Anyone one seen The Christ,

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt Man,

I think we've flogged Genesis 2, enough.

DM said,when God made man that man was innocent, not good, or bad. That sounds to me like excellent in every way, or very good, or what have you as far as all of creation was concerned. And it still doesn't define man as being good, or bad at that moment.

Your previous description, which I can't locate, was that man became disobedient and morally corrupt.

So, according to you, we have an 'innocent' on the verge of great sin and moral corruption. A ticking time bomb, as it were.

The following are my impressions:
1)Further, I believe you hold-- providing for the necessity of Christ-- that Adam's choice, was the source of a continuing taint of humankind. Correct? Iow, original sin. No one of us is in the prefall position of Adam. (I'm not sure if you think Adam had original sin, or just the potential for it.)

2)Further, you believe that Christ's shedding of blood, somehow cancelled, or paid for all this original sin and sin derived from it, that would otherwise lead everyone straight to blazes. Right?

3) you believe that that shedding gives an inestimable salvation advantage--an essential cleansing--to Christians, defined as those having faith in (accepting) Jesus as God's Son. (This isn't to say no one thereafter pays a penalty for sin, or that everyone is guaranteed salvation [gets a not-guilty vedict]; but they at least avoid the virtual certainly of damnation [guilty verdict]).

I'm sure you'll have many quibbles with the way I've put these points, and they may be slightly off, but it's useful to have a rough 'nutshell' of your views on the table. If you can compress your views in these matters to 150 words, point form, do share it.
They are, of course, the views of a great many Christians.

I have explained my position, and beliefs on these issues already. I grow weary of your bludgeoning. But if you insist, I will do it here one more time. I believe: That Jesus Christ is my personal savior. I believe: That Jesus Christ is God incarnet; ie the son of man, and the son of God. I believe: That Jesus Christ was crusified, and died on the cross, to atone for the sins of all of mankind, past, present, and future. I believe: That Jesus Christ arose to live again, and forever, proving his mastery over sin, death, and damnation. And I believe: That Jesus Christ now sits at the right hand of God in judgement of all mankind. That's what I believe, Pure. That is my faith as a brother in Christ, and that is why I call myself a Christian.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[English Lady]

Well it's good to see you two took my advice. *ahem*

Anyway on with the show.

Pure you said


"The following are my impressions:
1)Further, I believe you hold-- providing for the necessity of Christ-- that Adam's choice, was the source of a continuing taint of humankind. Correct? Iow, original sin. No one of us is in the prefall position of Adam. (I'm not sure if you think Adam had original sin, or just the potential for it.)

2)Further, you believe that Christ's shedding of blood, somehow cancelled, or paid for all this original sin and sin derived from it, that would otherwise lead everyone straight to blazes. Right?

3) you believe that that shedding gives an inestimable salvation advantage--an essential cleansing--to Christians, defined as those having faith in (accepting) Jesus as God's Son. (This isn't to say no one thereafter pays a penalty for sin, or that everyone is guaranteed salvation [gets a not-guilty vedict]; but they at least avoid the virtual certainly of damnation [guilty verdict])............(you said another bit here that isn't relevent i don't think)

My view and faith, of course, deny all three points above, and deny they have any proper Biblical warrant or basis (i.e., based on what the text actually says, considered whole).** Point 2, is of course, the apparent core of Mel's movie; and by implication, I think, Point 3.

For me can you explain WHY you believe these have no biblical basis. Can you give me the biblical verses that completely contradict those points? I really do want to know how you manage to say this.

Here is a section of verse that seems to be pro all three pooints you made above :

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romas 5:12-21

Also Romans 8 is a relevent passage and there are words form Jesus himself in the Gospels that are all pointing towards the truth of those three points you disagree with.

John 16 : Jesus tells the disciples about his imminent death and ressurection is one such example, then there is Peter on the day of pentecost witnessing to Jesus being the sacrifice for our sin in Acts 2.

I will look up more if you need me to Pure


But honestly, i really want to know how you can make such (to me) weird claims when so much of the bible confirms those 3 points as truth.

 

[Dirt Man]

Well it's good to see you two took my advice. *ahem*

Anyway on with the show.

Pure you said


"The following are my impressions:
1)Further, I believe you hold-- providing for the necessity of Christ-- that Adam's choice, was the source of a continuing taint of humankind. Correct? Iow, original sin. No one of us is in the prefall position of Adam. (I'm not sure if you think Adam had original sin, or just the potential for it.)

2)Further, you believe that Christ's shedding of blood, somehow cancelled, or paid for all this original sin and sin derived from it, that would otherwise lead everyone straight to blazes. Right?

3) you believe that that shedding gives an inestimable salvation advantage--an essential cleansing--to Christians, defined as those having faith in (accepting) Jesus as God's Son. (This isn't to say no one thereafter pays a penalty for sin, or that everyone is guaranteed salvation [gets a not-guilty vedict]; but they at least avoid the virtual certainly of damnation [guilty verdict])............(you said another bit here that isn't relevent i don't think)

My view and faith, of course, deny all three points above, and deny they have any proper Biblical warrant or basis (i.e., based on what the text actually says, considered whole).** Point 2, is of course, the apparent core of Mel's movie; and by implication, I think, Point 3.

