Slashdot Mirror

PI is exactly three.

Good enough for Solomon, good enough for me.

My apologies to respond to miself, but this needs emphasizing the difference between this World and that World.

That World is His World too [given to you, that if truth depart from the temple, he'll wash it down with Soddom and Gommorah branded shampoo; and the mon-key to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth will be given to them that are lowly as the first that didn't hide the love apparent from their two outward dimples]

1. Samuel 2:8; "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."
2. Samuel 22:16; "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."
3. Chronicles 16:30; "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
4. Job 18:18; "He shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
5. Job 37:12; "And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth."
6. Psalm 9:8; "And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness."
7. Psalm 17:14; "From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes."
8. Psalm 18:15; "Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils."
9. Psalm 19:4; "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,"
10. Psalm 22:27; "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."

This World is His world [let the Kingdom of Heaven be on earth as a mithril sword to defy all evil odds; but have mercy on Our departed hearts, narry tempt us naught with the corn of the underdog.]

1. Matthew 12:32; "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
2. Matthew 13:22; "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."
3. Matthew 13:40; "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."
4. Mark 4:19; "And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful."
5. Luke 16:8; "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
6. Luke 20:34; "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:"
7. John 8:23; "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
8. John 9:39; "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
9. John 11:9; "Je

My apologies to respond to miself, but this needs emphasizing the difference between this World and that World.

That World is His World too [given to you, that if truth depart from the temple, he'll wash it down with Soddom and Gommorah branded shampoo; and the mon-key to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth will be given to them that are lowly as the first that didn't hide the love apparent from their two outward dimples]

1. Samuel 2:8; "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."
2. Samuel 22:16; "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."
3. Chronicles 16:30; "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
4. Job 18:18; "He shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
5. Job 37:12; "And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth."
6. Psalm 9:8; "And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness."
7. Psalm 17:14; "From men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes."
8. Psalm 18:15; "Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils."
9. Psalm 19:4; "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,"
10. Psalm 22:27; "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee."

This World is His world [let the Kingdom of Heaven be on earth as a mithril sword to defy all evil odds; but have mercy on Our departed hearts, narry tempt us naught with the corn of the underdog.]

1. Matthew 12:32; "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
2. Matthew 13:22; "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful."
3. Matthew 13:40; "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."
4. Mark 4:19; "And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful."
5. Luke 16:8; "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
6. Luke 20:34; "And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:"
7. John 8:23; "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
8. John 9:39; "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
9. John 11:9; "Je

Our death, or deep sleep [pass away]?

If you have counted all through the ten commandments and find them of no effect, then take a tip as this is your cue to be born again and count down on your knees to the Lord's pew; see the sin, bag when it first begin, pray the Lord your soul He take; Love the Almighty, His bread for you He brake.

Keyword search results

1. Job 6:15;"My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook, and as the stream of brooks they pass away;"
2. Job 11:16;"Because thou shalt forget thy misery, and remember it as waters that pass away:"
3. Job 34:20;"In a moment shall they die, and the people shall be troubled at midnight, and pass away: and the mighty shall be taken away without hand."
4. Psalm 58:8;"As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun."
5. Proverbs 4:15;"Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away."
6. Jeremiah 8:13;"I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them."
7. Daniel 7:14;"And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
8. Matthew 24:35;"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
9. Matthew 26:42;"He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."
10. Mark 13:31;"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

Making legal decisions based on scripture is a thorny issue... you'd probably be interested in this Colorado supreme court decision about the influence of the bible on a death penalty case (see here for news article and here for the court's opinion). I personally agree with the two dissenting justices, that the bible is a valid part of the individual person's moral code. Obviously, some would disagree on this issue - but it's an interesting subject for debate nonetheless.

It's been my personal experience that the most stereotypically "fundamental" Christians spend very little time reading the bible. Instead, they seem to feed off this warped socially conservative culture that has developed in American society. Jesus said that "the traditions of men nullify the word of God"... meaning that bad things happen when people supplant the actual word of God with their personal social or cultural traditions.

