Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:32 AM:Once again, we see the false loyalty of those who give only lip service to the Bible as being the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." In reality, many of them merely worship the graven image of its fancy bindings, gilt-trimmed tissue-thin pages and workmanlike typesetting and printing, while in reality harboring great disdain for its actual contents when they are exposed to the inconvenient passages that contradict what is actually in their sacred text.
Not satisfied with what is in his actual Bible, Richard Wible again supports definitions of marriage that he wants to believe in, but which actually don't match what is in the Bible. He simply tries to deny that what is right there in the Bible isn't really there. He completely makes stuff up. He says that Deut 21:15-17 is the reslt of "corrupt affection" (not in the text), to define primogeniture. The passage does not at all define primogeniture, only that it cannot be disregarded just because a firstborn's mother is less favored among multiple wives. He is correct that the "a" word ("abomination") is not used here, nor is any other term of disfavor to indicate that the widespread practice of multiple marriage (for men only) was the least bit frowned on. His statement that this is not about a legitimate or sanctified marriage is, again, wholly fabricated by him; it is nowhere in the passage.
He then cites from the only passage in the New Testament which does condemn same-sex relationships, claiming it to be from "God's messenger Paul." But since Paul clearly and repeatedly contradicts both the Law of Moses and Jesus on many subjects, he cannot be seen as a messenger for either. He is a renegade "maverick," an oppositional loose cannon - both anti-Semitic (opposing Jewish Law) and an antichrist (opposing Jesus' teachings).
Blessings,
3D

Yet again wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:53 AM:Three D goes on another rant against Paul. Failing in his own study of the scripture to see the true way of salvation.

Question: If we commit sin, and sin is what keeps us out of heaven, how can we do something to make up for that, as in works? If we cannot even live our lives without sinning how can what we do make up for that. That is like saying, if someone steals money from someone else and realizes that they committed a crime, they go make up for it by giving money to someone else. It does not take away the fact that you stole from another.

Now I know Three D is going to respond with the following " if you do not believe that works get you into heaven than you are against Jesus, and are a Paulian.

Then let me explain, Jesus Himself said, "Nothing is good except that which comes from God" Mt 19:17. We as man cannot keep the commandments so we rely on the Grace of God, so we as man cannot "do anything" to make up for our failures to keep the commandments, except to accept Jesus as our savior, and to recognize that through the blood He shed on the cross is the only way for our sins to be forgiven, and through that FAITH we become right with God and gain entry into heaven.

Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:36 AM:The submission from "Yet again" at 8:53 a.m. jumps to some irrational conclusions.
This person asks the question, "If we commit sin, and sin is what keeps us out of heaven, how can we do something to make up for that, as in works?"
There are two main problems with this:
The first is that there is nothing in Jesus' teachings about salvation through universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds that says this "earns" salvation. If Jesus did pay the price for sins (who did he pay it to?), what is that price? The renegade "apostle" Paul, who concocted this half-baked nonsense, says that price is DEATH. But Paul's followers tell us that Jesus lives! Which means, He didn't pay the price! In any case, if Jesus did "pay the price" and thereby gain the right to judge us, why is Paul the one who sets the standard at the expression of belief as the basis for receiving that "free gift" if Jesus set a different basis? As I have repeatedly documented, and which no one has ever disputed, Jesus repeatedly stated that salvation is through universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds. He never taught that salvation was through faith alone, without works as Paul did in multiple places. Even when Jesus talked about faith, including the famous John 3:16 (see verses 20 and 21 in the same paragraph division), he coupled it with deeds. Again, Jesus does not say that those deeds earn salvation, only that it is the standard for acceptance. Paul teaches the opposite.
The second goes to the heart of the logical fallacy of the doctrine of blood atonement through human sacrifice. You say that sin is what keeps us out of heaven. Why? Are we not the children of God, who is called the "eternal Father"? This presents a very wimpy view of what is supposed to be an omnipotent, all-powerful deity. Either he/she is incapable of withstanding the presence of one "tainted" with "sin" (is this weak or what?), or is incapable on creating the right times and situations where one so tainted might be able to approach his/her divine presence. Both are limitations on the "power" of the "all"-mighty. If god is our spiritual father, then shouldn't he at least measure up to the standards of imperfect, puny mortal fathers? I am a father and grandfather. If my daughter or granddaughter did something wrong, or got "dirty," I would still have the ability, with all my weaknesses and imperfections, to stoop to her level, embrace her tenderly, and help solve the problem or learn to overcome wrong by improving one's character - the transformation that Jesus taught for the expunging of sin. How can you say that an all-powerful Eternal Father is incapable of doing this?
This small-minded vision of the Almighty as taught by Paul is insulting both to the Infinite as well as to reason.
Blessings,
3D

