Recently we have taken in a woman who is from another state but has business to do here. I have never met someone who is so allegedly religious and so biblically ill-informed.

She believes that God created the world in 6 days and that man and dinosaurs walked together. Amazing!

Furthermore like most Christians she says the Bible is infallible and that it is God's exact word and where written by man he guided the hand of the writer. WOW!

SO I pointed out a few of the infallible bits that seemed very fallible.

Genesis 1:25 and Genisis 1:26 compared to Genisis 2:18 and Genisis 2:19 contradict each other quite considerably.

In Matthew 1:16 Jacob begat Joseph - In Luke 3:23 Joseph was the son of Heli. In fact most of those genealogies don't agree.

Finally on the trinity John 14: 28 Jesus yep Jesus himself says ..... "I am going to the Father for he is greater than I" .... and yet these religious people won't countenance the fact that they are either wrong or the Bible and Jesus are wrong. Is it Christian to mislead people on the Bible?

Finally I asked the lady if God asked her to kill people like he allegedly did in Judges 21 :10-12 would she do it. She answered I would have to think about that. Amazing we may have a potential murderer in our house. Funny though shalt not kill didn't come to her mind!

God knew before hand that we would eat of the fruit - he knows all things before we do it apparently - He gives us the ability to think - to have a questioning mind - Why does doctrinal teachings suppress intellect and the use of God's gift - intelligence?

>>Is Christianity for real?<<

Is this a troll?

It would be a really good idea to separate the man from the ball here, Opinionated2.

It's one thing to rabbit on about an individual's quirky behaviour - although quite what relevance it has on a forum like this I'm not sure - and completely another to draw conclusions about an entire religion from that person.

I am not a Christian. I am not even religious. But it does seem to me that the tendency to generalize from the particular is an extremely bad habit, and should be pointed out at every opportunity.

I used to chastise Boaz for the same poor form when he was around doing his whack-a-mozzie schtick, so it would be remiss of me not to point out that it is not at all polite, whatever the topic.

Oh its real alright.... sadly

These miscreants will gladly kill for their imaginary friend in the sky. They are hateful and bigoted towards unbelievers and other religions and are at the root of all todays terrorism and wars.

You need to listen to what these people believe, it is totally insane and dangerous. They would gladly bring on nuclear war and holocaust if they thought they were serving their weird vindictive super hero.

Talk to your guest and try to show her the nastiness and evil that religion has brought us. Try to use reason and logic, they find that very hard to deal with and usually resort to mindless platitudes and selective quotes from their scriptures. These are easy to defuse with a few quotes of your own (as I see you are already good at). Intellect will always win out over these fools but they usually resort to insults and sulking and curseing you to hell but we must try anyway. I know I always have some very interesting debates with the godbotherers who come knocking on my door. One day I will convert one. Good luck.

Sorry Pericles that you don't see the relevance here but others will. Watch and learn.

I am not judging the whole of Christianity on one persons attitude or knowledge. It was a lead in to a general discussion so that people can express and debate their knowledge and opinions on the matter.

This afterall is an online opinion site... you gave me yours and I find it quite irrelevant but I defend your right to be heard. I didn't see in the terms of use that I could only discuss topics approved by Pericles but if I'm wrong just let me know...Ha! Only joking!

Christians should be "followers of the teachings and example of Christ"! They should therefore be open to discussion about the Bible and to if needed justify why they hold such a view. It is healthy for them to reflect on all things biblical.

I am not assessing every Christian by this one person (please re-read my comment) but I am discussing the religion amongst people who choose to discuss it.

Opinionated2 writes: “Christians should be "followers of the teachings and example of Christ"!”

Well, yes - predominantly.

But the Bible is one big multiple choice book - a ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ if you will.

An example of this is the flagrant bigotry we see from Christians towards homosexuals. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality; Christians select verses from books like Leviticus, yet according to that very same book - only verses away - disobedient children and adulterers should be killed; eating shellfish is an abomination; and slavery is an acceptable practice - none of which any sane Christian would take seriously today.

The beauty (or horror) of religions is that they provide their followers with a sense of divine justification for their individual prejudices. Simply pick the bits you like and ignore the rest.

It just goes to show that wherever it is we get our morals from, it certainly isn’t the Bible.

Thankyou mikk for your post.... I agree with your method ... If the Bible is truly the word of God in the minds of Christians then they should understand that they need to explain the problems contained in it.

Thankyou also AdamD I absolutely agree that many Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their biases. I can never fathom why they being so full of God's love can attack homosexuality so vehemently when they don't apply ALL the laws handed down to Moses - other than those changed by Jesus in Matthew 5 and 6.

A typical example of this is where in Exodus 21 7:11 he allows a man to sell his kids into slavery if he is short of money and how the son is released after 7 years but not the daughter. - Apparently Gods law.

But one of the worst laws is in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 where it says
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 Then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

If the laws against homosexuality are so correct then so are these others that I have listed... How can anyone believe that their loving compassionate God could come up with such horrid laws?

How can 50 sheckels of silver be a penalty for rape? How can a God who loves all his children force a woman to marry her rapist? Does a rich person only need 50 sheckels of silver and to rape the woman he wants under this supposed law of God?

So much for creating us all equally.

Opinionated2

Is human secularism for real? Why do many Australian women sleep around and then murder the fruit of their womb. Is it true that you are related to the apes? Maybe this explains why these men and women act like animals. Don't any secularist question their textbooks that are so contradictory that they need continual revision and omission? Why are so many secularist so closed minded and full of idiotic dogma as you have displayed?

Hi,
This is one of my favorite forum. I would say, thanks for providing this useful information. I, must appreciate the tools provided by you. Please keep updating me.

CSK

Wow Runner, did you attempt to divert the discussion?

What have I asked that isn't biblical?

Why does Jesus directly contradict man's concept of the Trinity in John 14: 28 ..... "I am going to the Father for he is greater than I" I didn't say it Runner, it is in your bible. Jesus said it!

If Christians follow Christ and Christ said this - why doesn't this prove the Trinity a wrong teaching? Can Christians choose to ignore such an explicit statement?

So who do you follow Runner Jesus OR man? Are you a Christian or a Manian? You can't be both, now can you?

And please enlighten me as to who was Jacobs father? Is Matthew 1:16 Jacob begat Joseph or is Luke 3:23 Joseph was the son of Heli correct? Which verse is the infallible one?

If this is God's infallible word then is something wrong?

If the genealogy of Joseph, as listed in Matthew 1:16 where Joseph's father is said to be Jacob, and, in Luke 3:23 where Joseph is listed as the son of Heli appears different, which one is right? Please inform me so that I might understand.

Is Christianity a religion of truth? Would Jesus want our churches to be preaching his word or man's guesses? How can they ignore the scripture they claim is infallible? Does this make them fibbers?

Why doesn't Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 and Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 worry Christians? Why would God punish the woman for being raped by making her marry her rapist? Why would God consider it reasonable for the father to accept 50 pices of silver for such a horrid crime?

Runner I only ask these questions so that the truth might be told... Are you scared of the truth?

I look forward to the knowledgeable Christians here helping me answer these tough questions. Paul's letter to the Colossians 4:5-6 addresses how you should answer non-believers - I love studying the Bible don't you?

Interesting question here, Opinionated2.

Others have already pointed out that it is unfair to assume that all Christians are the same, so I won't go down that path. I will say, though, that within the many denominations and quasi-Christian sects, different aspects of the Bible are emphasised. In many years of Catholic schooling, and many more of Catholic Church attendance, I have found a particular focus on the New Testament. The doctrine, or rule, that is most commonly referred to (in my experience) comes from John 13:34. "I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you shall also love one another."

Obviously, I'm not speaking for the experience or beliefs of all Christians or, indeed, of all Catholics. I am just saying that, within the Christian world, there are those who find this piece of advice particularly important. My old school and my church work closely by this principle, dishing out "love" through charity, community work and a development of understanding across faiths and even among those who have no religion. In my senior religion classes, I spent more time learning about Buddhism than I did about Catholicism; our fundraising projects were committed to causes considered important by the students, whether they had Church affiliations or not.

As for the Trinity question, I don't think you'll find too many Catholics who can explain that one. I will offer a suggestion, but note that it is only conjecture and is made without reference to the original text in its original language. I know nothing of the original Greek and, I concede, it is possible that the Greek was a translation from an earlier text in another language. I don't know if you have been involved in translation work of any sort, but if you have you'll know that a change of words often brings with it a subtle change in meaning.

Anyway, the concept of the Trinity as I have been taught is one of a single God who is manifested in three forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The whole is greater than any of the three components, as it is a unified body. Jesus was the physical manifestation of God in the form of a human being. He came with most of the flaws of a human - He even shows weakness that is, perhaps, unbecoming of a God: first, when he suffers the agony in the garden and, again, on the cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Jesus' emancipation from His human body at the point of His death enabled Him to return physically to the other components of the Trinity - in particular, to the Father, whose greatness was at no point hampered by the imposition of humanity. Thus the Father is even greater than Jesus.

Like I said, this is only conjecture. Who knows what the original writers intended when they pieced this together? I am sure many will shout my interpretation down, but they can prove themselves no more right OR wrong than me. I hope this helps, anyway - even if all it does is to convince you that Christians are mad and will go to extraordinary lengths to justify their beliefs. What makes sense to me may not make sense to anyone else.

Is runner for real?

See what I mean. There is always an idiot like Runner who comes along and cannot contemplate any type of explanation or justification for their beliefs and can only spout insults and nastiness.

Who are these "many" Australian child murderers? I havent seen too many mothers kill their children lately. What a vile argument.

Opinionated2,

Christian scriptures are inconsistent because in ancient times these text were often revised to better fit contemporary circumstance. As the Bible is in places a pesher and calendar writers at times amend one part or two parts of an earlier work, forgetting the implications elsewhere in the work. In the first century, some revisions were made to account for the switch from the luni-solar calendar to the solar calendar. The sb-editors did not a very good job.

