Again I ask you on what do you base your assertion that there is a lack of clarity in Jesus' teachings?
The Christian church, while it has legions of denominations, *does* agree on the fundamentals of the faith, and about Jesus' teachings.
Of course there are fringe groups that believe differently a la David Koresh and the Jesus seminar, but those do not represent mainstream Christian thought.
The text of the Bible is well documented and the canon is consistently understood across Christendom with the exception of the RC apocyphal books. Other writings, like the gnostic gospels have never seriously been considered or accepted by the Christian church.
The books recognized as a part of the canon a few hundred years after Christwere not a new collection, but reflected the writings that were already commonly understood to be a part of holy writ.
To suggest otherwise does not do justice to the facts.
I do not recall Jesus saying that his version of Judeaism was anything but another interpretion. He didn't preach "Christianity" With all due respect, I don't think that your memory is serving you well. Under Judaism, man was able to have and maintain a relationship with God as a result of two things, personal 'righteousness' through compliance with the Mosaic (and rabbinic) law, and through blood sacrifices to atone for his shortcomings.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father except by me." His sacrifice, according to his teachings, was a complete and perfect one - the animal sacrifices before then were a symbol of the sacrifice that He was to become.
Jesus was a Jew, but he also claimed to be God himself "I and the Father are One" and he accepted worship from men - something that only God can do, according to Jewish teachings.
Jesus' teachings about religion were far different from the Judiasm of that day.
a strong religious belief helps people do terrible things even if the belief is totally wrong. Agreed. Strong religious belief helps people do a great deal of good, whether or not what their religion teaches is good, too. As an example, I believe that Mormonism leads people away from God because of their unbiblical teachings about the nature of God. However, the LDS church has an excellent track record of building strong families, and they teach parents how to love their kids with words and deeds - arguable a good thing, even if the ultimate teachings of that organization are wrong.
The true test of a world view is the logical outcome of having adherents follow its teachings to the letter. Crackpots exist in every religion. What happens to marriage, family, government, the rights of the oppressed, the poor, those in prison, and society as a whole when people are completely committed to living out the teachings of their philosophy?
Newer religions have better continuity? You mean like mormonism? Like Jehovah's witnesses? Both have a huge number of changes to their holy writings, many of which affect key teachings of their religion.
You mentioned Islam. I think that there are some significant disagreements about the origins of the Koranic text accepted today. Large portions may have been lost as a result of the deaths at the battle of Yamama.
What about the various versions that had been distributed prior to the collection authorized under Uthman? What about the destruction of the other 24 versions?
Also, it is my understanding that Mohammed told his wife that he feared he was possessed by demons because of the seizures, sweats, bells, and foaming at the mouth during his revelations.
How accurate is the text? I don't know. I'm not a Koranic scholar.
WRT rejection of Levitical law, that was not related to the 'internationalization' of the religion, but it represents a shift in belief because of the significance of Christ's death and resurrection.
Christians typically believe that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law given in the Old Testament, and we are no longer bound by those. However, the standard set by Christ is far higher than the standards of righteousness that can be attained by following the letter of the laws seen in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament law was to help the Jews live a life that is more acceptable to a Holy God. In addition, the sacrificial system described in Leviticus (and other places) was established to make up for the imperfections and unholiness of the Jewish people. "Without blood there can be no remission of sin."
Jesus set a higher standard and became the blood sacrifice for the covering or forgiveness of sin for those who follow Him.
As an example, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Whereas the law followed by the jews would allow a man to lust after a woman, as long as he didn't act on that lust, the standard set by Christ is that even the ideas of lusting constitute sin.
WRT the prohibition on homosexual acts, it is found clearly taught in both the old and new testaments.
While we are not bound by the requirements of the law, Christ said that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves!
As I said, this frequently means a far higher standard than would have been mandated under the Levitical law.
This is particularly challenging because God is perfect, and to have relationship with a perfect, holy God I would have to be perfect.
This is a problem because I am imperfect, and therefore deserving of eternal separation from God.
Thankfully, I don't have to be perfect. The Bible says "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
Because of Christ's perfect life, and his choosing to sacrifice His life, it's not by my good works or compliance with the law that helps me to be found acceptable by God. It's my faith in Christ's sacrifice for me that allows me to have relationship with God.
Holiness...is entirely subjective Says who? If there's no objective standard for truth, I agree. However, I beleive that there is an objective standard for truth.
The idea that someone should decide on behalf of someone else what is holy and what is not is deeply immoral. What is your basis for morality?
It's only inappropriate if the one doing the deciding does not have that right. By definition, a creator would have that right.
The very fact that you appeal to morality (an absolute) to defend relativism undermines your belief in relativism.
