Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[thalbergmad]

so - we can read these portions of the bible

Don't need to.

Most of the bible is now in here.

Thali

[pianistimo]

just reading and writing and deleting what i wrote about antonio banderas.  it was a momentary lust.  of which, i will now repent.  perhaps over and over. 

st. augustine, if i remember right, believed in a form of manechism - where sex is sin and thus every person has passed down sin from adam's time to ours by being the byproduct of a sexual union.  this idea of 'original sin' actually didn't start until 3 AD or so, according to an article i read.  the early christians probably wouldn't have recognized the idea of original sin because they were also aware of Christ's teachings about personal responsibility in sin. 

in matthew (25:21) 'well done, good and faithful slave, you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your master.'

[thalbergmad]

st. augustine, if i remember right, believed in a form of manechism - where sex is sin

Well, St Augustine lived on a remote Scottish Island (Iona), which was inhabited by aggressive nit infested poo covered savages.

Easy to say sex is a sin there is it not.

Thali

[pianistimo]

hmm.  interesting.  what about st. columbia?  i had no idea any saints visited those seemingly uninhabited isles (excepting the pics?).  although, i had read from a certain book about jerimiah's travel with tea-tephi bringing the stone of scone.  i had not realized how hard it was to secure christianity with those miserable saxons.  (who, i read had actually descended from issac's sons - and therefore called 'sax-sons.')  i have no idea if this is true or not - as i have not personally studied this in depth.

[mike_lang]

If there were no original sin, what did Christ die for?

this idea of 'original sin' actually didn't start until 3 AD or so, according to an article i read.  the early christians probably wouldn't have recognized the idea of original sin because they were also aware of Christ's teachings about personal responsibility in sin. 

[pianistimo]

you know something, michael.  i think you are as sincere in your beliefs as i am in mine.  therefore, i suggest you baptize your infants anyways.  it certainly can't harm them.  despite my beliefs, that is one thing i have failed at miserably.  to teach my children better about God.  i bring out the bible and they run to four corners of the house.  i think they know the ten commandments.  anyways - i don't profess to have an edge on biblical knowledge and understanding.  from my perspective - if you keep immersing children in the ideas of the bible and the greatness of God - you can't really go wrong.  noone says you HAVE to be 30 years old (as Christ was) - but, from my perspective - one should understand what one is being baptized into to fully participate in the action.  but, i know a lot of catholic families with very devout children.  so, i have nothing profound to say of my teaching my own.  it is something that i am hoping will be a sort of osmosis after a certain period of years.  perhaps sometime in adulthood they will say 'mom, i have a question.'  or go directly to the bible.

praying together as a family seems to reinforce a lot of values - whatever religion.  on days that we pray around the dinner table or together, it at least reinforces what my husband and i believe. 

if i were debating this - and i'm really not trying to force my views - i would say that galatians also mentions about reaping and sowing the results of our deeds.  'do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  for the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life.  and let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary.'

now this could be taken to mean that despite of original sin - there is a need to repent and move towards God - or that there was no 'original' sin passed on from adam and eve - and we all make plenty of our own.  imo, we are all judged separately at the judgement and adam and eve are written into the books on the basis of their own life and not connected to ours.  otherwise there would only be one book (the book of adam and eve) to judge all of us.

[pianistimo]

james 1:13 is one of a few scriptures that mentions how sin comes into being.  'but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.  then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished , it brings forth death.'  this scripture is interesting to me, because it does not imply that we have death within us already...even though we are all born under it.  it just means, to me, that we all sin at sometime/many times during our lives.  and, Christ died to pay the penalty of each of our individual sins.

about judgement (i peter 1:17) 'and if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to EACH MAN's WORK, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.'

[mike_lang]

Dear Pianistimo,

I'm sorry if my question was ambiguous.  I was implying that Christ, the second Adam, died in order to redeem the human race, which until that point could not enter Heaven.  In other words, he set things right with God on our behalf, and made salvation possible.  Therefore, we can be baptized with the Holy Spirit, with nothing remaining of original sin with the exception of the tendency toward sin - that is our inheritance from our first parents.  It is not that we are not responsible for our actions; no, we are given free will.  Any sin we commit is personal sin, of which we are guilty.

The other point I would like to make is that, in effect, there was, as you say, one book to judge all of us, until Christ came.  It was not until after this redemption that salvation was made possible.

Please understand that to believe in original sin is not to believe in a scapegoat for personal sin; it is to find meaning in the cross.

Best-
Michael

[mike_lang]

james 1:13 is one of a few scriptures that mentions how sin comes into being.  'but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.  then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished , it brings forth death.'  this scripture is interesting to me, because it does not imply that we have death within us already...even though we are all born under it.  it just means, to me, that we all sin at sometime/many times during our lives.  and, Christ died to pay the penalty of each of our individual sins.

