all, no matter what our
>beliefs, age, sex, race or penchant for good or evil. IMO a truly loving,
>benevolent God would not allow us to suffer so - not One I would wish or care to
>worship anyway.
You sound like Harry Enfield's stroppy teenager character. 'I HATE
YOU! I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN!'
>> Haw many times have humans been hit by steroids?
>Quite a few, myself included (a severe allergic reaction)
Just goes to show, the spell-check is a wonderful thing but is only as
good as the person using it!
> I'll leave that one for later. I have a feeling it'll come up
> again.
> >Almost all religions have 'evil gods',
> >Christianity included, they are required.
>> Well, Satin would be a false god but I take your point.
>Tempting us with comfortable underwear perhaps?
<cringe oops> He knows what I like maybe! ;-)
>Now Basil IS human! He does however have some faith... and praises God in his
>way on the rare occasions things go right for him, with a big kiss.
Indeed!
> >I suspect it is the 'choosing sides' or 'being tested' thing, but am unsure
as
> >yet.
> Oh, good!
>>I try to be - that is the side I tend to lean towards. Alas, sometimes in order
>>to do good, a little evil is required.
Sounds worrying like an ends justifies the means argument!
>He found his way, I have found mine. Not ALL the way, but I will get there in
>time I hope.
So do I, I'm sure you will, so long as you are not pushed into it!
> I have a problem with that. If life has more value the more pleasure we
> experience, that means we should maximise our pleasure which may be at
> the expense of others.
>Not so! Never at the expense of others, one of my greatest pleasures is in
>pleasing others, making them happy and bringing them comfort. How pious and smug
>you may say, but that is truly what I believe. In practice I often fail to do
>that of course, but I do try - and I know instinctively that is the right way to
>be, and the way to be happy and fulfilled myself.
Not at all smug, I am sure you do, I think the trouble is it is often
far easier not to help others and to make excuses not to.
>It took a long while to realise that I'm afraid, and being human (a mixture of
>good and evil) I have been selfish, thoughtless and cruel in the past, which I
>regret. All part of the 'learning process' I suppose?
You can learn to be perfect?
>> It also means that you do not know what to do if life is every
>> unpleasant!
>Make a new one....
That works for most of us most of the time but some things in life are
beyond our control - I am blessed that as of yet I have not been
effected by illness, disability, poverty or facing death!
claire....@ntlworld.com
>my country so I hate those trying to take it or even just the outsider
>etc.
Might I just add that this was only an analogy!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148282999.9...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
But........it is so true......{'o'}
Thus Christ told us to control ourselves and not react to our natural human
feelings.
We have no right to kill another human whom God has created, unless God
allows it.
Today, He has forbidden it through one of Christ's commands.
Jeff...
claire....@ntlworld.com
>One god who deserves a capital 'G'?
Yes, that is how we distinguish God from the gods you refer to (i.e.
false Gods). By that I do not mean to insult others, lots of religions
have their own name for what they see as the true and fullest accounts
of God, for example the Muslims call Him Allah, the Hindus have
hundreds of names for God because they have a different representation
for each of his personalities and believe he has come in many
carnations.
>> John 10
>> 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, >>"but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
>> 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have >>said you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the >>word of God came-and the Scripture cannot be broken- 36what >>about the one whom
>> the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why >>then
>That is fair enough - the obvious answers would be "prove it then?", >or (as I
We are told that 'faith comes from hearing' (Rom 10:18) and that if
you do not want to hear there is not a lot anybody can do for you
(Jeff, got a cite for this?)
Numerous times we are told that people were healed by faith.
Mark 10:52
52"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he
received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
I could go on and on, you already accept that Jesus healed people!
>would have preferred) "if that is true, could I have a word with your >Father please? Just to confirm you are telling the truth you >understand, surely not too much to ask from one so omnipresent, >all-powerful and benevolent - or is He unable to speak up for you?"
I doubt you would. If the clouds parted and a booming voice can down
from the heathen's, you would look behind a bush for hidden speakers
and instead of asking Jesus 'Did I just hear what I thought I
heard?' would call David Copperfield or Blaine to explain how this
dishonest man had palled it off.
>I should have been a Pharisee...
It would be a step up from idolatry I guess! ;-)
>> John 14
>> 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have >>been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has >>seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
>Well I'm with Philip here, that really wouldn't do. Phil should have >piped up and said "What's your problem? I just want to make sure >- think about it... you are asking an awful lot of me!
Philip was happy with the answer.
>> 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this >>was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. >>18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build >>my church, and the gates of Hades
>A loyal supporter - who believed, and said what JC wanted to hear. >This 'carrot and stick' approach to faith in Christ makes me most >uncomfortable of all, and is the main reason I cannot believe he was >what he claimed to be - the son of
>God.
Maybe because you only focus on our fear of God which only comes as the
result of acknowledging His love and his justice. If you trust somebody
you trust that they will be merciful to you - grace goes beyond mercy
even, that is why fear is translated into love. A stick would not be a
very good way to command loyalty.
>>indirect claims. He claimed to be able to forgive sins,
>> something that only God can do.
>I have forgiven many sins directed at me?
>I do not acknowledge JC's activities and feats as 'miracles'. Some >were possibly powerful acts of healing (I know it can be done, and >can do it myself to a limited extent - not quite raising the dead, >but....?),
Oh????
