Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

Guest · May 3, 2003

Black is a simple lack of color, your monitor is Red, Green and Blue, it cannot make a true black color, what it does is simply display NO color (which is why black is always 0 of all 3 colors).

We were always taught in art class that black is not a color, but it is often just called so to avoid confusion.

Its much like number 0 in math...its the freak thats neither here nor there.

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

MMII

Something crossed my mind as I read most of the things you have posted so far, and that you distrust the Bible. You seem like a fairly intelligent person, and I want to encourage you to read a book called NOT EVERY SPIRIT: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief. This is an excellent text that we had to read for Systematic Theology.

But what crossed my mind after reading most of your post is that you distrust the Bible as absolute truth, or as the Word of God. Your statement here is somewhat vague. How do you define the Bible as the Word of God?

It seems like what you are challenging is the traditional view that the Word of God is compeltely, exhaustively and contains fully the exact dictation of the Word of God to humanity and portrays every single absolute truth that is necessary for our existence.

I disagree with that definition of the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible expresses truth only that which is necessary and sufficient for salvation. The Bible CONTAINS aspects of the Word of God that we ought to pay attention to in relation to salvation, but the "Word" of God itself cannot fully contained by anything finite. The Greek term used for "Word" in this context (John 1.1-5) is LOGOS - which can also be translated as Reason. Nothing in this finite world can fully and exhaustively contain the Infinite Reason of God (cf. John 21.25). Though I believe there is truth contained in the Bible - I believe that truth is organic and dynamic- it is truth only in the sense that we have the ability to interpret it for our time. We have to remember our finiteness - a century from now many things will change that will both affirm and deny our current ability to understand what the Bible says for our time. If God just gave us all the answers in one book fully and comprehensively - where is the grace that allows us to grow in the Love of God? If we knew all the answers absolutely now, what would be the meaning of our finiteness?

So I join you in disagreeing with the idea that the Word of God is completely, fully and exhaustively contained in the Bible alone. But I do believe that the Bible contains elements of spiritual truth that is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.

MMII - you would thoroughly enjoy that book I mentioned. The author is Christopher Morse.

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

Roscoe

At some point you need to go through and read again EXACTLY what I wrote.

First of all, you misquote Scripture. The word that is actually used is "sodomites." Period.

Secondly, I did NOT say that homosexuality was NOT a sin. I said that it is listed as one of many sins in the Sodom and Gomorrah story. There are at least 5 sins mentioned in the story - not being hospitable to strangers, homosexuality, rage, forced sexual desires and anger. I did not exclude homosexuality from the list.

But each of those "sins" are listed. And if a true follower of Christ exhibits any of those sins, they cannot be a true follower of Christ. For more on this see Richard Gagnon's book on The Bible and Homosexuality - a scholar and teacher00 from Pittsburg Theological Seminary who is against the polemic to approve homosexuals as ordained clergy within the church.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

Let me apologize to you, Mo Zub, and say that when I first hit the thread I was trying crank out posts as fast as I could wanting to fill an entire page. I was working from the latest threads to the earliest and was typing away taking issue with what I could not putting much thought. 2 things happened. One - I'm a terrible troll and should stop doing it. Two - I started writing longer and more serious answers because that's more natural to me. So my post to you was fairly trite and I knew I'd get hammered when I wrote it. My apologies. Here are my thoughts:

------------------

That is good, but why then do Christians believe that the bible is penned by God through man?? Would god not be aware of the future compilation of the bible and would the word of god not be universal truth?
If it is specific advice to one church (though evidence shows that that is NOT the intended case) then does not the rest of the books of paul fall under the same "throw away" category as they are all, in reality, written to specific churches?
If so much of the bible is not ment for us... and even contains MISLEADING information such as these verses, how can you say that the compilation is guided by god? 

I can best answer that by explaining my view of the Bible: I believe:

1. the Bible is inspired by God
2. it's played too huge of a role in the modern church and has evolved into something that I'm not sure it was intended to be

The short answer is that by modern standards Paul’s writings are sexist. Does that make them wrong? I don’t think so. Does that mean that women should not speak in church? Maybe it does and we have strayed. Are we going to hell for it? Nope. Does that render the Bible wrong? Nope – it just means that thousands upon thousands of people in and out of Church are failing to abide by God’s law. That is if you take it that Paul was writing a mandate.

