ForumGarden

Hoss:-6

I do understand your age and your lack of time. That can be a problem.

My whole purpose is to have other Christians realize that there are other Christians who do think and see things differently.

My view of God is very simple. God is beyond human understanding and human language. We cannot fathom God but our experiences assure us of his reality and his or her love.. I do like the Buddhist view that trying to name God is blasphemy.

I believe and understand that the love of God is unconditional. If it is not unconditional than it is not love. The moment one adds conditions than it is clearly not love.

There is only One which is called God. What varies between people is their concept of God. This is human nature and is in part based on culture. Folks who worship God worship God. Who has the right concept? I dare say none of us. God is beyond our conceptualization ability. Thus I do not presume to be God or understand It. I do not judge people that is God's role alone.

You speak as if somehow I am preventing folks from finding God because of what I say. To be honest and I hope not unkind that is pure arrogance. You are claiming that you and you alone have the correct approach. That is a nice thought but totally false. None of us has the hot line upstairs as it were. I would personally never dare to assume that I have all of the correct answers. I have personal view based on many years of study, reading, praying, meditation, discussion etc. My view is not solely mine. It is a view that I came to independently and was later confirmed by many scholarly Christians.

In line with that I have heard and read that Christian fundamentalism is the main reason that many have become atheists or agnostics. I've seen it here in the garden and have a very good friend who is an avowed atheist; turned off by being asked to believe what they considered totally absurd. The fact is that on a personal level I do not think what individuals think is necessarily wrong. In fact I believe that both you and I can be correct.

My view on the Bible is the result of many years of study and reading and conversing with scholars. I am well acquainted with the history of the Bible. It seems to me that far too many people have elevated the Bible to the level of Bibliolatry. How so? In John 16 Jesus is portrayed as saying that what we had was not the end of the truth. He is reported as having said that he had more to tell us but we were not yet ready to understand. He said the spirit of truth would come to reveal more truths as we were able to grasp them. Far to many people treat the Bible as the end of revelation quite in contradiction to the apparent words of Jesus.

The Bible is a book of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, short story, fiction, parables of Jesus and parables about Jesus, philosophy and theology. It has a few kernels of history spread throughout. The Bible has been altered, added to subtracted from,edited, redacted etc. It was written by Jews in a style referred to as midrash which makes a great deal of use of metaphor etc. It was never intended to be read literally. The Jews themselves generally believe this to be the case.

The Jews also believe that the Bible is to be reinterpreted as time goes on and new knowledge and ways of thinking come up. (Rabbi R. Daum) If you want a list of books I can give them to you. This is what prevents the Bible from becoming a dead book and makes it live even today.

You spoke of reading it in context. Absolutely. Context begins with era in which it was written, the culture, the language, the audience for whom it was written. Context does not begin with the first verse of Genesis and end with the last verse of Revelation. Words have changed their meaning over the millenia. Some of the Hebrew words have translations that are quite questionable.

When the Bible was compiled into the present canon we now have the scholars had multiple and different copies of each book; some 5000+. Among those 5000 books there were over 400 000 variants. (Bart Ehrman). The scholars are in no way assured they have the original wording. In fact some of them will disagree about a particular passage.

I take the Bible very seriously but I do not take it literally. It becomes the word of God because God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible. God also speaks to us through the many writings that have come to us down through the centuries. Anything else is to limit God.

Final comment. I do believe that God follows the rules he set up. His love for his creation is tempered. God does not play by different rules than the people he created. To do otherwise is to make the Divine untrustworthy. And no I do not accept just what I want to. I accept what the Bible says, along with what the church or tradition say along with what the common sense that God has given me. God does not have to limit him/her self but has chosen to for your sake and mine as well as the rest of the cosmos. Creation is sacred, all of it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

posted by hoss

It’s much easier for you to type out your short reference and say what someone else said, I have to take your word for it since I am not going to waste half my day reading a book that I regard as heresy in the first place.




So who told you it was heresy? In another age you yourself would have been burned as a heretic- (I assume you are not a catholic therefore you follow a heretical faith.) heresy is relative. Why do you believe what you believe? All reading so called heresy will do is affirm your belief because you've had to think about it. The fear that you may lose your faith is a real one which is why many religious groups are so determined to stop their followers thinking for themselves.