Most of what is labeled as "Christianity" in our modern culture simply isn't. I encourage you to look past all the goofy Jerry Falwell conservative stereotypes, and read the bible with a fresh perspective.

Read the book of 1st John in the new testament, and if you like that read the gospel of John. Those two books should give you a good understanding of what Christianity is all about, straight from the horse's mouth.

Making legal decisions based on scripture is a thorny issue... you'd probably be interested in this Colorado supreme court decision about the influence of the bible on a death penalty case (see here for news article and here for the court's opinion). I personally agree with the two dissenting justices, that the bible is a valid part of the individual person's moral code. Obviously, some would disagree on this issue - but it's an interesting subject for debate nonetheless.

It's been my personal experience that the most stereotypically "fundamental" Christians spend very little time reading the bible. Instead, they seem to feed off this warped socially conservative culture that has developed in American society. Jesus said that "the traditions of men nullify the word of God"... meaning that bad things happen when people supplant the actual word of God with their personal social or cultural traditions.

Most of what is labeled as "Christianity" in our modern culture simply isn't. I encourage you to look past all the goofy Jerry Falwell conservative stereotypes, and read the bible with a fresh perspective.

Read the book of 1st John in the new testament, and if you like that read the gospel of John. Those two books should give you a good understanding of what Christianity is all about, straight from the horse's mouth.

Or could it be that those professing to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher are in fact supremely failing to be tolerant. After all we're responding to a an article about Christian intolerance aren't we?

Supremely tolerant? Are we reading the same bible? How about this for intolerance. Of this:
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

No one. I think you might need to really look at the gospels again. See the intolerance loud and clear.

BTW I am a christian and I object to people ignoring what Jesus really says. People who would reduce what he says to love your neighbour as your self, ignoring the fact that this is the second most important commandment, the first being to love god with everything you have.

You would be better served by presenting a factual analysis of the Galileo situation instead of spouting myth.
http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/title/exc/2281-1. pdf

I hate old english so much.

For those playing along at home, here http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%204 0&version=31; is a translation into modern english.

Of course there are bugs in the content of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and the other Wikimedia Foundation projects. But then there are also bugs in Britannica and bugs in Webster's. No reference is bug-free[1].

[1] The faithful allege that Handbook for the Human Soul is perfect, but even there, translations from the original ancient Greek and Hebrew can be dodgy.

Heck in the light of current events I would go as far as to say, USA is ruled by a fundamentalst Christian Government. Care to dispute that ? who cares ?
Who cares? A majority of the natioan apparently. These are elected officials. And they don't "Rule" in the sense that the government can hand down a law without the accountability of the people of the nation. If a "Fundamentalist Christian" were "ruling", butt sex (Read Leviticus 20:13) and abortion would be immediately outlawed. I'll grant you that our elected officials are moving in this direction, but our system of government holds our elected officials accountable.

I've been watching closely the trend between supposedly "self-help" book. Many end up taking you to the new age and esoteric alley - so that you can get in touch with your inner self and awake the cosmic karma hidden thru the eons - WTF?

If you remember the previous discussion on the self-help market, you'll realize most self-help books are just means to gain more money at the expenses of others' suffering. I made a joke about it, but in the end, it's more or less the same:

"trust your self. Take away the negative from you and be happy." Say, those are the nicest $29.95 i've ever heard.

IMHO, the book of proverbs is FREE, and I've found more hints on helping yourself than this overhyped "literature" of today.

You're right, many of the contradictions can be explained this way. But not all. OK, so did God create man before or after he created the animals?

All relevant in that they teach us things about God, us and our relationship with him.

This is completely circular. You say one of the reasons you believe in God is the relevancy of the Bible, but when I point out sections that are completely irrelevant to modern life, you say they are relevent because they teach us about God. So in fact you could only have been impressed by the "relevancy" of the Bible if you assumed it was true in the first place.

The evidence I have seen suggests historical accuracy and there have been a great number of historians who agree.

No, there haven't, at least not in modern times. I'm a historian (well, a history grad-student-to-be), remember, so give me references. Here's one for you: Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1992). The author is a Christian but doesn't let that blind him to seeing the Bible as a historical document like any other. It depends on what you mean by "historical accuracy", I guess. I'm not saying that the history in the Bible is wholly made up, but it's also clearly far from wholly true.

