I agree, that is why I used the word minority. Also, does it make you feel better if someone like me was traumatized by something? Just because my worldview is different doesn't mean I am traumatized or something horrible happened to me. It is actually the opposite. I had a very pleasant childhood in the church. I was not wronged by the church or any of the people who were in it. Nor the University I attended, which was a private Christian College. I am just someone with a different opinion, yet you see me as wrong. Why?



We have something in common.



This is how most Christians I know would describe me as a non-believer. This is what I am getting at, I don't blame any of you for feeling the way you do about what I said. I admit it is a very one sided view and is totally ignorant of me to say, but this is an example of how Christians usually treat those who do not believe like them. They go to extremes and instead of trying to reason with someone, they call them lonely, arrogant, ignorant and hypocritical. And since right now you are the majority, the majority should take some blame for it.

Of course I'm not happy that you were traumatized. That it would even occur to you that this would make someone feel better says so much about how you are addressing this.

From where I stand, what confuses me as much as anything else is why you are at all worried about what other people think about your personal beliefs. Or that it even comes up in a conversation to the point where it gets to be a problem. I'm a raging pagan and I honestly can't recall it even coming up in the conversation in decades. I suppose part of it is that I'm not evangelical and don't feel any desire or need to proselytize. I don't know what your style is but I can tell you that if someone is out there trying to talk people out of their faith or, god forbid, trying to convert them, 90% of the time they are going to get push back and it doesn't matter if they are pagan, Seventh Day Adventist or Southern Baptist. And since proselytizing is imbedded in most mainstream christian theology, waiving your anti christian beliefs at them is like a red flag to a bull. Why even go there??? In many ways, that is setting them up to have to choose between being polite to you vs. ignoring something their faith encourages them to do. I personally think that I am being kind of rude when I put people in that position. But then, I "get" the importance of faith even if I don't necessarily agree with a given theology.

My faith is my business and while I mention it on OKCtalk to explain where I am coming from, in idle conversation with family, friends and neighbors, it rarely comes up. If I hear other people doing the god bless you or have a blessed day or WWJD, it is no skin off my nose if that is how they believe. I have no confidence that what "I" believe is any more legitimate so who am I to judge? I just know that my own belief system feels right to me.

Additionally, as someone who has received excellent treatment at faith based medical centers for myself and my family, and as someone who has often found treatment providers from faith based organizations and seen the value of the 12 step program for many substance abusers, the last thing I want to do is crush the christians. They ain't bothering me and at the end of the day, I likely get more from them in our culture than they do from me.

I would like to pile onto this train of thought and concur. From what I understand, OkieBerto is not some outsider who misunderstands the premise. He or she clearly has had some indoctrination into modern Christian behavior and had come to the conclusion that it is not for him or her. Further, I think it's evident that this is not some petulant whim. It's obvious to me that it's the product of some well-thought out personal analysis. Those who disagree with OkieBerto are more than welcome to debate it, but I believe that OkieBerto has made these conclusions with due diligence.
While I disagree with some with regards to religion, spirituality and morality, often times these conclusions that my theological "opponents" have are not flippant and will probably not be dissuaded by talking points and rhetoric.

Thank you for not joining the bandwagon and actually trying to understand what I am saying. I am not asking anyone to change their belief system, I am asking them to open their eyes to what is in front of them and stop closing them and praying so much for something to intervene. I am also not trying to destroy any religion, I am merely asking those who are religious to stop voting for religious bills. Public prayer is not a right that should be made into some law or bill, it is something that anyone no matter what belief system they follow should be allowed to do. When bills are passed that regulate things dependent on religion, you are not representing the beliefs of everyone.

Jesus himself was a minority and a person who was not agreeing with the majority. He had to put up with people telling him he is wrong and also dealt with death threats everywhere he went. He eventually died because of his belief. I am not trying to say I am like Jesus, but I am saying he was once in my shoes, sharing what he thought to be the better way of being. That included having dinner with tax collectors and meeting with Gentiles. In the teachings of Jesus, I may be wrong, but I am still accepted as God's child.

Of course I'm not happy that you were traumatized.

Like I said, I was not traumatized. I haven't needed any professional help for my thoughts because they are not ones that cause me depression. You still assume there is something wrong with me.


