The truth about HIV.

[ramseytheii]

This conversation provoked an interesting thought.  To those who look at religion and religious people from the outside, it's more than obvious that the standard behavior is to cherry-pick some of the hundreds of rules and regulations and ignore others, whether the punishment is said to be the same or not.  It is equally obvious to those looking in from the outside that this is hypocritical at best, and idiotic somewhere near the worst. 

What then to do?  A lot of energy seems to be spent pointing out these blatant, and often hilarious, hypocrisies, but that doesn't actually affect the person committing the crime.  Now I understand the importance of the work of Christopher Hitchens, who said the goal should be to marginalize religion as much as possible.  In other words, we should all share a laugh when we hear someone going on and on about how chapter 18 should be followed to the letter, and chapter 19 is just old-fashioned.

Since the inconsistencies, errors, hypocrisies, and ignorance are plainly visible to us, let us just be amused, and rejoice in their occasional appearance, rather than attempt to set them straight - since that will never happen.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Since the inconsistencies, errors, hypocrisies, and ignorance are plainly visible to us, let us just be amused, and rejoice in their occasional appearance, rather than attempt to set them straight - since that will never happen.

Well said sir, I completely agree.

I will moderate my posting style and not get angry with Sister Susan, as she just doesn't know any better.

Thal

[prometheus]

Pianistimo makes me cry, well, almost.

[pianistimo]

ramseytheii, there is no verse in the bible about lipstick.  it's an open and shut case.

[ramseytheii]

ramseytheii, there is no verse in the bible about lipstick.  it's an open and shut case.

I'm exceedingly glad to hear it!

Walter Ramsey

[timothy42b]

ramseytheii, there is no verse in the bible about lipstick.  it's an open and shut case.

Nor abortion.

Do we ever have to decide between the intent, and the letter of the law? 

[ramseytheii]

Nor abortion.

Do we ever have to decide between the intent, and the letter of the law? 

Yes, for those things that actually are laws.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

abortion is murder.  murder is one of the ten commandments.  i mean - not to murder.

look.  suck out a 6-7 month old fetus and what do you have?  a baby.  it can't breath yet - but - it's ridiculous that people think -it's not a life.  it was living when it was inside the mom.  if you give any baby the chance to live - it will live.  it's making a conscious choice to kill something.  that's how i see it.

also, there are many people who cannot have children.  why not let them adopt?  it's crazy to kill a baby because the parents can't care for it.  you hear of babies being aborted and put into trash cans (dead or alive).  why?  trash cans?  they are such valuable little beings.

ok.  find lipstick in the trash can - that's one thing.  a baby is completely another.

[wishful thinker]

At last - pianistimo talks sense 

[prometheus]

They only abort up to 5 months. After that it is illegal.

So if abortion before 6 to 7 is not murder there is no reason to make it a crime, right?

[ramseytheii]

also, there are many people who cannot have children.  why not let them adopt? 

Look, I also think homosexual parents should be able to adopt, but is this really the place and time?

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

At least she got over her thing against homosexuals and became a bit more of a caring person.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, you don't know me.  i never 'had a thing' against homosexuals in the first place.  i said, 'given the chance - i would preach the gospel to them.'  but, only if they were asking.  never have i been concerned about someone's sexual orientation concerning friendship, a job,  or whether to do business (store).  sometimes the best help and kindest comes from people who treat you with the same gentleness and compassion.  they don't have to be female - although the guy who rubbed lotion on my hand in the mall was probably not gay.  just like the particular lotion he was selling.  anyways - i'm trying to say - i don't think 'are they or aren't they?'  i really don't care.  but, if their spiritual welfare might be at stake - so if they asked me - i would not just pick out homosexuality - but everything that the bible says.  there is a lot of good information in the bible to living happily and healthily.  not everyone chooses it.

