GinaSquitieri

Friday 7th August 2009 | 01:27 PM

"These days, if someone claims to be the son of God and the King of Jews, we seriously question their mental health… or they’re murdered in their sleep."

Hold it! Cut! You think Jesus' mental health wasn't taken into question?

Mark 3:21 (Amplified Bible)
And when those who belonged to Him (Jesus' kinsmen) heard it, they went out to take Him by force, for they kept saying, He is out of His mind (beside Himself, deranged)!

You think Jesus wasn't murdered? Jake, I know you of all people don't need chapter and verse on that one. But then, again, you've denied the very existence of the Man. So be it.

I'm in agreement that many raised on any false "religion" later deny it. I did. I mean, that is bound to happen. Likewise, many people are guilty of denying truths. "No! The world is flat! DIE HERETIC!" They come around.

Interesting article. Thanks for the read.

Goodnight.

TVBIZ(BOB)

Friday 7th August 2009 | 02:49 PM

Even though I am not a big believer in every thing that was written in the Bible I still believe that some events did take place back then. Like any book the story can become distorted over time and not bare any resemblance to what truly happened.
I guess nothing has changed - just look at any written media these days. Do you believe every detail that you read in the newspaper or on the Internet? If you do then you are a fool my friend and do not understand the whole picture!
The Bible to me is a book written by individuals in different times with varying degrees of education (if any). You cannot take every word as it is written. If you interpret the book you simply see that the book was created for the people in earlier times with limited understanding, education and with a great deal of superstition. That's not to say you cannot hold onto certain values given from that book. Values that you can change to fit into today’s society. To believe a little is better than believing in nothing. To debate the teachings of religion is better than denying its existence. To respect another’s beliefs is just being human and to take certain events in history on blind faith alone is not too bad as long as you understand that the truth may never be known or proven. Do we really need to prove everything in life to others or is the real issue of proof to satisfy our own uncertainties and weaknesses?
I'll let you be the judge................

aries

Friday 7th August 2009 | 04:44 PM

I think that as humans evolve spiritually, and regardless of what you believe we are still evolving, we are becoming more in touch with what we feel as opposed to that which we have learnt or been told is the truth. The funny thing about beliefs is that they only hold true until more or better information comes to light and then they change or disappear completely. Take the example of the earth being flat for instance...

I find it interesting and just a little bit sad that the world and it's inhabitants are so insecure and oblivious enough to still believe that the bible is meant to be taken literally and is still somehow relevant to today's society. Religion much like communism is a brilliant concept if it were not for the greediness and fear of men f&#ing it all up all the time by taking it so bloody literally, deliberately mis-teaching it for the purpose of power and manipulation and fighting about who is right and who is wrong.

Our world has to learn that love and unity are the only things that can save us. Save us from environmental disaster, save us from financial disaster and save us from evolutionary and spiritual disaster. Everyone thinks that their particular religion is right and all the others are wrong. How blind and stupid and for how long do we have to be to realise that we can't all be right and fighting about it endlessly is only going to be the end of us all.

I'm getting off track a bit here I know so I'm going to write another article about this instead...

ANY

Sunday 9th August 2009 | 01:29 AM

Wow aries, dont you go on and on and on. What am I suppose to take you literally. Who the hell are you, girly man.
I have a free will and you want to take that away from me, Those comments there are enough to make me start hating you.
The USA will have a civil war because people like you will try to make me, become like you. Over my dead body and probably yours.
And listen here you retread hippy crap peddler, you are as bad as me. You will kill, cos you think you are superior, or you will stand back and let others do it, and say nothing cos you are a coward

GinaSquitieri

Sunday 9th August 2009 | 04:01 AM

Aries, Any -- You have a lot in common with your crystal balls. ;-)

You, Aries predict "fighting about it endlessly is only going to be the end of us all." But I do agree agree that not everyone is right about their particular religion.

And, Any? Mmmm-scuse me, but did you say you have "free" will?

Aries? Any says basically that he'll kill, cos he thinks he's superior, or he will stand back and let others do it, and say nothing cos he is a coward. I mean, that is the way I see it -- You are as bad as me," Any says.

That's quite a crystal ball Any has too. Seeing how he can see into the future like that. I sure hope there aren't many Anys in the world.

ANY

Sunday 9th August 2009 | 11:34 AM

No Gina. Read it again. I will defend my freedom, my right to own a gun, my family and I will choose if I wish to hate people who tell me what to think and how to think.
Unity will not save us as the girly man said, it cant as I am not him and ultimately its his type who want to control everyone.
Girly mans beliefs are based on his own standards. Mine are based on mine........and yes I am right. Who are you or anybody to tell me you are right
I will gladly die for my beliefs

aries

Sunday 9th August 2009 | 08:43 PM

Yeah, I preach unconditional love because secretly I want to take over the world, control and manipulate people and kill everyone who doesn't believe what I believe. LOL

I'm glad you and your gun don't live anywhere near me... Comparing me to this person Gina, what have you been smoking???

Oh and in case you missed it, intelligent discussion is the nature of this website.

GinaSquitieri

Sunday 9th August 2009 | 10:20 PM

Aries,

One question mark would have been enough, thank you very much. How can we have an intelligent discussion when you don't even understand what I've said? Oh, yes, I'm sure you've broken the constraints of ego and human personality to go beyond to hEights of clarity, but I don't get the impression from what you've said above ("What are you smoking???") that this is one of those times of clarity, so permit me to help a little, will you? Let's read what I said once again sloooooooooooooowly:

"Aries? Any says basically that he'll (that's ANY) kill, cos he (that's ANY) thinks he's (that's ANY) superior, or he (that's ANY) will stand back and let others do it, and say nothing cos he (that's ANY) is a coward. I mean, that is the way I (that's me) see it -- "You are as bad as me (that's ANY)," Any says.

I'm not comparing you to Any at all. I was simply pointing out the fact that ANY, out of his very own mouth, admits he is a horrible, horrible person and a COWARD! I mean, he just said, "You are no different from me," and then goes on to state all the things he himself will do and is. I didn't say that you're no different from Any; Any said that.

Sometimes it helps to read something more than once in order to break those constraints of human ego and personality in order to attain to heights of clarity.