Explain wrote on Sep 12, 2008 11:44 AM:Then explain Jesus statement in John 14:6 " I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me" Which clearly shows that we must except Jesus as the savior and that He did die for our sins. You cannot pick and choose what words of Jesus you want to agree with, just because you do not want to admit that we are incapable of making it to heaven without Him, once again putting our heavenly entrance on our imperfect sinful selves. As far as the scripture you reference John 3:20-21, the "deeds" here are clearly listed as evil or good, however the verse ends by Jesus saying, "they have been done in God". Please read 3:18-21. We must first believe in Jesus (that He is the Messiah, Savior)

I cannot believe you further go on to mock God,you write:You say that sin is what keeps us out of heaven. Why? Are we not the children of God, who is called the "eternal Father"? This presents a very wimpy view of what is supposed to be an omnipotent, all-powerful deity. Either he/she is incapable of withstanding the presence of one "tainted" with "sin" (is this weak or what?), or is incapable on creating the right times and situations where one so tainted might be able to approach his/her divine presence. Both are limitations on the "power" of the "all"-mighty. If god is our spiritual father, then shouldn't he at least measure up to the standards of imperfect, puny mortal fathers?

We were seperated from God by sin, which Jesus speaks of, and Christ came to restore that relationship. You asked the question,"or is incapable on creating the right times and situations where one so tainted might be able to approach his/her divine presenc", He did create the right time and situation, and that time is when we receive Christ as our savior.

The fact that you do not believe it does not change the truth. Just as the same that if you do not believe that today is Sept 12, it doesn't stop it from being Sept 12th.

Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:22 PM:Explain at 11:44 a.m. asks me to explain Jesus statement in John 14:6 that "no one comes to the Father except through" him. I don't have to "explain" anything, since I am not the one who says Jesus was perfect or somehow elevated above other mortals in supernatural terms. Since I have cited numerous quotes from Jesus where he says that if you DO certain acts rooted in universal compassionate love you will be saved, at best all you would be doing is providing additional contradictions I could add to my extensive collection.
However, I cannot consider these contradictions because the fact that Jesus is the one who taught us the way to salvation through DOING acts rooted in universal compassionate love, one could say that unless we follow what he taught we cannot be saved without the methodology that he gave.
I do not dispute that the gospel of John, written almost a hundred years after the time of Jesus and compiled by the Johannine Community, a community of Paul's followers, goes further in the Pauline direction than do the synoptic gospels, even though two of those, Mark and Luke, were also written by followers of Paul who never actually met Jesus in the flesh. Yet even John, as Mark and Luke, never come out and say, as Paul repeatedly does, that you can be saved without works. The only gospel that even purports to be written by one of the Twelve original Apostles who actually lived with Jesus for a period of three years is Matthew, and that is the one that emphasizes salvation by ACTIONS rooted in universal compassionate love. Further, the letter from James, the brother of Jesus and also one of the Twelve, in chapter 2, is a direct and explicit rebuttal against Paul's theology in Romans 3, using the same words (in the original Greek), in the same syntactical construction, and the same example and scriptural citation of Abraham and Isaac to come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
Your statement that "we were separated from God by sin" and therefore cannot return to god without killing an innocent man and having our sins magically transferred to him by doing nothing or changing our own character in no way, is absurd. How does killing an innocent man ameliorate sin? Seems to me that it increases sin.
You say that "He did create the right time and situation ... when we receive Christ as our savior." But that is what Paul says. That is not what Jesus says! I have cited repeated quotes from both, and you just blurt this out with no support whatsoever from Jesus, only from the renegade "apostle" Paul.
Again, think of "sin" as a "stain" or dirt, but not in a physical sense, but as a stain on character. Comparing it to physical dirt, if my little granddaughter gets dirty, I don't push her away - that is when she needs me most. I draw her close to me and embrace her tenderly as I help her get clean. In character as well, if she stumbles, I do not push her away, I bring her close and try to impart the lessons of life to help her transform her character. I would say that the true Infinite of the Universe does not push us away in our sins, but would seek to embrace us at the time we need him/her/it the most.
The idea of an all-powerful deity who cannot abide the presence of sin and pushes us away at the time our need is greatest is utterly morally repugnant and rationally absurd.
Blessings,
3D

