quote Originally posted by jstricker: Why would they disappear? If we launched an astronaut into deep space for research and after a decade or two, had no way of communicating with him, and vice versa, would he disappear? No. (He would most likely go insane, but he would not cease to exist.) A human is made up of matter. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter (or energy) can neither be created or destroyed. That matter would not cease to exist. John Stricker

He's implying all in existence is here because we are here to observe it. i.e. that we are all products of "God's great thought."

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? How would we know? This held more weight before the advent of tape recorders...........

Yes it does. It still moves air in the form of sound waves. Because nobody is there to hear it does not make it non-existent.

It's a ridiculous argument, IMHO. The laws of physics are not suspended because of. or do to the lack of, man's presence.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: He's implying all in existence is here because we are here to observe it. i.e. that we are all products of "God's great thought." Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? How would we know? This held more weight before the advent of tape recorders...........

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I tend to believe we only exsist becouse there is someone to WITNESS that exsistence. If there were only 2 people on the planet, and one died, the other would immediately disappear.

Boonie, ya gotta look at the big picture. If there were only two humans left, and one died, the other would still be there. However, the human race would disappear.

Also, keep in mind that in biblical times, the average human lifespan was roughly half what it is today. People HAD to marry young, in order to procreate before death.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 11-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The Bible has many quotes, and taken out of context and carefully selected, you can use them to support or oppose just about any viewpoint. "Thou shalt not kill" "An eye for an eye." etc. People interpret the Bible, and then use their interpretation to judge others. The Lord asked for witnesses, and all he got was lawyers.

Love that post.. Especially the last sentence.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Also, keep in mind that in biblical times, the average human lifespan was roughly half what it is today. People HAD to marry young, in order to procreate before death.

while I agree lifespans on avg were a lot shorter
thats not what the bible teaches
as it claims they all lived many hundreds of years
in the early begats list
a feature copyed from king lists of other countrys
both are thought to be fiction by modern experts

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

No 13 year olds are being tortured at Guantanamo,, 13 to 16 year olds make great mindless murderer and good soldiers,but in my experience would seldom have any usefull intel?? we have released at least 5 older fighters who were later killed on the battlefield in afganistan,when an issue is serious always choose sides..Girls married early in the middle east 2000 years ago,christianity changed this,but it was unusual for a girl to marry at 13.. I am not a good christian,been more like the sword of the lord,I,ve found religious people to be some of our best citizens, they try! harder to be good ! Its always news when the righteous are caught in front of the cookie jar with crumbs on thier lips.. I only lie when it suits my purpose !! started this after an intell course taught the person who says they never lie is lying?? what sacriledge,how can this be .. I am a womanizing, backsliding, braggert, blowhard,& former Marine but never forget, NEVER that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of stanley

[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 11-22-2007).]

I stumbled across this on somebody's blog, and thought this story seemed to fit here.
The MSM mostly underreported or buried the story deep in the back pages, for whatever reasons. Maybe because its Thanksgiving weekend, and we all want happy news.

quote Oral Roberts President Resigns "This was an inevitable step that had to happen because of their arrogance," said former regent Harry McNevin, who quit the board in 1987 because of misspending he said he witnessed. "It's been 20 years that they've been doing the same things that I became aware of." The recent lawsuit, filed Oct. 2, includes allegations of a $39,000 shopping tab at one store for Richard Roberts' wife, Lindsay, a $29,411 Bahamas senior trip on the university jet for one of Roberts' daughters, and a stable of horses for the Roberts children. The professors also alleged that Richard Roberts required students in a government class to work on 2006 Tulsa mayoral candidate Randi Miller's campaign. Roberts publicly endorsed Miller, but said then that he was doing so as a private citizen and not as a university representative. He has denied the lawsuit's claims that he ordered students to work on Miller's campaign. Professor Tim Brooker, one of the lawsuit plaintiffs, accused the school of forcing him to quit after he warned Roberts that requiring students to work on Miller's campaign jeopardized the school's tax-exempt status. In a recent interview, Roberts and his wife denied wrongdoing. Roberts has said the lawsuit amounted to "intimidation, blackmail and extortion." In the weeks since the suit was filed, others have cropped up, including one this week from a former senior accountant who alleged that the Robertses ordered him to help them hide improper and illegal financial wrongdoing from the authorities and the public. "After the filing of that suit, and the allegations of criminality, I saw no way he could survive," Brooker said. http://ap.google.com/articl...UjrR8mPuBFQD8T3TOH80

