I have figured out some significant things through your site post. One other subject I would like to express is that there are numerous games available and which are designed mainly for preschool age children. They include things like pattern identification, colors, pets, and patterns. These usually focus on familiarization as opposed to memorization. This keeps children engaged without sensing like they are learning. Thanks
ghd iv http://dodden.co.uk/jpeg/css/index.asp?id=18
All here, in this godless church. Will end up in hell. Repent, or burn!
Blah blah hell blah blah blah burn.
Or of course, die, cease to exist and leave a body to decompose or burn only briefly in a cremation oven.
Awesome, that is your best post by far. I wouldn't mess with someone holding a set of golf clubs either. Just thought I would ask, not very religious myself although my family are all very devout Sikhs, I follow the teachings as well and consider myself Sikh but I do not partake in what I personally believe are more cultural influences on Sikhism. I would say that I am a Sikh but not in the Sikhism religion, if that makes any sense at all. Love, peace, caring, honesty, hardwork and happiness, it's just that simple for me.
You forgot a religion when you were explaining there flaws-Sikhism. Maybe you do not consider it a major religion but I am sure you have reasons as to why it is flawed with the rest of them, just curious.
@Frogist and David Johnson
Nice to see a few people on here who can talk candidly, poke fun and maybe learn a thing or 2 from each other instead of just hating all the time.
My golfing buddy is a Sikh so I have to watch what I say :)
"husbands of one wife". FAIL.
What is really sad about this is that these clergy claim to have a faith but they do not actually possess the real thing. They are a complete contradiction. Is the world so blind now that no one can see that ? I guess that must be so.
Why do you beleive that society should live according to the bible? Most of the people on this planet do not beleive in the bible. How about "majority rules" and you beleivers get voted "off the island?"
totally agree with your last comment and well said, cheers.
HAHA, you are hilarious. You haven't really got a clue as to who I am and what my beleifs are. Keep trying though, spitting out a bunch of stereotypes and hoping one will stick is working well for you in life i'm sure. I'll help you out, I do not believe in god.......yeah you weren't even close buddy. You did however prove my point, you took one line out of my post and quoted it to back up your argument just like countless others do all the time without looking at it in context, thank you.
I still think you are a closet fundie.
@David: Don't sulk, DJ. He got ya fair and square! I think you don't like him cuz you guys are alot alike. ;)
You know, every time I scan past this part, I swear I can almost hear the voice of Frogist as she says her response...
weird, ain't I? :D
Sorry david, i'm not christian or catholic and I do not believe in Jesus. How you even thought that or came to that conclusion is beyond me.
If knowing the full story and background of someones opinion or argument means I am a conspiracy theorist than you need to look up the meaning of the words bud, sorry but you FAIL! If you think that you know an authors point of view, where and why he/she has certain views and ideologies and the background of that person by reading just a single article than you are a better man than me and I salute you. You are right in your definition of the principle of debate, but that's why we get nowhere with many serious issues of the world, we debate and argue without thought or understanding of the other side, we just learn enough to put together arguments against others. People think that if you take the time to understand where the opposite side is coming from that must mean you sympathize with them which is utterly wrong. I don't think it is wrong to have Lesbian pastors, although I do understand why some people would be against it, I do not think they are justified but I can understand where they are coming from, simple as that.
@GSA: I thank you for the salute! I don't think we need to know a person's whole life story to get a grasp on anyone's argument. Especially in a setting such as this. If you are doing a thesis on them or the subject matter that might be necessary. But if for every piece of information you need to know where that person went to school, or who they are married to etc etc, you're going to be stuck in an uphill battle. And for most of it you won't learn anything new or pertinent to the discussion. In a more personal setting, on a one to one basis, finding out someone's background can help you become more sympathetic to them. But you do not need any of that to critique any piece of writing.
