Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[jpianoflorida]

There may be more than one point.

From the modern viewpoint, we have a couple of clergy (priest and Levite) with presumably a higher duty to aid their neighbor in need, but failing to do anything, and a stranger (Samaritan) showing them up.

This is certainly not how the parable would have been viewed in Jesus's time, nor presumably how he intended it. 

The priest and levite were Servants of God, and their obedience to their requirements outweighed any of their personal desires.  Their ritual temple service was critical to the safety and righteousness of all Jews; they had to fulfill their end of the covenant or everybody would suffer. 

The victim appeared dead.  If either touched him, they would be unclean for a period of time and unable to fulfill their temple duties.  Though they badly wanted to help, they could not for fear of failing the Lord Most High whom they served.  If it had been their own family in the ditch they would have had to walk by.  They acted correctly in every respect, through great self discipline and love of the Lord.  The Samaritan, not bound by purity laws, was able to show the compassion the priests wanted to show. 

What Jesus was probably trying to tell them in this parable was that it was time to change the rules, and slavish adherence to God's 634 commandments was no longer going to be the proper way to live.  Obviously this would take a while to sink in.  Compassion was going to become a higher value than righteous obedience of the law. 

It is now almost 2000 years later.  (well, much of the NT was written around 100 AD, about 1900 years.)  All Bible quotations now have the risk of being similarly misunderstood, or at least not fully understood.  The worst of it is the silly literalness we've fallen into lately, which discards the beauty and imagination that went into the writing. 

ok...I get what you are saying ......I especially agree with this statement you observed:
"
"What Jesus was probably trying to tell them in this parable was that it was time to change the rules, and slavish adherence to God's 634 commandments was no longer going to be the proper way to live.  Obviously this would take a while to sink in.  Compassion was going to become a higher value than righteous obedience of the law.  "

[rob47]

Try to find pianistimo's kids:

Just joking, but seriously these kids.....

[jpianoflorida]

ok..i watched that video and that disturbs me very much! I'm a Christian but I totally disagree with the approach in the video...things like that are what gives us a bad name.

[pianistimo]

i can assure you that my kids are not in that video.  though, i kinda wish they would have a little more public acqnowledgement of God.  but, i guess in the times that we live - it is a matter of personal beliefs and usually not one goes around saying.  even peter denied Christ three times and was a believer in the end.  i pray that the scripture about 'train a child in the way he/she should go, and when they are old  - they will not depart from it' will apply to my children.

if you take either side - you can go to extremes.  just as jpianoflorida said, to appreciate others beliefs and not tear them down is probably the Christian ideal.  if it is a plague of the mind - i fail to see how.  in fact, i think christians help each other.  timothy42b expounded things a little more accurately in terms of the times - and i see what he means in terms of interpreting according to the age that we live in.  i fail, however to see how touching this man who was NOT dead would defile them in any way.  in fact, he humiliated the pharisees because they often would pull their animals out of a ditch and yet not help their own kind.  'which one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?'  (and they could make no reply to this).  that is because they added their own laws to God's.  making 600 out of 10.

and, i think that pianowelsh is right - that God made us - at the beginning -equal in His eyes.  gen. 1:27 'and God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created  him; male and female he created them.'  and, yet, Adam bore the responsibility first for eve's sin.  why was that?  because God made him first and made him responsible for teaching her -just as God taught him.  but, i think after the first day - he thought 'she can take care of herself'  and just let her go wandering.  she obviously stayed close enough to bring back the fruit half-bitten.  but, he didn't stay close enough to her to intervene in that conversation she had with the old serpent.  he even repeated the words of God when he saw the apple was half-bitten.  but, she looked so good naked -that he couldn't let her go down by herself. 

that is the way it has been ever since.  women can get away with anything if they get naked.  it takes an awfully strong man to turn away and say 'what happened to that apple?'  now timothy42b will probably tell me that i didn't read the correct translation.  and, i really don't know the catholic view on this for michael_langlois - but all i know is that when i read that passage i think - if they were equal in responsibilities - he would have started with eve.  'now eve, i told you...'  BUT, God didn't tell eve.  He told adam.  the result was that God told her that if she had listened to her husband and been responsible she WOULD have been equal to him.  verse 16 at the end says 'and he shall rule over you...' as a result of the sin.  of course, adam didn't get away with much either - because the toil for the burden of living is very great and always has been since adam. 

