[Rayosun]

What ever happened to Jutan ?

Jutan, on Dec 11 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

"I have not come here swearing and condemning people to hell. I have come to learn. So please educate me!

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

des,

Are you friends with DanceLover?

Follow this link below:

http://www.writingup...all_at_one_time

This issue of homosexuality and getting in trouble for my heterosexual beliefs didn't just start. The problem started in other places as I excersiced my right to speak freely about the issue.

You do agree with the 1st amendment about the right to free speech?

This post has been edited by TheGreatWhiteBuffalo: 26 December 2006 - 08:56 PM

[JosephM]

DCJ, on Dec 14 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

(JosephM) said:

Only in your mind is there a 'right' and 'wrong' which has been defined for you by society in general. There is no standard that one MUST follow. You have choices and you have consequences. . . If one is seeking peace, love and joy then certain things are not expedient to that purpose. It is for you to determine what is wise and what is not wise in the divine order of things according to the purpose of that which you have choosen and seek.

Joseph, you seem to be arguing for an almost hedonistic interpretation of morality. If I read you right, we should maximize "peace, love, and joy" and minimize deleterious "consequences." But this prohibits any moral judgment. What if I find peace and joy in torturing babies, and I know that I won't get caught? Or what about a brutal despot who is immune from reprisal? There's something deficient in your explanation of morality. In fact, there is no morality, only power plays. Jungle law. Please correct me if I misread you.

DCJ,

Sorry, I been been away for 3 months...

Actually not arguing for anything. Just answering the question from my perspective. Hedonism is .. the Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses. I am not advocating that view. I am merely saying that moral judgements are a product of society and time. Society determines "right" or "wrong" regardless of the source they use. Instead of thinking "right" or "wrong" one needs only to have a greater awareness of peace, love and joy. Doing so, actions need not be judgemental but rather will fall in place in accordance with purpose. (peace, love and joy for all)

jm

[JosephM]

canajan, eh?, on Dec 18 2006, 04:38 PM, said:

Joseph, I'm not sure whether you view yourself as an Existentialist; or whether you've read and absorbed the so-called channelled teachings of Neale Donald Walsch ("Conversations With God") and others who heavily promote the idea that God's love is so unconditional that no "Wrong Choices" exist; or whether you've come to this understanding on your own; but, man, I've gotta tell you, there most certainly are right and wrong choices, and there absolutely does exist a standard which one MUST follow. This standard is the moral code of God and of all God's angels. Since you are one of God's angels, you're hardwired at the quantum angelic level and at the human DNA level to seek out that moral code and live by it. When you make choices your own soul thinks are right, your brain and your body receive the benefit of neurotransmitters like oxytocin and vasopressin (two biochemicals essential to mental and spiritual health). When you make choices your own soul does NOT like (for instance, if you stupidly decide that pedophilia is a good thing) then your brain and your body do NOT get the good biochemicals, and eventually you will get sick.

It is not for you to determine what is wise. It is for you to remember what is wise. It is for you to listen to your own soul, since your own soul understands and remembers what your conscious mind has forgotten. This is the Kingdom Within.

There is not a single circumstance in which pedophilia would considered "right" by God. Pedophilia is always -- always -- a psychological by-product of narcissism and sociopathy (barring a spike, tumour, or virus punching through one very tiny part of your diencephalon). It has no place in the life of anyone who wants to be his or her best self.

Love Jen

Greetings Jen,

No, I do not view myself as an Existentialist. Also have not read the teachings you reference.

'Right' or 'Wrong' choices and 'Standards' seem to me to be a product of the minds of men/women. "Wise", I can acknowledge as a meaningful word when related to purpose yet I will leave it there and please excuse me for not sharing your beliefs on the words "right" and "wrong". My statements were only a view for others to consider in regards to the question. This view comes from watching the workings of the mind rather than channeled teachings.

Love,
JM

[Bobd]

I have a problem with the concept of right and wrong. I read in Genesis that gods (elohim) said not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These elohim are gods not God. Sometimes the scholars of organized religion translate elohim as singular and sometimes they translate it as plural. In the strict gramatical sense, the word is plural, so knowing a little about Hebrew, I always see it as plural and I ask myself, "why should the scholars have the right to consider it singular sometimes and sometimes plural? Are they constructing their own image of god when they do this?

