Religious Curiousity

Remove all ads!

May I just say, WOW. Fljotsdale, you have helped me very much. You may not be a Christian, but you sure are a well of information for it.

To comment on one thing in your post about being old... Personally, I have thought of death quite a bit. I hardly think I will live forever. I actually kind of make sure that after every day, I don't have something left that I wish I would have done in case I die. I don't know if it's just me, but I would like to think I'm prepared to die at any time without being bitter about it.

By the way, when you asked about what option I was talking about. It was about the Book of Life deal and resorting to old ways; however, you already answered that.

Give me some more time to think about some other questions I have.

 

Vile? You are very welcome to any help I can offer. Although not a christian myself, I am fully aware of the very great benefit people can gain from following the teachings of Jesus Christ - I have seen it in action! However, I do not like to see people taught stuff as 'truth' when it cannot be upheld biblically. Makes me cross!

Regarding thinking of death - yes, you are right. I had forgotten how much I used to think of it in my teens - even attempted suicide once as a teenager. I think the life experience of some people DOES affect how much they think of death.
But I also have to say that much of my life was NOT spent worrying about it! It was only when my brother died at age 60 that I really thought about it again.

I look forward to your future posts!

 

You sound more christian than any christian I've met so far Fljotsdale (except our priest of course).
Oh dear I just read some parts of the Bible.
I have never read the real Bible before, "only" the version our priest gave us at my confermation.
It certainly explains many of the religious wars in the past...and now.
Seems like all "holy" books tell who are the "chosen people" and who are "lower".
Oh well...I don't think any christian gives a damn about the old testament anyway.
At least not in my country...in fact it seems like people don't even give a damn about the church anymore. Guess why?
First there are all the anti-christian crap, that makes people believe we are fanatics.
But where DOES these myths really come from?
Yep. The old testament.
The church ought to stop printing the damn thing, and just print the new testament.
That's all they priest's teach about anyway.
Besides young people link the church with the word "boring".
You know...the "rebellion".
"Christianity sucks because it...uh...sucks."

 

LOL!
Actually, Divine Shadow, without the Old Testament the New is just a book like any other. The entire foundation of the New Testament is the Old. Take away the Old and you are left with a two story building without the ground floor....
Crash......

 

Blast it Flojtsdale! This is like defending a ditch from a panzer battalion!


Anyway, yes, I was aware of the origins of the Rosary. D'you know whats funny though? Most of Christian tradition is based on paganism. (Boy does that make me feel warm and fuzzy.)

All right, I'll sum up why I believe in what I've said. There have been appearences of saints and sinners throughout history. Either their "ghosts" or their sendings. Refute it as fanaticism if you want, but I still hold (most of) them as truth. Through their words and teachings, the Rosary, Purgatory, and so on are explained in detail. Call it a leap of faith. If I am wrong in this life, oh well. Either I'll be saved or I won't, but I'm willing to take that gamble.

On to other things, I think that your statement about the Old Testament is true. (Personnally I like the Old better than the New, don't know why).

So anyway, the Pope died and proceeded to the Pearly Gates. There, he encountered a well dressed business type man, and Saint Peter. Greeting them, Peter led them through the gates and into the "House of Many Rooms". Beautiful it was, and praises were sung at every hand. Peter turned left, and as he proceeded down the hallway, his two companions noticed that the rooms were getting better and better as they went along. After some time, the young man introduced himself as a lawyer who had died after defending a Catholic man in court.
Almost as soon as this was said, they reached the end of the hall, and Peter turned to the young lawyer -
"'Tis thy abode young master. Here, thou shalt find all that you enjoyed in life! A golf course doth lie here, as doth your swimming pool, tennis court, multi-media room, grand piano, water bed, and hot tub. Enjoy it with all the passion thou canst muster."
Turning back the way they had come, the Pope noticed that the rooms were getting shabbier and shabbier. Finally, they reached the end of this hall. A screen door hung off the frame, and inside it was dirty and small. A bedframe stood in one corner and the television had a hole through the screen.
"Here ist thy domain. Enjoy it well."
"Um...Saint Peter...I'm not complaining but, what's the deal? That young man received all that he desired, and I get this. I am not complaining, mind you, but I would dearly love to know."
Saint Peter looked the Pope over and nodded.
"John, here in this place we hath received multitudes such as thyself. But that is the first lawyer we ever got."

