Here's an interesting and scary quote.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God.

Between them and who's God? Their God, or yours?

You stated you are a christian, you answer that question.

To my knowledge, Jesus did not address sexual orientation- at least not as relates to homosexuality. He left that up to individuals and their Gods.

Obviously you haven't read Romans Chapter 1 have you, or do you just ignore it.

Does Romans Chapter one purport to quote Jesus?

that the whole reward and punishment system was to be left to God, not preachers or priests or anybody professing faith.

So are you disagreeing with the statement above, Cato?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The same is true of sexual orientation. A person makes a choice as to their orientation and that's fine with me. Don't shove it in my face, however. If a person wants to be a homosexual that's between them and God.

Between them and who's God? Their God, or yours?

You stated you are a christian, you answer that question.

To my knowledge, Jesus did not address sexual orientation- at least not as relates to homosexuality. He left that up to individuals and their Gods.

Obviously you haven't read Romans Chapter 1 have you, or do you just ignore it.

Does Romans Chapter one purport to quote Jesus?

You call yourself a christain, you tell me. By the way, the question still pending between you and I is whether or not it is wrong to spill innocent blood. They answer is either yes of no.

Stephanie wrote:

that the whole reward and punishment system was to be left to God, not preachers or priests or anybody professing faith.

So are you disagreeing with the statement above, Cato?

No, however, as I have been saying you, cannot take one or two verses and make doctrine out of it.

This comes down to people making choices. Every choice has reward and consequences. I will assmume you are pseaking about my feelings toward renting to homosexual, adulterous, and unwed couple. I will assume you call htat punishment. No, i'm punishing anybody. I'm not stopping them from going elsewhere. What I am doing is saying if you want to do this, its your choice, just as I have made a choice not to rent or sell property to you. There is no government or no law involved. They made a choice and they will deal with the consequences of that choice, just as I will have to deal with the consequences of my choice.

Jesus said to be in the world, but not of the world. Yea, I live here, but I choose not to be a participant in many of the things I see people doing. People choose whether or not they are going to be obedient to the commands of Christ. If they choose to, then certain rules apply, if they choose not to, well then I guess no rules apply. I choose to follow Christ's teaching to best of my ability and that means I cannot condone the lifestyle of homosexuals, adulterers, or unmarried couples. It does not mean I won't assoicate witht hem, It does not mean I won't eat with them or sell food, gas or whatever. It does not mean I will be hateful to them. It does mean I will not do anything that indicates I condone their lifestyle.

Finally I want to remind you that you yourself said your biblical knowledge was limited. The bible is a whole writing. You cannot depend on what others say it says nor can you look at a couple of verses and conclude that to be doctrine. If you are going to dicuss what the bible says then you need to read it and understand it. You can't pick and choose what you are going to accept and what you are not.

I'm not trying to make a doctrine, Cato. I'm just reminding you what the point of the entire book is.

I can't possibly read that book. It simply doesn't interest me enough. I do think you did just admit I do get the point, however.

Stephanie wrote:I'm not trying to make a doctrine, Cato. I'm just reminding you what the point of the entire book is.

The point of the entire book from Genesis to Revelatioin is the messiah (Jesus), his crusification, and his reserection.

Stephanie wrote:I can't possibly read that book. It simply doesn't interest me enough. I do think you did just admit I do get the point, however.

If you haven't read the book, how can you tell me what it is about? As far as admitting you get the point, I don't think so. There is far far more to the bible than you seem to be aware of.

I have read portions of it. I was raised in the Catholic Church where few people read the Bible cover to cover. At mass portions of are read depending upon what week it is, and they change year to year. I think the individual priest has some say over the selection. That doesn't mean they never read from it, or that I haven't read portions.

THere is a lot of "stuff" in there. I don't view the OT the same as I do the NT. I'm not sure how you think of it, "the word of God" I suspect. I view the OT as a series of folk/tall tales, some based on natural events people simply did not understand. The NT I figure is likely a bit more historically accurate, in that a person called Jesus probably did live and was probably a very kind and gifted person. I don't believe every word attributed to him was spoken by him and I certainly don't believe he rose from the dead. I do believe he tried to get people to be kind to one another and to treat each other with respect and dignity. I think he'd probably like being remembered that way rather than have people fighting and killing over whether or not he was sent here to save us all from ourselves.