For me can you explain WHY you believe these have no biblical basis. Can you give me the biblical verses that completely contradict those points? I really do want to know how you manage to say this.

Here is a section of verse that seems to be pro all three pooints you made above :

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romas 5:12-21

Also Romans 8 is a relevent passage and there are words form Jesus himself in the Gospels that are all pointing towards the truth of those three points you disagree with.

John 16 : Jesus tells the disciples about his imminent death and ressurection is one such example, then there is Peter on the day of pentecost witnessing to Jesus being the sacrifice for our sin in Acts 2.

I will look up more if you need me to Pure


But honestly, i really want to know how you can make such (to me) weird claims when so much of the bible confirms those 3 points as truth.

I couldn't have said it better EL. Funny thing too, Paul whenever asked; "How do you get to heaven?" after he became a christian always answered without hessitation: "Believe on the name Jesus Christ."

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[KarenAM]

Hi everyone. I'm back after working a new story, and having a new one posted.

Well, if nothing else you've gotten me to look at my Bible, and I'm sorry if there's something I'm missing, but I don't understand this whole idea of original sin. In the story about Adam and Eve it doesn't seem to say anything about it, and the passage where God sends them out of the garden doesn't even sound like punishment to me, just God not wanting them to become immortal.

And I'm troubled too by the idea of a God who says he loves me but insists on punishing me for something someone else did. I'll answer for what I've done and I'm uncomfortable with the thought that poor Jesus had to suffer for my mistakes, but just as it's unfair for Jesus to suffer for me, it's unfair that I should suffer for Adam and Eve and the snake's mistake. It just doesn't sound fair, and I want to think that God is fair.

Isn't he?

 

[grumpymann]

Gospel of Q

I live in a small town (not just small in size but small in mind as well). I thought about seeing it but when I heard that the ass-kicking started fifteen minutes into the movie and there were only small brakes for some plot stuff I decided not to see it. When I mentioned this to someone here I was attacked!

I was told that if I didn’t want too see it I “Must not be a Christian”. “After all it is taken right from the Gospel.”

Well just what Gospel do you mean? There are MANY Gospels that never made it in the bible. Many more never made it out of the codification of what we now call the Bible. Because they weren’t what the people that were collecting it had in mind.

Books like the Gospel (Book) of Mary Magdalene.

Or the infamous Book of Q.

I guess I look at it this way. If you look at it as just a movie, it may just suck. But if you look at it as a “Passion Play” it is informative, educational and a demonstration of the pain and suffering the son of God underwent. And there for can only be seen through the eyes of FAITH. Faith can’t suck.

I still have no interest in seeing it

 

[English Lady]

Hello Karen I am not terribly up on the original sin thing but the way I look at it is that I sin. I sin all the time and i've probably done it form being a kid on some scale or another. I've done my fair share of it. Adam and Eve just started the chain as it were and now it's just human nature.

If you were 100% perfect then maybe it would be unfair for you to suffer for Adam and Eve's sin but as I guess you're not 100% perfect (no one is) really thats not the issue


This thread has motivated me to look in my bible and study alot too. I think that this thread has been a real boost for me. SO thanks Pure for starting it


grumpymann...if you don't want to watch the film theres no harm in that. I think what you say is right, if you go and watch it as a passion play it is probably going to have more impact than just going to see it as an entertaining film.

 

[smutpen]

...and the fun continues.

This so-called Living Bible is intriguing. What we have there is evidence that some devout believers recognized that the Bible sure makes it look as if God lied. He said they would die; clearly Adam and Eve understood him to mean die, as in cease living. Curious that they should understand the concept at all, if death came into the world through the sin which they had not yet committed...

These devout believers were so tired of being in the position of making rather weaselly-sounding excuses about spiritual death, or some such, that they decided the Bible could use a little improvement. They felt justified in putting words in God's mouth, because of their faith, which is based on the very document they were altering.

No doubt they found many opportunities for such "improvements." I wonder what they did to sanitize God's clear instructions to murder women and children, such as in Dt. 20:13 -- Thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes.


Anyway...

rgraham666 and shereads,

You both said words about atheism that I want to contest, somewhat. Only somewhat, because there are many atheists who base their beliefs simply on rejection; of God, of religion, whatever. That is just a reflection of the faith of believers.

shereads, I wanted to point out something about your example which I think speaks to one difference between atheism and belief. You found an example of horrendous evil perpetrated in the name of theistic belief. Sadly, such examples abound in history books and newspapers. How many instances can you think of where such atrocities have been done in the name of unbelief?

Some would argue that Communist Russia and China committed some, and it may be true. But it can't begin to compare. Then again, they were not guided by rational, humanistic ethics, but by yet another irrational ideology which simply replaced the all-powerful, unquestionable God with the all-powerful, unquestionable State. Feh.

And as to crimes like the one you cited -- personal rather than political -- atheism provides no support or motivation for them.

Now as to this idea that atheism must be as faith-based as religion. The existence of God is not a privileged question; it is as susceptible to reason as any other, if we choose to apply reason to it.