Getting back to the issue of right and wrong, it is an issue that evolves from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Words like righteous and wickedness, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, right and wrong, guilty and innocent, and sin all evolve from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our jousting back and forth about it for the past several thousand years doesn't seem to lead to any kind of a prescription that works for everyone. We have groups of active adversaries, often at war with each other in spite of our futile search to separate good from evil. It is also reflected in the above conversations which at times seem to lead to some self righteous bickering and accusations with no real solution to our relationship problems being proposed. Wouldn't be better if we could stop eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and replaced it with the tree of chaos and harmony? Wouldn't it be better if we did not think of anyone as good or evil, but instead think of developing relationships, both on a micro and macro level, that bring harmony instead of chaos? Perhaps taking a lesson from Jesus about loving your enemies and praying for those that persecute you may be a good place to start.

BobD

[Jutan]

Rayosun, you asked what happened to me. I had stopped coming to this site. I'm set in my worldview and have no intention of changing it. I find the views of others frustrating when it comes to perverted forms of Christianity. They're entitled to have them of course. I suppose I should keep myself up-to-date on what's being said about God though.

Bobd, I wanted to answer your question regarding the grammar of Elohim. God is in fact three persons in one: God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit. So He is plural, while still being singular. It's difficult to understand, but God is unfathomable, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

All this talk about right and wrong... which I started haha. It seems to me people are afraid of an absolute truth. They want everyone to be able to do what they like and somehow we'll all try to get along. The truth of God is absolute, because He is eternal and doesn't change. He is constant in His nature. All this relativistic crap is just a consequence of the fall of man. It was pride (wanting to be like God) that condemned Adam (which was both Adam & Eve, ie. humans) in the first place and it's the same thing now. People want to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. I really don't want any of you or myself deciding what is right or wrong, because we are essentially bad people. We constantly and willfully make our lives and the lives of others worse through our actions. So I obey God, because He is perfect and absolutely good.

I had a question for those who don't believe in the authority of the Bible, but still believe in God: who is this God that you believe in and where do you get your infomation about him/her?

-Jutan
ps. I know I was offensive, but I'm just being honest about my believes.

[JosephM]

Jutan, on Mar 27 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

I had a question for those who don't believe in the authority of the Bible, but still believe in God: who is this God that you believe in and where do you get your infomation about him/her?

-Jutan
ps. I know I was offensive, but I'm just being honest about my believes.

No offence taken Jutan,

You are entitled your beliefs as are all. Perhaps I may attempt to answer your above question....
This God that is believed in, is the source of my very being and life that you may see as a 'soul'. This God is also the source of all things that are seen as the 'world' yet this God is both formless and nameless yet all things seen are manifested by and through 'God'. This God is seen as both subject and object yet is neither in essence. This information is innate and available to all by introspection / 'self' examination.

Love,
JM

[Bobd]

Jutan, on Mar 27 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Bobd, I wanted to answer your question regarding the grammar of Elohim. God is in fact three persons in one: God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit. So He is plural, while still being singular. It's difficult to understand, but God is unfathomable, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

I had a question for those who don't believe in the authority of the Bible, but still believe in God: who is this God that you believe in and where do you get your infomation about him/her?

-Jutan
ps. I know I was offensive, but I'm just being honest about my believes.

The trinity "fact" that you quote was actually taken from the Pagans. During the time of Jesus, the world was over 90% Pagan. The Pagan trinity was a form of fertility worship which included the Father, Mother, Child. This trintiy of fertility is what ensures mans perpetual existence on earth. The early Catholic (Universal) church took this trinity and distorted it into Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In so doing they took the feminity out of the concept of the trinity and called it a masculine god. The god you believe in is only half a god because it is missing the feminine portion of its androgyny. God is more than just male. God is the ALL, the I AM. Nobody will ever suck me into believing this trintiy nonsense.

On the subject of elohim, it is not the only word that is translated as 'god' there is YHVH, el, eloah and several others. However, since elohim is plural, then in many places, the biblia talks about gods, not God. So it does matter. What has happened is that, over time, man has created a false idol called the Old Testament God. In Revelation, John refers to this Old Testament God as a beast.

As far as "authority" is concerned; it comes from bullies, not from god. The true Old Testament god is anawkee, I with emphasis, or I. This concept of god is supported by Quantum Physics and by the true meaning of the Hebrew Old Testament words which have been poorly translated by religious scholars. It is also the concept of god known by Gnostic Christians since the time of Jesus. The biblia is also full of errors. The eminant bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman claims that there are between 200,000 and 400,000 errors in the New Testament alone! To regard the bible as the sole authority of god is idol worship and idol worship is forbidden by the second commandment.