I am in total agreement that people do not take the time to understand the other side of an argument. It is unfortunate and holds us back in reaching common ground which is essential in finding solutions to problems. But I disagree that debate and arguing out a problem is not contributing to a solution. I would argue that it is an important part of recognising the other side of any position as well as one's own point of view. People need to be challenged in what they think. And debate is one of the ways we can issue that challenge.
I support the lesbian pastors. In their striving towards more recognition in their churches, they can show their opponents that gay people are not these pillars of sin that some religious make them out to be.
Usually the people I post to, are not going to change their mind. I post to them, to show onlookers how stupid their belief is.
I hope to keep as many middle of the roaders away from the faith as possible.
If I can persuade even 1 person that religion is a hoax, then I have persuaded an entire world. For I have persuaded the person's children and their children and their children.
Keep trying so far you have yet to show such a thing.
See mike, that is why you suck at debates. You said, "Keep trying so far you have yet to show such a thing."
You can't possibly know if I have dissuaded anyone from religion or not. No way for you to know. Maybe none, maybe thousands.
Also I didn't like your comment about Obama's wife being an Amazon on the other blog.
You may disagree, but you respond with attacks and insults rather than loving and reasonable statements. If that convinces anyone, it's the people who do not understand that the core of Christianity is love.
You said, "You may disagree, but you respond with attacks and insults rather than loving and reasonable statements. If that convinces anyone, it's the people who do not understand that the core of Christianity is love"
I never realized...you are right Peter!
Why, it is a serious character flaw.
I feel so empowered now that you have given me the opportunity to improve myself.
Thank you so much Peter. I know how hard it is for you to mention this flaw, since I have so often torn you a new one. Cheers!
And, point proven. LOL
You seem to be a very sarcastic and cynical individual who likes name-calling rather than dealing directly with the facts. I'm just saying that if you hold a strong view that religions are all silly and ridiculous, and you want to convince people not to follow them, you're not going to do a good job at catering to the "middle ground" if bashing believers is your main strategy.
All I can say with fact is nobody has yet to comment thank you for persuaded anyone, so based on the number of positive responses you have received... I say again keep on trying.
LOL...you really are clueless...LOL
Critter, to quote your friend
"that is why you suck at debates"
I suppose I deserved that for my "ad hominem" attack on you. But then again, I wasn't trying to debate you. :)
Thanks for trying, though.
When you are really good at comebacks, I'll do my best to give you credit for them.
But you've got to post them first.
Why not take a few extra minutes next time and think up something that will "tear me a new one"? I can't help but feel that you are tossing these out too quickly. Give us something that stings and leaves a mark if you can. It has been pretty rare from your side of the aisle as long as I have been coming here....
..do your side proud, Mike!
Win one for the Gipper! :D
I do not post to rip you or any one a "new one" but to build you up to actually look at both sides of the argument. Take Reality for instance he will cut and past obscure one off articles and then claim them as facts. What I have yet to see him do is take an article from a believing theologian (about 80-90% of them) and deconstruct their work. I recommend starting with CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.
Just because a source is cited does that mean what was written is true? Were there any background checks done on the source, does the source have an agenda other than trying to get out information? Mike, Reality and David, you guys can all argue until you are blue in the face, maybe you guys should just state your opinions and stop backing them with so called "facts" since this is an opinion and discussion blog.
How about you guys all post a fact going against what you believe, just to show that you have researched the subject fully, all sides and understand that others may believe differently and are justified in doing so. You still have your beliefs, arguments and opinions yet you can still show respect for those that do not agree with you.
I do find it rather fascinating that so many of these people are so incredibly anti-faith, yet they are daily on a religious blog posting comment after comment. Puzzling. Similarly, they are anti-religion, yet they religiously oppose it. Again, puzzling.
I find it funny that you don't mind "facts" when it benefits your "Jesus isn't fake" position.
@GSA :Spoken like a true conspracy theorist. In matters of opinion all it takes is a critical mind and the ability to read to give you a clear understanding of any author's point of view or bias. You do not need to do background checks or look up his agenda to understand the perspective of any article. I often lament the need for people to villify someone's background before they hear what they are saying or read what they write. Let's deal with the subject matter before we look for skeletons in their closets.