> others such as water
>into wine and the loaves and fishes could have been little more than >cheap conjuring tricks. Walking on water - not bad, but it has been >done. I charitably 'went with the gospels' here, in reality I'm afraid >that the way accounts of
>these miracles was recorded leaves me with even more doubts. As >for the big one, crucifixion is not inevitably fatal...
Then you are saying that Jesus deliberately set out to deceive people.
That he was a liar and a fraudster? :-/
>> CS Lewis did in fact become a born again Christian despite the >>many
>> issues he had with Christianity. In a way he did the reverse of >>what you are doing in accepting it rather than rejecting it because >>as you say, we just do not know!
>We are both satisfied to remain unsatisfied perhaps?
Perhaps, but the CS Lewis differed from you, he realised you could not
have it both ways, you cannot call Jesus one of the greatest men in
history on the one hand and a cheating liar on the other!
>>, and the river in Narnia was inspired by the River Lagan! It is
>> a shame they did not film the movie in Ulster though but I guess >>New Zeeland's close enough! ;-)
>It was a nice film I thought (I loved the books as a kid, and still read >them on occasion to cheer me up). I always imagined Narnia as >more like the West Country, Cornwall and Somerset with a touch of >North Yorks here and there (where
>the giants hang out).
Some of the English places are similar, but the coastline of Antrim is
much higher. Also, I think he drew on Irish mythology and the Giant's
Causeway with the giants' hang out.
>> No, if you accept God existed before creation you can also accept >>that evil did.
>So who made them, or how did they come to be? It never ends.
No, there has to be something, some ultimate cause to the very first
thing to have ever happened. Something cannot come from nothing,
something outside of somethingness must have been its cause.
>>>Some might say that the white bearded old gentleman on the roof >>>of the Sistine Chapel is an 'idol', a visualisation of God.
>> They did, they were Puritans.
>Like Jeff? Oh dear...
I liked the Puritans on Blackadder ...,
'CHAIRS? WE SIT ON SPIKES!'
> >We humans need to visualise such
> >entitites in a form familiar to us, which we are comfortable with. >>Our imaginations cannot really encompass entirely spiritual >>beings, they need to
> We were given such an image with Christ. That was the point. I >think we should try to avoid images of God because it limits him >and may distract us. God seems remarkably evasive when it gets >to 'knowing' Him, or understanding Him. Why should that be - has >He got something to hide, or could He be
>embarrassed that he created such a mess?
You really don't like Him do you?
>Well, I'm just trying to show that you cannot have good without evil, >light without darkness, positive without negative, right without wrong >etc. etc.
You could in Heaven?
>One thing you can perhaps have without an opposite is love, though >I'm unsure.
>Hate can exist alone.
Most hate comes with love. You kill my loved one so I hate you, I love
my country so I hate those trying to take it or even just the outsider
etc.
>Not entirely. Natural disasters and disease afflict us all, no matter >what our beliefs, age, sex, race or penchant for good or evil. IMO a >truly loving, benevolent God would not allow us to suffer so - not One >I would wish or care to worship anyway.
You sound like Harry Enfield's stroppy teenager character. 'I HATE
YOU! I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN!'
>> Haw many times have humans been hit by steroids?
>Quite a few, myself included (a severe allergic reaction)
Just goes to show, the spell-check is a wonderful thing but is only as
good as the person using it!
>>Almost all religions have 'evil gods',
>>Christianity included, they are required.
>> Well, Satin would be a false god but I take your point.
>Tempting us with comfortable underwear perhaps?
<cringe oops> He knows what I like maybe! ;-)
>Now Basil IS human! He does however have some faith... and >praises God in his way on the rare occasions things go right for him, >with a big kiss.
Indeed!
>>>I suspect it is the 'choosing sides' or 'being tested' thing, but am >>>unsure
>>>as yet.
>> Oh, good!
>I try to be - that is the side I tend to lean towards. Alas, sometimes >in order
>>to do good, a little evil is required.
Sounds worrying like an ends justifies the means argument!
>He found his way, I have found mine. Not ALL the way, but I will get >there in
>time I hope.
So do I, I'm sure you will, so long as you are not pushed into it!
> I have a problem with that. If life has more value the more pleasure >we experience, that means we should maximise our pleasure which >may be at the expense of others.
>Not so! Never at the expense of others, one of my greatest >pleasures is in pleasing others, making them happy and bringing >them comfort. How pious and smug you may say, but that is truly >what I believe. In practice I often fail to do
>that of course, but I do try - and I know instinctively that is the right >way to be, and the way to be happy and fulfilled myself.
Not at all smug, I am sure you do, I think the trouble is it is often
far easier not to help others and to make excuses not to.
>It took a long while to realise that I'm afraid, and being human (a >mixture of good and evil) I have been selfish, thoughtless and cruel >in the past, which I regret. All part of the 'learning process' I >suppose?
You think you can learn to be perfect?
>> It also means that you do not know what to do if life is every
>> unpleasant!
>Make a new one....
That works for most of us most of the time but some things in life are
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148322697.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> There is only one God yes.
> >One god who deserves a capital 'G'?
>
> Yes, that is how we distinguish God from the gods you refer to (i.e.