And theres this, too:

quote Senate Panel Probes 6 Top Televangelists Sen. Charles Grassley Asks Ministries To Turn Over Financial Records Within One Month CBS News has learned Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating six prominent televangelist ministries for possible financial misconduct. Letters were sent Monday to the ministries demanding that financial statements and records be turned over to the committee by December 6th. According to Grassley's office, the Iowa Republican is trying to determine whether or not these ministries are improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles. The six ministries identified as being under investigation by the committee are led by: Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. Three of the six - Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar - also sit on the Board of Regents for the Oral Roberts University. http://www.cbsnews.com/stor...source=mostpop_story

And this pillar of the community:

quote Updated: New claims in ORU lawsuit The full, unsubstantiated report now attached to the lawsuit contains new allegations that Lindsay Roberts, Richard Roberts' wife, spent the night in an ORU guest house with an underage male nine times, was photographed 29 times in her car with an underage male after midnight and after minors' curfew, visited Victory Christian School with an underage male 81 times in 2004, smoked with an underage male at her house and repeatedly moved her "male 16-year-old friend" into her family's house. The summary of the report in the first version of the lawsuit stated that Lindsay Roberts had sent text messages to underage males late at night. http://www.tulsaworld.com/n...1013_1_A1_hItal21002

Aren't Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn and the rest supposed to be as Christian as anyone can possibly be?
And this is OK with Americans?
This is becoming quite a kettle of fish, eh?

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 11-25-2007).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: while I agree lifespans on avg were a lot shorter thats not what the bible teaches as it claims they all lived many hundreds of years in the early begats list

I used to question this too, but you'll notice that people lived very long before the flood (You know, with Noah and all). Prior to that, there is no mention of rain or weather of any kind except for mist rising from the ground, no mention of mountians - although there are rivers and at least one sea. It suggests a single land mass (Pangea)? So I believe that the world was a very different place, suitable for humans to life forever, as Adam and Eve were intended. Of course, Sin put an end to all that. I figure we Humans are no smarter or have no more or less ability to live any different a lifespan than we did after the Ark touched down on Mt Arrarat.

As far as the forked tongues, why would religious people be any different than any other people? They're still just people. I guess the original post was because someone didn't like others justifying their failings because they are 'favored' by 'their god'.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I stumbled across this on somebody's blog, and thought this story seemed to fit here. The MSM mostly underreported or buried the story deep in the back pages, for whatever reasons. Maybe because its Thanksgiving weekend, and we all want happy news. ...... Aren't Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn and the rest supposed to be as Christian as anyone can possibly be? And this is OK with Americans? This is becoming quite a kettle of fish, eh?

lol - good stuff.
but - you cannot be "more chistian" than someone else. you is or you aint.
being chistian is a belief. you can believe all ya like, yet still do bad things.
and, I think this is what is confusing to the topic starter - the fact that someone can masturbate while praying, and its AOK.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Unless you count his "A-Team" underoos................ "I pity da' foo!"

Hey, anything with Mr. T in it wreaks of class.

True story. At work we use abbreviations a lot, and I am often referred to as Dr. T. (last name starts with T). I pity 'da foo that doesn't take my prescriptions as directed.


Neptune, here is the most egregious thing about the televangelists. There are literally THOUSANDS of people living "hand-to-mouth" that scrape and sacrifice to get some money to give to these people. And they take the sacrifice that those individuals give, and they spend it lavishly? You simply cannot defend or justify that under any circumstance.

Do "we" find it ok? No.
Are Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, etc. as "Christian" as anyone can possibly be? Pyrthian is correct that you either ARE a Christian or not. Period. So let's put it this way. Are you and I any more "human" than someone else? Well, you are human or not. But are we any more HUMANE? THAT might be (or not). They might be a christian, but it doesn't make them a good one. And to repeat, NO, not ok.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: The fact that someone can masturbate while praying, and its AOK.

I don't care where you're from, that-right-there is priceless!!!!

It begs the question, "What are they praying for?"
Something other then a hand?

No, no, I got a million of 'em!

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-27-2007).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: foo that doesn't take my prescriptions as directed. Neptune, here is the most egregious thing about the televangelists. There are literally THOUSANDS of people living "hand-to-mouth" that scrape and sacrifice to get some money to give to these people. And they take the sacrifice that those individuals give, and they spend it lavishly? You simply cannot defend or justify that under any circumstance. Do "we" find it ok? No. Are Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, etc. as "Christian" as anyone can possibly be? Pyrthian is correct that you either ARE a Christian or not. Period. So let's put it this way. Are you and I any more "human" than someone else? Well, you are human or not. But are we any more HUMANE? THAT might be (or not). They might be a christian, but it doesn't make them a good one. And to repeat, NO, not ok.