Some the Jewish acrocities and incest seem to have been okay, because these actions were under the inheritance of Abraham (a.k.a. Abram) and before the Law of Moses.

Christianity (Holy Roman Church) is very real in so much as it is a residual from Constantine's attempt to unify the Roman Empire

to all the soulish people could you please explain these scriptures.
God took the man and put him in the garden to tend and keep it. But stipulated he may eat of every tree in the garden but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he shall not eat for in the day you eat of it you will surely die. Death entered when man chose to believe the serpent instead of God. Then God put man out of the garden so that he could not touch the tree of life. Why.
Christians are forgiven not perfect.
Christianity is Relationship with the Father through Faith in the finished work on the cross.
Religion is man made and like adhearance to the Law is not the answer.
Homosexuality is an abomination to God because it does not produce life. The penelty for sin is death, the same death Adam suffered when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Sin Is Jesus Business for he dealt with it on the cross. Judge not lest you be judged.Finger pointing is dangerous for when you point your finger at someone three point back at you.
Most christians walk with a limp because they continue to walk in the
knowledge of good and evil instead of Grace and Mercy only available at the tree of life

I'm with Pericles on this one. Religious discussions are well and good, and the subject of the OP - Biblical contradictions - is entirely relevant. But the tone is completely contemptuous and in bad faith. This is a straight-up, Christian-bashing troll.

Opinionated2,

I certainly hope the lady can find alternative accomodation with respectful hosts.

Anyway, in defence of Pericle's post you stated:

"I am not assessing every Christian by this one person (please re-read my comment) but I am discussing the religion amongst people who choose to discuss it."

My question is: Did you choose the title?

Thankyou to all who have replied to my post... OUCH now Sancho has called me a troll... I am crushed!

mjpb I chose the question for a reason .. not to bag Christianity but to relieve some of my frustrations with it. I am quite happy for the lady to leave, but I would never request it of her, just because I am sick of her mentioning God every second sentence! I am showing Christian tolerance to her - Am I doing the wrong thing?

I spoke to a minister the other day ... pointing out that Jesus himself stated in John 14: 28 ... "I am going to the Father for he is greater than I". His reply - well I believe in the Trinity! Doesn't this make his belief unbiblical and therefore questionably unChristian?

If Jesus' word isn't good enough for a Christian then whose is? I really have problems with Christians who place traditional dogma over the words of their Lord as stated in their Bible. Isn't this what the Pharisees and Sadducees did? He called them hypocrites!

I was impressed with the replies from Otokonoko and Oliver... TY both. We may have our differences but i am sure that you tolerant ways and reasonable opinion is what Jesus would have expected.

MY real problem with Christians is that they throw around "God's word" and the word "infallible" and choose with little scholarship to lecture and ram it down peoples throats.

If you believe in God well and good but please know what it says in there. If Jesus can't be believed in John 14:28 by his followers then why should we others waste our time with your religion...

We people who question the Bible are in a wonderful position Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the spiritual poor because heaven belongs to them"!

There goes that Jesus again undermining Christian fundamentalism... HA!

The concept of trinity was a Roman construct of the 3rd century in an attempt by them to explain 3 spatial beings as one. However God is not a spatial being - He is the purest spirit of life outside all created form to whom we ought to aspire.

God is manifest through the spirit of those who accept the character, attitudes, actions and sacrifical life that Jesus Christ revealed as truly God incarnate. That he is the true template for human living. We ought to give devoted admiration to the ideals of His character and expression (eg Love) and live passionate and sacrificial lives for our fellow man. Jesus said follow me.

Christians ought to live by the teachings of Christ and not by the ancient laws that governed an Israeli nation 3000 years ago. The Bible is a record of growth in human history and thought and gives the background for current attitudes and views. It gives credibility to the principles of existence. It is the search for meaning and how those who sought found their answere.

I guess that you must be sincere in your confusion OP2, but you have to admit that wasn't particularly clear from your opening post.

I think you may have fallen into the trap of questioning your faith too closely.

The way you seem to be approaching the issue is akin to the different ways people can look at an oil painting.

Let's take Titian's "Three Ages of Man" as an example.

When you first look at it, it seems to be a handsome picture, that elegantly summarizes man's passage through life. The sleeping babies under the angel's watchful eye. The spunky guy in his prime, pleasantly exhausted after an encounter with a shepherdess. And the old bloke staring at a couple of skulls, presumably contemplating his final days.

However, the closer you get, the more confused it becomes. The babies' skin looks coarse and blotchy. What appeared to be the face of slaked pleasure turns out to be nothing more than closed eyes. While the look of terror on the old man's face sort of dissolves into individual brush strokes - very clever brush strokes, but ultimately just a series of coloured stripes.

And when you get very close, it has become completely incoherent. Just blotches of dried paint, with no apparent form or framework.

It's the same with religion.

From an appropriate mental distance, it all looks very attractive.

There's security and warmth in imagining that someone is looking after you. And there's the forgiveness of sins thing to make you feel better about yourself.

But if you look too closely, all you will ever find is contradictions and inconsistencies.

So, my advice would be, if you need religion in order to feel comfortable in the world, step back.

Don't look too closely.

And don't ask such simple, unanswerable questions as "If Jesus' word isn't good enough for a Christian then whose is?"

Thankyou for your explanation Pericles ... I am not a Christian.

The question "If Jesus' word isn't good enough for a Christian then whose is?" is the most important question a Christian should ask themselves. Most never reflect on what their preacher is telling them.

The "Trinity" genie got out of the bottle and Philo is correct. The trinity was a "Roman Construct" or a "construct of man".

Jesus said in John 14: 28 ... "I am going to the Father for he is greater than I" These words totally undermine the concept of the trinity as taught by many churches ... The Son of God said he was a lesser being than his father God! Sad (for many) but true this is what this statement says!

Jesus' word, actions and deed should be the basis of Christianity. So for Christians to truly understand God they need to fully understand that Jesus' word is "The Word" and in their hearts and minds they need to reflect heavily upon his words ONLY.

Most importantly if this "human construct" is wrong then what else being taught in churches is wrong?

In many churches they only allow "confirmed" members of their church and other visiting members "confirmed" in their own churches to take communion. During the last supper in Luke 22:17-20 Jesus is basically saying "Take communion in memory of me".

MOST IMPORTANT - He makes no statement that says only "confirmed members of his church" may do this. In fact the bread is his body and people who aren't confirmed but are believers want to take part in a ceremony given to them by Jesus but mishandled by the Church.

Why have churches made changes that limit Jesus' body and blood being shared amongst those who may be in the process of knowing him? It is unbiblical and therefore "a ritual of man".

Do Christians who say they follow Jesus' teachings realise man is modifying and altering those teachings. For Christians isn't the alteration, modification, misrepresentation or change of any of Jesus' word wrong and unChristian?

Listen if you have ears!

No Christian is a follower of Jesus. Since Jesus lived and died a Jew those who wish to follow him should not reject his religion but should seek conversion to his religion which is still around.

Well, I was certainly wrong on one matter, OP2.

>>I guess that you must be sincere in your confusion OP2<<

Sincerity clearly does not come into the equation here, does it? Serves me right for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

>>Thankyou for your explanation Pericles ... I am not a Christian<<

Then why, for goodness sake, are you concerning yourself with these questions? It is very, very bad manners to pretend to be interested, and lard your posts with frequent biblical quotations, when all the time you are simply goading the devout with devious questions that they cannot possibly answer.

Furthermore, what makes you think you are qualified to speculate on what they may or may not find important?

>>The question "If Jesus' word isn't good enough for a Christian then whose is?" is the most important question a Christian should ask themselves<<

Pretty presumptuous for a non-Christian, I'd suggest.

And why are you consulting priests?

>>I spoke to a minister the other day ... pointing out that...<<

How very rude of you. I hope he told you where to shove your thoughtless and arrogant observations on his faith.

But thank you for providing the clearest possible evidence that yes, you are indeed a troll...

"someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response" - Wikipedia

Wow Pericles... Have you lost the plot? We are having a philosophical discussion here ... STOP name calling .. Please don't call me a troll ... I turn the other cheek...lol

Take a chill pill Pericles you aren't in 495 – 429 BC now... please catch up with the main game.

Now back to the topic

These questions have moulded mankind... It is important we discuss them openly and with the relevant references so that at least Pericles can understand. If he can then others may.

If man's teachings are placed higher than the specific words of Jesus then should Christianity be renamed to "Manianity with the occasional reference to Jesus' words"? You can't say that the Bible is the word of God and then ignore a specific instruction - can you?

Pericles ... I'm not allowed to consult a priest for a discussion on matters of religion and faith... Are you for real?

So if Jesus is "the Son of God" and a Christian wants to follow Jesus why confuse Jesus' teachings with Pauls or any other of man's teachings in their Bible? Why cherry pick? Why change Jesus' intentions?

Why not isolate Jesus' teachings ... understand those fully ... and then discover which group bests reflects your saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is only one ministry ... The ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ and yet almost "ALL" denominations, churches and sects have taken his name out of their names. What does this say?

One final thing Pericles... Many Christians won't have even realised that Jesus said what he did in John 14:28.

If Christians aren't questioning the trinity and how it has been preached since it's inception then Jesus' own words have fallen on rock and have no chance of bearing fruit.

Lastly I would like to refer back to Otokonoko posted - John 13:34. "I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you shall also love one another."

Now there is a starting point for mankind!

For all your condescension, OP2, I note that you failed to address a single question that I put directly to you.

>>We are having a philosophical discussion here... STOP name calling<<

No, OP2, you are not having a "philosophical discussion" of any kind. You are performing, at best, a variant of mental masturbation, for reasons that you decline to share with the rest of us.

>>These questions have moulded mankind... It is important we discuss them openly<<

No, they have not moulded mankind. They are provocative, needling questions posed by a (professed) outsider, and therefore impossible to take seriously.