Read everything, make up your own mind. Which is heretical viewpoint that would have got me burned at the stake once upon a time.

posted by hoss

On the contrary it may very well mean one of us has a wrong view of God altogether and believes we worship and does not. I don’t see how both of our views of God could be right at the same time. So either I am or your not, or your not and I am.


Given that you both believe in god is it not rather silly to argue about who sees the real god? Both of you-from the others viewpoint- have heretical views.

I am 18, you are a well studied man of advanced years, no matter how wise I may be (not that I am) It will appear as me being a know it all kid.


Don't worry age will cure you of being a teenager. It hasn't cured Ted of being religious but I have faith he will see the light:sneaky:

posted by hoss

In the process of following after God I have become an enemy to the world. So if God is right, am I the rebel or is the world?

If the world is right and there is no God then I am a rebel and there's a certain rogue element to that, that is very enjoyable.

The problem is that both Ted and I cannot be right, we hold contradictory beliefs. If he is right, then by default he has allowed me to enter into his ways by me just believing in God and doing justice and having compassion. But if my way is right then he has the wrong understanding of who God is and misses the mark. His wide road view directly contradicts the bible, so he changes the bible to suit his needs. But the bible very clearly states the wide road is towards destruction and the narrow road is towards salvation.

It pains me to see so many on the wide road, but that’s what free choice is about, they must choose in their lifetimes which road to take. I can appeal and show anyone the way to the narrow road, but I can't force them down it.


So agree to live and let live. I don't believe what Ted does either but he has admitted he's irrational:D as all faith is.

Which is the basis for our discussion about Islam, Islam forces a march down what they perceive as the only narrow road. Which is really just a made up road, it’s the same wide road to destruction because they are choosing their own way instead of the true Gods way.


There are many christians who have a similar disposition to islamic extremists and given half a chance they will force others in to their churches and condemn and impose their beliefs on those who do not share their faith or lifestyle. I feel the same way about them as I do about muslim extremists. There have been many occasions in the past where that is exactly what happened, that they do not now do so is only because in this time in which we live they can't. But the disposition is still there. Perhaps the fault is inherent in mankind rather than the religions they use to justify their excesses. But if god made man:eek:

Hug an atheist when you meet them for they have also thought about this and find it fascinating-otherwise they wouldn't be so sure they are atheists. Then ask them why they believe as they do. A surprising number will have actually read the bible and much else besides. Disagreement and controversy are the best whetstones to sharpen your wits.

Hoss;1004606 wrote:

No, I don’t believe all Muslims are terrorists but I do believe most all of them are one step away from open terrorism of Christianity and anyone else for that matter. When the conditions are right and the ‘center’ can get away with it, then they will kill in order to cleanse the world of all that oppose them. I do believe that their religion allows for terrorism to it masses by teaching that they intend to convert the world by force if/when necessary the ones who act on terrorism now have already made that step. Christianity teaches to give the hope within us by being ready when they ask for the hope they see in us. If they don’t see hope in us then we aren’t Christian. It’s very simple to me how that works.




Then you are wrong!

You are wrong in the way that an outsider would view a fire and brimstone preacher as the be-all and end-all of Christianity.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law abiding, normal citizens much the same as their Christian counterparts are.

Hoss;1004607 wrote: That is a tough one, let me think on it a bit and I'll answer you back with more thought behind me instead of a quick answer.


That's all I'm ever trying to achieve :-6

Hoss:-6

Could you please show me where I have changed the Bible?

As for the rest of your post it is basically the Christian arrogance of fundamentalism. Theologians today call it triumphalism and exclusivism. Many now realize that such has no place in Christianity.

Of course I have never admitted to being irrational. If I am irrational than atheism is irrational since neither can be proven scientifically in any way. (Hans Kung)

The big error among many Christians is that they think they need the "right belief" but Christianity is not about right faith but about a relationship with God. With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world and many of them think they have the only way it is ludicrous.

On page 196 of "The Origin of All Things" Kung makes the point that all of the world's great faiths are ways to God. Here again it is about relationship and not right belief. Who has right belief?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1005981 wrote: Hoss:-6

Could you please show me where I have changed the Bible?