Finally, belief doesn't cut it. You have to know god.

BobD

[jamesAMDG]

JosephM is back, Jutan came back, I'm back out of retirement, it's like a whole reunion or something.

Bobd,

You are arguing from tenous ground at best. To say that the Old Testament explicitly refers to a plurality of Gods ignores the experience of the Jews who received that revelation. That's the problem with Gnosticism. It used Greek Pagan forms of religion and substituted a few Christian terms while changing the concept. Christianity is connected to Judaism like a flower is connected to the stem. To state that Christianity is built on Paganism is to accuse the Early Fathers of doing something that even the early PAgans didn't do! Doesn't it seem reasonable that if your argument was such a knock-em-down-drag-em-out argument that maybe someone before the last few centuries might have been employing it? Even the real Gnostics (of which there many flavours) never tried to say that the Trinity was a Pagan concept, they simply rejected it and replaced with their, varied, systems of eons and urges, etc.

Secondly, to go back a little bit in this thread to where it was actually about morality. You say that we shoudl abjure the concepts of right and wrong but at the same time you argue that it would "better" to do any number of things. The fact that you understand and can use moral language, unconvincingly in this case, is a proof that moral language and morality has meaning. It's true that man has argued about morality, meaning and responsibiltty for most of history (I wasn't there, but it seems reasonable) but the solution is not to junk the concept and idea of morality, Neitzche tried that and its not possible in practice. By employing a recognizable moral language based on improvement, you show the meaninglessness of your own argument, how can argue for the rightness fo something while denying that rightness exists?

This post has been edited by jamesAMDG: 30 March 2007 - 02:09 PM

[mystictrek]

Bobd, on Mar 29 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

... belief doesn't cut it. You have to know god.

Wayne Dyer, surely a modern day Gnostic, makes the same point as do many in the New Thought movement.

[October's Autumn]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Dec 23 2006, 03:25 PM, said:

After all, if the command of GOD was to go forth and multiply, then that command cannot be accomplished in same sex relations, not if monogamy is the purpose of a man and a woman being married. The two opposite genders comming together to be completed as one called family.

There are several problems here:

The command is to multipy AND FILL THE EARTH. Some have not seemed to notice that the earth is quite full if not over flowing. There is an end to the command.

The idea that the purpose of marriage is to have children is ridiculous. I for one, cannot reproduce as endometriosis has caused terribly scarring in my fallopian tubes (one of which has been removed). So does that mean I should not have married or have sexual relations with my husband?

What about people who are older and past the age of reproduction? My father had a vasectomy after 4 children almost 30 years ago my mother is almost 20 years into menopause. Do people who think that sex is for reproduction think my parents should not be having sex anymore?

And reality check here: the sex act is a very small part of marriage. Even if a couple "did it" every day we are talking about 1/24th of their life. Marriage is about a relationship of commitment between two people to one another. It is not about children or sex. Those are only a small part of marriage.

[October's Autumn]

Jutan, on Mar 27 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Rayosun, you asked what happened to me. I had stopped coming to this site. I'm set in my worldview and have no intention of changing it.

That is unfortunate. Even my conservative grandmother at the age of 75 told me she was still learning about God. She had been a Christian all of her adult life.

Quote

I find the views of others frustrating when it comes to perverted forms of Christianity.

The same things frustrate me. The perversion of Christianity by conservatives and fundamentalists.

Quote

It seems to me people are afraid of an absolute truth. They want everyone to be able to do what they like and somehow we'll all try to get along.

People are more afraid of looking carefully at what they believe. It isn't about doing what you like and getting along. That is a standard knee-jerk reaction from people who for various reasons won't examine their own beliefs and why they need so many absolutes to feel safe.

Quote

The truth of God is absolute, because He is eternal and doesn't change. He is constant in His nature.

Really? Have you read the stories where Abraham and Moses convince God to change his mind?

Quote

I had a question for those who don't believe in the authority of the Bible, but still believe in God: who is this God that you believe in and where do you get your infomation about him/her?