>>If man's teachings are placed higher than the specific words of Jesus then should Christianity be renamed to "Manianity with the occasional reference to Jesus' words"?<<

Pure blah. It isn't even a real question.

>>There is only one ministry ... The ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ <<

A very strange claim, especially from a non-Christian. Are you sure you aren't? Have you checked lately?

>>One final thing Pericles... Many Christians won't have even realised that Jesus said what he did in John 14:28.<<

Where you fail to connect the dots, OP2, is to give even the vaguest semblance of a reason why this should be of the slightest interest to a non-Christian such as you claim to be.

Given the dubious nature of John's gospel as a historical record, there must be a substantial question over whether Jesus even used these words. So arguing the fine detail does seem a little odd for an outsider. It might be of passing interest to the odd biblical scholar, but once again begs the question...

... if you are not, as you claim, a troll, then why?

Given the knee-jerk insults in response to my post, I think I'll stick with my first theory.

Greetings Philo,

The Christian Trinity has its origins in Rome, as you state. Yet, it might be worth noting, there were earlier trinities in Egypt and Babylon. Relatedly, the idea of consubstantial essence was known the Romans, before Nicaea. Tertullian claimed the Father and Son as, “duarum personarum” in “unius substantiae”. Two-in-One.

Recently, I discovered that traditional Hawiians had a trinity too. The Hawaiian conservators of their faith discourage secretion with Christian trinity.

It seems to me, different people at different places and different times are urged, to believe difficult things, as gospel (ahem).

Oliver

Hi Oliver,
The Christian faith is based in the unity of one spirit, and since three persons represent three spirits it fails to represent the unity. The fact is the many Christian persons should express one spirit if it represents the true expression of God. God is both unity and diversity in the human expression. However there is no conflict in the diversity.

Pericles ... Would you answer someone who called you a troll?

I was raised by a Christian mother but never referred to myself as Christian - I could not understand the lack of questioning by Christians when it came to the ugly bits of the Bible. I do not go to church I do not believe in a biblical God. I am neither atheist nor agnostic... I am what I am.

Let me illustrate my points another way

The OLD Testament - Judaism (a one sided view of history justifying all manner of horror)
The Gospels - Jesus' life and teachings as documented by man (A refreshing change from Judaism with supernatural actions)
The Acts through to Revelations - Man's interpretations, actions, responses etc.

Jesus = Christ which gives rise to Christianity and hence the word Christian. Chritianity was a small sect that was empowered by the actions of Constantine for political and alleged spiritual purposes.

If Christians believe in Jesus as the Christ or Son of God then his teachings are the fundamentals of Christianity. The gospels (if you choose to believe them) illustrate what Christians should aspire to or do they?

So Jesus' word becomes the greatest gift to Christians.

From an outsider looking in perspective man's influence over the word and the selective nature at which the word is applied by churches and the congregation becomes most important.

I am seeking to understand why people think the way they do, what conclusions they have drawn and how they apply "the word" through their communities.

Why do Christians call it God's word when contained within it suggests forcing a woman who is raped to marry and remain married to the rapist, why homosexuality is attacked and yet the acceptance of Slavery, murder, oppression of women and ridiculous punishments are ignored completely.

And especially why Christians need to cling tightly to these old texts even with the horrors that they contain? I am interested in how people justify those beliefs and ignore the terrible actions and instructions contained within.

Fair enough, OP2, I withdraw the troll label.

But it is still a complete mystery to me why you ask your questions in such a manner.

Your first post asked two questions, after telling the story of "the lady who came to stay"

>>Is it Christian to mislead people on the Bible?<<

and

>>Why does doctrinal teachings suppress intellect and the use of God's gift - intelligence?<<

The first is not really a question, more a statement, while the second is aggressive, and unanswerable. Much along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?"

You then advised me to "watch and learn", which was just the teensiest bit condescending, given the quality of your opening statements.

If you are expecting a discussion - as opposed to simply inviting folk to express their own particular antipathy to Christianity - you need to find a better way to stimulate it than:

>>Why do Christians call it God's word when contained within it suggests forcing a woman who is raped to marry and remain married to the rapist, why homosexuality is attacked and yet the acceptance of Slavery, murder, oppression of women and ridiculous punishments are ignored completely.<<

You phrase it as a question, but it is in fact simply a statement of your personal confusion.

You cannot possibly expect an answer.

Nobody is going to say "well, the reason God want rapists to forcibly marry their victims is..."

You obviously find some value in getting these personal doubts, concerns and mystification off your chest. But you cannot expect cogent responses when you continue to phrase your objections in such a manner.

If you dislike the "t" label, I strongly suggest you find a more open-ended way of framing your questions.

Dear Philo,

The commonly used expression “persons” seems problematic because the term creates the image of dimensional people. A dimensionless spirit would not have physicality.

Yet,

Was Jesus’ "physicality" divine; say his nose or ear? Or was his physicality/atoms merely infused with spirit/ousia?

Would have Jesus’ atoms been independent of God’s ousia? The particle/waveforms of the quarks, divine?

Should the material atoms have been divine particles*, would it mean the matter/energy of, the Son aspect of the ousia, in homoousion, was physical?

Did ousia become made of matter?

Were Jesus’ fundamental particles newly created, especially for Jesus? If Jesus’ physicality is God, how could the divine “Jesus” be created by a prior act?

Or can causation be, without creation? If the latter is true, why would a Creator be required?

Regards,

Oliver

*And fundamental waveforms (quantum mechanics

Hi Opinionated2

It can be difficult for a person confronted by a fundamentalist Christian face to face, especially if it is quite rare for them to interact in the normal course of their lives. The initial reaction is to push back as you are doing.

How would you would react to a traditional indigenous Australian who told you about their 'dreamtime' and admitted to believing in a the literal truth of those oral stories? Would you be as disparaging?

Perhaps a little understanding of a persons sometimes urgent need to make sense of what can seem a very frightening world and their place in it. Possibly for your guest a need for answers and a solid foundation to her life has led her to adopt a fundamentalist creed. Is it your role to strip that from her? Perhaps time may have been better spent addressing some of her fears because often there are many of them that accompany such a believer. Persecution has always served to entrench rather than weaken beliefs.

Rabbi Kustner talks about G-d being a mirror and when people look to him they see much of themselves reflected. But like your guest, you seem to sift the best fit parts of the bible for yourself. Who is to say your interpretation of Jesus' message and life are correct?

You are right in that fundamentalist Christianity has little to do with the literal word of the bible but think of it as more an organic force rather than a theological one, and in many ways more human.

One of their great sins though is to verse pluck and mashup to create messages that are not supported by a proper reading of scripture, e.g. the parable of the ‘Talents’ to justify a ‘prosperity gospel’. Aren’t your ‘rape’ and ‘homosexual’ references are guilty of the same?

Try this for fun, go read the OT book of Esther, don’t dwell on arranged marriages, concubines etc , instead think of Mordecai as Israel, King Xeres as the US and if I could be very cheeky, Queen Esther as Madeline Albright.

Pericles - I am stunned

The point I am making through the questions I ask is so simple ... Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Some even believe that God guided the hand of those who wrote the books.

Many preachers preach this every week ... if what they are preaching is demonstrably wrong, then, Christians need to know.

That is why I mentioned the trinity ... Jesus' word in John 14:28 does not confirm it ... It was a construct of man. Therefore if this is true it isn't God's word! God is God, Jesus is the Son Of God and the holy spirit is God's power in action. Simple!

We know that the Bible states that God hates homosexuals... but it says in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that women should marry their rapists ... Could the most intelligent entity in the Christians Universe, God, make such a law against a woman? It is intellectually incomprehensible that God would make this law and so to call it God's law would be a falsehood. Either the Bible contains errors or a Christian should insist that all laws not changed by Jesus in Matthew 5 & 6 be enforced.

Now of course they wouldn't want Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it is a ridiculous law... but they need wonder why it is in the Bible. Maybe their oppression of homosexuals isn't their God's word either!

So I choose to show Christians that their Bible is not inerrant (as many claim) by pointing out the errors in their reference book.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 on Joseph's genealogy don't conform... Are there errors? If the answer is yes the Bible is wrong!

Once we establish that the Bible contains errors then the Bible can not be inerrant and their journey re-begins here.

I ask Christians to consider if what they are being taught is accurate. Is it their duty, as a Christian, to make sure they are being taught the truth. For to lie or misrepresent their God's word or laws would be a sin - wouldn't it?

Csteele thankyou for your reply. You ask a very interesting question regarding the aboriginal dream time.

I have no problem with the aboriginal dream time whatsoever, nor do I have any problem with someone's right to believe in God.

There is a massive difference though. The bible threatens the wrath of God on people. It claims we are all sinners and we may end up in the pitfires of hell. In it's pages it justifies rape, murder, land theft, hates homosexuals and lays down laws that are so unGodly that it beggars belief.

I have faced the blind faith of Christians many times. It is only by referring them back to their Bible that you can break through the "I believe" shield and actually get them to contemplate on why a supreme being would approve so acceptingly of what it states.

I get amazed when people suggest I sift through the bits to suit my stance. That is utter rubbish. When I read the Bible I read it like you would read anybook. When I get to a page that justifies something like slavery... I read it over and over. I try to contemplate how these bits reflect the will of a loving God.

I am not against faith... I question religious interpretations and the selective use of scripture to justify those interpretations.

It is simply analysis.

If a Christian believes that their God made such horrific laws then isn't the loving caring God theory out the window? I bring these horrific rules to their attention so I might further understand why they don't seem to bother them.

From my experience most don't know they are even there... Why?

They aren't mentioned by preachers because they conflict with the concept of a loving God. Who then is being selective

Dear Opinionated2,

Don’t you realise what you are doing? You are assailing my faith. This is a part my life that sustains me, calms me, gives me joy and deep fellowship. I have willingly given myself over to it totally and that has meant accepting the literal truth of the bible. My life circumstances do not allow me the luxury nor do I have the inclination for deep contemplation of the theological complexities that I understand exist in the Bible, but what I have is more precious than life itself and it works for me in so many different ways.