[pianistimo]

ps

i'm glad pianowelsh is sticking up for herself and other women, though - because i see no necessity to marry a man if you do not share most all his views.  if you are unequally partnered to someone who is not going to follow the same path and wants you to go another path that is uncomfortable and burdensome - why bother.  women can hold up pretty well on their own.  it's just that a man finding a good wife is pretty similar to a wife finding a good husband.  he will not 'lord it over' her - but will be there to hold her up and appreciate her and hear what she has to say.  i don't think most christian marriages nowdays are based on some kind of oppressiveness that keeps a woman in the kitchen.

as i read proverbs 31 - the wise woman has a business of her own.  she's not unable to go long distances to shop and take care of clothing, food, family business - and, her husband is 'known' in the gates.  if he was a tyrant - he wouldn't be.

[maul]

Pianistimo, how does it feel to kill someone? That's essentially what you've done to your kids.

[pianistimo]

i fail to make a connection on that one.  we are told by God to invest our lives in our children's education.  i do not focus on the bible soley.  my daughter just got an invitation to take an early SAT (in 7th grade) so she could apply for scholarships and summer camps because of getting 98% average on national assessment testing.  if she becomes a doctor, i'm not going to stop her. 

i think in this day and age - women can be many things.  they can fulfill the ideals of womanhood and having a family and also working.  but, it is much more difficult.  if you ask any female doctor trying to juggle family and career - i'm sure they would say it is hard.  BUT, they have more money to work with.  more choices.  they probably can afford a housecleaner, babysitter, etc.  i don't feel that i have any power or authority over my daughter when she becomes a woman (at 18).  in fact, if she chooses a career - i would try to live nearby and help her as much as possible.  i would like to see her succeed at whatever she does.  i hope she will be a good mother and a helpful person in society. 

i admit that i would feel a bit sad if she didn't have any children.  she thinks i am biased because i never tried to teach my son to sew.  neither one of them wants to sew.  also, she says i clean up more for him and make her do more dishes.  i don't intend to be so biased - it's just that she's more inclined to do them when i ask her.  i ask him to do a lot of outside chores.  i suppose that i could surprise them and one day just ask him to do all the indoor chores and her the outdoor ones.

[maul]

The Earth. It is time to leave this place. It is time to leave the manufactured reality of nonsensical carbon created creatures who have created designated spots of unrealistic self-righteous worship...

[pianowelsh]

Maul your going to have to explain your particularly elusive statement. Be advised however that Love which is what I was really speaking about before is the opposite in many ways of self-righteousness. It is putting others before yourself. this is a Characteristic that Christ teaches in the Bible. At the risk of being highly contreversial. The only reason women were made was becasue God looked at his creation Adam and saw that it wasnt good that he be alone. Men and women do need each other - its the way we were designed. We were made different so we would compliment each other. God knew what he was doing when he created EVERYTHING.

[jpianoflorida]

The Earth. It is time to leave this place. It is time to leave the manufactured reality of nonsensical carbon created creatures who have created designated spots of unrealistic self-righteous worship...

maul..you need to get out and enjoy life a little more...sounds like you worry to much....why not just enjoy the earth? it's here, your here, your still alive...you are breathing, so be happy with what we have!

[jpianoflorida]

Pianistimo, how does it feel to kill someone? That's essentially what you've done to your kids.

what the heck are you saying?   For one, that comment is a little over the edge for many reasons and also do you know anything about PIanistimo other than what she has posted?

[johnny-boy]

what the heck are you saying?   For one, that comment is a little over the edge for many reasons and also do you know anything about PIanistimo other than what she has posted?

I don't think Maul literally means "kill". He's probably referring to "killing their spirit" or some other abstraction. Maybe Maul can enlighten us with a more direct approach. At the very least he owes Pianistimo an explanation.