> false Gods). By that I do not mean to insult others, lots of religions
> have their own name for what they see as the true and fullest accounts
> of God, for example the Muslims call Him Allah, the Hindus have
> hundreds of names for God because they have a different representation
> for each of his personalities and believe he has come in many
> carnations.
Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah, Jah... all one and the same. You can add Aten to that if
you wish.... though He fell out of fashion PDQ.
'False gods' is only one perspective - you can consider all the various aspects
these 'gods' represent as being part of one 'God', Who seems remarkably
inconsistent and evasive in his mysterious moves and ways. I choose not to, for
reasons of practicality (if you can ever be 'practical' with such things?)
>
> >> John 10
> >> 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, >>"but for
blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
> >> 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have >>said you
are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the >>word of God came-and
the Scripture cannot be broken- 36what >>about the one whom
> >> the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why >>then
>
> >That is fair enough - the obvious answers would be "prove it then?", >or (as
I
>
> We are told that 'faith comes from hearing' (Rom 10:18) and that if
> you do not want to hear there is not a lot anybody can do for you
> (Jeff, got a cite for this?)
> Numerous times we are told that people were healed by faith.
> Mark 10:52
> 52"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he
> received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
> I could go on and on, you already accept that Jesus healed people!
I do, and I believe that their faith had a great part in it in some cases. There
was however an awful lot that Jesus couldn't or wouldn't fix. Herod and Pilate
are two that stand out, he singularly failed to save himself (even I could have
talked Pilate out of executing me!), and failed to ensure the safety and
wellbeing of his closest supporters - see what happened to them?
Why did he ask his Father "why have You forsaken me?" if he went willingly to
his death? By all accounts it wasn't pleasant, and the poor man suffered
horribly.
>
> >would have preferred) "if that is true, could I have a word with your >Father
please? Just to confirm you are telling the truth you >understand, surely not
too much to ask from one so omnipresent, >all-powerful and benevolent - or is He
unable to speak up for you?"
>
> I doubt you would. If the clouds parted and a booming voice can down
> from the heathen's, you would look behind a bush for hidden speakers
> and instead of asking Jesus 'Did I just hear what I thought I
> heard?' would call David Copperfield or Blaine to explain how this
> dishonest man had palled it off.
Not so... I would look , true, but if I found nothing, would be satisfied. If it
happens, I will believe and take back all my blasphemous words with joy... we
shall see?
>
> >I should have been a Pharisee...
>
> It would be a step up from idolatry I guess! ;-)
Belief in a 'multi-god' system is not necessarily idolatry Claire. Having little
figures of them in shrines on the mantlepiece is... and it could be said that
worshipping before an altar decked with the image of a cruelly executed deity on
a cross could also be called that. I would be very uneasy worshipping before or
venerating a hideous instrument of torture and execution, never mind sporting a
miniature version around my neck!
> >> John 14
> >> 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have >>been
among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has >>seen the Father. How
can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
>
> >Well I'm with Philip here, that really wouldn't do. Phil should have >piped
up and said "What's your problem? I just want to make sure >- think about it...
you are asking an awful lot of me!
>
> Philip was happy with the answer.
>
> >> 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this >>was not
revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. >>18And I tell you that you
are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build >>my church, and the gates of Hades
>
> >A loyal supporter - who believed, and said what JC wanted to hear. >This
'carrot and stick' approach to faith in Christ makes me most >uncomfortable of
all, and is the main reason I cannot believe he was >what he claimed to be - the
son of
> >God.
>
> Maybe because you only focus on our fear of God which only comes as the
>
> result of acknowledging His love and his justice. If you trust somebody
>
> you trust that they will be merciful to you - grace goes beyond mercy
> even, that is why fear is translated into love. A stick would not be a
> very good way to command loyalty.
Nor encourage love. Even so, I reguard JC's statement that basically says "if
you want to get to Heaven, you have to go through me" as a threat, and therefore
a stick. He asked far too much, that is a very tall order indeed!
> >>indirect claims. He claimed to be able to forgive sins,
> >> something that only God can do.
>
> >I have forgiven many sins directed at me?
> >I do not acknowledge JC's activities and feats as 'miracles'. Some >were
possibly powerful acts of healing (I know it can be done, and >can do it myself
to a limited extent - not quite raising the dead, >but....?),
>
> Oh????
I tried once, but no joy - I'm not that good. I can get rid of headaches, mild
pain and anxiety - sometimes. I think everyone can do this to some extent - you
should try it. Nothing to lose?
>
> > others such as water
> >into wine and the loaves and fishes could have been little more than >cheap
conjuring tricks. Walking on water - not bad, but it has been >done. I
charitably 'went with the gospels' here, in reality I'm afraid >that the way
accounts of
> >these miracles was recorded leaves me with even more doubts. As >for the big
one, crucifixion is not inevitably fatal...
>
> Then you are saying that Jesus deliberately set out to deceive people.
> That he was a liar and a fraudster? :-/
That is a possibility, though I suspect he believed what he said for some
reason, possibly due to 'visions' such as Joan of Arc had. They have significant
similarities if you think about it - both gathered a large following of
believers, and had initial success, but both were executed, wondering why God
had abandoned them (Father, why hast thou forsaken me?)