 

Of course it's impossible to remove the old testament. But it just doesn't fit in a socalled "good book".
It gives people a wrong wiev of the religion.

 

Hmmmmmmmm, Sapiryl. Yes, I know pretty well all about the pagan beliefs held dear by christians, lol!
Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, hey? Well, if being pagan is what lights the 'christian' candle...
Let me list a few of those pagan beliefs and traditions:

Hell.
The Immortal Soul.
Purgatory.
Limbo.
Every good person goes to heaven when they die.
Christmas traditions (gifts, tree, yule log, etc).
Easter traditions (eggs, bunny rabbits, simnel cake, hot cross buns, etc).
Trinity doctrine.
The physical assumption of Mary into heaven.
Mary being the 'mother of god'.

Shall I go on.....? The list covers most of your most basic beliefs. They are none of 'em to be found in the bible!
Of course, I am aware that some 'christian' religions place 'church' teachings ahead of the bible, even though claiming the bible as 'the word of god'.
Speaking personally, if I were a 'believer' I'd want to be sure that my beliefs were what my GOD taught rather than the teachings of mere human beings, whether they were proclaimed 'saints' by one pope or another or not. LOTS of the saints people used to believe in were eliminated from the lists during my lifetime, anyway - so, what about papal infalibility then? Tsk! Tsk!


Divine Shadow - ROFL! Just 'cos it 'doesn't fit' people's IDEA of who the bible god is?
Tsk! Tsk! again! If you are christian, friend, you have to take him as he is portrayed or forget the whole thing! You can't pick and choose the bits you want to believe in and forget the rest - the day may come when he says 'I do not know you, get away from me, you workers of lawlessness...'
Still, it's YOUR risk...



[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 15, 2001).]

 

I would like to (pleasently) refute some of the things that you proclaimed as pagan (although, yes you did score quite a few points!)


1) Hell.
Actually, this is in Revelations. Or at least, Gehenna, which is the Hebrew word.

2) The Immortal Soul.
Shall dwell in my father's house for all eternity?

3) Christmas traditions (gifts, tree, yule log, etc).
The actual celebration of Christmas falls on the same day as an old Roman holiday (I can't remember which one) and the early Christians used its date to celebrate so that they could use the original holiday as a cover-up. (They wouldn't get in trouble if they were celebrating a lawful holiday.)

4) Trinity doctrine.
Although the Bible does not state a "Trinity" it does state the three persons in God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

5) Mary being the 'mother of god'.
Well, as Jesus was the Son of God (one of the three persons) Mary WAS the Mother of God.


As far as Easter, Limbo, Purgatory - yes, they never appear in the Bible. The Easter Bunny, eggs, etc. is actually part of a traditional EGYPTIAN holiday. Hee hee, talk about dramatic irony. And an even weirder thing, is that the actual date of Easter is set according to the Spring Equinox. *Shrugs* I dunno.

Papal infalibility is not exactly what everyone thinks it is. Papal infalibility is only used on certain proclamations. The Pope has to actually state that he is speaking with infalibility. It has only happened three times in history. One of those times to state that Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul.

 

Thats quite right Fjlotsdale...but christianity IS based upon the new testament.
It is based upon a belief in God...not fear.
And I really don't think God really commanded the isralites to do all those things.
He created the tablets of...uh...what are they called on english?
Why should he then command the isralites to break the laws he had just created?!
But MAYBE it wasn't him who commanded those things. It could have been the devil.
OKAY. I know it's a lame excuse.
But it's definitely his style isn't it?

 

Hi, Sapiryl!

I would like to (pleasently) refute some of the things that you proclaimed as pagan (although, yes you did score quite a few points!)

Scored ALL of ‘em actually, even if you don’t know it, lol!

1) Hell.
Actually, this is in Revelations. Or at least, Gehenna, which is the Hebrew word.