Homosexuality is, deal I must confess that I don't follow your point. What does that mean? That there are homosexuals? Unquestionably. That you disagree with my perspective on homosexual behavior? OK. That doesn't make it OK with God or a good idea either, for that matter, but you're free to have your opinion.
You refer to the "main english translation" There are a great number of english translations. I would not call the KJV the "main" translation. I don't use the KJV - I prefer other translations for readability and style. There's nothing inherently wrong with the KJV, and there are not substantive departures between the various accurate translations that are available. Some that I consider accurate are the NASB, NIV, NKJV.
For the sake of argument, let me agree with your assertion that the KJV has been "revised many times." What is the reason for revisions? Archaeology has given us more copies - better access to more accurate information from antiquity about the original texts. When that occurs, revisions *should* occur. As far as I know, those that have occurred have not been in any core areas of Christian doctrine.
The core of Christian doctrine is consistently taught in the different translations. Other holy books have had revisions that significantly affect core teachings. Christianity has not had that occur.
WRT other works of antiquity, there are 5,000+ manuscripts of biblical texts. To reject the Bible on the basis of lack of copies means that you'd have to reject Aristotle's poetry, Plato's tetrologies, Heroditus, Tacticus, Caesar's Gallic war - all of which have fewer than 100 manuscripts. In addition, you'd have to throw out the Illiad. It has FAR more than other works, but still has only ~600 copies.
In addition the biblical copies come from a time much closer to their time in history than ANY other work of antiquity. The average gap between original composition and the earliest copy of most works of antiquity is ~1,000 years. The new testament has fragments from within one generation, whole books within 100 years, and the entire new testament has documentary evidence within 250 years of its authorship.
religions are extremely dangerous I agree. The test of a world view, however, is not whether some crackpot (or large groups of crackpots) can engage in horrible acts in the name of a philosophy. The real test of a world view is what happens when people follow very closely the teachings of a religion. I submit to you that when people really follow the teachings of Christianity, society and culture are far more emotionally and physically healthy. The same cannot be said for many other world religions.
we should legislate science tempered by ethics dicionary.com has this definition for ethics: # A set of principles of right conduct. # A theory or a system of moral values Ethics based on what? This implies that we can have an empirical basis for determining the rightness or morality of a thing. In order to do this we must have a basis of truth on which to make a judgment. What will you use for your foundation?
I personally cannot trust decisions of importance to be handled by a system that requires you to believe in the totality of its truth before it can be used as a source.Nor can I. The Christian faith is not a "check your brain at the door" kind of faith. One question is whether the world view proposed by a philosophical system integrates with your experience of 'reality.' If it does not, perhaps that view of the world is not valid.
As an example, the movie The Matrix suggested that all reality is a simulation, and that "there is no spoon." In philosophical circles, this is close to solipsism - "self is the only reality." This view does not jive with our experience because even if I genuinely believe "there is no beer truck" I'll still be dead when it hits me.
Christianity stands up to the test of 'does the world view espoused by this religious system match my experience of reality?' It does this on several fronts - relationships, personal happiness, non-contradiction, and historical scrutiny.
What evidence would be sufficient for you to consider whether the claims of Christianity are true? If you have considered them, on what basis do you reject them?
I'm willing to go there with you, but only if you really have an interest in this. If you're only looking to make snide remarks, I'd rather not waste my time.
The old testament, and new testament affirm nothing.
Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?
While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.
The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.
We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)
To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.
In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.
God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.
If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.
This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.
WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.
I can't speak for all of the Christian world, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points above:
1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy. In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)
People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.
Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.
Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.
The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.
As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!
2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.
For many environments that is feasible, and we *do* follow best practices for a great number of appplications.
For some applications, the business demand is for certain functionality that is only provided by a very small number of vendors who sometimes only provide black-box type of support. Of course, that's only an issue when they want their black-box to talk to other servers on the internal LAN. If they aren't making outbound connections to other systems, we already have solutions in place.
It's when they say "for application "A" we need access to the following database servers, the LDAP servers, email, etc. For application "B" we need access to a different set of application servers.
"you guys already have a shared backup environment. If you want backups, leverage that."
It is *so* much cheaper to own, operate and maintain one backup infrastructure, that it frequently exceeds the business value of the applications to build and run new ones for each application (as well as maintain read/write copies of the databases that they talk to.)
When it's a single box solution, security and promote to production are easy. When it's an interconnected web of servers and applications it is much tougher.
We end up with a zillion ACLs for each firewalled LAN and it's a royal pain. On top of that, the vendors complain that we need to engage resources from our internal app support team, the firewall team, the DBA team, the middleware team, the OS engineering team and/or the SA team to help troubleshoot the problems.