I like this passage.  Have you considered the idea that we have supernatural Life in us to the degree that we are in union with the supernatural Source of Life?  Sin cuts us off from this Source, God, and repentance and prayer reunite us with Him.  To be cut off from natural life is natural death and to be cut off from supernatural Life is supernatural, or spiritual death.  I believe this is partially what is spoken of in this passage.  Nevertheless, it does not contradict the doctrine of original sin.

Also, it is true that Christ died to pay the penalty for each of our individual sins, but of greater importance is the fact that he died to pay the price for the sin that Adam committed on behalf of mankind.

[mike_lang]

about judgement (i peter 1:17) 'and if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to EACH MAN's WORK, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ."

I understand you emphasize the importance of the individual's work, as do I.  Though I addressed this in one of the last two posts, the guilt of original sin is wiped out with baptism.  Therefore, I wholly agree with you that we are judged according to our works and not Adam's, in spite of our inheritance of sinful tendency.

[pianistimo]

i understand what you are saying - and yet, Satan is a scapegoat and will be bound for a thousand years - loosed and then cast into the 'lake of fire.'  He is ultimately responsible for temptation of mankind from the beginning.  he is a deciever.  thus the bearer of the 'original sin.'

hebrews 8-9 mentions Christ as a high priest.  that would mean that his 'first order' of taking away sins could supercede his second.  but, they were both His own.  the israelites went through the red sea and were 'baptized' - and then had the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.  this is exactly the kind of supernatural light that is said to be given when there is no longer 'the sun by day or the moon by night' giving light - as God will be our light. 

very interesting what you wrote about the union with God being a lifegiver, and Satan being the opposite and the death bringer.  i really do believe that, as well.  i believe that we pass through death into life at baptism.  otherwise, in hebrews it wouldn't say 'but you have come to mount zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels. to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven (at baptism we enroll), and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of abel.'  that is where we come when we pray - if i understand correctly.

[mike_lang]

i understand what you are saying - and yet, Satan is a scapegoat and will be bound for a thousand years - loosed and then cast into the 'lake of fire.'  He is ultimately responsible for temptation of mankind from the beginning.  he is a deciever.  thus the bearer of the 'original sin.'

While it is true that Satan is a deceiver and liar, he does not bear the guilt of original sin any more so than he does personal sin.  He may be the tempter, but we are the ones who commit the sin, by virtue of our free will - in either case, original or personal, man is held accountable for his actions.  Thanks be to the Lord Jesus Christ, however, we are offered means for salvation, in spite of both types of sin.

[pianistimo]

this is where Christ performs a miracle.  our sins ARE transferred to Satan at the judgement.  as far as east is from west (that is how far satan is from God).  in lev. 16:21 the goat that was set free in the desert wilderness is representative of God collectively taking our sins (as he did with the nation of israel once every year) and putting the sins of the people entirely upon Satan (the azael goat). 

i think the reasoning behind this is simple.  Satan denys God.  He wants us to be on His side to fight against God at Christ's return.  we don't often times know whom we are serving - but we know we can only serve ONE master.  but, Satan is the god of this world!  that means that some people unknowingly actually SERVE him.  fulfill his desires.  do his bidding.  he decieves entire NATIONS.  rev. 20:3 'that he should not decieve the nations any longer.'  if this is so - he is responsible for more than we give him credit for.

even Christ himself was tempted by Satan.  he said he would give him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory (for God had given them temporarily to the authority of Satan - for a certain period of time).  Christ didn't say 'you don't own these anyway.'  He acknowledged a certain power that Satan had over the world.  and, he rebuked him by saying, ' you shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'

there's also a scripture that says 'for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.'

[maul]

Stem cell research. The possibility and probability of curing diseases. LIMITED by the boxed in cycle of regurgitated filth. LIFT the sanctions. FREE the mind. Let those like Michael J. Fox see the light again. REMOVE the black tinted box which has blocked the Earth from the spiritual photons of the Sun.

Expand consciousness.

Do not limit.



Breathe the air of reality.

Breathe it in and exhale the words of truth which can be so influential to the future of mankind.



It is time.