> >> CS Lewis did in fact become a born again Christian despite the >>many
> >> issues he had with Christianity. In a way he did the reverse of >>what you
are doing in accepting it rather than rejecting it because >>as you say, we
just do not know!
>
> >We are both satisfied to remain unsatisfied perhaps?
>
> Perhaps, but the CS Lewis differed from you, he realised you could not
> have it both ways, you cannot call Jesus one of the greatest men in
> history on the one hand and a cheating liar on the other!
>
> >>, and the river in Narnia was inspired by the River Lagan! It is
> >> a shame they did not film the movie in Ulster though but I guess >>New
Zeeland's close enough! ;-)
>
> >It was a nice film I thought (I loved the books as a kid, and still read
>them on occasion to cheer me up). I always imagined Narnia as >more like the
West Country, Cornwall and Somerset with a touch of >North Yorks here and there
(where
> >the giants hang out).
>
> Some of the English places are similar, but the coastline of Antrim is
> much higher. Also, I think he drew on Irish mythology and the Giant's
> Causeway with the giants' hang out.
Ah, that Autumn Feast!
> >> No, if you accept God existed before creation you can also accept >>that
evil did.
>
> >So who made them, or how did they come to be? It never ends.
>
> No, there has to be something, some ultimate cause to the very first
> thing to have ever happened. Something cannot come from nothing,
> something outside of somethingness must have been its cause.
We are on the borderline where physics meets theology, a fascinating yet
unimaginable place, where everything erupts from nothing, and time and space do
not exist. IMO, it is where physics and science 'run out', as all is conjecture
beyond or before the Big Bang. Heavy stuff for a rainy Monday evening!
As for any 'cause', it appears it just happened, and we are merely a tiny,
transitory part of an unimaginably enormous Universe. I cannot possibly believe
that God made it all to boggle our minds and confuse us or test us somehow?
More realistic might be that what we call God (or gods) developed and evolved
just as we did, though in a different way, and long before us.
> >>>Some might say that the white bearded old gentleman on the roof >>>of the
Sistine Chapel is an 'idol', a visualisation of God.
>
> >> They did, they were Puritans.
>
> >Like Jeff? Oh dear...
>
> I liked the Puritans on Blackadder ...,
> 'CHAIRS? WE SIT ON SPIKES!'
IIRC, Blackadder's unfortunate uncle had to sit on the spike, and Miraim
Margolis (one of my favourites!) sat on him, as "two spikes would be an
extravagance!"
> > >We humans need to visualise such
> > >entitites in a form familiar to us, which we are comfortable with. >>Our
imaginations cannot really encompass entirely spiritual >>beings, they need to
>
> > We were given such an image with Christ. That was the point. I >think we
should try to avoid images of God because it limits him >and may distract us.
God seems remarkably evasive when it gets >to 'knowing' Him, or understanding
Him. Why should that be - has >He got something to hide, or could He be
> >embarrassed that he created such a mess?
>
> You really don't like Him do you?
I'm afraid not, not as He is represented by the Judaeo/Christian/Muslim faiths.
Such a God would by default be cruel by neglect or design, and I could never
'love' such a being, or be willing to worship Him. Nor fear Him, since He never
shows His hand, was distinctly unpleasant, merciless and violent when He did in
OT days (if you believe the Bible), and can only expect my defiance in return.
He of course must know that, so I do not fear such a being - He doesn't exist.
That doesn't mean I am a godless atheist however, far from it. I believe that
there are god like powers and influences around us, who can help or hinder at
will, and sometimes when asked for help. The Christian God is far too
simplistic, unrealistic and 'comforting' to explain the state of (and prescence
of) the Universe.
> >Well, I'm just trying to show that you cannot have good without evil, >light
without darkness, positive without negative, right without wrong >etc. etc.
>
> You could in Heaven?
The nature of 'Heaven' seems very vague and uncertain - I'm not sure it would
suit me? At least you know exactly what you get in Valhalla...
> >One thing you can perhaps have without an opposite is love, though >I'm
unsure.
> >Hate can exist alone.
>
> Most hate comes with love. You kill my loved one so I hate you, I love
> my country so I hate those trying to take it or even just the outsider
> etc.
Hmmm... they do indeed often 'go together', yet you do not need to necessarily
hate in order to take up arms and use them against anyone attempting to destroy
something or someone you love. In fact, you would be more effective not to hate
such an enemy, as hate leads to fury, and fury leads to recklessness and
ruthlessness.
> >Not entirely. Natural disasters and disease afflict us all, no matter >what
our beliefs, age, sex, race or penchant for good or evil. IMO a >truly loving,
benevolent God would not allow us to suffer so - not One >I would wish or care
to worship anyway.
>
> You sound like Harry Enfield's stroppy teenager character. 'I HATE
> YOU! I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN!'
>
> >> Haw many times have humans been hit by steroids?
>
> >Quite a few, myself included (a severe allergic reaction)
>
> Just goes to show, the spell-check is a wonderful thing but is only as
> good as the person using it!
Ewe wood bee eel advised two rely on spell chequers!
> >>Almost all religions have 'evil gods',
> >>Christianity included, they are required.
> >> Well, Satin would be a false god but I take your point.
>
> >Tempting us with comfortable underwear perhaps?
>
> <cringe oops> He knows what I like maybe! ;-)
The Devil does have style, and loves comfort - you have to give him that. And
has all the best tunes...