John

[pianistimo]

frankly, i'm surprised my kids haven't killed me first.  i admit to days of being too perfectionistic and probably over-protective.  there, i said it.  psychotic?  yes.  that, too sometimes.  but, never over what i feel are inconsequential things.  for instance, if there is a lame excuse about not wanting to go to school - i just start whining and say 'blah blah blah,  i don't want to go to school.  i don't feel like working.  perhaps i will just sit here and ...'  but, then - i hearken back to my school days and the times when i just skipped school on sunny days and went outside hiking or skiing. noone asked for notices back then - and i'd try to get back before school was out.  i really have no clue if my parents knew.  i'm starting to realize that all kids need stress relieving days. 

[pianowelsh]

Prometheus - thats rubbish you cant say Christianity inspired female oppression. In many other world theologies the women folk are supressed to far far greater lenghths than you seem to suggest is the case in Christianity.
I am not deliberatedly trying to skirt your argument. I dont feel you are making a cohesive and reasoned point with it.  i think you misunderstand 'equality' equality isnot being ableto do or be the same as somebody else necessarily. Its about having equal value, equal importance and equal repsonsibility. Christianity had never saught to down play equality of both sexes. You may be surprised to hear I dont read books on feminism - I dont agree with it! Neither do I read books on Male chauvinism - I dont agree with it.  I do read God's word about what it says in regard to marraige and two (separate entities) becoming one in marraige and the teachings on how the church should function.. Showing Love to eachother and prefering the needs of the other. Using their talents and uniqueness to the maximum and supporting them in their weaker areas. Both men and women need support in their day to day living. All men arent horrible abusers of women who take them for granted and use them. If thats the way you see it - im sorry but i dont agree with you.  I said earlier that yes there are abuses within Christianity and people use scripture to back it up as do other people from other faiths (use their texts to justify bad behaviour) but ultimately God is the judge there he sees the injustice and it wont go unpunished - God is fair. As regards our intrinsic differences. Males and females are built different,biologically, think differently, react to things on a spiritual level differently - it is obvious. Any good medical text books will explain that physically and psycologically we are different. AND we complement... gosh - anyone would think we were designed for oneanother.........oh yes we were!

[leahcim]

though, i kinda wish they would have a little more public acqnowledgement of God.

Yeah, omnipresence is clearly not enough ...

[jakev2.0]

(radical) Islam is a bigger threat to the world nowadays.

[timothy42b]

(radical) Islam is a bigger threat to the world nowadays.

I think you would have to say that it is not the beliefs of the particular religion that is the problem, but the degree of fervor, the rigidity of dogma, and the intolerance for other belief systems. 

14th century Christianity might be a good example.  Since then it has diversified and become more liberal and moderate, to the dismay of a fairly large and vocal group of current fundamentalists.  It is possible it will swing back the other way. In its present state it does not represent a direct threat to the world, but that may not be how the world perceives it.  The Islamic world may not recognize the diversity of the Christian denominations and probably cannot comprehend separation of church and state at all, so may think that a few radical Christians speak for all and are a threat - provoking a defensive reaction. 

The lukewarm Christian is a threat to noone.  I would think this would be true for the lukewarm Muslim as well, if you could find one. 

The largest and oldest Christian denomination is Catholic.  Yet the most vocal US Christian demination rejects the idea that Catholics are Christians and seriously believes the pope is the Antichrist and all Catholics will end up in hell.  That's a level of intolerance that comes very close to meeting the "dangerous" definition. 

[leahcim]

Yet the most vocal US Christian demination rejects the idea that Catholics are Christians and seriously believes the pope is the Antichrist and all Catholics will end up in hell.

They've probably seen a preview of this weeks panorama.

[timothy42b]

I see I mistyped demination when I meant denomination, but I think I like it that way too! 

[pianistimo]

my son had to do a report on bosnia - (it would be a country with few books written about it) - so i went to barnes and noble and bought 'balkan ghosts.'  it is interesting what you say about fundamentalism because they all seem to 'ignite' right there in the world.  i didn't realize, until reading the book that western catholicism (roman) and eastern (orthodox) were divided right along those lines in the hapbsburg days.  also, in our days - there is a compass including north and south which divides muslim with orthodoxy (as with turkey and greece - which give each other the evil eye all the time).

noone is exempt from becoming 'fundamentalist' - but i would say of all the faiths that seem the most to me - it is islam and roman and orthodox catholicism.  the reason i say that - is that they preach that if you do not belong to their faith you are damned.  that was partially the reason for the inquisition.  and, behind the scenes - a few popes and bishops really didn't care much about the holocaust.  for further interest, there is a revival these days in germany and elsewhere that promotes anti-semitism as a way of proving ones christianity.  i would say that this is also fundamentalism.

