Jesus: Tales from the Crypt

[Peikko 1,575]

Huh? I am not interested in the 'personality' of god but the victimisation and manipulation of people in the name of religion. I see nothing wrong with having sex before marriage. I don't see how having sex before marriage harms anyone in any way.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The difference between you and I, imo, is that your desire to do what you want sexually is what fuels your belief. In contrast, my willingness to please God is my motivation for my belief. I don't see how waiting to marry before engaging in sex harms anyone in any way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My opinion is this, God knows exactly what He wants , and how He wanted His Word to be presented. I have to believe that the Holy Scriptures, as we know them , is in the order it is supposed to be in. Every i is dotted and every t is crossed. ( Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19 ) . If God wanted Thomas' gospel to be included in the Bible, it would without a doubt be in there.

The books of the Bible were chosen by men and written by men. Some Bibles include some books that other Bibles don't. I'm assuming that the Bible you read is printed in English, yes?

[Nagishkaw 510]

My opinion is this, God knows exactly what He wants , and how He wanted His Word to be presented. I have to believe that the Holy Scriptures, as we know them , is in the order it is supposed to be in. Every i is dotted and every t is crossed. ( Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19 ) . If God wanted Thomas' gospel to be included in the Bible, it would without a doubt be in there.

The books of the Bible were chosen by men and written by men. Some Bibles include some books that other Bibles don't. I'm assuming that the Bible you read is printed in English, yes?

The Bible was written by men under the direct guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. ( 2 Peter 1 : 21, 1 Corinthians 10 - 14 ) . I have a few printed in English because that is my primary language, and one printed in Northern Ojibwe ( Anishinaabe ) , and even one printed into Arabic.

[Nagishkaw 510]

My opinion is this, God knows exactly what He wants , and how He wanted His Word to be presented. I have to believe that the Holy Scriptures, as we know them , is in the order it is supposed to be in. Every i is dotted and every t is crossed. ( Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19 ) . If God wanted Thomas' gospel to be included in the Bible, it would without a doubt be in there.

The books of the Bible were chosen by men and written by men. Some Bibles include some books that other Bibles don't. I'm assuming that the Bible you read is printed in English, yes?

The Bible was written by men under the direct guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. ( 2 Peter 1 : 21, 1 Corinthians 10 - 14 ) . I have a few printed in English because that is my primary language, and one printed in Northern Ojibwe ( Anishinaabe ) , and even one printed into Arabic.

Oups, I made big heap mistake...that's 2 Corinthians CHAPTER 2, verses 10 -14.

[Donna A 4]

i saw this on cnn last night. it also said that jesus had a son but later in the story it said they checked the dna and it didnt add up. i wont be wasting my money on his ####### theory just as i didnt on the devince code either.

[Peikko 1,575]

The difference between you and I, imo, is that your desire to do what you want sexually is what fuels your belief. In contrast, my willingness to please God is my motivation for my belief. I don't see how waiting to marry before engaging in sex harms anyone in any way.

You don't need the threat of sin to be able to value sex and relationships. Sexual relationships aren't devoid of emotional engagement just because there is no 'willingness to please god'. A person who doesn't believe sex is sinful isn't automatically sexually selfish or unable to maintain a monogomous relationship. Nor is such a person incapable of sexual restraint, or making decisions about sex that give both parties respect, love and affection. There is no ethical superiority about a decision to abstain from sex or for that matter to engage in sex outside of marriage. Sex is, and should always be, something that the participating parties engage in for mutual benefit.

However, there is a huge suppresive power that is wielded by those who point the finger at people simply because they have sex outside of marriage if it is labelled sinful. Not to mention the lack of emphasis on emotional, sexual and birth control education because people simply resort to the 'well, it's a sin outside of marriage so we don't need to discuss the implications of sexual relationships' It is that which is objectionable.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Peikko 1,575]

The Devinci Code was a novel (ie intentionally a work of fiction) and a pretty lousy novel at that, in my opinion.

[Fuzzness 2]

I love these threads. Seems to always bring out people's true colours

[chri'stina 190]

I am a little confused by you, Steven. You seem like a religious person and I know you are Catholic, and yet you say things sometimes that are confusing to me about your beliefs. I know I am "born again" so we don't always agree, although Jesus said those words(born again) to be symbolic I have no idea how it became a weird word as if Catholic and born again are not both words for Christians. Anyone who has accepted Jesus as savior has been symbolically born again. I don't know why some Catholics act like it's a totally different thing. Anyway...Do you believe that Jesus didn't raise again? Or are you just questioning(which is normal too)? Is your faith more a philosophy that you incorporate into your own ideas? I am just wondering is all because what Nagishkaw is saying is Christian Biblical doctrine, so I thought you would agree with it. But I don't get the feeling you do. You asked what religion they grew up in, and asked Baptist, methodist...that is all Christian with some variations...not different religions....

I always find it hard to believe that anyone still buys the suppressive thinking that is 'sex before marriage is a sin' . I understand why religion finds it useful to promote this idea, but not why modern people accept this as some kind of 'fact'.

I don't understand blind belief, that's for sure. No where else is it acceptable for people to just say, well, X said it was true that's good enough for me. To model your life on beliefs that don't make sense unless you believe in X is rather ludicrous.

I think you and I have gone through this kind of thing on VJ before. I don't understand why you cannot respect that some people (most of the WORLD actually) believe in God or a type of god. It is not ludicrous. You don't have to agree with it, but you always seem to be so bitter about it all. Sex is wonderful between 2 married people and I am sooooo happy I waited until marriage for it. I wasn't "oppressed" into waiting.

