ML,<p>This post is for you. You said:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Hey JL,<p>Thanks for the explanation. My only issue with your remarks is that it be made crystal clear that they represent your *OWN* opinion and not Christian doctrine. As you explained, you are not a scholar and cannot interpret the Bible and never rely on scripture. That's fine but you can't present your views as Christian doctrine. I think it's real important to be clear on that part. We don't have license to present our personal opinions as Christianity.<hr></blockquote><p>I never said I don't rely on scripture. I said I don't quote it here. So quit putting words in my mouth. <p>You may know what the Bible means you but surely don't practice what you know. You have no idea of my level of knowledge of the Bible. I have not expounded it here for a very clear and simple reason. People like you make me sometimes embarrassed to be called a Christian. Never
embarrassed enough to hide the fact that I am a Christian. <p>I have never tried to claim I was speaking for Christian doctrine for a simple reason. I simply speak my opinion as a Christian. I find it interesting that you have JUDGED me and feel qualified to certify Christian doctrine. <p>I don't know why this whole line of talk began but it ends NOW. You are foolish if you think you know me or my level of knowledge, just because I don't choose to quote scripture. How is it you can judge my Christianity? <p>Where did I state my personal opinions were Christianity? They reflect my Christian beliefs, but I find quoting Doctrine to people often isn't very helpful. As no doubt you are finding out here.<p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>As far as your opinion on "judgement" I think we will have to leave it as such, an opinion. For myself, I will stick with what it says in the Bible and let the scriptures speak for themselves.<p>Now you are trying to put words in my mouth. I have not judged Talitha, that is not the point here. She knows right from wrong and has judged that she made a mistake. She doesn't need to hear it from me - she already knows it. It's not an issue and never was the issue - my issue was always with your inaccurate representation of Christian doctrine. Talitha needs to hear how to move forward at this point. <hr></blockquote><p>Did you not just post a whole bunch of quotes about how you are called to JUDGE. And then you tell Talitha you are not JUDGING her. Are you a hypocrite?? Don't bother to answer.<p>I will simply tell you this. You are not qualified nor well enough schooled to judge my religious beliefs. So stop it NOW. <p>This is a place to rebuild marriages not a theological seminary and we don't need the religious police here. [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] <p>JL

Is that your judgement? [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

JL, in all seriousness, it was not my intent to infuriate you but only to point out what you have said yourself, that you speak your opinion rather than Christian doctrine. We are obviously not in disagreement about that point so I am mystified by the temper tantrum. Christian doctrine comes from the Bible and not the imagination of man. But then, I have already pointed this out to you to no avail. <p>I don't think that that warrants an attack calling me a hypocrite and questioning my own Christianity - that is uncalled for. Never have I questioned your Christianity, only your misrepresentation of Christian doctrine. Just as I am in no position to question your Christianity, you are also in no such position to judge me. I hope you get over your anger and agree that this should drop.
[img]images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0[/img]

No ML it was not uncalled for it was dead on. [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Since Judging is so much a mainstay of YOUR CHRISTAIN DOCTRINE, please enjoy being judged.<p>You post were deeply offensive to me and your arrogance is even more offensive.<p>This will be our last communciation.<p>JL

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Just Learning:
<strong>No ML it was not uncalled for it was dead on. [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Since Judging is so much a mainstay of YOUR CHRISTAIN DOCTRINE, please enjoy being judged.<p>You post were deeply offensive to me and your arrogance is even more offensive.<p>This will be our last communciation.<p>JL</strong><hr></blockquote><p>But you said it was WRONG to judge, remember? So wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