From where I stand, what confuses me as much as anything else is why you are at all worried about what other people think about your personal beliefs. Or that it even comes up in a conversation to the point where it gets to be a problem. I'm a raging pagan and I honestly can't recall it even coming up in the conversation in decades. I suppose part of it is that I'm not evangelical and don't feel any desire or need to proselytize. I don't know what your style is but I can tell you that if someone is out there trying to talk people out of their faith or, god forbid, trying to convert them, 90% of the time they are going to get push back and it doesn't matter if they are pagan, Seventh Day Adventist or Southern Baptist. And since proselytizing is imbedded in most mainstream christian theology, waiving your anti christian beliefs at them is like a red flag to a bull. Why even go there??? In many ways, that is setting them up to have to choose between being polite to you vs. ignoring something their faith encourages them to do. I personally think that I am being kind of rude when I put people in that position. But then, I "get" the importance of faith even if I don't necessarily agree with a given theology.

I am not trying to talk people out of their religion. I know most will not be swayed, I am merely asking for some middle ground. Public prayer does not need a law or bill. Climate Change should not be a political debate, because someone believes God is going to fix it. It is obvious this is a lost cause because even a Raging Pagan like yourself allows the people around them to blindly vote for Politicians who campaign with Jesus on their shoulder and then when in office try and write bills against scientific facts.

So don't vote. It only encourages them. Especially when the incumbents win.

Like I said, I was not traumatized. I haven't needed any professional help for my thoughts because they are not ones that cause me depression. You still assume there is something wrong with me.



I am not trying to talk people out of their religion. I know most will not be swayed, I am merely asking for some middle ground. Public prayer does not need a law or bill. Climate Change should not be a political debate, because someone believes God is going to fix it. It is obvious this is a lost cause because even a Raging Pagan like yourself allows the people around them to blindly vote for Politicians who campaign with Jesus on their shoulder and then when in office try and write bills against scientific facts.

This raging pagan doesn't "allow" anyone to blindly vote one way or the other and to even say that begs the question of what you see as appropriate in terms of such things. To me, how someone votes, individually, is none of my business and getting all up into other people's religious faith to challenge their core beliefs is just boorish. As for climate change, you again make the leap that this is just about trusting in god or a religious issue. Seriously? I mean, seriously? You actually think the so called "deniers" must be motivated by religious faith or be anti science? Wow. I'll stop, now. I wish you the best in your journey and sincerely hope that some day a lot of the things that distress you begin to come better into focus. You are seeing the world with a filter I can't even imagine so nothing I can say would likely be helpful to you at this point in your life. All the best.

One can be baptized in Christ to rid sin...
This is an incorrect statement.

In the interest of fairness, OkieBerto is not preaching the Bible; he's
observing Christian behavior.
And mainly those behaviors by so-called Christians that have nothing to
do with Christianity. I didn't say he was preaching the Bible but it
would certainly help him understand what Christianity is by reading the
New Testament or only the Gospels.

Did I read this opinion correctly? Did Justice Thomas say that individual states could establish a state religion?
I think that is what he said. States and cities could establish a religion just so long as it's not the feds.
Has Utah done something like this? Do people in Utah feel like they are living in a theocracy?

This is an incorrect statement.

by your opinion.

And mainly those behaviors by so-called Christians that have nothing to
do with Christianity. I didn't say he was preaching the Bible but it
would certainly help him understand what Christianity is by reading the
New Testament or only the Gospels.

Actually I preached the Bible to you in another thread because you claimed there were no verses about a certain subject. I then quoted them word for word. You were wrong about that. I have read all of the New Testament and all of the Gospels many times. I just don't try and make everyone believe the way I interperet them.

You are seeing the world with a filter...

I see the world with out a filter, and religious beliefs are the filter.


I can't even imagine so nothing I can say would likely be helpful to you at this point in your life. All the best.

Actually, it would of helped if you actually saw me as a normal person and not a traumatized former Christian. All the best to you as well.

Actually I preached the Bible to you in another thread because you claimed
there were no verses about a certain subject. I then quoted them word
for word. You were wrong about that.
So I was wrong about something. I'm right about what I just posted.