As for the rest of your post it is basically the Christian arrogance of fundamentalism. Theologians today call it triumphalism and exclusivism. Many now realize that such has no place in Christianity.

Of course I have never admitted to being irrational. If I am irrational than atheism is irrational since neither can be proven scientifically in any way. (Hans Kung)

The big error among many Christians is that they think they need the "right belief" but Christianity is not about right faith but about a relationship with God. With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world and many of them think they have the only way it is ludicrous.

On page 196 of "The Origin of All Things" Kung makes the point that all of the world's great faiths are ways to God. Here again it is about relationship and not right belief. Who has right belief?

Shalom

Ted:-6
and your opinions on "i am the way, the truth and the life."

Hoss;1006278 wrote: Good one Omni!:)
Hoss. When you look at the sky and decide that it is blue, would you argue that the sky is aqua, royal blue, light blue or another color of blue?



Sometimes we all see different aspects of the exact same thing and then we go,act or believe in the way we feel best.

YZGI;1006282 wrote: Hoss. When you look at the sky and decide that it is blue, would you argue that the sky is aqua, royal blue, light blue or another color of blue?



Sometimes we all see different aspects of the exact same thing and then we go,act or believe in the way we feel best.that sounds a little like post modernism...

Omni_Skittles;1006285 wrote: that sounds a little like post modernism...
I have no idea what that is.

Hoss;1006337 wrote: I don't know if I'd argue such a subtle difference, as a kid I wasn't to good on colors, kept coloring the grass purple and such.



Ted is saying that God will look the other way against his stated judgment to honor a person who openly chooses to believe falsely about him. That’s not arguing a subtle shade of blue in the spectrum.



Am I not being fair in my arguements?
In life it just maybe a subtle shade, who knows for sure. It doesn't mean your way or his way is wrong. It means that we all see different colors or shades of God. That doesn't mean GOD is different shades it means GOD is what everyone needs for themselves. You choose the shade of God that you need for yourself and be confident that God chose that shade for you.

Hoss;1006337 wrote: I don't know if I'd argue such a subtle difference, as a kid I wasn't to good on colors, kept coloring the grass purple and such.



Ted is saying that God will look the other way against his stated judgment to honor a person who openly chooses to believe falsely about him. That’s not arguing a subtle shade of blue in the spectrum.

Am I not being fair in my arguements?


But that's exactly what your particular interpretation of the scripture is.

How many different brands of Christianity are there? Each with their own interpretation of the scripture and each arguing that it is only their interpretation that is correct - is the sky aqua or light blue, does the Pope interpret or intermediate, same God, different Church.

Hoss;1007512 wrote: I can't imagine Ted and I being just a few shades off of blue. He's Violet and I'm red!


That's the whole point, from the viewpoint of a Hindu you're both shades of brown.

There was once a culture who's religion was based on the symbolism of food. As religions do, it suffered a schism which led to endless wars and bitter conflict. The cause of this rift? The agreed on everything but whether a boiled egg should be opened at the big end or the little end. To this culture it was the defining question of the universe - to an outsider .......

Omni:-6

First of all this is not just my interpretation but one I came to on my own and subsequently supported by scholarship.

The fact is it is not at all likely that Jesus ever spoke those words. They cannot be traced back to this historical Jesus. This does not mean they are not true in one way or another.

The word "way" used throughout the Bible means a road or a path. Jesus is the path (metaphorically) in that he showed us by teaching and example how we are to live. His way is a truth and it is the way to live (life). Jesus has shown us in a radical way how we are to live. If you Read Matt. 25 carefully you will see that this is consistent with his teaching.

So where did these words come from. They are the words of the early church passed onto us through the person of Jesus. These are words that the writer of the gospel of John put into Jesus mouth expressing what the early church had come to believe about Jesus.

Yes Jesus is "The way the truth and the Life for Christians.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Hoss:-6

You have not answered my question. Where have I changed the Bible?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1007640 wrote: Omni:-6

First of all this is not just my interpretation but one I came to on my own and subsequently supported by scholarship.

The fact is it is not at all likely that Jesus ever spoke those words. They cannot be traced back to this historical Jesus. This does not mean they are not true in one way or another.

