Pynchme...So direct Bible quotations are waffle...good-one.

I wasn't drowning you out...and you could be right about the generation thing...but it might be another excuse for Christians to manipulate the innerant word to suit their argument..lol

The fact they suffered could be important, or the stories exaggerated or something else...Many people throughout history have suffered for beliefs.

Can you point out which bits can be taken literally and which can't?

When Jesus said "I am going to the father for he is greater than I"... did he mean that literally?

John14:28...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+14%3A28&version1=47#cen-ESV-26685D

Severin,

Poor Runner might be an irrelevancy both in Biblical matters and politics?

That is why Runner practices religion...he is hoping one day, to accidentally, get it right...lol

Did my reply to your post above still your beating heart?...lol

TBC, I'm in a tough predicament when it comes to belief.

I am neither Christian nor Atheist. I look for evidence.

I have had a near death experience (but didn't meet God or the Devil)....so that changes things.

I also had a visual visitation from a friend's spirit who died, at the exact time he died, when we lived two States away from each other. How do I rationalise that, when the man and I had an agreement to try and get a message to the other about the afterlife, if one should die first, if one existed?

If Jesus was the SON of GOD then he will understand my position. If GOD exists GOD too will understand my position. If there is no GOD the universe will recycle me anyway so I really can't lose...lol

I could even make a strong case that atheists maybe more pleasing to GOD, because they haven't corrupted his alleged word....PLUS those who are first shall be last and vice versa.

Too many Christians teach "dumb GOD" which amazes me.

Many things Christians do are fine...except they usually have a hidden agenda. They are doing it to save themselves from eternal damnation...or...they feed the poor both food and a Bible.

I don't think GOD wants people brought to GOD by deceit?

Opinionated2: <"When Jesus said "I am going to the father for he is greater than I"... did he mean that literally?

John14:28...http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=John+14%3A28&version1=47#cen-ESV-26685D ">

Hi OP2,

You seem to be asking for my opinion of the Holy Trinity or the resurrection or something. I believe in the resurrection.

Just think for a sec though; does the relative power of any of the trinity entities matter to our belief and behaviour ? It doesn't alter mine - therefore; I prefer to believe "like a little child."

I spent years agonizing over all of that and picking through endless details until I realized that, since I am not a scholar of ancient languages, any opinion I adopted constituted faith in various middle men - the translator(s); interpreters; ministers and the like. - and we've seen how much damage middlemen can do. However, as an example of complexity:

http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-14

Which explanation would you choose? I still enjoy reading things like that and I believe that one way of understanding it might become clear to me; but that it doesn't really matter if it doesn't. I am glad that there are scholars and scientists working on all of this and have endless interest in their findings, however for me, my belief is about as uncomplicated as it can get. Jesus saves plus - treat each other decently; protect the weak and vulnerable; live as closely to the Ten Commandments as we can.

I think that knowing that the first believers who were prepared to completely change their ways of life and die agonizing deaths because they could not deny what they had seen and heard, is the strongest witness of all.

(Yes waffle; not the quotes obviously - nawty you to try and screw that comment around and put a guilt trip on. Waffle that you threw them in a heap to avoid the issue of Apostles and others dying because they would not deny what they had seen.)

Pynchme,

Thanks for that link regarding the translations from Greek to English.

I had never seen that before.

You are correct about the Jesus as reported in the Gospels....He was better to everyone (including women) than what had been done in the past.

He was silent on homosexuality...In the end his simple message was "Love one another as I have loved you”.

I too labored hard and long in my thinking over the trinity. On other sites where Trinitarian/non-trinitarian debate rages I have tried to bring peace by expressing…in the end it doesn’t really matter for all will be explained (if any of this is true) to us all.

BUT what do the churches teach? And how strongly do they enforce their doctrines, and what would Jesus say about wrong teachings?

He chastised the Pharisees and Sadducees “calling them snakes” and yet the modern Churches seem little better, and with the covering up of crime much worse..

BUT within his teachings there are far more things.