I have read all of the New Testament and all of the Gospels many times.
Then you shouldn't have any problem realizing Christian behavior from
non Christian behavior. However, your posts show otherwise.


I just don't try and make everyone believe the way I interperet them.
What are you trying to say? This sentence doesn't make sense.

by your opinion.
No, it's not an opinion. The act of baptizing doesn't remove sin. Can you
show in the New Testament that it does remove sin? That would be
interesting.

"Let's Talk About Prayer....Part II" seems to be going just...well...about like Part I that got locked.

No, it's not an opinion. The act of baptizing doesn't remove sin. Can you
show in the New Testament that it does remove sin? That would be
interesting.

Shall I use another word, washes away sin? Acts 22:16

Maybe I should of used the words, forgiveness of those sins? Acts 2:38

"Let's Talk About Prayer....Part II" seems to be going just...well...about like Part I that got locked.

I wasn't around for the first of this thread. I apologize if I raised this issue from the dead.

I wasn't around for the first of this thread. I apologize if I raised this issue from the dead.

Wait..... so are you saying you believe in 'resurrection'?

So I was wrong about something.

You have been wrong on many threads. You state opinion without evidence on just about every subject.


Then you shouldn't have any problem realizing Christian behavior from
non Christian behavior. However, your posts show otherwise.

Christian behavior is defined as? People who act Christlike?


What are you trying to say?

That you correct people on this forum based upon your personal opinion or interpretation of the Bible.

Wait..... so are you saying you believe in 'resurrection'?

I hope this is sarcasm, because I just laughed really hard. Thanks!

Shall I use another word, washes away sin? Acts 22:16
Calling on His name washes away sin. Baptism is the outward confession
of accepting Christ as Savior. Other than that baptism only gets one wet.
Accepting Christ washes away sin. A person can be baptized and still
have sin.


Maybe I should of used the words, forgiveness of those sins? Acts 2:38
Baptism isn't washing away sin or providing forgiveness in this verse.

If baptizing did away with sin then Jesus would have baptized instead
of telling people their sins were forgiven. In fact, Jesus never baptized.

Baptism is the outward confession...

Confession to who?


If baptizing did away with sin then Jesus would have baptized instead
of telling people their sins were forgiven. In fact, Jesus never baptized.

I don't know why the fact that Jesus did not baptize anyone really matters, but why would Jesus be baptized then? Was he setting an example?

So as we can all see this thread has gotten off track and someone is trying to tell me what the Bible means. With personal interperation and opinion. So my point is, if we have so many opinions on what the Bible means or if it is even factually true, why do we continue to keep passing bills based upon its rocky merits?

I see the world with out a filter, and religious beliefs are the filter.



Actually, it would of helped if you actually saw me as a normal person and not a traumatized former Christian. All the best to you as well.

Actually, it would help if you would stop viewing Christians as if there is something wrong with them. That's the filter we're talking about. I've been trying to remember if in all the years I've been coming to this forum and made clear that I'm not Christian any Christian has taken exception. I can't think of a single time I've ever been criticized or any Christian leaning poster has tried to make me feel bad about it. In fact, I think only one or two have even made a friendly effort to ask me to reconsider. And given the way so many people get way across boundaries on an anonymous internet, that speaks very well for Christians not going all holier than thou on people not of their faith. My pagan leanings have frequently come up in conversations because non Christians/anti Christians or atheists make thoughtless assumptions about my postings and attribute it to my being Christian. And they are incredibly condescending about it as if they know my heart and mind and positions on social issues. You can set your clock by it. I can't recall bring treated rudely about my faith by a Christian in years - on or off OKCTalk. That you claim Christians look down on you because you don't believe the way they do sounds, well, unlikely absent some other dynamic going on.

... but why would Jesus be baptized then? Was he setting an example?
Jesus had no sin. It was a picture of his death, burial and resurrection.

So many religions, so many holy books, so many interpretations of each --- too little time.
Life is a mystery.
Nobody has the truth.

Did I read this opinion correctly? Did Justice Thomas say that individual states could establish a state religion?
I think that is what he said. States and cities could establish a religion just so long as it's not the feds.
Has Utah done something like this? Do people in Utah feel like they are living in a theocracy?