DDD or DD wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:52 PM:After reading these postings, I have concluded that DDD has a two-dimensional (literal) perception of the Sacred Scriptures. That they may at times be allegorical or metaphorical - as opposed to literal - seems to elude him.

Question for DDD wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:57 PM:Who is to say that your interpretation of Deut. 21:15-17 is inerrant or infallible. Did it ever occur to you that the wives in question could have been the result of serial monogamy, as opposed to plural marriage, such as happens even in this day and age?

Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 1:57 PM:Further to the comments in my previous post responding to Explain at 11:44 a.m., there is a deeper moral issue that points to the evil and immorality of the doctrine of the renegade "apostle" Paul, best illustrated with an example I have used before:
Dr. Viktor Frankl, a German Jew who survived the Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust, wrote in his book "Man's Search for Meaning" of rare but remarkable examples of men who dying of hunger, yet still gave comfort, along with their last crusts of bread, to their fellow sufferers to alleviate their suffering. Even torture and extreme deprivation could not cause them to abandon their deeply-felt compassion. But those prisoners described by Frankl were Jewish. They haven't confessed Jesus as their savior. I'm sure Paul would consign them to hell, while Jesus would embrace them and count them among His sheep. He said so!
And who else would be consigned to hell? Oh, all the loving Buddhists, Taoists or gentle Native Americans or Africans who were born in times or places where they never "accepted" Jesus as their savior because they never even had the chance to hear about him!
And what is this "hell"? Eternal torture! We criticize those who want to use torture on terrorists, but Explain wants us to believe that a loving, compassionate deity would impose eternal torture, continuing for billions of years of intense suffering, for what? Because someone didn't "accept" Jesus as Christ or messiah? Even if they never had a chance to hear about him? This is not a just, loving and compassionate god, but a cruel, masochistic, sadistic construct from the evil, cruel, twisted mind of the "renegade" apostle.
To consign loving, joyful, compassionate Jews, Buddhist, Hindus or Pagans to an eternal Gitmo, while embracing multiple rapist/murders if they profess acceptance of Jesus on their deathbed is unjust and bordering on logical insanity. Again, this subverts Jesus' teaching of love and compassion and replaces it with Paul's vision of harshness and cruelty.
Oh, and who gets saved from this hell? How about Beverly Russell? Name ring a bell?
He was the stepfather to Susan Smith. Surely you remember her. She was the mother who drove her car into a lake and killed her children. And the rest of the story? She was sexually abused by her step-father through her childhood and teen years and was still intermittently being abused after having her children.
The abuser? Her stepfather. Name? Beverly Russell.
Respected lay clergy volunteer, active in an evangelical church, who said he was still going to heaven because he was "forgiven."
He was also active in his local Republican party. Oh, and a born-again member of the Christian Coalition. No wonder he joined! Just accept Jesus as savior, molest your stepdaughter all you want, and you're saved while the loving, joyful, compassionate Jews and Buddhists go to hell.
Is this a great religion or what?
Blessings,
3D

Apollo wrote on Sep 12, 2008 2:49 PM:Re: DDD or DD (1:52 p.m.)
How refreshing to see someone reminding us of how we need to take the Bible more as allegory and metaphor rather than with too much Bible literalism.
Actually, I think this was exactly the point 3D was making.
It seems you are more in agreement with him than you realize.

Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 3:23 PM:For the person responding to me at 1:52 p.m., I have to echo Apollo at 2:50 p.m. and say that this is definitely the first time, at least since the days when I was a Christian myself, that anyone has accused me of taking the Bible too literally. Thanks for the chuckle.