Thanks to you and Pyrthian for a well written, sensible explanations.
I'm not saying I agree by any means, but I see your point!

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Neptune, here is the most egregious thing about the televangelists. There are literally THOUSANDS of people living "hand-to-mouth" that scrape and sacrifice to get some money to give to these people. And they take the sacrifice that those individuals give, and they spend it lavishly? You simply cannot defend or justify that under any circumstance. Do "we" find it ok? No. Are Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, etc. as "Christian" as anyone can possibly be? Pyrthian is correct that you either ARE a Christian or not. Period. So let's put it this way. Are you and I any more "human" than someone else? Well, you are human or not. But are we any more HUMANE? THAT might be (or not). They might be a christian, but it doesn't make them a good one. And to repeat, NO, not ok.

I think this is a good summation.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: For those do not believe in 'right' or 'wrong': If that is truly the case, then what complaint can any of you have if someone decided to kill children in a school yard, just for fun? Or what about ethnic 'cleansing'? Or what about 'gay bashing'? Or what about stealing from _you_. If there is no objective standard by which to measure 'right' and 'wrong', wouldn't it be reasonable that all behavior, however personally distasteful it may seem, would be OK?

That's a reasonable question. And the only answer I can provide is that just because I can understand WHY a person does something, doesn't mean I necessarily will agree with it. I understand that the 9/11 terrorists believed with everything they were (obviously) that what they were doing was the right thing. That doesn't mean I agree with what they did. I suppose you could break it down to philosophy and reality. Philosophically I can understand what they did. Realistically I can't condone it. Does that make sense?

The definition of right and wrong (likewise good and evil) are subjective. They are defined by society. And as you may have noticed, each society has a slightly different definition.

Not to me.

I can not, and never will, understand how ANYONE that considers themselves a human being, believe it's the "right" thing to do to intentionally, by plan, preparation, and execution, kill nearly 4,000 human beings that were non-combatants, no threat, and meant them no harm.

Before you jump in and say "well, we're doing that in Iraq..............." I say no, we are not. Are innocent civilians killed there? Yes they are, sadly. The difference is their deaths are not intentional by plan, preparation, and execution. They are, for want of a better term, "collateral" and their deaths and injuries are a tragedy.

If you can't see the fundamental difference here then I can not understand your thinking. Nor am I at all sure I want to.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's a reasonable question. And the only answer I can provide is that just because I can understand WHY a person does something, doesn't mean I necessarily will agree with it. I understand that the 9/11 terrorists believed with everything they were (obviously) that what they were doing was the right thing. That doesn't mean I agree with what they did. I suppose you could break it down to philosophy and reality. Philosophically I can understand what they did. Realistically I can't condone it. Does that make sense?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I can not, and never will, understand how ANYONE that considers themselves a human being, believe it's the "right" thing to do to intentionally, by plan, preparation, and execution, kill nearly 4,000 human beings that were non-combatants, no threat, and meant them no harm.

Now turn that around and I can say the same for people who want to "nuke Iraq", "nuke Iran" or whatever the latest evildoer-du-jour is.

I agree with you, Ryan. I don't understand them either. Nor am I sure I want to.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Now turn that around and I can say the same for people who want to "nuke Iraq", "nuke Iran" or whatever the latest evildoer-du-jour is.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I can not, and never will, understand how ANYONE that considers themselves a human being, believe it's the "right" thing to do to intentionally, by plan, preparation, and execution, kill nearly 4,000 human beings that were non-combatants, no threat, and meant them no harm.

The only think I can come up with is they are taught from birth that their religion comes first. Sacrifices must be made. If your religious leaders call you to do something atrocious that you find absolutely repugnant, you are supposed to put your personal feelings aside and answer the calling.

Even if they thought it was wrong, they could still think it was something they had to do. And since being a martyr is supposed to be an E-Pass straight to paradise, I can start to understand how they can do these things.