Have a nice day.

johnseey

Sunday 9th August 2009 | 11:50 PM

Jake , How much money did islamic mullahs or Al qaeda paid you to make your own Bible. Your point has no relevance, you are just a greedy man, will do anything for money, if we christians extinct then within few years this Islamic mullahs would rule the country, you would have no freedom too write any books, you will have to grow your beard till your chest, you can have bath only once in a week, you will be a stinky ass,
your family will be wrapped in a black clothing, only eyes wide open & then i would be please to listen a hooray from you ...God bless you becoz you are a blind person, dont write the same thing about Islam , you will be hanged, just becoz christainity is tolerant dont misuse by wirting this shitttt.....

aries

Monday 10th August 2009 | 12:18 AM

Gina, I'm really starting to think you really are smoking something!!! (That is a joke Gina, for the second time ok? And no, before you leap to any more incorrect assumptions I do not now, never have and never will use drugs.)

Moving along...

ANY said "And listen here you retread hippy crap peddler, you are as bad as me. You will kill, cos you think you are superior, or you will stand back and let others do it, and say nothing cos you are a coward"

Now compare this to your version... "Aries? Any says basically that he'll (that's ANY) kill, cos he (that's ANY) thinks he's (that's ANY) superior, or he (that's ANY) will stand back and let others do it, and say nothing cos he (that's ANY) is a coward. I mean, that is the way I (that's me) see it -- "You are as bad as me (that's ANY)," Any says.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the words you will and I will?

How exactly is he not talking to me? The comment was directed at me, I know this because he starts the thread with the words "wow aries", and then goes on to say a bunch of other weird stuff, all directed at me. (as well as a few other choice comments that I had no option to delete, so colourful were they... and yes we spell colour like that here, it's 'English' not American. (Just in case you live in the land of the free and the angry - like 'ANY')

You then go on to say... "Sometimes it helps to read something more than once in order to break those constraints of human ego and personality in order to attain to heights of clarity."

All I can do is laugh... Maybe it isn't me that needs to read things more than once Gina, and why do you get personal??? There is no mistaking the undertones of your comments. See below your comment from start to finish...

Aries,

One question mark would have been enough, thank you very much. How can we have an intelligent discussion when you don't even understand what I've said? *SARCASM*
Oh, yes, I'm sure you've broken the constraints of ego and human personality to go beyond to hEights of clarity, but I don't get the impression from what you've said above ("What are you smoking???") that this is one of those times of clarity, *MORE SARCASM* so permit me to help a little, will you? *YET MORE SARCASM* Let's read what I said once again sloooooooooooooowly: *NOW YOU ARE BEING JUST PLAIN CONDESCENDING*

"Aries? Any says basically that he'll (that's ANY) kill, cos he (that's ANY) thinks he's (that's ANY) superior, or he (that's ANY) will stand back and let others do it, and say nothing cos he (that's ANY) is a coward. I mean, that is the way I (that's me) see it -- "You are as bad as me (that's ANY)," Any says. *TOTALLY INCORRECT AND MISQUOTED*

I'm not comparing you to Any at all. I was simply pointing out the fact that ANY, out of his very own mouth, admits he is a horrible, horrible person and a COWARD! I mean, he just said, "You are no different from me," and then goes on to state all the things he himself will do and is. I didn't say that you're no different from Any; Any said that. *THAT IS JUST YOUR INCORRECT ASSUMPTION. HE IS STATING THAT I AM AS BAD AS HE BECAUSE WE STAND AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM WITH REGARD TO OUR BELIEFS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BY THE MAINSTREAM AS EXTREME - ME BEING A "RETREAD HIPPY", WHATEVER THAT IS? AND HIM BEING AN ANGRY REDNECK.* (Again, a joke but you get my point I hope?)

Sometimes it helps to read something more than once in order to break those constraints of human ego and personality in order to attain to heights of clarity. *STILL MORE SARCASM AND CONDESCENSION*

Are you sore at me for standing up for my beliefs, do you think I have it in for you or something or do you still think I deleted my post because you have a bit of a complex and think everything is about you?

Relax... sheesh

GinaSquitieri

Monday 10th August 2009 | 12:50 AM

I know that he is talking to you, Aries. He is also in the same breath saying exactly how HE is. Don't you see the truth and hilarity in that? He says to YOU: "You are no different from me (ANY). And then ANY goes on to state all the things that YOU will do--because that's the way ANY is. Have you lost your clarity?

And don't about me, Aries. I'm relaxed. In fact, I'm laughing so hard my sides ache. hahahaa! But with all your caps and "Relax....sheesh" would you hope others believe that it is not you who is not relaxed, but I? Just asking. I mean, I don't have a crystal ball and I wouldn't want to just assume.

And, no, I'm not the least bit sore that you took down that post and, no, I do not think you have it in for me or that everything is about me. You can trust me on that one. In fact, you asked me to email you about it, and I did. But, lo! No email from you! I dare not hold my breath.

I hope I'm not interrupting you from writing part II of your Cosmic article.

aries

Monday 10th August 2009 | 12:53 AM

Oh, I forgot this from you in an earlier comment...

Gina said "Aries, Any -- You have a lot in common with your crystal balls. ;-)"

Not comparing eh? We just have a lot in common? I could go on and on and on some more... LOL

aries

Monday 10th August 2009 | 12:54 AM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. You didn't leave me an email address...

GinaSquitieri

Monday 10th August 2009 | 01:10 AM

...in response to this comment by aries. .....and on and on and on and on.

And, you're right. Within seconds of writing you the note to ask you what happened, I realized I hadn't checked the option for others to email me and fixed it. Try it now.

Papa

Monday 10th August 2009 | 10:10 AM

Despite these numbers of people leaving the church. I believe the saddest part of general church teaching is the over all lack of any academic knowledge.

For instance we don't have any of the original manuscripts of any book in the Bible. The New Testament wasn't actually formed until almost 300 years after Jesus supposedly died. The earliest fragment we have in existance of the New Testament, dates to 130 CE, there are also dozens of verses that are in today's Bibles that are not in the earliest and best manuscripts of such books.

This isn't even scratching the surface of what has been circulated through academia for hundreds of years, and most church common folk have no way of getting to this information through their churches. Its just sad...

TVBIZ(BOB)

Monday 10th August 2009 | 10:11 AM

...in response to this comment by ANY. People complain about believing in text that was written many moons ago (the bible) but believe that they have the right to own a gun because someone added it to the American Constitution?
My friend if you are so passionate about the right to posses a weapon that was invented for one thing and that is to kill - please join your countries Army.
Yes people often stand up proudly and say "I will defend my rights to kill another" because my country says I can and when the time comes to defend your country Canada looks like a very nice place live.
I cannot understand how hypocrites who deny what is written in the Bible because it was written in an era when ignorance was more prevalent than knowledge, can so proudly carry on a tradition of war mongering which was written in an era when knowledge was suppose to be more prevalent than ignorance?
All because someone writes a verse on a piece of paper doesn’t give anyone the right to bare arms to kill, whether to protect or not.
And one last thing - people who consider themselves right and superior without any beliefs in others being right are just wrong.
Don't use your so called rights as a crutch because you will only end up shooting yourself in the foot........................