Historians, lawyers and reporters who have examined the evidence to prove Christianity wrong have been converted by it.

Oh, that old chestnut. Plenty of people have examined the evidence to prove Christianity right and found it completely lacking. So what? How about we set aside what other people think and look at the evidence for ourselves?

I don't have a problem with those events.

Then I respectfully submit that you go back and reread the Bible's account of them in the light of logic, science and history. Because there is no evidence outside of the Bible to suggest that these events happened (or are even possible), and plenty of evidence to suggest that they did not. Chapter 4 of Ian Plimer, Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism (Milsons Point: Random House Australia, 1994) brilliantly exposes the absurdities of Noah's Ark. It doesn't even begin to make logical sense - forget about all the science and history it contradicts. And there weren't even 600,000 people in all of Egypt at the time of Exodus, as far as we can tell - let alone were wandering around in the Sinai desert for 40 years, leaving no archeaological evidence behind. But ancient writers routined exaggerated or overestimated the sizes of armies and so forth, so historians are not too troubled by the 600,000 figure. You ought to be, though, if you think the Bible is inerrant.

They are only biased in the sense that they report from the point of view of how faithful to God the people are.

No, I said they were politically biased, and that is so, whatever else they may be. For example, Kings is probably based on court records, king lists, and the like, which served a political purpose. The power and wealth of Solomon is exagerated beyond all historical plausibility. And so on. It all suggests human authorship.

The New Testament manuscripts date from much closer to the time they were authored, were authored closer to the events described and occur in much greater numbers than any other historical document from the period.

This is plainly not true, unless (for example) you think that Julius Caesar didn't write an account of the Gallic wars. He was not only an eye

I love your sig. This quote goes with it

1. You didn't reference the verse, or the version correctly! It's verse 19, and KJV.

2. More contemporary versions accurately use the pronoun 'they' where you've quoted 'he.'

3. In the KJV, if it really meant God, it would have said He, not he.

But you a) don't care, and b) just wanted to sound smart, didn't you?

For future reference, the Bible can be found on line in many translations, searchable at http://bible.gospelcom.net/

Actually this is straight out of the new testament. I give you Mark 12:41-44 (NIV translation)...

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-all she had to live on."

Now let's take this and apply it to the current situation... Bill Gates would obviously equate to the "many rich people" mentioned above, but to me, the legions of humble, nameless contributors to FOSS projects (many of whom come from underdeveloped nations) have much in common with the poor widow, who gives more *of themselves*, because they give of *all that they have* -- their valuable time and talents, instead of heaps of money

I leave you with a section of Matthew 6:2...

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men..."

I know there are many atheists out there, but the Bible has some real jems.

Actually this is straight out of the new testament. I give you Mark 12:41-44 (NIV translation)...

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-all she had to live on."

Now let's take this and apply it to the current situation... Bill Gates would obviously equate to the "many rich people" mentioned above, but to me, the legions of humble, nameless contributors to FOSS projects (many of whom come from underdeveloped nations) have much in common with the poor widow, who gives more *of themselves*, because they give of *all that they have* -- their valuable time and talents, instead of heaps of money

I leave you with a section of Matthew 6:2...

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men..."

I know there are many atheists out there, but the Bible has some real jems.

And don't forget His opinion on publicizing a gift.

Here's what Jesus thinks about that.

No rational bible believing Christian can claim that sex is the devil's creation. Sex is encouraged in the bible (and for reasons other than just procreation). The issue is what is the right place for sex, and that is inside a marriage relationship, and frequently.

Natural Selection happening on a microscopic scale does not in any way prove that we all started as dust and evolved into our current forms.

The Theory of Evolution (unlike the bible) does not claim that we started as dust. What is the agenda behind your dishonest claim?

It means that what things we have had revealed to us, such as the "time in heaven" relation to "time here," are symbolic.

