Members gdwill2u Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by wok i believe in 'live and let live'. I am not judging Christians or any other religious people on their faith. I might say i don't understand it, i don't agree with it or aspects of it, but i will not ridicule or scorn them.However, i see a tendency where religious people increasingly put themselves in a 'defensive' role (atheists hate us etc.) to enable themselves to restricty other people in how to live your life (including mine).take for instance a 'hot issue': gay marriage.(just for the record: i am not gay)religious people do not agree with homosexuality. that's fine by me (i will argue it though). But they fail to see that their intolerance towards homosexuals restrict them in their life. if they ban gay marriage in their church, fine. But why ban a civil marriage between two consenting adults of any sexual orientation? you see, tolerace comes from two sides, and it seems to me that religious people are usually the most dogmatic in their beliefs, and thereby (knowingly or unknowingly) restricting others in their lives.as i said, live and let live A lot of Christians do support gay civil unions. I do. I think it is a civil rights issue, and gays deserve the same priveleges as any other minority in our diverse land. Persoanlly I would rather leave the terminology of marriage to mean a heterosexual union, but I would not be outraged if we had something called a civil marriage. Where I and others would have a problem is if the state were to impose it's viewpoint on my church and demand that my church marries homosexuals. PeaceBob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by wok you're clearly missing the point. I clearly said it was MY CONCLUSION. you "extensively" studied the Bible and came to that 'conclusion'? "no promise of an afterlife"??? and "no reward/punishment"??? are you sure it was the BIBLE that you 'extensively' studied??? not even the staunchest atheist/agnostic denies that the Bible teaches these things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members musicdog400 Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Philosophy, reason, and intellect can only take one so far Cool, I am totally with you. That's why, as Christ said, one must be born again, Oooops, see what just happened ? You are back inside of reason intellect, laying out a lot of assumptions / dogma. This is where it goes wrong. I try to really understand the roles of intellect, and the experiences beyond what I can intellectually understand but are none the less real. That's why I try to live up to the following promise:Anything I say is totally open to questioning / challenge. This will either strenghthen my hypothesis, or lead me to a better one. If it can't be questioned or verified I keep it to myself. It is morally wrong to feign belief. If the world lived by this, there would be no religious wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Daddyof2 Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 The more I've read and studied, the more I've come to believe in and love Christ and his message. However, I've also come to detest most organized religion. I don't need some person/persons in an ivory tower telling me how to behave or what to believe. I think God gave us all free will so that we can use it to seek the truth. I believe if you are strictly following the teachings of some "Church" you are being mislead, duped and used by men and not by God. When "missionaries" come to my door I'm often amazed at how little they really know about the organization they are working for. Live your live for good and for God and stay the hell out of my life and we'll all be happier. Also, I immediately distrust anyone who will not associate with another human being for religious reasons. That is NOT of God. End of rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes concerning this...Jesus makes an interesting statement to the (self righteous) Scribes and Pharasees in the NT...And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane You misunderstood the point I was making. I agree, that's in my opinion one of the best parts of Christianity and why I think accepting churches like UCC are the best versus other, unnamed, unaccepting churches. Do I really have to explain that I was saying that people with addictive/dependent personalities, when they kick one habit, take up another (in this case religion)? I was half-teasing though, which is why I made the "{censored}, I need to run and hide" comment with the ":p". I hear ya my point was/is that anyone that comes to God must come when they are 'at an end of themselves'....in humility. But I do encounter people at local churches that go to church for reasons other than true faith in Jesus Christ. Thats for sure.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RonniePentatonic Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Good website for anyone who is not familiar with Dr. Baugh, archaologist and athiest turned Christian. Lots of good info and reading here: http://www.creationevidence.