in my way of thinking - Jesus Christ was the one that started Christianity.  His disciples kept the passover.  also spoken of as 'the feast of the jews.'  Christ himself was killed as our 'passover lamb.' 

you can define Christianity any way you like - but in the end - it is God that will sort it all out.  no pope can take Jesus Christ's place.  i know the arguments - but the pope wants pomp and circumstance.  the disciples sought neither and were servants of the people and not the other way around.  they often went lacking.  john the baptist lived in the desert eating little and surviving as best he could.  rome is rich with the goods of the world. 

[pianistimo]

armageddon will be the 'sorting out.' 

[dnephi]

armageddon will be the 'sorting out.' 

If you go to the institute manuals here https://ldsces.org/Institute%20Manuals.asp and select doctrines of the gospel, in the last few chapters, the second coming and all events leading up to it are explained in order, citing scriptures as their sources.  You might find it interesting. 

And about people of other faiths, people are judged by what they will have become before they die, and they will be judged based on what knowledge they had and how actively they seeked, and they will be judged based on their circumstances.  IE, someone who was born in a family where religion was taught will be held to a higher standard than one who did not, although circumstances do not absolve responsibility for things which were not caused by them.

To the poster of this thread, you obviously have not experimented upon or tested the doctrines.  May I suggest taking them (actually the Bible, not books written which claim to be Christian) and applying them.  See how they work.  I suggest the Book "Mere Christianity," borrowable from most libraries. 

[pianistimo]

armageddon will be the 'sorting out.' 

in reading about God's mercy (even in extra books as are in the Catholic bible) in ecclesiasticus - which was written by 'the son of sirach' who 'came to egypt and settled there in the 38th year of the reign of king euergetes' - he applied his scholarship to an understanding of the bible and a translation from hebrew (although it doesn't have the same force) into other tongues.  you could say he was a scribe.

in his book ecclesiasticus (8:13) he shows that God's mercy extends to all mankind and not just his own 'kin.'  we are all God's - so our divisions will be healed when Jesus Christ returns.  'their compassion is only for their own kin, but the Lord's compassion is for all mankind.  He corrects, disciplines and teaches, and brings them back as a shepherd brings his flock.  He has compassion on those who accept discipline and are eager to obey his decrees.'

if we are decreed to 'love our neighbor as ourselves' - then we can see who is truly Christian on that basis.  i believe we are all individually accountable to God.  we cannot be part of a larger group and claim ignorance.  it will not be that way at the judgement.  even for a Christian or Muslim that sees another human being - being tortured or maimed or killed in the name of a religion.  what good is that?  will others believe your religion on the basis of killing?  NO.  it is only through peace that people see God.  our prayers are for the ENTIRE WORLD.  it is not a division of east and west or north and south.  it is all Christians and unbelievers, too, who are now in the process of hearing a 'gospel of peace' and being called to be a 'fundamental peacekeeper.'  or christian soldier.

[pianistimo]

revelations itself is a sort of guide along with the books of the prophets (such as daniel, isaiah, ezekiel - etc), too.  it is interesting to see exactly what God says happening today!

people ask 'well, who is the anti-Christ?'  in I John 3:4 'my dear friends, do not trust every spirit, but test the spirits, to see whether they are from God; for there are many false prophets (religions) about in the world.  The way to recognize the Spirit of God is this:  every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and no spirit is from God which does not acknowledge Jesus.  (in the fullness of the Saviour)  this is the spirit of antichrist (ANTI Christ); you have been warned that it was to come, and now here it is, in the world already!

on radio stations, tv, etc.  - religion is dispromoted.  miracles are laughed at.  i heard an interesting testimonial this morning on a radio station from a mother who's son had experienced his heart stopping twice in an ambulance ride to the hospital - and being in a coma and the mother being told that they were not sure if he would ever wake up or function again normally.  a friend of hers offerred to have a group prayer with her Church and pray for healing.  amazingly, the boy was healed at the time of the prayer and the mother came into the boys hospital room after a night of tortured worry - and he was gone.  she assumed he died.  they said 'oh, he's playing right over there with some toys.  we don't find anything wrong with him.'  the announcer then went on to laugh and play music that was sort of dispromoting the idea that the woman could possibly have believed or been serious about this expression of God's mercy in her life.