I must have a death wish, but here goes nothing...<p>I think it is reasonable to assume we all know nobody is the final authority on what God (or the Bible) "means"....so ipso facto, everything is "opinion" and ones personal Christian walk (or not) shouldn't really be an issue....nor should how one "states" their opinion (some forcefully, some more circumspect)...I think it is more about style than anything sinister....<p>I don't know why these blowups occur (but they do all the time it seems), seems more like personality clash than anything else...personally whenever someone makes a religious argument (with, or without Scripture) I just consider their argument as I will, and recognize it for the opinion it is...maybe right, maybe wrong, maybe not even relevant....but that we each have to decide for ourself anyways.<p>However, I do consider it rude to question others religious walk, since no of us can possibly know anyones relationship with God. But I do think it is perfectly ok to call someone on a point that is pretty much accepted as Christian doctrine (although even that can be a can of worms)...<p>anyways, that's my sermon for the evening. Have a nice night.

LOL! Thanks for the input, Reverend sad_n_lonely. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img]

MelodyLane - I don't know why I am responding to this except that your tone towards JL is extremely offensive.<p>Let me first state that I am *not* religious. That being said, however, I would gladly offer my morals to compare against any bible-thumper's any day of the week. They would certainly compare very favorably.<p>In my mid-teen years, like so many others, I was searching for my place in the world. Having been sent to Sunday School when I was young, I naturally tried the church to see if it could answer some of my questions and give me guidance.<p>That experiment ended when I was confronted by church leaders whose attitudes compare with yours: self-righteous, "holier-than-thou", arrogant know-it-alls. The coup-de-grace was a heated discussion that I engaged in with the church minister. I started when he informed me that "all Catholics are going to hell". I questioned him in that according to the Protestant teachings, all one had to do to go to heaven was to believe that Jesus was the son of god, and didn't Catholics believe that too. "Yes,", he replied, "but that doesn't matter, they are going to hell anyway".<p>So much for "Christian Doctrine". It's people like that minister and you that gave me the belief that most organized religion is hypocrisy.<p>I was wondering that since you are such the expert on these matters, which seminary did you attend that made you the expert? And/or with what religious scholars did you study? OR, did that 900 foot tall Jesus visit your backyard the night after he paid the call on Oral Roberts?<p>And don't even bother to start trying to debate religion with me. Almost every religion is based on faith, not reality, not fact. In fact, Christianity is probably the most faith-based of all the religions. At least there is historical third-party evidence that Mohammed actually lived. There is no evidence of any kind that Jesus Christ the man, ever lived and walked on this earth. So this is a place you do not want to go.<p>I am happy for anyone who has faith in any religion and uses that faith to better mankind and/or themselves. I admire that in a person. I just don't believe any of it, but respect the beliefs of others. Once you cross the line and try to force that belief on others or question another's faith or commitment, you have crossed the line into sin in any religion. You have committed that sin with your "attack" on JL.

Hey Heartpain,<p>If you want to reject the Bible and reject religion that is your right, just reject it and move on. <p>As far as my committing a sin by "attacking JL," if you read my posts you will see that I never attacked JL. [not that that would be a "sin" but you wouldn't know that, would you?] It is not a "sin" to correct inaccurate doctrine - it is, rather, a COMMAND. But you wouldn't know that either, would you?<p>Might be a sin in the annals of political correctness and popular society, but sure not in Christian doctrine.<p>Regarding your remarks that there is no proof that Jesus walked the earth, you only expose your ignorance of simple basic world history. There aren't even any ANTI-Christian historical scholars who doubt that. <p>I always love it when you armchair quarterbacks always have an opinion on everything but can't be bothered to study a anything.<p>But like you said, you think none of it's based in reality anyway, so you can't legitimately object to anyone's religious views. Not anyones without contradicting yourself. Tolerance cuts both way, you know?

