Johnny,

What I wrote was a statement of faith on my part. Notice that when baptism is discussed in terms of salvation, it's not mentioned with water, etc. There is also baptism by the Holy Spirit.

My faith happens to TEACH that baptism with water is required so we practice infant baptism. This includes "sponsors" (Godparents) that take responsibility for the spiritual life of the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for him/her self. That's what my faith teaches.

That said, I'm a literal person. I believe that the Holy Bible is the literal word of God revealed through his servants. No place in it does it say that you have to baptize children just days old. At least no place I've seen. It does say that you have to BELIEVE and BE BAPTIZED to be saved. Does this meant that children, say under 5 (just to pick a number) are condemned if they die as children? I don't think so. In Matthew 19 it's written

" 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."

This tells me something. It tells me that "little children" are ALREADY in the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells us to strive to make our hearts as "little children". Matthew 18 says " And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

At what point does a child become an adult? I think it's at the point that he/she can make the decision, for themselves, as to the path in life they want to follow. Obviously, a toddler can't do that. As a child approaches their teen years, more and more understand the ramifications of their choices. Some, say a person afflicted with Downs Syndrome, may never reach that point. I'm not the one to judge that, God is, and he will. My reading of scripture is that baptism brings us BACK to the state of grace we already had as children in God's eyes.

In my view, telling a child they can "make up their own mind" is a gross mistake. A child, by definition, is unable to make such life changing decisions on their own. We don't allow children to drive, sign contracts, or even get themselves medical treatment without parental consent. A child can be raised in the way of the Church and still have free will over the choices in their lives once they become old enough to make those choices. Many, if not most, turn away from the Church out of rebellion or for other reasons at some point in their lives. An example is Rev. Billy Graham's son, Franklin, had this path in life. I'm not a big fan of the Rev. Graham, but I've read Franklin Graham's book about his life (Rebel With A Cause) and it is a fascinating read. Many, like Franklin Graham, will then later come back to the church later in life, if they've been exposed to it in their formative years.

In spite of Ray's hatred for religion, without it the world as we know it today would be a much worse place, simply from a humanitarian perspective. Catholic Relief Sevices, Lutheran World Relief, American Jewish World Service, World Vision and the Islamic Relief Agency are just a few of hundreds. All care about only one thing, getting food and other desperately needed humanitarian aid into places that need it. But according to Ray, since it's relion based, it's a bad thing.

That's the definition of prejudice, to say it's better to deny a group the help they need because it comes from a religious group.

Johnny, why is it so hard for you to accept that there are consequences for your actions in this life? That's what baffles me. You have no problems accepting the fact that if you steal and get caught, you'll be charged, tried, and be punished. You ahve no problems accepting the fact that if you cheat on your wife, and she finds out, you might very well lose her. Why is it a leap to think that if you believe in God, that he won't hold you accountable for your actions here on Earth?

No place does the Bible say that if you steal a candybar you go to hell. Christ died to save us from our sins. We simply have to ask for forgiveness with a believing heart. Baptism, in my view, can also include baptism by the Holy Spirit as was described in the New Testament and the actual water of traditional baptism is simply a symbol of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, there in lies the rub. If you truly believe, you'll try to keep the commandments and live a Godly life. You won't do it well at all, because you're human and have human failings, but because of Christ you're given a way in to heaven despite those human failings.

If you continue to lie, steal, kill, commit adultery, you haven't accepted Christ. If you had, you wouldn't be doing immoral acts over and over again. (BTW-I don't know you Johnny, the "you" in my references is a generic "you", not aimed at you in specific)

If you don't believe in God, that's your decision, but to use profanity and deride believers for their faith is unnecessary and insulting. Trust me, you haven't lived as long as most that believe. You're also not as well educated. You should choose your words carefully when you talk down to "you people" since you really don't know who you're addressing.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: Uh oh.. I"m not baptized.. but my parents were protestant.. they decided to let me choose with my own free will.. I'll see you guys in hell.. What the **** is wrong with you people?! You believe in a pit of fiery hell if you do something wrong?! from your all loving 'creator'... 'god'.. You believe in a place of perfection if you do everthing 'right'? I really feel sorry for humanity..

quote Originally posted by DRH: Honestly, no I don't. I don't see any gross inconsistencies. Why do you think they did?

some think thomas #77 is anti-church ie JC is everywhere the church is NOT nessiary to find him
#78 is allso anti-church leaders in the soft clothes riff,and that religious leaders are more about leading than truth

#113 no second coming or return in thomas, gods kindom is here NOW, but most just can't see it

allso
3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

#3 When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

# 12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

now james the just is JC's brother, and the leader of the anti-saul/paul and peter faction
this presents several problems
1 the dogma of a virgin mom, NOWAY JC had brothers, that shoots than dogma down
2 church leaders/founders peter[so called first pope] and saul/paul [who wrote most of the new "T"] were not under the james faction but in the anti-james faction, but JC said go to james his brother NOT THE CHURCHIES
3 james was the leader of the basic JEWS FOR JC faction who followed the old jewish LAWS
peter and saul/paul DIDNOT!!!!!!
allso james became the high priest of the jewish temple in jerusalem befor the revolt againts ROMAN RULE
the saul/paul and peter cult revised and reformed the christian dogma to make it non-anti-roman and not a revloutionary cult so the romans could join, and increase the flock
read james in the bible as he is warning about the false leaders[guess who] and their false teachings
and this gem

#13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Ray,

Such silliness and twisting to make things prove an imaginary point of yours.