It's a complicated world.
Yikes. I guess we are likely to keep our jobs for another quarter or two....
Unfortunately the application works well. This means that we have to tolerate for the short term the lack of design present in the product.
The one application I'm dealing with presently is a J2EE app where the installation procedure requires publishing the EAR and then manually editing files in the expanded EAR. Ick.
The first several releases of this app were POJO, and their model was to manually edit files in the expanded JAR files, too.
We're working with them to make the product better by writing it in a way that fits the J2EE model, but in the interim, their functionality is substantially better than the competition so I have to live with this model.
FWIW, they are responsive - I think that these are growing pains related to learning how to develop J2EE apps and live in an enterprise environment, so the long-term outlook is good, but the short term outlook includes painful support.
We already have no problem with 'black box' vendors getting access to our environment. We have a firewalled LAN segment just for them.
We don't like it if their black box needs to be connected to a zillion other application servers - e.g. database clusters, shared backup servers, email servers, etc.
Also, we struggle with times when their application is on a box with other applications and demand root.
In particular, one of the applications giving me heartburn now lives on top of a middleware server. The vendor guys are used to developing on their 0wn3d boxes where they have the middleware admin password and the root password. When we ask them to work without those things, they get frustrated.
I think that a well-designed application would allow a vendor to troubleshoot and repair the app without root access.
BTW - your management needs to take a chill pill. I would be very reluctant to do business with people who had their point of view. So would my colleagues. (I work for a Fortune 100 company.)
FWIW - I was looking very seriously at an add-on to a COTS product that would have been a great value-add to our organization. We would have paid big dollars (US) for this add-on, but it was developed by a single guy who had written it for another customer and retained the rights to sell it.
Because I represent a BIG company that can't afford to risk having him get run over by a bus and totally losing support for that app, I told him that we wanted the source code. He was offended, and flatly refused.
He claimed that we might take the source code and give it away! Puhleeze. We sign contracts that protect the vendor and protect us. I asked him to put the source in escrow, and he would not do that either. We ended up taking a pass on that product. We both lost. As a company we are not out to shaft our vendors. We have enough trouble getting the apps in place and working in our environment to have time to mess around with clobbering our vendors.
You went with them because they were half the price of dealing with IBM, remember?:)
IBM was one of the vendors I was talking about (At least for one particular IBM product.)
First, let me give you kudos for passion and creativity in communications. That letter is expressive and clearly communicates that you have become frustrated with your "Gap" experience.
One thing that you might consider is putting yourself in the shoes of the recipient. The person who reads this missive will not understand your clever quotes and literary allusions. They will understand that you are unhappy and that you need some assistance, but I fear that they will not care very much about your needs.
A letter which may be more likely to get the results you desire would address the ocncerns of a corporate exec. The execs get up every day trying to find ways to boost profits while satisfying customers needs. They design policy and processes to handle the vast majority of processes, but frequently process breakdowns are overlooked. You are in one of those situations.
What you need is to appeal for help to someone who has the authority to override corporate policy. The person reading the letter will be most likely to act if they believe that you are sincere, want to maintain a relationship with their company, and they have to *want* to help you.
As it stands, while you have expressed your frustration in a very creative way, I doubt that the recipient will do much other than perceive you as a kook. (No offense intended. I have no idea whether you are a kook. For that matter, you may see me as one.)
You can find some great tips on getting what you want in dealing with others from this book. I recommend that all geeks (and non-geeks) read How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.
Sorry that Gap shafted you. (I have no relationship with, nor axe to grind WRT GAP. I have not shopped there in at least 15 years.)
If the commandment is to never kill, then how could a righteous God command Israel (in the Hebrew scriptures) to enter a foreign land and kill their fighters? In some cases, God said to kill everyone - including all of the animals.
This would be completely inconsistent. God would not tell you that you must do "A" and then demand that you do "B" which is directly in conflict with "A."
It is not ok to kill civilians, and this is *not* the aim of the war in Iraq. If the moral basis for a war was eliminated with the first erroneous death, then we could never go to war.
Britain and France tried that in the 1930's. How did it work fo them?
The majority of the translations read "you shall not murder" and not "thou shalt not kill" Murder is a more accurate translation of the original text.
It seems that the difference between manslaughter and homicide is clear. Why would you confuse the two?
If I violate the law and am sentenced to death, I had a choice in the matter.
If I happen to be conceived in the wrong womb, it's ok to kill me? There's a big difference between ending 'innocent' life and one that made a poor choice.
Once a conceptus exists, all that is required for it to develop into what is commonly recognized as a person is essentially food and shelter. How someone can really believe that this is OK is really confusing to me.