The trickiest thing about approaching the question is that we need to know what we mean by the word. To me the central focus of my disbelief is the anthropomorphism of God, and the notion of the supernatural.

Einstein and Spinoza believed in a sort of God as Nature, but because this God was impersonal -- no personality, no will or intent -- and in no way violated the laws of physics, they were atheists for all practical purposes.

It was Einstein who best expressed the rational foundation of disbelief in a supernatural God. I won't quote it, because it's long. But essentially it says that more we understand nature, the more obvious it becomes that the supernatural is an invention of the human imagination. Compared to the reality we have begun to understand, that imagined world appears feeble, shallow, and childishly wishful.

The universe is one harmonious whole, utterly interconnected and interdependent. What we call laws of nature are not really laws, such that they may be broken by someone with sufficient power. They are descriptions of underlying structure, and all occurrences, all events, all patterns are reliant on the consistency of that structure.

Although atheists make up only about 10% of the general population, 60% of working scientists are atheists. If you limit the sample to those recognized by their peers as the elite (members of the National Academy of Sciences), the percentage of atheists rises to over 90% -- as reported in Nature, 1998.

This does not mean, as many atheists smugly claim, that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe. There are plenty of brilliant believers. But it does mean that those who have spent their lives studying how the universe fits together and functions are the least likely to believe in a Creator of that universe.

Biologists are the least likely to believe. Biologists recognize, to pick an easy one, that the notion of a male without any female counterpart is utterly absurd. (Adam before Eve...yeah, right.) Biologists also tend to recognize that consciousness, sentience, even will and purpose, make perfect sense within the context of the evolution of living things, and no sense whatsoever outside that context. Consciousness without language makes no sense, and language without a social environment makes no sense.

Physicists are most attuned to that interdependence I referred to, and to the awesome beauty, power and elegance of nature in action. They also understand that the old dualist worldview, of spirit as separate and independent of matter and energy, has been intellectually bankrupt for centuries.

That worldview, the Aristotelian (it's older than him, but he codified it clearly) Great Chain of Being, had base, inanimate matter at the bottom, matter-spirit mixes like animals and people in the middle, and God -- pure spirit -- at the top. When that worldview collapsed, God had no place and no support.

Yet people continue to believe. No scientist would ever propose a dualistic explanation for any real event or phenomenon, but most people continue to believe in that worldview, primarily because it allows them to believe theat when they die, they won't really be dead, because the spirit part of them will live on.

OK, enough for now. EL, I will address the Free Will thing, when I can.

 

[KarenAM]

Hi English Lady

Certainly I agree with you that human beings are fallible, which in religious terms we would call sin. Presumably this fallibility goes back to the first human beings, however we came into being as a species. So being imperfect is human nature.

What troubles me is the idea that punishment for the mistakes of the parent should be inflicted on the child. The fact that I'm not 100% perfect doesn't make it any more fair for me to be punished for Adam and Eve and the snake's sin than if I were 100% perfect. My sins are my sins, and I am perfectly willing to answer for them. The fact that my grandparents cheated on each other isn't my fault, though, and I feel it would be unjust to punish me for their failings. If Adam and Eve are my Great X 1000 grandparents, how is that any different?

I hope this makes sense.

Smutpen said:

You found an example of horrendous evil perpetrated in the name of theistic belief. Sadly, such examples abound in history books and newspapers. How many instances can you think of where such atrocities have been done in the name of unbelief?

Some would argue that Communist Russia and China committed some, and it may be true. But it can't begin to compare. Then again, they were not guided by rational, humanistic ethics, but by yet another irrational ideology which simply replaced the all-powerful, unquestionable God with the all-powerful, unquestionable State. Feh.

The number of dead from Communist Russia and China is in the tens of millions and may approach a hundred million. That's a lot of people being killed because they disagreed with those in power; extremists are dangerous whatever their ideology, be it theism or atheism or anything else. Believing that any one view has a monopoly on morality is the first step down a very slippery slope.

 

[smutpen]

The number of dead from Communist Russia and China is in the tens of millions and may approach a hundred million. That's a lot of people being killed because they disagreed with those in power; extremists are dangerous whatever their ideology, be it theism or atheism or anything else. Believing that any one view has a monopoly on morality is the first step down a very slippery slope.

I agree with your statistics, but I think very few of those deaths were caused by fanatical atheism.

And I would argue that there is only one acceptable basis for morality and ethics, namely rational humanism.

In the courtroom, reason and logic take precedence over faith and feelings, as well they should. And the basic measure of morality is a question of how we treat other human beings.

The way I see it, the thing that makes a believer in any ideology a dangerous extremist is the elevation of faith in the ideology over reason, and the elevation of the goals and principles of the ideology over humanism.

 

[rgraham666]

It is a mistake to believe that only emotions can panic the mind.

Northrop Frye

As far as reason being the base of all good things goes, I would recommend John Ralston Saul's book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West. This book covers the history of Reason, as a stand alone trait, and shows how badly it is failing.

Reason alone cannot create good. Many of our 'rational' systems, Facism, Communism, Capitalism, and others have often caused as much or more harm as good. Often this is because we confuse 'rational' with 'rationalisation'.