> >Now Basil IS human! He does however have some faith... and >praises God in
his way on the rare occasions things go right for him, >with a big kiss.
>
> Indeed!
>
> >>>I suspect it is the 'choosing sides' or 'being tested' thing, but am
>>>unsure
> >>>as yet.
>
> >> Oh, good!
>
> >I try to be - that is the side I tend to lean towards. Alas, sometimes >in
order
>
> >>to do good, a little evil is required.
> Sounds worrying like an ends justifies the means argument!
Omlettes and eggs? Sometimes it has to I'm afraid, for instance the 'white lie',
which can do much good and prevent much evil and misery, yet is still a lie.
Mind you, I don't remember the commandment 'Thou Shalt not Lie'...? Does 'false
witness' encompass that?
> >He found his way, I have found mine. Not ALL the way, but I will get >there
in
> >time I hope.
>
> So do I, I'm sure you will, so long as you are not pushed into it!
Well said, and good wishes appreciated.
> > I have a problem with that. If life has more value the more pleasure >we
experience, that means we should maximise our pleasure which >may be at the
expense of others.
> >Not so! Never at the expense of others, one of my greatest >pleasures is in
pleasing others, making them happy and bringing >them comfort. How pious and
smug you may say, but that is truly >what I believe. In practice I often fail to
do
> >that of course, but I do try - and I know instinctively that is the right
>way to be, and the way to be happy and fulfilled myself.
>
> Not at all smug, I am sure you do, I think the trouble is it is often
> far easier not to help others and to make excuses not to.
I know... I have done so in the paet, and regretted it.
> >It took a long while to realise that I'm afraid, and being human (a >mixture
of good and evil) I have been selfish, thoughtless and cruel >in the past, which
I regret. All part of the 'learning process' I >suppose?
>
> You think you can learn to be perfect?
Maybe - I will tell you if it happens, but don't hold your breath!
> >> It also means that you do not know what to do if life is every
> >> unpleasant!
>
> >Make a new one....
>
> That works for most of us most of the time but some things in life are
> beyond our control - I am blessed that as of yet I have not been
> effected by illness, disability, poverty or facing death!
I'm glad to hear that Claire, as you obviously don't deserve such things. Even
so, disaster can strike at any time, and 'deserving' doesn't appear to make any
difference when it does. I suspect that such catastrophes are not 'sent', they
just happen randomly - yet how we face them or cope with them might well be
'noted' somehow. If anything ever happens to you, I am very glad that you have
your faith - it will see you through. My faith might be different, but it has
seen me through several past disasters, and will again in the future I trust.
All you need is a good heart and a true spirit.
Cheers
Martin
>
Steve Hayes
>>> There is only one God yes.
>>One god who deserves a capital 'G'?
>
>Yes, that is how we distinguish God from the gods you refer to (i.e.
>false Gods). By that I do not mean to insult others, lots of religions
>have their own name for what they see as the true and fullest accounts
>of God, for example the Muslims call Him Allah, the Hindus have
>hundreds of names for God because they have a different representation
>for each of his personalities and believe he has come in many
>carnations.
Bear in mind that Arabic-speaking Christians also call God Allah. Hussians
call him Bog.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
claire....@ntlworld.com
>call him Bog.
'Bog'??? <school-kid type giggle> Now that's just wrong! ;-)
Timothy
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148418459.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Do they believe that faith in Bog will mean they will be flushed with
success?
claire....@ntlworld.com
>> 'Bog'??? <school-kid type giggle> Now that's just wrong! ;-)
>Do they believe that faith in Bog will mean they will be flushed with
>success?
I'll do as Jeff does a lot .... ;o; !
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148420092.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What about the ears each side {;o;} that makes the full frontal grin?
Steve Hayes
I was once at a meeting between a lot of straitlaced Dutch Reformed dominees
and a Russian bishop, ambassadors and flunkies.
The dominees got the giggles every time the Russians said "kak", which in
Afrikaans means "shit", but in Russian means "how".
claire....@ntlworld.com
>was however an awful lot that Jesus couldn't or wouldn't fix. Herod and Pilate
>are two that stand out, he singularly failed to save himself (even I could have
>talked Pilate out of executing me!), and failed to ensure the safety and
>wellbeing of his closest supporters - see what happened to them?
You entirely miss the point!!! Jesus knew his purpose, he predicted his
fate and he accepted it.
>Why did he ask his Father "why have You forsaken me?" if he went willingly to
>his death? By all accounts it wasn't pleasant, and the poor man suffered
>horribly.
Because it hurt! He was suffering. There are differing theological
takes on this, one is that he was feeling the effect of isolation from
God coming from taking on the sin of others.
>> I doubt you would. If the clouds parted and a booming voice can down
>> from the heathen's, you would look behind a bush for hidden speakers
>> and instead of asking Jesus 'Did I just hear what I thought I
>> heard?' would call David Copperfield or Blaine to explain how this
>> dishonest man had palled it off.
>Not so... I would look , true, but if I found nothing, would be satisfied. If it
>happens, I will believe and take back all my blasphemous words with joy... we
>shall see?
At the moment I doubt it; there may be a day though when it all makes
sense!
>> It would be a step up from idolatry I guess! ;-)
>Belief in a 'multi-god' system is not necessarily idolatry Claire.