You can even relate it to Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son. Your personal views are unimportant. If you have faith and believe, you will do what is asked without question.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Not to me. I can not, and never will, understand how ANYONE that considers themselves a human being, believe it's the "right" thing to do to intentionally, by plan, preparation, and execution, kill nearly 4,000 human beings that were non-combatants, no threat, and meant them no harm. <snip> John Stricker

I snipped out the part about Iraq because I wouldn't have made that statement. I really think it's irrelevant to the conversation as it's completely different. I think the point Formula88 made about conditioning is probably fair. But I think even that is digging too deep, and goes into trying to analyze and rationalize the REASON why they felt they were doing the "right" thing. I don't really find it important to know why, because it doesn't change anything. The bottom line is (to me) that there is no way to deny that they felt they were doing the "right" thing. I mean, they were willing to DIE to do what they did. Most people aren't even willing to take the smallest risk for something they believe is right. We all argue on here about things we believe are right or wrong, yet very few people do anything about it, because they aren't willing to take any risks. Yet on 9/11 there were something like 20 or so people who were so convinced that what they were doing was justified/right/necessary that they were not only willing to risk their very lives, but knew for a FACT that they would be sacrificing their very LIFE. That to me, is complete and total commitment to an idea, cause, or purpose. To be honest, I seriously doubt there are many people on the planet who can claim that kind of commitment. And frankly, that might be a sad thing.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 11-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I snipped out the part about Iraq because I wouldn't have made that statement. I really think it's irrelevant to the conversation as it's completely different.

I didn't really thing YOU would make that argument, Taji, because you haven't gone that way in the past, but others here have.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I think the point Formula88 made about conditioning is probably fair. But I think even that is digging too deep, and goes into trying to analyze and rationalize the REASON why they felt they were doing the "right" thing.

How can you possibly claim an "understanding" of something if you don't know the reason? I don't get that one at all.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't really find it important to know why, because it doesn't change anything. The bottom line is (to me) that there is no way to deny that they felt they were doing the "right" thing. I mean, they were willing to DIE to do what they did. Most people aren't even willing to take the smallest risk for something they believe is right. We all argue on here about things we believe are right or wrong, yet very few people do anything about it, because they aren't willing to take any risks. Yet on 9/11 there were something like 20 or so people who were so convinced that what they were doing was justified/right/necessary that they were not only willing to risk their very lives, but knew for a FACT that they would be sacrificing their very LIFE. That to me, is complete and total commitment to an idea, cause, or purpose. To be honest, I seriously doubt there are many people on the planet who can claim that kind of commitment. And frankly, that might be a sad thing.

Earlier you wrote:

"And the only answer I can provide is that just because I can understand WHY a person does something, doesn't mean I necessarily will agree with it."

Now you say the "why" isn't important. I don't believe you can have an understanding without knowing the "why" in the case you gave and I stand by my statement that I cannot understand how any human being can believe that to intentionally, by plan, preparation, and execution, kill nearly 4,000 human beings that were non-combatants, no threat, and meant them no harm, is the right thing to do. It's a gross rationalization on a huge scale (by them, not you)

John Stricker

Honestly, I don't know exactly what this thread is getting at, and I only read the first few replies, but I can offer this: most people who claim to be Christian are not. Going a step further, most people who think they are Christian are not. I look around at the way people act, the things they say, and I realize they simply cannot be Christian and do or say those things. Most of them truly believe they are and that they know what it is all about, but the deepest true Christianity has not sunk in for them. Mentioning this to a pastor recently, I was focusing on how many "Christians" support the war in Iraq. I believe it is literally impossible to be Christian and support any war. She agreed, and suggested I look into Kohlberh's levels of moral development. Google it.

Curious if you are a Christian and how much you've studied the faith.

Don't forget, there are many variations of Christianity. I'm a Lutheran, we have close historical ties to the Catholic church, but our beliefs are much, much different. The Amish are deeply linked to the Mennonite church. Their beliefs are vastly different than the Mennonites, Lutherans, Catholics, or other denominations. My brother is a Baptist minister. His faith is significantly different than mine and even the one he was raised in (Lutheran), yet to him, the Baptist beliefs are the closest to what he feels are the true "Christian" beliefs. We've discussed this a lot, believe me. Neither of us has changed our minds, but we respect each other's beliefs.

Oh, and it's Kohlberg, not Kohlberh. I'm sure it was just a typo on your part, but if people are actually going to look it up, it's Lawrence Kohlberg. His THEORIES were published in the late '50's and anybody that's had more than a year of psych and/or sociology should be familiar with them. We also had to go through several of his "Moral Dilemmas" to understand how he tested his theory. It is interesting stuff and if you use it on yourself, gives you a good tool for introspection.

As far as your question to the Pastor, it would depend a great deal on her agreement with you as to what denomination she was a minister of. Some are highly pascifist, others not so much so. The Bible does not say that attacks and threat of attacks with the stated purpose of our annihilation should go unanswered.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: Honestly, I don't know exactly what this thread is getting at, and I only read the first few replies, but I can offer this: most people who claim to be Christian are not. Going a step further, most people who think they are Christian are not. I look around at the way people act, the things they say, and I realize they simply cannot be Christian and do or say those things. Most of them truly believe they are and that they know what it is all about, but the deepest true Christianity has not sunk in for them. Mentioning this to a pastor recently, I was focusing on how many "Christians" support the war in Iraq. I believe it is literally impossible to be Christian and support any war. She agreed, and suggested I look into Kohlberh's levels of moral development. Google it.