Jesus, empowers the law of Moses plus categorically states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."… (Matthew 5:17-20)….. http://tinyurl.com/24f4ocd

This statement appears unequivocal! It includes the commandments and all other of Moses' laws!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

Moses laws were against women. They were second rate citizens.

At this point shouldn’t one admit a massive contradiction?

Christians preach loving Jesus...ignoring Matthew 5:17-20 because it suits them and won't face the truth about Moses' ugly laws.

People can't have it both ways...either Jesus stated Matthew 5:17-20 or the Bible is wrong and then how many other parts are wrong?

I think I will enjoy discussing and debating the Bible with you Pynchme...you have passed the I believe in the "dumb God" test...lol

My waffle (as you call it) is for a reason...lol

Hi Opi2,

Thanks; I reckon we can have some good chats too. (Sorry for my absences I'm a bit preoccupied elsewhere at the moment).

Again with that piece we have the translation and interpretation problem. An insert in this page says something about use of the word
'Pleroo' (Fulfil):

http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

- and sets the rest of it out really well I think.

To me it's like an ethical dilemma such as: If someone was in dying and you could save them by stealing some medicine, would you do it - OR, would you not steal because the commandments say not to. See, it might be the wrong decision to steal, but I believe that God would know our hearts and that the intention was to put the wellbeing of someone else before our own. Selflessness. I suspect that person would be likely to get to heaven ahead of someone who kept the law in a bid to guarantee a place in heaven, but lacked selflessness.

It seems to me that we are faced with moral challenges or ethical dilemmas all the time and that's where we draw on the proposition that love compensates for many sins.

Hi Pynchme,

Sorry for the delay I too have time constraints.

Thanks for the link....but I think this is people waffling about confusing pieces in a lengthy justification from a belief basis.

Even if the word...'Pleroo'...means any of what that article suggests it is obvious what Jesus is saying.

As your article link states The Law is the Hebrew Bible...and Jesus re-enforces and defends the Torah in...Matthew5:17-20....http://tinyurl.com/24f4ocd

But in Matthew 5,6 & 7 he changes it reasonably in places.

The Sabbath (Saturday) is to be kept Holy...It is the 4th commandent....Exodus31:15...http://tinyurl.com/3xst2p3 How many Christians fail this law?

Jesus didn't alter this one except to say "you can get an ass out of a ditch,” and defending his disciples eating grain in a field.

BUT if The LAW is the Torah, then that includes Moses’crazy laws, which Jesus is silent on.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death...Leviticus20:10...http://tinyurl.com/387ueaz

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you....Deuteronomy22:20-21...http://tinyurl.com/2urger6

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days..Deuteronomy22:28-29 ..http://tinyurl.com/246nwov

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu22.pdf

Surely Jesus can’t defend a woman having to marry her rapist as long as he has 50 sheckels to buy the woman?

AJ Phillips,

Thank you for your reply. Apologies for my tardy response. Again can we keep the topic of reason or evidence to support a belief in God to:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729&page=0

It has tangential relevance here but since this is being discussed there and we are discussing it why not keep it in one thread? I am biased by my lack of time but surely it makes some sense. You seem to think that a sound byte summary should do the job of demonstrating reasoning and that anything more is sophistry. I am concerned about that reasoning. Sound bytes seem to be a way of avoiding reasoning rather than replacing it.

Nevertheless I naturally can’t resist responding to your comments in here (whilst trying to avoid a full discussion). Please feel free to copy and paste my quotes and your reply into the other thread to add to our discussion there and put an end to the replication in here. I note that I haven’t yet read the discussion that you invited me to read in the other thread (I looked at it and there seemed to be a lot of stuff there) but intend to do so before going to much further.

”...I’m always willing to learn different points of view, so please, by all means, spill it.”

No problem. That is what I expect to deal with extensively in the other thread.

<<Blind seems to be putting it too strongly (and I don’t accept that hope and desire are necessarily required for faith)>>

”I don’t think it’s putting it too strongly at all. Hope and desire for security in an omnipotent father figure and the promise of eternal life is essentially what the mainstream religions are all about. If that’s not hope and desire, then I don’t know what is.”

The religions definitely offer hope and some desire security but many people come to faith without that.

CONT.