The truth about HIV.

[ramseytheii]

paul's condemnation did not include the 'doctrine of original sin.'  this is a catholic construct and subverts the idea that satan started the idea of sin.  he was the originator.  why else was the serpent given the first curses?  that he would have to go on his belly. did he have legs before?  ok. different topic.  if he had nothing to do with sin - eve couldn't have blamed him.

The words "Doctrine of Original Sin" may belong to the Catholic Church, but the words of Paul remain: one man's sin brought the condemnation of all men.  If there was not original sin, there would be no need for repentance, and the new Testament would never have been written.  As it is, it was written, because it was asserted that all men needed to repent for their sins, including the sins of their fathers, "visited" upon the children.

God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden, not Satan, because they committed sin, not Satan.

about the definition of 'bad.'  king david was a bad boy.  but he repented.  therefore, God reestablished not only his life - but his throne and that it would continue forever.  the gospel in the NT seems not to indicate an abject dismal view of the 'state of humans' in sin - but, the fact that Christ died and was ressurrected.  the focus isn't on us.  we don't have to go around doing penance.  kind david repented once and that was it.  he didn't have to keep going to a priest and feeling like he was responsible to another person.  he didn't feel responsible to anyone but God. 

I never challenged the Biblical idea of repentance.  But it does say over and over again that we have to repent and accept Jesus as a personal savior.  But, it also says that people who don't will burn forever in eternal torment.  Sorry, I know you don't like to see the unpleasant parts, but I believe everyone else needs to know they are there.  Jesus and God will work together, and this is written both in the Gospel and in the Acts, to select those that will go to heaven, and those that will go to eternal torment in the fires of Hell. 

The issue at stake here is repentance.  Some believe it comes from baptism, which is why they have infants baptized, others believe it comes from confession, which obviously requires a certain amount of consciousness.  Wherever it comes from, the Bible makes it clear that it is necessary to enter Heaven.  If unborn children cannot repent, for in this case original sin ("my mother conceived me in sin," "one man's sin brought condemnation to all"), and if they are not baptized (I don't know whether or not this happens), many churches, not just the Catholic church, agree that these are going to hell, because 1) they are a person (which is contestable) and 2) they share in original sin.

paul says what is of first importance in I corinthians 15:3 'for i delievered to you as of first importance what i also received (remember PAUL KILLED CHRISTIANS) that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures....'  so - i don't think 'bad' is really the word - perhaps 'unbelief.'  but, even one of the disciples had unbelief.  Christ didn't even call him bad.  he just called him 'doubting thomas.'

Nowhere, nowhere, is it written that just because Jesus was crucified, everyone is saved.  It is written very clearly that that means everyone has the option to be saved.  They have to repent and accept him as their personal savior in order to be saved.  Those that don't follow his word will be sent to Hell, and this view, which may seem radical to you, is supported very strongly by the Bible.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

how can death and hades be thrown into the lake of fire if there is no end of it for humans.  death is what Jesus Christ overcame.  therefore - if one lives forever (even in torment) they are having 'eternal life.'  this is a deception of satan's because he wants humans to believe they will get the same punishment as he will.

about satan's original abode. i'll find the scripture.  it says that he left it - and that He was first created to be a covering angel (archangel) and to protect God's throne.  but, He wanted the throne himself.  so, it was a sort of plot to overthrow God and usurp His throne.  i'll find the verses.  they are in ezekiel.

ps the eternal torment in the parable of lazarus was the 'chasm' that separated those doomed to death and those who would live forever.  that satan's words 'you shall not die' will make them thirst for the living water (to know what it feels like ) instead of being doomed to death.  however it goes - it's going to be hot and hotter until one basically is no more.  otherwise - why would it say in revelations 'second DEATH.'  it says that.  i do not find the scripture you quoted yet.  can you tell me where to find it?  '...when the Lord Jesus comes with his mighty angels....' (although you do say 'eternal destruction' - so how can it be eternal if God overcomes death?)

[ramseytheii]

how can death and hades be thrown into the lake of fire if there is no end of it for humans.  death is what Jesus Christ overcame.  therefore - if one lives forever (even in torment) they are having 'eternal life.'  this is a deception of satan's because he wants humans to believe they will get the same punishment as he will.

The words of Jesus: "I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell."
"And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire."
Also Jesus' words, speaking for God: "Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.' "

If hell is a deception of Satan's, are you suggesting that Satan inspired Jesus' depiction of hell as "eternal" and "unquenchable?"  This rather reminds me of the instance of "Satanic Verses" in the Koran.

about satan's original abode. i'll find the scripture.  it says that he left it - and that He was first created to be a covering angel (archangel) and to protect God's throne.  but, He wanted the throne himself.  so, it was a sort of plot to overthrow God and usurp His throne.  i'll find the verses.  they are in ezekiel.