I'm just making mischief here to be honest! Hope you spotted the ;-)
>Having little figures of them in shrines on the mantlepiece is...
What figures? What shrines? There are no shrines in our homes or
churches.
:-(
>and it could be said that
>worshipping before an altar decked with the image of a cruelly executed deity on
>a cross could also be called that.
Hut-hum .... Derr yeah .....did the ideas behind the Protestant
Reformation pass you by???
>I would be very uneasy worshipping before or
>venerating a hideous instrument of torture and execution, never mind sporting a
>miniature version around my neck!
In one of his Alfa lectures Nicky Gumble illustrated your point about
it being odd when you think about it, he hung a mini gallows around his
neck! :-)
>Nor encourage love. Even so, I reguard JC's statement that basically says "if
>you want to get to Heaven, you have to go through me" as a threat, and therefore
>a stick.
You can take it as a threat if you want - what can I do about that.
I've not threatened you - the arguments speak for themselves
without needing threats. Jesus also said not all who call on his name
will be saved either!
>> Oh????
>one, crucifixion is not inevitably fatal...
Getting a sward run through you is fairly fatal I would have thought!
We are also told the blood separated indicating death.
>That is a possibility, though I suspect he believed what he said for some
>reason, possibly due to 'visions' such as Joan of Arc had.
You have to be wilfully deceptive to do a conjuring trick though.
>> Some of the English places are similar, but the coastline of Antrim is
>> much higher. Also, I think he drew on Irish mythology and the Giant's
>> Causeway with the giants' hang out.
>Ah, that Autumn Feast!
LOL! When we were kids our father used to be pessimistic for the fun of
winding my mother up - we nicknamed him 'an old Marshwiggle'! :-)
> >So who made them, or how did they come to be? It never ends.
>> No, there has to be something, some ultimate cause to the very first
>> thing to have ever happened. Something cannot come from nothing,
>> something outside of somethingness must have been its cause.
>We are on the borderline where physics meets theology, a fascinating yet
>unimaginable place, where everything erupts from nothing, and time and space do
>not exist. IMO, it is where physics and science 'run out', as all is conjecture
>beyond or before the Big Bang. Heavy stuff for a rainy Monday evening!
It's now rainy Wednesday evening and still just as heavy! :-)
>> I liked the Puritans on Blackadder ...,
>> 'CHAIRS? WE SIT ON SPIKES!'
>IIRC, Blackadder's unfortunate uncle had to sit on the spike, and Miraim
>Margolis (one of my favourites!) sat on him, as "two spikes would be an
>extravagance!"
That's it!!! :-)
>I'm afraid not, not as He is represented by the Judaeo/Christian/Muslim faiths.
>Such a God would by default be cruel by neglect or design, and I could never
>'love' such a being, or be willing to worship Him. Nor fear Him, since He never
>shows His hand, was distinctly unpleasant, merciless and violent when He did in
>OT days (if you believe the Bible), and can only expect my defiance in return.
>He of course must know that, so I do not fear such a being - He doesn't exist.
The people worshipping such a god would be by default nasty.
>That doesn't mean I am a godless atheist however, far from it. I believe that
>there are god like powers and influences around us, who can help or hinder at
>will, and sometimes when asked for help. The Christian God is far too
>simplistic, unrealistic and 'comforting' to explain the state of (and prescence
>of) the Universe.
Well the explanation is fuller than yours I think!
>Hmmm... they do indeed often 'go together', yet you do not need to necessarily
>hate in order to take up arms and use them against anyone attempting to destroy
>something or someone you love. In fact, you would be more effective not to hate
such an enemy, as hate leads to fury, and fury leads to recklessness
and
ruthlessness.
That is certainly true. If you hate you can also be easily manipulated,
I am certainly not advocating hate but just saying that it often can
come from love if we are not careful because we tend to fear losing the
people or security we love. The thing linking love and hate is fear I
guess.
Then again it is chilling to hear people talking about military
decisions like a clean and clinical decision
>Ewe wood bee eel advised two rely on spell chequers!
Ay up dock, are you from Lancashire? ;-)
>I'm glad to hear that Claire, as you obviously don't deserve such things. Even
>so, disaster can strike at any time, and 'deserving' doesn't appear to make any
>difference when it does. I suspect that such catastrophes are not 'sent', they
>just happen randomly - yet how we face them or cope with them might well be
>'noted' somehow. If anything ever happens to you, I am very glad that you have
>your faith - it will see you through. My faith might be different, but it has
>seen me through several past disasters, and will again in the future I trust.
>All you need is a good heart and a true spirit.
> Cheers
> Martin
Hmmmm
claire....@ntlworld.com
Martin
<claire....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1148503910.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >I do, and I believe that their faith had a great part in it in some cases.
There
> >was however an awful lot that Jesus couldn't or wouldn't fix. Herod and
Pilate
> >are two that stand out, he singularly failed to save himself (even I could
have
> >talked Pilate out of executing me!), and failed to ensure the safety and
> >wellbeing of his closest supporters - see what happened to them?
>
> You entirely miss the point!!! Jesus knew his purpose, he predicted his
> fate and he accepted it.
He could actually be accused of *inviting* it IMO, by failing to offer any
defence, turning himself in and basically giving up. He still had a lot of work
to do, his message wasn't completely delivered - my skepticism and that of the
majority of people nowadays is evidence of this.