In my opinion the reason 'rational' systems, such as science, and 'irrational' ones, such as religion, do evil is the same. They try to avoid change. The reason for this is that change usually threatens the power of the people important to the system.

Many of our important traits, empathy and faith for example, are not rational. And if we attempt to make them rational we destroy them. And without irrational traits to balance it out and restrain it, rationality itself becomes irrational.

The computer you are reading this on is the most rational of all the things you probably possess. Would you trust it to make any important decisions?

 

[smutpen]

As far as reason being the base of all good things goes, I would recommend John Ralston Saul's book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West. This book covers the history of Reason, as a stand alone trait, and shows how badly it is failing.

Reason alone cannot create good. Many of our 'rational' systems, Facism, Communism, Capitalism, and others have often caused as much or more harm as good. Often this is because we confuse 'rational' with 'rationalisation'.

In my opinion the reason 'rational' systems, such as science, and 'irrational' ones, such as religion, do evil is the same. They try to avoid change. The reason for this is that change usually threatens the power of the people important to the system.

Many of our important traits, empathy and faith for example, are not rational. And if we attempt to make them rational we destroy them. And without irrational traits to balance it out and restrain it, rationality itself becomes irrational.

The computer you are reading this on is the most rational of all the things you probably possess. Would you trust it to make any important decisions?

I'll check out the book...but...

The isms you mention are attempts to apply reason to human institutions. They fail where they depart from reason in favor of greed, politics, etc., etc. I fully agree with you that rationalization can supplant rationality, and often does, but that is no indictment of rationality, only of those who subvert it.

My point is that morality and ethics must in the end be tied to reason, and that while such complex and difficult systems as human moral codes can never be perfect, reason can approach that unreachable goal more closely than the alternatives -- emotion and dogma.

I imagine none of us would like to be tried in a court where we could be convicted without any recourse to reason, logic, and evidence. Convicted on whim, or faith, or emotion.

Certainly human life is not complete without the presence of the non-rational. But when you try to define ethics -- reason, though incomplete and imperfect, is the best tool we have.

BTW, a computer is not rational; it is incapable of reasoning.


But to argue against reason is to stand on quicksand; as Ethan Allen said:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi English Lady

Certainly I agree with you that human beings are fallible, which in religious terms we would call sin. Presumably this fallibility goes back to the first human beings, however we came into being as a species. So being imperfect is human nature.

What troubles me is the idea that punishment for the mistakes of the parent should be inflicted on the child. The fact that I'm not 100% perfect doesn't make it any more fair for me to be punished for Adam and Eve and the snake's sin than if I were 100% perfect. My sins are my sins, and I am perfectly willing to answer for them. The fact that my grandparents cheated on each other isn't my fault, though, and I feel it would be unjust to punish me for their failings. If Adam and Eve are my Great X 1000 grandparents, how is that any different?

I hope this makes sense.

A quick look in your bible at the Ten Commandments, (God's Laws) might help you. The penelty for disobeying anyone of these is death. Disobeying them is going against God's will for us, and suplanting his will with our own. Many people say that it isn't fair that they should be punished for what Adam and Eve did there in the garden. However I submit that each of us over the age of understanding speach are guilty of the same sin as Adam and Eve when we first disobey our parents, or lie, (white lies included) etc., etc. Remember the penelty is death for disobeying even just one of them, and Christ clarified it by saying that even contemplating doing a sin is the same as doing it. And so, eventually we all die in our time alloted here. To say that you didn't know about the laws is no excuse in any court of law here on earth, so how much truer that would be in the heavenly court it would be certainly draws many people up short right quick.

And we know that there is a heavenly court thanks to the book of Job. And we know that everytime we sin, that Satan/Lucifer run's up before that court's judge, our God, and acting like a prosecuting attorney condemnes each of us for each, and everyone of our sins against these Ten Laws/Comandments of God demanding our death sentence be commisioned. Believe me, I'm sure that he does this every day concerning me. Thankfully, after Lucifer has had his say in this matter, God looks to the defense attorney Jesus Christ, and asks something like this:

"Do you have anything to add to Lucifer's statement?"

"Yes sir," Jesus says standing up, and says something like this, "Mr. (My real name goes here.), in 1980; asked me to come into his heart, accepting me as his personal savior."

God then slaps his gavel, and says something like: "Case dismissed!"

Does this mean that I will not die? Well, I still live in a body ruled by the DNA passed down to me from Adam and Eve, don't I? So only devine intervention can change that. But one thing is true for certain. I no longer fear death. I hope this helps.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[rgraham666]

I'll check out the book...but...

The isms you mention are attempts to apply reason to human institutions. They fail where they depart from reason in favor of greed, politics, etc., etc. I fully agree with you that rationalization can supplant rationality, and often does, but that is no indictment of rationality, only of those who subvert it.

My point is that morality and ethics must in the end be tied to reason, and that while such complex and difficult systems as human moral codes can never be perfect, reason can approach that unreachable goal more closely than the alternatives -- emotion and dogma.

I imagine none of us would like to be tried in a court where we could be convicted without any recourse to reason, logic, and evidence. Convicted on whim, or faith, or emotion.