GinaSquitieri

Monday 10th August 2009 | 11:22 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Oh, but we have the internet now so if any Christian wants information, they can google a question.

www.bible-truths.com is a great site for answers to people's many questions, including the ones you bring up. For instance, if anyone wants to know if and why "the earliest fragments of the NT doesn't show up until 130 AD."*

I wonder if there are any writings of Josephus Flavius still in their original form during his stay here on earth? Because, if there are none, then, by your logic, we'll have to question his actual existence. Let me take a look. Oh, I can't find anything on that particular subject, not in www.bible-truths.com. Can you please help me, Papa?



*I'm not sure why anyone would say CE after the year 130. A century is 100 years (or if you google it you'll discover a century is exactly143253475343214 days and 33 seconds. Which, in the case of 130 years, I think it falls under the 2nd Century. I certainly am not trying to sound intelligent. I confess, I've never been to a theological cemetery. Hehe. ("A theological cemetery is a institution of higher learning where they BURY THE TRUTH" ~L. Ray Smith.) But I digress.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 10:18 AM

...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Hi Bob, while I respect your opinion, considering that not a single writer of the new testament of the bible (the jesus section) was alive at the same time as jesus was, I can not take it as a serious/acurate retelling of actual events.

While I absolutely don't believe everything that our media mates tell us, today we have multiple sources of information, not just one and none claim infaliability.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 10:37 AM

...in response to this comment by ANY. I f*cking love americans like you, you really epitomise why the rest of the world has such a negative opinion of America... basically, it is skin headed nazi ass wankers like you that bring America down... not the hippys, they're great.

Actaully "Any", if that is your real name, if you can spare 5-10 minutes (I realise that you probably spend a great deal of time stroking your falace... sorry, your gun) but if you could take a few minutes and just go ahead and remove your head from your rectum, as it seems to be impairing your judgement.

White Power, White Power!

Do you remember the days, Any, when "White Power" meant that white men had power over the black man and the mexican and the Jews and the Gays? Now, "White Power" means that you have the power to pump gas into the Black President's car, but speak up when you have a problem.

You and your stupid redneck friends can make all the noise you want, mate, but when it comes down to it, you've got no more power to change the process of governence than a clove of garlic does. If Obama or the next person in power decides that gun crime wouldn't be possible without guns and decides that it is time to take it away from you, the rest of the world will rejoyce..

Final words, you're an idiot.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 10:55 AM

...in response to this comment by johnseey. Johnseey; firstly, many, many thanks for taking the time to comment on my post, I greatly appreciate your opinion.

To answer your question, I was paid 800 very sexy cammels by islamic mullahs or Al Qaeda for making my own bible.

I agree with you, to you, my point has no relevance, though I'm not entirely sure how that equates to being greedy as I fully intend to share my camels.

Also, I think that you will find that the extinction of christianity will lead to the extinction of Islam, at least in your country, mainly beacuse the same people that were no longer willing to accept bullshit as a way of life will ensure that the same doesn't happen with just another religion.

Also, I don't particularly mind having a beard to my chest, nor batheing only once per week... I only bathe daily now because everyone else does, when we all stop, I'll be glad to get rid of it. Also, it would be helpfull if my family were wrapped in a black clothing, I think it would save a great deal if I didn't have to buy designer crap... holy moly that stuff is expensive.

Seriously though, do you honestly believe that Christianity is the only thing keeping other fundamentalist religions at bay? If you do, you are considerably more stupid than your post suggested (which already had you pegged at an 8 on the stu-po-meter). With the exception of Orthodox Judaism (which remains virtually unchanged since it's creation), all religion will only ever be taken up by people too eager to find some personal truth about the universe and too lazy to discover it by themselves.

In the above article, I make the point that christianity is moot. Christianity is killing its self because of the arrogance of people like you, your religion is as infalliable as a decaying rabit.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 11:00 AM

Gina, the term CE is the politically correct way of referring to AD. CE referrs to "common element" i.e Cheses Crust.

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 11:15 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. No kiddin'!

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 11:31 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Because there were no firsthand witnesses who were included in the NT, may be true. But there were firsthand witnesses who wrote other Gospels and then there was Josephus Flavius, so why don't you believe what they wrote? What's so special about the NT in your eyes that if firsthand accounts must be there or the whole thing is a farce? And did it ever occur to you to wonder why God might have planned it that way? No. I'm sure it didn't. I bet you didn't give that a second thought because in your eyes God doesn't even exist. But if God doesn't exist in your opinion, what do you care whether or not there aren't any NT firsthand accounts in the NT -- a book that according to your beliefs -- wouldn't have any standing, even if there WERE firsthand accounts? Do you ever listen to yourself?

Rodney

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 12:21 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. I can't believe I am wading into this discussion but I am just going to point something out very quickly about Josephus Flavius, who you've alluded to a few times. Josephus Flavius was a Jewish "historian" at the time of the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple (who defected to the Roman side, after being captured in battle).

His seminal work, "The Jewish War", covered a period in history, from his point of view, in which he describes how the Romans came to be entrenched in Jerusalem and how the Jewish revolt was eventually brutally put down, leading to exile.

In any case, I own and have actually read this book. Gina, I wonder if you have? Because you quote it as historical evidence of "Jesus" - however Jesus is not mentioned once in this book. The so called references to Jesus are references to people who Josephus Flavius clearly refers to by names, such as a man called Judas, whom he claims to have been revolutionary leaders who were well versed in Jewish Law (who was perhaps stoned to death). These comments are always side notes, thrown in for a bit of context and never in any detail; never longer than a sentance.

His less well known work, Antiquities of the Jews (which I admit I have not read), does briefly mention a man by the name of Jesus, but refers to him as the son of "Damneus" and the brother of "James". He cites that this man was made High Priest of the day, while the modern Jesus story states that Jesus had no brothers, father and was pitted against the high Priest and others in power. This is hardly reliable evidence to support the NT.

The reference to him as "Jesus Christ", as is found in some more modern versions of this text, has been attributed to "errors" (as in the intentional kind) in copying of the text by later copyists.

Somehow, certain groups have taken these comments to be some kind of proof of Jesus, when they're very clearly no such thing.

End of short History lesson / rant.

Have a good day, everyone.

Silly Billy

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 12:46 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Oh Jake You are just too much fun
Canty you see somebody is taking the piss outa you and you mates. Duh

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 01:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Silly Billy. Sure, and if you've read any of my other articles, you'll see that I'm always happy to play along.

