Slashdot Mirror

It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.

It does provide some information.

It still makes no testable predictions and thus cannot be tested scientifically.

I'd agree that the predictions are not testable.

This is okay, since religion is about faith anyway.

This is roughly equivalent to saying all science is about gut feeling.

It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.

It does provide some information.

It still makes no testable predictions and thus cannot be tested scientifically.

I'd agree that the predictions are not testable.

This is okay, since religion is about faith anyway.

This is roughly equivalent to saying all science is about gut feeling.

It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.

It does provide some information.

It still makes no testable predictions and thus cannot be tested scientifically.

I'd agree that the predictions are not testable.

This is okay, since religion is about faith anyway.

This is roughly equivalent to saying all science is about gut feeling.

It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.

It does provide some information.

It still makes no testable predictions and thus cannot be tested scientifically.

I'd agree that the predictions are not testable.

This is okay, since religion is about faith anyway.

This is roughly equivalent to saying all science is about gut feeling.

Actually if a Christian is someone who does what the Bible says, then very few "Christians" are actually Christian. Just because there are some passages you can pick out that aren't bigoted and stupid doesn't mean anything. If I say to kill all homosexuals, but I also say to love your neighbor, does that make me a good person? Maybe you should read the Bible instead of just listening to the passages your church tells you and assuming that's all there is. These people didn't just decide, "Oh well, homosexuals are icky, let's be intolerant of their sexual orientation and pretend ," the Bible tells you to kill them (Leviticus 20:13). A progressive Christian is someone who ignores the dogma their religion requires of them, so their hypocritical in a way, but only because rationality demands it from them.

Hate the sin: If God hated the sin and not the sinner then when sinners came before it for judgement (according to the bible) it would cast the sin to hell and not the people (souls) themselves. Because lets face it if God existed then he could do anything, including seperating sin from sinners. And if God really loved everyone then it would do that for them.

I don't post often, and usually stay out of these arguments/discussions, but I just had to reply to you. In fact you've hit the nail on the head! "Separating sin from sinners" is EXACTLY what God has done for us, and offers to everyone who will accept it. This is truly the essence of Christianity. Jesus died on the cross* to accomplish that. The fact of the matter is, lots of people do not want to be separated from their sin, and God allows them the freedom to make that choice.

* You may ask, if God is all powerful, then why go through all this business of dying? It's actually because in addition to being all powerful, God is perfectly just -- and someone had to take the punishment we all deserve, or else He would no longer be just. See Romans 3:21-26.

Here's a good slice illustrating what I meant above:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah %2028:9-16&version=31;

It isn't so clear in that point. First, check a more accurate version. Second, notice that these are people who abandoned their natural inclination - within the context of idolatry, as explained in the previous verses. Paul is making an oblique attack on temple prostitution, not on homosexuality itself.

You're not coming off as snarky at all and I find the subject fascinating.

I currently am fairly bitter and dismissive towards them. I see them as judgemental hypocrites overly interested in how other people live. I ascribed to them low and bitter motives. In short, I have a fairly low opinion and hostile attitude towards Christians.

In all fairness, the first sentence is probably related to the second. Christians who are "overly interested in how other people live" are easier to notice (and unbiblical) than the ones who are merely going about their business trying to be the best follower of Jesus that they can be. For example everyone has heard of the God hates fags "Christians," but very few have heard of my college math professor who just lived like a Christian and influenced people with his good deeds and humility.

Your statement put things in a new perspective. If Christians truly feel most of the time that they personally don't measure up, it becomes easier to have a more generous attitude. Their attempts to force their rules on me become more understandable. Their hatred of others is more comprehensible considering their self-hatred. Their hypocracy is much easier to stomach since there is no choice, given the unreasonably high standards set.

From my POV, the fact that Christians don't measure up would be *less* of a reason for hatred and *less* of a reason to force rules upon others, but admitting that one is a hypocrite *should not* be tantamount to self-hatred, although it often is. Jesus did not say to "hate your neighbor as you hate yourself," which sadly is what often happens to Christians who fixate on rules and neglect the central message of Christianity, which is mercy.

As Christians, we need to understand that in the Garden of Eden, the tree that God forbade humans to eat from was not the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil . I believe that we were not were simply not equipped to judge others, which is why Jesus warned against it and why the primary object of his criticism was against the Pharisees instead of the sinners.

Okay, I guess I'm off on a rant--I better pack it in.

You're not coming off as snarky at all and I find the subject fascinating.