[pianistimo]

youth always take precedence in life over older beings.  if this were not so - what is to stop child labor from occurring again for the happiness of the older population that needs money.  michael j fox can abort his own children for his own stem cell research.   what he wants is other people's children.  i say children -because aborting for the purpose of stem cell research is sacrificing one persons life for another.

abortion is killing life.  people say - but it's hardly a life.  well, it is alive if it's growing.

i have feelings for his condition, don't get me wrong - but, it's appointed for all to die once.  if a person lives to 100, they are still fairly young you know!  but, in the end ALL die.  we cannot live forever - no matter how much we want to and how much science says it can help.  there are more important matters to living.  perhaps thinking of someone else's unborn child?  to me, personhood begins at conception.  though the center for health - or whatever - can come up with statements such as 'killing a fetus in a petri dish is no less of a crime than those who abort - once you've killed one, there's not difference in killing another...you lost your soul killing the first one' or something like that. 

in the bible, it is clear that life begins at conception.  when you take away a father and mother and replace it with a petri dish - only to kill it when it develops enough - is robbing a potential life from entering into the family of God.  it is a potential child of God.  someone who was conceived with God's help.  in the ot - women who conceived were thought to be very blessed.  and, same today.

[pianistimo]

jer 1:5 'before I knit you in the womb, I knew you...'  to me, this scripture means that no court can decide that life doesn't begin at conception (or before).  to decide against life means that life has no value anymore.  that we are all little pieces of trash when we begin life - and until we start breathing on our own or have enough poundage - we are useless.  that is the 'might is right' answer.

[maul]

Bush opposes using embryos that are GOING to be destroyed (yes that's a fact) for scientific, life changing purposes.

[mike_lang]

Bush opposes using embryos that are GOING to be destroyed (yes that's a fact) for scientific, life changing purposes.

Good.

[pianistimo]

seconded!  what if our country were like china in the earlier years and there became 'forced' abortions for the supposed good of medicine. 

in my own beliefs, a woman, if she experiences miscarriage should have the DIGNITY of seeing, holding, and burying her OWN child.  not to have someone whisk it away and say - 'oh well.'  it is a grief process and not a piece to play with.

same for people who write on a card that they do not want to be part of medical science after death.  how many people actually are experimented on that we do not know about?  that requested not to be?  religious beliefs mean nothing to some people.

my own personal belief is that people trust in science and want longer lives.  but, we are all appointed to die once.  so, finding a cure for this or that is TEMPORARY.  the healing that we need is ETERNAL.

[ahinton]

my own personal belief is that people trust in science and want longer lives.  but, we are all appointed to die once.  so, finding a cure for this or that is TEMPORARY.  the healing that we need is ETERNAL.

Are we really "appointed to die"? What evidence is there for these (and not from the Bible, please!). Is it not the case that death has been a part of our lives since time immemorial merely because medical science has yet to turn it what one commentator once called "a curable disease"? Certain forward-thinking sectors of the life assurance industry are already braced for the possibility that life assurance, rather than life, will eventually come to be in terminal decline. Replacement part therapy has become far more widespread in the past half century or so and there is no obvious reason to assume that the possibilities offorded by this will not continue to develop indefinitely. Transplantation will be with us for a long time yet (after all, there are still quite a few part of the human that cannot yet be transplanted), but stem cell research may well result in certain less invasive procedures that may yet come to overtake all or at least some of this. Who is to say - and on what grounds - that humans are "appointed to die"? Presumably not the medical researchers that devote their lives towards the future denial of such a possibility...

In the meantime, I hope that Elliott Carter continues to defy the creative gravity to which we have become accustomed and become possibly the first composer to continue composing into his second century; even Leo Ornstein (1892 or 1893 - 2002) never quite managed that...

Best,

Alistair

[maul]

Good.

Yes. Let's oppose using embryos that are going to be destroyed ANYWAY...

...for life changing purposes. Use some logic please.

[pianistimo]

dear maul,

why would they be destroyed 'anyways.' who decides?  i think it should be God.  and, if it is a miscarriage - then it should be treated as a human being and properly buried.  people give their pets this much dignity.  how about as much for an unborn child?

dear ahinton,

i feel that you give a lot of forethought to your questions, too, so i will try to do the same.  i never really thought of dying as a disease - but if God has made us to succumb to one kind of illness or another at death - perhaps it is!  cancer, emphysema, cardiac arrest.  i've rarely seen a death that was 'just sitting in a chair and passed away.'  although, i'm sure a few people do simply fall asleep and sort of have a minor heart attack that doesn't leave them with a wierd look on their face (that the mortician has to go in and correct so that the people at the wake don't worry so much).  do you ever wonder how morticians just don't let these things bother them?

anyways, without the bible - i cannot find a rebuttal to the idea of death being a disease.  but, you could call death inevitable - as no one has lived through it excepting lazarus and Christ (biblical, i know) - and a few more people that were ressurrected at the time that Christ died.  matt. 27:52 'and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after HIs resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to MANY.'  this is what caused the centurian to say 'truly, this man was the Son of God.'