If God has this kind of power over death - who are we to laugh and scoff just because we don't understand it.  we cannot understand God fully until He reveals Himself fully.  He has done this for Christians whom He has given the Holy Spirit - so we FEEL His presence - but cannot touch or see Him yet.  I can't imagine the thrill of His return and the difference in how the World will be in terms of ultimate healing of the nations.  the nations are SICK.  they need a new government. 

[pianistimo]

something i find interesting - was that there was a division in the early Church over Paul's preaching AT FIRST.  in acts 9:31 'meanwhile the church, throughout judea, galilee, and samaria was left in peace to build up it's strength, and to live in the fear of the Lord...' then peter is mentioned and we can see that these churches were living in accord with the jewish ways of doing things even though some of these people were gentile (greek) - they still displayed an interest in the synagogues, etc.

but, when paul came - he also recognized that gentiles could be grafted into the Church on God's terms and not on jewish terms...so that caused a division - but not to God.  'at caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion...he was a devout man, and he and his whole family joined in the worship of God; he gave generously to help the jewish people,and was regular in his prayers to God.'  so, even though he may not have agreed with everything they did worship-wise - he did not antagonize them.  he actually gave occasionally to their cause.  this is the opposite of hatred and displays an unusual amount of understanding of how to achieve peace.

God even saw it and allowed him to dream and hear an angel say to him 'your prayers and acts of charity have gone up to heaven to speak for you before God.'  it wasn't his sabbath keeping or whatever - but it was his charity.  corinthians mentions that love covers a multitude of sins.  if we are loving - who can charge us with guilt?  of course, we are called to be a 'light' so we can't be doing works of 'darkness.'   peter even 'taught' cornelius what the jews used to believe (but learned from him compassion and kindness) 'i need not tell you that a jew is forbidden by his religion to visit or associate with anyone of another race.  yet God has shown me clearly that i must not call anyone profane or unclean...'

this was the first 'working out' in the early church of the differences of opinion among Christians.  there is neither jew nor greek - etc.  but, all are of 'the same mind'  - a loving mind.  no matter if we do different things.  maybe what people get concerned about is 'apostasy.'  that is God's business.  if we think another religion is 'apostate' there is still no need to speak of them badly or kill people over it.  Christ already has judged them - by stating that if anyone puts a 'millstone' around people's necks (too many burdens to feel 'holy') then that person/church will be held accountable.  the heaviness of the gospel is LIGHT when Christ takes our burdens.

[pianistimo]

one last thought - is that islam is not without Jesus as a prophet.  and, as such - they remember their father Abraham.  now, it is usually plain knowledge that issac and ishmael were brothers.  according to the talmud, ishmael's own repentance ultimately stuck.  he ended his days as a righteous person.  when Abraham died, issac AND ishmael buried him together.  i hope that it will be so peaceful in the future.

i feel no joy when i hear of the death of iraqis.  the recent newscast that said an iraqi woman was killed in front of one of her sons made my heart cry.  she had four boys and two girls and was a model citizen.  no reason for her death - other than she was put on a hit list by some group or other and murdered by shooting at her mercilessly.  her son said that he had to literally pick up her brains in the street.  but, God is not without watchful eyes - and death isn't the end as we think it is.  of course He can resurrect her - with everything intact.  of course he can resurrect all of us.  so even though we are living in a desperate time - there IS hope.

the same for haliburton people and reporters who are kidnapped and tortured and killed.  of course, greed gets nowhere - but also, there is a limit as to what people should do when they are angry at others.  there are people who enjoy killing and don't need much of a reason.

[leahcim]

one last thought

I think a lot, even the non religious were praying for that...

...Somehow I doubt it is though

[timothy42b]

  I suggest the Book "Mere Christianity," borrowable from most libraries. 

Oh, no no no. 

I mean, absolutely you should read it for historical reasons.  It is a classic and oft quoted text.

But it is also a classic collection of specious reasoning.  C.S. did his reputation as a thinker no favors with this one.  It is basically apologetics; i.e. it is feel good speechifying designed to convince the believer that the irrational is rational. 