You start with Thomas #77 and the first words you write is SOME THINK. SOME THINK we're being visited by aliens on a daily basis. SOME THINK if they break a mirror they'll have 7 years of bad luck. SOME THINK that a man's worth can be based on the color of his skin or the size of the wallet. Because SOME THINK something, doesn't make it a fact, or even a majority opinion among scholars on the subject.

#78 is not necessarily anti-church, but I read it as anti-establishment. I explained that before. Are you really so afraid to debate on this, or do you just think that if you keep saying it loudly and often enough it will make it a fact?

#113 does not preclude the second coming. It just says that while Jesus walked the Earth, God's kingdom was him. Why is that so hard for you to grasp that he was speaking about that time?

#3 is simply Christ saying that you can't, while on this Earth, see, feel, or touch heaven. The kingdom of God is all around us. No Christian faith teaches otherwise, Ray.

Christ has always said that we are the Children of God. We should strive to know ourselves and our relationship with him. That's not contradictory either.

WRT to James (I presume you mean Ya‘aqov, since you're so hung up on proper names and all), the CATHOLIC church insists that Christ was an only child, most other faiths and bible scholars refer to him as Jesus' half brother. In fact, Joseph was married BEFORE he became engaged to Mary. His age was well advanced compared to Mary and most believe is the reason he isn't mentioned in the gospels after Christ's age of 12 or so, he died sometime shortly after that.

That does nothing to destroy the dogma of the virgin birth. There are actually two views on the subject of James, the brother of Jesus. One is that he was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, the other that he was a younger brother. Some indications are that Jesus may have had as many as 7 or more half siblings. That still does nothing to dispell the dogma of a virgin birth. After my reading, I think he was an older half brother because of his paternal attitude toward Jesus. It reads to me like an older brother trying to fill a dead father's shoes.

Most scholars believe that prior to Christ's death and resurrection, James was skeptical of his claims and the miracles he worked and, in fact, was even at odds on several occasions as related in the Gospels. That changed after Christ arose, however, as he was one of the first to whom Christ revealed himself.

James became the head of the Temple in Jerusalem and remained that until his death. Because of that, his priorities were with the people of Jerusalem. Paul was a missionary and his priorities were in spreading the Christian faith throught the world. These two diverse goals resulted in conflict, on occasion, which was eventually reconicled between Peter, Paul, and James.

Now here's a news flash Ray. All three of these guys were human beings. They all had their points of view and ways of doing things. Sometimes they didn't agree. Wow. What a concept. They'd be right at home here on PFF. James would want a 3800SC, Paul a SBC, and Peter a Northstar. And because they all drove Fiero's with different power, you'd claim they were contradicting each other, even though they were all driving Fieros.

Your last point is an interesting one in that Thomas is full of things that, supposedly, Christ told him and him alone in secret. Most all of the rest of the Gospels are reports of Christ's life, as he appeared and taught in public or to the disciples.

To decide what books were included in the Bible (old and new testaments), three criteria had to be met.

1. Every book of our New Testament was written by either an Apostle, or someone who was closely associated with an Apostle. The Apostles were ordained to their office by Jesus Christ Himself, and wrote as He led and inspired them. Mark and Luke were not Apostles, but Mark wrote under the direction of Peter (an Apostle) and Luke wrote under the direction of Paul (again, an Apostle).

2. The New Testament canon had to reflect the pre-published truths of God. Since God is one, and does not change, we know that He would not change in His Word. If a book claimed to be Scripture but violated the truths that God established in the Old Testament, or if the alleged Scripture mis-portrayed God in His being, then that book was rejected as canon.

3. A canonical book had to give either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL evidence that it was divinely inspired (2 Pet 3.16-17; Col 4.16; 1 Thes 5.27; 1 Tim 4.13). If the book was not regarded as canonical by the Church Fathers (the early pastors) it was regarded as suspect. If the book failed to claim divine authorship, it was suspect.

(the three tests aboved were copied from http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm090_12.htm. It took me a while to find it because I knew I'd read it before and I was looking at resources for the faith I was raised in, Lutheran, and found it finally when I looked under some bookmarks I had for the Quaker faith, which is the faith my wife's family practices)

Although Thomas' writings clearly met the first test, they fall short in the last two and as such were not accepted as divine scripture. The simple fact that you point out inconsistencies with what Thomas wrote and the old and other scriptures is enough to keep it from being regarded as scripture.