I currently am fairly bitter and dismissive towards them. I see them as judgemental hypocrites overly interested in how other people live. I ascribed to them low and bitter motives. In short, I have a fairly low opinion and hostile attitude towards Christians.

In all fairness, the first sentence is probably related to the second. Christians who are "overly interested in how other people live" are easier to notice (and unbiblical) than the ones who are merely going about their business trying to be the best follower of Jesus that they can be. For example everyone has heard of the God hates fags "Christians," but very few have heard of my college math professor who just lived like a Christian and influenced people with his good deeds and humility.

Your statement put things in a new perspective. If Christians truly feel most of the time that they personally don't measure up, it becomes easier to have a more generous attitude. Their attempts to force their rules on me become more understandable. Their hatred of others is more comprehensible considering their self-hatred. Their hypocracy is much easier to stomach since there is no choice, given the unreasonably high standards set.

From my POV, the fact that Christians don't measure up would be *less* of a reason for hatred and *less* of a reason to force rules upon others, but admitting that one is a hypocrite *should not* be tantamount to self-hatred, although it often is. Jesus did not say to "hate your neighbor as you hate yourself," which sadly is what often happens to Christians who fixate on rules and neglect the central message of Christianity, which is mercy.

As Christians, we need to understand that in the Garden of Eden, the tree that God forbade humans to eat from was not the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil . I believe that we were not were simply not equipped to judge others, which is why Jesus warned against it and why the primary object of his criticism was against the Pharisees instead of the sinners.

Okay, I guess I'm off on a rant--I better pack it in.

You're not coming off as snarky at all and I find the subject fascinating.

I currently am fairly bitter and dismissive towards them. I see them as judgemental hypocrites overly interested in how other people live. I ascribed to them low and bitter motives. In short, I have a fairly low opinion and hostile attitude towards Christians.

In all fairness, the first sentence is probably related to the second. Christians who are "overly interested in how other people live" are easier to notice (and unbiblical) than the ones who are merely going about their business trying to be the best follower of Jesus that they can be. For example everyone has heard of the God hates fags "Christians," but very few have heard of my college math professor who just lived like a Christian and influenced people with his good deeds and humility.

Your statement put things in a new perspective. If Christians truly feel most of the time that they personally don't measure up, it becomes easier to have a more generous attitude. Their attempts to force their rules on me become more understandable. Their hatred of others is more comprehensible considering their self-hatred. Their hypocracy is much easier to stomach since there is no choice, given the unreasonably high standards set.

From my POV, the fact that Christians don't measure up would be *less* of a reason for hatred and *less* of a reason to force rules upon others, but admitting that one is a hypocrite *should not* be tantamount to self-hatred, although it often is. Jesus did not say to "hate your neighbor as you hate yourself," which sadly is what often happens to Christians who fixate on rules and neglect the central message of Christianity, which is mercy.

As Christians, we need to understand that in the Garden of Eden, the tree that God forbade humans to eat from was not the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil . I believe that we were not were simply not equipped to judge others, which is why Jesus warned against it and why the primary object of his criticism was against the Pharisees instead of the sinners.

Okay, I guess I'm off on a rant--I better pack it in.

You're not coming off as snarky at all and I find the subject fascinating.

I currently am fairly bitter and dismissive towards them. I see them as judgemental hypocrites overly interested in how other people live. I ascribed to them low and bitter motives. In short, I have a fairly low opinion and hostile attitude towards Christians.

In all fairness, the first sentence is probably related to the second. Christians who are "overly interested in how other people live" are easier to notice (and unbiblical) than the ones who are merely going about their business trying to be the best follower of Jesus that they can be. For example everyone has heard of the God hates fags "Christians," but very few have heard of my college math professor who just lived like a Christian and influenced people with his good deeds and humility.

Your statement put things in a new perspective. If Christians truly feel most of the time that they personally don't measure up, it becomes easier to have a more generous attitude. Their attempts to force their rules on me become more understandable. Their hatred of others is more comprehensible considering their self-hatred. Their hypocracy is much easier to stomach since there is no choice, given the unreasonably high standards set.

From my POV, the fact that Christians don't measure up would be *less* of a reason for hatred and *less* of a reason to force rules upon others, but admitting that one is a hypocrite *should not* be tantamount to self-hatred, although it often is. Jesus did not say to "hate your neighbor as you hate yourself," which sadly is what often happens to Christians who fixate on rules and neglect the central message of Christianity, which is mercy.