It is more likely that he is on quixotic effort to force the Court to address whether the Establishment Clause was incorporated by the 14th Amendment against actions by the states, hence his statement that the "text and history of the Clause 'resis[t] incorporation' against the States" and his discussion of how the Establishment Clause was viewed during the post-Civil war Reconstruction period when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Since Justice Thomas is keen on: i) maintaining the distinction between Federal and state power, and; ii) strictly limiting the scope of Federal power, he wants the Court to dot that "i". I suspect the rest of the Court thinks that this issue has been determined since no other member of the Court joins him in that part of his concurring opinion where this is discussed.

I doubt he is arguing for a right of establishment of state religions - he is writing with knowledge that by 1833 every state had disestablished its state-supported religion. It is more likely this is part of his usual effort to limit Federal power to what is spelled out in the text of the Constitution. Yeah, good luck with that.

I personally believe the more complicated and detailed you try to make it, the further away you get. It isn't that god is simplistic. It is just that if he is omnipotent, he probably can't be explained by intellectual treatises - I doubt he expects us to parse the words of his prophets for truth. I am not saying these teaching or or aren't true. I'm saying if what we need to know the nuances of this or that biblical line, or if we are expected to comb the good book for hidden meanings in order to have a relationship with god, that pretty much leaves out the ignorant, the mentally deficient and children. And those are the very people who we expect have the inside ring to get past St. Peter.

I personally believe the more complicated and detailed you try to make it, the further away you get. It isn't that god is simplistic. It is just that if he is omnipotent, he probably can't be explained by intellectual treatises - I doubt he expects us to parse the words of his prophets for truth. I am not saying these teaching or or aren't true. I'm saying if what we need to know the nuances of this or that biblical line, or if we are expected to comb the good book for hidden meanings in order to have a relationship with god, that pretty much leaves out the ignorant, the mentally deficient and children. And those are the very people who we expect have the inside ring to get past St. Peter.
EXACTLY.

But this is the conundrum that Christians find themselves in today. As our knowledge increases, people tend to rely on the actual words in the bible less and less, and in doing so move further and further away from religion. So to combat this, they've stretched and strained every last verse in order to make it comply with more intellectual thought that is commonplace in today's world - make it more relatable and meaningful, and somehow consistent with the reality of today's world.

But it just keeps getting harder and harder to keep up.

EXACTLY.

But this is the conundrum that Christians find themselves in today. As our knowledge increases, people tend to rely on the actual words in the bible less and less, and in doing so move further and further away from religion. So to combat this, they've stretched and strained every last verse in order to make it comply with more intellectual thought that is commonplace in today's world - make it more relatable and meaningful, and somehow consistent with the reality of today's world.

But it just keeps getting harder and harder to keep up.

This is not a trick question (but I've no doubt that some will make it so on all sides of this argument). Are you saying that modern knowledge is making the christian bible irrelevant? or even a mill stone around the neck of modern Christianity?

This is not a trick question (but I've no doubt that some will make it so on all sides of this argument). Are you saying that modern knowledge is making the christian bible irrelevant? or even a mill stone around the neck of modern Christianity?

I hope the story of Jesus is never irrelevant. Yet I think politicians or Christians are pushing the entire Bible as a code to living, which will make people who are either questioning faith or are not faithful at all, lose interest in the Bible. I wouldn't say modern knowledge makes it irrelevant, but it is showing that it is mainly a large parable with slight truths in there. It is more of a novel based upon actual events. That is how I see it.

This is not a trick question (but I've no doubt that some will make it so on all sides of this argument). Are you saying that modern knowledge is making the christian bible irrelevant? or even a mill stone around the neck of modern Christianity?

If by modern knowledge you mean modern science I think it is. Many things that are in the Bible have been given possible scientific explanations and the all-powerful being is believed less and less. I also think that modern acceptance is doing the same thing. Examples can be most people, at least Americans, don't object to homosexuality or same sex marriage. I think many have broke with the Catholic Church over the birth control issue. In a plain Jane sort of statement I wonder if the world is outgrowing the need for all-powerful being nobody has seen and can't prove he's there, so yes science/knowledge is overtaking faith. IMHO

This is not a trick question (but I've no doubt that some will make it so on all sides of this argument). Are you saying that modern knowledge is making the christian bible irrelevant? or even a mill stone around the neck of modern Christianity?