[soliloquy]

Manmade. Fear used as tactic to develop morality. 2,000 year old hand picked madness. Outdated ridiculous theories. Brainwashed from birth. Spread like virus. Modern caveman thought. Subconcious splintering. Limiting factors of technology. Boundaries, not infinity. Money.

Continue.

Wow.  I'm hardcore atheist and even I found that mildly offensive.  Just what exactly is the point of that post?  To alienate yourself from the forum?  To bug pianistimo?  Recently molested by a Catholic Priest?

[pianolearner]

Cooking, ironing, cleaning, shopping, sewing, darning, scrubbing and other menail duties.

Oh, and sex.

Thal

and sex 

Interesting....

[pianowelsh]

To pick up on the debate of fundamentalism. As Chrisianity teaches that the pinacle of the Law is Love. to be a fundamentalist Loving person. Who is Christian (one who follows in like manner of Christ) who prefered the needs of others before himself giving himself up to die on the cross for sins he never comitted so that We could be free.  How can this be the same or equal to a fundamentalist muslim who says he will kill for Allah?? If you see a correlation explain please because I really dont understand. Christians are not called to arms, theyre called to Love. 'Love one another as I have loved you. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for oneanother' - I think its quite a clear and straightforward directive.. Now agreed in a worldly context you could say its impossible to forfill, how can we (selfseeking human beings) Love oneanother to the point of death and beyond, consistently! Without the changing work of the Holy spirit we cant. It is Chtist in us by his spirit that makes the difference. This is really a central doctrine because it affects these race issues, marraige/rights issues etc. The basis of all Christianity comes down to Love. Love for God, God'slove for us, how we love oneanother as the church, how we love those who are perishing. Christianity is essentially an outworking of the Love of God thorugh those that in his grace he has redeemed(bought back).  A good plague to be smitten with.

[kelly_kelly]

Try to find pianistimo's kids:

Just joking, but seriously these kids.....

what! That's nearly as bad as children being trained as terrorists in Pakistan...

[ada]

what! That's nearly as bad as children being trained as terrorists in Pakistan...

That video is disgraceful. What a sick and scary nation.

[timothy42b]

To pick up on the debate of fundamentalism. As Chrisianity teaches that the pinacle of the Law is Love. to be a fundamentalist Loving person. Who is Christian (one who follows in like manner of Christ) who prefered the needs of others before himself giving himself up to die on the cross for sins he never comitted so that We could be free.  How can this be the same or equal to a fundamentalist muslim who says he will kill for Allah?? If you see a correlation explain please because I really dont understand.

"Love vs. not love" is not a criterion for the fundamentalist code of conduct.  All that is necessary is to check your brain at the door and be intolerant of every other faith.  The poster child for fundamentalism is Rev Phelps, of course, and I think even you would have trouble saying he is preaching a religion of love. 

If fundamentalist Christian denominations were generally (or ever) opposed to war, I would have to admit I'm wrong.  However the US based fundamentalist denominations are overwhelmingly in favor of wars, including the current ones.  It is only the more moderate denominations, such as Methodists, Catholics, and Episcopals who have raised some recent questions.  Explain that to me, please, because I really don't understand. 

Do you honestly see any difference between Christian and Muslim willingness to go to war?  I'm not saying any particular war is or is not justified - I'm just noting the obvious willingness. 

[kelly_kelly]

"Love vs. not love" is not a criterion for the fundamentalist code of conduct.  All that is necessary is to check your brain at the door and be intolerant of every other faith.  The poster child for fundamentalism is Rev Phelps, of course, and I think even you would have trouble saying he is preaching a religion of love. 

If fundamentalist Christian denominations were generally (or ever) opposed to war, I would have to admit I'm wrong.  However the US based fundamentalist denominations are overwhelmingly in favor of wars, including the current ones.  It is only the more moderate denominations, such as Methodists, Catholics, and Episcopals who have raised some recent questions.  Explain that to me, please, because I really don't understand. 

Do you honestly see any difference between Christian and Muslim willingness to go to war?  I'm not saying any particular war is or is not justified - I'm just noting the obvious willingness. 