Peace out.

Papa

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 01:10 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. As I have said many times... Gina is a Christian fundamentalist. She takes rational arguments and then covers them with so much emotion its hard to know what is truth and what is fact anymore. There are scholars world wide who question what exactly Josephus wrote. There are sections of his writings that are continually questioned to be his work or those of others... Josephus is no different than any other ancient writer.

Christians like Gina, typically like to play the martyr in these situations. We (scholars) don't treat biblical texts any different than non-canonical texts. The manuscripts we have of the bible are copies of copies of copies of copies, and so on and so forth. Not because it is the bible, but because this is how it was in antiquity. We don't have any originals of any text that could be considered "spiritual", whether it be bhuddast, muslim, christian, or whatever. Not only spiritual texts, other texts are constantly debated to be authentic.

By the way Gina, the dating system in academia has been changed from BC & AD to BCE & CE. Meaning "Before Common Era" and "Common Era".

Papa

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 01:15 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Rodney, I am impressed by your knowledge of Josephus. Me and my professor actually looked at the text you are speaking of in the Greek. And you are right, the reference to the so called "christ" is badly punched in edit. The Greek is radically different, and the grammar is changed significanctly. The edit is so apparent in the greek that attempting to explain this to people Gina who have no formal educational experience in the realm of biblical criticism, is impossible.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 01:41 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. Hi Gina,

When you were a little girl, did you ever go to another child's birthday party and play the game "Chinese Whispers"?

Essentially, the idea is that you start off with a fact or a phrase, then you go around the room, whispering the same fact or phrase to each person, one at a time, but each person adds something on top of the original fact or phrase. At the end of the game, the last person has to guess what the original word or phrase is, now that it is longer and probably jumbled.

So, why is it significant that none of the original writers were alive at the time that the NT was written? Quite simple, if it is not a verifiable, then it is not fact. If it is not fact, then it is not history. If it is not history, then there is no conceivable reason why you would follow a religion that uses it as your centre piece.

As for why I care, well, the short answer is that I was taught that this text was fact from the time that I was old enough to comprehend. There are millions of children around the world who are fed the same horse crap.

Indoctrination of children is true evil. If people want to chose a religion when they're old enough to comprehend what they're doing, go nuts, good for you; but to spoon feed a child illogical, irational and unverifiable bullshit.

Peace out, Gina.

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 01:56 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Jesus did have a brother named James. Thank you for mentioning that. Here's something I found on Wikipedia:

According to a passage in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus, yet before Lucceius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20,9) — which has thus been dated to 62.

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 01:59 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. But you've stated here before that your child(ren?) goes to a religious school. If you're against indoctrination of children, why would you send them there, or even allow it? I tell you, knowing what I know about religion these days, there's no way on earth I wouldn't put up a fight if someone wanted to send my children to a religious school of any kind! But you hate it and yet you send your children there, be it directly or by keeping mum.

Cactus

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 02:10 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. "The Jewish War" by Josephus Flavius was believed to be a work of fiction, by many modern day schollars. So far no hard evidence supporting Flaviuses writings have come to light.
It is believed that his writings only magnified the Roman Empires dominance, to cement his position with his new Roman peers. Securing himself safety and authority in his newly adopted Government

Rodney. You really need to check your facts

Rodney

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 02:18 PM

...in response to this comment by Cactus. Thanks Cactus. I think you need to check my comment above again.

I wrote that it's not possible to use Josephus Flavius' works as evidence and I even put the word "historian" in inverted commas - as in stating my opinion that he is not a true historian. Likewise, I said that it was history "from his point of view". I am well aware that he is considered to be little more than a sycophant and anyone who has read his writings knows them to be dubious at best, other than in very broad and vague descriptions of the times.

I think I was extremely clear in stating that he cannot be used as evidence of anything, which is precisely what you are saying, so how exactly do I need to check my facts?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 02:37 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. She goes to a catholic school and is exempt from attending religion classes, which for the rest of the kids is twice a week for 1 period. She, and a group of around 8-10 students who are also exempt from religion classes (for various reasons - 2 are Jewish, another 3 are Islamic, the rest I assume are similar to my daughter) spend the time studying or doing homework.

I can't speak for the other parents of these 10 some kids, but the letter I sent to the principal stipulates that if she wishes to participate in the class she is welcome, but is not obliged to attend. Thus far she has not attended any to my knowledge, but as she is of the age where she is able to logically discern between fact and bullshit, she is more than welcome.

Cactus

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 07:14 PM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. I am guessing yoiu should have understood my point but, as it is you Rod
Why not keep your pointless inane comments to yourself, instead of wading in with nothing.
You have proven nothing. So whats your point.
Sometimes its best to keep your mouth shut and have people think you stupid, than opening it, and confirming there opinion.
Leave the girl alone

Jake, you are the biggest bigot I have ever come across, and you are proud of it. That is a good indication of who you are.

Cactus

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 07:27 PM

...in response to this comment by ANY. Good on ya Any.
You have every right to defend what is important to you. Not only that, but you have every right to believe what best suits you.
Everybody else here seems too.
A US civil war again.........seriously?

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 09:24 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. And you? Papa, you would drain your bank account or run up your credit cards, or perhaps you won a scholarship to seminary--if that's even possible, and instead choose to monopolize only your time, for the sole purpose of gaining a piece of paper that calls you a religious scholar and only to put one over on "Christians" which you deem me, but of which I have never called myself, and you say my comments are emotion-filled? Who are you trying to kid? Do you recall what it was that you said about about Christian bigots in the southern U.S. and what should happen to them all? Oh, yes, but you think I express too much emotion in my responses. Okay. And, I can just imagine what your grades look like.

There may be a few here who haven't seen the way you have followed me and my comments around on previous blogs for the soul purpose of discrediting what you believe me to be, but that's okay. The fact that I personally have seen you do that sort of thing can only mean that I stir up so much PASSION in you that you just can't manage to stick to the topic and content of the article. Do you think it's intelligent to attend a seminary to learn things that could easily be learned on the internet or discovered in church or in bookstores?

You don't even have the guts to put your actual name on the board, and you slam me constantly. I wonder why you do that.

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 09:41 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Oh, and so because she doesn't physically walk to and attend any religious services, she is free and clear from any pressure of all forms. I also recall your saying that it was her choice to go to that school. I wonder why? Here a 5 year old has enough sense to make their own decisions when it comes to which school they'll attend and yet can barely tie their own shoes or spell their own names. Hey, she's your child and who am I to judge you? And since you don't like the fact that religious people shove their anti-secular beliefs down others throats, I'm imagine what you're saying is that0 you would never be caught shoving your anti-Jesus, etc., sermons down your children's throats. All indications here point to the fact that you're much too subtle to resort to the use of those kinds of tactics.