The word "way" used throughout the Bible means a road or a path. Jesus is the path (metaphorically) in that he showed us by teaching and example how we are to live. His way is a truth and it is the way to live (life). Jesus has shown us in a radical way how we are to live. If you Read Matt. 25 carefully you will see that this is consistent with his teaching.

So where did these words come from. They are the words of the early church passed onto us through the person of Jesus. These are words that the writer of the gospel of John put into Jesus mouth expressing what the early church had come to believe about Jesus.

Yes Jesus is "The way the truth and the Life for Christians.

Shalom

Ted:-6
i guess it's the whole thing where the rules of christianity only work for christians... or something like that....

Omni:-6

Actually it is a realization that Christianity is one of the ways. Religions are in a large part culturally based. This does not deny the reality of God. It does accept the fact that God has and does speak to various people of various cultures in a way that they can understand. It is also a realization that what really counts is our relationship with God not a right belief. With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world and many of them claiming to have the only right way we are faced with an absurdity.

God has and does continue to speak to all people in the way they can best understand. Christianity is one of those ways.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1008679 wrote: Omni:-6

Actually it is a realization that Christianity is one of the ways. Religions are in a large part culturally based. This does not deny the reality of God. It does accept the fact that God has and does speak to various people of various cultures in a way that they can understand. It is also a realization that what really counts is our relationship with God not a right belief. With some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world and many of them claiming to have the only right way we are faced with an absurdity.

God has and does continue to speak to all people in the way they can best understand. Christianity is one of those ways.

Shalom

Ted:-6i'm not going to lie... This is a bit of a extreme to believe...

Omni:-6

That is certainly an opinion to which you are entitled. Are you saying that God through the Holy Spirit could not have worked through the Buddha or Confuscious etc.?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1008692 wrote: Omni:-6

That is certainly an opinion to which you are entitled. Are you saying that God through the Holy Spirit could not have worked through the Buddha or Confuscious etc.?

Shalom

Ted:-6wow, I'm going to think on that before i respond.... explain to me why you think it would?

Omni:-6

Karen Armstrong has written two very good books "The Great Transformation" and "A History of God". In these she shows that each of the world's great faiths came out of two basic tenets: justice and compassion. They all come from the same basis based on the guidance of God. To add to that common sense suggests that it could not be otherwise. Different cultures understand things in different ways. The Bible is man's response to his experience of the Divine. This is also true in other cultures: Chinese, India, Japanese, Haida, Hutus etc.

Her work is well received by scholarly folks all around the world.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1008699 wrote: Omni:-6

Karen Armstrong has written two very good books "The Great Transformation" and "A History of God". In these she shows that each of the world's great faiths came out of two basic tenets: justice and compassion. They all come from the same basis based on the guidance of God. To add to that common sense suggests that it could not be otherwise. Different cultures understand things in different ways. The Bible is man's response to his experience of the Divine. This is also true in other cultures: Chinese, India, Japanese, Haida, Hutus etc.

Her work is well received by scholarly folks all around the world.

Shalom

Ted:-6I'll have to read it... honestly i'm a little hesitant to what you're are saying...

Omni:-6

Would it not make sense that since God loves his creation, all of the cosmos he would speak to all of his children in the bast way they could understand?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Omni:-6

Then I suggest that you read both of them. They are well researched and well documented. Beyond that I cannot help you. Since are hesitant to take my word then by all means read the books and do a little research.

She can be found on the net in several sites of which the following is only one. Google "Karen Armstrong".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/au ... e_continue

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1008705 wrote: Omni:-6

Then I suggest that you read both of them. They are well researched and well documented. Beyond that I cannot help you. Since are hesitant to take my word then by all means read the books and do a little research.

She can be found on the net in several sites of which the following is only one. Google "Karen Armstrong".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/au ... e_continue

Shalom

Ted:-6


Karen armstrong is one of those religious writers that picks bits of history that suit what she wants to find and ignores anything else. Fundamentalism is not an entirely new phenomenon-or at least the kind of mentality behind it (I am right thou art wrong-god says so) do some research under puritanism. They have also been politically successful in the states before-just look at what was behind prohibition.

posted by ted

The Bible is man's response to his experience of the Divine.