And for Question at 1:57 p.m., the comment shows a lack of Bible education in terms of historical and cultural context.
The tense used does not refer to sequential wives, but simultaneous wives. There are many other external sources that can verify that this was the norm in the time of Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon, and Question makes the common mistake of trying to look at ancient texts through the prism of modern perspectives. This is consistent with the Bible's many other references to multiple wives, always with approval.
Again, a sampling:
Gen 29: Jacob given Leah and Rachel as wives
Judges 8:30 Hebrew war hero Gideon acclaimed for "many wives"
Many wives given to David: 1 Sam 25:43; I Sam 27:3; I sam 30:5;18; 2 Sam 5:13; I Chron 14:3
Solomon: 1 Kings 11:3 [700 wives; 300 concubines - criticized for foreign but not multiple
Additional examples of multiple wives of Hebrews (polygamy of foreign kings not incl) reported with approval as opposed to any indication of disfavor:
I Sam 1:2; I Kings 20:5; 1 Chron 4:5; 2 Chron 11:21; 2 Chron 13:21; 2 Chron 24:3.
Blessings,
3D

liberaljim wrote on Sep 12, 2008 3:42 PM:Richard Wible spotlights why we need to keep religion out of our laws, as the founding fathers intended. He cites the words of Paul and Christ to argue against same sex marriage. I'm sure Mr. Wible considers himself a Christian. However, just this week, several Episcopol Bishops spoke out for same sex marriage and said it was not incompatible with Christianity. Who's Christianity should we use to determine our laws? Mr. Wible's or the bishops'? There is nothing in the Ten Commandments against same sex marriage or against homosexuals. I understand Christ was silent on both subjects. However, in the old testament plural marriages were common, and God tells us disobedient children should be stoned to death, and "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thankfully, these have not been incorporated into our laws. We need to keep religion out of the conversation. Religion has no place in determining the rights of any citizen. The Goddess of Liberty stands above our Capitol. She is not Christian. She stands for equal rights for all citizens.

Quintin wrote on Sep 12, 2008 4:01 PM:Looks to me like 3d has it all wrong. Only those who had the choice to accept Jesus or not accept Him will never go to the Father (Heaven) if they knowingly renounce Jesus. Those who were born at a time when they could not have known Jesus or those who were located such that they could have no knowledge of Him, are actually exempt from the strictures. Such is our belief since we follow the Swedenborian concept which rejects the Trinity of Persons. We wholeheartedly accept the principle that salvation (being saved and going to Heaven) is for those who accept Christ as an aspect of God and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply different facets of the same God, not 3 Gods. Thus Faith (belief in and acceptance of Jesus) is the salient factor to our salvation, since all the good works in the world avail one not if Faith be absent. Those who never had the chance to know Jesus as their Savior will spend eternity in Limbo just as unbaptized infants will do. If they died lacking grace, they will be consigned to purgatory until they are purged and if they died in a state of mortal sin, they will spend eternity in one of the circles of Hell as famously described by Dante. These are matters of FAITH and are not subject to dissection and critical analysis by anyone. Scriptural citations and the babble of the naysayers will not darken our resolve as to the Truth. We hold fast to Truthiness in its most pure form! Amen.

CAVEL wrote on Sep 12, 2008 4:42 PM:You have it right liberaljim. The objection to same-sex marriage is a religious objection. Those who would teach creationism in our public schools or who insist that students in public schools be exposed to "prayer" or who object to same-sex marriage are birds of a feather in wanting to impose THEIR religion on others whether those others like it or not. It's that "missionary complex" that just never seems to subside but seems to grow more virulent and metastatic with each passing day. I don't give a hoot what that mythical character Jesus supposedly said or what somebody's "bible" says about anything. Those who have those beliefs can have them or whatever they want to believe, but for them to take it a step further and IMPOSE that nonsense on everbody else is just plain WRONG. If a church won't marry a same-sex couple, fine. There are other churches that will or a civil official can officiate at such a marriage. It matters not. What matters is that ALL of us should have the right to marry irrespective of religious doctrine.

Damon wrote on Sep 12, 2008 4:51 PM:I would just interject one more matter of concern into the dialogue. And that is the right's of animals. Yes, animals. The Bible approves of the slaughter of animals and the sacrifice of animals. What mankind does to animals is an atrocity and a horror. What goes on in slaughter houses and packing plants is beyond evil. I think the Old Testament in particular is a recitation of the most gory and bloody stuff imaginable with human sacrifices, stoning people to death, and other monstrous acts. How anyone can say that the Bible is the Holy Book is beyond my comprehension.

Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:06 PM:To Quintin at 4:01 p.m.:
I have consistently and repeatedly cited chapter and verse from the Bible for each claim that I have made about what the Bible says. If you have missed any of them, please identify the point I have made that you feel was not properly cited and will be happy to repeat the citation(s).
In contrast, you make a number of claims for a Bible-based theology which I dispute are actually in the Bible, and so I am asking you to clarify your statements from this post by supporting them scripturally.
a. Please cite chapter and verse where the Bible says anything remotely similar to this bizarre doctrine that distinguishes between those who had the choice to accept Jesus and those who did not.
Clearly Jesus says in his final general teaching (Matt 25:31-46) that all who act compassionately toward those who are hungry, thirsty, poor, unclothed, sick, imprisoned or "the least of these" will be saved! No other qualification is given, and no distinction based on accepting "him" or those who had the opportunity, and blah, blah, blah etc. Nothing like that. And Paul makes it clear that those who accept Jesus on faith and not deeds will be saved! Again, no distinction or qualification. A direct contradiction. Please help me find the Biblical basis for your claim of a distinction.
b. Please cite chapter and verse where the Bible mentions purgatory, or the trinity as described in the Nicean or Athanasian creeds.
By the way, many Christian denominations will not at all accept the positions you have articulated.
Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to providing this helpful information, otherwise, all you do have is non-Biblical "truthiness" (your choice of words) and not truth itself!
Blessings,
3D

Apollo wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:19 PM:Re: Quintin (4:01 p.m.)
Thank you for this quote from your blog: "These are matters of FAITH and are not subject to dissection and critical analysis by anyone. Scriptural citations and the babble of the naysayers will not darken our resolve..."
Got it.
Some wacko extremist makes bizarre pronouncements, and the sheep accept on faith not subject to questioning, criticial thinking, analysis or even scriptural citation!
Thank you so much for this confirmation.
This is not a religion, it is a cult!

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 12, 2008 6:37 PM:Re: The Christian concept of marriage. In addition to liberaljim's comments, I'd like to add that the homosexuality Paul referred to in the Book of Romans was the cultural homosexuality of those times. True homosexuals do not turn away from the opposite sex: they were never turned to them in the first place.
Regards

Here we go wrote on Sep 12, 2008 8:39 PM:The old axiomatic, "Never talk religon or politics at the dinner table" makes a good point, because the passions of both politics and religion are often hard to contain, and more often only rise ire and not logic.

Now, granted, this venue is not the dinner table.

Not a word uttered or written in a political or relious chat room, or a hybrid combining both, as ever been successful in converting someone. We all enter with preconcieved, and sometimes seriously pondered and considered opinions, that nobody will change.

So, when we use disparaging language, such as "Some wacko extremist makes bizarre pronouncements, and the sheep accept on faith not subject to questioning, criticial thinking, analysis or even scriptural citation!" it is counter productive. It implies anyone not in lockstep agreement with the poster falls into the "wacko extremeist" category,and is counter productive to what I view as the real intent of this site...the exchange of ideas.

But, before another poster, dumps on me as a person proclaiming myself as the policeman of the site, I point out that my "view" is not being pushed on anyone else, but is just my honest and humble opinion.

- prophet

Three D wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:15 PM:Two responses to the well-meaning contribution by "Here we go" at 8:39 p.m.:
a. Participation here is not so much for converting others as for the enjoyment of thought-provoking dialogue. Why is it that those who spend inordinate amounts of money on a purely recreational activity such as golf (or spectator sports) need no justification, but those of us who enjoy Socratic exchange somehow need a "reason" for doing something we enjoy?
b. The claim that our expression of views has never ever "been successful in converting someone" is simply not accurate. People convert all the time. In fact, in my own lifetime, I have undergone massive upheaval in changing my viewpoints. And I know for a fact, based on e-mail correspondence I have received, that my Internet interactions, both from my website and this discussion group, that an admittedly small number of people have responded to this dialogue by revising (and liberalizing) their views.
That said, it is not my desire or intent to "convert" others. I do understand the urgent feeling of need for my evangelical friends and relatives to "save" those they love, and thus tolerate their efforts, but for me it makes no difference if others agree or disagree with my views.
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 12, 2008 9:19 PM:to Prophet: I second your opinion regarding disparaging language. It demeans the user and adds nothing to the discussion. And I agree that no discussion here will convert someone of an opposed position. But if one presents a reasoned position, it may well affect someone who hasn't solidified their position on the matter. Or at least that's my hope.
Regards