As Christians, we need to understand that in the Garden of Eden, the tree that God forbade humans to eat from was not the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil . I believe that we were not were simply not equipped to judge others, which is why Jesus warned against it and why the primary object of his criticism was against the Pharisees instead of the sinners.

Okay, I guess I'm off on a rant--I better pack it in.

You're not coming off as snarky at all and I find the subject fascinating.

I currently am fairly bitter and dismissive towards them. I see them as judgemental hypocrites overly interested in how other people live. I ascribed to them low and bitter motives. In short, I have a fairly low opinion and hostile attitude towards Christians.

In all fairness, the first sentence is probably related to the second. Christians who are "overly interested in how other people live" are easier to notice (and unbiblical) than the ones who are merely going about their business trying to be the best follower of Jesus that they can be. For example everyone has heard of the God hates fags "Christians," but very few have heard of my college math professor who just lived like a Christian and influenced people with his good deeds and humility.

Your statement put things in a new perspective. If Christians truly feel most of the time that they personally don't measure up, it becomes easier to have a more generous attitude. Their attempts to force their rules on me become more understandable. Their hatred of others is more comprehensible considering their self-hatred. Their hypocracy is much easier to stomach since there is no choice, given the unreasonably high standards set.

From my POV, the fact that Christians don't measure up would be *less* of a reason for hatred and *less* of a reason to force rules upon others, but admitting that one is a hypocrite *should not* be tantamount to self-hatred, although it often is. Jesus did not say to "hate your neighbor as you hate yourself," which sadly is what often happens to Christians who fixate on rules and neglect the central message of Christianity, which is mercy.

As Christians, we need to understand that in the Garden of Eden, the tree that God forbade humans to eat from was not the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil . I believe that we were not were simply not equipped to judge others, which is why Jesus warned against it and why the primary object of his criticism was against the Pharisees instead of the sinners.

Okay, I guess I'm off on a rant--I better pack it in.

You're not coming off as snarky at all and I find the subject fascinating.

I currently am fairly bitter and dismissive towards them. I see them as judgemental hypocrites overly interested in how other people live. I ascribed to them low and bitter motives. In short, I have a fairly low opinion and hostile attitude towards Christians.

In all fairness, the first sentence is probably related to the second. Christians who are "overly interested in how other people live" are easier to notice (and unbiblical) than the ones who are merely going about their business trying to be the best follower of Jesus that they can be. For example everyone has heard of the God hates fags "Christians," but very few have heard of my college math professor who just lived like a Christian and influenced people with his good deeds and humility.

Your statement put things in a new perspective. If Christians truly feel most of the time that they personally don't measure up, it becomes easier to have a more generous attitude. Their attempts to force their rules on me become more understandable. Their hatred of others is more comprehensible considering their self-hatred. Their hypocracy is much easier to stomach since there is no choice, given the unreasonably high standards set.

From my POV, the fact that Christians don't measure up would be *less* of a reason for hatred and *less* of a reason to force rules upon others, but admitting that one is a hypocrite *should not* be tantamount to self-hatred, although it often is. Jesus did not say to "hate your neighbor as you hate yourself," which sadly is what often happens to Christians who fixate on rules and neglect the central message of Christianity, which is mercy.

As Christians, we need to understand that in the Garden of Eden, the tree that God forbade humans to eat from was not the Tree of Knowledge, but rather the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil . I believe that we were not were simply not equipped to judge others, which is why Jesus warned against it and why the primary object of his criticism was against the Pharisees instead of the sinners.

Okay, I guess I'm off on a rant--I better pack it in.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galati ons%202:21-3:5;&version=31; The above text is what drove Martin Luther to break away from the Catholic Church. It's based upon your first point, "...so long as you are a good person". Basically, it's 1st Century writings that say what you do doesn't matter. There's plenty more of it in 1st Corinthians 10: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20co rinthians%2010:23;&version=31;51; I'd link to the whole passage, but one must have an understanding of Jewish law to get the broader concept.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galati ons%202:21-3:5;&version=31; The above text is what drove Martin Luther to break away from the Catholic Church. It's based upon your first point, "...so long as you are a good person". Basically, it's 1st Century writings that say what you do doesn't matter. There's plenty more of it in 1st Corinthians 10: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20co rinthians%2010:23;&version=31;51; I'd link to the whole passage, but one must have an understanding of Jewish law to get the broader concept.