As for posting information going against what someone believes... that is not up to the supporters of an idea. That is up to those who are against their arguments. It is the principle of debate. If you would like to critique their arguments, do so by providing your own relevant arguments and citations. That is your responsibility not theirs.
@Peter F. It's not puzzling at all. It can be compared to you or Mark from Middle River or Catholic Mom posting on articles about Islam. Obviously you are not muslim yet you post and post... But I don't consider it puzzling. I know it's because you have something to say about religion and enjoy the debate. Much like David Johnson, peace2all and I do. You shouldn't be puzzled. We're not so different.
You seem to dismiss that atheists/agnostics are "pro"-something: Pro-Logic, Reason, Realism, Rationality, etc.
They (we) are here because this is where the "money" is, as Willie Sutton said. If it were important for our daily lives to elucidate people about the fallacy of Leprechaunism, that's where we would be.
Damn I love you!
You said, "maybe you guys should just state your opinions and stop backing them with so called "facts" since this is an opinion and discussion blog."
Spoken like a true fundie. Don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs! Why, you have the god given right to believe in talking snakes, knowledge and eternal life giving fruit, centuries old people, a flood that required at least a pair of every animal to be stuffed on a boat that was not viable, a tower, god was afraid would reach all the way to heaven, a zombie messiah, unicorns, satyrs, and a leviathan god does battle with. Nope, don't let reality wee wee on your delusions. LOL
Not a fundie? If it looks like a duck and bleats like a sheep, it is probably a fundie.
@David: Slow down man! We've only known each other a few weeks. Next thing you know you'll be sacrificing kittens to me...
Also what's wrong with those unicorns and satyrs?! I have my weekly unicorn and satyr or-gy/barbecue every Friday! Nothing wrong with that. Now the leprechauns... that's a whole other issue.
The difference is I know very little about Islam, so I try to stick to the Christian articles... AND that I genuinely care about the significance of faith journeys. Some of the atheist bloggers come right out and say faith is nonsense and believers are non-thinking... sooooo, why are you on here again?
@Peter F: Umm you don't know much about Islam but you do post on articles about it. How does that make you different from someone who doesn't know about religion but posts about that? Also does that mean you think David Johnson, peace2all and I all know nothing about religion? That's a vast assumption. And an incorrect one.
Also what do you mean by "faith journey"?
And I have never said religion is nonsense... Yet you assume that's my stance. Is it because I don't agree with you?
You've made a lot of assumptions. And a lot of confusing statements. I would hope you clarify them. Because I'm failing to grasp how anything you say applies to our discussions on topics of religion.
As I said, I TEND to stay away from Islamic articles. And if you notice, my comments on them are usually addressing other topics that people bring up. I know the bare minimum about Islam, so I don't go spewing their doctrine, or my response to it, in that blog section.
I didn't say you know nothing about religion, did I? I bet you do. I'm sure you've studied it in some depth. I also didn't say that YOU claimed religion and Christians to be nonsensical and unthinking... I just said that some atheist bloggers tend to do that. Don't take it personally, I'm just trying to understand what about this blog draws those who tend to be cynics rather than the faithful. Again, I mean no disrespect, I just thought that faith was about trusting in something unseen (faith blog) while many atheists/agnostics/naturalists hate the idea of faith.
I would say I'm more curious than anything.
@Peter F: Thank you for clarifying your stance. In discussions like this it is important to be specific to whom you are addressing. Maybe the lesson you can take from this exchange is that not all atheists/naturalists/agnostics hate the idea of faith. Lumping us all in together as one common enemy does each of us a disservice. In my experience, that mentality to classify and discard people as a group without caring about an individual's worth is the reason I became disenchanted with religion. Speaking for myself, I do not hate faith as I define it. Faith is necessary in each action we take. No one, not even fundamentalist christians, know what is going to happen next. And it is an act of faith in probability, logic, numbers and reason that can rule all our lives more than any book. For example, even though statistics show car accidents and heart attacks to be the biggest contributor to our mortality rate, we still will get in our cars to get to work and stop off at McDonalds for an Egg McMuffin for breakfast. Because even though the raw data says it's possible, our experience and probability says it's not likely that our arteries will clog and cause us to ram headlong into oncoming traffic on today a Tuesday. As someone else posted, we have faith, but we express that faith in a different way than you do. However, just because it is different, does not make it irrelevant.