"Christianity does not rest on the Bible" Then, please help me understand, on what does it rest? How can you know what Christ taught, other than looking to the scriptures to tell you? What has authority about Christianity more than the Bible?
"Impossible to merit infinite punishment for finite sin" Does this not depend on the nature of the sin? For example, if I shoot and kill someone, I might feel that 'all I did was move my finger a little bit' (on the trigger) Would it be just punishment to put me in jail for a long time merely for wiggling my finger?
You see, we cannot understand from God's perspective the totality of the impact of our actions.
If I incurred a $5 Billion dollar debt, wouldn't it be just to assign me to pay for it until it was repaid (with interest?) Even if it took me an extremely long time to do that?
God's justice demands that sin be punished. God's mercy provides a sacrifice for our sin - Jesus Christ.
God can determine the just punishment for sins - perhaps a light burden for eternity or a heavy one, based on the number and nature of sins in a person's lifetime.
My understanding of Hell is a place where God is not. Not at all. Nothing good is there - no joy, pleasure, nothing of ease - merely an existence of struggle without satisfaction. Those who go there spent their earthly existence desiring to be apart from God, and he grants them exactly what they want - and in fact what, because of their sin, they deserve because of His holiness, purity and righteousness.
With respect to your description of a Christian, I think that you perhaps misunderstand what the Bible teaches. The Bible says "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder" Merely believing that Christ is the son of God is insufficient.
The Bible goes on to say: "if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.""
God's standard (according to the Bible) for defining a Christian is a bit more restrictive than what you describe. This is not surprising.
Jesus himself said ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "
Based on this warning, there are quite a few people going to churches all over the world, claiming to be Christians who are in for a horrible shock when they face God's judgment.
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.
"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.
1. What is a 'lifelong Christian?' According to my understanding of Christianity it is simply impossible to be born a follower of Christ. One makes an informed choice about whether to follow or not. I'm happy to discuss this further if you'd like.
2. Strictly speaking, macro-evolution is inconsistent with basic Christian belief.
To describe this incompatibility simplistically, the Bible claims that a single man was created with a single woman. They chose to rebel against God's rules and as a result, they were denied the blessings of relationship with him.
That blessing was restored to the followers of God through the Old Testament because of their faith in God to save them, and specifically revealed to mankind through a single person - the God-man Jesus Christ.
Originally sin entered the world through one man, and death follows sin. Man's redemption was accomplished through faith in a one man's sacrifice - that of Jesus Christ.
If there's a long cycle of life, followed by death, followed by life, when does the separation between God and man occur? Without that original sin, there's no need for a savior.
Slashdot Mirror
Again I ask you on what do you base your assertion that there is a lack of clarity in Jesus' teachings?
The Christian church, while it has legions of denominations, *does* agree on the fundamentals of the faith, and about Jesus' teachings.
Of course there are fringe groups that believe differently a la David Koresh and the Jesus seminar, but those do not represent mainstream Christian thought.
The text of the Bible is well documented and the canon is consistently understood across Christendom with the exception of the RC apocyphal books. Other writings, like the gnostic gospels have never seriously been considered or accepted by the Christian church.
The books recognized as a part of the canon a few hundred years after Christwere not a new collection, but reflected the writings that were already commonly understood to be a part of holy writ.
To suggest otherwise does not do justice to the facts.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I do not recall Jesus saying that his version of Judeaism was anything but another interpretion. He didn't preach "Christianity"
With all due respect, I don't think that your memory is serving you well. Under Judaism, man was able to have and maintain a relationship with God as a result of two things, personal 'righteousness' through compliance with the Mosaic (and rabbinic) law, and through blood sacrifices to atone for his shortcomings.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father except by me." His sacrifice, according to his teachings, was a complete and perfect one - the animal sacrifices before then were a symbol of the sacrifice that He was to become.
Jesus was a Jew, but he also claimed to be God himself "I and the Father are One" and he accepted worship from men - something that only God can do, according to Jewish teachings.
Jesus' teachings about religion were far different from the Judiasm of that day.
a strong religious belief helps people do terrible things even if the belief is totally wrong.
Agreed. Strong religious belief helps people do a great deal of good, whether or not what their religion teaches is good, too. As an example, I believe that Mormonism leads people away from God because of their unbiblical teachings about the nature of God. However, the LDS church has an excellent track record of building strong families, and they teach parents how to love their kids with words and deeds - arguable a good thing, even if the ultimate teachings of that organization are wrong.
The true test of a world view is the logical outcome of having adherents follow its teachings to the letter. Crackpots exist in every religion. What happens to marriage, family, government, the rights of the oppressed, the poor, those in prison, and society as a whole when people are completely committed to living out the teachings of their philosophy?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Newer religions have better continuity? You mean like mormonism? Like Jehovah's witnesses? Both have a huge number of changes to their holy writings, many of which affect key teachings of their religion.