The knight was probably just trying to convince his mother (or king) that they were in the "end-times" by exagerrating the carnage. The statement is right out of Revelation 14:20.

Speaking as a Christian I can say that all Christians are hypocrites. In all fairness though, it is much more difficult to avoid hypocrisy when one's ethical system is imposed from without or is codified. Christianity's ethical system is generally thought to be based upon the insanely high standard of Matthew 22:37-40.

The knight was probably just trying to convince his mother (or king) that they were in the "end-times" by exagerrating the carnage. The statement is right out of Revelation 14:20.

Speaking as a Christian I can say that all Christians are hypocrites. In all fairness though, it is much more difficult to avoid hypocrisy when one's ethical system is imposed from without or is codified. Christianity's ethical system is generally thought to be based upon the insanely high standard of Matthew 22:37-40.

Pardon the King James, couldn't find a modern transation in short order.

You may want to bookmark http://www.biblegateway.com/ or http://www.blueletterbible.org/ for future reference.

Lastly I will point to my sig as to why I am constantly bemused by slashdot and its theologians. For example a post above here asks about the 2 of each animal thing. Showing that their education about the Noahic flood stopped at Sunday school and then was soothed by the popular press. If they had ever picked up a bible and read the very next passage they might have a slightly different view.

Seraphim

Lastly I will point to my sig as to why I am constantly bemused by slashdot and its theologians. For example a post above here asks about the 2 of each animal thing. Showing that their education about the Noahic flood stopped at Sunday school and then was soothed by the popular press. If they had ever picked up a bible and read the very next passage they might have a slightly different view.

Seraphim

Jesus was very specific about living by the sword, turning the other cheek to our enemies, and loving all even those who don't love us.

Would this be the very same Jesus who upon seeing the corruption of his Father's temple, left, made himself a whip, and beat the money-changers out with it? Much of what you refer to has to do with advancing the Gospel with the sword (this is why Christians have/should have condemned those atrocities of the Inquisition). It's fine if you want to live a life of pacifism, but it's not necessary to reinvent Jesus as a pacifist to justify your decision.

>>> They are subject to peer review.

Metaphysical notions are also subject to review. However, metaphysics is axiomatic and so review simply causes the opposition of opinions which can't be proved. I think this is the area that Jesus is speaking of when he says (through the author of John's gospel, paraphrasing) "I am the logos" [the word of understanding, the same word that spoke into the darkness to create all things - cf Heraclatus] "I am light of the world, I shine in the darkness".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2 01:1-5;&version=46;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Why are there these people that feel like every other living soul in the world HAS to accept what they believe

In the case of Christians, it hinges on Jesus' statements about himself, such as "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", and his command to "go and make disciples of all nations". People who believe the Gospels to be true, and that Jesus' claims about himself are of the utmost importance, thus tend to have a desire that others should also believe those claims.

Unfortunately, many Christians go about evangelising in a horrendously un-Christlike manner, obeying the letter of the message while completely ignoring its spirit, failing to demonstrate any of the love, wisdom and humility that Jesus is recorded as demonstrating. The fundamentalists of today are very, very much like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Plus ça change...

-Stephen

Why are there these people that feel like every other living soul in the world HAS to accept what they believe

In the case of Christians, it hinges on Jesus' statements about himself, such as "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", and his command to "go and make disciples of all nations". People who believe the Gospels to be true, and that Jesus' claims about himself are of the utmost importance, thus tend to have a desire that others should also believe those claims.

Unfortunately, many Christians go about evangelising in a horrendously un-Christlike manner, obeying the letter of the message while completely ignoring its spirit, failing to demonstrate any of the love, wisdom and humility that Jesus is recorded as demonstrating. The fundamentalists of today are very, very much like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Plus ça change...

-Stephen

Acts 4:32, which is no doubt a basis for the Hutterite beliefs, and predates Marx by well over a millennium.

The problem with referencing a bible to back something up is that there are a couple dozen versions of the same thing, depending on the translation, the church or the time period. Just searching for Job 40 I found several different translations, many of which phrase it so that the movement itself is "like a cedar", not the actual tail.

This online version even has footnotes explaining that the "behemoth" is either an elephant or a hippo. I can imagine if I search long enough, I can probably find one that describes it as a Golden Retriever.

You probably should pick a different translation. The KJV is the notoriously bad translation that the fundamentalists love to take literally.

You can compare translations for yourself http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%20 40:15-24;&version=31;here.