about abortion - perhaps i didn't speak the fulness of what was in my heart.  personally, i feel that everytime i've been pregnant - i felt 'life' inside me from day one.  i was hungrier.  felt more tired.  needed more water.  many things like this.  how can you feel completely different and not be carrying a life?  men might feel a bit distanced from the situation because they don't feel this little life growing in them every day.  but, women usually feel a bit of responsiblity for what they eat and do during pregnancy.  it will affect the outcome.  well, if you are worried about the outcome - why would you suddenly abort it?  i just don't understand.  it seems like a whim to abort a fetus so someone else can use it for research.  that's what they do, you know.  and be careful about amniocentesis because it 's saying - if my child has downs - you have permission to murder it.  there is a high risk of early labor with amnio.  i think it is a stupid test, myself.  even if you know that you will have a baby with needs - there is always someone to care for the baby and help available.  but, i respect that people choose to do what they choose to do.  i have never held vigil over an abortion clinic.  i feel if someone is crazy - they need someone to talk to before doing a drastic thing.  to me, talking to women about the sanctity of life might keep them from hurting themselves and their babies.

and ps - i don't think there is any such thing as a 'safe' abortion.  it kills the baby and often causes women to hemmorage.  that is because the uterus is literally scraped out.  it's a very unnatural procedure.

[thalbergmad]

i never 'had a thing' against homosexuals in the first place. 

Indeed, you just called it evil.

Don't try and deny it, I kept the post.

Thal

[pianistimo]

there are many interpretations of biblical passages.  some churches believe that homosexuality is actually promoted by the bible.  choose what you will.  i can't decide what is good or evil for you - so why does it matter.  but, what if someone's future with God is at stake by words in the bible.  would it matter what sin it was?  repentance is for any sin.  not just picking which ones.  so i am just as sinful as anyone else without repentance.  repentance is basically admitting fault.  david said 'against Thee only have i sinned.'  so it's really noone else's business.  but, preaching the gospel is.  it is simply letting the words be there.  people can do as they like.  they can choose what the bible says or not choose it.  it is a choice.  i'm not saying there is no choice - i'm saying that preachers don't read leviticus if they think it's not a sin.  sin =evil to GOD.

[thalbergmad]

there are many interpretations of biblical passages. 

Aghh, now we are making some progress.

Thal

[pianistimo]

you pick what you want - but the entire bible is inspired.  this is where people go wrong.  they don't cross reference.  anwyays- i think you're a great person and care about your salvation more that what you do day to day.  john travolta had me worried in the latest issue of reader's digest.  the front cover said he had a sex change.  i thought - 'what a waste of a perfectly good man.'  then, the inside says he's doing a movie where he's casted as a fat lady.

ps i think this is just a wierd argument that you have no real vested interest in - other than irritating your mother and scaring your friends.  you would not be believeable in a dress.  in fact, good luck to you to attempt any sort of 'cross-dressing' experiment that anyone would find 'pickupable' in any real sense of the word. your legs are too enboldened.

i happened to be watching this really strange reality wedding show - and the bride decided to invite a cross-dressed marilyn monroe to be seated with her wedding guests (just to throw a little distraction into the thing).  it was fairly hilarious.

[timothy42b]

david said 'against Thee only have i sinned.' 

Didn't he kill Uriah so he could steal his wife? 

And he certainly felt no shame kissing a naked Jonathan.  And no, that was NOT common practice back then, don't even try that one. 

[timothy42b]

abortion is murder.  murder is one of the ten commandments.  i mean - not to murder.

While the bible does say murder is wrong, nowhere does it say or imply that abortion is murder.

In fact there is considerable support for the opposite. 

The bible defines life as breath, and the start of life as taking breath, in several places.

And specifically in the old testament, either the Leviticus that pianistimmo loves so much, or Deuteronomy (I can't remember), the bible deals with the crime of causing a miscarriage.

It is not murder and it is not severely punished.  It is a property crime against the husband, and there is reimbursement required. 

[pianistimo]

the bible also speaks of the psalmist's bones being 'knit' in the womb.  if God is in the process of creating something - who are we to destroy it?  personhood can be conception, imo.  for others - it means breath.  but, if we consider only consciousness personhood - then we could start killing babies in hospitals for various reasons such as knowing the baby will develop downs syndrome or whatever.  this is making a judgement about the outcome of a baby and then killing it before it reaches that stage.

i am a live and let live person.  if the fetus doesn't die on it's own - and is thriving.  why kill something that is alive.  ALIVE.  not dead. 

[cziffra]

ok, so have a c section at 4 months.  the "baby" will live, right? 