And I want to share that gift with others. I would rather spend my time spreading the Good News rather than critiquing each and every verse in the Bible. You might think the validity of this gift hinges on a few verses I do not. I am in love and if you have experienced it and given yourself over to it totally you may understand that the imperfections others perceive matter little.

You say “I bring these horrific rules to their attention so I might further understand why they don't seem to bother them.”

I need to understand why you seem to be so threatened by such a loving commitment to a faith. You seem to want me to pull it all down and rebuild it in your image of a loving G-d. I need those solid foundation stones in my life and you are like a thorn in the cracks trying to wedge them apart piece by piece. Anyhow what makes your image any more valid than mine? Is there a sense that you are a slighted bridesmaid here, piqued by the all consuming love you see in front of you?

Might not your anger be better directed at an orthodox Jew? After all the OT is their book too without the overlaying message of love from Jesus.

You appear to still be searching for answers but I have found mine and I pray that maybe you will one day tread the same path.

c ‘born-again-for-a-day’ steele

Oliver,
The Hebrews saw man as a single unity, The Greeks saw man as a tripate being of body soul and spirit. The Bible uses the singular name Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28: 18, even as Isaiah 9: 6.

When we identify spirit it is manifest in character, personality and attitude etc i.e. pure sacrifical love is spiritual and only has reality as seen by us in demonstrated action; yet the value of sacricial love is eternal and pure (holy).

The act of pure love is a reality yet it is not of itself physical but is manifest by the character in the physical and expresses the very character of God. In spirit terms it it to be eternally sdmired above any organic form.

Jesus was mortal man just like all of us. He was born and he died. We do not extol his body as some are want to do; we extol his character because it expressed the very nature of God. His body is not divine. Though his spirit sanctified his body exclusively as a servant of God Acts 2: 22 - 24

Csteele wrote: Might not your anger be better directed at an orthodox Jew? After all the OT is their book too without the overlaying message of love from Jesus.

Dear Csteele,

Jesus’ message of love was from his Jewishness.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Note the command not to be vengeful. That statement could be interpreted as an injunction to love only the children of thy people. However, sixteen verses later, the Jewish God makes the explicit command to love the stranger.

LEVITICUS 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

A loving God shows up early. Cain murdered his brother, and God is angry so he tells Cain
that he will be severely punished. Cain's response follows:

GENESIS 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 4:15 And the LORD said unto him,
Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the
LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

God is merciful and protects Cain under his protection. God's vengeance is softened by a human plea. Religious supporters of capital punishment please note.

Love in the Jewish Bible differs from that in the New Testament. In the Jewish Bible, the emphasis is on the love of humans for one another, and in the New Testament, the emphasis is on the love between humans and God and the love of humans for other
abstractions such as righteousness.

Continued

Continued

The Jewish God decries violence:

PSALMS 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

The Jewish Bible advocates deep kissing.

SONG OF SOLOMON 7:9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.

The Jewish Bible advocates foreplay.

ISAIAH 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:

The Jewish Bible advocates foreplay with clitoral stimulation.

SONG OF SOLOMON 2:6 His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.

SONG OF SOLOMON 5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

The Jewish Bible eulogises gay love:

SAMUEL 2 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

In the New Testament one finds a lean, mean Jesus. Four consecutive verses show a "Here comes trouble" attitude.

MATTHEW 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

MATTHEW 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Daughters in law need that?

MATTHEW 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Remember this when the Bible bashers talk about family values.

MATTHEW 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

This is a jealous, possessive love. A loving spouse would not demand making a choice between the children of your union and herself or himself, and a loving saviour would not demand that people make a choice between him and one's family.

Csteele,

You can't lay assailing your faith at my door. Your faith is your belief within... I am discussing the basis of your religion the Bible. The reason I comment on the Bible is that I studied it.

Did you not realise that the Bible contained these horrid passages? I have been very gentle in quoting them trust me... there are many!

If you didn't realise then why not? Did your preacher forget to tell you? Did you miss them in Bible study or weren't they mentioned? If people don't know about these verses is their religious education lacking?

I am not angry at anyone, or threatened, but it seems your faith is. When I was a child I asked questions about these passages and I was shunned. One of my lovely religious teachers even used emotional blackmail on me stating "I have failed you". She didn't fail me... her knowledge of the Bible and her religious education failed her!

I'm not against you sharing what you believe to be the good news but at least tell the whole truth. Is telling the truth a Christian quality?

If God through Jesus Christ is your faith then understand it fully. You admit you don't have the inclination to study these passages - so don't but don't be shocked when someone tells you what your Bible contains.

As I said earlier Jesus admonished the Pharisees and Sadducees as hypocrites.

Faith and spirituality are not limited to a book so why is the book so important? If people built their faith on the Bible without any knowledge of these passages then their faith might just may be built on sand as Jesus warned in Matthew 7:24-2

Hey davidf, can I leave my response until my 24 hours in the Ned Flanders cardigan are up?

Hey opinionated2,

You might well say you are commenting on the Bible but in reality you are using it to comment on my faith.

A different person may well see the same flaws you claim to see but have an entirely different perspective. They might look at the book in its entirety and see the life changing experience of grace that so many people have been blessed with over the ages and see it as something unique, magnificent and G-d derived.

Perhaps part of the problem is that you have only studied it not 'lived it'. Through your obvious cynicism you have placed a wall between the fruits of G-d’s love and your life. I am wondering why you think that I and so many like me should be denied as well? Or if we are allowed it then only on your terms, with your idea of G-d? Is this not an arrogance?

We are enjoined to go out and proselytise, you are not, however the degree with which I extol my faith is at least equal with the vehemence with which you try to tear it down. I don’t presume to have answers to all the questions you raise about the bible, only G-d does. Your attitude of rejecting him until they are all answered to your satisfaction is from my standpoint self defeating.

You said Jesus admonished the Pharisees and Sadducees as hypocrites. But why? Because they were so caught up in the minutia of the law and forgot to live the faith. Isn’t this exactly what you are doing?

What do you think might happen if you accepted Jesus Christ into your life? What burdens would be shed? What exuberance of life would you experience that up till now has been denied you? If you knew you may not be so quick to try and relieve me of these gifts.

c ‘born-again-for-3/4s-of-a-day’ steele

Well my day as a ‘born-again-Christian’ was pleasant enough but I’m handing back the cardigan. I think Billy Graham is probably pleased, although with a little more practice….

This gives me a chance to reply to davidf. I am more than happy to acknowledge the love proclaimed in the OT but you have got to be kidding when you say of Jesus “This is a jealous, possessive love. A loving spouse would not demand making a choice between the children of your union and herself or himself, and a loving saviour would not demand that people make a choice between him and one's family.” but then say the Jewish G-d was above all this. Could you please tell me what the hell Abraham was doing with his knife poised above Isaac’s throat?

The relationship between the Jews and G-d is only understandable for me when seen as that of two lovers.

You say you love me well prove it! - I would do anything for you. - I see the most precious thing is your firstborn of your union with Sarah. Sacrifice him to me then I will believe it. - Okay I will. - Wow you were actually prepared to do it, you must really love me. - I love you too.

"For the Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God."—Exodus 34:14.

And what about Passover? Here was the poor Pharaoh, beaten into submission with plagues etc ready to let Moses and his people go when your Jewish G-d intervenes to ’harden his heart’ resulting in the sacrifice of the first born son of every Egyptian family. Why? Because G-d was showing off. “I need an excuse to give this bloke a real thumping so that my lover sees just how good I am”

Most Jewish holidays seem to be associated with slaughter. For the biggest lover’s hissy fit could you ever beat drowning the whole world?

Your Jewish G-d did, and was prepared to do, great evil in the name of love and jealousy. I think Jesus was a saint in comparison.

c “born-again-no-longer” steele

Dear Csteele,

You wrote: "you have got to be kidding when you say of Jesus “This is a jealous, possessive love. A loving spouse would not demand making a choice between the children of your union and herself or himself, and a loving saviour would not demand that people make a choice between him and one's family.” but then say the Jewish G-d was above all this. Could you please tell me what the hell Abraham was doing with his knife poised above Isaac’s throat?"

I am not kidding. Jesus was a bigot. When he said that one could only enter the Kingdom of heaven through him he was saying that it didn't matter how good a life you lived, how decent you were you could enter the Kingdom of heaven only if you accepted his mumbo jumbo.

I don't why you spell God G-d. The story of Abraham and Isaac is why I am now an atheist. I began to doubt the whole business. In both the Jewish Bible and the New Testament there is a mixture of love and hate. There are nuggets of decency and love in both. However, I think Abraham who was willing to commit an atrocity to show his faith and a God who would ask a man to commit such an atrocity or Jesus the bigot and his God who was a sadist committing his beloved son to a horrid death are all unworthy of worship.

However, I brought in the Jewish God because that is where Jesus got his sayings about love. What he said that was good was not new and what he said that was not new was not good. I got the impression from your post that you thought Jesus invented love.

It existed way before either part of the Bible.

Csteele,

How can you look at the Bible in it's entirety and ignore all the horrid bits? Amazing!

I think you have just remade my exact point!

The question is will Christians, and followers of the OT especially, still describe it as "God's Word" and "inerrant"? Is stating this a lie, or worse the betrayal of God by even thinking that God could make up such crazy rules. Surely it is an insult to God's intelligence and greatness?

If they do then either they believe your God is at times a ruthless God (eg, Exodus 31:12-15, Judges 21:10-24, Leviticus 20:9)who makes dangerous unintelligent laws (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) OR will Christians intentionally under inform those they proselytise too?

This is exactly the point I originally made when I asked "Is it Christian to mislead people on the Bible?" Is Christianity a religion of truth? Does God or G_d want the truth to be told?