You may not like that definition, but that's still the definition. If you care to live your life by Thomas' writings, you could do worse, but that doesn't make them part of the Bible.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ray b: some think thomas #77 is anti-church ie JC is everywhere the church is NOT nessiary to find him #78 is allso anti-church leaders in the soft clothes riff,and that religious leaders are more about leading than truth #113 no second coming or return in thomas, gods kindom is here NOW, but most just can't see it allso 3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. #3 When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." # 12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." now james the just is JC's brother, and the leader of the anti-saul/paul and peter faction this presents several problems 1 the dogma of a virgin mom, NOWAY JC had brothers, that shoots than dogma down 2 church leaders/founders peter[so called first pope] and saul/paul [who wrote most of the new "T"] were not under the james faction but in the anti-james faction, but JC said go to james his brother NOT THE CHURCHIES 3 james was the leader of the basic JEWS FOR JC faction who followed the old jewish LAWS peter and saul/paul DIDNOT!!!!!! allso james became the high priest of the jewish temple in jerusalem befor the revolt againts ROMAN RULE the saul/paul and peter cult revised and reformed the christian dogma to make it non-anti-roman and not a revloutionary cult so the romans could join, and increase the flock read james in the bible as he is warning about the false leaders[guess who] and their false teachings and this gem #13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

wow.. I don't even remember writing that...

saul/paul was NOT one of the 12
and he never met the man JC
but wrote most of the new "T"
and was the prime re-spinner of the churchie faction
btw luke was saul/pauls follower and allso
never met JC
peter's boy mark was allso in the churchie faction and never met JC
and john 3 who wrote the "G" about 100ace john4 who wrote the letters and john5 [of patmos] who wrote the REV about 130ace and all johns works , are written 50 to 80 years after thomas recorded the sayings

thomas and the lost [burned?] "Q" are the only originals, even matthew copied thomas, and the lost "Q"
but the churchies burned thomas

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Ray, do you provide an appendix for your posts to people can tell WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE SAYING!?!?!

JC - ok, Jesus Christ, not too bad
New T - New Testament (see, I'm trying)
Churchie faction - ??
John3,4,5 - ???
the "G" - ???
100ace - ???
the REV - Revelations??!?!
130ace - ???

You may know what you're talking about, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out.

Here are some guesses:

Churchie faction - Those followers who believe in a strong church
John3,4,5 - Different Johns, IE John1 is John the Baptist...
the "G" - The Gospel According To...
100ace - I'm guessing it is some raybian method of counting years. 100 years After Christ's Evolution maybe?

I don't have a guess on "Q".

"ace" looks suspiciously like a conflation of "AD" (Anno Domini) and "CE" (Common Era). essentially the same thing, except AD assumes acceptance of jesus' divinity while CE does not.

it is easy for any serious scholar to read the book of Thomas and see it is not consistant with the other 66 books of the bible - it is not teaching the same things, and therefor it is not from the same source.

"77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: "

God is not 'all'. When VanGough painted a work of art, the painting was not him - he was the creator and the painting is his creation.

To claim that Jesus said "I am all" is to join the new-agers - we are all God, we just dont realize it. the book of Thomas is steeped in the same new-age concepts, NONE of which were ever held by, or taught by Jesus or any other old testiment prophet.

The book of Thomas claims to be the words of God, but it is not the same Gospel that Jesus taught us. If you are versed in the Bible then you know what we are suppose to do if someone brings us 'another gospel'.

There are plenty of people who follow the teachings in the book of Thomas - new agers and hindus - that doesnt prove that thomas is correct and the rest of the new testiment has been corrupted.

BTW, the catholic church during the middle ages did not bother to alter or change the contents of the bible. They didnt have to. The general public did not have access to the bible until Gutenburg and Martin Luther.

The catholic church didnt alter the bible, they ignored the parts of it they didnt like.

The new testiment was not altered during translation. We have manuscripts going back to around 200AD, and manuscripts from 200BC and earlier for the old testiments (some books).

Of all earliest written books, the Bible is THE most well documented and verifiable.

Sophie is correct. The original greek versions of the new testiment have much more specific words - for example, there are several words in greek that are all translated to 'love' in english, because we dont have all those specific words for different variations of love (brotherly love, neighborly love, romantic love, and the way God loves us). If you are serious about studying the bible you should definately learn to read the original greek.

But that doesnt mean the current modern english translations are wrong, or contain errors. Our best scholars have worked diligently to ensure the bible translations in each language are correct. But you cant simply pick it up and read a verse here and there, and expect to understand it correctly.