[johnny-boy]

Are we really "appointed to die"? What evidence is there for these (and not from the Bible, please!). Is it not the case that death has been a part of our lives since time immemorial merely because medical science has yet to turn it what one commentator once called "a curable disease"? Certain forward-thinking sectors of the life assurance industry are already braced for the possibility that life assurance, rather than life, will eventually come to be in terminal decline. Replacement part therapy has become far more widespread in the past half century or so and there is no obvious reason to assume that the possibilities offorded by this will not continue to develop indefinitely. Transplantation will be with us for a long time yet (after all, there are still quite a few part of the human that cannot yet be transplanted), but stem cell research may well result in certain less invasive procedures that may yet come to overtake all or at least some of this. Who is to say - and on what grounds - that humans are "appointed to die"? Presumably not the medical researchers that devote their lives towards the future denial of such a possibility...

In the meantime, I hope that Elliott Carter continues to defy the creative gravity to which we have become accustomed and become possibly the first composer to continue composing into his second century; even Leo Ornstein (1892 or 1893 - 2002) never quite managed that...

Best,

Alistair

Through all the centuries man's life span hasn't changed one iota. Life expectancy has though. More people live longer than the 70-72 year life expectancy today.

From what I understand (from "Life Extension"), there are only two ways to live longer. One is to lower your body temperature, and the other is to reduce your calorie intake.

I believe we're all doomed - at least until I find a 150 year old man still going on strong.

John

[timothy42b]

in the bible, it is clear that life begins at conception. 

pianistimo,

We've been down this path before.  The bible does NOT say that.  The bible equates life with breath.  Though it does not directly say so, a perfectly reasonable scriptural interpretation would be that the fetus has neither life as a person nor a soul until it draws its first breath.

The old testament did address people whose actions caused a miscarriage.  It was NOT a sin or crime.  Instead it was economic harm to the husband (wives were property, of course.)

There is no clear biblical stance against abortion, and by implication it is not considered sinful.   

Protecting stem cells is even less defendable.  At least with a fetus, though it IS NOT A PERSON, it has a substantial potential to become a person.  Stem cells have zero chance to become a person, and embryos almost zero chance.

The stance of one particular religion should never be a reason for a law.     

[ahinton]

i never really thought of dying as a disease - but if God has made us to succumb to one kind of illness or another at death - perhaps it is!

You write "if God has made us to succumb..." - but where is the hard-and-fast, incontrovertible proof of that, even for those who believe in Him? It is surely the case that we have, perfectly understandably, come to accept death as an inevitability only beause it always has been until now; this is, however, no guaranteeable guide for the future, since we cannot say for certain what human scientists will come up with to extend and eventually do away with death, or when they will achieve this. What is certain, however, is that there have been advances in medical science for many centuries and there is no conceivable reason why, as long as humanity survives, these will come to a sudden end.

Nowadays we have more and more choice in most things (and some people find this hard to cope with, psychologically without help); death is not yet one of those things, but who is to say that it won't become one at some point? The expression "eternal life" is used with immense frequency by those who believe in God, so why would those believers, of all people, seem to prefer to deny the possibility of infinitely extendable temporal life?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear timothy42b,

it is clear to me that God is aware of his own DNA and gene creations within blastocystes.  otherwise why lev 19:19? '...you shall not breed together two kinds of cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (mutating it); nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.'

also, there are commands for holiness in sexuality - which would not allow for mass genetic transfers within one woman's children.   'do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness.'

these things are 'unscientific' at first glance - but bring one into the realm of spirituality - which to me is the next level BEYOND the physical genetic make up of humans.  it's like God says - 'let me explain something...I made everything the way it is FOR A REASON.' 

now, say we just do the opposite - as our society does today and ignore the bible.  we blend together animals, seeds, fabrics, etc. - what God made 'good' is now becoming defective and more likely to be unsustainable.  it's exchanging good for evil.  it's ridding the cells of life - one by one - by taking away genetic material that used to be 100% the way God made it.

fruit production, from fruit trees, might be 'hardier' - but more susceptible to genetic defects as lack of seeds,  lack of original taste, lack of color,  many things that are traded for some byproduct of genetic manipulation.  in the end, we have bland things with no taste, no reproduction capabilities (seeds are defective or non-existent), and less interest than the original seed with 100% genetic capabilities for it's species.

changing to alistair's question: what made us succumb to disease int he first place?  SIN.  sin did.  of course, biblically this is explainable.  but, if in scientific research - they found out that sin not only causes death - but curses from God - people would realize that there is no blessing for evil actions.  there is always a curse placed upon those who do evil whether they mean to or not.  it's like newton's laws of physics in the spiritual realm.  we 'reap what we sow.'