Noone questions Satan and his ways.  But he didn't create sin, because he was an angel, and not created in the image of God.  In order to sin, one must be created in the image of God. 

Furthermore, if what you say is correct, then all the writings in the Scriptures about "sins of the fathers visited upon the children," and "one man's sin led to condemnation for all," refer to Satan, and we must all be spawns of Satan.  Do you really want to assert that?

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

matthew 10:26-28 'and do not fear those who kill the body, but are UNABLE to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to DESTROY both soul and body.'  this means a literal destruction.  permanent.  gone.  no more. dead.

[thalbergmad]

But it does say over and over again that we have to repent and accept Jesus as a personal savior.  But, it also says that people who don't will burn forever in eternal torment.   

Very important couple of sentences.

When i was being brainwashed by the Baptists, this was often mentioned.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Have we exceeded 1,000 in the Bible contradiction count yet?

Thal

[pianistimo]

there are different types of baptists - some believe in a literal 'forever' hell.  i don't.  it's not in the bible.  only a forever torment for satan and his demons.  switch churches.

the bible doesn't contradict itself.  people think it does until they cross reference and take things in context.  the allusion to lazarus and the rich man - is very similar to someone waiting in a line for ice cream and someone waiting in line for the bathroom.  two different outcomes.  although, the bathroom analogy would be ultimately a furnace.

the story of daniel is much like what the saints will be like after the ressurrection.  death cannot touch them.  they will be impervious to hot flames -no matter how hot.

[ramseytheii]

there are different types of baptists - some believe in a literal 'forever' hell.  i don't.  it's not in the bible.  only a forever torment for satan and his demons.  switch churches.

the bible doesn't contradict itself.  people think it does until they cross reference and take things in context.  the allusion to lazarus and the rich man - is very similar to someone waiting in a line for ice cream and someone waiting in line for the bathroom.  two different outcomes.  although, the bathroom analogy would be ultimately a furnace.

the story of daniel is much like what the saints will be like after the ressurrection.  death cannot touch them.  they will be impervious to hot flames -no matter how hot.

You are rejecting the plain text in favor for a much nicer, un-literal version. 
"'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire...'" (Jesus speaking for God).
"...it is better for you to entire life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, the unquenchable fire..." (Jesus)
"...fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell..." (Jesus)
"The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment... But Abraham said..., 'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'" (Abraham)
"They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord." (Paul)
"Their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched..." (Isaiah)
"How shall you escape the sentence of hell?" (Jesus)


I never argued any contradiction: I think you are the one contradicting, not the Bible.  The Bible is in fact very clear on this issue, and that is what we have to accept and deal with.  But we cannot deal with it by denial.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

hell = hades =ghenna 

people take the english word hell and say -oh hell.  well, it's the same as 'lake of fire' which is mentioned also.

[timothy42b]

I don't think a fetus has a soul or is a person entitled to protection until it has awareness.

Actually I think awareness and soul are probably synonymous.  And the argument has been made that Adam's "sin" was actually the acquisition of awareness (knowledge of good and evil) and hence the soul.  But I'm at risk of digressing.

If, however, at some point the fetus does acquire a soul, then we have two possibilities if they either are aborted or somehow die "naturally." 

They all go to hell forever, which seems a bit harsh for something not their fault.

Or, they all go to heaven, because after all they've never had the chance to sin, and a loving God surely has a loophole for a case like this.

If they all go to heaven this is a significant improvement over what would happen if they were born.  Many, perhaps most, would surely lose faith or put their allegiance in the wrong God and end up in hell.  So abortion is a net gain for the souls in heaven. 

[wishful thinker]

Unborn and un-baptised children traditionally go to Limbo - a place that was neither heaven nor Hell.

I beleive that the Vatican has recently abolished Limbo and declared that these souls go to Heaven

[fiddes]

how do you abolish limbo???

do they just go poof right all you lot that have been stuck in here for the last countess centuries u can go to heven now i got rid of limbo for you?

im sorry u cant just change the rules because they dont suit the image you want to portray it doesnt work like that

[wishful thinker]

Pope abolishes Limbo
VATICAN CITY, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- Pope Benedict XVI, after deliberation by Vatican theologians, is abolishing the concept of Limbo that put the souls of unbaptized infants at risk.
While it was never a formal part of the church's doctrine, the existence of Limbo was taught until recently to Catholics around the world, The Times of London said. Limbo was described in Britain as "a place of rest where the souls of the just who died before Christ were detained."