[pianistimo]

animals don't give each other c-sections.  why do people believe 'natural natural' evolution - and then do very 'unatural' things that go against even nature itself.  personally, i believe God created life and that it is holy and sanctified.  the power of God creates life.

[ramseytheii]

animals don't give each other c-sections.  why do people believe 'natural natural' evolution - and then do very 'unatural' things that go against even nature itself.  personally, i believe God created life and that it is holy and sanctified.  the power of God creates life.

I agree, C-sections should be banned as unnatural, because animals don't do it.
By the way, animals do do it.

Walter Ramsey

[notturno]

animals don't give each other c-sections. 

In the not too distant past, many mothers and children died in childbirth.  I would think that the Christian belief in the sanctity of life would support C-sections.

Animals sometimes eat their own young, or their newborn siblings.  My childhood was slightly traumatized by witnessing my pet hamsters cannibalizing their littermates.  As far as I know, humans are the only animal that read the Bible.

[ramseytheii]

In the not too distant past, many mothers and children died in childbirth.  I would think that the Christian belief in the sanctity of life would support C-sections.

Animals sometimes eat their own young, or their newborn siblings.  My childhood was slightly traumatized by witnessing my pet hamsters cannibalizing their littermates.  As far as I know, humans are the only animal that read the Bible.

That's a great argument.  Chimpanzees and dolphins don't read the bible, so why should we?  Then again, one may counter that hell is full of chimpanzees, dolphins, and other demonic beasts that don't read the Bible.  In fact, I rather hope one does.

Walter Ramsey

[rob47]

That's a great argument.  Chimpanzees and dolphins don't read the bible, so why should we?  Then again, one may counter that hell is full of chimpanzees, dolphins, and other demonic beasts that don't read the Bible.  In fact, I rather hope one does.

Walter Ramsey

Thats crazy that you mention demonic dolphins and chimpanzees because it reminded me of this picture i drew on MS paint 2 or 3 years ago for no particular reason



 

[pianistimo]

i didn't mean c-sections are unnecessary for humans at times- but at four months of gestation.  i don't mean - torn apart like animals do when they eat each other.  i mean - typically mother animals are concerned about their young and do what it takes to protect them.  what is this?  just giving your body and your child to science at four months. it sounds like a concentration camp.  at four months - a c-section would be completely unnecessary.  this is such a wierd conversation.

why not think positive.  why don't people have babies because they want them?  or give them up for adoption.  why is this necessity of killing?  i think it's killing.

[timothy42b]

i think it's killing.

I am fine with you considering it killing.

It distresses me that because you consider it killing, with zero basis beyond some shakey and purely religious thinking, you feel justified in making it illegal for everybody else.  And if a doctor should perform one to save a mother's life, send him to prison.  (recent US law) 

That is the tragedy.

Don't like abortion?  Don't have one. 

[pianistimo]

i never said i'd want to send a doctor to prison for saving a young teenager - or whatever - but in general.

i think people tend to pick worst case scenarios to justify worst choice scenarios.  a drug mother who just wants to keep doing drugs and aborting babies.  this isn't fair to her or the babies that keep getting nixed.  but, who makes money?  and can these fetuses be used for medical purposes?  ok.  so there's an advantage to having women abort a lot of fetuses.  who should control this?  should it be uncontrolled?

if women have a right to choose - what about the unborn babies right to live?  does it have no rights?  i realize it's a touchy subject - but i think it's a matter of responsibility.  if a woman has sex - she may as well know that she has a high liklihood of having a baby.  women are childbearing from the age of 13.  does that mean they should start having sex at 13?

[ramseytheii]

i think people tend to pick worst case scenarios to justify worst choice scenarios.  a drug mother who just wants to keep doing drugs and aborting babies. 

"Hi Jeanine, it's Stacy."
"Hay-hay Stacy girl, what's up?"
"I just got my hands on some smack.  Want to shoot up and abort some babies?"
"Awesome, I'll be over in 5.  Gotta get preg' first."

women are childbearing from the age of 13.  does that mean they should start having sex at 13?

"Stacy, we need to have a talk."
"Ok mom.."
"Now that you're 13, you need to start doing it.  I've called the Lang's across the street, and Frankie is coming over."
"Not Frankie, he smells like Cheetos!"
"It's not your choice sweetie.  You can pick who to bang when you're 18.  Until then, if you live under my roof, you follow my rules."