Actually, under Mosaic law, it took a minimum of two or three witnesses to convict someone. Not nearly as hard as getting a conviction in the US, but it is "innocent until proven guilty". In addition, someone who made a false accusation could be given the penalty for the crime he complained of. (Deuteronomy 19)

I'm pretty sure that you had be worse than "abomination" to merit the death penalty, and that's all that homosexuality was classified as.

However, you're raising multiple conflicting arguments why Christians do not follow Kosher. One argument is how Jesus feed everyone from Mosaic law, meaning they could eat whatever. Another is that you should live among and follow the Gentiles' way. Don't these cause division in the faith or call into question the Bible when it contradicts itself like this?

Actually what I am saying is that it isn't important. The passage from Jesus says that the mosiac law does not apply. There are plenty of others, for example Galatians on the issue of circumcision. Galations is fantastic also because it talks about the circumcision group, as a "lobby" group. I just love it. Humour aside, the passage from Paul is talking about the same issue from a different direction. Paul is saying that because it isn't important don't let it be a barrier for people who see this as an issue. That is, we are freed from the law, but we may choose to live by the requirements of the law so that other people may not lose respect for the gospel.

A concrete example of applying this passage would be a Christian working amoung muslims. There is no law that prohibits Christians from drinking alcohol, in fact there are some passages that explicitly permit this (one psalm talks about God creating "wine to gladden the hearts of men", and in Timothy Paul suggests that he drink some wine for his health), in moderation. However if you were a Christian working amoung muslims, if you drank this might immediately cause them to disregard what you say. In that situation, because it isn't important, the appopriate thing to do would be not to drink at all. Equally s/muslim/jew/ and s/alcohol/pork/

BTW, I'm only on top of this issue at the moment because I've recently led a bible studies on the 1 Cor passage.

Coming from a Catholic background, I was told not to be literal with the bible, due to its imperfections and changes.

I think you have to be really careful with calling the bible imperfect. If the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is God's word to mankind, then how could it be imperfect? Though I'd certainly agree that there can be imperfections in the translations and interpretations. There are also some areas where it isn't certain that some sections are part of the original manuscripts (eg John 8:1-11).

Equally the Catholic church is (from my perspective) a little strange in that it gives equal weight to church tradition and to the bible. In practice this can mean that church tradition wins when there is a conflict. I could give examples, but I think that is a discussion for another day.

That aside what may have been meant is that you should not interpret the bible literally. I agree with this, although care must be taken. It is possible to interpret the bible in a way that suits you. Equally reading the bible literally can be dangerous. At the very least I'd have to tell my wife to take her wedding ring off and throw out the pearl earings her parents gave her. In that case Paul is telling women to dress modestly, braided hair, pearls, gold being examples.

It is very easy to take a few Christians and generalise and say that all Christians are like that. In addition some groups of "Christians" would not recognise others are Christians. I imagine that some Seveth Day Adventists would not consider that I am a Christian (Autralian Anglican church, evangelical).

Anyway, my real issue with what you were saying:
Christianity lost all its dietary rules and other Judaism-like commandments because frankly their texts aren't as well-preserved as Islam's.
In fact the texts are well preserved, there other reasons for not having dietary requirements. Some other passsages are even more radical:
"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."
1 Corinthians 9:19-22

As I understand it, the texts of the OT were extremely contraversial...

OK I don't honestly know the background the selection of the old testament as well as the new. The controvesy that I am aware of centered more around Song of Songs. Frankly this is largely a question that a jewish person might be better equipped to answer that.

What I do know is that it is worth being careful comparing contemporary (to OT) literature and going too far. The fact that styles, structure and even stories may be the same does not mean that the message is the same.

An example of this is the creation story in Genesis. This is very similar (IIRC) to other creation stories for the region. What is interesting is where it difers. As each thing is created it does not mention the god in charge of that area of creation, which the other accounts do. The point of this is that the creation story is told using styles and stories that are familiar but the differences emphasise the point even more. ...but only if you aren't one of those "the bible is literal truth" guys...

I'm not, otherwise I'd be telling my wife to take her wedding ring off because it is against 1 Timothy 2.

No, I'm something much more dangerous: I have a good mind and I believe that all scripture is the word of God.

Religion was used not only as a way to keep the people who need fairy stories to maintain morality in line spiritually, but also socially.

I'd seriously suggest reading some of the history. I'm sorry but I some of what you are saying betrays a lack of knowledge of the history of "the church", particulary early history.