This week an international commission of theologians began its final deliberations on the concept of Limbo. Vatican sources told the newspaper it had concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of "the universal salvation of God" and the "mediation of Christ", whether baptized or not.

A Times source said the theologians' finding basically says "that all children who die go to Heaven."

[pianistimo]

what happened before they made the ruling? 

[prometheus]

All those children that died before it went to hell. And once you are in hell not even god can save you.

[fiddes]

lol prometheus

i cant help imagine an evil laugh after that statement lol :-p

[ramseytheii]

All those children that died before it went to hell. And once you are in hell not even god can save you.

That's what I've been trying to point out.  Although the Catholic church finally got rid of its barbaric practice of telling parents of recently deceased that their children would never be in Heaven, many churches still believe this, and I am sorry to say Biblical support can be found for this theology that is neither contradictory nor cherry-picked.  The argument is damn strong.

There are two kinds of fundamentalists in Amerika, I believe: the type that is actually a Biblical literalist (this is the type that has been emailing me nasty letters), and then the type that is a literalist only on issues that have modern social/political consequences; so for instance, the issue of public acceptance of homosexuality.  So many things have been publicly accepted that are preached against in the Bible, but that are truly no longer relevant to argument in our public sphere.  The second category gives no credence to these now unarguably out-of-date declarations and punishments, but to the ones that are still in discussion, believes the Bible to be the ultimate authority.

I believe pianitisimo falls into the second category: she claims the Bible is truth, and that she is a fundamentalist, but reading her posts, you will discover that she only holds it to be truth on the issues that we have to deal with in these times.  On all other issues, she grants herself the right to interpret, and come up with far-fetched explanations, if only to deny to herself the true barbarism of what the Bible actually says: for instance, Hell is clearly described as an actual place of eternal torment, not only in the New Testament but the Old, but it is difficult for anyone to accept that, unless they are willing to accept a gruesome and violent element of an otherwise benign belief. 

For this I don't blame pianitisimo, I wouldn't accept it either, and what provokes her denial of these Scriptures is clearly a compassion for fellow souls.  It is also clear that it is this very compassion which is running counter the demands of her religion.

What the rest of us have to work towards is stretching this denial to include the passages that deny love and compassion to people actually living in our world, and eventually, the denial of the moral authority of the Book itself, since the morals it preaches are actually outrageous.  There are many minds on the fence about this, many masses of people that can be swayed by the bullying power of religion, and we have to reach those people first.

Tolstoy described a potent image: an idea that spreads through the world is like an enormous empty vessel floating on the surface of an ocean.  At first, only a little water (symbolizing the acceptance of the idea) trickles in; but as more water trickles in, the vessel becomes heavier, sinking faster, and the water begins to rush.  Eventually the vessel is subsumed: the idea has become part of the fabric of humanity.  This is what we should be working for, convincing those minds that are on the fence.  The best we can do with those who refuse to be convinced, who have already decided on fundamentalism, is to provoke, ridicule and expose as much as possible - not for their benefit, but for everybody else's.

Walter Ramsey

[fiddes]

walter,

you dont mind me calling you walter i hope

i have to laugh about your problem with the bible spammers it is quite entertaining

i wish i had one :-( there used to be this guy who would spend every day outside my work with a megaphone telling me im going to hell unless i repent my sins, and there were three people surrounding him who would hand out leaflets telling me that god will punish me by sending me to the depths of hell for eating a mcdonalds or some such

those were the good ol' days

[prometheus]

There is no limbo in the bible and limbo is part of hell, even though it may not be so unpleasant.

[thalbergmad]

I believe pianitisimo falls into the second category: she claims the Bible is truth, and that she is a fundamentalist, but reading her posts, you will discover that she only holds it to be truth on the issues that we have to deal with in these times.  On all other issues, she grants herself the right to interpret, and come up with far-fetched explanations, if only to deny to herself the true barbarism of what the Bible actually says:

I agree with you on this.