I think people insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible is more of a problem. Modern knowledge has made clinging to the attempts to explain the world around the writers of hundreds of years ago problematic. The concepts and philosophies contained in the book are still a pretty good guide for human behavior and therefore relevant in that regard. Yet some (most?) people are very selective in choosing the concepts and philosophies that best fit their biases to adhere to - that is also problematic and often the source of discussion, debate, and argument - take a look on this internet message board for numerous examples.

Jesus had no sin. It was a picture of his death, burial and resurrection.

Was Jesus not a man?

Was Jesus not a man?

The Bible said he was God and the Holy Spirit and Man, all at once. Not confusing at all.

You have been wrong on many threads. You state opinion without
evidence on just about every subject.
Not true. You disagreeing with me in no way makes me wrong and I'm
very good with providing evidence. I guess I could say the same about
you and especially on this thread which you've been wrong on virtually
every point.


Christian behavior is defined as? People who act Christlike?
For someone who claims to have read the New Testament you are
showing very little knowledge of it. Jesus is the definition of Christian
behavior.


That you correct people on this forum based upon your personal
opinion or interpretation of the Bible.
It's not my opinion or a personal interpretation.

The Bible said he was God and the Holy Spirit and Man, all at once. Not confusing at all.

So if Jesus was God then how was he the Son of God? The bigger question if Jesus/God was all powerful why did he/they let the Romans kill him/them. Couldn't God wipe out and forgive sin without being crucified?

This is not a trick question (but I've no doubt that some will make it so on all sides of this argument). Are you saying that modern knowledge is making the christian bible irrelevant? or even a mill stone around the neck of modern Christianity?
I don't know if I am saying it would be a millstone (in the biblical sense).

I'm just saying that as we learn more and more about our world, and have a more logical approach to things, the very simple interpretations of the bible become problematic. To combat this, more and more logic and meaning has to be extrapolated from the bible to make it match up to modern understanding of our world. The end effect is to force people to be biblical scholars to "truly understand" the bible, or before they can even discuss the nuances of the bible in public (evidenced by this very thread). This leaves out the very people that should have no problem with "being saved" - the "ignorant, the mentally deficient and children".

Going down this path, biblical scholars and religious establishments will have to work harder and harder to make the bible relevant, thus leaving more and more people realizing they are just making it up as they go along.

Biblical restrictions - who can and can't read the bible, only church officials, no everyone that can read German, most can't read at all, oh well, everyone can read the bible.
Jesus as a European - he's Middle Eastern, no he's white, no he's a white Middle Easterner, nope, African. ok, it doesn't matter. He lives in your heart!
Lilith - She was before Eve, non-whites are from Lilith, no, she never existed, not in the bible anymore.
Sin - Everyone sins, everyone can pay, no just confession is all you need, nope, no need to confess to the church, the church is god, no its not, the pope can just pray for the really bad ones, all it takes is acceptance of Jesus as your savior. And tithing.
Pop culture - satan is everywhere, especially those bad roaming entertainers, women can't be entertainers, in these witches too, cartoons with witches even, going to take your children, Disney is satan, no he's not. Harry Potter. Gay!
Dog People - There are dog people waaay over there! We don't believe that anymore. Well, except St. Christopher. He had a dog's head. And Cain barked. No wait, that's silly. They were created in the image of god. God is not a dog. Wait.
Flat Earth - Yup, it's flat obviously. and the center of the universe. No, it's not, bible says "circle". What they really meant was sphere. And it's still the center of the universe because we are like little gods and we're the center of god's universe.
Creationism - God created the universe in 6 days. Well, days before days were days, world is young, well, its old, people are old too, wait they are new, dinosaurs are new too, people were created from day 1 like they are today, no, people evolved but with god's hand. over 6,000 years, no over millions of years, dinosaurs are older than people, earth is old too, 'day' means time period, not day.
Divorce - yes, you can. no, you can't. yes, you can. under certain conditions. after two years, depending on where you live. Unless you are a church official. Then you can't. Yes, they can. Not before they become an official. Wait, yes they can.
Assocations - Don't hang with sinners, everyone is a sinner. OK, hang with them so you can go where people need help, don't judge. sorry, you have to judge. Yeah, but don't judge.