Cato wrote:There is far far more to the bible than you seem to be aware of.

And here I though accepting Jesus was the ONLY way into heaven. You mean I have to do more?

Hi Steph,

I read from books all the time, but just like getting only parts of a conversation can give you the absolute wrong idea of it, the same can be said for the Bible. Keli's context gag "Judas went and hung himself" and "go thou and do likewise" is particularly appropriate here.

When I look at the Bible, I find a moral code that makes perfect sense but that I cannot live up to, and the Savior who died such that I can be forgiven justly.

I realize that you are an "apatheist" so I will not belabor this point. I only want to ask the following, and then I promise to let it go: When you say that you do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but that you do believe that he actually existed and said some nice things, on what do you base this? Have you decided to believe the parts of the Bible that you happen to like and toss out what you don't?

Stephanie wrote:My problem is this, Cato, Christians who denounce Islam are really no different from Muslims who denounce Christianity. Your insistance that Islam is evil because of the words of OBL are really no different from me saying all Christians are evil because of the words of Jerry Falwell.

I'm not trying to create doctrine, I'm trying to demonstrate that those who insist those who don't agree with their interpretation of biblical scripture are sinners are following the words most Christians attribute to Jesus Christ himself. Nowhere does Christ state those who follow in his footsteps should judge and compare others. He does tell his followers that they are to love their neighbors and treat them as they would him.

So why do you suppose it is OBL has targeted the USA instead of Argentina or Canada or Australia? Why don't they have to convert to Islam?

You really think you can compare Falwell and OBL? Falwell believe that sinning made God angry and left you liable to be judged by God.
Exactly how is that the same as ordering people to kill in the name of Allah?

Stephanie wrote:I have read portions of it. I was raised in the Catholic Church where few people read the Bible cover to cover. At mass portions of are read depending upon what week it is, and they change year to year. I think the individual priest has some say over the selection. That doesn't mean they never read from it, or that I haven't read portions.

THere is a lot of "stuff" in there. I don't view the OT the same as I do the NT. I'm not sure how you think of it, "the word of God" I suspect. I view the OT as a series of folk/tall tales, some based on natural events people simply did not understand. The NT I figure is likely a bit more historically accurate, in that a person called Jesus probably did live and was probably a very kind and gifted person. I don't believe every word attributed to him was spoken by him and I certainly don't believe he rose from the dead. I do believe he tried to get people to be kind to one another and to treat each other with respect and dignity. I think he'd probably like being remembered that way rather than have people fighting and killing over whether or not he was sent here to save us all from ourselves.

You can't read the bible with preconceived notions. If you are going to believe the old testament is a bunch of fairy tales, then you have to accept the whole wirting old and new testment in the same manner, and thus the bible is of no vlaue. Additionally, if you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, because that is the whole point fo the book.

I want to point one thing out. Jesus in his prayer to God as found in John 17. state that God's word is truth John 17:17. If God's word is truth and God said the messiah would rise form the dead, and Jesus said he had risen from the dead, then either it has to be true or the entirity of the scriptures are a lie and you are saying the God is a liar.

I believe the was executed, dead, and buried and rose again from the dead. I have have no reason to believe otherwise. I also believe that if I am going to accept the gift of salvation then there are rules I have to follow. Jesus says so in John 14:15.

Cato wrote:
You can't read the bible with preconceived notions. If you are going to believe the old testament is a bunch of fairy tales, then you have to accept the whole wirting old and new testment in the same manner, and thus the bible is of no vlaue. Additionally, if you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, because that is the whole point fo the book.

What about the lost books of the bible. Or are you saying that God was present at the Council of Nicaea and he chose the books of the King James Version of the bible?

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:
You can't read the bible with preconceived notions. If you are going to believe the old testament is a bunch of fairy tales, then you have to accept the whole wirting old and new testment in the same manner, and thus the bible is of no vlaue. Additionally, if you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, because that is the whole point fo the book.

What about the lost books of the bible. Or are you saying that God was present at the Council of Nicaea and he chose the books of the King James Version of the bible?