[ahinton]

why lev 19:19? '...you shall not breed together two kinds of cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (mutating it); nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.'

also, there are commands for holiness in sexuality - which would not allow for mass genetic transfers within one woman's children.   'do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness.'

these things are 'unscientific' at first glance - but bring one into the realm of spirituality - which to me is the next level BEYOND the physical genetic make up of humans.  it's like God says - 'let me explain something...I made everything the way it is FOR A REASON.' 

now, say we just do the opposite - as our society does today and ignore the bible.  we blend together animals, seeds, fabrics, etc. - what God made 'good' is now becoming defective and more likely to be unsustainable.  it's exchanging good for evil.  it's ridding the cells of life - one by one - by taking away genetic material that used to be 100% the way God made it.

fruit production, from fruit trees, might be 'hardier' - but more susceptible to genetic defects as lack of seeds,  lack of original taste, lack of color,  many things that are traded for some byproduct of genetic manipulation.  in the end, we have bland things with no taste, no reproduction capabilities (seeds are defective or non-existent), and less interest than the original seed with 100% genetic capabilities for it's species.

No - this just won't do. I'm not suggesting that ALL that you write here is wrong, illogical or unscientific, but it is full of holes nonetheless. In terms of biological experimentation, there have, of course, been errors which have had deleterious effects but, on the other hand, there have been both experiments and natural (i.e. not Man-driven) occurrences which have been of benefit. As far as, say, fruit and vegetables are concerned, it is up to mankind to find ways to improve those things that grow, for the benefit of mankind. When human experimentation does indeed result in the development of an end-product (as in the kinds of case to which you allude above) that is inferior in taste or efficacy, of course the experiment will have failed to bring about advantages, but where, on the other hand, the qualities of the end-products are enhanced, that is quite a different matter.

changing to alistair's question: what made us succumb to disease int he first place?  SIN.  sin did.  of course, biblically this is explainable.  but, if in scientific research - they found out that sin not only causes death - but curses from God - people would realize that there is no blessing for evil actions.  there is always a curse placed upon those who do evil whether they mean to or not.  it's like newton's laws of physics in the spiritual realm.  we 'reap what we sow.'

Apart - up to a point - from your last sentence here, this really is arrant nonsense to anyone other than a certain kind of Bible scholar and believer who has for some reason chosen to interpret that Bible far too literally. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether "God made" the genetic material of which you write above, we all know that such material is not finite or forever fixed in its composition and that nature itself has caused many genetic modifications and metamorphoses over the years. I am profoundly suspicious of GM (genetic modification) experimentation (most of which is geared to crop production), but my attitude is because this is almost all driven by the interests of big business which is concerned only - ar at best principally - with quantity and hardiness rather than quality; the hardiness bit is fine, but the bland universality of lowest-common-denominator quality I find objectionable in principle. One-crop-feeds-all seems all too much like one-size-fits-all. My suspicion, however, would be a good deal less potent were such matters to be left to the small organic producers who, I believe, take a potentially far more beneficial and quality-driven long-term view of what they seek to achieve in terms of crop production. These are not stick-in-the-mud people who believe the old ways were the best, but people who think that the best of the old ways are being cast asunder (sorry! - that sounds abit Biblical) rather than being brought forward and improved upon for the present and future.

To return, however, to the genetic modifications brought about by nature itself, the attitudes of certain Biblical diehards on this seem to me to parallel their stance on people who, as they see it and as you put it "ignore the Bible today". Just as nature has brought about changes in every millisecond of time and will contue to do so, so does every aspect of society change; those who prefer not to think about those effects of and in nature are so often those who see the Bible as being writ in tablets of stone and containing nothing at all other than universal and timeless truths, rather than being historical journalism covering only a very short space of time and a realtively small geographical part of the world. I am not seeking to undermine the Bible in so saying - just to put it into a certain perspective. We simply cannot read the Bible today and think and act precisely as its various writers did at the time of writing; the passage of history just does not and cannot allow that. It's just as the English composer Robert Simpson (1920-1997) used to say when seeking to put certain of the "authentic performance practice" evangelists in ther place, in that one cannot possibly listen to bach as one would have done in Bach's day - not just because of the difference in instrumental or vocal sounds or the tuning systems or any other aspect of performance and listening at the time, but because our ears are accustomed to Xenakis. The greatest works of Bach can be - and indeed are - widely regarded as a kind of "Bible" in music but, like the actual Bible and like nature, it is full both of constants and of constant change and metamorphosis. Look, for example, at the string quartets of Haydn and those of Carter - vastly different from one another, composed in entirely different times and socio-economic circumstances on different sides of the Altantic and yet displaying a similar attraction to the the medium itself - constancy and change, side by side.

To return to your opening salvo here - if "SIN" (why the capitals?) and disease are as closely paralleled as you suggest, why is it demonstrably not the case that the most "sinful" people are those that suffer from the most and/or worst disease? I expect that I'm probably an averagely sinful person, yet my general state of health so far isn't too bad, really...

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.'