You can't say the Bible is God's word and that you follow the Bible if you only follow the bits you choose... that would be an incorrect statement of facts ... thus an untruth ... thus a sin ... Aren't you now justifying not telling people the truth and encouraging sin?

Muslims are told to proselytise also... How do you feel about that?

And your point "We are enjoined to go out and proselytise, you are not" undermines free speech - I can do what I choose and telling the truth seems more important and Godly to me than being deceptive or untruthful.

Me becoming a Christian would only undermine what I know to be the truth... You have proved it above. I would gain nothing - I'm already the life of the party. empathetic, intelligent, helpful, kind generous but mostly I don't brainwash people - are you?

I don't want to take your faith from you - All I ask is that you tell the truth about the Bible. Then people can make up their own minds.

Is telling the truth what your God requires?

Hey davidf and Opinionated2,

Okay I may have been a little too subtle for my own good. Just to clarify, I had adopted the role of a born again christian over the last few posts to argue from that perspective. I had hoped the sign-offs, c‘born-again-for-a-day’steele, c‘born-again-for-3/4s-of-a-day’steele, c“born-again-no-longer”steele would have been clear enough but the clarity may have been in my mind only, if so then I wish to apologise to you both.

I have many close in-laws who are fundamentalists and have spent many years thrashing these issues around on an almost weekly basis. Early on I would rail constantly against biblical inconsistencies but have moved well past that now, developing a great love for the bible which I now see as an almost completely human book.

How could it be otherwise remembering many of the stories of the OT were passed down orally for centuries before being committed to the written form. In that journey they must have evolved in their ability to move an audience, layers added that allowed them to be relevant and resonate across many generations, to end up oozing a human-ness that can be breath taking.

Indeed I find the OT g-d to be far more humanised than Jesus although JC’s early reference to gentiles as dogs help to redeem him as do the taunts about his illegitimacy.

I understand a little about the midrashic tradition and recognise it at work in the NT. Mark was the earliest of the Gospels and makes no reference to the virgin birth for instance. Jesus’s deification intensified after the fall of the temple and conflicts between the ordinary Jews and the new sect certainly influenced the writings of Matthew onwards who would have had a motivation to elevate him as high as possible.

davidf, I began using g-d when referring to the Jewish g-d out of respect to others I engage with in discussion on another forum (it is they who steered me to Rabbi Kushner’s writings) and it seems to have stuck even when discussing the Christian god. I promise to work on it.

But OP2, you still haven't told us why.

>>I don't want to take your faith from you - All I ask is that you tell the truth about the Bible. Then people can make up their own minds.<<

Why is it so important to you that you ask all these totally impossible questions?

What is your agenda here? You must know that Christians don't rely upon the exact interpretation of individual verses of the Bible to justify their faith. So why pick on them? What are you trying to achieve?

For a start, how will you know when your questions have been answered?

As far as I can tell, the only thing that will satisfy you is if they all suddenly respond "hallelujah, thanks you OP2, I see clearly now, all has been revealed, I've been living a lie all these years".

And you know that's not going to happen, don't you?

So, once again. Why?

Csteele,

Your sign offs were a little too subtle... I didn't even read them after the second one... I thought your bornagainedness was broken into 1/4 day lots... lol

I too see the Bible as a completely human book. If there is a loving God he must be astounded that his followers could actually believe he was such a mean, jealous, vindictive entity when his wrath was unleashed. Amazing! Despite some of the stuff Jesus allegedly said - Most of the stuff was very amazing for his time

Pericles you astound me... you sound like the little kid next door when I was a child who continuosly asked ... "but why" after you answered the previous "but why"?

So let me play Pericles... After me explaining already that it is about truth and honesty - allegedly Christian traits - Why can't you understand this? Why? Why? Why?

And why do you not know why I ask why about you continually ask why?

Pericles - A Christian can't state unconditionally that the Bible is inerrant or God's word when it obviously contains errors. God's word wouldn't contain errors - would it? If they do they either are ignorant of their Bible (hopefully I have helped them) OR they choose to be selective. Is selectiveness telling the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help me God?

If you can't see that truth and honesty are paramount to a Christian faith then I can't help you.

Whilst not many Christians have posted here you can bet many have read the discussion. Hopefully they will have looked up their Bibles and will ask their preachers the tough questions.

The churches have changed Jesus teachings to suit their own ends ... the holy communion for example .... they have no mandate to do this and the restricting of taking of Jesus gift of communion to confirmed members ONLY is unBiblical and therefore not Jesus' teaching, and therfore UnChristian!

Why you might ask?

Op2, you post as though you're dazzled by the strength of your own intellect, but you're just rehashing the obvious and most basic criticisms of Christianity.

Christ in the Bible is nothing like the Christ cited by modern Christians. We know.

Christians cherry-pick Bible passages to support their own prejudices. We know.

The Bible contradicts itself and is obviously a man-made fiction. Yes, we know.

These points had been made a million times over before you were even born, but you seem to believe that we're all blown away by your insightful expose of Christian hypocrisy.

As Sidney J. Harris said, "Nothing can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own".

Opinionated2,

I can only apologise once again and will try to make any further role playing, if any, as overt as possible.

Pericles and I have both been happy to slap the odd OLO fundamentalist around in the past for what we see as aberrant behaviour such as referring to someone else as a non Christian when obviously they were, just not within the parameters of the accuser. Likewise bigotry is also indefensible and needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

But the tone you have taken through this discussion hints at more and like Pericles I would like to know what? What buttons are being pushed with you? Your thinking has obviously lead you to dismissing the Christian creed but what is motivation driving you to lash out at the literalists?

It can’t just be that their thinking leads to killings and war because there is far more chance of your guest hurting someone in her car than through her faith and I don’t see you wanting to relieve her of her keys.

I don’t think it is really her blindness to aspects of the bible since I’m sure you would accept the same in an one-eyed Australian, or a football club supporter.

Is it rather a reflection of your disappointment in religion and the recognition of the loss that entails? Or is it something else entirely?

So why? Let us see some of that truth and honesty that you ask of those Christians.

BTW I would have thought that churches obviously had a mandate to adapt their teachings to their parishioners unless you want the church to be set in stone. That is a fundamentalist position.

As to the bible, from where I sit the Old Testament is the tale of the human-ness of a G-d and the New is about the Godliness of a human. Try reading it as an epic tale rather than studying it and I’m sure you will be rewarded.

You are obviously finding this exchange as tedious as I am, OP2.

I am enquiring after your motivation. My question "why" has nothing to do with:

>>truth and honesty - allegedly Christian traits<<

I agree that these are allegedly Christian traits.

>>A Christian can't state unconditionally that the Bible is inerrant or God's word when it obviously contains errors.<<

I agree that the Bible cannot be inerrant, and that it is factually incorrect to state that it is. I am aware also that the vast majority of Christians accept this too, but choose to embrace the concept at the expense of nit-picky detail.

>>If you can't see that truth and honesty are paramount to a Christian faith then I can't help you<<

I can and do see this. I don't need your help.

But I suggest that your version of "truth and honesty" is merely self-important pedantry.

We may be getting closer to an answer with this observation of yours:

>>Hopefully they will have looked up their Bibles and will ask their preachers the tough questions.<<

If I understand you, you are hoping to persuade Christians that they are dumb to believe what they believe. That they are self-deluding chumps. That the evidence suggests that what they consider to be the foundation of their belief, is merely shifting sand.

Would that be right?

If so, I think it is a fair question to ask "why" you think this it is a really neat idea to do this.

What motivates you to sit in judgment over another's religious proclivities?

I fully realize that you knew all along that this was the question behind all those "whys", which was the reason you resorted to name-calling.

So tell us, do you perhaps get a kick out of feeling superior to these people?

Wow is this tag team stupidity? ... You guys are quite proficient...lol

Sancho... I am not dazzled by my own intellect, I am amazed at the lack of it throughout society and that members of religions judge others not even knowing their own.

I am not against Christians or their faith ... I am against ignorance. I am against telling people falsehoods and then re-badging it as truth. I never for a second thought that I was the only one to know these things about the Bible... I just know that when I read them I stopped to question - others didn't.

Pericles and csteele.... Wow

I have been honest here... I don't have a hidden agenda. Are you both conspiracy theorists...lol

I totally disagree with churches having a mandate to change what Jesus (their Saviour & often God) gave to his followers and limit it to just confirmed members. Where does it say that in the Bible? Mine is not a fundamentalist position what rot! That is why I asked "Isn't Jesus' word good enough for them"?

However, I do believe that once people really understand their religion, that change, in a more accepting and moderate way is a good thing. If these religions could stop picking on homosexuals I might have more time for them... No I am not gay...lol

I doubt if the Churches application of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has ever been properly applied to our homosexual community. They seem to need someone to vilify!

I admire many of the things that good Christians do in society... I sit in judgement of them.

Since the rise of the Muslim extremist I have noted a surge in commentary about the Qu'ran and yet no-one even mentions that the Bible too is riddled with atrocities and crazy rules.

I enjoy the fact that you guys are trying to rattle my chain... It is healthy to play the devil's advocate sometimes. Don't overplay it though as you may actually get entangled in supposing things that aren't actually there. Ha!

OOPs - I typoed (sorry) -"I admire many of the things that good Christians do in society... I sit in judgement of them." Should read "I do not sit in judgement of them"... because I don't!

Pericles stated :

<<If I understand you, you are hoping to persuade Christians that they are dumb to believe what they believe.>> Nope I never said that anyone was dumb... which proves you don't understand the simple things I am discussing.

So therefore I don't think it is a "neat" idea. Pericles stop reading between the lines it is full of open spaces. Read the lines and imagine that the words say what they mean...lol

I am not sitting in judgement I am giving them the opportunity for them to read and know their Bible and religion better. I think it is called education!

I don't feel superior to anyone Pericles... Why do you make such assertions.. You are not good at them?