The problem that I’m having with this argument is that we’re approaching the Bible just as so many conservative Christians do and making it into a code or law. We have rendered the Christian faith to a system of measurements with the Bible as the score keeper and I don’t believe that’s what the Bible’s for or that is what Christianity is about.

If we want to argue in terms of absolutes it seems to me that there are some important considerations. The first is that God is the only absolute. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a ‘conveyance’ of truths but these truths are limited by one important thing – they are finite in their ability to convey the one Absolute which is God.

The key, in my mind, to understand Paul is to read what he says in context of all that he has written. Paul is a proponent of a system of Grace that says ‘all things are permissible but not everything is beneficial’. Paul rebukes Peter and others for falling back into legalism in their approach to their faith and tells Timothy 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So – back to the short answer. By today’s standards Paul’s writings can be defined as sexist but there’s nothing to apologize for in them. If we are failing to subscribe to Paul’s teachings adequately that doesn’t render God or the Bible as wrong. It doesn’t undue the fabric of the cosmos it just means we are off the mark. If people have issues with that well tell me something new! lol

===baker===
Baker said: Perhaps I should ask you what I've asked Gannon. Is "good" something external to God or is it defined by God?

I believe without question that God is good and therefore good is defined by God.

You seem reluctant to accept that your God is sexist, despite the undeniable sexism in the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God. 

By modern standards, yes, the writings of Paul are sexist.

So tell me, what is it tugging at your conscience that tells you sexism is wrong and should not be ascribed to the Bible? What is that moral sense, apparently seperate from the Bible, which drives you to separate your theology from sexism? If "good" is defined by God, wouldn't it make sense to simply say women should not speak in church and that's just the way it is? 

Actually nothing’s tugging at my conscience. I don’t subscribe to the same line of thought about the Bible that you are describing. Read my response to MZ above.

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

MMII -

Man you have some great potential! You should take some courses with me at Seminary. One theory that has existed for over 1.5 millenia in Christianity is the theory that "image of God" refers to, what St. Augustine calls, memory, understanding and will. He states this argument in thorough detail in his classic book THE TRINITY. I am not saying this is the only correct theory, but St. Augustine - who is only "famous" to religious people for writing The Confessions - also wrote very intellectually stimulating theories on things like the Image of God and how that image is implanted in us.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

I'm not sure what you're arguing about then. I listed that verse to demonstrate that Paul clearly lists homosexuality as a sin. Yes, the word 'sodomite' is used but the use of the word does not in any way remove the practice of homosexual sex from its meaning. In fact in context of the verse its comes right after a list of immoral behavior that is sexual in nature and servers as a perfect transitory point to the non-sexual yet immoral behavior that is described afterwards. The term 'sodomite' includes homosexual behavior so I'm not sure what your issue with me is. Helpe me understand.

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

DumpsterDan -

LOL

The nice thing about EBay is that you can opt to not accept the highest bid if it does not reach what you think your product is worth /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

LOL

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

Wistaria said, "People who murder and **** deserve the death penalty."

Sorry, I have to greatly disagree with this. It operates on the old theory that capital punishment serves as a deterrant to crime. However, the state of Texas who stringently enforces capital punishment is the third highest in ****, violence and gunshot related deaths and violence in the country. Advocates for capital punishment as a deterrant to crime refuse to see that it really does produce more violence in a community than deters.

The death penalty is nothing but personal vindication to justify more violence, more bloodshed and more needless death. It's the only purpose it serves.

People in our own society engage in murder every day - when we neglect the needs of people who are starving in our own streets and just make some blatant statement of saying "That's too bad for her or him" and go on our way without doing something to help! >>Sorry, this is my "methodism" coming out in me now!<< But it is true - everytime we neglect compassion for the poor, we are neglecting the mission of Christ to the world.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

The death penalty played an important role in the founding of Christianity.

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

But Roscoe -

The OLD TESTAMENT was foundational for worshiping God before the Incarnate Word in Jesus Christ.

How do you justify the death penalty when Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek? How do you justify bloodshed for wrongdoing when Jesus told the Apostle Peter to put away his sword - and then healed the one who Peter assaulted? How do you justify the death penalty as an act of mercy when the Pharisees gathered around a prostitute and Jesus says, "Anyone who is without sin, let them cast the first stone."