Y’know it never ceases to amaze me that even with modern scholarship the churches still teach this! The word ‘Gehenna’ is taken from ‘Gei Hinnom’ – Valley of Hinnom, a valley to the west of Jerusalem. The verse in Revelation simply uses it as a symbol of utter and complete destruction. Remember – Revelation is written in symbolic language: Rev 1:1
Note:
“the valley of Hinnom… became the common lay-stall of the city, where the dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals, and every other kind of filth was cast.” M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature.
“In a later period it was made a place for the dumping of refuse, and perpetual fires were maintained to prevent pestilence” The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia.
“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through… persistently rendering the Hebrew ‘Sheol’, the Greek ‘Hades’, and ‘Gehenna’ by the word ‘hell’. Revised editions of the Bible (have) not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.” Encyclopedia Americana.
I have already mentioned the meaning of Gehenna. Sheol was the Hebrew word meaning ‘the grave’ in the OT. In the Greek Septuagint OT the word Sheol was translated by the Greek word ‘Hades’ – the abode of the dead. To Greek-speaking Jews Hades meant the same as Sheol did to Hebrew-speakers – the Grave. Yet all three of these words are frequently translated into English as Hell – a place of torment.
Obedience to god meant an eventual reward of everlasting life (on earth). Disobedience meant everlasting death. Simple as that. Reward and punishment balanced out. And think about it. During even the wickedest lifetime you could never do enough badness to justify eternal torment, could you? And what sort of god would even dream of such a thing, let alone USE it as an instrument of eternal torture?

2) The Immortal Soul.
Shall dwell in my father's house for all eternity?

Yeah – but what has that to do with possessing an immortal soul? Remember, before the coming of Jesus NO ONE had gone to heaven. (John 3:13; Acts 2:34) Sooooooo……. If the people – good and bad alike – had ‘immortal souls, where were all the ‘souls’ of those who died from the time of Adam to the time of Jesus, hm? Limbo? Purgatory? Hardly! Those are purely church-created doctrines. Purgatory was for the purpose of getting money out of the faithful by making them buy ‘indulgences’ to save either themselves or their loved ones from suffering in purgatory, and Limbo was a way of explaining what happened to unbaptised babies who died, so that parents would be sure to pay for their baptism before death could occur, so that the infant would go to heaven. The church LOVED the immortal soul belief! It is not biblical, you know.
The hope of everlasting life for mankind was on earth: Psalm 37:9,11; Proverbs 2:21,22; Revelation 21:1-4.
Many scriptures show that man IS a soul rather than being the POSSESOR of a soul: Genesis 2:7; 1Corinthians 15:45; Deuteronomy 24:7; 1 Peter 3:20; Numbers 23:10; Job 7:15; Joshua 11:11; Genesis 9:9.
The bible even calls ANIMALS ‘souls’ :Leviticus 24:18
You may or may not find that your copy of the bible uses the word ‘soul’ in these scriptures. In the original languages the word ‘nephesh’ in Hebrew and ‘psykhe’ in Greek are used. In a translation of the Torah (the first 5 books of the bible), H M Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College stated that ‘the Hebrew word in question here is ‘nefesh’. He added ‘Other translators have interpreted it as ‘soul’, which is completely inaccurate. The bible does not say we have a soul. Nephesh is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being’. In the Septuagint, the Greek ‘psykhe’ is used to translate ‘nephesh’ (nefesh)
Our idea that man HAS a ‘soul’ is, then quite at odds with the bible words often translated as ‘soul’. Man IS a soul, a ‘nephesh’, a flesh and blood being.

3) Christmas traditions (gifts, tree, yule log, etc).
The actual celebration of Christmas falls on the same day as an old Roman holiday (I can't remember which one) and the early Christians used its date to celebrate so that they could use the original holiday as a cover-up. (They wouldn't get in trouble if they were celebrating a lawful holiday.)

The Natalis Solis Invicti. It immediately followed the Saturnalia. And it was the CHURCH that adopted it so that the ‘christianised’ pagans would not abandon their new faith because of not being allowed to keep up old practices. Paul would have turned in his grave, lol!

4) Trinity doctrine.
Although the Bible does not state a "Trinity" it does state the three persons in God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

This is a topic that deserves an answer page all its own – but just a small point to be going on with: Judaism was/is a unitarian religion – ONE god, undivided. The other great bible-based religion, Islam, is also unitarian, believing in one undivided god. The writers of the OT believed in one undivided god. Jesus taught one undivided god. The apostolic fathers taught one undivided god. Yet by the fourth century that had been tossed aside in favour of the pagan idea of the Trinity. I will go into this in some detail in a separate post if you - or anyone else – are/is interested.