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: Honestly, I don't know exactly what this thread is getting at, and I only read the first few replies, but I can offer this: most people who claim to be Christian are not. Going a step further, most people who think they are Christian are not. I look around at the way people act, the things they say, and I realize they simply cannot be Christian and do or say those things. Most of them truly believe they are and that they know what it is all about, but the deepest true Christianity has not sunk in for them. Mentioning this to a pastor recently, I was focusing on how many "Christians" support the war in Iraq. I believe it is literally impossible to be Christian and support any war. She agreed, and suggested I look into Kohlberh's levels of moral development. Google it.

the thread title says it all. but, it also shows the human side of perception. you only remember the bad ones. you can pass 500 good folk, then come across the one azzhole, and now suddenly people are azzholes. same goes for this. MOST christians are in fact good people, and do good things.

and, with Iraq, christians have a historical beef with muslims. Robin Hood was a muslim killer. King Arthur. yes, ficticous characters - but, I dont know enough history to put out "real" names for the crusaders. thats what the crusaders were all about. wiping out muslims. and, of course, the other way around. defending FROM the muslims, who were invading europe. so, why would a chistian NOT support a war against those who would otherwise wipe them out?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Earlier you wrote: "And the only answer I can provide is that just because I can understand WHY a person does something, doesn't mean I necessarily will agree with it." Now you say the "why" isn't important. I don't believe you can have an understanding without knowing the "why" in the case you gave and I stand by my statement that I cannot understand how any human being can believe that to intentionally, by plan, preparation, and execution, kill nearly 4,000 human beings that were non-combatants, no threat, and meant them no harm, is the right thing to do. It's a gross rationalization on a huge scale (by them, not you) John Stricker

I think when I made that statement I was mostly just expressing a thought relevant to, but not specifically about this particular part of the topic, and probably just didn't pick my words very carefully. Plus, I can know why someone did something, but not really have needed to know. I really don't need to know why someone does something. That knowledge doesn't really change facts. If my g/f does something to piss me off, as odd as it may seem, I don't just automatically ask her "Why'd you do that?" Because the "why" doesn't change the fact that she pissed me off. Besides, most of the time when you are in a situation where someone is defending an action, they're probably going to lie anyway.
I only need to understand that as a matter of fact, they must have felt they were dong the right thing in their mind. It still doesn't piss me off any less, or make me agree with them necessarily.
I'm not sure how you can not understand the idea about the terrorists. I'm not saying by any stretch that they were at all (in rational thought) justified, reasonable, or even human in their actions. But given that they were so completely committed to the process and the outcome that they were entirely ready to sacrifice their very lives for the sake of its execution, how can you not recognize that they had to have thought they were justified or right in their actions? Are you personally going to risk anything (or EVERYTHING) in order to carry out some plan that you don't believe in?
Look at how adamantly most people on here will defend their own religious faith. There are people on here so passionate in their beliefs that if some of the conversations here took place in person, you KNOW there would be bloodshed. Those people are that way because they are intensely invested in their beliefs. I don't agree with any of that either, but I do recognize it, and understand it. And when I say "understand it" I mean I understand that they feel the way they do. I don't understand WHY they feel that way, I don't need to know that, because it wouldn't change the way they or I feel. Does THAT make any more sense?

well, I myself like to get directly to the "why". to me, this is the only way to get a true fix, and not just cover over what happened.

like your example of how commited them guys have had to have been. many people have the same hatred and disdain for corporate lawyers, traders, bankers, etc, that were attacked. but, they'd never act upon it. they just stew & cuss. and, the classic line: all evil needs is for good people to do nothing. ug....where am I going? nm......

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: Mentioning this to a pastor recently, I was focusing on how many "Christians" support the war in Iraq. I believe it is literally impossible to be Christian and support any war. She agreed, and suggested I look into Kohlberh's levels of moral development. .

You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but it isn't Biblically supported.

You can say the old testament stories are related to Israel and don't apply to the time we live in now (the church age), and you would be mostly right. Except that there is old testament that predates Israel being a country, and this example does not deal with Israel.

Abraham had marauding kings come and steal his relatives.

Genesis 14:12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

Armed his trained servants and...smote them.

That sounds a lot like war.