I've written enough. That's just a FEW of the examples.

So if Jesus was God then how was he the Son of God? The bigger question if Jesus/God was all powerful why did he/they let the Romans kill him/them. Couldn't God wipe out and forgive sin without being crucified?

Guess so. Let's explain it to make more sense!

He needed to show his love for his children. What's the ultimate way to do that? Let your own son die in sacrifice and symbolically place all humanity's past sins on him. Now you get to start over!

But, but, but... if god knew he was going to do this, if god knew even before he made us that we would be bad, if god knew eve was going to tempt adam, if god knew eve was going to be tempted by the devil....

I think people insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible is more of a problem. Modern knowledge has made clinging to the attempts to explain the world around the writers of hundreds of years ago problematic. The concepts and philosophies contained in the book are still a pretty good guide for human behavior and therefore relevant in that regard. Yet some (most?) people are very selective in choosing the concepts and philosophies that best fit their biases to adhere to - that is also problematic and often the source of discussion, debate, and argument - take a look on this internet message board for numerous examples.


In times past, most common people relied more on oral teachings until the bible began being widely distributed to the common people and common people became literal enough to read it. By its nature, oral teachings cut to the chase and don't rely on nuances of this or that word. Say what you like about how that gave power to the priests (I've always been concerned about a "go between" between me and my god), it tended to keep the faith relevant to the common people and likely was a comfort to them.

I am far less concerned than many about any scientific inaccuracies in the bible and more concerned about how the faith has transformed into relying on theology or a cognitive understanding of things that are likely well beyond our ability to understand. That is not to say that the priests or church leaders didn't accurately rely on the bible and its intellectual underpinings. But I personally think that reliance on the literal wording of the bible, even if it is exactly the accurate word of god - not getting into that argument - makes christian theology for everyman pretty confusing. It becomes more and more an intellectual question (which makes secularists nuts) than an answer to the question of, "Why am I here?"

So if Jesus was God then how was he the Son of God? The bigger question if Jesus/God was all powerful why did he/they let the Romans kill him/them. Couldn't God wipe out and forgive sin without being crucified?

Sounds like you have need of St. Patrick. He was pretty good at explaining this concept.

The discussion on this page really makes me interested in the concept of the evolution of (a) religion. I've seen many OpEd pieces about how Islam needs to evolve to become less fundamentalist in the same way that Christianity has evolved. I think it would be very interesting to see and study the evolution of the Christian Bible, the branching and evolution of the Christian religions, the evolution of philosophy and a friend has gotten me really interested in Gnosticism.
Quick thanks for the civil discourse.

Guess so. Let's explain it to make more sense!

He needed to show his love for his children. What's the ultimate way to do that? Let your own son die in sacrifice and symbolically place all humanity's past sins on him. Now you get to start over!

But, but, but... if god knew he was going to do this, if god knew even before he made us that we would be bad, if god knew eve was going to tempt adam, if god knew eve was going to be tempted by the devil....

To me, the most important thing a church leader can do is not so much to break down a paragraph word by word, but to be able to put church teachings in historical context so you can see what contemporaries to what was happening at the time would have interpreted church teachings. To understand what the crucifixion was all about, you have to go back prior to Jesus and understand what people of his day thought was going on with a blood sacrifice. Absent that, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Okay, so in today's world, a blood sacrifice also doesn't make sense be it a lamb or Jesus. But in those times, what strikes us as bizarre made perfect sense. And that is probably why it was written down/explained the way it was. They weren't thinking that Jesus was starting a new trend in blood sacrifice - he was just a human allegory for what they'd been doing all along.

He needed to show his love for his children. What's the ultimate way to
do that? Let your own son die in sacrifice and symbolically place all
humanity's past sins on him. Now you get to start over!
Where did you find this? Certainly not from the books of the Bible. Care
to make some sense of this concept?


... if god knew he was going to do this, if god knew even before he made
us that we would be bad, if god knew eve was going to tempt adam, if
god knew eve was going to be tempted by the devil...
Maybe you should read the books, letters (contained in the Bible) and
maybe a commentary.