So, Pianistimo, you only ever wear clothes made from one material?  Are you allowed to wear different garments made of different materials at the same time, or is that banned too?  If you were to wear a leather coat, must that be stichted in leather thongs?

I know that we are all sinners, but really 

[mike_lang]

So, Pianistimo, you only ever wear clothes made from one material?  Are you allowed to wear different garments made of different materials at the same time, or is that banned too?  If you were to wear a leather coat, must that be stichted in leather thongs?

Literalism has its downsides, eh, wishfulthinker?

[ahinton]

Literalism has its downsides, eh, wishfulthinker?

Indeed it does (not that I am "wishfulthinker" or any other kind of wishful thinker); this is especially true of certain folk whose inclination seems to be to interpret the Bible unduly literally and with inflexibility of thought...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

- but curses from God - people would realize that there is no blessing for evil actions.  there is always a curse placed upon those who do evil whether they mean to or not. 

So when bad things happen, it's because God cursed us?

I thought He was a God of love.  Of Tough Love, it seems, very tough love!  Even unintentional "sins" are punished, in this world and the next. 

Does your whole church think this way, or is this original? 

[ahinton]

So when bad things happen, it's because God cursed us?

I thought He was a God of love.  Of Tough Love, it seems, very tough love!  Even unintentional "sins" are punished, in this world and the next. 

Does your whole church think this way, or is this original? 

If the latter, would that make it "original sin"?

I have no idea, incidentally (not that it's any of my business anyway) to which particular brand - sorry, denomination - of Church "pianistimo" belongs, other than that it is pretty obviously a Christian one...

Best,

Alistair

[trunks]

I am Christian but I do not buy the often dogmatic, restrictive and often discriminatory fundamentalism. I think it's anything but helpful.

[wishful thinker]

I am Christian but I do not buy the often dogmatic, restrictive and often discriminatory fundamentalism. I think it's anything but helpful.

Here, here.  One wonders whether some of (especially) our American friends are being subjected to the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.   This site has a very US bias, but it has opened my eyes: it did not realise that there were people in this world who actually beleived that God made the world in seven days of 24 hour each or that it was a sin to mix silk and cashmere.  I think that this explains why our troops are in Iraq 

[ahinton]

Here, here.  One wonders whether some of (especially) our American friends are being subjected to the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.   This site has a very US bias, but it has opened my eyes: it did not realise that there were people in this world who actually beleived that God made the world in seven days of 24 hour each or that it was a sin to mix silk and cashmere.  I think that this explains why our troops are in Iraq 

Interesting comment, bu I am nevertheless bound to say that nothing worth saying and listening to explains why UK and US troops are in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter). The "proselytising fury" of those of any kind of evangelical persuasion of whom the French philosopher René Guénon wrote are not confined to any particular "fundamentalist" sector but ae present amongst the so-called Christians just as much as among the Muslims, etc. I don't think that anyone her actually suggesed literally that it is a "sin" to mix silk and cashmere in one's attire; the thrust of this part of the discussion was, to be fair, about questioning the justification for allowing humans to develop genetic modifications based on melding one species with another. As to the length of time in which God made the world, I can tell you with pleasure that a very dear Italian friend who was raised as - and remains - a devout Roman Catholic once told me that on the seventh day God made Italy - he'd needed six days to practise.

Speaking of practice, the shoving of religion of one sort or another down the throats of other regardless of their will is, to me, irreligious. One of the great legacies of Christ is compassion; this sits especially uneasily, it seems to me, with the violently evangelistic forcing upon people of the products of that highly selective mindset that we've come to know and recognise as Christian fundamentalism. It seems to be more or less on a par with the similar proselytising activites of the Taleban, except that the Taleban seems to have even less real connection with Islam than even the worst of the Christian mafia has with true Christianity.

Whatever anyone thinks about all this, I am well and truly in the ultimate sinner category, for I am a composer - and that kind of activity is utterly out of order in the mind of most kinds of religious fundamentalist. You have only to consider the actions of the current administration and also of a certain relatively recent government in Iran against the grave dangers to "humanity" of all aspects of Western music...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

?  if christianity is so 'pervasive' as you make it sound, why is halloween celebrated and christmas downplayed.  i don't even celebrate christmas - and yet, references to Christ are seemingly out of order in a secular society.  i wouldn't worry terribly if i were you all.

also, i think the next presidential election will favor the democrats.  just a guess.  everyone gets a turn.  i don't think one can really criticize a president unless one has been in their shoes. 

[prometheus]

I am sure people spend a lot more money on Christmas than on halloween.

Also, on Christmas you really celebrate the birth of Mithras. This is because no one knows when Christ was supposedly born so Emperor Aurelian just picked a date.

Of course you don't even believe Christ was born since according to you Christ died in  1 BC, making 1 AD one year 'After Death'.