Sure, Jesus does tell the same woman, "Neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more." God meets us where we are, but once we accept Divine Love in our hearts, we must change our thinking about reality (hence the term "repentance" means a change of mind and heart).

All of human life has value, regardless if you are a homeless person or Bill Gates. Hear me clear - ALL PEOPLE have value.

It does sicken me that the church has failed in its ministry to the poor. But people can help change this trend - yet most Christians are not willing. If you (general you here) are not involved in doing good in the name of Christ - if you are a Christian - then you are allowing evil to continue to happen. Being a "good person" does not sit around ignore the cries of the needy.

I do not think homosexuality is morally justifyable in a Christian witness. However, it is disgusting to see people who call themselves "Christians" post up web sites approving of the violent acts that have lead to the death of some homosexuals. There is a website some "Christian" church postetd that applauded the violent acts against a 17 year old homosexual that led to his death. That is ungodly.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

The OLD TESTAMENT was foundational for worshiping God before the Incarnate Word in Jesus Christ. 

I agree - it was.

How do you justify the death penalty when Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek? How do you justify bloodshed for wrongdoing when Jesus told the Apostle Peter to put away his sword - and then healed the one who Peter assaulted? How do you justify the death penalty as an act of mercy when the Pharisees gathered around a prostitute and Jesus says, "Anyone who is without sin, let them cast the first stone." 

In all of those instances Jesus was not commenting on the death penalty. He was clearly stating that violence against flesh and blood will not be used to advance the agenda of the Kingdom. The words of Jesus are neutral on the death penalty. In fact, he says render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. This was stated in context of taxation but there is a broader principle that can be applied there. Particularly when you consider that he allowed the death penalty to be instrumental in providing salvation to those who believe.

I see it like this - the OT allows for the penalty of the death. Jesus is silent on the issue but was willing to submit to it. There are other social issues that are not railed against by Jesus because his agenda was not a social issue driven platform. His sole purpose was to restore men unto God.

Ultimately there are consequences for actions and if a certain government allows for the death penalty understand that Jesus may forgive you but that doesn't mean Caesar will.

I do not think homosexuality is morally justifyable in a Christian witness. However, it is disgusting to see people who call themselves "Christians" post up web sites approving of the violent acts that have lead to the death of some homosexuals. There is a website some "Christian" church postetd that applauded the violent acts against a 17 year old homosexual that led to his death. That is ungodly. 

Is this what we call a non-sequiter (sp?). I'm not sure why you're throwing this out. I certainly did not bring it up nor do I advocate it. I'm just pointing out that the Bible is not neutral or silent on the issue of homosexuality.

Baker|NV · May 3, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

I believe without question that God is good and therefore good is defined by God.

<hr></blockquote>
But to say that 'God is good' is meaningless if good is defined by God. God could simply reverse his positions on every issue. God could advocate homosexuality, murder, violence, and they would simply be good if good is defined by God. The phrase "God is good" is meaningless unless there is some external standard by which God himself is compared.
<blockquote><hr>

By modern standards, yes, the writings of Paul are sexist.

<hr></blockquote>
No. By rational standards the writings of Paul are sexist. They clearly place women in a subserviant position to men. By modern standards, the writings of Paul are more sexist than is socially acceptable.
<blockquote><hr>

Actually nothing’s tugging at my conscience. I don’t subscribe to the same line of thought about the Bible that you are describing. Read my response to MZ above.

<hr></blockquote>
Either the Bible is the word of God or it's not. It seems initially the post above that you're somewhat moving away from the 'absolute word of God stance, which is perfectly acceptable logically however I somewhat question how you can know anything of God without the Bible.

Later in the post you seem to accept that we've moved away from morality, however, in gender equality. This is also logically acceptable, although decidedly unpalatable. I'm just wondering, why is it unpalatable if the only basis for morality or goodness is God?

Guest · May 3, 2003

God told me to tell you all to shush! Youre disturbing Her nap.