Actually it's a collection of fairy stories to explain the world around-like norse sagas but set in a hot country-and stories about actual natural events they couldn't understand except by believing in some mystical power, man made as well-when they jews got enslaved it was cos they had been bad not because they met a more powerful tribe. It's fascinating but hardly the word of god.

Flogging a dead horse though aren't I?:D Hate to tell you this but the more I partake in these threads the more I decide I'm really an atheist. Mind you i find a lot of evangelical atheists irritating.

gmc:-6

That is certainly an opinion to which you are entitled.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Just an interesting comment from Karen A. who is well respected by academics around the world.

Historian and former nun Karen Armstrong says the afterlife is a "red herring," hating religion is a pathology and that many Westerners cling to infantile ideas of God.

Another scholar Hans Kung essentially says the same thing but goes into the irrationality of atheism in his book "The Origin of Everything".

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/



Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;1009652 wrote: gmc:-6

That is certainly an opinion to which you are entitled.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I would defend your right to yours. Therein lies my objection to fundamentalists-too many of them think they have a god given right to impose their beliefs on others, albeit a minority perhaps, but they are an incredibly destructive force in society.



Another scholar Hans Kung essentially says the same thing but goes into the irrationality of atheism in his book "The Origin of Everything".




If belief in god is irrational so is non belief since neither can prove their case. All you can do is decide on balance of probability I belief there is one or there isn't.

From the article

You're saying all these different religions developed independently of each other. But there was a common message that emerged roughly around the same time.

Yes. Without any collusion, they all came up with a remarkably similar solution to the spiritual ills of humanity. Before the Axial Age, religions had been very different. They had been based largely on external rituals which gave people intimations of greatness. But there was no disciplined introspection before the Axial Age. The Axial sages discovered the inner world. And religions became much more spiritualized because humanity had taken a leap forward. People were creating much larger empires and kingdoms than ever before. A market economy was in its very early stages. That meant the old, rather parochial visions were no longer adequate. And these regions were torn apart by an unprecedented crescendo of violence. In every single case, the catalyst for religious change had been a revulsion against violence.

So what was the spiritual message that rejected violence?

First of all, they all insisted that you must give up and abandon your ego. The sages said the root cause of suffering lay in our desperate concern with self, which often needs to destroy others in order to preserve itself. And so they insisted that if we stepped outside the ego, then we would encounter what we call Brahman or God, nirvana or the Tao.


That, to put it bluntly I consider a load of cobblers. She wants religion to be the catalyst so everything to her points to it being so.

I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy. They should make a serious study of these. And let's not forget that in its short history, secularism has had some catastrophes.


Bit for hoss:sneaky:

Hoss;1010105 wrote: GMC,

LOL, I would counter by saying the violent passages in the bible that mention violence are a recording of history compared to verses in the Koran, the verses of violence in the Koran are imprecatory and command violence. The difference of course isn’t volume but the language that tells each religion to commit violence. The bible has no standing order for violence, whereas the Koran has many.


Have you actually read the koran?

Hoss:-6

You are totally wrong in my view of the Bible. I take the Bible very seriously but I don't take it literally. Most the Jewish world does not take it literally either. To take it literally is to make is an absurd and dead book.

God does speak to us through the words of the Bible but it is also subject to more than one valid interpretation and this two is the position of the Jews, the people who wrote the book.

God apparently okayed the invasion of Canaan and the slaughter of all but the virgins. LOL. This would imply that such behaviour is permissible. That is nonsense.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ah

Dogmatic atheism. Much the same as a dogmatic Christian.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Hoss:-6

In my view you are incorrect. However, I do not believe that God is at all worried about it.

I too follow the Bible but also use a little common sense as well as tradition. I do not see the Bible as the dictated word of God. It was written by inspired men but the Bible is not inerrant. In fact there are many errors and contradictions throughout.

You say you've studied the Bible. So have I, very intensively. But I have also studied the research related to the Bible and the history of both the times and the Bible as a book. I have also studied translation. I have also studied under the folks who wrote the book, the Jewish people.