Where did you find this? Certainly not from the books of the Bible. Care
to make some sense of this concept?
Don't act like this is something you've never heard. This is an obvious interpretation of John 3:16.
...and here:
Christ's Sacrifice Fulfills God's Design of Love (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19880907en.html)

...and here:
What Does the Bible Say About Sacrifice? (http://www.openbible.info/topics/sacrifice)

...and here:
Shepherding the Small Church: A Leadership Guide for the Majority of Today's ... - Glenn C. Daman - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=M7M-BPZv-OoC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=god+showed+his+love+through+sacrifice+of+his+on ly+son&source=bl&ots=yjgbaeg672&sig=Dx_9DwZgO_1cN7dKqsBdYr1zWrY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MKxzU7iyMePS8AGM9IGQCg&ved=0CN4BEOgBMBo#v=onepage&q=god%20showed%20his%20love%20through%20sacrifice% 20of%20his%20only%20son&f=false)

...and .... well you get it.

I know, I know - you don't agree with their interpretations.


But you see! This IS an explanation done in modern times. It is an interpretation of the meaning of the biblical account. The fact that you disagree with it only bolsters exactly what I'm saying. These modern explanations just get more and more complex in an attempt at relevancy.



Maybe you should read the books, letters (contained in the Bible) and
maybe a commentary.
Yeah. If ONLY I WOULD READ THE BIBLE and understand it the way you do, I would just.... get it. There isn't a rolleyes big enough.

Where did you find this? Certainly not from the books of the Bible. Care
to make some sense of this concept?

Maybe you should read the books, letters (contained in the Bible) and
maybe a commentary.


Isn't the Bible open to interpretation or is it to be taken literally?

Even if the best records of our earliest encounters with Our Creator refer to God as "Him" or "He" . . .
I think the "writer(s)" of Genesis did the best they could without computers.
In fact, to them, [g-d's name] couldn't be written.
Much less keyboarded onto a video screen.

Yeah. If ONLY I WOULD READ THE BIBLE and understand it the way you do, I would just.... get it. There isn't a rolleyes big enough.

What about this one?

http://i.imgur.com/4c84agD.gif

Don't act like this is something you've never heard...
This isn't what you posted.

1. Not everybody is a child of God. In fact the children of God have
already accepted the sacrifice of Jesus, which was voluntary.

2. You don't get to start over. You receive salvation and don't have
to be saved over and over as the concept of the passover lamb of the
Old Testament demanded.

3. God gave man a free will and didn't create him to be a robot. Yes,
God knew what was going to happen, ergo, the need of a perfect
sacrifice.

For almost 25 years, I worked very closely with a fellow who, like me, was very interested in philosophy and theology. He happened to be a B'Hai, and from time to time tossed out bits of his belief to tempt me. Some of the bits did, but he never succeeded in winning me over.

One of his points was that Truth remains true over the ages, but humanity tends to corrupt everything over the years -- not necessarily with malice aforethought, but due simply to our imperfect mental processes. We over-simplify some things and over-complicate others, so that every 500 years or so we need to be reminded of real Truths by the appearance of what he called a Major Manifestation. Some of these, he claimed, included Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and his own prophet. And he was sure that the Second Coming happened some 160 years ago...

He made this point in response to my own algorithm for seeking truth: study the Holy Books of all the major faiths, discard the conflicts and contradictions, but retain those things that are common to all -- which, amazingly, can be summarized in a single sentence: Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself, AKA the Golden Rule. A corollary is the admonition to love thy neighbor as thyself, in which the real operative words are "Love ... thyself." Without acceptance of self, one cannot accept anyone else either. Some philosophers describe this as "enlightened self-interest." I simply accept that it works.

I refuse to put a label on my beliefs; labels, to me, are simply a shortcut to stereotyping. Much of the discussion here revolves around stereotyping -- in all possible directions! I predict that it won't be very long before this thread joins Part I in limbo -- but it's too bad that we cannot have a reasonable, non-emotional discussion about such an important subject...

Yeah. If ONLY I WOULD READ THE BIBLE and understand it the way you do,
I would just... get it.
I'm not sure how you came up with this but at least you'd be a step
ahead and not have to rely upon google searches to know what to say.