<<which was the reason you resorted to name-calling.>> This from the great Pericles ... who at least twice called me a "troll". Hypocrisy? Remove the log in your own eye first Pericles before you try to remove the speck in mine...lol

Just as an update I have been told lately a few times by our beloved Christian friends that the Qu'ran says to kill non-believers... Wow... but the news that astounded them was that so does the Bible...

Exodus 22:19, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19 and 17:2-5 for starters... OOps sorry I told the truth again! I apologise!

Christians - please let go of the Old Testament - It is a one sided view of history and it undermines your Jesus Christ's teachings!

Opinionated2 wrote:

Christians - please let go of the Old Testament - It is a one sided view of history and it undermines your Jesus Christ's teachings!

Dear Opinionated2,

Jesus’ message of love was from his Jewishness.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Note the command not to be vengeful. That statement could be interpreted as an injunction to love only the children of thy people. However, sixteen verses later, the Jewish God makes the explicit command to love the stranger.

LEVITICUS 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Jesus’ message of love came from the Old Testament. If one got rid of what Jesus said that wasn’t new you would be left with a lot that wasn’t good.

Bishop Spong has made these comments on what he calls the terrible texts in the New Testament:

“RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY: "No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6) This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.”
“ANTI-SEMITISM: And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25) No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible "Word of God" in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.”
(continued)

(continued)

“SEXISM: For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1Cor. 8-9) The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil to their core and it was built on the story of Eve. She was taken out of man and was not his equal, but his helpmeet. Evil entered human history through the weakness of the woman. She was made to bear the blame and the guilt. She was the source of death.”

There is no denying of salvation in the Old Testament of people who are not Jews.

My grandmother was possibly the kindest, most loving person I have ever known. I have a fundamentalist Christian cousin - great grandson of my grandmother - who never knew her but has told me she is suffering the torments of hell because she didn't accept Jesus.

He gets that vicious idea from John 14:6

Both the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are capable of love and vengeance, but the political situations differ in the two Testaments. In much of the Old Testament the Jews were an independent nation. Independent nations have the power to slaughter and dominate their fellow humans as the Christian British Empire did in occupying one quarter of the planetary land area. In the New Testament Rome occupied Palestine. The difference in Testaments was political more than religious. The nation in antiquity or the present justifies inhumanity by patriotism often in conjunction with the will of the Lord.

Is Opinionated2 for real?

Doesn't look like it, from the rather feeble protestations of clean hands.

>>Nope I never said that anyone was dumb... which proves you don't understand the simple things I am discussing.<<

How about this, from your opening post?

>>Why does doctrinal teachings suppress intellect and the use of God's gift - intelligence?<<

That is a direct accusation that Christians do not utilize their God-given intelligence. Or, in other words, they're dumb to believe what they believe.

Or this?

>>How can anyone believe that their loving compassionate God could come up with such horrid laws?<<

What are you suggesting here, if not that such believers are stupid? What alternative spin would you like to apply?

>>How can they ignore the scripture they claim is infallible? Does this make them fibbers?<<

Or just dumb? You don't leave an awful lot of room for manoeuvre, do you?

According to you, I don't understand the "simple things" you are discussing.

What's to understand?

You simply trot out some feigned shock that Christians can hold their faith without necessarily believing every word and phrase in their chosen scriptures.

Wow. Hold the presses.

Further, you have not yet provided a cogent reason for doing so.

Do you expect to guide Christians to a new religion? If so, what is it? Perhaps you would like them to share your own personal confusion, so that you don't feel quite so alone?

>>I am not against Christians or their faith ... I am against ignorance<<

This might, then, be a really good point at which to stop demonstrating your own quite so fearlessly.

The statement attributed to Jesus in John 14: 6 - "No one comes to the father except by me" refers not to his flesh but to the personal acceptance that his revelation was the very revealed character of God. Acceptance and adoption of his way of life, that his attitudes, actions and teachings as being the true revelation of the mind of God is the way to the Father. The Father refers to the holiest and purist of all character. Bishop Spong is a fraud and not true of spirit and the nature of the NT.

As far as (Matt. 27:25) is concerned it is not the teachings of Christ but the statement of those who accepted responsibility for him to be put to death according to their law; any other authority placed upon this verse indicates its use out of context; contrary to the consistent teachings of Jesus. He said of his murderers "Father forgive them for they know not what they do!". Check out who is promoting violence in the text and who understands really living like Jesus - forgiving.

The picture of hell has been misrepresented of God. The fact is the wrath of God is his abandonment of persons who choose to live their own values (their god), behaviours that bring a natural downward moral spiral to self destruction Romans 1: 18 - 32. It is the life that has abandoned God and his purity and blessing to a life of total selfish pleasure.

Hey Opinionated2

You said “Just as an update I have been told lately a few times by our beloved Christian friends that the Qu'ran says to kill non-believers... Wow... but the news that astounded them was that so does the Bible…”

Now here we may be in agreement Opinionated2 . I certainly see the cauterising of bigotry acceptable use of biblical education and this has biblical echoes in “ye who are without sin cast the first stone”. I had a similar experience with an in-law condemning Muslims for being moon worshipers as it was a symbol of Islam. I explained that orthodox Jews regard it as obligatory each month to consecrate the moon and if the new moon occurs on the Sabbath a place an extra dish is prepared in its honour. In the Christianity of Shakespeare’s time the moon was deemed to have a higher authority than the King. The matter was not raised again.

However complete denigration of the literalists for the belief system they have chosen to adopt is not the same.

Pericles,

You have become tedious and therefore a somewhat waste of time.

I said >>Why does doctrinal teachings suppress intellect and the use of God's gift - intelligence?<<

Dumb is never mentioned... many people believe, but then stop analysing and therefore cease intellectual examination of the facts... that is not dumb - that is not analysing or expanding ones religious knowledge.

>>How can anyone believe that their loving compassionate God could come up with such horrid laws?<< This is asking them to question laws like Deutronomy 22:28-29, 22:23-24 20:9,Exodus 21:15, 22:19 etc. It has nothing to do with dumb. Many when i tell them didn't even know these alleged laws existed.

>>How can they ignore the scripture they claim is infallible? Does this make them fibbers?<< This is again asking them to think about the word infallible before they use it... Dumb was never mentioned.

You have used the words "personal confusion" several times... Check that log in your eye again Pericles you missed it ...lol I am not confused... it seems you are confused... I never called anyone dumb.

Pericles - you have proven you are a conspiracy theorist... starting my own religion... Ha! That is laughable!

You are an argumentative little person Pericles... no substance just lots of criticism. If the word "dumb" is your best attempt to rattle me perhaps you should stay silent... Now that would be intelligent. Ha!

Davidf - I am not certain that Jesus expression of love was only from his Jewishness. See here http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm I haven't read this in a long time but it may be instructional.

To all you Christians please don't listen to Pericles interpretation of what I said... You are not dumb! Further your religious education - knowledge is power

Opinionated2, whether or not you find me tedious, you are still unable to see what is so blindingly obvious to others.

Which is that your ego-tripping on the contradictions inherent in the bible is impolite, and marginally offensive.

It is one thing to conduct an open discussion in which individuals can offer their views.

It is completely another to nag us all with a series of rhetorical questions, each designed to insult the beliefs of Christians.

You cannot weasel your way out with hair-splitting, either. There is no discernible difference between telling someone that they are not using their intelligence, and telling them that they are dumb.

Also, using phrases like "how can anyone believe" and "how can anyone ignore" are only slightly-veiled insults.

Try it in a pub discussion sometime. Go up to someone in full Cronulla Sharks regalia, and ask them "how can anyone believe that League is a better game than Union?"

Then stand back. You will quickly find that this mode of enquiry is generally deemed an act of aggression, and will get an appropriate reaction.

>>Many when i tell them didn't even know these alleged laws existed.<<

Well what a surprise. I bet they were really grateful to you for pointing them out.

But I also bet they were puzzled why you, as a non-Christian, would concern yourself with the minutiae of their religion, to the point where you feel the need to chastise them for their ignorance. Much as the Cronulla Sharks guy would be surprised when you told him, through your bleeding nose, that you held no actual affection for any football code.

But you do have something of a ticket on yourself, don't you?

>>Pericles - you have proven you are a conspiracy theorist... starting my own religion... Ha! That is laughable!<<

Your conceit is so deep that you interpreted my question...

"Do you expect to guide Christians to a new religion? If so, what is it?"

...to be a suggestion that you intend to start your own.

As you might say... Ha!

Opinionated2 wrote:

Davidf - I am not certain that Jesus expression of love was only from his Jewishness. See here http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm I haven't read this in a long time but it may be instructional.

Dear Opinionated2,

I think love is a human concern which has expressed itself many times and in many places. The particular expression of it chosen by Jesus was the same as the expression of it in the Old Testament. I attributed his expression of his love to the Old Testament or his Jewishness since the words were the same. The expression of his love is not the same thing as his love itself. It is merely the language in which he chose the expression.

He may well have been in India before and after the Crucifixion as the website you sent me to contends. One thing questionable about the site you referred me too was its use of the Shroud of Turin as the evidence of the position of the nails in Jesus' crucifixion. The shroud has been exposed as a fake by the analysis of its fibers which according to that analysis date from a late medieval period.

Just been re-reading Daniel and had a vision. It was of a rat in a mitre hat polishing the feet of a gold covered Cristo Redentor while the Auschwitz ovens simmered in the background.

Perhaps Philo might like to interpret it for me.

But to be even handed so to speak Rabbi Perin would like davidf to know one million Arabs say their prayers whenever he uses a hammer.

Pericles ... have you totally lost the plot? Are you arguing for a continuance of misleading the congregations of churches about their Bible, dishonesty in teaching, and are you against proper religious education & informing people of biblical facts?

Is keeping people uninformed or ill-informed your purpose here? You seem to be angry that I tell the truth... Wow!