Most of the time, this is blatently obvious when you look at the actual text: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. I don't see how that could be reasonably interpreted as anything other than symbolic. It doesn't mean that one day is precisely equal to one thousand years, it means that God is timeless, God is above time, God exists outside of time, time is not relevant to God. Is this really that difficult a concept?

Since were telling Bible jokes we might as well bring in the story of God's left handed assasin, Ehud (Starting at verse 12). Apparantly if you're left handed killing is A-OK with God.

This position is plain wrong for a Christian to take.

Genesis 2:15 "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

God has given humans a commission, to work and care for the world. The introduction of sin into the world has not changed this commission. Indeed Christians should be among the keenest of enviromentalists.

What is more, it is pretty clear that when God gives a responsiblity he has expectations.

It is unfortunate that misreadings of Revelation seem to abound in the US.

For what its worth, read Job.

God has no problem with demons or the devil torturing people, or even his own people. Well, I'll change that -- he has a problem with it, but allows it nonetheless. Usually to make a point, or cause we just deserve it.

Stupid atheists or stupid christians ... same to me. They're stupid.

See Gen 4.

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD . 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast."

I'm more inclined to interpret it as Cain did not offer his "best" to God, whereas Abel did. God looks at the heart.

Also: I don't see why you imply there can't be sacrifices which you don't eat. BTW, the laws governing sacrifices in the later books were for Israel's contract with God, and so unlikely to apply in Cain and Abel's time. And even in them there are sacrifices which were not to be consumed. See Leviticus if you are interested.

The Israelites did grow and consume grain - there were laws regarding land and harvesting.

You may be extrapolating a bit too much from very few verses of the Bible, and thus getting a skewed view of things.

I recommend reading a fair bit more.

Uh not exactly.

It's more like this (Gen 5).

Then in Gen 6: "1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Then after that was the flood and the tower of babel, and the lifespans declined (Gen 11).

Though 120 years was stated to be the max - a number of people in the Bible did live a bit longer than that (even post-Flood).

It is interesting that 120 years appears to still be the current max for modern humans.

BTW you can probably breed for longer lifespan if each generation of creatures were only allowed to reproduce later and later in their life spans. But there could be trade-offs especially if you are not careful and just breed for lifespan.

Maybe you could live to 1000 years with some future tech, but I wonder what the cost would be.

Previously even if you were rich, you'd die not that long after the poorer folk (excluding the really really poor). Whereas, if the tech costs a fair bit, the rich could live to 1000 years, but the poor to 90 max. If you think unbridled capitalism creates imbalances and polarization, this would be even more so.

Also the evil could rule for millenia... Sure the good could too, but what are the odds... AFAIK most of the good people don't really have such a strong drive to _rule_ over their fellow people. Once in a while you do get benevolent dictators, but...

Uh not exactly.

It's more like this (Gen 5).

Then in Gen 6: "1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Then after that was the flood and the tower of babel, and the lifespans declined (Gen 11).

Though 120 years was stated to be the max - a number of people in the Bible did live a bit longer than that (even post-Flood).

It is interesting that 120 years appears to still be the current max for modern humans.

BTW you can probably breed for longer lifespan if each generation of creatures were only allowed to reproduce later and later in their life spans. But there could be trade-offs especially if you are not careful and just breed for lifespan.

Maybe you could live to 1000 years with some future tech, but I wonder what the cost would be.

Previously even if you were rich, you'd die not that long after the poorer folk (excluding the really really poor). Whereas, if the tech costs a fair bit, the rich could live to 1000 years, but the poor to 90 max. If you think unbridled capitalism creates imbalances and polarization, this would be even more so.

Also the evil could rule for millenia... Sure the good could too, but what are the odds... AFAIK most of the good people don't really have such a strong drive to _rule_ over their fellow people. Once in a while you do get benevolent dictators, but...

Methuselah lived to be 969 according to Genesis 5:27 - http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=G EN+5:27&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&sho wxref=on

You'll see a bunch more folks' long lifespans mentioned throughout chapter 5. Now, it's quite true that plenty of people argue whether to take these passages literally or not. But if you do believe that major climatological changes could occur on a large enough scale to wipe out dinosaurs and such, then why couldn't such changes shorten the lifespans of humans?