Exactly what I have been trying to convince some of my more thickheaded peers of for ages! Thank you for articulating it so well 

[hwhat06]

o my goodness. such ignorance makes me sad. if you have not read the Bible through, you need to stop criticizing it. i will wholeheartedly admit that the Christian church has problems, but so does the whole world. nowhere in the entire Bible does it suggest that Jesus Christ had any kind of sexual relationship with ANY woman. and the Gnostic "bible" is full of confusing phrases that make no sense. no other document or event in history other than the Bible has more than 25,000 manuscripts to back it up. please email me if you are interested in more

[prometheus]

Yes, right on. There is no account of Jesus making love. So how can Christ equal love?

[berceuse]

Yes, right on. There is no account of Jesus making love. So how can Christ equal love?

"To the Christian love is the works of love. To say that love is a feeling or anything of the kind is an unchristian conception of love. That is the aesthetic definition and therefore fits the erotic and everything of that nature. But to the Christian love is the works of love. Christ's love was not an inner feeling, a full heart and what not, it was the work of love which was his life." -Kierkegaard

[timothy42b]

o my goodness. such ignorance makes me sad. if you have not read the Bible through, you need to stop criticizing it.

The ignorance is yours, most likely.  You will find that most of the people who do not indulge in your literal and inerrant worship of a book, whether they are atheist or moderate Christian, have read it far more carefully and have far more knowledge of how it was written than you do.  Nor does your parroting of Josh McDonald lend you any credibility, sorry to say. 

I am not anti-Christian, but over the years I have come to see fundamentalism as a threat to Christianity itself, and that is why I argue against superstition and ignorance.

Perhaps you can address the question of war.  To me it does not seem congruent that some Christian denominations which loudly profess a faith of love are so eager to go to war.  (and to push for more death penalty, and persecute homosexuals, etc.)  It would certainly appear that in the US at least there are three religious attitudes toward war.  To use some examples:  The Quakers feel all war and all terrorism is wrong period.  The Methodists use the concept of "just war" which has to meet three criteria.  If they argue against a particular war (and they are doing so now) it is because they believe it doesn't fit.  The Baptists to my astonishment believe the simple dichotomy of war good, terrorism bad.  "War?  Awwriight, let's go git us sum a them godless heathens!"  Perhaps I exaggerate - or maybe not. 

[mike_lang]

Yes, right on. There is no account of Jesus making love. So how can Christ equal love?

It has to do with circumincession - that is, the Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, the Holy Spirit is in the Son, etc.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and is appropriated to Love, and therefore the same goes for Christ.  That's one answer.

The other is the one cannot give what one does not have.  In other words, Christ has infinite love, and therefore loves infinitely.  With God, each one of these things that He has, He has to an infinite degree, to the point of which He is these things.  The same goes for God is Truth, is Beauty, is Mercy, is Justice, etc.

Another is that lovemaking is a sacrament in the foremost sense.  We say that there are two paths: marriage and celibacy for the kingdom.  One marries another person, one marries the Church.  What does the Bridegroom need to marry an individual person for?

Food for thought.  These aren't full explanations, but they can at least point you in the right direction.  Some interesting reading is John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

Best,
Michael

[mike_lang]

"To the Christian love is the works of love. To say that love is a feeling or anything of the kind is an unchristian conception of love. That is the aesthetic definition and therefore fits the erotic and everything of that nature. But to the Christian love is the works of love. Christ's love was not an inner feeling, a full heart and what not, it was the work of love which was his life." -Kierkegaard

I like this quote - I would like to add to it, or at least put another perspective on it:

"Love is not a feeling; love is a decision."
-Father John Corapi, S.O.L.T.

A good way to think about love is that it is an act of the will, a rational decision, rather than a fancy of the emotions.  I have to believe the divorce rate would not be so high if people's marriages were not contingent upon the feeling of "being in love."

[hwhat06]

The ignorance is yours, most likely. You will find that most of the people who do not indulge in your literal and inerrant worship of a book, whether they are atheist or moderate Christian, have read it far more carefully and have far more knowledge of how it was written than you do. Nor does your parroting of Josh McDonald lend you any credibility, sorry to say.

Josh McDonald?