You are trying to suppress those of us who believe in God and believe he said sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I love these threads. Seems to always bring out people's true colours

True...but I think people should be allowed to say what they believe, on either side of the issues.

Edited March 1, 2007 by stina&suj

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am a little confused by you, Steven. You seem like a religious person and I know you are Catholic, and yet you say things sometimes that are confusing to me about your beliefs. I know I am "born again" so we don't always agree, although Jesus said those words(born again) to be symbolic I have no idea how it became a weird word as if Catholic and born again are not both words for Christians. Anyone who has accepted Jesus as savior has been symbolically born again. I don't know why some Catholics act like it's a totally different thing. Anyway...Do you believe that Jesus didn't raise again? Or are you just questioning(which is normal too)? Is your faith more a philosophy that you incorporate into your own ideas? I am just wondering is all because what Nagishkaw is saying is Christian Biblical doctrine, so I thought you would agree with it. But I don't get the feeling you do. You asked what religion they grew up in, and asked Baptist, methodist...that is all Christian with some variations...not different religions....

Hi Stina,

Sorry for the confusion. I'm not in agreement with the story (that Jesus didn't rise from the dead) - I just posted it thinking it would spark a good discussion here in OT.

I was trying to point out to Nagishaw that there are more than one version of the Bible and more than one translation. Some Bibles contain books which others do not. The Bible that we've come to know today was not put together until about 300 AD (I'd have to check for sure). While it was being put together, there was great debate/discussion among the early Christian leaders as to which writings would be included and which ones would be left out. Based on what Nagishaw was saying, I wasn't sure if she was aware of those facts about the Bible.

My general approach to scripture is that while it is divinely inspired, it was written by humans (imperfect humans at that). Even if it were God himself who took a golden pen and wrote every word - human language and human logic is finite - while my understanding of God is that He is infinite. How can someone say that God (infinite) reveals Himself completely and totally within a book (finite) that is incapable of perfection? I look to scripture for Truth and inspiration, but I'm cautious about taking a passage out of context from any part of the Bible, and accept that it is God's dictate, word for word - no interpretation needed. Biblical scholars have carefully studied scripture for the last two thousand years and have written volumes on it. I personally do not think just anybody can pick it up and start reading it, and 'viola!' they'll understand what God is saying through scripture. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't try to come to our own personal understanding through reading scripture, but we must be careful not to confuse our understanding as if it is The Understanding or The One Truth. Discernment of scripture should not be taken lightly, IMO.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The difference between you and I, imo, is that your desire to do what you want sexually is what fuels your belief. In contrast, my willingness to please God is my motivation for my belief. I don't see how waiting to marry before engaging in sex harms anyone in any way.

You don't need the threat of sin to be able to value sex and relationships. Sexual relationships aren't devoid of emotional engagement just because there is no 'willingness to please god'. A person who doesn't believe sex is sinful isn't automatically sexually selfish or unable to maintain a monogomous relationship. Nor is such a person incapable of sexual restraint, or making decisions about sex that give both parties respect, love and affection. There is no ethical superiority about a decision to abstain from sex or for that matter to engage in sex outside of marriage. Sex is, and should always be, something that the participating parties engage in for mutual benefit.

However, there is a huge suppresive power that is wielded by those who point the finger at people simply because they have sex outside of marriage if it is labelled sinful. Not to mention the lack of emphasis on emotional, sexual and birth control education because people simply resort to the 'well, it's a sin outside of marriage so we don't need to discuss the implications of sexual relationships' It is that which is objectionable.

If you have practiced what you preach, then you have probably had plenty of sex outside of marriage, Purple_Hibiscus, and have gone through life, so far, without God. I can't say that either "freedom" has seemed to satisfy you nor make you a happy person, content to allow others to choose their own path without ridiculing them. That is a profound shame. I will pray for you!

Edited March 1, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Fuzzness 2]

I love these threads. Seems to always bring out people's true colours

True...but I think people should be allowed to say what they believe, on either side of the issues.

oh absolutely, people are allowed to say what they believe. But I always find it funny how one side will sometimes refuse to listen to the other side. especially those who insist that the davinci code was meant to be real and not fiction.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

If you have practiced what you preach, then you have probably had plenty of sex outside of marriage, Purple_Hibiscus, and have gone through life, so far, without God. I can't say that either "freedom" has seemed to satisfy you nor make you a happy person, content to allow others to choose their own path without ridiculing them. That is a profound shame. I will pray for you!

:thumbs:

there must be a bunch of really happy guys where she came from

[Nagishkaw 510]

I certainly am not offended by those who are in disagreement of what I have said . God does not need me to defend Him or His word, but He does command me to share the gospel . Matthew 5 : 10 says , 'blessed are those who persecute you,' so they get satisfaction out of ridiculing and I get the blessing ! ( 1 Corinthians chapter 6: 2 - 3 ) .Yes, G.E.G. , some feel they have to justify their sin as if to cover it by some means of logic that seems reasonable to them . It is just their fleshly nature to do so. But Romans 14 :11 says ' As surely as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow before me, and every tongue will confess to God ' . Numbers 32 : 23 says , 'be sure your sins will find you out.' Look, I am not here to pass judgement on anyone, because I'm a sinner , too. And if I have offended anyone here , forgive me also.