You said, "You seem to be a very sarcastic and cynical individual who likes name-calling rather than dealing directly with the facts."
Hmmm... I believe we have debated in the past. Did I, out of frustration, call you names? No, it wasn't necessary.
I will debate with you anytime. There is no god. Prove me wrong.
The answer to your question of why it is that non-religious people follow and post in a religion blog is, to me, pretty simple.
When religion is allowed to go unchallenged, people get burned at the stake.
See Mike, that's why no one wants to play with you.
Reality cited his source.
Before you start posting that the stats are fake, at least do a little research.
@Dave are you really that short cited... Citing a source does not make that source reliable. So how is this claim even possible when the what a " critical scholars" is defined. Explain then how can it be cited? 80-90% of people at Westminster do not fall into the above stat.
Correction what a " critical scholars" is *not* defined.
@Mike, from above
You said, " are you really that short cited... Citing a source does not make that source reliable. So how is this claim even possible when the what a " critical scholars" is defined. Explain then how can it be cited? 80-90% of people at Westminster do not fall into the above stat."
What I said, "was to do some research BEFORE he started claiming the stats were incorrect. Try reading before you take me to task.
Congrats on misdirecting the point of the conversation.
umm...what is wrong with society? it strictly states in the Bible (clergy should know!!) in both old and new testament that this is wrong. Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 corinthians 6:8-10 HELLO!!! 1 timothy 1:9-11!! If they are clergy, they would know this is forbidden in the word they so dearly "follow". I am definitely prayin for God to speak to these people.
Some 21st century news:
New Torah For Modern Minds
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to dis-seminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc–ument.
More news: Paul's Timothy epistle was not written by Paul but by what most NT exegetes call, a pse-udo Paul.
From Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament, -80-90% of the critical scholars believe the letter was written by a pse-udo Paul toward the end of the first century, early second century.
Authenticity – Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death.
Ditto for the Ti-tus epistle.
-80-90% of the critical scholars believe the letter was written by a pse-udo ... no they don't stop making stats up. 100% of your comments are off base, illogical, and fradulant... ooh I can make up stats too.
If we learned anything from the recent discussion here on Christians getting tattoos it's that Christians have little difficulty dismissing biblical sanctions ... when it suits them. Many Christians already have on this issue. Perhaps you're just behind the times on this?
The stats are not made up. The ones cited are from the referenced book i.e. Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament. See p. 654 and p. 639.
@R, since you seem to own the book why do you not cited it for us?
Ahhh, the murky waters of same-se-x unions visited yet again. The larger question is why does anyone want to become leaders of religious groups when the foundations of these religions are severely flawed historically and theologically??
Okay, I bit. Flaws?
Now I know you well enough by now... to ask ...Peter....You know 'biting' on any of Reality's posts by now.... You know he is gonna' getcha'...! :-)
Good luck with that one....
I can't leave overarching claims like that alone... lol. It's just way too ambiguous, not to mention I really am curious to what he sees as flaws theologically.
The historic and theological flaws of the major religions: (for new members only)
1. The flaws of Orthodox Judaism as addressed by Conservative Judaism
Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment.
2. The flaws of Catholicism
Jesus was actually only an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hal-lucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mam-zer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hall-ucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hit-ti-tes, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
For added pizz-azz Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "fili-cider".
Pedo-ph-iliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
3 The Protestants and others
Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hal-lucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology
Mohammed was in reality an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hal-lucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hal-lucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.
5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) – "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism.
The caste system, monkey gods and cow worship/reverence.