You need to study it, the whole book. God has beed directly interacting with humanity for over 6,000 years now. You cant possibly understand the depth and wealth of that relationship with only a casual interest

or by watch a one hour program on the discovery channel.

BTW - I saw that program on the local (prehistoric) flood in, what was it, the black sea? - they did not say this proves there was no global flood, they said they have definate evidence there was a flood in that area - land that was previously below our current sea level, was once inhabited by humans.

How you conclude this proves there was therefore no global flood, thats one big leap of faith!

The Transmission of the Bible to English

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make Up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make Up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

390 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.

1525 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament to be Printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible to be Printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible to be Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to Add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (a King James Version without Apocrypha) to be Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1885 AD: The "Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the King James Bible.

1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the King James Bible.

1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.

1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.

1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James

May be acurrate - don't know - don't care.

The need for faith in a higher being is just a fault in Human genetic make up; a little glitch, but then again we were created by a series of chance so there ain't nothing perfect. Luckily my lineage seems to have overcome this simple biological mistake.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Ray, do you provide an appendix for your posts to people can tell WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE SAYING!?!?! JC - ok, Jesus Christ, not too bad New T - New Testament (see, I'm trying) Churchie faction - ?? John3,4,5 - ??? the "G" - ??? 100ace - ??? the REV - Revelations??!?! 130ace - ??? You may know what you're talking about, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out.

ace = after the common era or some use after current epoch
bce = before current/common era
this ain't my system, it is use by most modern historians to replace the AD BC system

dates for bible books are ruff they donot contain any published on dates, but are dated by when others comment on the books on known dates
john 1= the baptist
john2 = the dicipal
john3 = the guy who wrote the "G" gospel of john about the year 100 ace/ad/ce [note way to late to be the john who walked with JC]
john4 = the letter writer [greek-writing bible scholars say he ain't the same as john3 style
dated only a little befor the "G" of john appeared, or about 95ace
john 5 of the island of patmos who wrote the "Rev" about 130ace and is belived by scholars to be the 3rd writer under the name john whos work is in the bible

please read the modern thoughts on who wrote what when that is now in the bible. NONE OF THIS IS MY IDEAS, all come from scholars who understand old greek writing styles
"Q" ="""{What is Q? It is an abbreviation for Quelle, the German word for "source." The

prevailing theory in the study of the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke is that

Mark was the first gospel, Matthew and Luke are rewritten versions of Mark.

But there are very many sayings in Matthew and in Luke that are NOT in Mark.

These, it is thought, came from a common written source (or Quelle) that is

now known as "Q". Often Q sayings are word-for-word the same in Greek

in both Matthew and Luke and often are in the same order. This means to most

scholars that Q was a written text (no longer in existence) and not simply oral

tradition. Many Q sayings are also to be found in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas

is NOT Q but it is the same sort of thing Q was.} """

"Q" is the first draft of the JC story that the 3 synoptic gospels[matthew,mark, and luke] are COPYED from along with thomas's sayings then burned or hid to keep JC's real message from the people

my point is to show SPIN and how the man's [JC] word's were revised over a 100 years to fit the churchies [mostly saul/pauls] belifes
and are NOT the message JC wanted to teach

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

I was unaware that Ken had an agenda of any kind. I am not sure about what I believe insofar as faith, but I don't have an agenda. If I did, I certainly would not bring it up on the forum. What does an agenda have to do with anything?
Regarding the test: I don't "do" inconsequential quizzes or tests, especially ones online.

quote Originally posted by longtermgt: Well, Sophia, that's all fine and everything, unless you have an agenda as Ken does. He started this interesting and engaging thread. Did you take the test above?

Ken: Nah.. I'm ready to accept the fact that this is it.. When we're dead, we're dead.. I don't need to look forward to something, and you shouldn't either..

Johnny - I dont need to look forward to anything

I have already been reconciled to the Creator of the Universe - He is already interacting with me on a personal basis today

nothing in the future can change that. so I dont have to worry about whats going to happen tomorrow