Tastelessly,
Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

I am fine with you considering it killing.

It's killing. Just as trying to get cured from cancer is killing the cancer cell.


And just as eating unions and potatoes killing. Not only are you killing the cells you eat, you kill the whole plant.


The bible teaches us that life is sacred. But if we don't kill we will lose our own sacredness very quickly.

So we have to think hard about what we are allowed to kill and what not.


I am a vegetarian. While I think the government should protect the basic rights of animals I don't think the government should dictate that no one is allowed to kill a single animal, which of course includes mosquitoes and spiders.



But luckily for us the bible does not teach "Thou shalt not kill". It says "Thou shalt not murder."

So please explain to me why killing of embryos should be considered murder. Even if we go to hell if we abort babies, because it is against gods rules, why should the government decide for me if I want to obey god or not?

Don't you end up with people in heaven who ought to have been in hell that way? Even if the god of the OT exists I see not even a theological argument for banning abortion.

[ramseytheii]

So please explain to me why killing of embryos should be considered murder. Even if we go to hell if we abort babies, because it is against gods rules, why should the government decide for me if I want to obey god or not?

Don't you end up with people in heaven who ought to have been in hell that way? Even if the god of the OT exists I see not even a theological argument for banning abortion.

Prometheus, aborted or miscarried babies, according to the Catholic church for centuries, went to Limbo because they were never baptized.  They weren't allowed into heaven, but the Church couldn't bring itself to tell the grieving parents that their babies were in hell.  For other churches, I am sure aborted babies would be considered in hell, because of original sin.  According to that doctrine, we all sin before we are born.  They never confessed and received Christ Jesus as their personal savior, so they will surely go to hell.  The ironic thing is that these Christians pretend like they are not being mean or rude by saying so, like they are just telling God's honest truth.  How passive-aggressive can you get?


Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

So god punishes a baby I aborted, well I am not female but let's say, because I aborted the baby. Why would I care? As long as I do the right thing I get to go to heaven.


Why does the state need to correct god by making sure god doesn't send the wrong people to hell??

[pianistimo]

the state doesn't even mention 'god.'  why would they care about hell?  they care about money.  making it.  abortion costs money.

regarding the 13 year olds - we need some quotes from teachers who teach sex ed to that age in 6th or 7th grade.  passing out condoms and telling everyone to 'be safe' isn't exactly education.

but, i hear 'kids will be kids.'  not if they would educate them about sex and std's.  they do that in pennsylvania.  it's much more effective than california.  do you realize how many girls drop out of highschool in california due to pregnancy.  i feel that pennsylvania does give the option of abstinence and TALK about it.  about the positive effects of it.

who is most likely to get an abortion?  young girls.  people who have been raped.  those are not the typical married/children - unless someone has a highpowered career and doesn't want any more (and already has a lot of children).  i think that women who make those decisions are somewhat defying the purpose women were made for - but that's a whole different debate.  i truly feel that women's happiest purpose is to have children - because it's a protective cycle.  the mother protects the children - and the more children she has - the more family and all to protect her as she ages.  it's a win - win situation and some of the happiest families i've seen are very large.  perhaps even catholic.  i'm not against people having different doctrines than me.  in fact, in many ways - i think the catholic church is right about married couples accepting as many children as God gives them.  regarding young girls and/or rape victims - i would not be so dogmatic although it would depend on the young girl's age as to whether she could have the baby and adopt it out.

as i see it - and this is my opinion - God wouldn't condemn babies to hell anyways - unless He was evil.  if a baby dies - is the babies fault?  no.  so why would the concept of a baby going to hell make any sense whatsoever.  it doesn't to me.  i think the bible talks about the millenium where every child is given the chance to grow to 100.  that means they are ressurrected (in their tiny infant state - or whatever state they died in - young child) - and they are given the opportunity to live out the rest of their life on this earth.  otherwise - how do the 'meek inherit the earth?'  i think it is a literal inheritance when the earth is at peace for 1000 years.  even the animals are said to be at peace.  this will be the environment for aborted babies, young children who died from crime, and girls who are abducted and murdered.  a chance to have their little lives back.