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JustinThyme Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane It's a common misconception that many Jews and Christians make and has been popularly accepted. You're not supposed to take God's name in vain. It's a sin to utter the name of the Lord. The misconception comes in thinking that "God" is God's name. God's name is actually a pronunciation of the Hebrew letters YHWH. Problem being, we don't have the vowel indicators to know what exactly the name was. There are many possibilities, and I guess if you hit the right one accidentally, you're {censored}ed. In any case, we don't know the proper vowel indicators because they were purposely changed by Jewish and other scholars for several reasons, one of which was so they could read the Torah aloud without sin. For some reason I remember something about Greek Orthodox Christians playing a part in this too, but my memory is fuzzy right now, I'm reading articles on 1948 for my Modern Middle Eastern History course. It's a really interesting piece of linguistic and religious history and I always think it's funny to see ignorant folks do the "G-d" thing or get mad at people who say "God" in vain. Well, other than the obvious slanted view (calling people "ignorant"), this more or less hits the key points. My specific purpose is to do it so that when there is a discussion on religion, such as this, so that you can express your views in a way where others aren't going to harp on one tid-bit (using the word God), rather than the overall comments.It is partially rooted in not using the Lords name in vain, which is a biblical belief. If I'm not mistaken, the specific use of G-d tends to be more common in Jewish and some older traditional Christian sects.P.S. I recently read somewhere that the "proper" name of God (G-d) which can't be uttered is 72 letters long:freak: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JustinThyme Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by riffy If I am not mistaken (and I am fallible so I may well be) that quote is referring to Jesus' second coming.When our Lord Jesus does come back it will be in judgement: ...Now, I honestly am getting a bit biblical for this thread despite my better judgement. I am only doing the best I can to answer direct questions asked of me. So, don't take me to task guys for proselytizing!!!!!! No problem, thanks for answer the question. But my question is, isn't this a bit of "revisionist" history when compared to the Old Testament? The OT says the messiah will bring peace and the kingdom of heaven on earth, and not that it will happen when he comes on the second go 'round. Despite my extensive religious education, this is one of many questions I have now, that I didn't have at the time. I just took what I was told as "gospel";) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ripfence Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Count me as a "born again Christian" believer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ripfence Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 I am religious and I don't condemn homosexuality in fact my religion forbids me practice intolerance or to restrict anyone.Basically, I feel (as do all other believers with whom I have had the opportunity to speak on the subject) that sin is sin whether homosexual or heterosexual, there is no hierarchy one over the other.Originally posted by wok religious people do not agree with homosexuality. that's fine by me (i will argue it though). But they fail to see that their intolerance towards homosexuals restrict them in their life. if they ban gay marriage in their church, fine. But why ban a civil marriage between two consenting adults of any sexual orientation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ursinus Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Hello all, I do believe (pun intended) that this discussion is going on in the wrong forum. This is the amp forum, remember? Let us respect the rest of our music aprecciating sons and daughters of Adam and Eve who don't share our Christian beliefs. Your friendly neighborhood Zen-Calvinist shredder Ursinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by 17 Tubes With all due respect....and riffy and hal know I am sincere. What did Jesus do? I can understand that he "saved" you. But there doesn't seem to be any difference between 33 AD and 2007 AD....aside from what carriage we ride. The human mind can make up it's own reality...it can so easily deceive itself. SO personal savior doesn't mean anything. Saving the human race is another things altogether...and it seems doomed....always has been. I just can';t see that Jesus did anything. I know....I know...you'll argue that I can;t see the spiritual plane. That I take the low road looking for "proof". That I am too conecerned with earthly possesions and perspective that I can't...."see" what Jesus offers me. Just seems the world and people are the same as they have always been. I see good and bad in people that follow Jesus or do not follow Jesus. I feel better when I play basketball on Sunday mornings rather than going to my church. Like it's THERE that I meet my Lord. All other earthly things fall by the wayside. Doesn't seem very Christian to me, but I can't help how I feel. I dunno...soryy guys that I diodn't join the party. See you in Hell I guess. Hey, 17, I respect the sincerity of this post, and I think you raise a great question, one I'd love to discuss... But, with literalists like Echoes 'round these parts who scorn and deride any aspect of Christianity that falls outside of their literalist, fundamentalist dogma, it's hard to have a good discussion about questions like yours without devolving into fighting and name-calling. But pm me if you like -- I think this is a great topic. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by JustinThyme Well, other than the obvious slanted view (calling people "ignorant"), this more or less hits the key points. My specific purpose is to do it so that when there is a discussion on religion, such as this, so that you can express your views in a way where others aren't going to harp on one tid-bit (using the word God), rather than the overall comments.It is partially rooted in not using the Lords name in vain, which is a biblical belief. If I'm not mistaken, the specific use of G-d tends to be more common in Jewish and some older traditional Christian sects.P.S. I recently read somewhere that the "proper" name of God (G-d) which can't be uttered is 72 letters long:freak: . I didn't mean ignorant in a derogatory manner, I meant it literally -- like, I can see why one would say "G-d" if they didn't know any better, you know? That's cool though. I dunno about that 72 letters long thing. I have a limited background in Semitic languages (Arabic, with some experience of modern Hebrew), and from what I understand, YHWH is the "name" of God. That would really allow only for 4 short vowels, max, and even if each consonant is doubled (I know you can do that in Arabic, not sure about Hebrew), then it would be 11 characters (you can't double the first consonant). If anyone has experience with Biblical Hebrew, feel free to correct me. I'm just running on the limited knowledge I have of Semitic languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by riffy Gary ~ good words there, in your reply to 17 tubes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane It's a common misconception that many Jews and Christians make and has been popularly accepted. You're not supposed to take God's name in vain. It's a sin to utter the name of the Lord. The misconception comes in thinking that "God" is God's name. God's name is actually a pronunciation of the Hebrew letters YHWH. Problem being, we don't have the vowel indicators to know what exactly the name was. There are many possibilities, and I guess if you hit the right one accidentally, you're {censored}ed. In any case, we don't know the proper vowel indicators because they were purposely changed by Jewish and other scholars for several reasons, one of which was so they could read the Torah aloud without sin. For some reason I remember something about Greek Orthodox Christians playing a part in this too, but my memory is fuzzy right now, I'm reading articles on 1948 for my Modern Middle Eastern History course. It's a really interesting piece of linguistic and religious history and I always think it's funny to see ignorant folks do the "G-d" thing or get mad at people who say "God" in vain. Very good. But the Tetragrammaton (the sacred four-letter name) is not and never was an actual, pronouncable name. Rather, it is part of the sacred symbolical language of the Kabbalistic Rabbins and Mystics. But otherwise, you nailed it, Chris. Good on ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members oryan Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane I didn't mean ignorant in a derogatory manner, I meant it literally -- like, I can see why one would say "G-d" if they didn't know any better, you know?That's cool though. I dunno about that 72 letters long thing. I have a limited background in Semitic languages (Arabic, with some experience of modern Hebrew), and from what I understand, YHWH is the "name" of God. That would really allow only for 4 short vowels, max, and even if each consonant is doubled (I know you can do that in Arabic, not sure about Hebrew), then it would be 11 characters (you can't double the first consonant). If anyone has experience with Biblical Hebrew, feel free to correct me. I'm just running on the limited knowledge I have of Semitic languages. I thought in biblical Hebrew, the original word of God or YHWH (yahweh which in Hebrew is all consonants) was replaced for a more respectful word 'adonai'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by blueswoman Great discussion here. I just wanted to clarify what I meant in the beginning of this thread, when it seemed like I put down "intellect" back there. I believe knowledge, reason and intellect are wonderful. I should have made it clear that on other forums, you have some people who spout absurdly amazing, intellectual nonsense. But, to them, they are being quite logical. Philosophy, reason, and intellect can only take one so far in knowing God and Christ. That's why, as Christ said, one must be born again, not only of flesh and blood, but of spirit. It is the spirit that opens one eyes and enlightens and can take one beyond the realm of the fleshly intellect into the realm of the spiritual. As I said, it is a "knowledge that passes understanding" - unless someone is born again of the spirit, it will sound like nonsense to them. Now, I also would never dream of imposing my beliefs on anyone - ever. This is where I think fundamental evangelicism is off. It is God's job to call someone, to open their heart. The Holy Spirit was sent into this world by Christ to convict all. I really believe every single person has a moment when they must make a decision. I believe God has no problem preparing a person's heart to accept him. If someone is in area where there is no knowledge of the Word or Christ, then just to believe in God. God is merciful and loving. Thus, if someone wants to know, it is because God has put the desire in his heart. All the preaching in the world will have no effect unless there has been a move of God in the heart, a still, small thought... I hear people say, Christ was a liberal, he was a repub, he was this, he was that. I believe he had one mission, and one mission only, which was to proclaim the promise of a new, spiritual kingdom to come, and to freely invite all mankind to freely enter. All he asked was that you believe on me. Flesh and blood cannot enter or inherit the kingdom, you must be born again. Simple. We are promised that we will be a glorious, totally new creation someday, and all of creation is waiting for our unveiling and will bask in our glory - whatever it is we shall be, it will be amazing. This is nonsense to some. So be it, its their choice. I think Christ would be appalled at what religious christianity has done. I believe it is, and should remain, a personal thing - not something to bash other people with, or to try and run the government with. The last time organized religion - christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages. I have no desire to ever see that for me or future generations. Sorry, I've rambled. You didn't ramble at all, imo. Great post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes R-Duanne, you are in error in your understanding of the character and nature of Almighty God. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are glaringly unqualified to make this statement to ANYBODY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by RonniePentatonic Good website for anyone who is not familiar with Dr. Baugh, archaologist and athiest turned Christian. Lots of good info and reading here: http://www.creationevidence.org/ Great reading here, as well: http://www.talkorigins.org Especially here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by oryan I thought in biblical Hebrew, the original word of God or YHWH (yahweh which in Hebrew is all consonants) was replaced for a more respectful word 'adonai'? There are actually many words in Hebrew which all get loosely translated into English as "God" or "Lord," and each name has different meanings, both literally and as interpreted Kabbalistically (mystically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blueswoman Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 I read somewhere once when God in the OT is described with an El, such as Elohim, El-Shaddai, etc., it denotes him in his status as creator and lord of all. When the word Yahweh is used, it denotes him in relationship to his people. I've always kind of liked those distinctions and they fit quite nicely when reading the OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are glaringly unqualified to make this statement to ANYBODY. so you have said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JustinThyme Posted November 16, 2006 Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 I believe that 72 letter name for G-d is part of a "formal" name, which includes adonai, and a few other "Lord Almighty-ish" adjectives. remember Duane.... I understand your intentions (now, anyway) behind your use of "ignorant". However, I believe it is an issue more of belief, rather than "knowing any better". Since the discussions here have been very encouragingly civil, I just think we should be careful in using terms that frequently (if not always) are derogatory. I try to make a firm distinction between, belief, opinion and fact. I have been doing a HUGE amount of reading as of late on the history of the middle east, and the birth of the big-3 religions (of which all at least agree on the divinity of the OT). Ultimately, I believe that a society like the US, should be able to include phrases like "one nation under God" in such a way that should be acceptable to all but the atheists. "God" should be able to be understood as the acceptance that the world we know must be controlled by some type of higher power, without having to be exclusionist by limiting the phraseology to Jesus or Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lord ToneKing Posted November 16, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 16, 2006 Originally posted by blueswoman Great discussion here. I just wanted to clarify what I meant in the beginning of this thread, when it seemed like I put down "intellect" back there. I believe knowledge, reason and intellect are wonderful. I should have made it clear that on other forums, you have some people who spout absurdly amazing, intellectual nonsense. But, to them, they are being quite logical. Philosophy, reason, and intellect can only take one so far in knowing God and Christ. That's why, as Christ said, one must be born again, not only of flesh and blood, but of spirit. It is the spirit that opens one eyes and enlightens and can take one beyond the realm of the fleshly intellect into the realm of the spiritual. As I said, it is a "knowledge that passes understanding" - unless someone is born again of the spirit, it will sound like nonsense to them. Now, I also would never dream of imposing my beliefs on anyone - ever. This is where I think fundamental evangelicism is off. It is God's job to call someone, to open their heart. The Holy Spirit was sent into this world by Christ to convict all. I really believe every single person has a moment when they must make a decision. I believe God has no problem preparing a person's heart to accept him. If someone is in area where there is no knowledge of the Word or Christ, then just to believe in God. God is merciful and loving. Thus, if someone wants to know, it is because God has put the desire in his heart. All the preaching in the world will have no effect unless there has been a move of God in the heart, a still, small thought... I hear people say, Christ was a liberal, he was a repub, he was this, he was that. I believe he had one mission, and one mission only, which was to proclaim the promise of a new, spiritual kingdom to come, and to freely invite all mankind to freely enter. All he asked was that you believe on me. Flesh and blood cannot enter or inherit the kingdom, you must be born again. Simple. We are promised that we will be a glorious, totally new creation someday, and all of creation is waiting for our unveiling and will bask in our glory - whatever it is we shall be, it will be amazing. This is nonsense to some. So be it, its their choice. I think Christ would be appalled at what religious christianity has done. I believe it is, and should remain, a personal thing - not something to bash other people with, or to try and run the government with. The last time organized religion - christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages. I have no desire to ever see that for me or future generations. Sorry, I've rambled. Very nicely said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.