Have a nice day.

GinaSquitieri

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 10:43 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. In addition to James (the half-brother of Jesus), Peter was also alive during Jesus life and he also wrote two books in the NT. So that's two people who knew Jesus' personally who contributed to the NT writings So, now we have two witnesses.

Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

According to Deuteronomy, Rodney, the matter is established.

Rodney

Tuesday 11th August 2009 | 11:07 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. Again, you quote biblical texts with little to no understanding of them.

Such witnesses, according to Deuteronomy, need to be reputable members of the established law abiding (as in the Law of Moses) community - according to the law of that very book you quote. One who writes a book going directly against the Book of Deuteronomy (or any of the Books of Moses), as the NT does, fails to comply. This strikes out Peter and James' testimonies (with regards to a biblical context) I am afraid. In fact, according to that very book, they should be put to death.

Again, from Deuteronomy, seeings as you love to quote bible so much:
(Deuteronomy 13:1-5): "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder [...instructing you to go against the word of God...] you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer...".

So according to Deuteronomy, yes, the matter is definitely established.

Papa

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 02:52 AM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. "There may be a few here who haven't seen the way you have followed me and my comments around on previous blogs for the soul purpose of discrediting what you believe me to be..."

Your right, my only purpose in life is to fallow what seem to be middle aged christian women around on the internet to torment and discredit their beliefs.

"You don't even have the guts to put your actual name on the board, and you slam me constantly."

Yup, because I don't want religious nut bags looking me up in the yellow pages. And I slam you constantly because the garbage which you repeatedly spread on this forum has no solid basis for discussion. Your education consists of Church and Wikipedia.

I like that saying, you know the one? If you argue with an idiot, by the time its over you won't be able to tell which one was the idiot? Oh and by the way, Seminaries are generally reserved for graduate students or aspiring pastors. Since I am none of those (I only have a BA), you can stop calling it a seminary and just start calling it "college" because thats what I went too... ever heard of one? You should go sometime...

TVBIZ(BOB)

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 09:15 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Jake,
All because someone who was not alive at the time of the occurring event doesn’t necessarily make that person less accurate than someone who was actually on-site!

On both accounts you are still relying on that person to write about what truly happened. I would think that the person who does the research after the event can create a more accurate point of view then someone who was there and blinded by the events. Don’t get me wrong - I also understand that the story can be blown out of all proportions after an event especially after such a long period of time.

At the time of Jesus I would think that no one would have thought that the events unfolding would change the history of the world. High priority for record keeping for future history was not on the agenda.

You see Jake no one was around when the Earth was formed but Scientist tells us how it happened. I think we all believe these Scientist but guess what - they weren’t around at the time it occurred so why should we take their stories as being the truth?
No one has seen a black hole but we believe they exist. There is no physical proof only theory but we have faith in the Scientist who researches these events.

So maybe we should take a little bit of the Bible or any Holy text with a little blind faith after all. You cannot disprove something if you weren’t there!:)
Cheers

Cactus

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 12:20 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Whats worse? The Christian Fundamentalist or the Athiest Fundy.
After reading the comments bandied around here the Athiests (and Yes, I am including Rod, but only just) fundy, in a canter.
You know papa, reading your work is akin to watching Frank Burns from Mash 4077

Papa

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 12:44 PM

...in response to this comment by Cactus. Thank you, at least I have the knowledge to actually discuss these issues in an intelligent manner. Maybe you and Gina should hang out more often?

Cactus

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 01:36 PM

I see you are proud of your work
I might have to sign up to give you some kudos
Make you feel like a cool kid.
Buddy, if mean spirited substitutes for inteligence in your corner of the world

wait for it

wait for it

wait for it

*Sigh*

GinaSquitieri

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 01:42 PM

...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). This is so brilliant and worth repeating in case someone missed it:

"....no one was around when the Earth was formed but Scientist tells us how it happened. I think we all believe these Scientist but guess what - they weren’t around at the time it occurred so why should we take their stories as being the truth? No one has seen a black hole but we believe they exist. There is no physical proof only theory but we have faith in the Scientist who researches these events."

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 02:42 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Below are excerpts from a paper entitled, "Science Verifies Biblical Testimony" at http://www.biblestudents.com/endtimes_sum05.cfm. I just happened across this just now when doing a google search for "How did Job know about the Pleiades?" I don't know anything else about this site, so I can't endorse it entirely. I put the link up there so as not to be accused of stealing or what have you. I'm not hoping to indoctrinate anyone, just wanted to share some facts about the Word of God that never cease to amaze me, personally.

Begin quote:
...

What Holds the Earth Up? Three thousand years ago Hindu priests imagined that the earth was resting on the backs of several huge elephants, which in turn were resting on the back of a very large turtle that was swimming in a sea. Greek mythology claimed that the god Atlas was holding the earth on his shoulders. But thousands of years ago, Job said, “[God] hangeth the earth on nothing.” (Job 26:7) What a remarkable, yet simple statement of fact. The earth is suspended in space—held up by nothing. How did Job know this scientific fact? The Old Testament prophets wrote as they were moved by the spirit of God. 2 Peter 1:21

Flat Versus Round Earth: For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. If one went too far, he would fall over the edge. This was taught in both Hindu and Buddhist holy books. And even in our century, Arabs have spoken of infidels being pushed over the edge into space. In the 1500s, the first ship sailed around the world, thus proving the earth was round........The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the “circle of the earth.” Solomon wrote, that God “set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep.” (Proverbs 8:27) ...

The Bottom of the Ocean: Until modern times people thought the ocean floor was saucer shaped and sandy. But, over 3,000 years ago the Bible spoke of the valleys and mountains of the sea. In Psalm 18:15 (NIV) David wrote of God being the Creator of “the valleys of the sea.” God asked Job (38:16 NIV): “Have you walked in the recesses [valleys] of the sea?” The prophet Jonah was thrown off a ship and spoke of falling to the bottom of the mountains in the sea. (Jonah 2:6) The Atlantic Ocean contains an undersea range of mountains 10,000 miles long. The Marianas Trench in the Pacific is so deep that if Mt. Everest (29,000 feet high) were dropped into it, the peak would still be a mile below the water’s surface. ....