Thal

[pianistimo]

? that is what we are discussing. the issues that are brought up.  would you like to discuss OT statutes or something?  you guys speak out of both sides of your mouth.  i give you a literal argument that the bible speaks of hell as gehenna or the lake of fire - and you don't give the book of revelations even a glance.  that is where you find the scripture (rev 20) about 'the second DEATH.'  death is not eternal life - but eternal death.  it's dying a second time. it is you who are twisting scripture and making God out to be unfair to babies (whom the bible never says will die in hell) and basically anyone who does not accept Christ.  but, you forget - he is our MAker.  He can make us die even if satan  says 'you shall not surely die.'

that was the original sin.  satan telling adam and eve 'you shall not surely die.'  i believe babies will  be ressurrected into the millenium to live out their natural lives and hear the gospel preached to them.  and, for those who do not know Jesus Christ now - they will also get a fair chance.  God is fair and also merciful.  if He wasn't - what would distinguish him from our 'accuser' that accuses us 'day and night.'

the mercy of God has been seen all through hsitory. especially to doubting thomas.  and the thief on the cross.  it's always on the side of mercy - that God judges.  so, as i see it - the catholic church can believe that the pope is infallable and change their doctrine of limbo and the only thing it really proves is that the pope WAS fallible.  if 'every word of God is for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness...' then it is relevant to our time.  we are still human.

[timothy42b]

I agree with you on this.

Thal

I do too, and it was eloquently stated.

So we've got her to back off her belief in about 3/4 of the Bible. 

We're making progress.  Think we can get that last 1/4? 

[wishful thinker]

There is no limbo in the bible and limbo is part of hell, even though it may not be so unpleasant.

Wrong, Limbo was not part of Hell.  Those living in a state of Limbo were excluded from the beatific vision: they were not thought to be in any state of other punishment.

[timothy42b]

"thought to"

But these concepts, however unbiblical, are an attempt to figure out a couple of basic stumbling blocks that other denominations ignore.

One is that the most obvious interpretations of the scripture result in unbaptized children going straight to hell and being tortured for billions of years.  It seems unlikely that a God both loving and omnipotent couldn't figure a loophole.

The other is that most obvious interpretations of the "saved by grace" theology means it doesn't matter a bit how good or bad a person you are, and that just seems unfair to the average person.

Limbo is a Roman Catholic attempt to supply God a loophole, preserving his "loving" nature.  I doubt it was ever dogma, certainly it is not credal, so I think it is an explanation you were free to accept or reject personally.  (I'm not RCC and am not sure how much free will you are allowed.)  Purgatory similarly is a way to punish someone who is obviously rotten but unfortunately meets the criteria to be saved by grace.

Both are logical, but we must remember religion is not supposed to be logical. 

[ahinton]

? that is what we are discussing. the issues that are brought up.  would you like to discuss OT statutes or something?  you guys speak out of both sides of your mouth.  i give you a literal argument that the bible speaks of hell as gehenna or the lake of fire - and you don't give the book of revelations even a glance.  that is where you find the scripture (rev 20) about 'the second DEATH.'  death is not eternal life - but eternal death.  it's dying a second time. it is you who are twisting scripture and making God out to be unfair to babies (whom the bible never says will die in hell) and basically anyone who does not accept Christ.  but, you forget - he is our MAker.  He can make us die even if satan  says 'you shall not surely die.'

that was the original sin.  satan telling adam and eve 'you shall not surely die.'  i believe babies will  be ressurrected into the millenium to live out their natural lives and hear the gospel preached to them.  and, for those who do not know Jesus Christ now - they will also get a fair chance.  God is fair and also merciful.  if He wasn't - what would distinguish him from our 'accuser' that accuses us 'day and night.'

the mercy of God has been seen all through hsitory. especially to doubting thomas.  and the thief on the cross.  it's always on the side of mercy - that God judges.  so, as i see it - the catholic church can believe that the pope is infallable and change their doctrine of limbo and the only thing it really proves is that the pope WAS fallible.  if 'every word of God is for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness...' then it is relevant to our time.  we are still human.

Without wishing at this point to pick holes in, or argue with, any of the above, I must ask whether it is that I am being unduly dense or whether it is actually with good reason that I remain entirely unclear as to its relevance in the context of the thread which is supposed to be on the subject of the truth about HIV; the reason for my perplexity here is that, notwithstanding ample references to "hell", "eternal death", "doubting Thomas" (he didn't contract HIV, did he?), the "Catholic Church", "unfairness to babies", "the judgement of God", etc., there is not a single mention of HIV.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

we started discussing ramseytheii's idea that if you follow God's will to the 'T' it will not save entire continents of people with aids.  but, then he brings out the idea that condoms will save everyone.  condoms break.  so - if you follow the biblical idea of abstinence - who is hurt?  the bible is right about everything.