You mentioned Islam. I think that there are some significant disagreements about the origins of the Koranic text accepted today. Large portions may have been lost as a result of the deaths at the battle of Yamama.
What about the various versions that had been distributed prior to the collection authorized under Uthman? What about the destruction of the other 24 versions?
Also, it is my understanding that Mohammed told his wife that he feared he was possessed by demons because of the seizures, sweats, bells, and foaming at the mouth during his revelations.
How accurate is the text? I don't know. I'm not a Koranic scholar.
WRT rejection of Levitical law, that was not related to the 'internationalization' of the religion, but it represents a shift in belief because of the significance of Christ's death and resurrection.
See more on this here
Christians typically believe that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law given in the Old Testament, and we are no longer bound by those. However, the standard set by Christ is far higher than the standards of righteousness that can be attained by following the letter of the laws seen in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament law was to help the Jews live a life that is more acceptable to a Holy God. In addition, the sacrificial system described in Leviticus (and other places) was established to make up for the imperfections and unholiness of the Jewish people. "Without blood there can be no remission of sin."
Jesus set a higher standard and became the blood sacrifice for the covering or forgiveness of sin for those who follow Him.
As an example, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Whereas the law followed by the jews would allow a man to lust after a woman, as long as he didn't act on that lust, the standard set by Christ is that even the ideas of lusting constitute sin.
WRT the prohibition on homosexual acts, it is found clearly taught in both the old and new testaments.
While we are not bound by the requirements of the law, Christ said that we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves!
As I said, this frequently means a far higher standard than would have been mandated under the Levitical law.
This is particularly challenging because God is perfect, and to have relationship with a perfect, holy God I would have to be perfect.
This is a problem because I am imperfect, and therefore deserving of eternal separation from God.
Thankfully, I don't have to be perfect. The Bible says "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
Because of Christ's perfect life, and his choosing to sacrifice His life, it's not by my good works or compliance with the law that helps me to be found acceptable by God. It's my faith in Christ's sacrifice for me that allows me to have relationship with God.
I hope that this helps!
Regards,
Anomaly
Holiness...is entirely subjective
Says who? If there's no objective standard for truth, I agree. However, I beleive that there is an objective standard for truth.
The idea that someone should decide on behalf of someone else what is holy and what is not is deeply immoral.
What is your basis for morality?
It's only inappropriate if the one doing the deciding does not have that right. By definition, a creator would have that right.
The very fact that you appeal to morality (an absolute) to defend relativism undermines your belief in relativism.
Homosexuality is, deal
I must confess that I don't follow your point. What does that mean?
That there are homosexuals? Unquestionably.
That you disagree with my perspective on homosexual behavior? OK. That doesn't make it OK with God or a good idea either, for that matter, but you're free to have your opinion.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
On what do you base your assertions? Do you have documentary evidence?
The number of copies of scriptures that we have over time makes capricious changes of scripture impossible.
The dead sea scrolls are an example of the kind of verification we have that the Bible has *not* been changed over time.
It may be convenient for you to believe that the Bible text has been changed on a whim, but the facts don't back it up.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You refer to the "main english translation" There are a great number of english translations. I would not call the KJV the "main" translation. I don't use the KJV - I prefer other translations for readability and style. There's nothing inherently wrong with the KJV, and there are not substantive departures between the various accurate translations that are available. Some that I consider accurate are the NASB, NIV, NKJV.
For the sake of argument, let me agree with your assertion that the KJV has been "revised many times." What is the reason for revisions? Archaeology has given us more copies - better access to more accurate information from antiquity about the original texts. When that occurs, revisions *should* occur. As far as I know, those that have occurred have not been in any core areas of Christian doctrine.
The core of Christian doctrine is consistently taught in the different translations. Other holy books have had revisions that significantly affect core teachings. Christianity has not had that occur.
WRT other works of antiquity, there are 5,000+ manuscripts of biblical texts. To reject the Bible on the basis of lack of copies means that you'd have to reject Aristotle's poetry, Plato's tetrologies, Heroditus, Tacticus, Caesar's Gallic war - all of which have fewer than 100 manuscripts. In addition, you'd have to throw out the Illiad. It has FAR more than other works, but still has only ~600 copies.