I already know what happens in the end

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: "Well, once again, I'd like to thank you. If being a christian means I treat other people like this, you can keep your god. Maybe you should get off your self-rightous high horse and take a walk amongst the mortals once and awhile for the people they are, not what you would like them to be." if this was the technical section of the forum, and you posted you have not changed the oil on your car for 50,000 miles and the oil light comes on frequently when you drive your car. and I explained to you that you have already seriously damaged your engine, and you are going to destroy it completely then would you come back and tell me to get off my high horse and stop being so self rightous?! Im not self rightous and I dont have a horse. I dont have an agenda. And he is not 'my god'. I didnt create Him, He created me and everything else in the universe. Im just like you, seriously. Christians dont go through life being perfect - we have all screwed up our owns lives, big time, small stuff and everything in between. Only difference between us is Im willing to look at myself in the mirror and be honest with myself when I learn I have screwed up, when Im making a mistake, and to listen to the person who knows what I should do instead (Jesus). If someone comes on here and says they were all messed up with drugs, but then they found Jesus, you will dismiss them and not take them seriously (what do they know? they were an addict, and now they are addicted to Jesus) but if someone was raised in a christian family, and became a born again christain at a young age, you will dismiss them too - they are only doing what their parents taught them, and they are goody-two-shoes - they dont know what the real world is like You cant seriously sit there and tell me you dont know the difference between being married and living together. I know our society has plummeted, and divorce is very common, but everyone still understands what marriage is SUPPOSE to be: a life long commitment, no matter what we go through, for the rest of our lives. If that is your relationship with your GF, but you refuse to get married because you think its religious nonsense, then you can still have a legal marrage in any state in this country before a judge. Telling your GF I love you and Im commited to you exactly the same as if we WERE married is BS! Its going to cost you far more in grief and unhappyness than any potential divorce possibly could. and your grief wont come from other people, from self rightous people. Its not the guy with the new oil and filter in his car who is going to sneak into your garage and rip your bearings out. You are doing it to yourselves. (Am I being rude, or is the truth too much for you to hear?)

Ken,

I put two lines in the post and you think you know all about me. I mention that if we are successful in having a child and you suggest that we abort it and I mention that I live with my girlfriend and that launches you into a diatribe about my life.

Look at it from our perspective. The only people that have a problem with the fact that we are not married is christians. You know what? I'm not going to make a single decision in my life to keep a group of people that I have little respect for happy.

You are right about one thing, we do realize statistics. We work hard at our relationship, and don't consider ourselves "playing house".

You sit there and pretend to know all about what our lives will end up being like. Your entire post reads like Kari( we might as well be on a first name basis-after all, you know us so well)has absolutely no choice. She must have been corrupted by me right? Does she belong in the kitchen Ken?

I take it that women shouldn't divorce the men that beat them?

I had a time when I went to church-out of curiosity. Some friends for work asked if I wanted to go. I went with them. It was a gentleman by the name of Steve Rollins I think. They didn't just take me to church, they took me to a revival. He said, at the beginning of his sermom that he wanted to thank all the christians in the building for doing whatever they had to do to get people like me there. That people like me would be saved for their work. I got up and left. Here I was a person with genuine curiosity about church and faith and I was lied to about what this was really all about.

From that time forward I realized that no matter how I lived my life, I would always be a target to some because no matter what I did, I was doing wrong. Here I was a person that hadn't been to church since the age of 5 listening to an evangelist style speaker with people raising their hands to I don't know get closer to god. They told me that it was a "historical discussion from the bibles perspective". Bullshit! It was him up there preaching, much like you are now how my life is on the wrong path. They lied. Here are some hardcore christians lying to me. This girl went to church 4 times a week, and the others went a lesser amount. She even pimped out her fellow christians by saying that there would be cute girls there( I was about 21 at that point). This girl lived the model christian life-she was a virgin, she went to church a lot, she was kind, helpful and made a stupid face anytime I swore. Didn't help her though-she was a lier and a pimp. I may not be a christian, but I would never ask someone to come to my house to watch tv, only to spend 3 hours convincing them to buy Amway. Oh, and I wouldn't entice guys to come over for a beer on Friday by telling them that I have a cute girlfriend. But you are right, I'm living my life on the wrong path.

Now I realize that what you say is true, that christians make mistakes too. I am saying this to illustrate the point that maybe y'all should stick to working on your flaws and leave me to mine.

In the end-I don't consider myself doing wrong. You do. I treat Kari very well. We go through life in this house as equals. From what I have seen, that is a rarity in some households. I don't provide for her. I don't clothe her, or feed her or provide the roof over her head either. I have helped make sure that she can always provide those things for herself.

Now you want to tell me that I have taken her self-respect? I have given her more self-respect than anyone in her life! You want to sit there and tell me that I have eliminated her self-dignity? What provides more dignity for a person? Marriage or support to do in life whatever you want to do??? When we started dating, she was working two shitty jobs to pay bills, and living off credit because it still wasn't enough. There's that dignity though, cause she wasn't living with a boyfriend. She now manages her own store, and looking at going back to school in the fall. Now I ask you, what affects self-respect more? Living with her boyfriend or having a boyfriend that helped her out of that situation by providing help, love and support? She doesn't live in a basement suite anymore, and she works 9 to 5 now. It wasn't because I provided those things, it was because she did it. She created it. We decide where to go next. We create it.

Tell me that I have taken her self-respect. Whatever Ken. You want to sit there and tell me you know all about my life. We live a good life. I treat my neighbors with respect. I help out when others keep on walking. You think that my life is incomplete because I choose my own path.

Well, even assuming that everything that the bible says is true, I think the way that I have lived my life speaks for itself. You want to fault me for the things I haven't done when you completely ignore the things I have. You speak of me as if I am a no good kid that wants to knock up his girlfriend as some kind of joke on her. I must go steal cars for fun too.