I hope you read the small print sir
"Sponsored by Answers in Genesis, in association with GospelCom.Net"
=/

Pixar loses the Disney marketing muscle. They also lose Disney's corporate arrogance and inertia, so that may be a net gain. The challenge for Pixar is to maintain their goodwill with the MOPS crowd while also doing projects that appeal to the rest of us.

Disney loses the creative talent behind the films. It will take them a while to become competitive, if they indeed can. There's a certain feel to a place like Pixar that finds its way into their work, and you can't manufacture that.

Whether Pixar can maintain a family-friendly line or not remains to be seen. I think they know where their bread is buttered, but who could blame them for wanting to branch out a little?

Pardon my asking, but aren't these sources (Exodus, Numbers) the very sources which the grandparent posting calls into doubt as original works of Moses (transmitted to later scribes or otherwise)?

No, my point was that the Pentateuch as it currently exists does not consist of the exact words Moses recorded.

The likelihood of Moses' original writings surviving to modern times are very small. In all probability, the original writings were copied, distributed, and even repeated orally to maintain the history of the people. I'm at work now and don't have access to my library, but a study of the language style does in fact suggest that the books were written much later than 1200 BC (quite possibly during the reign of King Josiah).

2 Chronicles 34 contains the biblical account of his life. Specifically, it details how he was renovating the Temple and discovered a Book of the Law tucked away. It is clear from the text that the Law was not known among the people, was rediscovered, and then copied and distributed.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with 16th and 17th century english, but it's significantly different from our modern english. It would be understandable that spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc, were rewritten and modernized for distribution to the general populace. As an example, compare the language of the original King James bible to that of the modern "New Living" translation.

In short, I'm not disputing the assertion that the texts are more modern than Moses. I simply disagree that the texts were significantly modified or wholly fabricated to prop up the reign of Josiah.

No you don't, but forget all those "a day is like 1000 years" arguments. Those tend to be based on people doing textual analysis on a translation. Not a good idea. You want deep analysis? Go as close to the source as possible. Now I don't have Dr. Watt's full text on the subject, (I think this book goes into detail, but I'm not sure.). I've been looking for a brief version of his argument, but I can't find it. The website where I orginally got it is not responding. Sorry. The lectures was called "On the Edge of the Millenium: Making sense of Genesis 1". I saw him lecture at TWU a few years back. If you can find the material, it's very intresting.

First, it seems that we are in agreement that one can be 'raised in a Christian home' without being a Christian.

I think that we disagree on a second point. A person raised in a Christian home, who does not make a personal commitment to Christ is, according to scripture, a person destined for an eternity apart from God. Can you show me biblically that my understanding is incorrect?

"literal belief in the Bible as written" is *not* what I believe. Only a fool believes that. Poetry, narrative, prophecy, symbolism, and parable are a few of the styles inherent in the Bible, and one must use intellect in interpretation.

WRT your question about who did Cain marry? I think the most likely explanation is that he married one of his sisters.

How do you reconcile your apparent rejection of the doctrine of original sin with Romans 5
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=NKJV&passage=romans+5%3A12-19&x=0& y=0/

"just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men" ...
"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

The Bible claims that we were conceived in sin. How is that not as a result of the curse on mankind established in Genesis 3?

Also, I can claim to be Superman, but if I can't leap tall buildings, stop trains, and catch bullets, I don't match the definition of Superman. In the same way, one can claim to be a Christian, but if that person does not conform to the essential beliefs of the Christian faith, that person is not a Christian any more than I am Superman.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

Now compare other mentions of "sword" in the NT.

Matthew 25:34. Jesus puts the point explicitly: 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

I say this by way of information, not proselytizing. You feel free to put credence in the Bible or not, according to your own path to righteousness.

: )

Actually, Torah provided for protection of those who killed another without malice aforethought. See Deut 19:1-13 (KJV, NIV).

Actually, Torah provided for protection of those who killed another without malice aforethought. See Deut 19:1-13 (KJV, NIV).

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

no, that's not a religion. I dont believe 2 inch high, pink flying elephants exist. and that's not a religion either.