The creation stories are myth. The Exodus story is a legend arising out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. The Noah story is a legend. The book of Ruth is a short story. Job is poetry and one of the best examples in the world. Things do not have to be historically accurate to teach profound truths. In fact profound truths are better taught by midrash and metaphor.

I could go on at length but to take the book literally is to make it a deead book of the past. To take it as midrash and metaphor and to interpret it in the light of today is to make it a very important and living book. Pushing the Bible literally has turned many folks away from any religion. That is to put a stumbling block between them and their faith. That is a no-no.

Until you are at least willing to read and think about what I say with an open mind you never will understand how I think or what I am saying. Notice, I said understand. That does not imply agreement.

I couldn't resist this: "You can take the "Hoss" to the trough but you can't make his drink." LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

I'm going to try to insert this here as I can't think of any other place at the moment. Have a good laugh.http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/image ... ghloud.gif



A child was asked to write a book report on the entire Bible.

This is amazing and brought tears of laughter to my eyes.

I wonder how often we take for granted that childrenunderstand

what we are teaching???



Through the eyes of a child:

The Children's Bible in a Nutshell



In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was

nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says,

'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.



Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did.

Then God made the world.



He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked,

but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been

invented yet.



Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad

apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden.

Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.



Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long

as he was Abel.



Pretty soon all of the early people died

off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.



One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy,

but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a

large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked

some other people to join him, but they said they would

have to take a rain check.



After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more

famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his

birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son

named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.



Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was

Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt

and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on

Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice,

bowels, and no cable.

=2 0



God fed the Israel Lights every day

with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments.

These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your

neighbor's stuff.



Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more:

Humor thy father and thy mother.



One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first

Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and

the fence fell over on the town.



After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a

giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had

about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise,

but that doesn't sound very wise to me.



After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets.

One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then

barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league

prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.

After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the

star of The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn.



(I wish I had been born in a barn20too, because my mom is always saying

to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would

be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')

During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like

the Pharisees and the Democrats.



Jesus also had twelve opossums.

The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they

named a terrible vegetable after him.



Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even

preached to some Germans on the Mount.



But the Democrats and all those guys put Jesus on trial before

Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.



Anyways, Jesu s died for our sins, then came back to life again.

He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the

Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.



I did work. Enjoy.

Shalom

Ted:-6:yh_clap







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Hoss;1013720 wrote: Yes, I had a neighbor about my age who is Muslim and he and I did some comparing between the two books. He told me he did not believe the Koran, he thinks it’s an outdated book, but he was fascinated by the bible! He was a spiritual being to me, he and I shared a love for God, but he was not allowed to follow God, only the Koran and the Muslim leaders.


What else do you read? I find the bible fascinating as a record of the history of one of the ancient people of this world and how they saw things. A lot of archeological research actually confirms some of the stories that were once thought of as myths-the flood being the most obvious but things like the parting of the red sea make sense if you know what happens to the sea level during an earthquake and just before a tsunami.

The myths in it-the creation myth is no different from the creation myths from all around the world and equally just that.

What I can't understand i how anyone can possibly believe the bible is the unchanged word of god down through the centuries. That god guided each translator is an absurd notion. That huge chunks were removed because it conflicted with what the church leaders wanted it's followers to believe is a fact.

People also travelled round far more in the past than we give them credit for-archaeological digs in Scotland dating back 2,000 or 3,000 years have pottery imported from the continent. This notion that all civilisation and concept of morality- right and wrong- stems from a small group of people in the middle east is an absurd one that detracts from the achievement of your forebears and all those from around the world that have infkluenced us throughout the ages.

Hoss:-6

I can appreciate your position. However, I too, am a servant of my Lord Jesus Christ. Most of my life I have led under the leading of the Holy Spirit.

That being said I must say and kindly so, I hope, that what you say concerning what I teach having now power from God or that I offer poisonous water is the utmost in arrogance. That is the vitriol of fundamentalism. That is the danger that faces the world the God has created for it is no different than the fundamentalist Muslim in his or her hate.

I am a servant of God and recognized so by many churches not just one. That being said I am also recognized by God.

The idea the God condones war is contrary to the very life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I do think that all of us recognize that at times war becomes necessary. It seems clear to me that you reject what Jesus is reported to have said in John 16. Clearly you deny it.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

Ted