[pianistimo]

my last thought is that God always has 'consequences' for every action.  so, if we make decisions based upon a thought process that does not consider the consequences - it seems free at the time.  but, truly bound by a 'universal law' in the end.  whether abortion or live birth -it is a consequence of an action.  so, if children are taught that it might be best to be abstinent for a while - who is hurt?  nobody.  why don't people teach ALL the options and promote the BESt one.

[thalbergmad]

my last thought

Really?

[thalbergmad]

do you realize how many girls drop out of highschool in california due to pregnancy. 

Are you sure you don't mean "at" instead of "of"?

Thal

[prometheus]

Good to see that Pianistimo doesn't want abortion made illegal by the state.


Notice how many of those fundamentalists hate the state so much but do depend on it to force their morality down on every body else?

[ramseytheii]

Good to see that Pianistimo doesn't want abortion made illegal by the state.


Notice how many of those fundamentalists hate the state so much but do depend on it to force their morality down on every body else?

Bravo!  It's the ultimate contradiction, and I am glad that in Amerika, we are still American enough to reject such faith-based initiatives as passing a bill for the sake of keeping a feeding tube in a brain-dead woman.  This is the height of fascism, and should be ridiculed and derided as much as it was in the media.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

as i see it - and this is my opinion - God wouldn't condemn babies to hell anyways - unless He was evil.  if a baby dies - is the babies fault?  no.  so why would the concept of a baby going to hell make any sense whatsoever.  it doesn't to me.  i

You are rejecting the doctrine of Original Sin, which states that all of mankind bears the sins of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel.  In order to be redeemed from the original sin, all Christian churches, regardless of tribe, state that you have to be baptized in the faith and accept Jesus and Jesus alone as a personal savior.  According to the New Testament, those who don't accept Jesus as a personal savior are condemned to hell.

If an unborn child counts as a person, with rights to living, then they also bear the mark of original sin.  If they die without being baptized, or accepting Jesus as their savior, they must be destined to hell, or else the Bible is wrong.  These are the painful facts, just a small portion of many such painful facts in the Bible, that cannot be ignored by anyone in or outside of the faith.

The Catholic Church, at the Vatican II council, recognized the horrific effects of telling parents that their deceased unborn or stillborn children would never be in heaven, and finally rejected that verdict.  However, what does that say about the veracity of any of their other claims?  What does that say about anyone who presumes to know of heaven and hell?  I could say what it tells you, but this forum would block out my words.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Interesting.

I cannot wait to see the "literalist" answer to that.

Thal

[pianistimo]

what does it tell me, ramseytheii?  i don't presume to know all catholic doctrine - how do you know what it tells me regarding salvation.  is it something bad?  is God bad.  is the bible bad?  am i bad for believing the bible.  why would the forum knock out the words.  you don't like that babies won't die?  remember, i'm not catholic and i don't believe in the concept of 'original sin.'  i believe that sin is not passed from person to person - but ideas are.  perhaps catholic ones (but, lest i get myself into much trouble) i will say that most ideas are passed from family to family and generation to generation.

but, what were adam and eve taught?  if they were originally born into sin - how were they in the garden of paradise until they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  i'd say that their choice affected the world in terms of death - but that sin was already lurking there because satan influenced their decision.  he literally went about to deceive them.  if he hadn't done that - what would have happened?  would they have continued to fear God?  probably.

so, that is why the serpent was cursed FIRST.  he was literally responsible for a deception.  for telling the first man and woman that 'you will never die.'  that means that they had inherent life within them and didn't need a savior.  in other words - there is no sin and you will not die.  but, if sin 'entered the world' - then - it was THERE for others to sin.  but was abraham counted as a sinner?  no.  why was he considered a saint?  i think because he did not listen to deception.  was he baptized?  i don't think so.  but, if he is a saint - how can he be listed in the parable of lazarus where he is comforted in the bosom of abraham?  (i think that is in the NT parable).  and why the parable about taking care of poor people - if we are inherently sinful anyways.  we may as well all go around killing each other.  especially vulnerable children at four months of gestation (this is my interpretation of the other thread on abortion - of which you know i am joking here). 

as i see it - it wasn't 'original' sin - because satan had previously sinned when he left the abode that God had for him and took 1/3 of the angels.