The same place you do: church, life, experience. You claim to believe in the authority of the bible but the truth of the matter is you don't. You believe what you want to from the bible. Most of what I've seen of your 6 posts your beliefs about God are not biblical. They come from an English translation of a bible interpreted for you from a conservative or fundamentalist authority whom you have no abililty to disagree with.

I'm guessing you've not taken any classes from an accreditated institution to be able to actually read Greek or Hebrew. Nor have you taken any classes which delve into the culture to help you better understand the cultures in which the bible was written. If you truly believed the bible had authority you would be an expert not only in the languages but also in the cultures and the socieities of the time. Actions speak louder than words.

[Bobd]

Quote

quote name='jamesAMDG' date='Mar 30 2007, 02:08 PM' post='12716']

Quote

Bobd,

You are arguing from tenous ground at best. To say that the Old Testament explicitly refers to a plurality of Gods ignores the experience of the Jews who received that revelation. That's the problem with Gnosticism. It used Greek Pagan forms of religion and substituted a few Christian terms while changing the concept.

I didn't say that that the Old Testament refers to a plurality of gods. I said that the word elohim is plural and I continue to regard it as plural. You twist my words.

Quote

Christianity is connected to Judaism like a flower is connected to the stem.

Literalist Christianity is connected to literalist Judaism like a flower is connected to the stem.

Quote

To state that Christianity is built on Paganism is to accuse the Early Fathers of doing something that even the early PAgans didn't do!

Try reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper., or A Rebirth of Christianity by Alvin Boyd Kuhn.

Quote

Doesn't it seem reasonable that if your argument was such a knock-em-down-drag-em-out argument that maybe someone before the last few centuries might have been employing it? Even the real Gnostics (of which there many flavours) never tried to say that the Trinity was a Pagan concept, they simply rejected it and replaced with their, varied, systems of eons and urges, etc.

Try reading Jesus and the Lost Goddess by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy. Your implication that I am not a real Gnostic is insulting. Are you the keeper of the definition of what a "real Gnostic" is?

Quote

Secondly, to go back a little bit in this thread to where it was actually about morality. You say that we shoudl abjure the concepts of right and wrong but at the same time you argue that it would "better" to do any number of things. The fact that you understand and can use moral language, unconvincingly in this case, is a proof that moral language and morality has meaning. It's true that man has argued about morality, meaning and responsibiltty for most of history (I wasn't there, but it seems reasonable) but the solution is not to junk the concept and idea of morality, Neitzche tried that and its not possible in practice. By employing a recognizable moral language based on improvement, you show the meaninglessness of your own argument, how can argue for the rightness fo something while denying that rightness exists?

To say something is "better" doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with morality. Something that is "better" can also be more harmonious or more pleasing which has nothing to do with morality or immorality. If I am arguing that harmony is better than chaos, that has nothing to do with morality. To say that something is "better" or "worse" is a matter of judgment rather than morality. Again, you twist my words by implying that if I say that something is "better", it is a moral issue, or you are confusing judgment with morality. The fact that I make judgment calls has nothing to do with morality. To classify what I say as "recognizable moral language" is dysfunctional judgment on your part. To apply the concepts of morality and immorality and right and wrong is to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Wasn't it your god who said, "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"

BobD

[flowperson]

BobD:
For those of us who have been around here for some time, we all know that James is a word twister par excellance. He never uses these skills to create positive outcomes, but intervenes here only to serve the interests of his narrow, intolerant, and little mind.

Good reply Bob !

flow....

This post has been edited by flowperson: 15 April 2007 - 06:37 PM

[jamesAMDG]

Please forgive the lateness of my reply, but I was writing exams and "the interests of [my] narrow, intolerant, and little mind" were focused on using my skills as "word twister par excellance" to earn some good marks, and in case you were wondering, I succeeded.

[flow: Which part of making personal insults against me was supposed to prove me wrong?]

BobD,

Quote

I didn't say that that the Old Testament refers to a plurality of gods.

I return to your first post that I was commenting from.

Quote

However, since elohim is plural, then in many places, the biblia talks about gods, not God. [...] This concept of god is supported by Quantum Physics and by the true meaning of the Hebrew Old Testament words which have been poorly translated by religious scholars.

I stand by my original statement.

Next you responded to what I wrote by writing,

Quote

QUOTE
To state that Christianity is built on Paganism is to accuse the Early Fathers of doing something that even the early PAgans didn't do!



Try reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper., or A Rebirth of Christianity by Alvin Boyd Kuhn.