/php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif

www.witchvox.com

GannonCM · May 3, 2003

The reason I "throw it out there" Roscoe is because most people who say homosexuality is wrong are silent or advocate the violence that some homosexuals face because of that choice of lifestyle. In fact, I would argue that those who remain silent on this violence towards them do advocate that violence. It's one thing to say "People shouldn't be treated like that." It's quite another to be actively involved in acts of mercy and reconciliation.

If you aren't actively involved, do you truly follow Christ? That is a soul searching question every Christian should ask themselves. Someone once said that if we took a tenth percent of all the military spending and put it to feed the poor, we would not have poverty...

I think to go one step further is appropriate. If every person who confessed Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior were willing to provide for the basic needs of one person in poverty within this country, we would not have the problem of poverty anymore in our country. Is this radical? Yes, I agree it is. But we have stories of early Christians who did just that. We have stories of many people who have given up all of their worldly wealth for the poor and the needy and to follow God's calling in their lives. Where has that type of radical Christianity gone? I sure don't see it...

Then why am I in training for ministry? Because I believe God can use me to help change people's hearts and minds to see that true Christian witness is to act rightly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. The worst thing a "good person" can do is sit back and do nothing - yet this type of complacant faith is exactly what we are facing in our churches today.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

But to say that 'God is good' is meaningless if good is defined by God. God could simply reverse his positions on every issue. God could advocate homosexuality, murder, violence, and they would simply be good if good is defined by God. The phrase "God is good" is meaningless unless there is some external standard by which God himself is compared. 

God is good is meaningless unless it is understood that God, by his very nature, is not capable of the immoral or the sinful. He is more than just a good behaving person - he is the embodiment of good. I'd say that makes goodness less of an ideal and more divine in nature.

No. By rational standards the writings of Paul are sexist. They clearly place women in a subserviant position to men. By modern standards, the writings of Paul are more sexist than is socially acceptable. 

So you say. We're all entitled to opinions. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Either the Bible is the word of God or it's not. It seems initially the post above that you're somewhat moving away from the 'absolute word of God stance, which is perfectly acceptable logically however I somewhat question how you can know anything of God without the Bible. 

I believe that the Bible is the word (small 'w') and that Jesus is the Word (big 'w'). The bible is complete for what it was intended but Jesus is the fullness of the revelation of God. The issue here is one of revelation and you've touched upon the very crux of the issue for me. If all I'm doing is following a set of rules based upon written legacy then big whoop - I'll become a buddhist. The Bible speaks of a personal, real and present reality as for as a relationship with God is concerned.

Later in the post you seem to accept that we've moved away from morality, however, in gender equality. This is also logically acceptable, although decidedly unpalatable. I'm just wondering, why is it unpalatable if the only basis for morality or goodness is God? 

There is a way to man that seems to be right but the end there of leads to death. That's a quote from Proverbs which speaks of the depravity of man. Paul says in the book of Romans that there are none who seek after God and that each man has gone his own way. We can certainly believe that things are right when they're wrong and wrong when they're right. Human emotion should never be a guage for measurement.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

The reason I "throw it out there" Roscoe is because most people who say...

First - that's a generalization and I could espouse many that carry no more weight than yours (and I often do!).

Second - my sister's a lesbian and is raising my niece with her SO (also a female to be clear). My niece is a fired up Christian and has the radicalness of youth. She and I both love my sister dearly. On another note as an art major I had many homosexual friends in college. I can only think of 3 of the guys that I knew at that time who are alive today. I watched one of my friends die in his hospital room a little over 12 years ago.

Your generalization sux and you seem to be going way off into lala land here.

If you aren't actively involved, do you truly follow Christ? That is a soul searching question every Christian should ask themselves. Someone once said that if we took a tenth percent of all the military spending and put it to feed the poor, we would not have poverty... 

Paul says For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work , then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.

I pastored a church in the inner city of Houston for almost 2 years. We worked in conjunction with 12 other churches in the area to support a food pantry for the under-priveledged. We had a strict policy, however, to NEVER hand out money in the church office. We would hear the same stories over and over agin about how 'my car died about 5 blocks from here and my wife and 4 kids are in it - could you spare some money for gas?' There were some others. There was one night where I was setting up for a wedding (I preached 4 weddings and a funeral during that time BTW) and a guy approached me on the street asking for a few bucks. I told him about our policy and he said he'd just gotten out of jail and was needing a meal. I again turned him down and he said that he'd walk over and meet me at the taco stand and eat the tacos in front of me. At that point it was pretty obvious this guy was being truthful. It's a shame but you know why we both had to do go through that exercise? Because Paul's right. People take advantage. You have some keen ideals about ministry but you need to hit the streets and deal with the real world. Seminary is a nursery.