Certainly human life is not complete without the presence of the non-rational. But when you try to define ethics -- reason, though incomplete and imperfect, is the best tool we have.

BTW, a computer is not rational; it is incapable of reasoning.


But to argue against reason is to stand on quicksand; as Ethan Allen said:

Smutpen, I would recommend the latest book by Mr. Saul On Equlibrium.

This book is his attempt to identify the important traits of humanity and examine why they are important. Some of these traits, intuition, imagination and memory, are irrational. He includes reason as one of the important traits as well.

But the central idea of the book is equilibrium. He points out that if any of the traits escapes from the restraint and influence of the others, they become dark reflections of themselves.

Human beings and societies must have a number of different traits, and these must be in balance, or they destroy themselves.

This has been my own experience. My reason failed and my imagination got out of control. I nearly died, and I still have a way to go before I fully recover.

 

[Pure]

rg puts the point well; it's balance that's at issue. there's nothing lethal per se about reason, or passion. Also I fully approve of Hume's famous saying "Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions." He meant, of course, not just anger, but compassion, sympathy, affection, etc.

I perhaps disagree with Smutpen (though I'm unsure about his exact position); humanist claims not withstanding, 'reason' generates no ethics on its own. Yet it's an important tool, figuring what will happen, how things are connected, relevance of facts; but it can't *drive* (found) the ethics. That was Hume's point.

 

[Pure]

Smutpen, your point about the Living Bible is apt; it's very biased and is grinding certain axes; it is, at time, a joke; it omits verses Taylor didn't like.

Some examples from David Clouds fine website (he is a conservative, by the way). Cloud's comments follow the two versions he quotes.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/living.htm

They should how ridiculous, at times, Taylor's "Living Bible" is. This is no doubt why Tyndale started the accessible modern version again, in the "Living Bible Translation"


JUDGES 7:20B


KJV Judges 7:20b "and they cried, the sword of the Lord and of Gideon."

TLB "All yelling for the Lord and for Gideon."



JUDGES 19:2

KJV Judges 19:2 "And his concubine played the whore against him."
TLB "But she became angry with him and ran away."

1 SAMUEL 20:30
In the first editions of the Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor had Saul saying, "You son of a bitch." This was the reading for many years, but because of complaints, Taylor has amended the wording as follows: "Saul boiled with rage. `You fool!'" Taylor claimed that the first reading is the best rendering of the Hebrew text, but he changed it to please his critics.

2 SAMUEL 16:14B

KJV "And Ziba said, I humbly beseech thee that I may find grace in thy sight, My Lord, O King."
TLB "Thank you, thank you, sir, Ziba replied."

1 KINGS 18:27

KJV "Cry aloud: for He is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing." TLB "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."

What nonsense! There is nothing in the Hebrew language of this passage which would require the strange translation Taylor devises. No other popular English translation has ever included such a translation as "perhaps he is ... out sitting on the toilet."
[...]



PSALM 34:20

KJV "He keepeth all His bones: not one of them is broken."
TLB "God even protects him from accidents."

This is a prophecy of the fact that none of Christ's bones were broken during His crucifixion. It is quoted in John 19:36. What blasphemy to destroy a Messianic prophecy!

EZEKIEL 2:1

KJV "And He said unto me, son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee."
TLB "And he said unto me, Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you." What right does Taylor have to change "son of man" to "son of dust"?

ZECHARIAH 13:6

KJV "And one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
TLB "And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend."

In a footnote Taylor says: "That this is not a passage referring to Christ, is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reason for his scars." This is simply amazing. Zechariah 13:6 is considered a Messianic prophecy by most conservative commentators. The context DOES support this. Zechariah 12-14 is one long Messianic prophecy. Taylor claims to be an "evangelical" but in this instance he talks like a modernist.
MATTHEW 23:14

KJV "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
TLB Taylor omits the entire verse.
----

[..]
LUKE 11:1B

KJV "one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray"
TLB "one of his disciples came to him as he finished and said, `Lord, teach us a prayer to recite"

This spurious translation gives support for such sacramental denominations as the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, with their prayer books, prayer candles, prayer beads, and hollow repetious invocations. Christ did not teach his disciples a prayer; he taught them to pray! [end Cloud excerpts]

 

[KarenAM]

Thanks for the pointer, DM.

A quick look in your bible at the Ten Commandments, (God's Laws) might help you. The penelty for disobeying anyone of these is death. Disobeying them is going against God's will for us, and suplanting his will with our own. Many people say that it isn't fair that they should be punished for what Adam and Eve did there in the garden. However I submit that each of us over the age of understanding speach are guilty of the same sin as Adam and Eve when we first disobey our parents, or lie, (white lies included) etc., etc. Remember the penelty is death for disobeying even just one of them, and Christ clarified it by saying that even contemplating doing a sin is the same as doing it. And so, eventually we all die in our time alloted here. To say that you didn't know about the laws is no excuse in any court of law here on earth, so how much truer that would be in the heavenly court it would be certainly draws many people up short right quick.