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circu-mstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.
Current problems: reincarnation and Buddha legends
Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.
Then, apply the Five F rule: "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace in the world!!!!!
I jumped right to Protestantism (since that's where I come in) so no offense, but I didn't really feel it necessary to read through the rest. Hallucinations? LOL. Martin Luther became a monk after making an oath to God in the middle of a lightning storm. Eventually he began having issues with Catholic theology, related to indulgences, faith, their interpretation of many texts, and so on and so forth. The Reformation as we know it was a response to outdated (and distorted) theology that had been emphasizing works moreso than faith. Additionally, the whole issue of having a translation of the Bible that the public could read was a major issue during this time period. I find it funny that this is your "flaw" for Protestant theology – some random comments about how the major reformers probably had mental issues. Is that the best you can do!?!?!?! :-)
And I will admit to problems with adulterous preachers these days, but that says nothing about the claims of Christianity. Just a problem with sin every human being on the face of the earth struggles with... the church is not immune to that.
Expanding on "suffered from the belief in/hal-lucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits"
from: "Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hal-lucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions)
This goes directly to the "Angel Syndrome" i.e..
Joe Smith had his Mor-oni.
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this tinker belll got around).
Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Sa-tan, the latter being a modern day d-emon of the de-mented.
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
With respect to reference books:
Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997 (878 pages). The book is "Catholic" approved (imprimatur and Nihil obstat) and more than likely was used by B16 to prep his book (416 pages). Father Brown also reviews the historical Jesus movement in said book.
Other suggested books for your reference shelves:
Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
The books referenced at:
You are always challenging one of the "evil ones". You then whine when you are handed your head.
If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
sigh, how many times do we have to go over this Reality, you have seen my full post before and if I find it again I will cut and paste it but Jesus taught in the Synagogues luke 416-21, matthew 4, 13, Mark 6
He also engaged in great discussion with teachers of His time when He was 12
Please stop spreading the lies of Brown and Crossan, who was exposed as a fraud even amoung his peers for his lack of scientific method during the Jesus Seminars.
I don't think I've once been "handed my head" or "ripped a new one."
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else...
More reference materials for Mike:
Historical Jesus Studies, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
– a list of early Christian docu-ments to include the year of publication
3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
– "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"
4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html–"The JESUS DATABASE is an online an-notated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
5. Jose-phus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.- noted previously
10. 7. The Gn-ostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gn-os-ticism)
Did you not even read my reply. If you had you wouldn't have even posted 4,6,7, 10. I will look into the others. Thanks for the research. Currently I am looking for that old study that was done where some one took the falses assumptions (the sky is always read, there are 27 hours in a day) and used goo-gle to find at least 10 sources to back up their claim. Interesting study.
Who cares if they are lesbians or not? Why is that even an issue? Is it who they are or is it just a tiny part of who they are??
Although you might try to tell them not to run with scissors...(joking)
Oh no you didn't..... :-)
If Lesbians can join the clergy, then male clergy should be allowed to marry. Just sayin... :)
They are. Pastors in almost all Lutheran churches have been allowed to marry ever since the start of the reformation. Martin Luther (who was central to the reformation and from who the lutheran church gets it's name) married a former nun and had many children with her. In fact, he was known to be quite the advocate of passionate marriage relationships.
On another note–the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Rites (the main denominations that do require celibacy)–does not (in my opinion) represent the early Christian practices of the Church. While there were obviously prominent apostles and teachers who CHOSE to be celibate, it was never a requirement in the early church. Celibacy of the priesthood in the Catholic church only became a requirement (to some degree) in the 3rd century and even later according to some. It's widely agreed upon that the early church was led–most often–by married men.
Just wanted to throw some of this info out. My point is that the church these women are being ordained in has had married pastors since it's start (in the 16th century).
To bad they were not at least hot lesbians. Thant would be hot.
And why shouldn't 'lesbians' be a part of the clergy...?
I am curious as to how all of the fundies will play this one out..... play the god doesn't like it card....? play the it's a 'sin' card...?