The Paths of the Sea: In the 1800s, Matthew Maury, an officer in the United States Navy, was amazed that Psalm 8:8 spoke of fish swimming in “paths of the sea.” Paths of the sea?— he was determined to find them. Maury discovered that the oceans have many paths or currents, which are like rivers flowing through the sea. Maury wrote the first book on oceanography and became known as “the pathfinder of the seas”— “The father of modern navigation.” Maury received his idea about ocean currents from reading the words of King David written about 3,000 years ago and thus, the Bible led the way to scientific discovery.


....

"Astounding Astronomical Facts Revealed to Job

The patriarch Job was extremely wealthy—enjoying a wonderful family. Then tragedy struck. He lost his wealth. His children were killed and his wife deserted him. Then Job lay in excruciating pain, covered with sores from head to toe. He cried out to God for reassurance, and God replied with a reminder of His almighty wisdom, justice, love, and power. God conveyed to Job His dynamic logic in three questions: “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? …Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?” Job 38:31-32

The Pleiades: “Canst thou bind the sweet influence of the Pleiades?” Modern science has revealed that the seven stars of the Pleiades are in reality a grouping of 250 blazing suns all traveling together in one common direction. Concerning this cluster, Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory tells us: “Astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing in a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction... journeying onward together through the immensity of space.”

From Lick Observatory came this statement of Dr. Robert J. Trumpler: “Over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.” Without any reference whatsoever to the Book of Job, Dr. Trumpler announced to the world exactly what God said: “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades?” In other words, Job, can you keep them bound together so that they remain as a family of suns?

Orion: “Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion?” The noted astronomer Garrett P. Serviss wrote about the bands of Orion in his book CURIOSITIES OF THE SKY. “At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of second-magnitude stars about equally spaced and of the most striking beauty. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.” In other words, every star in Orion is traveling its own course, independent of all the others. Thus, these stars that we see forming one of the bands of Orion are like three ships out on the high seas that happen to be in line at the present moment, but are bound for different ports, and all are journeying to different corners of the universe, so that the bands are being dissolved.

Arcturus: “Canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?” Garrett P. Serviss wrote: “Arcturus, one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second. Arcturus, we have every reason to believe, possesses thousands of times the mass of our sun. Think of it! Our sun is traveling only 12 miles a second, but Arcturus is traveling 257 miles a second.”

Charles Burckhalter, of the Chabot Observatory, added an interesting note regarding this great sun: “This high velocity places Arcturus in that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves... Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second. Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.” When Mr. Burckhalter had his attention called to this text in the book of Job, he studied it in the light of modern discovery and made a statement that has attracted worldwide attention: “The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.”


End Quote.


And here is another quote from another site I just found (but I cannot endorse it the entire site as I haven't read it) at http://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocsss.html, entitled:

THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE AND THE SPHERICAL EARTH

HOLY SCRIPTURE SUPPORTED

BY MODERN SCIENCE

by Jim Schicatano

Begin Quote:

The following verses display two scientific facts that could not have been known at the time of their writing. .... All four verses reveal that the universe (the heavens) is expanding (or stretching). During the twentieth century it was discovered that our universe is indeed expanding — and has been expanding since the beginning of time.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. - Isaiah 40:22 (NIV)

He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind. - Psalms 104:2-3 (NIV)

This is what God the Lord says — he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it. - Isaiah 42:5 (NIV)

The Lord speaking:
"It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts." - Isaiah 45:12 (NIV)

End Quote.

How was it possible for the writers of the Old Testament to know these things?

I know that it's popular thing to say in atheist forums that the writers of the NT and OT are fakes or denies their existence altogether. But I just realized that I have never heard of a believer denying the existence of anyone whose opinions don't line up with scripture.

GinaSquitieri

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 02:43 PM

Oops. Must have logged me out.

Papa

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 03:36 PM

Christians (like Gina) typically read the bible from a "eisegesis" standpoint. It comes from the greek and is a way of reading text. It means when a subject (typically christians) read their bible, they read what they want into the text. Most Christian theology is from the evolution of the faith, and as seen in historical criticism these new evolved faiths are inserted back into the texts by manipulative scribes. Sorry Gina, these are the facts. If you don't like it, grow up... I don't know what to tell you.

Its hard to read the bible in today's society, because tradition comes first and then the bible. If you already "know" the bible is 100% perfect and then read it, it taints your observation of certain readings and books. That is just one very simple example, I am sure we could go on all day....

GinaSquitieri

Wednesday 12th August 2009 | 10:48 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. "as seen in historical criticism these new evolved faiths (did you mean "facts"?) are inserted back into the texts by manipulative scribes."

When were those new evolved facts put back in exactly, Papa? Can you tell us? And can you give us names?

At least one of those facts was discovered to be true by scientists in the 20th century. What, do you actually believe that there are no OT texts that date before the 20th Century to be sure the scriptural facts above won't appear in them?

Anyone who believes the bible is 100% accurate is incorrect. It's impossible to translate one language into another 100% accurately. But if anyone thinks that God wasn't aware that scribes would manipulate His word, I can give you chapter and verse to prove He was aware.

Papa, you think all believers are stupid and uneducated. That's a pretty broad assumption.

Papa

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 03:55 AM

Its really hard to discuss these types of discussions with people who haven't read some type of commentary on the manner. But just for instance, I will include a list of verses (thanks to Dr. Bart Ehrman) we know were inserted by scribes. How do we know? Because these verses are not in our earliest and best manuscripts of any given book. For example, we have manuscripts of John that date anywhere from 130CE and on. After about 1000CE we see a verse that was inserted somewhere along the line by someone. We do not know who, and we don't know exactly when. But the greek is dramatically different, there is vocab used is not anywhere else in John. And the fact of the matter remains, this verse wasn't in the oldest manuscripts of John. The verse I am speaking of is 7:53--8:11.

One of the easiest to see inserts is the ending of Mark. Your bible may actually point out that it is not in the originals of the Markan manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20.

And no Gina, I mean "faiths". The doctrine of the Trinity is one that is fairly universal in all Christian tradition. However, there are verses like 1 John 5:7 that are not in our earliest and best manuscripts. Simply because this "faith" of the triune god was a developing and ever evolving belief. If one was to look very hard at the earliest canonical and non-canonical writings, one would see that this triune being is lucrative at the best. Not until the book of John do we have a figure called the "paraclete" which is greek for an advocate or an helper. This word is used no where else in any of the gospels except for John. John was also written the latest of all 4 gospels, most scholars and church folk date this book to around 90CE.

John 8:7, John 8:11, Luke 22:44, Luke 22:20, Luke 24:12 and Luke 24:51 are just a few verses that were added later by scribes.