I don't dispute my fallibility, or that I'm responsible for my errors or misdeeds. And if you take Adam and Eve as being archetypes of human beings, the punishments in their story for eating the fruit of knowledge can certainly be seen as applying to all of us (pain in childbearing, working the land); I have no problem seeing this as the author's intention. But as I read the story, they weren't kicked out of the garden for that, they were kicked out because God didn't want them to become immortal like he was.

So if we accept that the punishments for Adam and Eve's sin are meant to refer to all humanity because maybe Adam and Eve are meant to represent all humanity, this leads to another issue: is God just? The death penalty for even the most minor of sins? Death for even thinking something sinful? How am I to reconcile a God who would kill me for just thinking something with the loving God that my Christian friends talk about? How can I honestly respect such a being? How can Jesus, who so obviously is filled with love for humanity?

This is deeply troubling to me. Sorry.

 

[Pure]

Dirt Man said,

However I submit that each of us over the age of understanding speach are guilty of the same sin as Adam and Eve when we first disobey our parents, or lie, (white lies included) etc., etc. Remember the penalty is death for disobeying even just one of them, and Christ clarified it by saying that even contemplating doing a sin is the same as doing it.

This is God in the vision of Dirt Man. A God who would punish a three year old with death, for taking a piece of candy its parents said not to. ** Fierce, Murderous, Unfair. Though there are odd passages in the Bible suggesting these things, esp. in the Canaanite wars, it's certainly not the main message of the OT or NT.

You can see why folks who equate all sins, small and large, and think God wants or wanted the death penalty for them NEED something pretty spectacular like Mel's Jesus shedding buckets of blood to 'atone.'

Anyone familiar with ancient Jewish law knows that every commandment does NOT have a death penalty attached, either on this earth, or thereafter, and that is contrary to the Biblical and other evidence. Nor is there good evidence, based on the Gospels as a whole, that Jesus, a Jew, thought so.

I believe it's the Calvinists, and their 'puritan' sect in New England who put the 10C on the books with death penalties. Dirt Man appears to be in that territory. Yet even they couldn't have executed the covetous persons!.

What Dirt Man hasn't clarified yet is if he subscribes to the dogma of original sin. That each child is BORN with a taint of sin. Not just a possiblity. Even the crying of the baby, it's said, shows its sin, its anger and pride and selfishness. (It has nothing to do with speech, either saying it or understanding it.) For the Catholics, if a baby dies unbaptized, it goes to limbo; it cannot go to Heaven.

To put it concretely: Dirt Man, were a child to die just after birth; and if Jesus had not done this (alleged) "atoning for all persons for all time", would this baby be able to have salvation? or would its 'original sin' (innate moral corruption) require its being barred from heaven (i.e., 'death,' which Paul --according to some--says that Jesus saved us from)? What was the immediate fate of the Jewish babies who died, at birth, many years before Jesus life? Iow, did the dead baby problem--for those of your view--get solved only with Jesus' sacrifice?

J.

**Sorry, not a good example. DM specified 'white lie'. So if the child, being asked, by another, about the odd walk of her cerebral palsied little brother, "Is he a cripple?" replied {{added: knowing it to be false, but to protect}} "No, his leg got hurt." THAT would merit the death penalty, in God's eyes (in and of itself).

Added PS: Dirt Man, perhaps from one of these unique Living versions of scripture appears to believe there is one of the 10 C saying "Thou shalt not lie." Perhaps he could point out the passage in a recognized translation. As stated in the _Anchor Bible Dictionary_, the prohibition against 'false witness' "is aimed not so much at lying in general as at perjury in court." ) (1996, p. 110) At very least, "against thy neighbor" implies getting that person in trouble or showing them in a bad light.

 

[grumpymann]

Faith

I must admit that this is a wonderful thread.
It shows the wonders, depths and complexities of faith.
But I do have one question.
Is it just me or people agreeing the same old arguments that have led to “More wars than anything else”?

Faith - That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church.


Reference from ( http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...tp://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/faith )


To me Belief in Jesus Christ being your personal Lord and savior if an example of Faith.
And Faith in and of it’s self is personal. Not something that can be codified explained or argued.

IMHO the Bible is a road map on how to be a Christian, of how to walk in the footsteps of Christ. Not an instruction manual to bludgeon people who’s Faith doesn’t align exactly with ours.

I LOVE spirited, informed debate! But from what I have seen the same people that engaged in the scouring of Infidels, in the Christian church, were the same people that killed other people for just SAYING that the earth was flat. So I have to take what else they say with a grain of salt.

I will close with the words of another of my fellow Christians and country men


“I may not agree with what you say sir but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Patrick Henry

 

[English Lady]

OK Sin. It's a bugger.

the middle letter of sin is I. Because at the centre of every sin is the great "I". "I want...I need...I think"

From being children we have this great I. Now I am not God. I do not know how he deals with a child who dies in infancy. MY belief is that God is all knowing. He knows if this little life would accept Christ if he/she had the opportunity. I cannot believe that The God of Mercy, the God who Sent his only son to Death to save us would send a small child to hell.