SlipStream wrote on Sep 13, 2008 11:26 AM:To Quintin: If those who have no knowledge of God (scriptures) "are actually exempt from the scriptures" why don't Christians keep scripture quietly to themselves so the masses could all get to heaven. It seems a little revengeful ("if I have to earn my ride to heaven , so do you") to do otherwise.
I'm curious, what does God do about a person who dies ignorant of scriptures and who had committed horrible crimes during his life? The religious are well known for telling us that there is no morality without God. If true, how could God fault a person for committing horrible crimes if the person (made by God) didn't know about God (and therefore was without morals)? Perhaps heaven has some bad neighborhoods, populated by ignorant thugs?

Nihilist wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:06 PM:Just curious: Does anyone on this blog actually read and try to understand what the others write? It doesn't seem like it.

Wibble Wabble wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:11 PM:Richard Wible may have a point about Christian marriage. It's not really relevant to me, though. I just want the state to treat me and all my fellow-citizens equally. If Christians want to get married in a church, exclusively with members of the opposite sex, that's definitely okay with me. And they can call it whatever they want to, and I'll accept it as legal. But I get really, really, really furious when Christianists cite the Bible in telling me whom and how I should be allowed to marry.

Quintin wrote on Sep 13, 2008 2:00 PM:For SlipStream: From my prior post: "...if they [those ignorant of Jesus] died in a state of mortal sin, they will spend eternity in one of the circles of Hell..." According to our Faith those who could not know of Christ can commit sin and are held accountable just as much as the knowing are. God created all humans regardless of time and He instilled in them a moral compass much as Genesis describes. For 3D: From the website of Catholic Apologetics: " Purgatory is defined as a state of being, the continuing process of purgation or purification of the soul after human death. It is a state of perfection--begun in baptism and faith-consummated after death, entered into only by those who are saved. In other words, our transformation in Christ (Rom 13:14, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ"), our perfection in the holiness of the Father (1 Pet 1:16, "Be holy, because I (am) holy") is not ended at our physical death. Purgatory is a sign of God's mercy on those who have honestly sought to know God and to do His will in this life and yet die in some degree of bondage to sin or the effects of sin." Yes, the words "purgatory," "trinity," and "incarnation" are not found in the Bible, but Faith comes not from the Bible alone. To say that presupposes that time stopped when the last Book of the Bible was written. The Fathers of the Church and the Popes have interpreted the Bible infallably and beyond that are the many mystical happenings that have occured in the last 2000 years. Revelations and visual appearances of Saints, The Virgin Mary and indeed Christ Himself have occured to the present time. Pope Pius XII recounted his experience of a visitation by Christ to him, the Pope. Now these things are all just as believable and credible as the Bible itself. Indeed, the Church of LDS believes in the First and subsequent Visions of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Thus, there is far more authority than merely quoting from the Bible. Such is TRUTHINESS. So therefore, quibble not with scriptural confusions and mysteries for such is the nature of reality, reality being a universe that only God can know in its entirety. Such is TRUTHINESS, a prerequisite of HOLINESS. These are all matters of OUR faith and for those who cannot or will not understand them, we pray for their enlightenment.

Three D wrote on Sep 13, 2008 2:37 PM:Another big "thank you" to Quintin at 2:00 p.m. confirming that the modern "Christian" movement (based on the followers of the renegade "apostle" Paul, not Jesus) were so far removed from the actual texts left behind by the early followers of Jesus, that they had to make up a whole bunch of new creeds and writings that were not based on the Bible, the teachings of Jesus, or anything remotely similar to Jesus.
As for citing the Mormon canon of scripture, comprised (in addition to the Bible) of the Book of Mormon (a purported history of the origins of the American Indians made up by Joseph Smith), the Doctrine and Covenants (new revelations supposedly given by God to Joseph Smith, such as polygamy, forbidding smoking and drinking, etc.), and the Pearl of Great Price (additional sacred texts made up of purported translations of Egyptian artifacts along with Smith's account of his "First Vision"), collectively known by Mormons as their "Standard Works," I reject those, too, and have extensive material on the flaws, contradictions and factual errors, along with evidence of their fraudulent creation. Yours is the first time I have ever seen a Catholic or Protestant cite the Mormon Standard Works as a justification for all the anti-Biblical and anti-Jesus creeds and dogmas promulgated by the "Christian" followers of the renegade "apostle" Paul.
Blessings,
3D