In addition the biblical copies come from a time much closer to their time in history than ANY other work of antiquity. The average gap between original composition and the earliest copy of most works of antiquity is ~1,000 years. The new testament has fragments from within one generation, whole books within 100 years, and the entire new testament has documentary evidence within 250 years of its authorship.
religions are extremely dangerous
I agree. The test of a world view, however, is not whether some crackpot (or large groups of crackpots) can engage in horrible acts in the name of a philosophy. The real test of a world view is what happens when people follow very closely the teachings of a religion. I submit to you that when people really follow the teachings of Christianity, society and culture are far more emotionally and physically healthy. The same cannot be said for many other world religions.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
we should legislate science tempered by ethics
dicionary.com has this definition for ethics:
# A set of principles of right conduct.
# A theory or a system of moral values
Ethics based on what? This implies that we can have an empirical basis for determining the rightness or morality of a thing. In order to do this we must have a basis of truth on which to make a judgment. What will you use for your foundation?
I personally cannot trust decisions of importance to be handled by a system that requires you to believe in the totality of its truth before it can be used as a source.Nor can I. The Christian faith is not a "check your brain at the door" kind of faith. One question is whether the world view proposed by a philosophical system integrates with your experience of 'reality.' If it does not, perhaps that view of the world is not valid.
As an example, the movie The Matrix suggested that all reality is a simulation, and that "there is no spoon." In philosophical circles, this is close to solipsism - "self is the only reality." This view does not jive with our experience because even if I genuinely believe "there is no beer truck" I'll still be dead when it hits me.
Christianity stands up to the test of 'does the world view espoused by this religious system match my experience of reality?' It does this on several fronts - relationships, personal happiness, non-contradiction, and historical scrutiny.
What evidence would be sufficient for you to consider whether the claims of Christianity are true? If you have considered them, on what basis do you reject them?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm willing to go there with you, but only if you really have an interest in this. If you're only looking to make snide remarks, I'd rather not waste my time.
Please let me know of your interest.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
The old testament, and new testament affirm nothing.
Have you read the Bible yourself? All of it?
While you may believe that it is merely a collection of nice stories that are used to prove a point, I would suggest to you that your belief may not be completely accurate.
The Bible is quite remarkable in terms of ancient literature. There are many many 'holy books' that are revered by religious peoples around the world. None of them have had the impact on Western culture and society that the Bible has.
We know that what is written there has been preserved since its original versions because of the vast number of copies that we have. There are more accurate copies of the Bible than ANY other ancient work. (The alleged discrepancies that many of you want to point out as you read this are completely irrelevant to all major doctrines of the Christian faith.)
To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable.
In terms of disease, the Christian faith teaches that we all are diseased, and are in need of an ultimate physician to heal us. The disease is sin, evidenced by our selfishness and pride. This is what separates us from a Holy God.
God does give us free will. Doing what He says is wrong is, as I mentioned in my last post to you, akin to smashing your gold Rolex on a galvanized nail.
If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences. That's the way it is. You don't have to like it, but you can't change it, either. The only way to avoid the consequences is to believe that you are imperfect, recognize that perfection is required to have relationship with a holy God, and ask Him to accept you in your imperfection, beacuse of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf.
This is completely unrelated to procreation. Procreation is not at issue if you look lustfully at a woman, and Christ called that sin, too.
WRT your embryonic stem cell point, I believe that you are mistaken. This site states that embryonic stem cells require a fertilized egg.
I'm sure that many churches *do* teach it incorrectly.
My understanding is that the word 'sin' in the original language was a word used in terms of target shooting that means 'to miss the mark.'
Applied to our lives, it's anything that causes us to miss the mark of holiness and purity.
I can't speak for all of the Christian world, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points above:
1. If God made things a certain way, then that must be holy.
In fact, the Hebrew scriptures (read Old Testament) and the New testament affirm that the world in which we live is flawed as a result of the sin of Adam. Humans - as they are naturally - are not holy. In fact, humans are not naturally able to relate to God. It is only through the combination of God's reaching out to man and man's response to that call that give people any hope of relating to God. (There are many internal discussions about the nature of that call, and man's ability to respond, but the core belief is that man as he is born, is unholy.)
People are born with a prediliction to reject God in a myriad of ways. Some alcoholism has been shown to have physiological roots, but that does not prevent the church from condemnation of abuse of alcohol. Even if homosexuality is demonstrated to have a physiological cause, it will not mean that the church needs to change its stance.
Homosexual behavior is condemed by the church, as is idolatry, lying, theft, greed, slander, swindling, gluttony, and much else.
Why are these behaviors condemned? Because God made us, and He knows how we work. You can drive nails with a Rolex, but it wasn't made for that. There are many things you can do with and to your body - but it wasn't made for those things.
The maker - designer - knows what is good for you, and what is not. He can set whatever standards He wants. God gives us the free will to follow His direction or reject it. I'm sure that the Rolex folks won't recommend driving nails with your watch. If you do it anyway, there are consequences. It's the same with God.