I'm saying that we have what God intended for us to have.

Why could none of the lost books not have been included? And what about books, test and subjects discussed at the 6 councils that followed the Council of Nicaea convoked by Constantine I in 325? Was God one and done on Council meetings?

Aaron wrote:Why could none of the lost books not have been included? And what about books, test and subjects discussed at the 6 councils that followed the Council of Nicaea convoked by Constantine I in 325? Was God one and done on Council meetings?

Does not God work in the world of men.

Here is something to think about and something I proves that God does work in the world. The catholic church has had amble oppertunity to change the scriptures into something more inline with chruch tradition, yet they never have. Martin Luther once stated that the book of James should never have been included inthe canon, yet there is ti and there it remains, wvwn when the Catholic church had full control of the canon. Why didn't they remove the book?

Why do you suppose it is that Christians get so upset when the discussion turns to lost gospels such as those of Mary or Judas?

Could it be they fear that they could contain some amount of truth to them?

Perhaps Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and Judas was his closest disciple and most fervent believer and thus that is why Jesus had him commit the betrayal?

Cato wrote: Martin Luther once stated that the book of James should never have been included inthe canon, yet there is ti and there it remains, ...

This Gospel of James http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stj20001.htm is not in the Bible.

The epistle of James is a book of the bible Sam.

Aaron wrote:Why do you suppose it is that Christians get so upset when the discussion turns to lost gospels such as those of Mary or Judas?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that it is because it causes them to question their faith. I have found that alot of people fear anything that calls their beliefs into question.

Aaron wrote:Could it be they fear that they could contain some amount of truth to them?

While I have never spent much time studying them. I have heard them discussed and if they ever put a couple more hours in the day or I retire I do plan to look closer at them. I don't doubt that they may contain some truth. That's not the point. I beleive that what is contained int he scriptures as we have them today is what God intended for us to have. Now, I base that belief on the following:

1. God said he wasn't the author of confusion. That means that the scriptures have to fit together without contradiction. What we have does.

2. What we have agrees with prophesy.

3. Historical writers of the period seem to agree with the account of the bible.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and Judas was his closest disciple and most fervent believer and thus that is why Jesus had him commit the betrayal?

Was Jesus married is something we will never know. However, the point is he was betrayed, as prophesied, and that he was crusified, dead, buried, and rose again is what is important.

Cato wrote:However, the point is he was betrayed, as prophesied, and that he was crusified, dead, buried, and rose again is what is important.

And that is the ONLY thing that matters in the bible as that's the only thing that will get you into heaven and the rest is just fill whether it be the epistle of Timothy or the lost Gospel of Judas and that includes any moral code you or anyone else lives by.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:However, the point is he was betrayed, as prophesied, and that he was crusified, dead, buried, and rose again is what is important.

And that is the ONLY thing that matters in the bible as that's the only thing that will get you into heaven and the rest is just fill whether it be the epistle of Timothy or the lost Gospel of Judas and that includes any moral code you or anyone else lives by.

I guess these have no bearing then.

John 14:25-27; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter1:20-21; James Chapter 2; or Matthew 7;21-23.

So now you're saying that one has to live righteously, among other things, in order to get into heaven?

And here I thought that God had made covenants with man and each time, man failed to live up to his end of the bargain thus God came to earth in the form of a man, walked this earth, went to the cross on Calvary, died for our sins, was buried in the tomb for 3 days, woke and was resurrected and ascended into heaven as the path for us to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Silly me.

Aaron wrote:So now you're saying that one has to live righteously, among other things, in order to get into heaven?

John 14:15 Jesus speaking, "If you love me, keep my commandments"

Matthew 7:21, Not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven only he that does of my father that is in heaven.

Now either Jesus was wrong, or we have a requirement to keep the commands God has given us, including what is found in the epistles.

So which is it, did Jesus die on the cross for our sins and that is our entrance into Heaven or is that not how it works?

Aaron wrote:So which is it, did Jesus die on the cross for our sins and that is our entrance into Heaven or is that not how it works?

And it is written,

Jesus speaking if you love me keep my commandments.

1 John 2:2-5 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

James 2: 17-26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.