MelodyLane,<p>I don't *know* you other than what's posted on these boards, but I do know both JL and Heartpain very well. They don't need me to "stick up for them" but I'll tell ya, they are reason enough for me to have dropped by this thread. They are both lovely men, and personify, to ME, what it means to be Husbands and Friends.<p>I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins. NOTHING else matters, does it?<p>I was also on that thread about second marriages. I didn't quote Bible, but added a link that TnT gave me. In that link, there are verses to support second marriages being validated by God. There are also verses in the Bible which say outright that second marriages are not blessed by God. Okieman brought those verses up, didn't he?<p>This is the reason I personally have a problem with the Bible. I have faith in God, and in Jesus, who I believe in, but not in the Bible, which I feel has been corrupted over the years. But that's neither here nor there to this discussion.<p>What does matter to me, as a point of discussion, is how some Christians feel that it's "their way or the highway"... with regard to situations that have nothing to do with a faith in Jesus Christ, as God's Son. It is JUDGEMENT, pure and simple, and judgement is BEST LEFT TO GOD. <p>I have been in churches where judgement reigned supreme, and I have been the bearer of judgement. I have found that when I judged most harshly, the thing I judged came to pass in my own life. <p>I'd like to think that we can speak to each other with compassion, not judgement. I'd like to trust God to take care of that.

Sheryl,<p>Having studied the Bible for years, I believe it to be the most compassionate, forgiving, just, aewsome document ever presented to mankind. It is the product of the God that many of us so love and know here. And I say that as someone who has studied it for several years. Yes, there are several versions, but the meanings are the same. It is not the world's only unknowable book. <p>That being said, the scriptures we were discussing spoke about justifications for divorce. However, if you read the Bible in context you will see that divorce is certainly not the unforgivable sin. Those scriptures caution against frivolous divorce, as we would all agree with. And for good reason. Just look at all the pain and destruction that is left in the wake of divorce. <p>If you read the Bible in it's context you will be amazed at the forgiveness and love. The Apostle Paul was a murderer and he was forgiven. But by the same token, we are commanded to judge right from wrong. God judges PEOPLE but we are commanded to judge right from wrong. <p>Non-judgementalism is only a sin in the political correctness movement. Where it is worse to state that something is bad than it is to do the actual crime.<p>Anyway, I should point out that the Christian religion derives from the Bible, that is where we get our information about Christianity. While some parts are hard to take, the point is not to make us comfortable, but to convey to us the thoughts of God. <p>But, you have the free will to reject it. That is your right. I always felt like I should learn it before I reject it and in learning it have embraced it. I will be tolerant of your rejection but I would ask that you be as tolerant of my acceptance of the Bible.

Hard Sayings - IF JESUS WAS HERE<p>Newsmax
11-17-98
Joseph Sobran<p>
One of the most common charges against the Christian Right is that it's not "truly" Christian. Liberals call the Christian Right harsh, intolerant, judgmental, puritanical, eager to impose its views on others, and generally opposed to the spirit of Jesus.<p>
If Jesus were here, we are told, he would be gentle, nonjudgmental, and pluralistic, on the side of civil rights, gay rights and the welfare state; he would abhor the negativism of those who profess to speak in his name.<p>Unfortunately, the Jesus of the Gospels bears no resemblance to this nice liberal Jesus. Liberals would find him downright un-Christian.<p>Pluralism? Jesus claimed to be "the light of the world" and "the bread of life." He said things like this: "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." He told his enemies: "You are from your father the devil."<p>Jesus warned his disciples: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he who will not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." <p>Can't we all just get along? Isn't being nice what Christianity is all about? "Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth; I came to bring not peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man at odds with his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law. And a man's enemies will be those of his own household."<p>As for the idea that Jesus would be indulgent toward private acts between consenting adults, it was consent itself that he condemned: "Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." You can't get much more puritanical than that!<p>"So if your hand or your foot offends you, cut them off, and throw them away," he said. "And if your eye offends you, tear it out and throw it away."<p>Tolerance? He told his apostles: "And whoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake the dust off your feet; truly I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."<p>He also warned that "of every idle word that men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment." Time and again he said things liberals would find, well, severely disappointing: "The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them who do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." "The angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire." "Whoever offends one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck and if he were drowned in the depths of the sea." <p>One trembles to say it, but all in all, Jesus probably wouldn't qualify for membership in People for the American Way. The Christian Right is at least much more in his style. Many of his sayings were so stern and frightening that they drove away his weaker disciples: "This is a hard saying," they would mutter; "who can accept it?"<p>They are still hard sayings. They were necessary because Jesus had come to warn men that their souls were in danger, in need of repentance and redemption.<p>After 2,000 years, Jesus is still hated. That may be the best clue to what he was and is; nobody today hates Julius Caesar. Caesar doesn't trouble you about your soul.<p>But those who hate Jesus don't say so openly; they merely profess to admire a watered-down edition of his message, without the hard sayings.<p>It comes down to this: Do we have souls, or not? If not, no problem. But what if we do?