Now please don't take this in the wrong way. I appreciate your zeal for the Lord, and from all accounts would regard you as a christian brother. But if it comes down to going by what your opinion is, or what Abram's (Abraham's) opinions on supporting war, I would have to go with Abram and the Bible over you and Kohlberg and your pastor.

And because you can't see facial expression and body language and can't hear tone of voice in print, I'm going to ask again that you please not take that as being disrespectful of you or your opinion.

I think I've moved largely away from the "why" aspect of things because I don't feel the need to analyze the crap out of everything any more. I used to be one of those people who just had to analyze and probe and explore and evaluate every damn thing. It pretty much all came to an end one day when I sort of figured it out. I was dating a girl who was really pretty much just treating me like crap. My mom and I were talking about it and she asked me why I put up with it. I went into all the details; my (ex) g/f had had a shitty childhood, neglected, abused, yadda yadda yadda. Then my mom said one of the smartest things I've ever heard; she said, "does that make it all right for her to treat you that way?" In that instant I realized that by asking "why" and all the explanations, it was all just an excuse, and I was letting her use it to guikt me into allowing her to treat me in a way that was unacceptable. I broke up with her right away and never looked back. So "why" has become less important to me, because ultimately, it doesn't change anything. Maybe I'm at the far extreme of the range, but it suits me fine.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 11-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I think I've moved largely away from the "why" aspect of things because I don't feel the need to analyze the crap out of everything any more. I used to be one of those people who just had to analyze and probe and explore and evaluate every damn thing. It pretty much all came to an end one day when I sort of figured it out. I was dating a girl who was really pretty much just treating me like crap. My mom and I were talking about it and she asked me why I put up with it. I went into all the details; my (ex) g/f had had a shitty childhood, neglected, abused, yadda yadda yadda. Then my mom said one of the smartest things I've ever heard; she said, "does that make it all right for her to treat you that way?" In that instant I realized that by asking "why" and all the explanations, it was all just an excuse, and I was letting her use it to guikt me into allowing her to treat me in a way that was unacceptable. I broke up with her right away and never looked back. So "why" has become less important to me, because ultimately, it doesn't change anything. Maybe I'm at the far extreme of the range, but it suits me fine.

lol - yup. while I do get wrapped up in the "why's" alot more than I should - I also dont let the "why's" be an excuse. but, it does create the misconception that when I understand the "why" of something that I am condoning that something. a big current one is the "illegals". I try to understand the "whys", and present them, but many take that as I am "for" them. Its not that I am "for" them, it is I want the "why" fixed. in your example of the ex - there is no fixing the "why". the damage been done. and you are correct in running for the hills

Yeah, but she really was cute.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I try to understand the "whys", and present them, but many take that as I am "for" them.

I get that alot.
Almost like a question is an addmission.
Strange, in this day & age.

Like speaking up for the right to a day in court is the same as supporting criminals.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Curious if you are a Christian and how much you've studied the faith....

Well, I'm only 21 so I've had only so much time to study the religions of the world. However, my dad is currently an intern pastor and I've studied everything he has as he's gone through seminary because it interests me. I was raised going to church every Sunday, with my mother as the church organist and father the choir director (before he went to seminary starting a couple years ago). Religion and philosophy are a couple of my key interests so I do study them extensively, especially Christianity (just because of its massive following). As for what I believe, I do not say any more exactly what my beliefs are, for various reasons. However, if you are a true Christian yourself (I don't know your background either), that fact will provide your answer. About denominations, I was raised in a Lutheran (ELCA) church but also went to a catholic school and was involved in a "Bible Quizzing" team for a nondenominational church.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but it isn't Biblically supported ... And because you can't see facial expression and body language and can't hear tone of voice in print, I'm going to ask again that you please not take that as being disrespectful of you or your opinion.

Hey, don't worry, I don't get easily offended by words, plus your post was very honest and respectful. + to you just for that.

What is or is not supported by the Bible, actually, is a small factor to me. Why? Because the Bible is the most controversial book in history, a compilation of writings selected by a group of biased men with their own motives, which in certain hands can be made to "support" any perspective. You and I have both heard how easy it is to take things out of context in the Bible. I would respond that the stories in the Old Testament are just that: stories. I do not say stories as in fiction; I say stories as opposed to guiding lessons. Stories of what people have done, not guides for what is "Christian" to do. The same goes for other written works that didn't make it into the Bible, such as the Gnostic scrolls (which is a very interesting read—if you're interested I can recommend a book that includes them in their entirety, with English translations).