For almost 25 years, I worked very closely with a fellow who, like me, was very interested in philosophy and theology. He happened to be a B'Hai, and from time to time tossed out bits of his belief to tempt me. Some of the bits did, but he never succeeded in winning me over.

One of his points was that Truth remains true over the ages, but humanity tends to corrupt everything over the years -- not necessarily with malice aforethought, but due simply to our imperfect mental processes. We over-simplify some things and over-complicate others, so that every 500 years or so we need to be reminded of real Truths by the appearance of what he called a Major Manifestation. Some of these, he claimed, included Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and his own prophet. And he was sure that the Second Coming happened some 160 years ago...

He made this point in response to my own algorithm for seeking truth: study the Holy Books of all the major faiths, discard the conflicts and contradictions, but retain those things that are common to all -- which, amazingly, can be summarized in a single sentence: Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself, AKA the Golden Rule. A corollary is the admonition to love thy neighbor as thyself, in which the real operative words are "Love ... thyself." Without acceptance of self, one cannot accept anyone else either. Some philosophers describe this as "enlightened self-interest." I simply accept that it works.

I refuse to put a label on my beliefs; labels, to me, are simply a shortcut to stereotyping. Much of the discussion here revolves around stereotyping -- in all possible directions! I predict that it won't be very long before this thread joins Part I in limbo -- but it's too bad that we cannot have a reasonable, non-emotional discussion about such an important subject...
I like you Jim. I want to label you. You're a nice guy.

When I imagine a world filled with people with your sensibilities, I imagine that it is a much better world than the one we live in.

Instead, all of this strict adherence to dogma sacrifices (tut, tut, see what I did there?!?!) hope for the kind of reconciliation you embrace.

Just a reminder...This Forum is about "Public Prayer." Popcorn will be ready in 15 minutes.

Just a reminder... This Forum is about "Public Prayer." Popcorn will be
ready in 15 minutes.
I thought it was about prayer in general since the title of the thread is
Re: Let's Talk About Prayer... Part II

Are you praying for a Thunder win tonight? | News OK (http://newsok.com/are-you-praying-for-a-thunder-win-tonight/article/4820682)

I thought it was about prayer in general since the title of the thread is
Re: Let's Talk About Prayer... Part II

Well, okay then. It's Friday...what the heck. Was pert much trying to "discourage" the same rhetoric that led to the demise of the original Thread.

Well, okay then. It's Friday... what the heck. Was pert much trying to
"discourage" the same rhetoric that led to the demise of the original
Thread.
I see. Good job then.

At any rate, the other thread was closed because of the abuse members
were giving to other members. Too often people use hateful statements
because someone disagrees with them.

So sad.

I see. Good job then.

At any rate, the other thread was closed because of the abuse members
were giving to other members. Too often people use hateful statements
because someone disagrees with them.

So sad.

That is the truth. Unfortunately, it comes from all sides because, we're all human beings. But - our discourse in the public square has surely deteriorated - no question.

That is the truth. Unfortunately, it comes from all sides because, we're all
human beings. But - our discourse in the public square has surely
deteriorated - no question.
I agree. Believe me I'm the butt of many hateful personal attacks from
both sides, of course it depends upon the subject.

Being hateful is wrong. Period. There is no reason to hate somebody
because they disagree. I honestly don't understand the hate.

At any rate I agree with Pete.

Pete sez...

Rule of thumb: "Address the point, not the poster".

Never any reason to even address someone individually
because on emotional subjects to do so is almost always
seen as provocation.

I agree with Pete.

Is prayer allowed at Title III funded congregate meal sites?

The Older Americans Act does not forbid older adults from praying before a meal at a senior center or some other location that provides a meal with funding from the OAA. The AoA recommends that each nutrition program adopt a policy that ensures that each individual participant has a free choice whether to pray either silently or audibly, and that the prayer is not officially sponsored, led or organized by persons administering the Nutrition Program or the meal site. (Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/AoA_Programs/OAA/resources/Faqs.aspx)) (Legal Aid of Oklahoma)

Why would anyone be opposed to prayer at any event? It's not an
establishment of religion but a Constitutionally allowed right. Nobody is
compelled to adhere or even agree with the prayer. If people are compelled
to agree then I believe rights infringement.

If we can't respect the rights of those who use religion then there is no way
we can respect the rights of those who don't use religion.