As interested as I am in reading what some modern non-Christians have to say about Christianity, you have completely failed to address my point about the Pagans recognizing that Christianity was not built on paganism. It's why they tortured, butchered and fed the martyrs to the beasts.

Quote

Your implication that I am not a real Gnostic is insulting. Are you the keeper of the definition of what a "real Gnostic" is?

I'm sorry you are insulted, doesn't change my opinion though. Feeling insulted isn't a fact.

Quote

To say something is "better" doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with morality. Something that is "better" can also be more harmonious or more pleasing which has nothing to do with morality or immorality. If I am arguing that harmony is better than chaos, that has nothing to do with morality. To say that something is "better" or "worse" is a matter of judgment rather than morality. Again, you twist my words by implying that if I say that something is "better", it is a moral issue, or you are confusing judgment with morality. The fact that I make judgment calls has nothing to do with morality. To classify what I say as "recognizable moral language" is dysfunctional judgment on your part. To apply the concepts of morality and immorality and right and wrong is to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Wasn't it your god who said, "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"

The very fact that you are engaging in a discussion of right or wrong and defending a particular viewpoint means you accept the idea of something being better, or preferable. Trying to have harmony over chaos, means that harmony has some sort of value over chaos, if it doesn't then why are you even bothering?

It's funny how relativists try to argue for relativism, liek they think its true or something

You don't think that making a judgement has anything to do with morality? What is judgement then?

My God, a fair recognition as we don't worship the same God, commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they did, that was Original Sin and the consequences for humanity was that we die. What does this have to do with discussing morality??

Lastly, how exactly do you figure that Saint John is calling the God of Abraham the Beast of the Apocalypse?

This post has been edited by jamesAMDG: 04 May 2007 - 01:48 AM

[Russ]

Jutan, on Mar 27 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

I had a question for those who don't believe in the authority of the Bible, but still believe in God: who is this God that you believe in and where do you get your infomation about him/her?

The God that I believe in is the God of all people and the Spirit of the Universe. This is the God referred to in the Bible and is the Spirit referred to by all people who have come to believe through a living experience with God through a very real Spirit to Spirit contact. The Bible, its canons, its authors, its inclusions and exclusions, are not necessary for such direct contact with God. Nor is any church, minister, creed, hymm, article of faith, or other human or human creation needed to personally experience God and the Infinite first hand. God is within us, each and everyone of us and not out in space or removed from us. We live our lives moving toward this Truth and naturally seek it out as people of Faith, but have no further to look than within our own selves. The very act of Seeking is a Spiritual activity based on the fact that the goodness within us, the honesty, the charity, the love and forgiveness that we show, the compassion in our hearts are not simply one-sided human emotions, but characteristics of a part of us that is Spirit and longs to connect with the Source of all that is good, and all that is love, and all that is compassion. We simply need to clear away the arguements, the clutter, quiet the chatter, and push away all of the notions of right and wrong, the quibbling over human language and its words, and simply be one with the One. Quiet, wordless prayer...true centered focusing on the Spirit Within will connect us with the Spirit Without. The matching part of our Inner Spirit is the Outer Spirit, just as the convex part of a curve matches the concave part and we are drawn to the Source, be it through conscious contact, seeking, asking, praying, or turning over rocks and looking under bushes. There is no need for any human explanations or 'authorities'...the Seeking of anyone, or everyone, will bring us to our Answer: God Within.

[Bobd]

jamesAMDG

Quote

Please forgive the lateness of my reply, but I was writing exams and "the interests of [my]narrow, intolerant, and little mind" were focused on using my skills as "word twister par excellance" to earn some good marks, and in case you were wondering, I succeeded.

Congratulations on making some good marks on your exams!

Quote

[flow: Which part of making personal insults against me was supposed to prove me wrong?]

Having a battle of wits to prove one right or wrong is more like self righteous people sparring for a position of intellectual power over the other. I don't think that flow meant it in that way.

Quote

BobD,

I return to your first post that I was commenting from.
I stand by my original statement.

You are assuming that gods have something to do with the One god. The word elohim has no part in the definition of god and therefore your assumption that because I say that it is plural creates a plurality of gods, is false. I see Organized Religion's claim that elohim has anything to to with the One god as completely false.