Open your eyes Ken.

[This message has been edited by Gridlock (edited 05-19-2003).]

and to think that all this started with a report on monkeys and computers

haha, its funny to see how things are completely different when u hit past the 3rd post

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

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Carlc - your list implies the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation... which is not the case. The modern english versions of the bible have been directly translated from the oldest surviving manuscripts, by scholars who are experts in those languages.

no you are wrong ken
most modern english version are reworded versions of the king james for the new "T"
and allmost all are old "T"s that are based on the greek 2nd century bce versions not dead sea or any other hebrew versions

which versions have the correct REED SEA in place of redsea???

which version use yashowa for JC's real name???

so by far most bibles are translations of translations of translations and still have allmost all of the old errors in them
true some are less error filled then others
or have better footnotes but there are NO originals even the deadsea texts are copys of copys of copys

btw I like the red ,gray, pink, black version the best for the new "T" as it shows the churchie additions,edits ect

but no deadsea revised compleat old "T" is out yet that I have seen.

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

again, i suggest we all learn ancient greek so that we can read the bible in its original translation.
or hebrew would be even more accurate.
to REALLY get to the bottom of all this, Aramaic would be best.
*
I think we should turn this thread back to the monkey subject.

As for the people who dragged you into a revival under false pretenses, I dont know what that is all about - a modern version of the spanish inquisition?! [you drag em in here, and we'll convert them] ?!
_______________________________________
"You think that my life is incomplete because I choose my own path."

This almost summarizes the thing that is going to get you in the long run.

Not exactly that you choose your own path, but because you are doing the things that you think are right in your own eyes.

There are so many things that seem to us to be right at the time. But later on in life you are going to discover the rest of the story.

If you play the knight in shining armor bit, and rescue a women from a desparate situation, that is a beautiful thing - as long as you put her on her feet and let her go. If she ends up in your bedroom, thats a different story.

I dont know you and your GF personally, but your description sounds dangerously close to playing out the Cinderella / Prince Charming bit. But thats not what we were talking about.

You dont seem to have a grasp on a where a persons self esteem and sense of self worth comes from. Since you are a guy it is not easy for you to see this from a womans perspective.

I dont know how you took it that I suggest anyone should get an abortion. If your GF gets pregnant then SHE is going to decide what to do about it, and since you are not her husband you will have nothing to say about it, legally or morally.

How will she be free to take care of herself, run a businees, go back to school, with a baby in one arm?

Marriage is a public commitment with legal ramifications. That doesnt mean so much to you, cause you are the guy in the relationship, and you dont stand to lose as much as a women will.

When you marry someone you are showing them and everyone else in the world that you believe in that person, you are committed to them for the rest of your life, you are giving everything you own, now and forever, to them, all your possesions, all your income, will be hers as much as yours

any children will belong to both of you - any problems you encounter you will face together, all the joy and happiness in life you will share together

and for all practical and legal purposes, it will be as if the two of you have become one person.

what effect do you suppose THAT has on a womens self esteem and sense of value?

You seem to take some odd sort of pleasure that you are setting your GF up so that she will be perfectly able to get along without you - she can leave you at anytime, and you can leave her at any time, and she will get along just fine.

Thats the opposite of what a marriage is. If you think that:

A. you are free to leave at anytime

is the same as, or better than:

B. I want the whole world to know that I will love you for the rest of my life, and even if the sun fails to rise in the morning, I will be here

then I dont have to know you personally - You are heading for a storm, maybe not within the next few years, but sooner or later this is going to catch up with you.

But going back to your quoted statement above - I accept perfectly that in your eyes you have done great things for your GF - in your own eyes you are her hero.

Whether or not you accept religion or the reality of God, the way of life that He has communicated to us is based on HIS understanding of who we are, what is inside us, the things we are capible of doing, and very basic principles that will ensure our lives progress in a positive direction, today, tomorrow, next week, 20 years from now, forever.

Maybe you cant see that right now. That is why I said, you are conducting an experiment that is going to test the word of God, and you are going to find out for yourself if its true or not.

This isnt stuff that some bunch of guys came up with 2 or 3 or 4 thousand years ago, wrote it all down, and then declared it was from God. The reason we know its from God is because it is correct. You apply it to your life and your life is dramatically altered for the better. God hasnt changed in the last 6000 years, human nature hasnt changed, the word of God hasnt changed (inspite of all the posted nonsense about translations).

Read the posts of some of the older people on this forum who rant and rave against religion. Is that what you want to be, a bitter old man? Is this the group of people you want to be assocated with?

I may not be telling you what you want to hear right now, just like you hate to see the dentist pull out the big plyers - but your real friends are the ones who tell you what you need to hear. I would rather have a friend wack me over the head to stop me from making a mistake, than to have someone kiss me on the cheek and pat me on the back as I head down the wrong path.