As it stands, the revealed word of God says that sexual acts outside of marriage, and also with two people of the same gender are not acceptable. In fact, Jesus Himself said that when a man looks at a woman lustfully he has already sinned - and that sin carries the same penalty as homosexual acts do!
2. with embryonic stem cells there is no sper involved
I believe that you misunderstand the definition of embryonic stem cells. An embryo is the joining of sperm and egg. Evangelicals typically believe that life begins at conception, not at a later point. When life begins, it must be protected.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I mentioned your .sig to my wife. She wants to know how that attitude about women (and cofee) is working out for you.
For many environments that is feasible, and we *do* follow best practices for a great number of appplications.
For some applications, the business demand is for certain functionality that is only provided by a very small number of vendors who sometimes only provide black-box type of support. Of course, that's only an issue when they want their black-box to talk to other servers on the internal LAN. If they aren't making outbound connections to other systems, we already have solutions in place.
It's when they say "for application "A" we need access to the following database servers, the LDAP servers, email, etc. For application "B" we need access to a different set of application servers.
"you guys already have a shared backup environment. If you want backups, leverage that."
It is *so* much cheaper to own, operate and maintain one backup infrastructure, that it frequently exceeds the business value of the applications to build and run new ones for each application (as well as maintain read/write copies of the databases that they talk to.)
When it's a single box solution, security and promote to production are easy. When it's an interconnected web of servers and applications it is much tougher.
We end up with a zillion ACLs for each firewalled LAN and it's a royal pain. On top of that, the vendors complain that we need to engage resources from our internal app support team, the firewall team, the DBA team, the middleware team, the OS engineering team and/or the SA team to help troubleshoot the problems.
It's a complicated world.
Yikes. I guess we are likely to keep our jobs for another quarter or two....
*smile*
Any posting in reference to an enterprise that starts "Dude" probably makes some assumptions that are not accurate.
Unfortunately the application works well. This means that we have to tolerate for the short term the lack of design present in the product.
The one application I'm dealing with presently is a J2EE app where the installation procedure requires publishing the EAR and then manually editing files in the expanded EAR. Ick.
The first several releases of this app were POJO, and their model was to manually edit files in the expanded JAR files, too.
We're working with them to make the product better by writing it in a way that fits the J2EE model, but in the interim, their functionality is substantially better than the competition so I have to live with this model.
FWIW, they are responsive - I think that these are growing pains related to learning how to develop J2EE apps and live in an enterprise environment, so the long-term outlook is good, but the short term outlook includes painful support.
We already have no problem with 'black box' vendors getting access to our environment. We have a firewalled LAN segment just for them.
We don't like it if their black box needs to be connected to a zillion other application servers - e.g. database clusters, shared backup servers, email servers, etc.
Also, we struggle with times when their application is on a box with other applications and demand root.
In particular, one of the applications giving me heartburn now lives on top of a middleware server. The vendor guys are used to developing on their 0wn3d boxes where they have the middleware admin password and the root password. When we ask them to work without those things, they get frustrated.
I think that a well-designed application would allow a vendor to troubleshoot and repair the app without root access.
BTW - your management needs to take a chill pill. I would be very reluctant to do business with people who had their point of view. So would my colleagues. (I work for a Fortune 100 company.)
FWIW - I was looking very seriously at an add-on to a COTS product that would have been a great value-add to our organization. We would have paid big dollars (US) for this add-on, but it was developed by a single guy who had written it for another customer and retained the rights to sell it.
Because I represent a BIG company that can't afford to risk having him get run over by a bus and totally losing support for that app, I told him that we wanted the source code. He was offended, and flatly refused.
He claimed that we might take the source code and give it away! Puhleeze. We sign contracts that protect the vendor and protect us. I asked him to put the source in escrow, and he would not do that either. We ended up taking a pass on that product. We both lost. As a company we are not out to shaft our vendors. We have enough trouble getting the apps in place and working in our environment to have time to mess around with clobbering our vendors.
I hope that your leadership can lighten up.
You went with them because they were half the price of dealing with IBM, remember? :)
IBM was one of the vendors I was talking about
(At least for one particular IBM product.)
First, let me give you kudos for passion and creativity in communications. That letter is expressive and clearly communicates that you have become frustrated with your "Gap" experience.
One thing that you might consider is putting yourself in the shoes of the recipient. The person who reads this missive will not understand your clever quotes and literary allusions. They will understand that you are unhappy and that you need some assistance, but I fear that they will not care very much about your needs.
A letter which may be more likely to get the results you desire would address the ocncerns of a corporate exec. The execs get up every day trying to find ways to boost profits while satisfying customers needs. They design policy and processes to handle the vast majority of processes, but frequently process breakdowns are overlooked. You are in one of those situations.