[pianistimo]

another place the bible mentions abraham is in matthew 3 where the saducees and pharisees were coming for baptism and john the baptist called them 'you brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come...therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'we have abraham for our father;' for i say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to abraham.'

so, in effect john the baptist is stressing that it isn't baptism alone that saves - but also works that lead to fruitful repentance.  he said he baptized with water, but that Jesus would baptize with either the holy spirit or fire.  only those two things.  so, if we are not able to be baptized by water - we CAN be baptized by the holy spirit if we are repentant of our sins.  otherwise - there remains no mercy and that is what 'baptism by fire' is.  a burning up of the tares after the wheat is gathered.  it is a warning to people to listen to the words of God because their salvation is at stake.  if there was no need to repent - we would just accept that everyone has sin and that Jesus couldn't do a thing about it.  but, he is our 'intercessor.'  there is NOONE that can intercede for us excepting him.  forget that peter was the head of the church - because in the end peter will not save anyone.  peter's name was changed to papa - or pope.  'father.'  but, JEsus said 'call noone father' excepting your father in heaven.  so the pope can't save you either.

[ramseytheii]

what does it tell me, ramseytheii?  i don't presume to know all catholic doctrine - how do you know what it tells me regarding salvation.  is it something bad?  is God bad.  is the bible bad?  am i bad for believing the bible.  why would the forum knock out the words.  you don't like that babies won't die?  remember, i'm not catholic and i don't believe in the concept of 'original sin.'  i believe that sin is not passed from person to person - but ideas are.  perhaps catholic ones (but, lest i get myself into much trouble) i will say that most ideas are passed from family to family and generation to generation.

Original sin isn't a Vatican ("Catholic") doctrine, it's in the Bible.  I know you're picky with what you believe from the Old Testament, but in this case it appears in both.  Paul wrote that one's man sin led to condemnation for all; and since Satan is not a man, he is obviously talking about Adam.  He also wrote that man is inherently sinful.  This is not a Catholic doctrine written in the 1300s, nor is it a proclamation from the Old Testament that Christians can feel safe to disregard, this is the Acts of the Apostles.  People will go to enormous lengths to convince themselves first, and others secondly, that such things don't exist, but they are there in black and white.

I won't say whether you are bad or not for believing in the Bible.  But I know many people who aren't bad who don't believe a single word in the Bible.  Unless that makes them bad!

but, what were adam and eve taught?  if they were originally born into sin - how were they in the garden of paradise until they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  i'd say that their choice affected the world in terms of death - but that sin was already lurking there because satan influenced their decision.  he literally went about to deceive them.  if he hadn't done that - what would have happened?  would they have continued to fear God?  probably.

The original sin is obviously being expelled from the Garden.  This is the sin of the fathers that is "visited upon the children," as it says in Exodus.  Because of their expulsion, according to the Bible, all are born into sin, and need to be redeemed by proclaiming Jesus to be their personal savior.  My argument about the unborn children hinges on a premise: are they considered living beings, separate from the mother, or not?  If they are, they too carry the sin from the expulsion of Eden, and death before baptism will condemn them to hell.  If they are not, that opens up a new argument entirely.

so, that is why the serpent was cursed FIRST.  he was literally responsible for a deception.  for telling the first man and woman that 'you will never die.'  that means that they had inherent life within them and didn't need a savior.  in other words - there is no sin and you will not die.  but, if sin 'entered the world' - then - it was THERE for others to sin.  but was abraham counted as a sinner?  no.  why was he considered a saint?  i think because he did not listen to deception.  was he baptized?  i don't think so.  but, if he is a saint - how can he be listed in the parable of lazarus where he is comforted in the bosom of abraham?  (i think that is in the NT parable).  and why the parable about taking care of poor people - if we are inherently sinful anyways.  we may as well all go around killing each other.  especially vulnerable children at four months of gestation (this is my interpretation of the other thread on abortion - of which you know i am joking here). 