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-19-2003).]

The only thing that saddens me, is when 'christians' die.. they'll be dead, so they won't have a moment to go "Crap.. guess I WAS wrong"..

quote Originally posted by Sophia Nova: I was unaware that Ken had an agenda of any kind. I am not sure about what I believe insofar as faith, but I don't have an agenda. If I did, I certainly would not bring it up on the forum. What does an agenda have to do with anything? Regarding the test: I don't "do" inconsequential quizzes or tests, especially ones online.

My point exactly. Of course you wouldn't bring it up on the forum! The original post is one of a pattern exhibited by Ken that promotes a belief system based on the literal interpretation of a religious text. In case you haven't followed Ken's other posts, there was an web link provided to a personal mission statement of sorts. A person posted a personal mission statement on the web! Doesn't that strike you as perculiar? Oh, the test was purely for fun. I had hoped to interject a bit of brevity to such a weighty topic. Sor-ry!

lol, I believe the word you were looking for is "levity"...though "brevity" would be appreciated. This thread has continued far beyond its prime.
I appreciate your efforts at interjecting some mirth into the thread, I was just letting you know in response to your response to a response of mine (very articulate), that I did not, do not, and will not be taking any quizzes online. I have to take enough quizzes in school. :-)
Not trying to diss and dismiss, longterm babay!
Soph

"A person posted a personal mission statement on the web! Doesn't that strike you as perculiar?"

mission statement?!

what am I now, a major corporation that has to please its stock holders?!

There was a thread a while back talking about peoples individual religious beliefs. Instead of typeing very long post on my personal experiences, I placed it on my own aol website in pdf format, and posted the link to it on this forum.

You do understand what the word 'forum' means, or do we have to explain it to you?

BTW, your posts are an excellent example of the fallicy of attacking the source instead of discussing the issue (I forget the technical term for it).

Since you cant argue with my written testimony of what I have experienced with God, instead you mock and ridicule me for having the guts to publically discuss my personal beliefs.

Buts thats ok, I expect it. They mocked Jesus and murdered Him - why not mock someone who follows Him too?

"" Buts thats ok, I expect it. They mocked Jesus and murdered Him - why not mock someone who follows Him too?"" by ken

well that brings up a interesting point
DID JC DIE ON THE CROSS some say no

some guys in france claim to have JC's bones
and also claim he had desendants by mary mags, some of whom are alive today

read the book "HOLY GRAIL, HOLY BLOOD"
for their story

I do find it interesting old JC never ever appeared before the people in mass or the roman or jewish leadership
only to a few followers brefly a few times
and still had the wounds on his body from the cross,see thomas and the wounds in the bible!!!!!

leading to the following questions
why couldnot the all powerfull god heal himself?,
why did he not appear before all the people in the city center [temple] or in the palace of pilot? or other public places
why only a few showings to the christian inner cult members?, and only do that a few times???for short peroids of time
why no real post cross teaching or instruction recorded by him????
if he was the allpowerfull god why does he say" I can't stay long with you"???

evidence points to a FAKE death and quickly needing to get out of town
and supports the tale he went to france with mary mags
so what do you know,? what eveidence we have of Christ's resurrection,? or what proof we have of Christ not rising from the dead...

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

It saddens me, johnnyk, that if christians are right, you will have an eternity of moments to go "Crap..guess I WAS wrong.." And I mean that-that it saddens me. Just because we disagree on a lot of things, doesn't mean I don't like you.

carlc, I love your honest comments, too. What about those of us who don't have a "NEED for faith" in a higher being, but just have looked at the world, the Bible, etc. and have decided that an objective look at the evidence concludes there is a higher being--God as described in the Bible? BTW, we still have faults in our human genetic make up, too.

Also, you mentioned you may read some of the Bible just to see for yourself what a sampling says. Good for you. I've tried to do the same thing. For example, I don't believe rayb, but when he brought up the writings of Thomas and linked to them, I read a fair amount of it. Also, I don't believe in islam and muhammed, but read a good portion of the koran. If I was to make a suggestion to you, it would be to read the gospel of John, and Romans.

Well, I'm done discussing this. I don't think we are ever going to change each others opinions, and my girlfriend is getting uncomfortable with having our personal lives on the forum. Especially where hers isn't being portrayed very well. I'm getting the distinct idea that you feel the womans place is in the home. Just a feeling I'm getting.

I did want to mention that I didn't want to portray myself as a hero. I'm not that naive. I meant in mentioning it that we have created a life together. I re-read my post and I see how the hero thing came about.

Oh, and never talk about me bedding women. Consider it a line.

I don't consider her being self-sufficient being my way out. I see it as a vital part of a relationship. For me, it means that we are together out of choice, and nothing else. I have seen time and time again that women stay with people because they have nowhere else to go(I'm not saying that she would have a reason to leave). I don't consider it as part of playing out god's plan.

