Anyone else read the title about the 2012 Global Atheist Coven?

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

@shinyblurry

Words have meaning.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

@shinyblurry

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws. They were made for a time and place in history. There is no excuse defacing the bible, or encouraging others to do so.

>> ^gorillaman:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I liked Ian as Gandalf, although I thought the books were a bit better than the movies, however, I dont like that Ian is encouraging thousands (millions?) of people to deface the bible, a criminal act when it is other peoples property btw, and which is completely irresponsible and immature, not to mention ridiculous. What's going on is that Ian doesn't like that look in the mirror, so he tries to shatter the reflection.
Ian McKellen - encouraging people to tear a page out of the bible.
The Bible - encouraging people to KILL IAN MCKELLEN.

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

You're also commanded by God to impregnate your widowed sister in law and allowed by God to sell your daughter into slavery. You're banned by God from touching menstruating women. You're not allowed to work on a Sunday and those who do must be put to death - I presume you kill firemen and doctors? Don't tell me that us politically correct people have stopped following these commands?

Have you read the bible? I am commanded to do no such thing. What you're referring to is the jewish cermonial and civil law which was only for Israel in that time and place. Please read up on the differences between the old and new covenants.

No no, I don't bash Christians. My mother is a Christian and I love her. I am intolerant of intolerance. I am intolerant of those who claim to be saving souls, yet who bully young men into committing suicide - and what does your Bible say about that? You're not saving souls, you're damning them.

I haven't bullied anyone, and it isn't loving to tolerate sin. It is actually hateful to tolerate it because sin is what sends people to hell. No one should be bullied or singled out, and those who act that way are not following what Jesus taught.

So I presume if your mother is Christian, you grew up in the faith? If so, why did you turn your back on it?

You can be Christian all you want, but if you have a problem with homosexuality, then you don't engage in homosexual acts.

I have a problem with sin, and I will continue to speak out against it as God commanded me.

Oh, and stop bleating about American being founded with Christian ideals. Freedom of religion is in your constitution.

I will stop talking about it when people stop trying to rewrite history.

>> ^Quboid

I believe in an Anerica that honors and acknowledges God for the blessings He gives this country, and the covenant the founders made with Him. I also believe that an America that doesn't do that, and in fact does the opposite, is headed for destruction.

In reply to this comment by skryboyd:
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected.
please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost.
so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.
let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

anyways.
i look forward to your answer.
namaste

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.
I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc
This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.
This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.


Nobody got that? He says it right there: "I'm a Troll, I'm a Troll!"

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.

I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc

This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.

This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.


>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

>> ^SDGundamX:

For the most part, I thought this was excellent.
I did wince a bit when he claimed if we break the population of the U.S. down by sects that atheists would be the biggest group. That's just declaring open season for people like Shiny to claim that atheism is a belief system. What would have been truer would be to say that people who declare no affiliation with any sect of an organized religion would be the largest group... and that group would be an incredibly diverse group of people that included anti-theists, agnostics, Wiccans, Christians who have left the church behind but still pray every day, etc.
About the "magic undergarments" bit, that's a little overplayed and kind of a cheap shot. Mormons that I've talked to treat the garments as purely symbolic (a symbol of their covenant with God) and a survey done a while back showed that most thought of it as simply "spiritual protection" (from temptation to sin).
More on the undergarments here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:what-are-mormon-underwear-or-garments&catid=1:faq&
Itemid=2


I agree with you on every point.

For the most part, I thought this was excellent.

I did wince a bit when he claimed if we break the population of the U.S. down by sects that atheists would be the biggest group. That's just declaring open season for people like Shiny to claim that atheism is a belief system. What would have been truer would be to say that people who declare no affiliation with any sect of an organized religion would be the largest group... and that group would be an incredibly diverse group of people that included anti-theists, agnostics, Wiccans, Christians who have left the church behind but still pray every day, etc.

About the "magic undergarments" bit, that's a little overplayed and kind of a cheap shot. Mormons that I've talked to treat the garments as purely symbolic (a symbol of their covenant with God) and a survey done a while back showed that most thought of it as simply "spiritual protection" (from temptation to sin).

More on the undergarments here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8:what-are-mormon-underwear-or-garments&catid=1:faq&Itemid=2