With each post your frustrations grow... lie down mate... you are getting high blood pressure...lol

What about people who find it offensive that anyone would think that their loving God would allow these crazy, horrid laws in the Bible and express that - Laws like Deuteronomy 17:12, 22:17, 21:9, 13:13-19 etc. Are they allowed to be offended?

Maybe saying they are the laws of their loving God and that they are a part of an allegedly inerrant bible is an even bigger insult to their God! Surely God wants Christians to know the truth about the Bible.

Thankyou for the parable of the Cronulla pub - comparing Rugby League with Union might get me bashed in a Cronulla pub ... thanks for the warning - that is laughable! Cronulla residents who drink in pubs - Pericles has branded you all thugs...lol I lived in Sutherland Shire - what rot you post... ha!

You asked >>"Do you expect to guide Christians to a new religion? If so, what is it?"<<

Nope I was educating them about problems with the Bible and what they have been taught in their current religion. Simple really!

csteele - Good to see that you too have taken opportunities to explain to people things that unless explained would lead to greater bigotry.. I think I do the same.

David f - The Shroud of Turin has been disproven and therefore I remain sceptical of any information there. I agree with you love is a human condition - not owned by any religion.

"biblical facts"?

Are you sure you're not a Christian?

Oh, how little you know me, OP2.

>>With each post your frustrations grow... lie down mate... you are getting high blood pressure...lol... You seem to be angry that I tell the truth... Wow!<<

Not me, pal.

But you still don't understand that a closed, rhetorical question has no place in open discussion.

>>Are you arguing for a continuance of misleading the congregations of churches about their Bible, dishonesty in teaching, and are you against proper religious education & informing people of biblical facts? Is keeping people uninformed or ill-informed your purpose here?<<

There, you have strung five of them together in a single paragraph. None of them can be discussed, as they can only be answered yes, or no. And because they are rhetorical, there is not even any point in going that far.

My question is the same as it was from the start - what is your motive in needling Christians about their beliefs?

You see, that is an open question, which is one that requires more than a simple yes or no answer.

Your simplistic assertion is that somewhere there is this thing called truth, and that Christians need to understand that the Bible doesn't have any.

But you refuse to acknowledge that Christians do not, in general, rely upon the literal truth of the Bible, for their faith. And this being so, all your ranting and raving is completely and utterly pointless.

You think that you are...

>>...educating [Christians] about problems with the Bible and what they have been taught in their current religion.<<

But they know that there are contradictions in the Bible, and have chosen the big picture - religious belief - over nit-picking detail in an ancient document.

So what's the point you are really trying to make?

It would be nice if you could answer these open questions truthfully.

And please, drop the annoying interjections of Ha! lol! and Wow!

They are no substitute for argument.

Pericles please stop harping!

Are you lecturing on closed and open sentences - all your posts gave the impression you were against educating people.

So I'll answer one of my closed sentences for you pretending to be you.

<<Is keeping people uninformed or ill-informed your purpose here?<<

Yes, it is OP2 ... I want people to remain ill-informed so I can argue with them better... It makes me feel superior...lol

You stated : <<But they know that there are contradictions in the Bible, and have chosen the big picture - religious belief - over nit-picking detail in an ancient document.>>

What rot... if they knew this they would not call the Bible inerrant and the word of God. - That comment defies logic Pericles! I have never heard 1 christian say I look at the big picture and disregard the rest of the Bible! Have you?

And following on to this my reason for this thread was to better inform people about the things that their churches aren't teaching them. This is so simple.

Many Christians don't know what their Bibles state... they criticise the Qu'ran in complete ignorance that many of the things are in their Bibles also.

They perpetuate the hatred and discrimination against homosexuals and never realise that their Bible is full of other rules they totally ignore like Deutronomy 22:28-29, or Deuteronomy 17:12 This proves you are wrong! A loving, all knowing, all seeing, intelligent God couldn't possibly have made these laws! Could he?

RE-read your attitudes in these posts - you even thought I was starting a religion! You have actually defeated your own arguments and don't realise it! Relax Pericles you take yourself way too seriously!

Bugsy : There are some facts in the Bible (here are 2).... 1. King Herod the Great did exist he died in 4BC... OOps then how did he order the killing of all kids under 2 years old in Matthew 2:16?

2. Pontius Pilot was in charge of Judea around the time of Jesus' ministry.

But I am not a Christian

WOW, thems some controversial facts. No wonder Christians need to know them.

Closed and open questions, OP2. Not sentences. Questions.

>>Pericles please stop harping! Are you lecturing on closed and open sentences - all your posts gave the impression you were against educating people<<

I'm definitely in favour of education. I'm definitely against closed, rhetorical questions designed to insult the intelligence of others.

>>What rot... if they knew this they would not call the Bible inerrant and the word of God. - That comment defies logic Pericles! I have never heard 1 christian say I look at the big picture and disregard the rest of the Bible! Have you?<<

Once again, one of your impossible questions.

I know many Christians who do not believe the Bible "inerrant". In fact, that would be most of them. However, I have not heard them say that they "disregard" any part of the Bible, errant or inerrant. As far as I can tell, it is a book of inspiration and guidance, rather than an instruction manual to be blindly followed.

>>And following on to this my reason for this thread was to better inform people about the things that their churches aren't teaching them. This is so simple.<<

And also rather presumptuous, for a non-Christian.

>>RE-read your attitudes in these posts - you even thought I was starting a religion!<<

You were mistaken when you first brought this up, and you are mistaken now. Go back and check.

But wait - what's this?

>>Many Christians don't know what their Bibles state... they criticise the Qu'ran in complete ignorance that many of the things are in their Bibles also.<<

Not a Christian. Lives in the Shire. Knows the Qur'an. Even spells Qur'an intelligently...

Are you really, really sure that you don't have an agenda here, OP2?

Pericles,

An agenda here - NO!

In John 14:28 Jesus states that God is greater than he is ... Matthew 27:46 Jesus cries "My God, My God Why did you abandon me" If the concept of the trinity being one entity is correct - Why did Jesus say these things? Can the churches justify their interpretations?

If Jesus said as quoted in Matthew 6:24 ...."You cannot serve both God and money"... How do Wealthy christians reconcile their faith and their obligations to Jesus' word? Why have the churches become so wealthy when this is Jesus explicit statement? Does it apply to them?

If Jesus said Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge others" and God created the outrageous rule where a woman must marry her rapist if he can pay 50 silver pieces (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) then why do Christian churches hold true the judgments they place on homosexuals?

How do Christians reconcile the God of the OT and Jesus in the NT?

Why did Moses order so many killings? And did God really give this permission Deuteronomy 20 10-14?

Did God really threaten people that he would kill children in Leviticus 26:21-22 or Isaiah 13:15-18... from my religious instruction I just can't see it!

Would a loving caring God who knows all we will do, are doing, and have done, order this? (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

How do Christians reconcile changing the sabbath from a Saturday to a Sunday when God's allegedly inerrant and infallible word threatens death for doing so in Exodus 31:12-15?

Is it time as a society that we grew up and agreed that the OT is just unreliable and we adopt Jesus' own words ...John 13:34. "I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you shall also love one another." completely, openly and without discrimination of any kind?

Imagine a world full of love and peace that we humans created. What would your God's reward be for that?

From your post csteele, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 you state that according to the Bible Christians are to kill unbelievers. Could you please establish a case from the NT that supports such a claim.

Remember the OT is not a directive or basis for individual Christian action. Study closely the words of Christ. The OT gives a directive for the army of Israel to protect the ancient Nation and its families.

As far as the book of Daniel is concerned you misquote the context. "Just been re-reading Daniel and had a vision. It was of a rat in a mitre hat polishing the feet of a gold covered Cristo Redentor while the Auschwitz ovens simmered in the background.

It has nothing to do with Auschwitz. They were devout Jewish boys taken captive to Babylon and the furnace was real in Babylon, not a vision of Germany.

Opinionated2,
May I suggest your thoughts are dominated by negativity you need a changed mind if you are going to make a positive contribution to others thoughts and good behaviour

Op2,
You ask "why do Christian churches hold true the judgments they place on homosexuals?"

It is both socially and intellectually violates the natural order of good health, sexuality and procreation. It is the very act of anal sex that is condemned not what has become today a class of effeminite males who are directed by peers into sex with other males. They are very capable of a relationship with a female and procreation. Bi-sexual males equally fall into this condemned catagory because of their sexual actions.

Philo,

I am not negative at all ... I am quoting direct passages from the Bible... Let love and peace rule!

Philo are you arguing that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals?

Jesus said : Matthew 5:17-19 Do not think I have come to change the Law of Moses .... He then went on to change many of the laws. He changed the law from an eye for an eye to turn the other cheek. He never mentioned the rape laws, the slavery laws, the multiple wives laws in those changes.

And yet man (rightly) has changed those unGodly laws for they were obviously wrong! Why then is man so selective? Why can't man accept the loving relationship between two members of the same gender. Why does this crazy law apply when the other crazy laws don't?

Philo If it is "the ability to procreate" that makes it unlawful then a man and woman who can't conceive have the same problem. If it is the act that is the problem then many heterosexuals are also guilty of that alleged sin. We don't hear lectures on that!

Jesus is very silent on homosexuality... and yet his churches are very vocal - why? Aren't Christians supposed to follow the example of Jesus' teachings?

John 8:3-5 Jesus says ..."Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"... Christians accept that they are sinners and yet they throw verbal, spiritual, emotional and non-empathetic boulders at our homosexual community.

Jesus also warns Christians in Luke 12:32-34 about riches. Why don't churches follow Jesus' precise instructions?

Jesus walked the Earth in a gown, cloak and sandals ... Is this article close to correct? http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16261.htm so much for bible passages when it comes to money!

And what of this http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25024449-27197,00.html how can a church do what this article alleges?

And relatedly how can a church do what this article alleges? http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25083343-3102,00.html

Why do they vilify homosexuals who want to form a loving relationship and then allegedly protect members who commit an alleged crime of the same act?