Then why am I in training for ministry? Because I believe God can use me to help change people's hearts and minds to see that true Christian witness is to act rightly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. The worst thing a "good person" can do is sit back and do nothing - yet this type of complacant faith is exactly what we are facing in our churches today. 

Ok - so we're in agreement that the Bible does say that homosexuality is immoral? Isn't that where we started?

Baker|NV · May 3, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

God is good is meaningless unless it is understood that God, by his very nature, is not capable of the immoral or the sinful.

<hr></blockquote>
Yes, God certainly is incapable of the immoral or the sinful because God defines what is moral and sinful. If God decides homosexual is the way to be, then that's what's moral and to be heterosexual is immoral. By definition, all God must do to be moral is be omnipotent. It's meaningless however to say "God is good" because good is defined by God (in this view). It's like saying "God is God".

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

I completely disagree. You're anthropomorphizing God by implying that he's going to, on a whim, change his view and it's not going to happen. It would be to redefine who he is and God is immutable. I fully understand the problem you're having by saying that God is good and if it helps you to say that Good is defined apart from God then great. It's no skin off my back. But I still maintain that good is divine in its origin. We recognize 'goodness' by virtue of being created in the image of God and that goodness is an expression of who he is. And God is not good because he follows some ruleset that exists apart from him. If I can think of a better way to express I'll let you know.

Devin MacGregor · May 3, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

Black is a simple lack of color, your monitor is Red, Green and Blue, it cannot make a true black color, what it does is simply display NO color (which is why black is always 0 of all 3 colors).

We were always taught in art class that black is not a color, but it is often just called so to avoid confusion.

Its much like number 0 in math...its the freak thats neither here nor there.

<hr></blockquote>

My Dad is an artist. I grew up with paint tubes and easels all over the place. Ahhh the smell of oil based paint. Black and White are not colors. I was saying that. Black absorbs all light while white reflects but blends(blurs) all color "White, or ordinary, light consists of waves of various lengths so blended as to produce no effect of color." Both are used for shading. To darken or lighten a color(hue). Hence why some artists call them shades because it is what they are used for. Want a darker purple? Add some black. Want a lighter purple? Add some white. Want to create purple? Add red to blue. Want to create orange? Add red and yellow. Want to create orange-red add more red than yellow. What is amazing is how millions of colors can come from just 3 colors and 2 shades or non-colors.

I was saying that dictionary.com was confusing because his def he used appears to have come from them. Hence why I made the dictionary.com reference to color which states they arent colors and walla the confusing part. People have to call them something.

Here is Encarta's def of color:

3. not black or white: a color such as red or green, as opposed to black, white, or gray.

Baker|NV · May 3, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

I completely disagree. You're anthropomorphizing God by implying that he's going to, on a whim, change his view and it's not going to happen.

<hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying he would. I'm saying he could if he wanted to.

Start from scratch. God's sitting around, thinking about how he's gonna create earth. There's no such thing as morality yet, as God defines morality. So, what does he define as moral? It necessarily must be arbitrary and even whimsical what he defines as moral. For if there's reasons outside of God for what he chooses, he's not omnipotent.

Certainly God could change morality, hypothetically, to some other arbitrary ruleset and it would be equally moral, yes?

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

There's no such thing as morality yet...

and that's the problem. Morality is the term we use to try and describe that nature that compells us to identify something as good.

Are you familiar with Plato's forms? It's been a while so hopefully I'll get this right but let me put it this way.

<pre>
God = higher
----------------------
morality = lower</pre>

Morality is our finite definition. But it in no way fully expresses the fullness of the ideal of morality. Good is how we express that which is... well... good. But it is not adequate to express the fullness of that which is good. God is the expression of Good. All we can really know is good with a little g and morality with a little m. God is Good.