so - you have to read the bible for yourself. what does it really say?  is aids a NEW disease.  what were the philistines plagued with when they took the ark.  what were the egyptians plagued with?  boils?  wasting away?  i don't know for certain that it was - but we don't know for certain that it wasn't. 

i believe there is a cause and effect thing that God set into motion. if you break the laws of God, there is always an effect.  he did this even with the ten commandments.  if you honor your father and mother - youwill have a long life.  now, people might not believe this - but it doesn't make it any less true.  in fact, sometimes you can go around proving the exact words of the bible by asking people.  as someone who is quite old if they think this precept is true.  i bet they will say 'yes.'  and count the number of yes's to no's. 

it's almost like God gave us a sort of 'farmer's almanac.'  it doesn't always give every detail of making a crop successful - but it does to making the gospel successful.  Christ made the analogy of the gospel being 'sown.'  it is sown in one's mind.  to think and do rightly.  we wouldn't know what right and wrong were.  or good and evil.  adam and eve tested this - and found that choosing for themselves did not cause the 'results' window to be receptive to other alternative ways than God's own word.  it's timeless and changeless.  God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  He must have known that we would appreciate Him not changing his ideas from day to day.

[wishful thinker]

he did this even with the ten commandments.  if you honor your father and mother - youwill have a long life.  now, people might not believe this - but it doesn't make it any less true.  in fact, sometimes you can go around proving the exact words of the bible by asking people.  as someone who is quite old if they think this precept is true.  i bet they will say 'yes.'  and count the number of yes's to no's. 

what manner of gibberish is this?  How do you make the connexion between honour one's parents and having a long life?  What does the sentence "as someone who is quite old if they think this precept is true" mean? 

[ramseytheii]

Without wishing at this point to pick holes in, or argue with, any of the above, I must ask whether it is that I am being unduly dense or whether it is actually with good reason that I remain entirely unclear as to its relevance in the context of the thread which is supposed to be on the subject of the truth about HIV; the reason for my perplexity here is that, notwithstanding ample references to "hell", "eternal death", "doubting Thomas" (he didn't contract HIV, did he?), the "Catholic Church", "unfairness to babies", "the judgement of God", etc., there is not a single mention of HIV.

Best,

Alistair

Unfortunately, as conversations evolve, the titles of the pianoforum threads don't change along with them.  But I highly encourage you to read the last page or two of posts - they are interesting, very interesting indeed!

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

we started discussing ramseytheii's idea that if you follow God's will to the 'T' it will not save entire continents of people with aids.  but, then he brings out the idea that condoms will save everyone.  condoms break.  so - if you follow the biblical idea of abstinence - who is hurt?  the bible is right about everything.

This is a perfect instance of harmful conflation.  I never called contraceptives a miracle solution, but when you choose to follow the Word over the scientific consensus that contraceptives such as condoms can drastically reduce the spread of disease, you are putting yourself in danger.  When you preach to the masses of uneducated people - who never had the luxury of reading or hearing the doctor's advice - the same thing, you are committing murder.  This is unfortunately the situation that irresponsible Christians have created in such continents as Africa.  Once again, science and reason is having to work aroud the clock to undo the damage they have caused. 

This case demonstrates the hierarchy of Christian principles: the book over the life.  Since life on earth is a temporal condition, whose ending is always beneficial and merciful,  for the religious,  their natural inclination is not towards saving life on earth, but saving life "after death."  It is therefore more sinful to vaccinate against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer and kills thousands of women a year, then it is to allow those women to die.  That's fine if Christians want to treat themselves that way, but when they start enacting these ridiculous values on the rest of society, they are committing murder.

"If you follow the Biblical idea of abstinence, who is hurt?"  In other words, if you don't follow the Bibical ideas, take your pain and disease and shove it.  This is like putting a child in a room with an enormous, succulent piece of poisonous candy in one corner, and the antidote in the other, and saying, "Don't eat it.  If you eat it you will die.  If you drink the potion, you will die and go to hell."  Hell only works for those who afraid of it; as Tolstoy wrote, "Miracles are powerless to convince those who do not believe."  The child gives in to temptation, eats the candy, and dies from the poison; the Christian angle is, "But we did everything we could, and warned them of the consequences."  While I applaud the Christians for finally endorsing the idea of free will, I can't help but think it is much better to introduce antidotes and preventatives, then to needlessly risk death.