Another loop hole in Pure's Argument is the example of the little boy saying "no he's hurt his leg" This ISNT a lie if the child knows no different. The Child is telling the truth as he sees it. God does not pick on inexperience or lack of knowledge. In fact Jesus exhorted the disciples to be like children. He said you needed to be child like to get to Heaven.


God knows everything. He judges souls on all the available knowledge he has and I believe he is righteous and Just and sorts it out fairly. Our concept of fair is probvably jaded but the great "I" but God knows all.


You do so like to chose your arguments Pure. Have you replied to my request for you to provide biblical verses to back up your 3 major points you have such trouble with? If so I am sorry I seem to have missed it.


Karen, You are not answering for Adam and Eve's sins as such. We are born of them and so we suffer because we are seperated from God but they don't make us sin do they? Well I've never heard the voice of Eve directing me to do something wrong. We pay for our own sins. It can be no other way. Also we seem to be taking the Adam and Eve story very literally. It is probably an illustration to explain why life on Earth is like it is and it just shows that once sin is introduced into the world it breeds. We all know how one lie is very seldom enough and so we end up telling a complex web of lies to cover our backs so you can see how Sin spreads through that.

By saying your fears you are voicing God's quandry. Sin=Death which means he's got to deal with that justly. Everyone must be judged the same and so sin becomes a major issue and God ends up having to do lots of stuff that make him into the big Bad vengeful kind of God you see alot of in the Old Testament. God though is also a merciful God who loves each and everyone of his creation so he creates a way to save his children. First off he uses the animal sacrifice thing and then when the time is right(God's time i do not even claim to know how he works it out) He sends his son to Earth to be the ultimate sacrifice and to be the ultimate sacrifice and a big "boo yah sucks" to sin.

You must do some studying for yourself and decide for yourself Karen. I am sure you'll find that God is Just and Merciful if you search in earnest.


Smutpen. You believe there is no God. Therefore this must effect the way you look at things. You won't be looking out for proof of the exsistance of a higher being you will more likely than not be looking at things and deciding they are proof God doesn't exsist.
You can say you don't care but you're posting on here so that doesn't add up*L*

I see God in everything because of my faith.

I was watching a programme earlier this evening where a right old battle axe of a character who believes she has been right all her life has a "conversion experience". I know this is only fiction...i don't believe it happened but it is merely something that spoke to me...Ok Pure(as this is just the kind of comment you like to ambush!) She says something to the effect of if she is so logical,so clear minded and so damn good surely whatever created her is like that as well. Belief and disbelief colour your view there is no two ways about it.

I have to look at this world and everything in it and admit there has to be a higher being to have done all this. My experiences have led me to the conclusion that this being is the triune God. I have not seen anything that has shaken this faith for me because I feel the hand of God in my life everyday.

I don't want to contemplate a life without that belief. I would be a bitter and twisted individual without my faith.

I think i have made most points I wanted to make *chuckle* Apologies for bad spelling....>I got a bit passionate writing this*L*

 

[Pure]

Hi EL. {condensed 10:27 pm est; revised slightly}

I've added words to clarify my child example. Clearly to illustrate a 'white lie' I wouldn't pick a simple childish mistake.

Btw, I define 'white lie' as follows: it's a kind of lie, false statement, known to be false and intended to deceive: BUT the motive is not morally bad, does not involve breaking the law, AND does not result in personal gain, or avoidance of personal loss.

EL, is lying always a sin?

EL, I take it you do NOT think that the children's ordinary 'sins' would without fail, condemn them, but for Christs atonement???

EL, I did summarize the areas of disagreement in 3 points. I believe none are clearly rooted in the bible, but are evolving Christian dogmas. Like the Assumption of Mary, for Catholics, the Trinity as in the Nicene Creed, etc.

However, I hesitate to start a scriptural proof of those points because Quakers, like today's Anglicans and Catholics, believe in an evolving understanding; we are not 'fundamentalists' who think that every 'truth' one needs can be directly found in the Bible, the Bible being the Word of God of GJohn 1:1. The 'proof' of something purely by Bible citations is NOT standard practice of late; though early Quakers were very good at it.

So on specific points being discussed, I'm happy to cite--as you've seen-- but I'm not undertaking a kind of 'class' like DM in scriptural 'proof' of tenets. And he uses Ken Taylor's hokey scripture, anyways, so why go down that path?

Don't you get a kick out of
1 KINGS 18:27

KJV "Cry aloud: for he is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing."

The Living Bible: "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."

No doubt that text could be cited to prove that the god in question (Baal) had bowel movements, according to Elijah. Or perhaps Ken Taylor had a good sense of humor unknown to some of his followers.

I appreciate your kindness and sincerity, but suggest you choose one point to focus on; Pick a position that can be stated in 10-20 words and let's have a chat about it. (NOT general items like "God is Love" or "Jesus is the Son of God", please.)

Best,
J.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi EL. {condensed 10:27 pm est; revised slightly}

So on specific points being discussed, I'm happy to cite--as you've seen-- but I'm not undertaking a kind of 'class' like DM in scriptural 'proof' of tenets. And he uses Ken Taylor's hokey scripture, anyways, so why go down that path?

Don't you get a kick out of
1 KINGS 18:27

KJV "Cry aloud: for he is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing."