Therefore morality existed prior to the creation of the human experience. It was not created to support human experience.

edited to answer question: no - God could not change it arbitrarily - it violate who he is.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

God told me to tell you all to shush! Youre disturbing Her nap.

they have pills for that - and God's a him - not a her. *runs*

Baker|NV · May 3, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

Are you familiar with Plato's forms? It's been a while so hopefully I'll get this right but let me put it this way.

God = higher
----------------------
morality = lower

<hr></blockquote>
Well... Plato is a classic Greek philosopher. I don't believe he was familiar with any "God", rather he would have spoke of "the gods". Also greek gods were very anthropomorphic, they were not necessarily moral, omnipotent, or omniscient. They were simply immortal. So I would have to assume that this is someone's (your?) argument which is an extention of Plato's forms.

This is an interesting application, however, and is very illustrative of your take on morality. If I understand you correctly here, you actually view human morality as an imperfect manifestation of God?

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

I view morality as being a result of being created in the image of God and a Godly characteristic.

Roscoe · May 3, 2003

Oh - and yes, that's my argument. I understand all that you said about Plato - just felt that it would help clarify my view of God and Goodness.

Baker|NV · May 3, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

Oh - and yes, that's my argument. I understand all that you said about Plato - just felt that it would help clarify my view of God and Goodness.

<hr></blockquote>
It certainly does. In fact I would consider your extension of Plato's argument to be quite natural. It is very illustrative of your view, which I find very interesting. I don't quite agree, of course, but I won't pester you any longer. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

Guest · May 4, 2003

Hey now. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh.gif Maybe your god is a "He" but mine happens to be both a "She" and a "He".

**dons her flame resistant undies**

Wisty · May 4, 2003

I don't know if you like Christian music. Generally I'm fussy about it. I don't usually listen to it unless something catches my fancy. Tonight I was surfing for some cello music, and wound up on this page, not paying much attention, just clicking samples. At first I thought it was a love song by a man to his woman (since it showed a guy hugging a woman). But then I realized he was singing to God.

Re, the attached link. There are 2 free mp3s on a CD up for sale. Though I don't know how to download the 2 free ones because it doesn't ask whether I want to play or save like other sites ask. So I assume there is no way to download and save it? Anyhow, his voice in the first song (called "I Fall Into Your Arms") isn't as perfect as in the second (at the bottom of the list) song "To The Lamb Who Reigns", nevertheless both songs are so pretty -- heard through the settings I have selected. There is cello and guitar and a nice sound in general. They aren't gospelish. Rather gentle and sweet. Though you haters of religion, move along, there's nothing here for you to hear. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif Too bad on you!

Songs by Don Newmeyer:
http://www.cdstreet.com/cgi-bin/artist_products.cgi?1239731&12365027&

Guest · May 4, 2003

>>Wistaria said, "People who murder and **** deserve the death penalty."

Sorry, I have to greatly disagree with this. It operates on the old theory that capital punishment serves as a deterrant to crime. However, the state of Texas who stringently enforces capital punishment is the third highest in ****, violence and gunshot related deaths and violence in the country. Advocates for capital punishment as a deterrant to crime refuse to see that it really does produce more violence in a community than deters. 

Thats a sign that the system needs to be reworked, not that it is not warrented or uneffective. The 'save any life' is killing this country. Personal opinion.

>>The death penalty is nothing but personal vindication to justify more violence, more bloodshed and more needless death. It's the only purpose it serves. 

Really? I suggest looking at what I have to say after I quote your next response to this subject.

>>People in our own society engage in murder every day - when we neglect the needs of people who are starving in our own streets and just make some blatant statement of saying "That's too bad for her or him" and go on our way without doing something to help! >>Sorry, this is my "methodism" coming out in me now!<< But it is true - everytime we neglect compassion for the poor, we are neglecting the mission of Christ to the world. 

Alright, but think on this. Those who kill, ****, or molest for malicious reasons are in prison because it was proven that they did so. These people, in my mind, are undeserving of life. Those people you speak of above are, or at least are much more probable.

What is it? Seven cents a day to feed a child? I wonder how much it costs a day to keep a person in prison alive... How many children do you think that will feed? Even God killed those who sinned. Just a thought...

Wisty · May 4, 2003

>Black is not a color.

There are two kinds of black. The absence of light (as in total blackness or otherwise known as darkness such as at night); or using a whole box of crayons, scribbling with each one upon the same place, you wind up with black.