I congratulate them...... equal opportunities.... I may not agree with their religion, but equality is good...
You go girls....! :-)
Quick question why do you care? If you hate the religion why would you care who is in the ministry?
2 tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Religion, all religion, is a joke. It is make believe. I love the fact lesbians are joining the clergy, for two reasons:
1. All religions have oppressed women forever. I love to see women achieve equality.
2. The Christian Right hates gays and lesbians. It must sting really badly to see lesbian ministers.
This is a win – win for me Adrian.
Ok we get it you hate religion now go get a life or is trolling the internet the only thing you do? Wow you're pathetic i wouldnt have faith either if i had a crappy life like yours.
My original comment got the dreaded "Your comment is awaiting moderation" So, not sure if you will get to see it or not.
But, I will try again:
1)I did not say I "hate" their religion-- I said that "I may not 'agree' with their religion. Big difference.
2)I am for equality for women. For far too long the Church and has oppressed women.
3)This country, in general, is quite often still very 'hate-filled' regarding same s** relationships. I think that is wrong in my opinion.
4)Why not let the women be clergy... anyway.....? I have not heard any reasons as to why they shouldn't.
I am with my friend, David Johnson on this issue..... Although, I don't have the disdain he has. But, we do share similar world-views on almost all of the issues to date.
Maybe something to learn here about *equal right*.... equality.... love, acceptance and tolerance...?
You said, "Ok we get it you hate religion now go get a life or is trolling the internet the only thing you do? Wow you're pathetic i wouldnt have faith either if i had a crappy life like yours."
Am I pathetic because I have a crappy life, or because you could not refute my arguments against your bible and god? I think the latter.
You have faith, because you are a non-thinking sheep. When you are presented with ideas that challenge your faith, you close your eyes, cover your ears and bleat, "Is Not, Is Not!"
You never answered by post before. I will ask again, just in case you missed it:
If all the species that are found on earth, are not the product of evolution, then why are there transitional fossils?
Did god keep creating prototypes, until he got it right?
If god created man, first, why does man have nip ples? God would have known man would never nurse. Now if man is the product of evolution, I could understand. But if god created him...
You accuse me of trolling. Hmmm.... So does Mike, Brad, Keith and apparently you. The difference, is that they take the Christian side. You are okay with that.
As usual, your argument smells like a dumpster. Cheers!
@David Johnson: I thought we cleared this up. Men have ni-pples for the clamps! BTW Have you seen Kate lately... I'm in withdrawal.
No, I was thinking about her absence this morning. I haven't seen here all weekend. Hope she is well.
They care because they want people like you to get upset. And you know what, Paul said that would happen!
Hey there pal..! Well, you know.... I can't speak for my buddies David Johnson and Frogist, but..... I certainly have no desire to *upset* Adrian here.....
But, some of his assertions, in my opinion, needed to be challenged..... You know how we like to debate here...! That's all...
Once you come to understand, you and your evangelical beliefs are always wrong, and we are always right, then you will be able to let go... and relax. Stop fighting it.... it only makes the 'transformation' worse for you.. :-)
Hey Peter.... You know I am just playin' with ya'..... well, yes and no.... :-)
Peace to you Peter....
Well you were the one who started the thread, so I know it wasn't meant to target Adrian. However, many bloggers such as yourself, David, Frogist, NL, etc. seem not to have any interest in learning from religion (which makes me wonder why you're here in the first place, no offense) other than to incite the Christian community which, for the most part, overwhelmingly disagrees with ordaining openly gay pastors.
If you're not a professing Christian, why does it matter to you? See... that's why my first reaction is that comments like that are intended to provoke others who care about living by faith in Christ.
Catchin' my drift?
PS. FYI I very much dislike the system of moderation here...
@ Peter F.:I'm not sure what you mean by learning from religion... Could you elaborate?
And as for why we're here I think I already replied to that. To my previous answer I will add that the equality afforded to gays and women is severely lacking in our society. And I relish any inroads into breaking down those inequalities.