There were no others, there was only Adam and Eve.  The angel Satan is not a person, and obviously has everlasting life according to the Scriptures, so cannot sin.  It was them that ate of the forbidden fruit, and brought condemnation to all, as we can also find in the Psalms, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Your last questoins strike me as defensive.  I am sorry you find the idea of inherent sin unpleasant.  I am surprised you never heard about it in church.  I used to think it was absurd and could be disregarded, until I realized it is actually in the Bible, all over the place.  Nobody can make up your mind for you, but anyone who takes the Bible as the end-all, must reckon with this.  I believe firmly the evidence is stacked in favor of original sin.

as i see it - it wasn't 'original' sin - because satan had previously sinned when he left the abode that God had for him and took 1/3 of the angels.

Sin is something only humans can commit.  Since Satan is obviously immortal, there is no sin he can commit.  The Scriptures never say that angels were made in God's image, as they do of humans.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

so, in effect john the baptist is stressing that it isn't baptism alone that saves - but also works that lead to fruitful repentance.  he said he baptized with water, but that Jesus would baptize with either the holy spirit or fire.  only those two things.  so, if we are not able to be baptized by water - we CAN be baptized by the holy spirit if we are repentant of our sins.

Exactly: if there is repentance.  An unborn child has no notion of repentance.  According to the Bible, the sins of Adam were visited upon all the generations; Jesus is the savior who will redeem the world not only for committed sins, but for original sin, the sin of man rejecting God.  If an unborn child is a person, they share in original sin, but have no means of repentance.  Perhaps they can be baptized through the womb.  But what about all those that weren't?  The Bible tells us they are in eternal hellfire.  This is what we are ordered to believe.

there is NOONE that can intercede for us excepting him.  forget that peter was the head of the church - because in the end peter will not save anyone.  peter's name was changed to papa - or pope.  'father.'  but, JEsus said 'call noone father' excepting your father in heaven.  so the pope can't save you either.

You're committing sacrilege; Jesus gave the Apostles the power to heal and save.  You are mistaken in thinking this is a Catholic Church issue.  This is a Biblical issue.  Honestly, I am surprised it never came up in your church, because it is an essential issue, and one that has been around since before the Catholic Church.

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

i think there are very many deceptions.  so far, they have been discussed as babies going to hell.  whereas in isaiah 65:20 'no longer will there be in it an infant who lives only a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days, for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed.  and they shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall also plant vineyards and eat their fruit, they shall not build, and another inhabit, they shall not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a tree, so shall be the days of My people.'

now, what people is he talking about?  the people who are ressurrected to this life again (from ezekiel 37 - the valley of dry bones).  these are people who are not yet saved.  why else would they live out the rest of their lives in peace.  'the wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like an ox; and dust shall be the serpents food.  they shall do no evil or harm in all my holy mountain,' says the Lord.

the second deception is HELL itself.  hell is the grave.  abbadon.  death.  the second death.  who will really be tortured. Satan and his demons.  they are spirit already.  matt. 8:29 'and behold, they cried out, saying 'what have we to do with You, Son of God? Have you come here to torture us before the time?'  what time?  the judgement.  rev. 20 says that satan will be bound for 1000 years (the millenium - so that he cannot deceive the world anymore) - but he will be let loose at the end for a short time.  rev.20:7 'and when the thousand years are completed, satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations ....' but, then in verse 10 he is thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone and tormented day and night forever and ever.  tormented by his actions and choice to be alone and miserable.  can he feel fire?  no.  he is spirit.  but, he liked to give 'heat' to others - and so he is left in his own miserableness. 

as i read the bible - hell is a literal 'lake of fire' mentioned in rev. 20:13 'and the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.  and death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire, and if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.' 

i think it's much safer to believe in a literal second death - than hell.  satan is the only one that is going to be tortured forever by his own actions.  we will get death if we go into the lake of fire.  why? because we are not eternal spirits.  but, when we are changed to spirit - it will be a Holy Spirit type of living (with God).  that is mentioned 'in a moment - in a twinkling of an eye - at the last trumpet. the dead shall be raised - incorruptible....' so - if you choose life NOW - youdon't have to make a last minute decision to save yourself later - by saying - ok God i believe you now - and have to live more life as a human being to come to a better understanding of God.  just believe now.  how much risk is that?

[pianistimo]

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.

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. 