What was his purpose anyway? To convince mankind he really was the Son of God,
to pass down an upgrade of the Ten Commandments and some advice about being good
for his Dad, to do a bit of healing, lead a revolution... or what? Effectively
commiting suicide half way through his mission seems counter productive in the
extreme.
> >Why did he ask his Father "why have You forsaken me?" if he went willingly to
> >his death? By all accounts it wasn't pleasant, and the poor man suffered
> >horribly.
>
> Because it hurt! He was suffering. There are differing theological
> takes on this, one is that he was feeling the effect of isolation from
> God coming from taking on the sin of others.
For 'theological takes' I prefer to use the word 'excuses'. As for him taking on
the sins of mankind ("he died for us all"etc. etc.), I cannot see how this
works, why he decided to do it, or what he thought his Father would make of it -
was it his idea, or his Dad's?
This is another problem I have. If JC did this to endear mankind to his Father,
I either have to doubt God's sanity and reason, or question his ability as a
Parent. 'Vengeance is Mine' did he not say, and seeing His beloved son cruelly,
unjustly tortured to death would seem an unlikely way to guarantee His
benevolance, love and tolerant forgiveness for those responsible.
> >> I doubt you would. If the clouds parted and a booming voice can down
> >> from the heathen's, you would look behind a bush for hidden speakers
> >> and instead of asking Jesus 'Did I just hear what I thought I
> >> heard?' would call David Copperfield or Blaine to explain how this
> >> dishonest man had palled it off.
>
> >Not so... I would look , true, but if I found nothing, would be satisfied. If
it
> >happens, I will believe and take back all my blasphemous words with joy... we
> >shall see?
>
> At the moment I doubt it; there may be a day though when it all makes
> sense!
You never know Claire - miracles DO happen?
> >> It would be a step up from idolatry I guess! ;-)
>
> >Belief in a 'multi-god' system is not necessarily idolatry Claire.
>
> I'm just making mischief here to be honest! Hope you spotted the ;-)
So am I....
> >Having little figures of them in shrines on the mantlepiece is...
>
> What figures? What shrines? There are no shrines in our homes or
> churches.
> :-(
Aha... a Methodist, eh?
> >and it could be said that
> >worshipping before an altar decked with the image of a cruelly executed deity
on
> >a cross could also be called that.
>
> Hut-hum .... Derr yeah .....did the ideas behind the Protestant
> Reformation pass you by???
Well, amongst all the burnings, executions, bloodshed, holy wars and confessions
extracted by torture, I might have missed something. I did of course flick
through the demented, anti-Semitic hysteria of Martin Luther... and the
Puritanical nonsense of pamphleteers during the English Civil War - surely you
don't mean that?
> >I would be very uneasy worshipping before or
> >venerating a hideous instrument of torture and execution, never mind sporting
a
> >miniature version around my neck!
>
> In one of his Alfa lectures Nicky Gumble illustrated your point about
> it being odd when you think about it, he hung a mini gallows around his
> neck! :-)
The late, great Bill Hicks did a magnificent sketch about this... if a little
pointed...
.
"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus
comes back, he's really going to want to see a ****ing cross? Ow! Maybe that's
why he hasn't shown up yet... it's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a
rifle pendant...just thinking of John..."
> >Nor encourage love. Even so, I reguard JC's statement that basically says "if
> >you want to get to Heaven, you have to go through me" as a threat, and
therefore
> >a stick.
>
> You can take it as a threat if you want - what can I do about that.
Nothing Claire - 'it is written', hardly your fault! It has an unpleasant ring
to it, that's all, rather like a ticket tout who thinks he has all the remaining
tickets for a really good gig.
> I've not threatened you - the arguments speak for themselves
> without needing threats.
I know... you must by now have realised that I only respond to threats with
defiance, intimidation and attempts to frighten me only put my back up.
Persuasion is another matter, but that particular order is (in my book) menacing
rather than tempting.
>Jesus also said not all who call on his name
> will be saved either!
Really not a good bet at all? I have called his name quite a few times, believer
or not, usually when hurt - I do not expect or require salvation.
> >> Oh????
> >one, crucifixion is not inevitably fatal...
>
> Getting a sward run through you is fairly fatal I would have thought!
> We are also told the blood separated indicating death.
A spear I thought? Standard Roman test for signs of life in executees - if they
bleed, they are likely to be alive (even if unconcious), and if they bleed they
will surely bleed to death soon. Very efficient....
> >That is a possibility, though I suspect he believed what he said for some
> >reason, possibly due to 'visions' such as Joan of Arc had.
>
> You have to be wilfully deceptive to do a conjuring trick though.
Or naturally talented? That's a good point, but as everyone who is truly
objective when examining the career and activities of JC must admit, his agenda,
motivation and mission specification are mysterious, and often confusing.
When did he first realise he was the 'Son of God' for instance? It appears he
couldn't communicate at will with the Almighty, which caused him some serious
problems, and there seems to be an undercurrent of disagreement between them.
The lack of support JC received from his Dad can only be described as atrocious,
he seemed to be little more aware of God's 'mysterious ways' then everyone else
half the time.