At least that's what I learned.

So what are you talking about?

Wisty · May 4, 2003

>Awww I see. So I could open a Christian brothel and use the money to feed the poor?

Don't you ever get tired of trolling or taking things so whackily out of the realm of discussion or reality? Must I *really* explain the stupidity of your quote? Don't you know how "boring" comments like yours become? They confuse the issue and break the flow of intellegent and meaningful discussion. You are forever trying to make people look like the fool. Ever wonder why? Instead of participating with worthwhile responces, you just troll. Why not add some decent comments? Though if it's just your form of bizarre sense of humor, sometimes it's hard to detect that in a post.

But, dropping to your level a bit, Yes, you really could "open a Christian brothel and use the money to feed the poor" if Christians intervened and freed the enslaved, corrupted, wounded, and or confused ex-Christian *****s and brought them back to the flock, at which time the building was then opened as a soup kitchen to feed and house the needy and poor.

Nyuck-nyuck-nyuck, whaunk-whaunk, whppwhppwhppwhpp... OT reminds me of the Three Stooges going at each other -- fortunately not all the time. Three Stooges begin to bore me after about 10 minutes.

Wisty · May 4, 2003

re, colors

Sorry, somehow didn't see this post of yours. Now I'm confused about colors! I was taught there is a difference between light and dark (white and black) in relation to how much light there is in a room either by artificial light or outside via the sun; white being of light, dark or black being without light. And then there are the colors you find in paints and crayons and pencils, white being of the pigments obtained from Titanium or some such, black being a blend of many colors. My husband worked for a paint company -- he used to talk about how much trouble they were in when they couldn't get a shipment of white (Titanium or whatever). Hence, in that case, "white" wasn't a color but instead a metalic element? Even more confused am I now.

Baker|NV · May 4, 2003

Ok. Light.

I don't want to completely Hijack the thread, but I'll give you a brief crash course.

Visible light is simply electromagnetic radiation within a certain range of wavelengths which the human eye can detect. Within this spectrum (range), the eye sees different 'colors'. Namely Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet. Each color has an associated wavelength of light (red has the largest wavelength, lowest energy, violet has smallest wavelength and highest energy). White light is merely light with equal distribution of all colors in the visible spectrum. Black is absence of light in the visible spectrum.

Moonglum · May 4, 2003

Light Sucks.

Baker|NV · May 4, 2003

God Sucks.

Devin MacGregor · May 4, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

And then there are the colors you find in paints and crayons and pencils, white being of the pigments obtained from Titanium or some such, black being a blend of many colors.

<hr></blockquote>

You are talking about pigments. Pigments allow certain light to be seen which is being reflected off of the surface of the object. Change the pigment around and you get a different reflection from the spectrum. Blending all the colors simply hides the actual colors so nothing is reflected. There is a reason why some combat aircraft are painted black as opposed to air superiority grey.

pig·ment
n.

1. A substance used as coloring.
2. Dry coloring matter, usually an insoluble powder, to be mixed with water, oil, or another base to produce paint and similar products.
3. A substance, such as chlorophyll or melanin, that produces a characteristic color in plant or animal tissue.

DumpsterDan · May 4, 2003

<center><blockquote><hr>

Don't you ever get tired of trolling or taking things so whackily out of the realm of discussion or reality?

<hr></blockquote>Nope. </center>

GannonCM · May 4, 2003

Before I give a rationale for ending my contribution to this post, I want to clear something up REAL QUICK about what many mainline denominations believe. Mostly every mainline denomination has Articles of Religion - Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, United Methodists, Episcopalians (Baptists, to my knowledge, do not). The First Article is always about Faith in the Holy Trinity. This is the language found in the United Methodist Church about God's Being - and it comes from an Anglican tradition, which would include Episcopalians and Roman Catholics.

Article I states

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, WITHOUT BODY OR PARTS, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity - The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.

-----

All "Father" means is the Origin of all things created. You can use Mother or Parent - as long as you communicate that there are three persons in one substance. I'm not going to go in depth to this argument.