Quote

Next you responded to what I wrote by writing,

As interested as I am in reading what some modern non-Christians have to say about Christianity, you have completely failed to address my point about the Pagans recognizing that Christianity was not built on paganism. It's why they tortured, butchered and fed the martyrs to the beasts.

Tom Harpur and Alvin Boyd Kuhn are not non-Christians. Tom Harpur is a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and the New Testament at the University of Toronto. Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D (1880-1963) was a scholar of comparative religion and a Gnostic Christian. I am not an expert in the history of Christianity, therefore I must refer you to these people and other expert historians who are. Perhaps you might also consider reading The History of Christianity by the very eminant Catholic historian Paul Johnson. Why do you assume that they are non-Christians just on the basis of what I said? Is it your position that all those who argue with the Evangical literalist position are non-Christians? I can counter your statement about the Pagans by talking about the Roman Church's torture, and sensless slaughter of the Moslems, Gnostic Christian Cathars during the crusades, but character assassination Pagans and Christians is not what progressive Christianity is all about.

Quote

I'm sorry you are insulted, doesn't change my opinion though. Feeling insulted isn't a fact.

Feeling insulted is a fact and it is not intended to change your opinion. The fact that it expresses is that you are trying to dominate me intellectually. You will not succeed and I will get over my feeling of being insulted soon enough.

Quote

The very fact that you are engaging in a discussion of right or wrong and defending a particular viewpoint means you accept the idea of something being better, or preferable. Trying to have harmony over chaos, means that harmony has some sort of value over chaos, if it doesn't then why are you even bothering?

I believe that we were talking about morality and immorality here. If you think you have morality, you must have a standard against which morality is measured. That is usually what you believe as your preconceived set of moral standards. You obtain those from what you have been taught which may or may not be accurate. Sometimes what is moral can be immoral to another such as pro-life verses pro-choice. To choose the side of one or the other is self righteousness. The self righteousness of each group produces ha Satan (the adversary). Establishing a set of moral values is not possible because not everybody agrees. If you take the literalist side, you are being self righteous. If you take the progressive side, you are also being self righteous. What happens when the two sides fight? You have ha Satan, the adversary. We therefore have to change our thinking towards achieving harmony verses chaos. When we take this route, the results of our actions can be observed. Using this observable data, we can analyse actions and their affects and make changes that hopefully will bring greater harmony. If a particular moral standard works for everybody, I am all for it.

Quote

It's funny how relativists try to argue for relativism, liek they think its true or something

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, it is true.

Quote

You don't think that making a judgement has anything to do with morality? What is judgement then?

Judging is decision making and judgment is the ability to make decisions.

Quote

My God, a fair recognition as we don't worship the same God, commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they did, that was Original Sin and the consequences for humanity was that we die. What does this have to do with discussing morality??

I don't worship god because worshiping doesn't cut it. Please read my postings in other places on this matter and you are free to comment on them there. 'Sin' means to 'miss the mark'. When man ate from that tree, that was the first time that he missed the mark and he has been missing the mark ever since by characterizing people as good or evil or moral or immoral. Characterizing people as one or the other is nothing more than character assassination.

Quote

Lastly, how exactly do you figure that Saint John is calling the God of Abraham the Beast of the Apocalypse?

I am the God of Abraham - not Jehovah the jealous, petty, unforgiving control-freak, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, homophobic, genocidal god of the Old Testament. Jehovah is the beast of the Apocalypse. The god I is the god of Abraham.

[BrotherRog]

Jutan, I'd be interested in your responses to the questions I asked you in post #15.

Peace. Roger

Jutan, on Dec 12 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

When I first hear of this site, I was actually quite angry. I was thinking "Here is another one of those offshoot movements taking people away from the truth of God". But, instead of being arrogant and ignorant, I decided to find out what this was all about! So I was hoping to ask a few questions and have them answered in a logical and reasonable way. I have no come here swearing and condemning people to hell. I have come to learn. So please educate me!

My first question is this: What is the absolute standard of truth that one must follow? There must be a right and wrong.
We all know (or I hope so) that intercourse with children is evil and abhorent. And that sex between two consenting adults, one male & female, is right. By right, I'm not saying you believe that it is the only right method, but that it is one right method. So if we have a scale of right and wrong, where is the line between the two? I believe the Bible is a relevant text and is God-breathed. God has said homosexuality is wrong. So I trust in the authority of the Bible. So if you believe that homosexuality is right then you must believe that the Bible is not an authority on morality. So by what authority are other sexual acts wrong?