What you are saying assumes that it was always in a dominant position. That is it was used by rulers as a means of keeping the populace down. However until the time of Constantine it was in no way associated with government, or even gained government recognition. Christians and Christianity were persecuted. Just google Nero for example, and remember that the Roman empire controlled most of the known world at the time.

In addition I'm not sure I really explained the criterial all that well. In most cases the councils that approved the books were just approving what was currently common practice (I said "accepted by the church at large"). Note that this was common practice before Constantine, the first Christian ruler was in place. This is hardly a question of pressure.

I don't mean to offend sensibilities and I'm stating the following as my opinion. The Bible as it stands today is nothing but a load of old fairy stories. In saying that, I think it should be kept around to keep the amoral masses in line. It's much easier than having to identify and counteract amoral people who discover Taoism.

I'm not offended. I'm just disappointed that you would dismiss the bible out of hand like that. I'm not sure what is your basis for deciding that it is a bunch of fairy tales, but that view not seem to be shared by historians.

It is remarkable book by any account.

But I do agree with you in principle, especially since most major religions teach tolerance (including Christianity... for 100 points, what did Jesus say the greatest commandment was?)

To "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." I'm guessing that you were thinking of #2: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Cf. Matthew 22:36-40)

As for the whole "choice" question, doesn't that presume the existence of free will?

Not that I support the death penalty, but the old testament contradicts...

Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Good point. That is precisely why it is called the OLD Testament. You're talking about living under law, which nobody can do 100%. We have to have a means of salvation so that we can be 100% squeaky clean. So the only solution is for God himself to eliminate rule of law as the means to the end of salvation as soon as human civilization sufficiently evolved to handle standing free of law. God had to pay the only sacrifice that can actually free us from sin. That sacrifice is God's own blood and suffering in our own native human form.

I'm in agreement with the parent poster, as the scripture says. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that as soon as his blood was shed in sacrifice, that all law that came before Him would be broken. If we completely trust in Him then He lives in us and begins to change us like a fire provides a chemical change, and He eventually guides our actions. Search that page for "law".

And then here's how it is after Jesus paid for all sin, in Galatians 3, verses 15-29. That explains the whole spiritual concept of humanity needing to be free from rule of law. In other words, following laws alone doesn't, can't, never could, and never will make you clean.

Thus began the New Testament, or Humanity 2.0. Eternal salvation explicitly without law.

I hope it's not too confusing, and other translations are available at a click. Just watch out for the fake Christians whose prayers consist of asking God to institute their own will, such as "WWJK"? (who would Jesus kill?)

Not that I support the death penalty, but the old testament contradicts...

Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Good point. That is precisely why it is called the OLD Testament. You're talking about living under law, which nobody can do 100%. We have to have a means of salvation so that we can be 100% squeaky clean. So the only solution is for God himself to eliminate rule of law as the means to the end of salvation as soon as human civilization sufficiently evolved to handle standing free of law. God had to pay the only sacrifice that can actually free us from sin. That sacrifice is God's own blood and suffering in our own native human form.

I'm in agreement with the parent poster, as the scripture says. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that as soon as his blood was shed in sacrifice, that all law that came before Him would be broken. If we completely trust in Him then He lives in us and begins to change us like a fire provides a chemical change, and He eventually guides our actions. Search that page for "law".

And then here's how it is after Jesus paid for all sin, in Galatians 3, verses 15-29. That explains the whole spiritual concept of humanity needing to be free from rule of law. In other words, following laws alone doesn't, can't, never could, and never will make you clean.

Thus began the New Testament, or Humanity 2.0. Eternal salvation explicitly without law.

I hope it's not too confusing, and other translations are available at a click. Just watch out for the fake Christians whose prayers consist of asking God to institute their own will, such as "WWJK"? (who would Jesus kill?)

This must explain why fasting (as in: only drinking water) for more than two days: you get cold and, according to the Old Testament, renew your youth.

...if I told someone that they should arrange their house to suit some passages in the Bible, they'd likely tell me to go piss up a rope.

If I wrapped it in Eastern Mysticism, they'd get a guru, moving company, and reed sandals.

That depends on the American you're talking to; there are probably plenty of them who'd lap it up if you gave them some Biblical quote that one could, if one worked really hard at it, interpret in some way that one could, if one really wanted to, think referred to some Web design issue. (Maybe they'll prefer popunders to popups thanks to "get thee behind me, Satan".)