I think it's essential to have a complete knowledge of all information available on the topic. However, to me a true understanding of Christianity comes after that knowledge is all stored in your mind and you begin mentally developing a moral response to it. The best way I can think of to explain this process is to say you're basically reverse engineering everything you've read to try to understand as much as you can about God, what He has said and done. To me it boils down to two things: firstly, by grace we are saved through faith (not works), and secondly, love itself is the meaning and purpose of life itself. I think that when you begin that reverse engineering of the Bible (and related) words, you are also beginning an ascent through Kohlberg's stages of moral development. (Thanks jstricker for correcting my typo—I'll go fix it in my post!) And I believe it is impossible to truly understand and have love and support any intentional violence whatsoever.

And frontal lobe (and others reading), I hope you too will know that this is not intended as disrespectful of anyone or your opinions. I'm very open and happy to hear what others think.

[This message has been edited by timwdegner (edited 11-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: Hey, don't worry, I don't get easily offended by words, plus your post was very honest and respectful. + to you just for that. What is or is not supported by the Bible, actually, is a small factor to me. Why? Because the Bible is the most controversial book in history, a compilation of writings selected by a group of biased men with their own motives, which in certain hands can be made to "support" any perspective. You and I have both heard how easy it is to take things out of context in the Bible. I would respond that the stories in the Old Testament are just that: stories. I do not say stories as in fiction; I say stories as opposed to guiding lessons. Stories of what people have done, not guides for what is "Christian" to do. The same goes for other written works that didn't make it into the Bible, such as the Gnostic scrolls (which is a very interesting read—if you're interested I can recommend a book that includes them in their entirety, with English translations). I think it's essential to have a complete knowledge of all information available on the topic. However, to me a true understanding of Christianity comes after that knowledge is all stored in your mind and you begin mentally developing a moral response to it. The best way I can think of to explain this process is to say you're basically reverse engineering everything you've read to try to understand as much as you can about God, what He has said and done. To me it boils down to two things: firstly, by grace we are saved through faith (not works), and secondly, love itself is the meaning and purpose of life itself. I think that when you begin that reverse engineering of the Bible (and related) words, you are also beginning an ascent through Kohlberg's stages of moral development. (Thanks jstricker for correcting my typo—I'll go fix it in my post!) And I believe it is impossible to truly understand and have love and support any intentional violence whatsoever. And frontal lobe (and others reading), I hope you too will know that this is not intended as disrespectful of anyone or your opinions. I'm very open and happy to hear what others think.

I'm glad you took my questions in the spirit they were given. I've struggled with many dilemmas in my search through faith. Before you jump on the "absolutely no violence", remember that Christ phsically and violently threw out the moneychangers from the temple, and was right in doing so. Oh, and with your background, you've studied more than 90% of the people that profess Christianity. That doesn't make them less Christian, or you more, but it does make you more informed.

Also, while it's good to study things like Kohlberg, don't let it rule you. Same can be said for Marx, Mao, Freud, and even Martin Luther. Use all of these as a point of reference to guide you on your search, not as a roadmap through life. You know where the roadmap is.

John Stricker

Excellent discussion!

Group hug!

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I see it everywhere. I see it here. The "waterboarding" thread, the "pasadena neighbor robber"..... The hypocrisy. No, my friends, the Bible speaks of "eye for an eye", but killing someone over property (that isn't even yours!) is going too far. Torturing people is going too far. That is especially true when you have no idea who they are and what they did. There are 13 year olds imprisoned and being tortured in Guantanamo Bay!

I could give a crap less about the Bible. You try to steal from me, prepare to be shot. Waterboarding does not fit the legal definition of torture no matter how much you want it to. Nobody is being tortured in GB. If you have proof 13 year olds are being tortured at GB, I would love to see it but you don't because you are just repeating a lie you wish were true.

It's pretty sad when people have nothing better to do than verbally beat up on others because of their religion. Says far more about you than those you attack.

quote Originally posted by 87GTSleeper: I could give a crap less about the Bible.

A little redundant given the rest, and overflowing with hate...

But good luck with that.

quote Originally posted by timwdegner: What is or is not supported by the Bible, actually, is a small factor to me. Why? Because the Bible is the most controversial book in history, a compilation of writings selected by a group of biased men with their own motives, which in certain hands can be made to "support" any perspective. You and I have both heard how easy it is to take things out of context in the Bible. I would respond that the stories in the Old Testament are just that: stories. I do not say stories as in fiction; I say stories as opposed to guiding lessons. Stories of what people have done, not guides for what is "Christian" to do.

That helps me to understand where you are coming from. Thanks for the response.

The Bible being a small factor would explain how divergent your outlook is compared to it.

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" would conflict with your opinion on a compilation of writings by biased men.