My entire push/reason/motivation for writing these things is not for people to denounce their faith, or "give it all up". But to change how they read the Bible. If one is to really become a Christian like the bible commands, one must read the bible without any predisposed attitudes of it. Do you think early communities knew about the Bible before they heard about around a camp fire? There wasn't any actual bible untill 325. It was a loosely connected series of stories passed from one community to the other. Only 2% of the population during that type was literate, and we have manuscripts where we can actually see how bad these so called "literate" scribes copied the texts. A true fact is that are more differences between our manuscripts to date, then there are words in the New Testament (thank you again Dr. Bart Ehrman). I only urge you to develop your theology from the Bible, not develop the Bible around your theology...

Papa

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 04:00 AM

"A true fact is that are more differences between our manuscripts to date, then there are words in the New Testament..."

By the way, not all these differences were manipulative edits. Some where simple and honest mistakes. The greek that appears on the manuscripts of this time, has no spaces in between words. Meaningitwouldalllooklikethis. Which is easy to see how complicated it would be to copy a text you have never read before. We have some manuscripts where scribes attempted to edit these perceived errors, and then another scribe after comes along and attempts to edit that persons error, and then so on and so forth. We actually have commentary on some of the manuscripts from the scribes, criticizing the scribe before him for attempting to correct an error that wasn't actually an error. Pretty cool stuff...

Kim OJ

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 04:18 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. "I only urge you to develop your theology from the Bible, not develop the Bible around your theology... "

That sounds like a recommendation for fundamentalism!

The problem is that you must have faith in the Bible before you can begin to use it as a source for your theology. If you do not have faith it is just another piece of fantasy fiction.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 07:41 AM

...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Bob; oh, no you didn't!

It does matter that no contributor to the bible was alive at the time that jesus was, the entire religion is based around jesus, it is based around his teachings, if no contributor to the bible was alive during the time that he apparently imparted those teachings, then "son of god" was most likely embellished, walking on water was likely, walking on a beach and healed the sick was likely something far less 'god worthy' than it is written as.

Yes, it matters.

Indeed, as you say, it is true that the many sciences that we currently have providing answers to the universal questions that our ancestors made up answers to in their religion did not exist during the time that the earth was formed, but the fact of the matter is that they are DISCOVERING not STORYTELLING. Scientists (unless you're talking about "christian scientists" - laughable term) do not have to have been at the big bang in order to postulate its properties. They do not need to have been at the formation of the solar system and planets in order to understand geology and biology and the incredible sequences of events that brought them together.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 07:49 AM

...in response to this comment by Cactus. Cactus, between a christian fundamentalist and an atheist, which is worse? Well it depends on the situation, an atheist is willing to stand up for their lack of belief, to dispell the myth and fantasy that the christian fundamentalist spews.

There is no such thing as atheist fundamentalism as there are no fundamentalist teachings that an atheist follows, especally as a cumulative group.

Christian fundamentalists use a book of historical fiction.

Atheists are free to use any form of information currently available to us, we're not limited by a book written by primatives who weren't alive at the time that the story's protagonist was reputed to be alive...

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 10:53 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Storytelling? You mean, lying? Prove it.

"Scientists (unless you're talking about "christian scientists" - laughable term) do not have to have been at the big bang in order to postulate its properties. They do not need to have been at the formation of the solar system and planets in order to understand geology and biology and the incredible sequences of events that brought them together."

Likewise, neither do the sons of God who lived after Jesus' death and resurrection need to have been at the literal feet of Jesus. It's a spiritual thing. You ca't just become a son of God because you ask for it. You have to wait to be chosen of God. When (not if) but God decides to choose you, then you, like me, will no longer question whether God exists.

But, you wouldn't understand. It's alright. You're just not meant to understand at this time. Don't worry. One day you will.

Papa

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 11:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Kim OJ. "I only urge you to develop your theology from the Bible, not develop the Bible around your theology... "

I say this because typically when someone begins to read the bible without a huge backdrop of christian theology, they tend to see more of the contradictions and just flat out strange things that the bible has to offer. It tends to sober people in their claim of biblical truth and unwavering superiority.

Papa

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 11:17 AM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. "But, you wouldn't understand. It's alright. You're just not meant to understand at this time. Don't worry. One day you will."

Typical christian response. When a christian is usually met with offense and cannot argue his or her way out of the situation because they are met with intellegent opposition, this by far (in my opinion) is the most widely used statement. By the way Gina, that gets translated into "I am better and more knowledgeable than you...". At least thats how I see it, maybe I am the only one.

“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 11:43 AM

...in response to this comment by Kim OJ. It really does sound like that's what he's saying.

"The problem is that you must have faith in the Bible before you can begin to use it as a source for your theology."

Kim, that is "blind faith" and that's anti-scriptural. Listen, blind faith neither required nor desired. (Wow! Atheists are supposed to be so learned, but they're as bad as the manipulative scribes in their twisting and adding to and taking away from the Scripture. But I don't think coming from you or any of the others here that it is intentional. I think you just don't know and/or don't care to actually look up a scripture before you mutilate it. Been there, done that. Not judging.)

Does God Require "Blind" Faith:

Genesis 28 (KJV)

20Then Jacob made a vow, saying, If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go and will give me food to eat and clothing to wear,

21So that I may come again to my father's house in peace, then (ONLY THEN) the Lord shall be my God;

"If you do not have faith it is just another piece of fantasy fiction."

Very true! And it is fantasy fiction because you can't understand it when God hasn't given you the gift of wisdom or the experiences you need to believe. That is not your fault. First, God must give you the gift of wisdom; it is a gift and no amount of striving will get it for you; it is not worked for or earned--it's free. And you can't drum that up on your with your supposed "free" will. The ability to understand the wisdom of God requires a gift of wisdom FROM God. Without the gift of wisdom, all that atheists (to say nothing of most Christians) will ever be able to see before them is a piece of fantasy fiction. Why?

Romans 8:7 (King James Version)

7Because the carnal mind (a mind that is devoid of God's gift of wisdom) is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The carnal mind, devoid of Godly wisdom, is not built to be able to understand or be subject to the law of God.