[timothy42b]

The ignorance is yours, most likely. You will find that most of the people who do not indulge in your literal and inerrant worship of a book, whether they are atheist or moderate Christian, have read it far more carefully and have far more knowledge of how it was written than you do. Nor does your parroting of Josh McDonald lend you any credibility, sorry to say.

Josh McDonald?

Of course you are right, I screwed up.  Not McDonald. 

Josh McDowell, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," is the source for your claim of 25,000 documents supporting the Bible.  His source is, well.........he doesn't cite sources, some of us think he might have just made it up.  Once he put it in print, everybody else started quoting it too. 

[pianowelsh]

I dont see that war is a major issue actually??! It certainly isnt one that is unique to the Christian faith. Unfortunately war is something the world is lumped with. Its a result of sin you see. Its a by product of our selfishness.  In the context of the OT one has to realise that war was the normal state of things. There is also the aspect that God himself fights for his people. The risen Christ is spoken of and described as a conquering hero. Sometimes war is needfull, and sometimes we find oursleves in battles that arent of our choosing and if we dont fight we are killed... thats just the way it is sometimes. What I suppose im trying to say is its not as cut and dried as you might like to describe it. Sometimes out of love for the truth etc it is actually right to fight and uphold a position. However I think what you are describing is the wholesale support of 'political' wars by certain branches of 'the church'.  Im not american - I cant comment as I dont know the situation there but I would be sceptical of a churhc that vehermantly supports war and intolerance..Because these are unchristlike characteristics.  True Christ didnt come to condone pluralism as far as belief goes..he said 'I am the way the truth and the life' some might consider that intolerant but, are there any examples in scripture of forced confession of christ or people being murdered because they didnt believe Christ. Well No.. Christ himself knew it to be true that he was the only son of God and that salvation was found only in him..but noone was forced to believe him..we read that many didnt. Unfirtunately God is still just and those that didnt will face judgement, the bible is really clear about that, BUT it God in his total justice that will do the judging not Christians here and now..thats where the inquisitions which are much debated where woefully wrong. Faith in Christ cannot be imposed..it can only be born and its born of the Holy Spirit. Born again believers who actually read the bible know this and therefore religious wars are actually meaningless.  You still misunderstand my words on Love. It is the underpinning of the entirety of Christian teaching. A fundamentalist Christian is one who Loves God and Loves his Truth - revealled to us in the bible. They will also display a Love for the saints (the church), they will reach out to the world in which they are placed in Love for those who are perishing.. so that would be many of the people you probably see on the streets with the druga addicts etc making sure theya re fed etc and handing out those 'annoying little pamphlets' and talking in he street about Jesus..you know why they do that?? Its because they Love you and dont want to see you perish. i donot accept many of the traditional meanings of fundamentalist Christian as it is understood by theologians..it isnt a political position that I refer to when I address fundamental Christianity.  Mindue even fundamentalist Christians in the political sense dont do suicide bombings in the name of Jesus..Had you ever wondered why that is??

[timothy42b]

  Mindue even fundamentalist Christians in the political sense dont do suicide bombings in the name of Jesus..Had you ever wondered why that is??

Well, they certainly bomb abortion clinics.  What's the difference? 

[mike_lang]

Well, they certainly bomb abortion clinics.  What's the difference? 

Nothing, both groups are very confused people.

[lisztisforkids]

Well, they certainly bomb abortion clinics.  What's the difference? 

 Yes... But not on the scale other groups do. They dont blow themselves up 6 times a week like people do in Baghdad.

[jpianoflorida]

people who bomb abortion clinics are not necessarily "christians".....they may be people who attend a church, but I don't know of any church that would approve of that...those people are just disturbed individuals that choose to do something on their own.    Can't blame that on Christianity.

[lisztisforkids]

Well, they certainly bomb abortion clinics. What's the difference?

 Another point. If you look at their point of view we really cant blame them a whole lot,(except of course they use violence) They view abortion as murder, what would you do if  people were murdering children? To them, a week old embryo is no difference to you and me.

[lisztisforkids]

people who bomb abortion clinics are not necessarily "christians".....they may be people who attend a church, but I don't know of any church that would approve of that...those people are just disturbed individuals that choose to do something on their own.    Can't blame that on Christianity.

 That is also true, but the church in itself needs to take a stronger stance against these individuals, if the church would, I would imagine a lot of of this kind of stuff would die down.