It is no secret that Christianity is an orgy of death parading as life.  All the life that happens there, begins only upon death.  Its teachings are designed to maintain the utmost in material and emotional misery while on earth, and in this case, I agree that death will be a great, grand, release.

so - you have to read the bible for yourself. what does it really say?  is aids a NEW disease.  what were the philistines plagued with when they took the ark.  what were the egyptians plagued with?  boils?  wasting away?  i don't know for certain that it was - but we don't know for certain that it wasn't. 

Yes, I beg people to read the Bible for themselves, in order to realize that the horrific things that people say are in there are actually in there. 

i believe there is a cause and effect thing that God set into motion. if you break the laws of God, there is always an effect.  he did this even with the ten commandments.  if you honor your father and mother - youwill have a long life.  now, people might not believe this - but it doesn't make it any less true.  in fact, sometimes you can go around proving the exact words of the bible by asking people.  as someone who is quite old if they think this precept is true.  i bet they will say 'yes.'  and count the number of yes's to no's. 

This is solipsism both at its finest and worst.  The idea that those who honor their father and mother will live long, suggests that those who died prematurely did not love their father and mother enough.  What for a judgment!  And, if asking people about the Bible is enough to prove or disprove the words, I beg you all, ask me about it.

it's almost like God gave us a sort of 'farmer's almanac.'  it doesn't always give every detail of making a crop successful - but it does to making the gospel successful.  Christ made the analogy of the gospel being 'sown.'  it is sown in one's mind.  to think and do rightly.  we wouldn't know what right and wrong were.  or good and evil.  adam and eve tested this - and found that choosing for themselves did not cause the 'results' window to be receptive to other alternative ways than God's own word.  it's timeless and changeless.  God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  He must have known that we would appreciate Him not changing his ideas from day to day.

I must say, in your previous post you said that Satan committed original sin.  If that is the case, then one of two things must be true:
1) We are all descendants of Satan's heritage (Paul writes that one man's sin has condemned all men, and the Old Testament describes sins of the fathers "visited" upon the children)
2) Adam and Eve are innocent, and therefore we are all innocent.

Either way, you have to choose something that is sacrilegious.  To state that Adam and Eve are innocent is to defy the Scripture of the New Testament (Paul describes the "transgressions of Adam"), and the Old (if they didn't sin, why did God punish them?).  To suggest that we bear the remainder of the sin of Satan is too horrific, by Biblical standards, to even contemplate.

For most people, who have good natures like pianitisimo clearly does, to be religious demands a certain amount of denial of the consequences of a full, committed belief.  It requires a denial of cause and effect, as known by reason, since all effect is out of our control according to this view - therefore responsibility is abdicated; it requires a denial of the violent truths of the sacred texts, since those go against the pleasure-producing parts of the non-perverse brain; and it requires a general "willing suspension of disbelief." 

Much verbiage has been spilled trying to justify through translation, symbolic interpretation, or other vague techniques that the cruel, intolerant parts of the Bible don't mean what they seem to.  It is time for us all to confess to ourselves, the cruel, intolerant, vengeful passages are not only there in black and white, meaning nothing symbolic but what they say, but also outnumber the pleas to compassion by 10 to 1.

Walter Ramsey

[wishful thinker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Bible literalism is a) wrong (the Bible is a mixture of simplified concepts, allegory, history and morality that cannot be all taken as literal truth)* b) not mainstream Christian thinking** and c) entirely misses the point, the central message.

* this is not the same things as saying that the Bible is wrong or untrue

** some of the things written here as defence of Bible literalism would have been denounced as heresy in the 16th Century and resulted in being burned alive at the stake

and it has absolutely nothing to do with piano 

[ramseytheii]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Bible literalism is a) wrong (the Bible is a mixture of simplified concepts, allegory, history and morality that cannot be all taken as literal truth)* b) not mainstream Christian thinking** and c) entirely misses the point, the central message.

* this is not the same things as saying that the Bible is wrong or untrue

** some of the things written here as defence of Bible literalism would have been denounced as heresy in the 16th Century and resulted in being burned alive at the stake

and it has absolutely nothing to do with piano 

Good thing it's in the "Anything but piano" board. 

A) I agree.  But there is no argument there in any case: for those who say it is literal, it is true no matter what.  For those that say it isn't, it is false no matter what.  I say yes, others say no.  That's as far as that can go.  The real battle is stopping this interpretation from becoming the force that legislates the lives of innocent people, and winning over the minds that are on the fence, the minds that are susceptible to religious bullying and fear-mongering.

B) I don't know if it is or if it isn't.  But I always engage it when I see it, because it's a very simple and easy way of thinking that is attractive for those who have difficulty finding direction, or security, or community.  By no means am I criticizing those people, but they should all know of the vast wealth of knowledge and enlightenment and community that lies well outside the Biblical prison.  In the words of creationists, people should be exposed to "differing views," like atheism and rational philosophy.