What you need is to appeal for help to someone who has the authority to override corporate policy. The person reading the letter will be most likely to act if they believe that you are sincere, want to maintain a relationship with their company, and they have to *want* to help you.
As it stands, while you have expressed your frustration in a very creative way, I doubt that the recipient will do much other than perceive you as a kook. (No offense intended. I have no idea whether you are a kook. For that matter, you may see me as one.)
You can find some great tips on getting what you want in dealing with others from this book. I recommend that all geeks (and non-geeks) read How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.
Sorry that Gap shafted you. (I have no relationship with, nor axe to grind WRT GAP. I have not shopped there in at least 15 years.)
Respectfully,
Anomaly
If the commandment is to never kill, then how could a righteous God command Israel (in the Hebrew scriptures) to enter a foreign land and kill their fighters? In some cases, God said to kill everyone - including all of the animals.
This would be completely inconsistent. God would not tell you that you must do "A" and then demand that you do "B" which is directly in conflict with "A."
It is not ok to kill civilians, and this is *not* the aim of the war in Iraq. If the moral basis for a war was eliminated with the first erroneous death, then we could never go to war.
Britain and France tried that in the 1930's. How did it work fo them?
Are you familiar with the "just war" theory?
Regards,
Anomaly
The majority of the translations read "you shall not murder" and not "thou shalt not kill" Murder is a more accurate translation of the original text.
It seems that the difference between manslaughter and homicide is clear. Why would you confuse the two?
If I violate the law and am sentenced to death, I had a choice in the matter.
If I happen to be conceived in the wrong womb, it's ok to kill me? There's a big difference between ending 'innocent' life and one that made a poor choice.
Once a conceptus exists, all that is required for it to develop into what is commonly recognized as a person is essentially food and shelter. How someone can really believe that this is OK is really confusing to me.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
"Christianity does not rest on the Bible"
Then, please help me understand, on what does it rest? How can you know what Christ taught, other than looking to the scriptures to tell you? What has authority about Christianity more than the Bible?
"Impossible to merit infinite punishment for finite sin"
Does this not depend on the nature of the sin? For example, if I shoot and kill someone, I might feel that 'all I did was move my finger a little bit' (on the trigger) Would it be just punishment to put me in jail for a long time merely for wiggling my finger?
You see, we cannot understand from God's perspective the totality of the impact of our actions.
If I incurred a $5 Billion dollar debt, wouldn't it be just to assign me to pay for it until it was repaid (with interest?) Even if it took me an extremely long time to do that?
God's justice demands that sin be punished. God's mercy provides a sacrifice for our sin - Jesus Christ.
God can determine the just punishment for sins - perhaps a light burden for eternity or a heavy one, based on the number and nature of sins in a person's lifetime.
My understanding of Hell is a place where God is not. Not at all. Nothing good is there - no joy, pleasure, nothing of ease - merely an existence of struggle without satisfaction. Those who go there spent their earthly existence desiring to be apart from God, and he grants them exactly what they want - and in fact what, because of their sin, they deserve because of His holiness, purity and righteousness.
With respect to your description of a Christian, I think that you perhaps misunderstand what the Bible teaches. The Bible says "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder" Merely believing that Christ is the son of God is insufficient.
The Bible goes on to say:
"if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.""
God's standard (according to the Bible) for defining a Christian is a bit more restrictive than what you describe. This is not surprising.
Jesus himself said ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "
Based on this warning, there are quite a few people going to churches all over the world, claiming to be Christians who are in for a horrible shock when they face God's judgment.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
First, it seems that we are in agreement that one can be 'raised in a Christian home' without being a Christian.
= english&version=NKJV&passage=romans+5%3A12-19&x=0& y=0/
...
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
"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
I bet you do! :)
1. What is a 'lifelong Christian?' According to my understanding of Christianity it is simply impossible to be born a follower of Christ. One makes an informed choice about whether to follow or not. I'm happy to discuss this further if you'd like.
2. Strictly speaking, macro-evolution is inconsistent with basic Christian belief.
To describe this incompatibility simplistically, the Bible claims that a single man was created with a single woman. They chose to rebel against God's rules and as a result, they were denied the blessings of relationship with him.
That blessing was restored to the followers of God through the Old Testament because of their faith in God to save them, and specifically revealed to mankind through a single person - the God-man Jesus Christ.
Originally sin entered the world through one man, and death follows sin. Man's redemption was accomplished through faith in a one man's sacrifice - that of Jesus Christ.
If there's a long cycle of life, followed by death, followed by life, when does the separation between God and man occur? Without that original sin, there's no need for a savior.
Make sense?
Regards,
Anomaly