Most of the people JC had to deal with, can quite fairly be described as a
credulous lot, superstitious, illiterate, downtrodden and desperate - eager for
a 'saviour' of any kind. Like it or loathe it, 'The Life of Brian' is not far
off the truth in some ways - little wonder it caused so much controversy.
> >> Some of the English places are similar, but the coastline of Antrim is
> >> much higher. Also, I think he drew on Irish mythology and the Giant's
> >> Causeway with the giants' hang out.
> >Ah, that Autumn Feast!
>
> LOL! When we were kids our father used to be pessimistic for the fun of
> winding my mother up - we nicknamed him 'an old Marshwiggle'! :-)
Puddleglum was an odd character, wasn't he? Especially when drunk.... and as for
that pipe of his, and what he put in it... most unsavoury, hardly the sort of
chap I would entrust my children to! Oddly enough, there seems to be at least
one like him in every pub....
> > >So who made them, or how did they come to be? It never ends.
> >> No, there has to be something, some ultimate cause to the very first
> >> thing to have ever happened. Something cannot come from nothing,
> >> something outside of somethingness must have been its cause.
>
> >We are on the borderline where physics meets theology, a fascinating yet
> >unimaginable place, where everything erupts from nothing, and time and space
do
> >not exist. IMO, it is where physics and science 'run out', as all is
conjecture
> >beyond or before the Big Bang. Heavy stuff for a rainy Monday evening!
>
> It's now rainy Wednesday evening and still just as heavy! :-)
Mmmm... too heavy for further comment I think. Maybe when the weather picks
up...
> >> I liked the Puritans on Blackadder ...,
> >> 'CHAIRS? WE SIT ON SPIKES!'
>
> >IIRC, Blackadder's unfortunate uncle had to sit on the spike, and Miraim
> >Margolis (one of my favourites!) sat on him, as "two spikes would be an
> >extravagance!"
>
> That's it!!! :-)
>
> >I'm afraid not, not as He is represented by the Judaeo/Christian/Muslim
faiths.
> >Such a God would by default be cruel by neglect or design, and I could never
> >'love' such a being, or be willing to worship Him. Nor fear Him, since He
never
> >shows His hand, was distinctly unpleasant, merciless and violent when He did
in
> >OT days (if you believe the Bible), and can only expect my defiance in
return.
> >He of course must know that, so I do not fear such a being - He doesn't
exist.
>
> The people worshipping such a god would be by default nasty.
Not necessarily - naive perhaps, led astray, hoodwinked, deceived, fooled...
those are not crimes. Many people thought Hitler and Stalin offered hope and
were fundamentally good and well intentioned - yet were sadly disappointed, even
crushed when the ghastly truth came out. A large number of them were good, kind,
morally upstanding people, and they were the ones hurt most of all (apart from
the countless millions the evil pair had slaughtered perhaps).
You don't have to be nasty to be fooled.
> >That doesn't mean I am a godless atheist however, far from it. I believe that
> >there are god like powers and influences around us, who can help or hinder at
> >will, and sometimes when asked for help. The Christian God is far too
> >simplistic, unrealistic and 'comforting' to explain the state of (and
prescence
> >of) the Universe.
> Well the explanation is fuller than yours I think!
I never have seen a satisfactory 'explanation' though Claire?
> >Hmmm... they do indeed often 'go together', yet you do not need to
necessarily
> >hate in order to take up arms and use them against anyone attempting to
destroy
> >something or someone you love. In fact, you would be more effective not to
hate
> such an enemy, as hate leads to fury, and fury leads to recklessness
> and
> ruthlessness.
>
> That is certainly true. If you hate you can also be easily manipulated,
> I am certainly not advocating hate but just saying that it often can
> come from love if we are not careful because we tend to fear losing the
> people or security we love. The thing linking love and hate is fear I
> guess.
The evil pair I just mentioned used hate and fear to great effect. Both achieved
an almost god like status, literally worshipped and loved by the populace. To
achieve that, they manufactured enemies and stirred up hatred, with disastrous
results.
> Then again it is chilling to hear people talking about military
> decisions like a clean and clinical decision
I agree! I loathe expressions such as 'take out', 'neutralise', 'render
ineffectual' and 'regrettable collateral damage' - slaughter, destroy,
incinerate, massacre and kill are far more descriptive and gritty. Worst of all,
a new one has emerged recently - 'battlefield shaping'. This means rendering
certain places uninhabitable by carpet bombing, swamping with artillery of
napalm, ensuring anybody there is dead (usually this expression is accompanied
by a hand gesture, similar to sweeping dust off a table).
> >Ewe wood bee eel advised two rely on spell chequers!
>
> Ay up dock, are you from Lancashire? ;-)
Nay lass, a Londoner born and bred. For my sins...
> >I'm glad to hear that Claire, as you obviously don't deserve such things.
Even
> >so, disaster can strike at any time, and 'deserving' doesn't appear to make
any
> >difference when it does. I suspect that such catastrophes are not 'sent',
they
> >just happen randomly - yet how we face them or cope with them might well be
> >'noted' somehow. If anything ever happens to you, I am very glad that you
have
> >your faith - it will see you through. My faith might be different, but it has
> >seen me through several past disasters, and will again in the future I trust.
> >All you need is a good heart and a true spirit.
> >
>
> Hmmmm
I'm sure you have both!
Cheers
Martin