Cactus

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 11:58 AM

...in response to this comment by Papa. You know what paps. You are one ugly looking bastard and Gina is preety. She wins
I like preety girls, and her argument is as stupid as yours and as arrogant as yours.
The difference is she isnt an arrogant prick excercising her intelect or lack thereof to crush somebody.
There are some nasty people around here, unimaginative selfish bores, arrogant self righteous pompous hypocrits.
Gina, i would consider you one of the dumbest people I have come across on the internet, hanging around here. You will be crushed, clearly there agenda, or become one of them.
Take what you have, what you hold dear and go. Big net out there. Find a place with nice people
Jake I am repulsed by you and your hate
Gina, you are turning in to Jake

What is this place
What is wrong with you people

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 12:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa,

"Possible gods"? You mean, it's only a "possibility" that there are other gods? Then, you shouldn't have a problem with the fact that some dismiss them, especially when it's not certain there are other gods. But there certainly are other "gods"! Look at Psalm 82:6

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

But we are not to be putting our trust in these "gods." Why be putting trust in the creation when the Creator is so far above them? I'll be darned if I'm going to put my trust in a human being, who, as you know are not the most upright species on the planet, as they are known by many for, among other stupid things, manipulating the scriptures, and any other evil thing their carnal, wicked minds can drum up. That's just stupid.

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 12:17 PM

...in response to this comment by Cactus. "You will be crushed! Take what you have, what you hold dear and go. Big net out there. Find a place with nice people" I'll have you know that there are people here who are genuinely interested in the scripture, and you want me to leave and go someplace more comfortable? You take the easy route and worry about yourself! I'll stay as long as I'm supposed to.

Matthew 16

21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed.....

22Then Peter (Cactus) took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Shame on you, Cactus!

Cactus

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 12:35 PM

I am not ashamed, I am just Cactus
and you are not Jesus.
I have heard this directly from Christians
Good advice for a preety girl, read it carefuly.....all of it

Mathew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
You know that word rend, it means to tear you apart
Go watch some Kent Hovind or something

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 12:53 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Thank you for responding so peacefully. No, really. Thank you.

"I only urge you to develop your theology from the Bible, not develop the Bible around your theology..."

Which "bible," Papa? There are many, many "bibles" out there. And, yes, there are things in some texts of scripture that weren't in the earliest manuscripts. Namely, as you point out, and I agree with, the piece of anti-scriptural nonsense: the "triune God."

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is ONE LORD:

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord:

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is ONE.

As I said, God was well aware that evil people (scribes) would be manipulating the scriptures.

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but He is called the Son of God, not the Son of the Holy Spirit. When "Thom" puts his seed in a "Ethel" and a child is conceived by the Thom's seed, that child is not call the son of seed, he is called the son of the Thom; or Thom-son, or Thomson. It used to really bother me, too, when I learned that scripture was manipulated by men, but God warned that it would happened (I can give you chapter and verse, if you want it).

He also said in Luke 12:2 and Matthew 10:26

So have no fear of them; for nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, or kept secret that will not become known.

As you've discovered! So very good. But does that mean at ALL of scripture is false or forged? Not from my vantage point.

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 01:04 PM

...in response to this comment by Cactus. 1 John 4:17 (King James Version)
Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so are we in this world.

Cactus, I appreciate your concern. Perhaps instead of chiming in to rend me, you could pray for me?

Papa

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 01:14 PM

...in response to this comment by . Asking me which Bible I am talking about is childish. Whatever bible you read, that bible.

"It used to really bother me, too, when I learned that scripture was manipulated by men, but God warned that it would happened (I can give you chapter and verse, if you want it). "

So you are concerned about manipulated texts, and then you comfort yourself with more manipulated texts?

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 01:21 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. No, Papa, there are many "bibles" and there is scripture. The Holy Spirit comforts me.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 01:34 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. "But, you wouldn't understand. It's alright. You're just not meant to understand at this time. Don't worry. One day you will."

I hope so Gina, I really do. That little thing that sits at the heart of every decission that everyone makes is what drives and interests me; it is what keeps me up at night and ultimately what sends me to sleep.

While I have been a vehement practitioner of a religion, I realise commiting to a religion is a personal thing, but why people do it (or anything, for that matter) is what I strive to answer.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 01:37 PM

...in response to this comment by Cactus. Hate? Cactus, I'm not snails and puppydogs tails, I'm peace love and fairy dust, mate.

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 01:49 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. I understand what you're saying. Keep seeking.

Papa

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 04:43 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. I used to be like you Gina, I used to believe in the bible and god, and all of that. I know how you think, I know how you rationalize and I know how you have those little thoughts that creep up on you during the day or late at night. The ones that say, maybe God & Heaven isn't real? I was in the church, I used to talk about god and and I was a christian. I know how you put off any logical explanation and explain with "god did it", I know how it is because I was a christian and I was you...

I listened to the reason and to logic, and to facts. And the sad part is that you won't even consider them...

GinaSquitieri

Thursday 13th August 2009 | 10:22 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Revelation 2:2

I know your industry and activities, laborious toil and trouble, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot tolerate wicked [men] and have tested and critically appraised those who call [themselves] apostles (special messengers of Christ) and yet are not, and have found them to be impostors and liars.

Papa,

That you've been hurt in your heart and mind and made to doubt God's existence by imposters -- who call themselves special messengers of Christ, yet are not, I do not doubt. I am well acquainted with that. And, like you, I turned away from God altogether, or at least I tried. I would have liked there to have been no God. I really would have. I thought the world held so much more pleasure without Him.

And, there is no need to capitalize "heaven." Why do you do that? I no longer doubt the existence of heaven because I know now, unlike what mainstream, carnal-minded Christians aren't even interested in: heaven is not a geographical place that people go to when they die.

Keep seeking.

Papa

Friday 14th August 2009 | 01:59 AM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. "Revelation 2:2"

Some people will never get it...

GinaSquitieri

Friday 14th August 2009 | 02:21 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. I'm of the belief most don't get it.

Just look at all you've had to write about here because of me and my "silly/uneducated" comments. I would think you'd be a little thankful (not that I'd ever expect it) that at the very least I am here to give you something to bag; I mean, look at all I've done for you, Papa. I give you the opportunity to get some things off your mind and you don't even thank me. (Just kiddin')

Have a good night, Papa.

johnseey

Saturday 15th August 2009 | 01:28 PM

...in response to this comment by GinaSquitieri. Oh Gina brilliant comment , i hope Jake your stupid Stu - po- meter calculates this as brilliant , if not tampered by you as you are always used to . I hope you dont believe in anything, so be it , but don't force anyone else to believe wat you believe & tell me wen are going to share the cammel (spelled as camel)....hmmm

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 17th August 2009 | 06:38 AM

...in response to this comment by johnseey. I don't see Gina as forcing anyone to believe as she does. The biggest reason I write (apart from appeasing my creativity which is constantly screaming to be let loose) is to inspire debate, to discuss belief, fact or fiction openly from those whose interpretation of those things differs.

If this site were only accessed by clones who shared the same thought processes and beliefs, I doubt I'd still be writing for it.