5) Mary being the 'mother of god'.
Well, as Jesus was the Son of God (one of the three persons) Mary WAS the Mother of God.

The bible says Jesus is the SON OF god. Jesus never claimed to be anything else. His followers certainly did not think he was god or a part of god. When Mary was made pregnant she was told ‘what is born will be called holy, god’s son’. She certainly did not think she was carrying god. She is the mother of the SON OF god, not of god. More of this in the Trinity discussion, if you want it.

As far as Easter, Limbo, Purgatory - yes, they never appear in the Bible. The Easter Bunny, eggs, etc. is actually part of a traditional EGYPTIAN holiday. Hee hee, talk about dramatic irony. And an even weirder thing, is that the actual date of Easter is set according to the Spring Equinox. *Shrugs* I dunno.

Partly, yes. But also reasonably close to the Jewish Passover, when Jesus ate the last supper before his death. The christian was to keep that last supper as an annual festival, like the Passover, but without the trappings of the pagan spring festival that is now more important in the minds of the majority.

Papal infalibility is not exactly what everyone thinks it is. Papal infalibility is only used on certain proclamations. The Pope has to actually state that he is speaking with infalibility. It has only happened three times in history. One of those times to state that Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul.

Yeah…. I knew I was setting myself up for a fall there! But I couldn’t resist the ‘smart’ comment. Oh, vanity….. But all the same remember this: 'flesh and blood cannot inherit gods kingdom, and mortality cannot inherit immortality' 1 Corinthians 15:50. By that rule, Mary CANNOT have been assumed bodily into the heavenly kingdom (which is what the scripture is taking about)

Divine Shadow

Nice try!
But JESUS believed in the OT and quoted or cited from it often. He even spoke favourably of god's vengeance on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now, if Jesus accepted it as truly god's word, can you say it was the work of the devil - hm?!


[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 17, 2001).]

 

Fljotsdale, I am definitely in favor of learning more about the Trinity. One can never know when such knowledge can be used to make a point or win a debate.

I don't think you need another topic, actually. This one seems to readily shift from topic to topic.

 

You call that "for sexual purposes"? Where do you read that? They could become slaves and for many woman died in the 40 years in the desert so they also gained a chance to become the wife of an isrealian man. For being virgin at marriage was very important so that's why only the virgins were saved.

So Davient Mage, what do you wanna know about Trinity?

(I know much about the bible, only my english library ebout religion isn't very great but I'll try to help Fljotsdale (who does a great job!)

 

Ok, Deviant, will do!
You have to give a few days, though, 'cos I have a visitor staying for a couple of days - plus I have to compile the info into a reasonably logical sequence; it is in bits all over the place the moment - though all on computer, happily, so just a matter of cutting and pasting. I have had this debate before, on other forums, and it got pretty long-winded. I want to make it as short and orderly as I can.


Thanks for your support, Headbanger!

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 17, 2001).]

 

The only problem is that everybody looks for proves nowadays, and what you can't prove they don't believe. For there are thing of wich are no proves for who doesn't believe, and then strong believe is the only prove...

We christians can't explain or prove everything we believe, I can already tell that.

 

Fljotsdale and other posters,

I, who was once BigGreenPriest, am back. I've been working on some projects that took me away.

We've addressed the Trinity and the deity of Christ, and those topics are interesting. But notice that it took the early church almost 500 years to really get a grip on those, as it was Chalcedon Council 451 AD that the dual nature (human and divine) was finally defended. The nature of Christ and the Trinity are a bit slippery, with subtle points to manage.

But one minor point that got my attention, that we can more easily deal with, was the mention of the fear of God, and how God doesn't want us to fear him.

Here's an article I wrote on that for a magazine a while back. What do you think?

Conquering Fear
Luke shows throughout his writings that fear is a real component of Christ’s ministry. Matthew uses the word phobos once, in context of Christ’s walking on the water (Matthew 14:26). Mark uses it once to describe the sneaky, unclean woman’s response to being caught by Jesus as she touched Him (Mark 5:33). In comparison, Luke uses the term at least 15 times. I encourage you to take your concordance out and see how wide the use of “fear” is for him. Space does not permit such a word study at this point. But there is enough space to show that fear, both the awe and the awfulness it communicates, is an ignored component of the conquering church.