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.'

ps just so you know - i do believe in the 'order' of the church and that peter was the head of the church.  in fact, Jesus Christ appeared to peter first.  that must mean that he was responsible for the church and that he had been given a position.  i don't think we should usurp church or government positions - all i'm saying is that they can't save us.  they can guide us.

[thalbergmad]

Reminds me of an old saying:

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ............................

Thal

[pianistimo]

my last point towards the idea of original sin would be whom Jesus Christ is overcoming.  He overcame Satan at his ressurrection and will be coming as a King of Peace - conquering satan and sin.  why the efforts to do this if original sin was adam and eve's.  He would have consigned more sin to adam and eve and spoken of it when He walked the earth.  He would have said - i have overcome adam and eve's sin.  But, he said 'i have overcome the world.'  who controls the world?  satan.

john 16:11 'and concerning judgement, because the ruler of this world has been judged.'  who is he talking about?  satan.  it's really wild to most people - but that is what the bible says.  God is FOR us.  who can be against us?  only satan.

[ramseytheii]

i think there are very many deceptions.  so far, they have been discussed as babies going to hell.  whereas in isaiah 65:20 'no longer will there be in it an infant who lives only a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days, for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed.  and they shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall also plant vineyards and eat their fruit, they shall not build, and another inhabit, they shall not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a tree, so shall be the days of My people.'

I don't understand your point.

the second deception is HELL itself.  hell is the grave.  abbadon.  death.  the second death.  who will really be tortured. Satan and his demons.  they are spirit already.  matt. 8:29 'and behold, they cried out, saying 'what have we to do with You, Son of God? Have you come here to torture us before the time?'  what time?  the judgement.  rev. 20 says that satan will be bound for 1000 years (the millenium - so that he cannot deceive the world anymore) - but he will be let loose at the end for a short time.  rev.20:7 'and when the thousand years are completed, satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations ....' but, then in verse 10 he is thrown into a lake of fire and brimstone and tormented day and night forever and ever.  tormented by his actions and choice to be alone and miserable.  can he feel fire?  no.  he is spirit.  but, he liked to give 'heat' to others - and so he is left in his own miserableness. 

That's not right.  Hell is the eternal fire and torment for transgressors against the Lord, and those that do not accept Jesus as a personal savior. 

First, those that will suffer:  "...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord..."
In your parable about Lazarus and Abraham, you leave out that one of the characters is already in Hell suffering eternal torment, and begs Abraham to visit his 5 brothers to warn them of it; Abraham refuses.

And what is Hell?  You seem to want to interpret it metaphorically, as a "grave."  But, as jesus himself calls it, it is "hell, the unquenchable fire... where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.  For everyone will be salted with fire."  He is quoting obviously the prophet Isaiah, "And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies of the men that have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

as i read the bible - hell is a literal 'lake of fire' mentioned in rev. 20:13 'and the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.  and death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire, and if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.' 

And how does one get into the Book of Life?  By accepting Jesus as a personal savior.  Those that don't will be visited by him in vengeance at the end of days, and sent to hell.  The other passage that supports this is in Matthew, which describes how God will pick and choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, depending on who followed his Son's commandments.

i think it's much safer to believe in a literal second death - than hell.  satan is the only one that is going to be tortured forever by his own actions.  we will get death if we go into the lake of fire.  why? because we are not eternal spirits.  but, when we are changed to spirit - it will be a Holy Spirit type of living (with God).  that is mentioned 'in a moment - in a twinkling of an eye - at the last trumpet. the dead shall be raised - incorruptible....' so - if you choose life NOW - youdon't have to make a last minute decision to save yourself later - by saying - ok God i believe you now - and have to live more life as a human being to come to a better understanding of God.  just believe now.  how much risk is that?

You are rejecting Scripture passages which describe the eternal torments of Hell, also Jesus himself described it.  But it is the soul that goes to hell, as it is described in the Acts. 

These are possibly the most difficult things to accept about the Bible, and all of the consequences therein.  Is it "safe" to believe in Hell?  Of course not.  But whoever reads and believes in the Bible, must also believe that it is real, and that it is forever.  This is not the preaching of any one church that shows us this, but the passages in the Bible itself, the Old and New Testaments.  Any rejection of Hell is a rejection of the Scriptures.


Walter Ramsey