I do find it interesting that this particular aspect of my life has you so concerned. You ignored half of my post to focus on this small part.

And I won't become a bitter old man. I don't make it my lifes work to fight religion. I still have spiritual beliefs, to an extent. I just don't get down with christianity and organized religion. I will continue to fight for the ability to live my life in the way that I see fit. I will coninue to make the best decisions that I can, not in the light of how omnipotent beings will see my life, buit how I feel about myself as a result. I do have a sense of morality you know. Its based on how it will affect fellow people.

I really wish you'd stop portraying me as some kid living the life of debauchery. I think there would be a few people you go to church with that probably live wilder lives than I do.

I know that Ray in not really interested in any of this stuff - he is only spouting his Shauman dogma, and he takes great pride in thinking he has figured out something that millions of others are too stupid to understand.

"I do find it interesting old JC never ever appeared before the people in mass or the roman or jewish leadership
only to a few followers brefly a few times"

only if you consider 500 people a few - Jesus did not have a cult following, he taught and preached publically - and He was seen by 500 people after the ressurection, mostly out in the open, not in secret inner rooms with the doors and windows all locked.

Jesus said plainly before He was murdered that He would reveal Himself to those who love Him, and who follow His words - and that He MUST leave so that the Comforter (Holy Spirit) could be sent. His work was done here, the victory was accomplished when Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. There was no reason for Him to hang around any longer.

"
and still had the wounds on his body from the cross
"
thats right, the only thing in heaven that was made by humans is the scars on Jesus head, back, hands and His side. Through His scars we are healed. So I suppose you would just love to see them erased?

"why couldnot the all powerfull god heal himself?,
"

apparently you dont understand what a sacrifice is - when someone or something else stands in your place to pay for your debt - when your mommy bails you out of jail, she is offering HER money as a sacrifice for your crimes - get it?

Jesus did not heal Himself, His Father raised Him from the dead. Not only was He raised, He was completely transformed, to the extent that His own disciples could not recognize Him, until He opened their eyes to who He was. You dont consider being raised after three days in the tomb a healing?!

"why did he not appear before all the people in the city center [temple] or in the palace of pilot? or other public places
why only a few showings to the christian inner cult members?, and only do that a few times?
"

He only appeared to those who accepted His words. Jesus did not come to take the earth by force (last time). The next time He sets foot on the earth, He will. Then you will get your wish, but it will be too late to do you any good.

"evidence points to a FAKE death and quickly needing to get out of town
and supports the tale he went to france with mary mags
so what do you know,? what eveidence we have of Christ's resurrection,? or what proof we have of Christ not rising from the dead..."
"

no what we have is the Son of God doing exactly what He said He would do, and exactly what was written hundreds of years before His birth - Jesus fullfilled over a hundred prophecies that were written about Him in the old testiment.
The fact that you dont want to accept it, or it is beyond your ability to understand it, does not prove that it did not happen.

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: BTW, your posts are an excellent example of the fallicy of attacking the source instead of discussing the issue (I forget the technical term for it).

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/fallacies.htm

quote Originally posted by ray b: why can't most here use a search???

why should i when i can ask experts here?
thanks for the link.

that hell test was fun.

so... who will I be seeing when I'm living in Level 8?

------------------
steve@digitalfusion.on.ca
"Whoever said money can't buy happiness.. didn't have much of an imagination." - Steve King, 1997

come on frontal. you seem quite intelligent.. lets think about what you're saying here..?

Evolutionist creed:
I once was a tadpole when I began to begin,
Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in,
then I was a monkey in a coconut tree,
Now I'm a man with a PHD!

Ken has the science against evolution correct, and I know Rayb understands the laws on complexity very well also.
So perhaps science is looking with an incorrect viewpoint, something is allowing evolution to happen in the reverse order of the way things happen in the rest of the observable universe.
Taking this misunderstanding of evolution and turning it to a personal loving savior that follows us everywhere reading our minds is a greater leap than basing a belief system on a monkey's ability with a keyboard.

Just as a flat horizon line does not equate with a flat Earth, a lowest energy configuration on the subatomic level does not preclude transition particles that allow higher energy states on the atomic level. Don't electrons 'tunnel' through barriers without having near the energy needed to do so? I listen to music amplified by such electron travel, and the hand of god is not obvious in this process. And when evolutionists disassociate themselves from Darwin's ignorant guesses and look at it correctly I suspect the hand of god won't be apparent there either. Or they may find a big old fingerpring of God himself, but the time is coming when the answer WILL be known. I certainly don't fear the search, but until the answer is found and proved I try not to get overly excited about which way it will turn out.

On a personal note, right and wrong certainly exist, but to take a preference that works for me and to insist that any other way of living is wrong, and to dogmaticly insist that my viewpoint is like gravity and undeniable, well...