Seems no topic is immune from /. athiests ...

Since you brought it up, I'll just link to those who spoke with Him, or walked with Him when He was made flesh:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&passage=genesis&version=NIV

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=NIV&passage=matthew&x=0&y= 0

no, that's not a religion. I dont believe 2 inch high, pink flying elephants exist. and that's not a religion either.

Seems no topic is immune from /. athiests ...

Since you brought it up, I'll just link to those who spoke with Him, or walked with Him when He was made flesh:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&passage=genesis&version=NIV

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=NIV&passage=matthew&x=0&y= 0

There is no scientific basis for ideas of race whatsoever - we are all homo sapiens.

Nor any basis in Christianity (note the "one blood" part):

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=KJV&passage=acts+17%3A26&x=0&y =0

People just don't care enough about politics and social entrepeneurship. They want to sit at home and drug their brains with TV. That's all they want out of life. House, two SUVs, a jetski, and 2.75 kids.

Well, not all people ...

http://www.gospelcom.net/

Im not a scientist, and I dont claim to be. Ive looked into it. I dont have a blind faith. It could just be my misunderstanding of the issue, but doesnt evolution defy entropy? Doesnt the big bang conflict with the laws of thermodynamics?

What specific reference do you refer to about the sun? Im aware of some but I want to know which you are thinking of. They are figures of speech. Sunrise, Sunset. We know it doesnt move but those words would seem to indicate it does. Its just a way of saying something.

In Isaiah 40 it is written that "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". The hebrew there is more accurately translated "sphere". This was long before man figured it out.

Leviticus 17:11 says "The life of the flesh is in the blood". Im sure George Washington wished his doctors had known that as they were bleeding him to heal him.

This isnt the reason WHY I believe but it certainly helps. As far as pointing out sinners, I dont. I dont believe christians should be given the right to brand people with a scarlet letter, but i do think people should have the right to call sin, sin.

Jesus did say, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", but he also told the woman "go and sin no more". He was not judgemental, but he didn't hide the truth that she had sinned.

I am not part of the "God hates Fags" group. I feel ashamed they drag the name of God into such bigotry. But I dont apologize for seeing homosexuality as sin based on my religious beliefs. The reason this particular sin becomes an issue is that there is an effort to normalize it in society. I feel the same way about it being taught in schools as i do about premarital sex being normalized. I dont believe it is the school's place to discuss an issue like that, it is the parents responsibility. Then it is the teenagers responsibility to decide what they think for themselves.

In conclusion, im not saying im perfect or that everyone who doesnt agree with me is wrong, but it is about the basic right to disagree with something.

I once thought as you did (and I've probably read about 95% of the Bible thoroughly). I gave it much thought and thought that God is not all good. But after even more thought, I realized I was all wrong. When most think of good to compare God to, thoughts of Santa Claus come to mind (which God is not and can not be compared to): an immortal, or nearly so, working selflessly to bring joy into the world, but then rocks and coal come to mind as well, which does not seem purely good. Maybe we are so evil that we think that any bad consequences (for us or others) to our actions constitute not purely good. If there is a god who is bent towards evil, then what would he care about us doing any good or evil (nothing can harm him except for himself, which is why this god can not exist, as the smallest evil causes harm)? If there is a God who is completely good, then only He, and Him alone, could judge fairly, and prevent worse consequences down the road.

If you follow the Bible, God gave us free will, the most dangerous and awesome power we hold (even above our intelect, for history is filled with the not so bright that have changed the world, for better or worse). This accounts for the evil in the world: choices for evil (which we can not attribute to God). (A side note: all evil and sin can be summed up by selfishness.)

If God gave absolute proof to His existence all the time, then we would have no free will to choose otherwise (absolute proof, which God is powerful enough to provide, would transend free will). The last step must be faith. The New Testament has the same God, but now there is a mediator and ultimate sacrifice (if the sacrifices of the Old T. were sufficient, then they would have only had to been done once Hebrews 7:24-28). God making a way out for our evil is undeserved goodness (grace).