ML,<p>Just a few thoughts, since I really (I promise!) did not come onto this thread to discuss the Bible...<p>I got saved/born again when I was 15 years old. I am now 43. Believe me, I know my Bible.<p>I do not hate the Bible or anything to do with it. I question it's literal translation, and find what I feel are contradictions (as have many people). Due to that, I feel that the words of God, who I believe ORIGINALLY breathed into the Word, has been corrupted.<p>I don't think Jesus was a la-la left-winger... but I also don't think he was a hard-nosed right-winger. Jesus, of course, was perfect. I would assume that also goes to His personality - a perfect balance.<p>I do have a HUGE problem with people who insist that they have the ONLY way to interpret God's Word. I feel that some people do more harm to Christianity than evil-doers, because they turn those who might be interested, right OFF from the things of God. <p>I DO believe that God is a God of LOVE. Sorry, but that's how I see Him.

Sheryl,<p>I would strongly disagree that the Bible is corrupted since our current versions line up with the oldest manuscripts. It is the most accurate, oldest text in the world. <p>Even so, if you believe the Bible is corrupt then where do you get your information about Christinity since that is THE essential Christian doctrine, the Word of God? Where else would you possibly obtain information?<p>Also, the Bible is to be read and interpreted as any other book, by the author's intent. It is no different from any other book in that aspect. The literal parts are to be taken literally, the symbolic parts are to be taken symbolically, etc. It is no different than any other book. It is not open to private interpretation, but again, meant to be interpreted as to the author's intent. <p>And yes, He is a God of love and mercy, but He is also a God of justice. The only information we have about Him is from the Bible and that is HOW we know that.<p>[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</p>