The first time the concept of the church appears in Acts 1:12, things are looking good. The Church is gathered, praying according to Christ’s final command to wait for the anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, the first time the word ekklesia appears in Acts, things are not looking so good, at least in the Zig Ziglar/Norman Vincent Peale sense of the word “good”.

Barnabas has come to the disciples and laid a large sum of money at their feet. This has brought him some acclaim and, in some sense, power in the community. So far, so good. But then come Ananias and Sapphira. They see a way to the top, a way to gain the gratitude of the apostles and the church at large. In an imitation of Barnabas, they give a sum of money from the sale of property to the church. Perhaps they split the donation in half, the husband bringing half and then the wife bringing the other half later, as is rumored that the Pharisees often tithed in small coinage to make the offering appear greater. Whatever their plot, rather than leading to their ascendance, it leads to their downfall.

Luke makes it clear that their deaths brought fear on the covenant community (Acts 5:5,11). Martin Luther, in his commentary on Galatians, teaches that because of our position in Christ, we should never fear God in a rude sense, in the way a prisoner fears when he hears the footsteps of his torturer. While I agree wholeheartedly with him at several points of his argument, this passage brings his final conclusion into question. I have seen people die, and have felt an awe or respect of God as I saw Him take what was His. But to see someone struck down in front of you, guilty of a sin that I had done in some degree (who hasn’t lied about their finances?) wouldn’t you fear for your life, too? Wouldn’t you wonder if God was going to start zapping everyone guilty of lies to the apostles, or lies about money, or people who were clamoring for authority? And I think that is just the way God wanted it.

This sense of fear, “Could God deal so with me?” permeates the New Testament writings. Malefactors are pointed out, and warnings and predictions of punishment are administered to make sure you do not join them. There are too many references to list, but the entire book of Jude is written with this theme in mind. Is this not an appeal to fear—a fear of genuine discipline, or a fear of making your calling and election unsure?

The frightening conclusion: God wants us to worship a scary God. I suggest that it is at the heart of His strategy to make us into His mighty warriors because he wants us to be more afraid of Him than we are our powerful enemies.

Consider the other uses of phobos in Acts. In Stephen’s speech, the faithful Patriarchs are characterized as “trembling in fear” as God instructed them in their mission. And in Acts 9:31, an important summary statement of the entire first section of Acts says, “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.” When Luke considered the early church, particularly in her time of success (both numerical and otherwise), the term that he used to describe her lifestyle was that they lived “in the fear of the Lord.” This evidence solidifies the previous assertion—the conquering church is a fearing one.

It is this lack of fearing God that paralyzes the modern church and her efforts to conquer. Her attempts to make Him fear-less, to downplay God’s wrath and the consequences of our actions, are what distinguish modern evangelicalism from the evangelicalism of the past. It does not destroy the church to attempt to speak the language of the people—to modify the form of worship in a more or less benign fashion. But woe to the church that tries to obfuscate the reality of a fearsome God! It is not drums or bass guitars that have muted the trumpet of God in our culture—it is an ungodly, antinomian silence concerning the wrath of God against all ungodliness.

There remains a personal tension, though. It is clear that the corporate church is called to fear God in almost every sense of the word. But there remains a mystery of fearing/not fearing God in certain passages that may show Martin Luther right yet. For instance, Luke 12:4-7 says, “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” Fear him (vs. 6), yet do not be afraid (vs. 7). Both words are from the root phobos. Clearly, there is room to continue thinking about this topic, especially from a personal, existential perspective.

But the conquering church is a fearing church. This is part of the upside-down kingdom values that Acts shows the Kingdom of God is built. The gates of hell shall not prevail against God’s trembling church.

1058 words

 

Nice article, Angelus! Interesting viewpoint, too. I enjoyed reading it - though I am not altogether sure whether you are in favour of having a 'fearful' (phobic) congregation or not!? One has only to consider the effects of the 'conquering church' as it devestated both its own believers and pagan nations to realise how paralyzing of the mind such fear was, and how it infused people with the zeal to commit atrocities...