C) Who are you to say what the central message is?  Every sect of Christianity is based around a principle it believes to be the central message.  They fight and kill each other, and have done so for 2000 years, because they can't stand that others claim to have the "central message," that they know for sure they own.  They don't hesitate to call each other fake, "not true Christians," or anything of the sort.  And have you noticed that in each case, God is giving the authority to say that?  If this is true, that means that God is deliberately spreading sectarian warfare amongst his followers.

Even if we can all agree that the central message of Christianity is encapsulated in the new commandment given in the Gospels, the way of living that commandment varies so vastly as to lead to war, strife, torture, and disaster.  Because of this new commandment, must Christians evangelize?  If so, how far must they go to spread the Word?  You can get the "central message" and still be a brutal person, still be a person whose ears and mind are closed to the suffering that these beliefs are causing, in places like Africa, where the main leadership is Christian churches who refuse to spread knowledge of scientific ways to stop the spread of terminal disease.  There is a vacuum in political leadership, where the political leaders believe that a hot shower will prevent AIDS, and you know how much knowledge they lack when Bill Clinton hugging an AIDS victim is front page news.  Thank God he did it, to spread awareness, but doesn't that tell you something?

Ideas have consequences.  The ideas in the Bible have such far-reaching and destructive consequences it can barely be contemplated by a sane person. 

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

Unfortunately, as conversations evolve, the titles of the pianoforum threads don't change along with them.  But I highly encourage you to read the last page or two of posts - they are interesting, very interesting indeed!

Walter Ramsey

I have read them already, as well as reading yours which contain much of interest, but my point remains as before; of course discussion threads can evolve, but I perceive quite a difference of both emphasis and effect between such evolution and the deliberate introduction of material inherently extraneous to the matter in hand, as my post above sought to demonstrate.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

the words aids and limbo are not in the bible.  you are correct, alistair (notice i am not mad at you anymore) and risking further enmeshment between blaming the devil or adam and ev e- i choose to be feisty and blame it all on the devil.  is that ok, ramseytheii.  i know i will never be a catholic.  so, in any case i will burn, according to catholic doctrine.  just as ramseytheii is not bothered - neither am i.  although i think i gave ramseytheii two pages to think about at least.  he didn't say 'don't read the last two pages.' 

you want heresy.  ok.  how about my own web page for $5.00.  i now have a place for people to send me messages about basically anything.  so if you want to complain.  have a question.  tell me off.  tell me i'm your best friend.  ask for piano information.  you'll have a place.  then, poor nils won't be thinking 'i mean anything but religion and politics, too' - because he doesn't seem like an argumentative sort.  of course, my site will be basically about piano, too - but may as well make it a sort of renaissance site.

i have a question for all you people who have your own web pages.  do you think it is entirely ok to mix several things that you do (ie piano lessons, piano performance, sewing, reading tutoring, etc) or should i make separate web pages for everything not piano.  i'm thinking the latter.  but, it gets expensive to maintain, right?  does anyone have a sort of renaissance site where they just talk about piano, sewing, gardening - anything!?  or am i truly crazy?  feel free to tell me.

[ahinton]

the words aids and limbo are not in the bible.  you are correct, alistair

Your admission here is appreciated and understood.

(notice i am not mad at you anymore)

Thank you, Susan; yes, I did inded notice...

i know i will never be a catholic.  so, in any case i will burn, according to catholic doctrine.  just as ramseytheii is not bothered - neither am i.  although i think i gave ramseytheii two pages to think about at least.  he didn't say 'don't read the last two pages.'

No, I'm sure you won't, just as I am that Thal won't burn in any fires of the kind that he signs off about - but then that's at least in part because I don't give any credence to this hell-fire stuff. Roman Catholics are Christians. You are also a Christian who claims that she will never be a Roman Catholic. All this threat, hell-fire and all the rest, whether it comes from the Catholic fraternity (who, in my experience, are - when other than at their best - most adept at engendering guilt complexes) or the Christian fundamentalist left or indeed anywhere else within the Christian fraternity is fear-mongering pure and simple - and deeply distasteful and (for me, at least) equally deeply un-Christian.

you want heresy.  ok.  how about my own web page for $5.00.  i now have a place for people to send me messages about basically anything.  so if you want to complain.  have a question.  tell me off.  tell me i'm your best friend.  ask for piano information.  you'll have a place.  then, poor nils won't be thinking 'i mean anything but religion and politics, too' - because he doesn't seem like an argumentative sort.  of course, my site will be basically about piano, too - but may as well make it a sort of renaissance site.