I also don't understand what you mean by inciting the Christian community. I'm here to express my opinion as are you. And as far as I can remember I have been polite towards you. It's not my fault that certain christians and their opinions cannot withstand scrutiny.
Also you might note that the christians in this blog post do not oppose gays becoming pastors.
PS I too dislike the filter.
@Frogist and peace2all
"I may not agree with their religion but equality is good."
I guess I'm just caught up on that comment specifically, and others (from non-believers) that are aligned with that perspective. It's about following God's will – and that's what the church believes in. So the fact that you don't agree with Christianity basically discounts your perspective. Believe me, I mean no offense, and I don't mean to discriminate. I'm simply saying, if you're not Christian how much is your opinion on church practice actually worth?
Oh my.... I am sensing a bit of a 'chink' in your armor from the powerful onslaught from Me, Frogist, Reality, NL, Kate, Critter, Luke, David Johnson......(No offense, of course)..
You do remember, I mentioned, on one of the articles the other day that we were debating on, that at some point, like in 'chess,' you often leave yourself wide open.... and I, and others would, at some point... get you...and here you have already provided us with a few wonderful openings... It's late... but, lets proceed by deconstructing just a few of your assertions...shall we..?
******You said..."It's about following God's will–and that is what the Church believes in."
Tell me Peter, What is God's will on this issue......? Because, more and more Churches in several denominations are ordaining more gay and lesbian clergy...heck ordaining women for that matter. Apparently in the past, it wasn't God's will, ....but, hey, looks like now it is for some, and increasingly so. And... You and I both know, as does most everyone else, that it-the practice of ordaining gay/lesbian clergy, will continually grow.
And man that is sure making the 'evangelicals' thump their bibles now...I can hear them.. :-) That's got to be a real p*i*s*s*e*r for you guys,,, eh Peter....? Because, what the heck would any gay or lesbian know about life, exploring the concept of God and Jesus...(who as I understand it.... is silent about the 'whole' it's not o.k..to be gay thing you guys like to make a big deal over).
And here is a *perfect* and direct counter example to your assertion. "3 Lesbian Pastors are officially (welcomed) into the Lutheran Clergy."
So, are you saying the Churches that do, ordain gay/lesbian clergy,... and again (increasingly doing so) are *not* following God's will...? Because 'you' and the ones that 'believe' as you do have the absolute 'truth' on God's will......And everyone else does not know the real 'truth' and follow God's will......?
Or... is 'God's' will changing and the Christian community is more and more starting to get inline finally with God's will, as you know, even God get's to change his mind, right.....? Darn...now the fundies have to not discriminate any more. Dang it Lord, it was just easier leaving things the way they used to be.
Or, this has 'always' been God's will--i.e..more equality for all..... and the Christian community is finally, after centuries, starting to actually practice and follow God's will...? (My personal vote..assuming your model of their being an actual God who has a will etc... Would be for this last one), but what the heck do us 'non-Christians' know anyway...we don't really count... right Peter.....LOL.
BTW--Can't speak for Frogist and the rest...but, I believe that I mentioned to you that I 'was' a Christian for 25 years. So, do my perspectives count now.... ? or no, they don't count even though I was in the 'club' for 25 years. ?
Oh, and I have and continually do study- World Religions(besides study in Christian theology) ,Philosophies, Psychology, Sociology, etc.... Would my/and the rest of the gang's opinions still not count...?...or now maybe they do...?
So....my point on this one is *obviously* 'you' don't actually know God's will-–As each Church and denomination, sans 'catholicism' at this point, is ordaining gay and lesbian clergy... Are they 'not' following God's will.....? Or, are they...? If they are not.... who says 'you' and your Church are the authority on this... ?
I will remind you, about our conversation the other day..... remember you said that a lot of Christians *do not* interpret the bible literally. It is open for interpretation. Remember that one...? You had deflected my question to you by taking the 'open for interpretation' route.... Again, you have opened yourself up to...well, who is right, the 'chinese handcuff' scenario....the literalists...or the interpretists....? If you say the 'interpretists'...well WHO's interpretation......? If you say the 'literalists' ...well, we know where that leads.