[JosephM]

JUTAN WRITES:
"My first question is this: What is the absolute standard of truth that one must follow? There must be a right and wrong."

Jutan,

As long as there is CHOICE, there is no absolute standard of truth that one must follow. The word CHOICE negates the words "that one must follow". If everyone MUST follow then there is no CHOICE.

You say there must be a right and wrong yet those are only words defined by man. You can say that God wrote the Bible but I find it is obviously written by men. It contains some wonderful inspiring words but authorship by God is not even claimed within it. At best, it (the Bible) claims to be written by men and contain things they claim God said to them. To me, that is a far cry from Absolute truth or being written by God.

What you look for Jutan is a conundrum. You will not find truth in letters. If they make you comfortable and you feel good, so be it. However, one day I am confident you will find that it is words like "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" and their purported meanings that got you here in the first place. Your answers will neither be found in words or a book. Just a view to consider.

JM

This post has been edited by JosephM: 07 May 2007 - 01:34 PM

[jamesAMDG]

Bobd:

Quote

You are assuming that gods have something to do with the One god. The word elohim has no part in the definition of god and therefore your assumption that because I say that it is plural creates a plurality of gods, is false. I see Organized Religion's claim that elohim has anything to to with the One god as completely false.

This is fairly non-explanatory. You tell me I'm incorrect (and so is, well, nearly everyone [sidebar: gnosticism always struck as being incredibly elitist, you aren't exactly helping your case here]) without defining or explaining your terms.

Can I assume that what you mean by elohim are the aeons?

Quote

Tom Harpur and Alvin Boyd Kuhn are not non-Christians. Tom Harpur is a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and the New Testament at the University of Toronto . . . I am not an expert in the history of Christianity, therefore I must refer you to these people and other expert historians who are . . . Why do you assume that they are non-Christians just on the basis of what I said? Is it your position that all those who argue with the Evangical literalist position are non-Christians? I can counter your statement about the Pagans by talking about the Roman Church's torture, and sensless slaughter of the Moslems, Gnostic Christian Cathars during the crusades, but character assassination Pagans and Christians is not what progressive Christianity is all about.

Tom Harpur denies the divinity of Christ and His salvific unicity, Christianity as the fulfillment of the Judaic faith, etc. As far as I'm concerned that excludes him from what Christian means. Besides, if he couldn't even stick it out in a theological and institutional basketcase like the Anglican Church it helps understand how far out of Christianity he is. Mr. Kuhn, whether you want to qualify his theosophical ramblings as Christian is your own business, but I'm perfectly able to recognize when one thing is not like another.

Well, I suppose I could do your research for you, but I assumed that you might have a working knowledge of the system you were putting forward. Perhaps it's a bit much to expect people who take Holy Writ so lightly to not take Saint Peter's advice to heart, (1st Letter of Saint Peter, 3.15) "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you."

I called them non-Christians because I'm a little familiar with Tom Harpur (and a quick peruse fo his website confirmed what I had already understood), and if you are calling A. B. Kuhn a gnostic, well I don't think gnosticism is Christian, plus his involvement with theosophy. Why do you assume that I would defend "the Evangical literalist position"? While I do accept most evangelicals as Christians (providing they're Trinitarian, have a solid Christology, believe in the salvific unicity of Christ, etc.) I have no use for Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. If, however, you had done even the most basic research about me (by going to my blog) you would have found out that I am a Papist.

You aren;t countering my point because you have apparently missed it completely. My point was that the pagans understood that Christianity was not an outgrowth of paganism. They understood that it was something new, different and could not co-exist with them. Two opposing, exclusive faiths cannot tiptoe through the tulips together. Unfortuantely, for so many "progressives" doublethink is already a conditioned response and they don't even notice. Charater assassination is one of the main things that "Progressive" Christianity is all about. Look at threads about the election of Pope Benedict XVI, protestant fundamentalists, Ann Coulter, ad naseum. "Progressives" LOVE saying that traditional Christianity is wrong, and they LOVE tossing around words like sin when its someone notes that homsexual behaviour is disordered, but get all kissy face when facists like Hamas rail against Israel. Essentially, it's a psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history.

Quote

I believe that we were talking about morality and immorality here. If you think you have morality, you must have a standard against which morality is measured.