While not strictly public domain, the Net Bible is a freely accessable resource for anyone to use, quote, or access without worrying about copywrite restrictions. They do have some restrictions on publishing printed copies (they want publishers to support the project) but for the most part want to make a modern English version free for everyone. Printed copies are also available for a small price.

As an alternative (I haven't read details on how copywrites are resolved) many common translations are available on http://www.biblegateway.com/

FWIW, yes, God is fair. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of race or class or nationality or wealth or intelligence or appearance. (It could be argued that there is some discrimination based on gender, but the majority of this is simply due to societal norms at the time the Bible was written.)

Ever since the Fall of Man, we have all been born into a sinful nature; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None of us deserve to spend eternity in communion with God (which is the true essence of Heaven), because God, by His very nature, absolutely requires righteousness, and none of us qualify. Not you, not me, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, not James Dobson, not Billy Graham, not Pope Benedict. There's nothing any of us can do to earn our way in. Go ahead, try to be a better person than your neighbors; try not to do anything wrong - it won't help. It's too late; you've already messed it up. Don't feel bad - so have I. We deserve to spend eternity separated from God; that would be fair.

But God is a God of love, and grace, and mercy, in addition to being a God of justice. That's why He sent His Son as a sacrifice to pay for our mistakes, to make up for the wrong we've done. It's not automatic, you have to accept the gift, but it is a gift, offered indiscriminately. You can't earn it, and there's no other way in.

God is fair... but people don't want fairness.

FWIW, yes, God is fair. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of race or class or nationality or wealth or intelligence or appearance. (It could be argued that there is some discrimination based on gender, but the majority of this is simply due to societal norms at the time the Bible was written.)

Ever since the Fall of Man, we have all been born into a sinful nature; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None of us deserve to spend eternity in communion with God (which is the true essence of Heaven), because God, by His very nature, absolutely requires righteousness, and none of us qualify. Not you, not me, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, not James Dobson, not Billy Graham, not Pope Benedict. There's nothing any of us can do to earn our way in. Go ahead, try to be a better person than your neighbors; try not to do anything wrong - it won't help. It's too late; you've already messed it up. Don't feel bad - so have I. We deserve to spend eternity separated from God; that would be fair.

But God is a God of love, and grace, and mercy, in addition to being a God of justice. That's why He sent His Son as a sacrifice to pay for our mistakes, to make up for the wrong we've done. It's not automatic, you have to accept the gift, but it is a gift, offered indiscriminately. You can't earn it, and there's no other way in.

God is fair... but people don't want fairness.

FWIW, yes, God is fair. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of race or class or nationality or wealth or intelligence or appearance. (It could be argued that there is some discrimination based on gender, but the majority of this is simply due to societal norms at the time the Bible was written.)

Ever since the Fall of Man, we have all been born into a sinful nature; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None of us deserve to spend eternity in communion with God (which is the true essence of Heaven), because God, by His very nature, absolutely requires righteousness, and none of us qualify. Not you, not me, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, not James Dobson, not Billy Graham, not Pope Benedict. There's nothing any of us can do to earn our way in. Go ahead, try to be a better person than your neighbors; try not to do anything wrong - it won't help. It's too late; you've already messed it up. Don't feel bad - so have I. We deserve to spend eternity separated from God; that would be fair.

But God is a God of love, and grace, and mercy, in addition to being a God of justice. That's why He sent His Son as a sacrifice to pay for our mistakes, to make up for the wrong we've done. It's not automatic, you have to accept the gift, but it is a gift, offered indiscriminately. You can't earn it, and there's no other way in.

God is fair... but people don't want fairness.

FWIW, yes, God is fair. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of race or class or nationality or wealth or intelligence or appearance. (It could be argued that there is some discrimination based on gender, but the majority of this is simply due to societal norms at the time the Bible was written.)

Ever since the Fall of Man, we have all been born into a sinful nature; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None of us deserve to spend eternity in communion with God (which is the true essence of Heaven), because God, by His very nature, absolutely requires righteousness, and none of us qualify. Not you, not me, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, not James Dobson, not Billy Graham, not Pope Benedict. There's nothing any of us can do to earn our way in. Go ahead, try to be a better person than your neighbors; try not to do anything wrong - it won't help. It's too late; you've already messed it up. Don't feel bad - so have I. We deserve to spend eternity separated from God; that would be fair.

But God is a God of love, and grace, and mercy, in addition to being a God of justice. That's why He sent His Son as a sacrifice to pay for our mistakes, to make up for the wrong we've done. It's not automatic, you have to accept the gift, but it is a gift, offered indiscriminately. You can't earn it, and there's no other way in.