How can this be?

Hi Philo,

I know you asked csteele but seeing I am doing my bible studies atm these go pretty close to Jesus allegedly saying kill non-believers...

Luke 19:27 - Jesus allegedly says "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me."

Matthew 13:41-42

"The Son of man(Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Hell is worse than death I think.

You did advise us to "Study closely the words of Christ".

Now please don't suggest I am being negative here I am answering your question with a direct bible quote.

Note to Pericles - that is why I ask the question when debating religion - "If Jesus' word isn't good enough whose is"?

This is why the bible is taught selectively... There are all manner of alleged teachings in there that really undermine God and Jesus.

People don't follow the bible in it's entirety because it is seriously flawed ...

Do you believe Jesus would say such a thing?

Philo, you claimed “From your post csteele, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 you state that according to the Bible Christians are to kill unbelievers.” Don't think I did however I am more than happy to state that Christians have killed countless numbers of Jews over the last two millennia, gruesomely and often involving fire.

You say Daniel “has nothing to do with Auschwitz” but if I were a Jew I would might be tempted to see it as a prophecy, remembering Daniel was all about visions and the future.

From the Crusaders massacring Jews on the Rhine before making their way to the holy land, to the Spanish Inquisition where so many Jews refusing to convert where burnt at the stake, culminating in the Holocaust where a Christian Europe slaughtered millions, many consumed by the fires of Auschwitz, there is a name that links this all and that name is Jesus Christ.

Admittedly I was tying some different threads together, Ratzinger’s laxity on deniers within the church (you may recall he was a member of the Hitler Youth), the elevation of the man Jesus to a God, and the cross or the sword history of Christianity. While vision is probably too strong a word for it that was the image my brain threw up when reading Daniel 3 so it was hardly an issue of it being out of context. Those “Jewish boys” you talk about were told “whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace” and yet they refused, as did many Jews under Christian rule and they suffered the consequences.

However the notion of the formation of modern day Israel being like the castrated Daniel ‘getting his balls back’ might need to be retired.

Here is an offer Opinionated2, that is if you are really interested in why,

My father-in-law is a ridgy-didge ‘born-again’ Christian literalist, fundamentalist of the old school with an unshakable belief in the inerrancy of the bible. He recently had me bailed up about the 100 or so amendments the Rudd government has made to laws governing the rights of homosexuals.

If you would like to formulate your best 3 questions I will pass them on to him and if he is happy enough to answer them I will post them up here.

Make them good if you are going to play because I will only get one crack at this. Expect straight answers.

Thanks Csteele but peace between you and your father to me is far more important than a holy war between you two based on questions I may choose to ask...lol

Honestly, I am not out to destroy a person's faith... I want people to be told the truth.

God knowing we would fail allegedly placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden.

If this is true then he must have wanted you to have a questioning mind!

In the last post I placed an error in it to see who really knows their Bible... No-one responded, so I should point it out.

Luke 19:27 is part of "The Parable of the Gold Coins" ... Jesus does not tell his people to kill anyone in this parable or the NT from my knowledge. This is a really good thing for Christians. It shows a clear delineation between the God of the OT and the God of the NT.

However, does this parable contain an implied threat from Jesus within the last verse? Why did he add it as it was really an unnecessary end to the parable?

BUT if Jesus is GOD as many Christians believe then the passages previously quoted from the OT are allegedly his. You can't have it both ways people.

Would the supposedly loving God you cherish and adore want you to kill people in his name? Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 21:9, Deuteronomy 22:20-21

Would he create the abominable laws that appear in the OT? eg. Exodus 21:7-11

Would your Christ be a part of the murders that were committed in his name by Moses? Numbers 31:7-18

Why do churches regularly break Jesus' precise instruction in Matthew 6:7-9? Why do churches limit communion to "confirmed members only" when Jesus said no such thing.

Why if Herod died in 4BC aren't you told this?... there is no problem with this date that would rock the Christian world but I doubt most even realise this. Is the church supposed to teach the truth or their version of the truth.

Peace all!

You see OP2, this is where you go off the rails.

>>Note to Pericles - that is why I ask the question when debating religion - "If Jesus' word isn't good enough whose is"?<<

Once again, you present your argument in the form of a closed, rhetorical question. Seriously - do you honestly believe that this is a legitimate way to conduct a discussion?

But I'm going to ignore that for the moment, and concentrate your attention on its actual content.

Let's start with the concept of "Jesus' word"

There are absolutely no contemporary sources that allow you, or anyone, to state definitively what Jesus actually said.

None.

So you cannot for a moment assume that anything at all is actually "Jesus' word", and therefore the concept of it being "good enough" does not arise.

Which also highlights another massive flaw in your "argument".

>>Why if Herod died in 4BC aren't you told this?... there is no problem with this date that would rock the Christian world but I doubt most even realise this. Is the church supposed to teach the truth or their version of the truth.<<

The date, 4BC, is an estimate, arrived at by historians and archaeologists. Along with all the others associated with biblical stories, it is a date that can be adjusted as new physical evidence is uncovered.

But even that is missing the point. The message that most Christians take from the Bible has nothing to do with dates, or Herod, or the time of day the crucifixion was held, or the number of people at the sermon on the mount.

As >99% of Christians will tell you, if you bothered to ask them (instead of telling them what they think, which is your preferred method), the Bible is not a historical document. And therefore by definition should not be measured as one.

I am still at a total loss to divine your motivation for this attack on the beliefs of others, OP2.

It seems to border on hysteria, but for no discernible reason.

Fair Dinkum - Pericles... boring!

I know there is absolutely no proof that Jesus even spoke those words DER... BUT "Christians" believe he did so the question is very relevant.

If THEY believe that Jesus said these words and if THEY believe that those words are important as Christians then THEY should pay more attention to Jesus' word and not all the other garbage in the bible.

So if a Christian believes absolutely that Jesus spoke these words then the question is appropriate to them.. It is asking them whose words do they really believe.. the God of the OT or Jesus' words (the alleged son of God)!

To open their minds they firstly need to be shown that Christianity absolutely is reliant on the words reportedly delivered by Jesus and not the words man or the ancient stories contained in ancient texts.

OMG ... so dates, numbers alleged facts in the Bible are of no importance to Christians... what rot! Christianity is always trying to prove the Bible is infallible, God's word and inerrant. It is a major claim... they need to be shown the imperfections contained within as a basis to educating them further. That is what this article is trying to do.

Can you prove your 99% figure that you state. Of course not but accuracy is not important to you. How many Christians still believe man was made from clay? You need a new survey Pericles before you quote such a crazy figure!

I doubt you would know what motivates me if I put a sign up in front of you Pericles... THE TRUTH!

Trust me Opinionated2, there is nothing you have offered up so far that hasn't been covered many times over the years between my father-in-law and myself. In fact compared to what we get into now it is quite old hat.

This is more about you. What 3 questions would mean the most to you, ones that you are really interested in hearing the answers to? That is of course unless your questions are rhetorical thus really statements.

If that is the case then it is just as revealing. Might it be that you really don't want to hear from the literalists but are more interested in gathering supporters to your crusade?

In any case the offer still stands.

Not quite, OP2. Not quite.

>>BUT "Christians" believe he did so the question is very relevant. If THEY believe that Jesus said these words and if THEY believe that those words are important as Christians then THEY should pay more attention to Jesus' word and not all the other garbage in the bible.<<

You are still making a simple and fundamental mistake.

Let's take two people. The one on the right is a Christian. The one on the left is you.

You say "Jesus said this and the Bible says that. How can this be?"

Christian: "Eh? What's so important about that?"

You: "But it must be important because they say different things"

Christian: "So what? Do you think that anyone actually takes the Bible literally?"

You: "Of course you do, you're a Christian, aren't you?"

Christian "Yes, but I'm not stupid. Anyway, what's it to you?"

You: "I'm educating you. I'm showing you where you are going wrong"

Christian: "And what makes you think I need to hear this from you?"

You: "Because I'm right and you're wrong, dammit"

Christian: "Sod off. Oh, and have a nice life"

Pericles... I never said I was right and they are wrong... You make stuff up as you go and have done throughout this entire discussion.

So let me finish with a pretend conversation also but containing your comment.

>>As >99% of Christians will tell you, if you bothered to ask them (instead of telling them what they think, which is your preferred method), the Bible is not a historical document.<<

Me : Pericles where did you get the >99% figure?

Pericles : No idea

Me : Did you make up the figure like that just so you could be argumentative? Do you any data to back it up? You can point to no survey that shows this?

Pericles : No, I assumed it to be true.

Me : You assume statistical information and assume it to be true Pericles?

Pericles : Well yes doesn't everyone?

Me : Um no Pericles - now go have a lie down!

Pericles : But I'm not tired ... I need to make more statistics up...

Time to remove that log in your eye Pericles...lol

So this is where you have all been hiding.

The date of the birth of Jesus has nothing to with the Bible. The date came from Dionysius Exiguus working backwards from 533 AD.
“We have seen his star in the East” (Matthew 2, KJV) has been mistranslated from the original Greek. “We have seen his star appear in the first rays of dawn” would be correct. According to Jewish prophecies, the Messiah would appear when there was a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Pisces. This unusual astrological event occurred three times in the year 7 BC and is consistent with the correct translation of Matthew. Also Herod the Great died in 4 BC so 7 BC seems the favorite.
Working backwards from 533 AD being 7 years out wasn't to far off.

Is the Bible true? If it is not true Christianity self destructs.
Do Christians seek God or seek to justify Christianity?
The Bible was put together by Christians for Christians and no system that feeds on itself to support itself is valid. If Christianity is to be valid it must be able to be supported by outside sources.
Is the Bible True? Does it matter? It is only a self fulfilling prophecy at the best.
The existence (or not) of God is something that can only be known to each of us one to one basis. No self fulfilling system can do that for us.

Glad to see you are all still well and active.