I had to look up 'antinomial' - not a word I had met before! But now that I know it, it seems to me that the word is more applicable to the 'conquering' church than to the modern church.
Regarding the script in Luke that you quote - in the 'original language text' the word translated 'hell' in your bible is actually 'Gehenna', which, as I mention in a post above, is the valley of Gei Hinnom, outside Jerusalem, where all refuse and the bodies of criminals were burned. This same valley is used symbolically in Revelation to represent 'second death' - a state from which no resurrection is possible. Even 'death' and 'the grave' are to be thrown into it.
It would appear that there was a belief among Jews and early christians that burning the body removed any hope of future life. But I have not checked if this was so, nor where it may have originated, if so. I have only the biblical references to make me think so, and they do not actually spell it out clearly. Have you any info?

 

OKAY! Well I DID say it WAS a lame excuse.
I don't think it was that way, but it IS a possibility.
Besides Sodomah and Gomorrah has nothing to do with that. They were destroyed because they were evil (although it DOES seem like overkill).
I think that God changed.
He did not wan't people to fear him, he wanted them to love and respect him.
A truly beatyful thought, but unfurtunaly it only seem to work in theory.
That is probably what I hate most about humans...they never respect what they don't fear.
That brings up another point:
The youth doesn't like God because he doesn't act. The same goes for the church.
People wan't a church that DOES something.
Instead of "just" preaching about it, they should DO something about the problems in the world.
Well...if all people merely tried to act like Jesus, we wouldn't have any problems.
You know the old saying: "Against stupidity even the Gods' are fighting in vain."
It was a bit difficult to translate this to english, so please tell me if this isn't right.

 

Hi, Divine! You say 'I think that God changed'.
Well, maybe. But check these scriptures out:
"For I am THE LORD, I have not changed." Malachi 3:6
"Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, for it comes down from the father of the celestial lights, and with him there is not the variation of the turning of the shadow." James 1:17
Doesnt look much like a changeable god, does he?

And Angelus made some very good points in his article on fearing god!

Sodom and Gomorrah is actually relevant, as is the ethnic cleansing of the Promised Land and various other choice accounts in the OT. The 'reason' often given for keeping the Israelites 'clean' of the 'pollution' of the land and peoples in the ares was that the Israelites were to be the nation producing the Messiah, and thus could not be contaminated in any way. Sounds good, I admit. But god could surely have managed it a bit better than that? No need to take over occupied land when, in those days, there was plenty of uninhabited land around...
You say the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were 'evil'. Certainly some of them were behaving abominably. You can tell that from the account of them beseiging Lot's house and trying to get at the angelic messengers to 'have relations' with them; and another account shows them raping a young woman until she died. These were the actions of an unreasoning mob. But they could not ALL have been of that sort, because Lot had arranged marriages for his daughters with two of the men of the city. And then - were all the women and children 'evil' as well? Besides which, not only Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, but also other cities in the area.
I suppose you could consider Sodom and Gomorrah as the 'gay capitals' of the district just as some cities are labled today - but that does not mean all the inhabitants are gay, does it? And can we consider gay people 'evil' anyway? 'Gay' sexual practices are forbidden in the bible, yes - but it seems to me that regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, it was the violent rape/murder of others that was condemned - and not everyone in the cities was guilty of that.

I agree with you - a church and religion that only talks is no good to anyone but old fogies who want to sit on their butts all day and feel virtuous.

And, yes. If christians acted like Jesus did, and if christians had ALWAYS done so, the chances are that this world would now be a wonderful place to live in and everyone would be christian - even me!

I think you translated your comments very well. Couple of spelling mistakes is all, the grammer and sense is fine!



[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 19, 2001).]

 

this may be a little off topic but i have my own religion.
I am simply a good person and i try to be kind and generous. I occaisionaly pray but just to god and not to the christian version.
I think that because there is no proof of which religion is right or not i will be on good terms with all if i just refer to whoever is there as God and do good deeds.

 

Sorry, anyone who is waiting for my Trinity stuff. I have pulled it all together, now, but it is almost 15,000 words, so I have to edit it to get it down to a resonable length. Please be patient with me!
My daughter has gone home now, though, and the other daughter's birthday party is over so I will have more time...... Be with you soon!

Avooch Dar - hedging your bets, hey?! I wonder if any god will think you are worth making an effort for, lol!



[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited August 20, 2001).]