God is fair... but people don't want fairness.

FWIW, yes, God is fair. God doesn't discriminate on the basis of race or class or nationality or wealth or intelligence or appearance. (It could be argued that there is some discrimination based on gender, but the majority of this is simply due to societal norms at the time the Bible was written.)

Ever since the Fall of Man, we have all been born into a sinful nature; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None of us deserve to spend eternity in communion with God (which is the true essence of Heaven), because God, by His very nature, absolutely requires righteousness, and none of us qualify. Not you, not me, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, not James Dobson, not Billy Graham, not Pope Benedict. There's nothing any of us can do to earn our way in. Go ahead, try to be a better person than your neighbors; try not to do anything wrong - it won't help. It's too late; you've already messed it up. Don't feel bad - so have I. We deserve to spend eternity separated from God; that would be fair.

But God is a God of love, and grace, and mercy, in addition to being a God of justice. That's why He sent His Son as a sacrifice to pay for our mistakes, to make up for the wrong we've done. It's not automatic, you have to accept the gift, but it is a gift, offered indiscriminately. You can't earn it, and there's no other way in.

God is fair... but people don't want fairness.

There are two ways to phrase that absolute, with greatly differing meaning.

Whoever is not against us is for us.

Either you're for us or against us.

You are either with us or you are against us.

And that's even before you think about nuclear weapons, laser guided bombs, global warming, crap TV and movies, contrived sports, moral leadership and all the other good stuff we give the world. No wonder we are God's own country.

Hmmm, I did not think that we exported nuclear weapons and laser guided bombs. I thought they were the free gifts we give to anyone that disagrees with us. :P

As to the "No wonder we are God's own country." God left this country a long time ago. I am sure that when the preachers get up and tell us we should HATE (Insert group of people) or we should "Smite the Unbelievers" or suggest that we kill people in other countries, well that aint God they are speaking for.

Romans 13:10

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=string &version1=31&searchtype=all

Thomas Paine, Deist, famously agreed with you in his book The Age of Reason :

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

And ironically, the Bible's got its own clear policy on censorship: Deu 13. But historically, it was probably banned for that content far less often than for the fact that it encourages people to worship something other than the State.

Truth and a lie.

I have genuine sympathy, and your complaints sound like they could have been my own, at a certain time of my life. I've struggled through tribulations, and the LORD has not always answered my prayers with the things that I considered most desirable. But He's always answered my prayer and my EFFORT with rewards. Those rewards haven't always been physically tangible; some of them have been on the INSIDE: will power, endurance, patience, forebearance, enjoyment of time spent alone, that sort of thing.

There was a time that my prayer was answered with a very harsh negative rebuke. I wasn't praying respectfully; perhaps that's why.

Anyhow, I assure you that you have ALOT to be thankful for, and it never hurts to give thanks for the things that you have. Food, a place to live, freedom, health, family, hobbies and interests, convenience, sense of contentment in the things you enjoy, etc.

If you have the luxury of DOUBTING God's existance then you haven't seen his wrath, and you haven't seen demons either; that's a very comfortable place, believe it or not.

When will YOUR prayers be answered? I can't say. But I've prayed and asked the LORD to help you, and I believe He will do that.

The book of Job provides a reasonable response to some of your experience.

As for proof, until you've SEEN the proof, remember: John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

You say it's not tangible, and there's no proof, but to me there IS proof. The evidence I have is in the Spirit. The spirit isn't just a feeling, it's how the LORD communicates with people. That means the LORD communicates with me, and my prayers are answered in a meaningful way.

The LORD helps you in ways that you might not recognize today; you will possibly come to recognize them later. For starters, I assure you, He protects you from ALOT. (Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they will be SHELTERED.) There are things in this world that you don't want to see. Demons, for instance. Thank the LORD. In the meantime, it is VERY important to love (and fear) the LORD even if you don't see proof of his existance.

Those who believe the LORD sent Christ and keep his teachings do this: LOVE the LORD, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, not retaliating against evil, always forgiving, not judging one another, praying for your enemies, helping the poor, lending to those who ask, being a good samaritan, keeping the LORD's 10 commandments, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus %2020&version=9 keeping sexual morality, speaking evil against no person, and spreading the Gospel. Christ said faith can move mountains. Seek and ye shall find. I hope you do find faith.

You mentioned you were born again, but the refresher never hurts. It is worth making the effort. God Bless You.