If... it is open for 'interpretation' then some of the Churches( and growing in numbers and denominations) have different views as to what the heck is ....God's will....right..? And some obviously believe it *IS* God' will to have gay/lesbian clergy.... Ergo.... No one really knows God's will...do they Peter.... Or maybe they do, but, how would they 'truly' know it....?
That definitely puts to rest that one.... you will certainly 'try' i am sure .. to come up with some answer/s that deflects, or denies, or 'what I really mean to say was'....
Let's go on to the next one shall we...?
*******You said..."So, the fact that you don't agree with Christianity, basically discounts your perspective"
-–Peter, I am thinking on this one you probably went Ooooops as soon as you hit the 'post' button.
So, now you are saying one has to be in agreement with Christianity, otherwise their 'perspectives' don't count....? Really Peter..? So, o.k....which version of Christianity must one be in agreement with before their perspectives count...? Or allowed to have a valid viewpoint. And....What about the Christian 'believers' that *don't* agree with *your* perspectives..... does that mean that 'their' perspectives don't count either....?
See what a real tangled mess you made of that one Peter... not to mention the 'veiled' allusion that unless you're a Christian, then anything you have to say has no 'validity.' That is in essence what you are saying here.. and you go on to say it again, in the following sentence after that.
And I also agree with @Frogist.....Where do you get off accusing 'me' of not wanting to learn from religion. After all of the respectful postings we have done...? I was under the impression that you were wanting to learn more about our perspectives as well.... You know... a mutual discussion and debate. Just because we don't agree with you, you interpret that as we 'just don't want to learn'...? That is extremely arrogant. That totally presupposes your 'beliefs' and 'assumptions' as facts..and not just opinions open for scrutiny and debate for all to experience..
Peter.... you know better.... come on pal... I know you can do better than that .. :-)
You catchin' MY drift Peter....? *checkmate*...! :-)
Just sayin' and correctin' as our friend KATE would say.... :-)
Good night Peter.....
I'm glad you've given this a lot of thought, man. I really am. People who look deep into the issues at hand are the ones that really care about how society functions, both in a religious context as well as a secular one. So kudos on the long post. I'll try to take it piece by piece, but if I miss something you wanted me to respond to, definitely reply and let me know:
I hear a lot of liberal Christians and non-believers attacking the right-wing (and even moderate evangelicals) for claiming to know "the truth." Well, the truth as we know it is rooted in Scripture. There are several specific passages condemning gay relations. If Christians really are following Scripture as they claim to, then it should not be hard to discern what the Lord says about the issue. I think Jonathan hit the nail on the head when he quoted 2 Tim 4. Parts of the church are migrating further from the groundwork of their faith toward what they think to be right. And while that may seem commendable to some, "right" and "wrong" are not subjective for those who believe in God.
As far as the whole perspective issue is concerned. You don't believe in God, right? You don't proclaim to know Christ on a personal level, correct? I didn't think that was a huge assumption to make considering our past discussions. So I was simply saying I'm not exactly sure why you care how different churches interpret doctrine if you think the doctrine is 100% faulty. Does that make sense to you? I'm not sure what caught you up on that post...
LOL, oh peace. You want to learn? Do you? Every post you send has something to do with "you can do better" or "checkmate" signifying you think this is a battle and you're not willing to give any room. Maybe occasionally I say something that makes you stop and think... I don't know. And it is 100% true that you've said things that make me stop and think about the issue in question in a little more detail. I don't see any checkmate anywhere, though. However, I do see a rift in the Christian church. Where one side (my side) interprets the text in a more literal sense, others try to take out some kind of moral teaching and apply it to life. There is a huge difference there. By stopping and reading the text, it wouldn't be too hard to discover God's will on the issues related to this article.
Catchin' my drift, bud?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.