ML - Let me just say your smug, self-serving arrogance is detestable and I hope that it's not part of your true personality, but only a manifestation of your "cyber-self". Additionally, your sarcasm could be an effective tool, except that you do so poorly with it.<p>I find it very interesting and germain to my points that you refused to answer my questions: <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I was wondering that since you are such the expert on these matters, which seminary did you attend that made you the expert? And/or with what religious scholars did you study? OR, did that 900 foot tall Jesus visit your backyard the night after he paid the call on Oral Roberts?<hr></blockquote><p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Regarding your remarks that there is no proof that Jesus walked the earth, you only expose your ignorance of simple basic world history. There aren't even any ANTI-Christian historical scholars who doubt that.<hr></blockquote>
Ok, for the above assertion, please provide references to your "evidence" or we can just assume that you don't know what you are talking about. As far as knowing world history, I have no doubts that I am quite informed on this topic, considering the history awards I received in school and the fact that my knowledge of history comes from many, many more sources that the bible. On this point, why are there NO writings from the Roman historians of the time who lived in Palestine and wrote much about many other less trivial matters?<p>FYI, there was a book out 13 years ago called "The First Coming", written by a biblical scholar and Vatican researcher who stipulated that there is much doubt that Jesus was actually the son of god. This was a possibility held by several of his peers at the Vatican. Considering that this person had a PhD in Theology, I think it is safe to assume that he would be more knowledgable than you on this subject as you have not, or will not, subject your scholarly background to scrutiny.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I always love it when you armchair quarterbacks always have an opinion on everything but can't be bothered to study a anything<hr></blockquote>
As I said above, I believe my background is more solid and open-minded than yours. I read the bible cover-to-cover many, many times, BUT, it's not the only source for my knowledge as it is for some.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>But like you said, you think none of it's based in reality anyway, so you can't legitimately object to anyone's religious views. Not anyones without contradicting yourself. Tolerance cuts both way, you know?<hr></blockquote>
I do not object to anyone's religious beliefs, never have, never will. Whatever floats your boat. What I object to is mindless, robotic challenges to what someone else believes and specious argumentation. I have no problem with what you want to believe. If it made you a better person, I would even applaud it. It's obvious, however, that you have no tolerance for other well-considered views when they conflict with your own. This is the point that Sheryl was trying to make and it went right over your head.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Non-judgementalism is only a sin in the political correctness movement.<hr></blockquote> If this is true, how do you interpret the verse where is says: judge not lest ye be judged???<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I would strongly disagree that the Bible is corrupted since our current versions line up with the oldest manuscripts. It is the most accurate, oldest text in the world.<hr></blockquote>
Please give us your evidence of this. I can provide reasoned suggestions(backed with fact) that the opposite is true:
TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE
King James Version Bible Translation Errors
Which Bible Translation?
Serious Translational Errors in the New King James Bible
Bible Errors
10 Context Free Bible Errors<p>The above I found in, oh, 30 seconds!! And there were thousands more...<p>Also, BTW, the story of a worldwide flood was related in the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written long before the events in Noah's flood supposedly took place(but with your unparalleled knowledge of history, you probably already knew that)
The Epic of Gilgamesh<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>It comes down to this: Do we have souls, or not? If not, no problem. But what if we do?<hr></blockquote> Again, demonstrating your vast knowledge of history and society, you attribute the belief in souls only to those of your own ilk. Problem is, nearly every society that ever existed believed in the existence of the soul. I do...<p>Specious argument without any corroboration leads nowhere and only demonstrates the inability to open one's mind.<p>[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Heartpain ]</p>

heartpain, I personally really like religious discussion, but this thread is a little too personal for my tastes (generally I just figure let others say what they want anyway they want, and only address the issues..but that's just me). Still I did want to comment on one of your points, Biblical accuracy...<p>This comes up all the time of course, and IMO it is a bit of a red herring....let's take it as a given no one can PROVE the Bible is accurate or not, over the centuries (much less what every word of it actually means). So what do we do? Just take what we want, and ignore what we don't as a translation error, and plug in what we "think" instead....that is a no-gain outcome, might as well just trash the whole thing? Well, that doesn't work either, we need something to base life choices on, and it needs to be consistent with reality....<p>The answer to your references re Bible validity are this....<p>1. Subject the Bible to epistemology inspection, and see what shakes out. That has been done, several times (sorry no reference, been a while since I read up on this, but I would think you could search it out). In terms of knowledge handed down over these kinds of historical time, the Bible is incredibly internally consistent, drift is almost non-existent (and there are ways of determininf internal drift), it is the most accurate body of knowledge the human race possesses (in an epistemological sense), and far surpasses any other similar works re who we are.<p>2. Subject the Bible to independent historical cooroberation. And while much cannot be definitively proven historically, NOTHING has beend disproven by various facts as they become known. (again lots of treatsies on this stuff, y believers and non-believers alike, just search it out).<p>3. Lastly, Scripture is in part a "belief" in that God will not let His word be hidden from us. So it is a leap of faith, you either believe the Bible is the inspired word of God or you don't.... there is no middle ground. There are logical arguments for this, which I won't give here.... but the thrust of such arguments revolve around does it make more sense to beleive the Bible is accurate, or disbelieve that, in making choices....logic takes you to accepting the accuracy, not doing so reduces your likelihood of survival (secualrly and spiritually).