My point of this is that GOD IS NEITHER HIM NOR HER! God is Spirit. Period. Jesus only referred to God as "Father" relationship-wise, not substance-wise. God never denies our concrete reality. It would be very awkward for Jesus to have called God "Mother" since Mary was his mother. Hear me clear - mostly every religion believes that nothing in this corporeal world can fully and exhaustively explain that which is incorporeal.

I think I am leaving this conversation, because it has become a discussion that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. There are times we have to realize that a dead horse is being beaten- I am not saying Christians do not have a responsibility to defend the truth, but there comes a point in time where one must realize that one has said as much as possible, and then pray that the Holy Spirit will work.

Roscoe · May 4, 2003

I think I am leaving this conversation, because it has become a discussion that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. There are times we have to realize that a dead horse is being beaten- I am not saying Christians do not have a responsibility to defend the truth, but there comes a point in time where one must realize that one has said as much as possible, and then pray that the Holy Spirit will work.

lol - welcome to OT

Guest · May 4, 2003

Discussion of religion is rather pointless, because even if you have a good arguement, it can be brushed aside with that we do not understand the will of God.

DumpsterDan · May 4, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

I think I am leaving this conversation, because it has become a discussion that strains a gnat and swallows a camel. There are times we have to realize that a dead horse is being beaten

<hr></blockquote>
Bite your tongue man! If everyone stopped straining gnats and beating horse corpses forums would cease to exist! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/shocked.gif Just look at how many posts it took to decide where Panama was, it's art!

Darus Grey · May 4, 2003

I read this quote:

<blockquote><hr>

The bible was not written by men. It is the pure word of God printed on paper by men. Man did not add or subtract from what God intended the bible to say

<hr></blockquote>

First off..Im a devot christan..and a accomplished theologist..and my main response is.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The bible has been altered so many times, sure..we have some versions that are "More accurate" then others....
I should also point out..many of the books wern't written until WELL after thier authors death...

The bible is the word of god, as INTERUPTED by man. Not Written, im sorry..but if anyone really believes its never been altered..your so full of it..because theres plenty of proof that states otherwise.

Personally, I don't trust man.

*Hit "Enter" a few times & removed excess "haha"

Roscoe · May 4, 2003

No it can't.

Roscoe · May 4, 2003

*posts sign*

Don't feed the trolls. Even if they are an 'accomplished theologian'. lol

Guest · May 4, 2003

>>Discussion of religion is rather pointless, because even if you have a good arguement, it can be brushed aside with that we do not understand the will of God. 

<nods>

Blind faith is a wonderful thing, when its not corrupted by those who use it for personal gain. Careful, sheep can be deadly when led by the wolf.

Guest · May 5, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

Allow others to believe otherwise.

<hr></blockquote>

Did I say something like "give up the Bible or I'll kill you?"

I could care less who believes what. I just want to know why they believe it.

Guest · May 5, 2003

<blockquote><hr>

I don't believe that we can do all kinds of harm and damage to others in this life and expect to die and be totally forgiven and life a happy life afterwards.

<hr></blockquote>

Why not? Isn't that what the Bible says?

John 3:16-18

<blockquote><hr>

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God

<hr></blockquote>

Guest · May 5, 2003

LC, you're talking two different types of color theory though.

In addative color theory, like your monitor or TV, you're sort of correct. Black isn't really the absence of color, it's, in this case, the abesense of light.

In subtractive color theory, you use color to make black. In the printing world, when you create something that is black, you use "rich black", which is a mixture of CMYK, not just K.

Pirate Wench · May 5, 2003

and God's a him - not a her. *runs*

There's one good reason to distrust Christianity....

Guest · May 5, 2003

Ok.........

4 cars approach a four way stop at the same time, in the middle of the intersection is a 100 dollar bill, driving one car is God, the second driver is the Easter Bunny, the third car is driven by Santa Clause, and I am driving the fourth car. Who will pick up the 100bucks in the intersection first......

I will, because the other three ARE FIGMENTS OF MANKINDS IMAGINEATION!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

Guest

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Guest

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Devin MacGregor

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Guest

Guest

Wisty

Guest

Guest

Guest

Wisty

Guest

Wisty

Guest

Wisty

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Moonglum

Guest

Baker|NV

Guest

Devin MacGregor

Guest

DumpsterDan

Guest

GannonCM

Guest

Roscoe

Guest

Guest