The Living Bible: "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."

No doubt that text could be cited to prove that the god in question (Baal) had bowel movements, according to Elijah. Or perhaps Ken Taylor had a good sense of humor unknown to some of his followers.

I appreciate your kindness and sincerity, but suggest you choose one point to focus on; Pick a position that can be stated in 10-20 words and let's have a chat about it. (NOT general items like "God is Love" or "Jesus is the Son of God", please.)

Best,
J.

Actually Pure, Kings 1 18:27 goes like this in the Living Bible:

About noontime, Elijah began mocking them.

"You'll have to shout louder than that," he scoffed, "to catch the attention of your god! Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!"

Sounds to me like somebody mocking someone elses God. The so called God Baal to be specific. Which is what Elijah was doing then. The really sad thing here to me Pure is your culpability here in not posting the entire passages whenever you try to make a point against me. I mean I know why you do it. But what you fail to see is that I no longer care. As I know you are going to continuing doing it to try to prove your point. And in attacking me, and in this manner you have also failed to see that you are losing what little foothold you had on others reading this thread by taking your accusations too far. I've already said time, and time again that it doesn't matter what bible a person uses, just use it. You on the other hand say that your message can only be heard properly by using specific bibles. And I seriously doubt that this is because you want me to quote from either the Catholic Bible I have downstairs, of the protestant one. And that's forgetting entirely the Book of Mormon that I have as it might relate to any arguements you wish to pursue here. But I don't have to continue to argue with you.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[KenJames]

And in attacking me, and in this manner you have also failed to see that you are losing what little foothold you had on others reading this thread by taking your accusations too far.

I'm not very good at theology or at comparing passages in a dozen different Bibles, but your postings give me the feeling you're talking down to me. I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but that gives me zero inclination to take you seriously. Just my sinful nature . . .

 

[Pure]

DM: Actually Pure, Kings 1 18:27 goes like this in the Living Bible:

About noontime, Elijah began mocking them.

"You'll have to shout louder than that," he scoffed, "to catch the attention of your god! Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!"

Let's see Cloud quoted:
"Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."

Hmm, sounds close. Does the fact that no standard translation mentions 'toilet' bother you?

By the way, if you'd give a url, someone could see what the f*** you're quoting from. Not everyone owns this beastly tome, though I'm told Billy Graham was fond of it, in its heyday. As far as I can tell, having been to the Tyndale site, its own publisher has abandoned it; Walmart still sells it.

Are you sure unbaptized babies, and 3 yr old white liars are sinners deserving death? Does this apply to all babies and toddler-talkers born before Jesus time? Do you believe in original sin, a moral corruption every human is born with; i.e., that a new born is NOT in the position of pre-fall Adam (moral blank slate)?

We're dealing with a well known doctrine; why can't you give a straight answer?

J.

PS: Can you verify Cloud's example as correct:

JUDGES 19:2

KJV Judges 19:2 "And his concubine played the whore against him."

TLB "But she became angry with him and ran away."

I rather like this 'sanitized' version; must NOT expose kids to stuff about ho's.

 

[Dirt Man]

I'm not very good at theology or at comparing passages in a dozen different Bibles, but your postings give me the feeling you're talking down to me. I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but that gives me zero inclination to take you seriously. Just my sinful nature . . .

Sorry to hear you think that way Ken. I never said to compar passages in a dozen different Bibles. Just pick one that you like and go with it. But not to worry. This isn't my thread anyway. So I'll leave you and Pure to debate amongst yourselves.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt man

 

[English Lady]

Pure love, your example is bollocks. Yup I mean why on earth would it ever occur in real life? you might as well pull it now as it's sensationalist purpose has not come to fruitition.

Children are learning Pure. Children are not full grown adults with knowledge. You cannot punish a child for learning. I think God would see it like that too.

Ok I am not being funny here BUT I am pretty sure the Christians I know still believe the words in the bible. They believe the bible is the word of God and that it is a very important tool for all Christians. From what you're saying Pure you might as well throw it in the bin. To me it sounds like you're trying to hide your own inadequacies in your knowledge of the Bible. That might not be true but that is how it sounds.

Biblical translation is not the isssue. I can see you've gone to quite some lengths to try and shake DM's biblical base without success. Any translation of the bible is going to have a bit of the personality of the translator/translators in it. I hate to think what youd make of The Message version of the new testament...it doesn't even have reference verses! *gasp* They are ateempts at updating the bible to make it easier for people to understand it and obviously there has got to be some modernisation of language and interpretation of the tone of certain passages. I think it is admirable that people are trying to bring the Bible to be more accessible to everyone.


I am not picking one topic to talk about as I am trying to answer peoples questions as I go along. I am not really interested in debating with you Pure. I am not interested in a battle of words where you'll use any tactic you ca to undermine the faith of the person in question. I am still on this thread because I care for all the people who are seeking. I want them to see my faith so they can add it up when they're making their own faith decisions.



Oh and Yes..I ditto KenJames in his sentiments..my sinful nature is the same as his*chuckle*


Grumpymann....yes alot of this thread is taken up with the same old same old. I do see glimmers of enlightenmet here and there though.