snl - Look, I have no problems at all with someone stating that they believe something which cannot be proven/disproven. My hackles are raised when someone tells another that they are dead wrong without being able to back it up. This is especially true in the Christian faith. Regardless of ML's inaccurate assertions, I do know enough about the bible and various Christian sects to realize that a great deal of the bible is about interpretations. One cannot assert the absolute truth or falsity of an interpretation.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>NOTHING has beend disproven by various facts<hr></blockquote>As much as you enjoy logic and wordplay, surely you realize that is fallacious(sp?) to insist that someone "prove the negative". I know that this next example is part of an ongoing furor, but for almost all creditable scientists and reasoned-thinking people, the "Theory of Evolution" has pretty much moved from "theory" to "fact". Just too much corroborating evidence. Therefore, considering this, one cannot take the biblical story of creation literally. If that is true, then how much more scripture cannot be taken literally.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Just take what we want, and ignore what we don't as a translation error, and plug in what we "think" instead<hr></blockquote>
This is exactly what many people do, then assert that what they believe is the "truth".<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>...logic takes you to accepting the accuracy...<hr></blockquote>Logic has very, very little to do with accepting the "accuracy" of the bible.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>the Bible is incredibly internally consistent, drift is almost non-existent<hr></blockquote>
This is only, in any way, demonstrably true in the Old Testament and only in the history and genealogy of the major players. Again, however, if you subject this to reasoned analysis, assuming reasonable lifespans for the players, the numbers making up the timeframe involved add up. Doesn't mean it isn't for the most part true, just that a literal interpretation is easily discredited.<p>Besides, again, where most scholars do think the bible is fairly accurate is in the simple telling of the history of the Israelites, but this is subject to the "numbers analysis" I mentioned above.

..snl quote...the Bible is incredibly internally consistent, drift is almost non-existent<p>dewayne....This is only, in any way, demonstrably true in the Old Testament and only in the history and genealogy of the major players. Again, however, if you subject this to reasoned analysis, assuming reasonable lifespans for the players, the numbers making up the timeframe involved add up. Doesn't mean it isn't for the most part true, just that a literal interpretation is easily discredited.
Besides, again, where most scholars do think the bible is fairly accurate is in the simple telling of the history of the Israelites, but this is subject to the "numbers analysis" I mentioned above.<p>snl...Let me clarify, my point is not whether the things the Bible says are correct, but that the Bible has not suffered translation errors (as you suggested). btw, none of this has anything to do with what I think or don't, I am just stating the current body of information we have....<p>If the Bible has not suffered tranlation errors, and historical drift (like all other human knowledge) that is a "reason" to contemplate why not, and what that implies about the claim of being the word of God. These studies have been done, perhaps you haven't read them, fascinating stuff (and pure science, has nothing to do with the underlying belief)...are you famililar with the science of epistemology? And the findings apply to both the old and new testaments.<p>Now when you start talking about interpretation, sure, plenty of room for argument, and rightly so, as we all struggle to apply this to our lives. I do think we can use logic (God made us able to do that), and assign likelihood to various interpretations. If logic takes us to a certain conclusion with a 90% confidence level (math term), then we probably need to go with that in making decisions.....if we have 2 competeing choices each 50% then maybe flip a coin.... if one we like is only 5% well, that's a problem, lots of prayer in order at the very least. There will always be interpretation conflict, but the basic tenents seem pretty clear, and hard to fathom what purpose is served arguing whether Jesus existed or not (for one example), or whether God is female or male, or a lot of other things.<p>IMO the only real purpose the Bible exists, is too provide a repository of evidence discernible to human beings over time, in order to do one thing, make a leap of faith....that being accepting Jesus lived, died for our sins, and those who beleive in this will have everlasting life...that is pretty much it. The rest of the "stuff" is IMO about helping people stay focused, and so forth, cause somehow God assesses whether we really believe or not, and since freewill exists, we have the capacity to think we beleive, but not really.<p>btw, my hackles use to raise too for reasons you describe, rarely happens anymore (maybe is an age thing)...it makes no difference whether someone tells me (or anyone) they are dead wrong, why would it? Just stick to the discussion and let the argument speak for itself, is a lot less emotionally draining as well...thanks for your response.<p>btw, the literal vs allegorical etc. arguments are interesting, I do not think the Bible is literal, nor do I think God represents it as so (far as I know). Anyways re evolution and creationism, I personally see no conflict, they both say the same thing.<p>[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: sad_n_lonely ]</p>