[mike_lang]

Of course you don't even believe Christ was born since according to you Christ died in  1 BC, making 1 AD one year 'After Death'.

Ha!

[prometheus]

One can only criticize Hitler if one actually was dictator of the Third Reich. How many people have done that? None! Except Hitler himself of course. No one can criticize Hitler.

[trunks]

if christianity is so 'pervasive' as you make it sound, why is halloween celebrated and christmas downplayed.  i don't even celebrate christmas - and yet, references to Christ are seemingly out of order in a secular society.  i wouldn't worry terribly if i were you all.

Um, Christmas downplayed?
I, for one, celelbrate Christmas (even anticipate) Christmas each and every year.

[pianistimo]

i mean publicly.  we have trees and lights - but in terms of the christianity part, at least, here in the usa  - it is not allowed in schools for the reason of 'religion.'  but witchcraft is also a 'religion' and that is fully allowed celebration by way of halloween celebrations.  as soon as you say the name 'Christ' in a public setting in the usa - it is 'fundamentalism strikes again.'  there is no Christ in christmas in the stores when they are selling things!

personally, i believe that Christ was born in the fall - around the feast of sukkot.  in fact probably mid-week.  the appendix of the companion bible says that is most likely when a census would have occurred (allowing people to travel), when the 'course of abijah' (courses of priests ) would have been, and also, when the shepherds would still be in the fields.   christ was not born on a pagan holiday - that centers around solstice.  he is our 'light' and we don't need to celebrate the sun (mithras) or anything like that - combining paganism with christianity isn't really christian fully, imo.  but, this is not a debate about christmas, nor religion.  it's sort of a thread to show that christianity is some sort of plague. 

God is not mocked.

[prometheus]

Halloween has much less to do with witchcraft than Christmas has to do with Christianity.

You can't sell Christ, whatever you mean by that. But even if it would be possible you would oppose it.


If you want to celebrate Christmas but you don't want to celebrate it on the day of Mithras and the solstice then you may want to pick a new date.

[arensky]

also, i think the next presidential election will favor the democrats.  just a guess.  everyone gets a turn. 

For next week, arensky predicts...

The Senate- Dems 49, Reps 50, Independent, 1 (an incumbent, he votes with the dems). Dems will gain Senate seats in New Jersey and Montana. With Cheney as tie breaker, Republicans will keep control of the Senate.

The House races are too many for me to keep track of. I think there will be a margin of 5-6 seats majority. Could go for either the Democrats or Republicans. Doesn't really matter, the partisanship will get worse and the gridlock will ensue. Actually, political gridlock right now is not a bad thing imo, since no one here seems to know what they're doing, nothing happening is not so bad.

It is too early to predict the outcome of the 2008 erection. But it will be a long and hard affair. Who knows what is to come...  

i don't think one can really criticize a president unless one has been in their shoes.

I have been a President. Leave all criticism to me!  

[pianistimo]

2008 erection?  are you also going to die a virgin?  sorry, i could help it. yes.  when they keep sending absentee ballots - i've gotten about six.  who is keeping track of those ?  i mean i could  vote six times - absentee - all in the name  of someone who typically doesn't vote.  say, the 100 year old lady in a resthome.  btw, i ripped them all up.

of course, the problem will come when the republicans are the ones that ask for a recount - and then - if things get ugly and both take each other down during the last debates - and the independent candidate wins because he's the only level headed one left.

now, if this were a novel and anything could happen - it could be that within several years our economy will dictate our politics.

[arensky]

2008 erection?  are you also going to die a virgin? 

Not likely. 

when they keep sending absentee ballots - i've gotten about six.  who is keeping track of those ?  i mean i could  vote six times - absentee - all in the name  of someone who typically doesn't vote. 

Hmmm, box stuffing....   

of course, the problem will come when the republicans are the ones that ask for a recount - and then - if things get ugly and both take each other down during the last debates - and the independent candidate wins because he's the only level headed one left. 

Only in my dreams, probably. 

But dreams can come true, maybe... 

[timothy42b]

Um, Christmas downplayed?

Yeah, ignore that.  It's just part of the persecution complex and paranoia a certain vocal group of US fundamentalists insist on.  The rest of us know perfectly well why mandatory prayer in public school isn't a good idea. 

[timothy42b]

personally, i believe that Christ was born in the fall - around the feast of sukkot.   and also, when the shepherds would still be in the fields.   

Shepherds are "in the fields" only at lambing time.  That's March/April in that part of the world. 

What year do you vote for?  Herod died in 4 BC and Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 AD; I see why you got confused over birth and death years. 

[maul]

Live.