And it would also conflict with the writers of the new testament who repeatedly took the historical accounts (I'm substituting those words for "stories", which could be fictional or non-fictional) written in the old testament as guiding lessons. Now, decidedly, some of the guiding lessons were to NOT do what some of the people did! Large sections of Hebrews, for example, are solely taking old testament historical accounts and using them as guiding lessons.

I agree with you totally that the Bible can (and repeatedly has been) taken out of context and therefore twisted to support a desired perspective.

I would contend that if someone takes a perspective, viewed in the entire context of the Bible, would be revealed to be twisted or true. However, it is the small minority of people who have read the entire Bible, and then an even smaller minority who have read it enough times to be able to get the entire context. No wonder there are so many conflicting views among christians, much less those that claim to be christians but in reality are not.

ryan.hess, I hope that helps just a little to answer your original query. If you have any specific questions about "how can someone do...'x'...and be a christian", or etc., I can give you a total contextual answer based on, as timdwegner put it, 33 years of knowledge (reading the Bible more than 20 times cover to cover) stored in the mind and mentally developing a moral response to it. It doesn't mean you, or tim, or jstricker, or anyone else for that matter, has to agree with it. But it will be a biblical, total context answer that you can do with what you will.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: ryan.hess, I hope that helps just a little to answer your original query. If you have any specific questions about "how can someone do...'x'...and be a christian", or etc., I can give you a total contextual answer based on, as timdwegner put it, 33 years of knowledge (reading the Bible more than 20 times cover to cover) stored in the mind and mentally developing a moral response to it. It doesn't mean you, or tim, or jstricker, or anyone else for that matter, has to agree with it. But it will be a biblical, total context answer that you can do with what you will.

In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that we will NOT agree on several points. Many biblical scholars firmly believe that their particular denomination is closest to what Christ saw as Christian. Every one of them can make quite convincing arguments to that effect. I don't agree with several things that are Lutheran doctrine based on my study of the Bible. I have not read the Bible cover to cover 20 times, I know. I have probably read it that way maybe 4 or 5 times. I've been through it much more in Bible study and Confirmation training. Sometimes this is structured in the form of lessons, sometimes I just let God decide what I read (you may call it random chance by just opening the Bible, if you like Ryan. ).

I'm very anxious to see where Tim's journey takes him. I'm not concerned, just curious. Many fall by the wayside, I don't believe that will happen to him. With what he feels now, it wouldn't surprise me if he found himself more at home with the Mennonite or Quaker faiths, but that's a path he'll have to travel, and I won't think any the less of him for the path he might take.

I had a second cousin that passed away about a year ago. She was raised in the Lutheran Church but when she passed, was a confirmed Catholic. At her funeral, the Priest related how she and her husband had come to him after their church had closed and asked about how to learn about the Catholic faith. He said the best way was to go through Catholic confirmation training and, at the end, she would either be a more devout and steadfast Lutheran or a new Catholic, and either way it turned out would be fine with him. She ended up being a Catholic, and I always thought the world of her. A very accomplished lady, at one time even being the local District Judge here.

It was suggested that the "schools" teach about all the different faiths. I went through two different programs in my church Sunday School about that. One when I was in grade school, the second when I was in High School. Both were based on a curriculum called "Our Neighbor's Faith". I looked a little bit ago and it's been updated, but still offered and used in the Lutheran Church.

The new title is called Honoring Our Neighbor's Faith, but it sounds like the same or a very similar program.

quote Explore the doctrines and practices of 32 religious denominations in America with this handy resource. Each of the major denominations constitutes a "chapter" complete with teachings, type of worship and worship setting, how each is governed, demographic characteristics, membership statistics, and questions for further discussion.

It seems if you want this type of exposure, you can't get it at public school.


John Stricker

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: ryan.hess, I hope that helps just a little to answer your original query. If you have any specific questions about "how can someone do...'x'...and be a christian", or etc., I can give you a total contextual answer based on, as timdwegner put it, 33 years of knowledge (reading the Bible more than 20 times cover to cover) stored in the mind and mentally developing a moral response to it. It doesn't mean you, or tim, or jstricker, or anyone else for that matter, has to agree with it. But it will be a biblical, total context answer that you can do with what you will.

Thanks.

Here is my question... either to you or anyone else within earshot...

Is the ultimate goal of Christianity to create "good" people (that get into heaven)?

As I understand it, Christians believe their sins can be absolved. So, is a two-time murderer who is "born again" any worse for wear than any other person?

And, how do you reconcile "do unto others" with anything and everything else in the Bible, and man's desire to "get even" - whether it be with terrorists, murderers, thieves . . . ?