Can't speak for Nils (who can, I'm sure, express himself very articulately without any help from either of us in any case), but I note that you don't provide the URL of your site...

or am i truly crazy?  feel free to tell me.

That's surely the kind of invitation to Thal that you ought by now to know better than to offer...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

from now - just to be less heretical - i will write only in latin.  then NOBODY will understand what i am saying.  as i understand it - that's the way mass is going.  it is said - it is a much better language to pray in?  why? does God speak latin.  what if he doesn't.  then who is listening? 

i just want to be heretical today.  nevermind me.  only 20 % or less of catholics want latin mass anyways.  at least some are reasonable.  but, will they get their way?  no - not unless the supreme court has some say in catholic doctrine.  you know we have a majority of catholic supreme court judges.  what does that say - that they are impartial or that they will end up speaking in latin?

well, must watch my p's and q's.  that is why i am off to attend to my site about everything and anything.  maybe that's what i will call it.  although 'susanthepianolady' is the name my son gave my site.  i don't think it's up and running yet.  he's working on it.  (nevermind the one octave keyboard at the top.  it's just a ploy).

[thalbergmad]

from now - just to be less heretical - i will write only in latin.  then NOBODY will understand what i am saying. 

I thought you already did, and does anybody?

Thal

[counterpoint]

does God speak latin. 

No, he speaks hebrew 

[ahinton]

No, he speaks hebrew 

Depends whose God's being talked about, surely?...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

perhaps God is multi-lingual and it's really not a problem.  i suppose that when we all find out what's behind door #3   (door #1 born  door #2 die  door #3 ressurrected) we'll hear some kind of language that is unspeakably easy to understand even if it wasn't fully spoken before.   perhaps the holy spirit will be the key to speaking and understanding many languages easily.  especially God's.

[timothy42b]

so, in any case i will burn, according to catholic doctrine. 

I think you have misunderstood.  I am not catholic but my wife was (we are now both Episcopal).  (Because the music's better, of course.  Have you ever been to a Catholic service?  Doh!) 

As I understand RC doctrine, all believers are saved regardless of denomination, but the Catholics worship more correctly.

I do understand fundamentalist Protestant doctrine:  Catholics are not Christians, the Pope is the Antichrist, and all are going to hell. 

[ahinton]

perhaps God is multi-lingual and it's really not a problem.  i suppose that when we all find out what's behind door #3   (door #1 born  door #2 die  door #3 ressurrected) we'll hear some kind of language that is unspeakably easy to understand even if it wasn't fully spoken before.

Sounds as though you're referring to "speaking in tongues"...

perhaps the holy spirit will be the key to speaking and understanding many languages easily.  especially God's.

I must admit that I'd never put the music critic and inveterate multilinguist Martin Anderson down as being especially soaked in the holy spirit...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Any chance of a return to serious consideration of the thread topic? It's not that unimportant a subject, surely?...

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Any chance of a return to serious consideration of the thread topic? It's not that unimportant a subject, surely?...

Best,

Alistair

The original post was an allegation of a nefarious start to the HIV epidemic, basically a completely wacko conspiracy theory linking it to vaccination.

There's little to discuss as there's no evidence whatsoever to support that.  However we've stayed marginally on topic talking religion, as the fairly widespread and deeply felt opposition to vaccination resides primarily within the fundamentalist Protestant community.  I confess I am ignorant of all the linkages, beyond the obvious anti-science basis. 

HIV has not been found in any blood samples before the midfifties, and we have lots of old tissue samples stored for the last 100 years or more, so I think we can rule out pianistimo's speculation that it is one of the Biblical plagues.

Vaccinations are also linked in the paranoid mind to mercury and autism.  Again there's no science to support it, and pretty conclusive evidence against, but remember the constant here is to oppose vaccination itself.   

[ramseytheii]

perhaps God is multi-lingual and it's really not a problem.  i suppose that when we all find out what's behind door #3   (door #1 born  door #2 die  door #3 ressurrected) we'll hear some kind of language that is unspeakably easy to understand even if it wasn't fully spoken before.   perhaps the holy spirit will be the key to speaking and understanding many languages easily.  especially God's.

If only God's language could be understood on Earth.  As Tolstoy wrote, "If God had so come down to reveal unfailing truth to men, at least He would have revealed it in such a way that all might understand."

Walter Ramsey