[hwhat06]

Of course you don't even believe Christ was born since according to you Christ died in 1 BC, making 1 AD one year 'After Death'.

i was just reading and I wanted to inform you that AD does not mean 'After Death' sweetheart.  It means 'Anno Domini' from the Latin meaning 'in the year of our Lord.'

If you want to argue something, do your research.

Christmas and Halloween are BOTH pagan holidays (pagan meaning anything that is not 'Christian').  So if one celebrates either: Halloween with jack-o-lanterns and trick-or-treating; or Christmas with Christmas trees, then that one celebrates pagan celebrations (Halloween is the beginning of the pagan calendar and Christmas celebrates the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.)

I am 100% Christian.  However, I do not take what many of these so-called churches today say.  Many of the 'Christian' churches are solely based on a show to draw people in to their 'religion' and to support the 'local church' with tithes (tithes are great but God wants 10%.  That 10% is not just 10% of our money, but 10% of our time.  If you cannot afford the money, then give Him your time.  I can't make promises, but I would bet that He would rather have you give up your time than your money.  BUT, TITHING WITH MONEY IS STILL VERY IMPORTANT.  If you cant afford a 10% monetary tithe, then cut out something from your budget like clothes or entertainment so that you can give to God)

If you want to argue with me or have a debate or whatever, message me.  I will be glad to show you my side and I will be glad to have an open mind towards yours.

[pianistimo]

dear hwhat06,

yes.  i have come back to this topic and argue again - that the 'year of our Lord' typically would mean in loose terms 'the year our Lord was born'  that is why people associate it less with latin terms than it's actual meaning.  but there have been other calendrical terms proposed in history books now.  CE (common era)  but what is it common to?  the same thing - just omitting Christ.  BCE (before common era) also.  before being common to what? 

1 BC or AD means nothing to me.  i think someone decided the calendar would be thus and such dates...but in terms of when theologians have generally agreed that Christ died - it would be around 30 or 31 AD.  and, pilate must have still been alive.  hmmm.  somebody needs to check out the theologians that thought of that one.  what it indicates to me is that somebody tried to say he was dead before he was alive (or something like that).  when, actually, if 30 AD is correct - he was possibly born three years earlier than 1 AD (say 3 BC) and died around 30 AD.  wasn't his ministry begun at 30 years of age and 3 1/2 years of ministering added to that? 

i don't claim to be a theologian - although my husband has extensively studied some topics of paul and enjoys the books that he wrote.  he tends to think 'freer' than i do about law and holidays, etc.  so while i take a more conservative stance - i am more in agreement with the idea that if you are going to celebrate something - it may as well be a holiday mentioned in the bible.  they are typically associated with jewishness - though -and that is why many prefer to keep their ideological roots.  but, BUT what if we are all tied to God's perfect plan from the time of the exodus.  i mean - everyone who was worshipping egypts gods, idols, sacrificing, way of life - was under the plagues.  plagues are said to come upon those who live in the 'end times' in the book of revelations.  all those who are not 'written in the book of life.' 

as i see it - we should 'come out' of the physical world and be different.  to be a light.  to not be seduced by the way things look.  more how they function.  what i mean is - you can tell if something is genuine or not. 

also, you can do double checks on passages of the bible to interpret correctly.  for instance, if i ONLY were concerned with the sheep in the field - in terms of dating Christ's birth - i would only check that point.  but, there were also other points such as the census that was taking place (usually in times that people can still travel), the changes of courses of priests (course of abiah).  all these point to the scripture in isaiah that mentions him being cut off in the 'middle of the week.'  this, to me, (and i could be wrong) indicates a strong possibility of him being cut off (dying) in the middle of the most important week of the fall holy days.  sukkot.  the feast of sukkot is a celebration of the 'tabernacle' that we have with God.  he provides everything.  our shelter.  our sustenence.  our union with the fall harvest (as he provides the harvest of souls - which are more important than crops).  and, we are told at that time to 'bring all the firstfruits' to him.  that is #1 ourselves.  and, agreed about #2 our time  #3 our resources.  (ps i personally believe that Christ could have been conceived around dec 24 - and thus a september birth).

at christmas - some churches do a lot of charity work (and i noticed our school did a 'trick or treat' for unicef).  i believe that if someone is doing the work of God in a different way - who are we to judge.  they are all bringing fruit that is helping the world see the love of God.  what i think is wrong - is to be completely self-absorbed at christmas if someone is in need.  everyone is culpable at some time or other - but i think that christians realize this in their hearts and typically DO try to make the holiday mean something more than a  party.  even getting families together is a good deed.  i mean, if you are preparing your house for load of relatives - it's a good deal of work and obviously a heart-felt deed.

i don't think christianity is a plague to other people unless christians become burdensome and put too many restrictions on charity or something.  as i see it - noone 'deserves' anything - but God gives to us freely - and so we should also give freely.