I do not have time to elaborate more, as these are very "meaty" statements, but they come after much, long thought. I am not a philosopher (there is no real money in that), but a software developer that gets ripped-off (so far, there is very little money in it =). So, my arguments and statements may not be perfectly formed, but these are a few reasons I believe in Christ. As my favorite series said, "The truth is out there," which implies the search to find it.

oh, er, have you not seen the christian holy book at http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible


(in no way am i advocating or detracting from the use of this resource: just pointing out its there.)

take care.
ken.

"First of all, LORD has replaced Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHVH."

First of all, there are more readable translations than the KJV. :) The Greek manuscripts that it's based on are not the most reliable that are now available, although they were the best at the time. They've discovered other manuscripts since then that are earlier versions.

Anyhoo, any preface or foreword to a committee-translated Bible will tell you that LORD is used to signify YHWH, to set it apart from Elohim or other words having a similar English translation, but different connotation. See the NIV's website for more details on how they went about translating the ancient texts.

"The bias in this passage is apparent."

Do you mean that the text's view of God's intent is biased? Well yes, of course. But the reason that you think it's biased is that it does not correspond to your viewpoint. That's exactly what I'm getting at here - everyone brings to their reading of a text a raft of presuppositions about fairness, justice, and what God is/may/might/was like or should be like. But the reason you think the passage is biased is that it represents a worldview different from your own. And that's to be expected.

"Does this look like the work of a being who loves everyone?"

I believe you are trying to measure the passage against an erroneous perception of how the Christian God is presented in the Bible. Sure, God loves all his creatures because he created them. But you've set up a straw God that doesn't correspond to the God presented in the Bible. The God of the Bible is indeed loving, and gracious, and compassionate, and tender. But he is also described as "a raging fire", a lion, a warrior, and a judge.

"Why does he hate Amorites?"

In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abram that the Amorites' sin "is not yet complete." This dovetails nicely with the more complete picture of YHWH presented above. God plans in Genesis 15 to judge the Amorites at some future date. And I would argue that God is being more compassionate and gracious than he needs to be when he gives the Amorites 450 years (I think) to turn from their sins.

"Is a person evil because they are Irish, Hindu, or if they have a tendency to have blonde hair? The God of this passage seems to believe this, but I do not."

This comment acts as if Irishness, Hinduism and blondeness are of the same spiritual import. In fact, I would argue that your statement presupposes that such differences are, or should be, irrelevant. Otherwise your implied "No" carries no force.

But Hinduism is very different from "Irishism", if that exists. The God of the Bible always opposes those who worship other gods, and Hindu worship doesn't even claim to worship YHWH. But the God of the Bible will accept Irish who turn from their sins and trust in him, and he will also accept blonde people who turn from their sins and trust in him. And if a Hindu turned from his sins and trusted in Jesus Christ alone for his salvation, then God would accept him as well.

'Now, is the passage reliable? I can find no motive, no moral other than, "You'll be massacred if you're not Jewish."'

Assuming that by "Jewish" you mean "Hebrew", then I think you are reading the passage's meaning correctly, assuming that we understand these principles to be restricted to that particular set of events in space-time Palestine a long time ago.

But we shouldn't confuse "reliable" with "agreeable". There are all sorts of things I find disagreeable in major newspapers, facts I would prefer not to be true. But many, if not most, of them are true and I must accomodate my worldview to them. It does me no good to say "It's wrong for Arab militia in the Sudan to enslave the black Sudanese! Therefore any such reports are unreliable." Is that a reasonable application of your principle, or am I misreading your objection?

Is there a

Any alternatives would be better for your health if you had to drink this water.

Right! Because his Word (the Bible) gives us a glimpse into His thoughts.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" -- Philippians 2:5

The laws under discussion ( apparently AB 205 and AB 25 according to this GoogleNews listed source) would make gay partnerships legally recognized with all the same rights as a marriage, but a different name -- a rose by any other name and a nicely Solomonic decision, pissing off the Radical Gays who demand both name and substance, and Christian Zealots who would deny them both. A nice compromise, therefore. =)

Wait, so they wrote a law that defined two seperate concepts to be equal? Didn't we decide that this concept was illegal 50 years ago?