Thank you very much snl. Many of your points I do find disagreement with, but I very much respect your beliefs and the way you have presented them.<p>"are you famililar with the science of epistemology?" Yes, in the book I mentioned earlier, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity , Sheeham uses epistemological arguments to make his case: "Far from believing that he was founding a new religion, Jesus of Nazareth, according to Sheehan, a Loyola theologian, preached the end of religion and the living presence of God among men and women".<p>This book is out of print, but if you can find it, I would recommend it to you because you do seem open to new ideas, even if they will just reinforce what you already believe.<p>"but that the Bible has not suffered translation errors (as you suggested)" Let me be clear, I didn't just suggest this, I am reporting on the research of others, many with a stronger background on this topic and a lot more letters after their name than you or me.<p>One of the big problems I have run into when discussing these topics with others is the insistence to "prove the negative". "I believe everything in the Bible is true and accurate, but I cannot prove that or even give any credible evidence, but you must disprove it or I am right". This disasterous illogic seems to pop up more in discussions of religion than anywhere else. Many of the people who take this stance would ridicule its application elsewhere.<p>Hypothetical example...I believe in leprechauns and you do not. I posit that if you cannot prove that they do not exist, then that is evidence that they do. Ludicrous...<p>"NOTHING has beend disproven by various facts as they become known". There have indeed been "facts" in the bible that have been disproven by historical fact. Once you weigh known fact against what hasn't been "disproven"(in the bible), you are still left with the "leap of faith" you spoke of. There simply is no universal right or wrong on this position.<p>Nice sparring with you....

Thanks dewayne, yep, no letters on my name at all actually [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] but I am loathe to turn over the world to the experts...right? (well unless I need brain surgury or something [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>anyways re the proving a negative thing, yes is a vexing conundrum, cause we still gotta believe something (in order to make decisions)<p>dewayne...Hypothetical example...I believe in leprechauns and you do not. I posit that if you cannot prove that they do not exist, then that is evidence that they do. Ludicrous...<p>snl..I have an answer for that though, and will do so using your example.<p>In the absence of definitive proof (not that anything is actually definitive, even the laws of sceience), one has to still make decisions....so what to do. Well I can make choices factoring in leprercauns do exist, or I can that they don't, either way incurs consequences, and the consequences vary depending on whether you chose rightly or not...so I do not need to "prove" lepercauns exist, in order to act as if they don't...<p>One cannot prove God does not exist, but the consequences of getting that wrong are staggering.... I don't know what being lost for eternity really means, but it don't sound good. Therefore in assessing the information available, I have to compare the secular argument with the theological argument, and the consequences do matter...really matter. Fortuneately (at least in Christian terms) the choice trees for secular paradigms and Christian paradigms are almost identical for everything humans come up against...but they should be IMO, and is all the more evidence that God does exist. Beleiveing in God, or not believeing in God both require leaps of faith, cause both have dire consequences if wrong leap is made, couching it in a prove the negative argument defeats that realization and defaults one to no God...do you see the problem, that argument is flawed...in that it has a preconceived outcome for reality. <p>If you haven't seen it, check out Creator and the Cosmos, by Hugh Ross, he pulls together all the scientific proof God exists, IMO the preponderance of all the evidence (including the Bible) is He does...if so, then we can argue over how He has revealed Himself to us, and what should we do about it.