Of course, and you have one too, though you seem loathe to admit it. You wouldn't say I'm wrong if you weren't measuring ti against some standard or other.

Quote

That is usually what you believe as your preconceived set of moral standards. You obtain those from what you have been taught which may or may not be accurate. Sometimes what is moral can be immoral to another such as pro-life verses pro-choice.

And, I never said that a man could not be mistaken about morality. Simply that his mistakeness does not change the fact that there is an objective moral standard in the universe. For example, just because someone thinks that sticking a pointy vaccuum into a baby's head and sucking his brain is ok, does not in fact make it so. You are confusing a moral opinion with morality itself.

Quote

Establishing a set of moral values is not possible because not everybody agrees.

Wrong, moral truth (or any truth for that matter) is not established by a majority vote. But if it were, the very small minority of progressive Christians would find themselves sorely outvoted.

Quote

What happens when the two sides fight? You have ha Satan, the adversary. We therefore have to change our thinking towards achieving harmony verses chaos.

Right, and harmony can only exist in a world where Truth reigns supreme, but until the Second Coming, we're left with the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to everyone, at all times. That's why we disuss and debate, to seek the Truth, and here possible, to know it.

Quote

It's funny how relativists try to argue for relativism, liek they think its true or something


According to Einstein's theory of relativity, it is true.

I'm going to assume that this was some sort of atempt a joke, because you can't possibly be so obtuse as to not recognize I'm speaking about moral relativism here. My point was that moral relativists get their panties all in a twist when you disagree with them, and then set out to prove that moral absolutism is wrong. Like they are really right, and moral absolutism is really wrong. You know, i a worldview where NOTHING is absolutely right or wrong. Seems a little self-contradictory to me.

Quote

I don't worship god because worshiping doesn't cut it.

I'm sure that when you stand before God in the Final Judgement, He'll be happy to play this semantic game with you.

Quote

'Sin' means to 'miss the mark'.

Wrong again I'm afraid, sin is a transgression of moral law, an offense against God and His goodness; it is a moral evil. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, "[s]in is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law."

Quote

I am the God of Abraham - not Jehovah the jealous, petty, unforgiving control-freak, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, homophobic, genocidal god of the Old Testament. Jehovah is the beast of the Apocalypse. The god I is the god of Abraham.

This isn't really an explanation of why you think that the One, True God, of Abraham, Jacob and Moses. The same God who is co-eternal in the Most Blessed Trinity is the Beast of Saint John's Apocalypse.

Further, God is and always was God, so there isn't a different God of the OT and the NT. But your mis-characterizations (someone once said that charaterizing was charater assassination) of God are not exactly surprising but they lay your own ignorance bare. Let's look at what is actually in Holy Scripture shall we...

1 Kings 15.22 (in some bible listed as 1 Samuel 15.22) "And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams."

Psalm 50.18-19 (Douay-Rheims Translation) "18 For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. 19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

That is one blood-thirsty God, He just can't get enough.

Unforgiving? The same God who was Incarnate in the Virgin's womb, healed people, forgave sins and died on the cross to make the forgiveness fo sins possible? Unforgiving? That one? Seriously? And here I was always under the assumption that the Church beleived that when I make a confession I'm forgiven. Sheesh, good thing you cleared that up for me. But as far as the OT goes, you wouldn't mean that the sin offerings weren't about forgiveness, and certainly forgiveness has nothing to do with Yom Kippur.

Ethnic cleanser? Because the people who had squatted in the Promised land spent their time worshipping demons and sacrificing their children to Moloch were killed? Thats not ethnic cleansing, thats called justice. It's a very good thing that Christians live under grace and not under the law, because surely the post-Christian West rival the evil of the Canaanites.

Homophobic? Because He clearly says that homosexual acts are wrong? (I'll ignore the etymological difficulties of this stupid, made-up word). I guess God is an adulterophobe too, and a thetophobe, and a lie-ophobe, etc.

For the record though, I don't worship Jehovah. Jehovah is an incorrect transliteration, into English from Hebrew, of the Tetragramaton, YHWH. This the utterably holy Name of God. YHWH actually comes from the root of "I AM WHO AM". Tyndale used Jehovah in his bible in 1530 and when King James decided that he better get his own version of the bible made for the apostate Church, founded by Henry VIII so he could overturn his binding marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he let his translators use it. Jehovah is a nonsense word.

ps. - Please forgive the lateness of my reply.