Quintin wrote on Sep 13, 2008 3:59 PM:3D: I resent frankly, your dismissive and uncivil remarks. You circumvent the issue by simply and dismissively saying that what any others may have as Faith that is not explicitly in Scripture as a quote of Jesus has been "made up." That is very uncivil. What you are saying is that those who believe differently from you are liars and fabricators who are in your view not credible. Shame on you for such arrogance! It is also interesting that you dance around most of the points I have made without actually addressing them, that being because to do so would unmask your pretensions of Scriptural expertize. All you can do is to simply say that any view which is not in total agreement with your narrow vision of TRUTHINESS is simply wrong. That is not valid debate, that is sophistry and arrogance. The truths which have been Divinely revealed since the Bible was written are truths TO US WHO BELIEVE THEM and for others to attack our FAITH with such disrespect is indeed deplorable. Your fixation with Saint Paul is a narrow and mindless exercise revealing nothing. You are a man who has been drained of faith and who lost his way long ago. I pray for your salvation and redemption.

JSten wrote on Sep 13, 2008 8:28 PM:Say "Hello" to my invisible friend!

Three D wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:15 AM:My, my, but Quintin at 3:59 p.m. is certainly defensive.
The fact is that all of the creeds, cathechisms and other writings of dogma were "made up" by someone.
Your interpretation that this is therefore accusing anyone who believes in them as being a liar or fabricator is your own hypersensitive touchiness.
A "lie" is an intentional falsehood. Those who believe in the creeds, or even the Mormon scriptures, do not intend to deceive. They are sincere in their beliefs.
A "fabrication" is what someone makes up. The Catholics, Protestants and Mormons who believe in stuff that others made up are not the ones who are the fabricators.
Only the original deceivers who made up those lies and fabrications are liars and fabricators. The sincere believers who came later are innocent victims.
I notice, however, that you didn't actually respond to any of my substantive points.
Perhaps this is the real reason you are so defensive.
This is a venue in which people discuss differing and conflicting beliefs.
If you are unable to hear that there are people who dispute the sacred cows you believe in, perhaps this is not an appropriate forum of discussion for you.
Blessings,
3D

Quintin wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:15 AM:3D. "this is not an appropriate forum of discussion for you." That remark proves my point about you. That is arrogance taken to the nth degree. Who are you to "police" this venue and determine what should and should not be said? "

"If you are unable to hear that there are people who dispute the sacred cows you believe in" So you characterize the Faith of others as "sacred cows." You are a misguided and arrogant individual who has NO respect for others or their views. You wildly claim that what others believe in was "made up" " by deceivers who made up those lies and fabrications are liars and fabricators. The sincere believers who came later are innocent victims." You are not worthy of discourse with those who differ with you and so....I shall not respond to you again. I will make such posts as I see fit however without regard to what you may think about it. You are a little man who peddles his products here and as others have said, that is all you are. Saying that someone is "sensitive" is merely another way of deflecting their opinions since you cannot deal with those opinions in a civil way. Your rants about Paul and Jesus are just that: rants.

Three D wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:26 AM:To Quintin at 10:15 a.m.:
Do you understand where the term "sacred cow" comes from?
It comes from sincerely-held beliefs of Hindus, from a religion far older than Judaica or Christianity, about animals they believe to be sacred.
My points in using that comparison was to show that I equate Judeo-Christian mythology with that of the mythologies of anyone else in the world.
Your casual dismissal of others beliefs shows that it is you who is offensive to those whose beliefs differ from yours, even when they originate from the oldest religion on earth.
And you still have not addressed any of my points. Calling them rants, without once responding to my extensive recitations of chapters and verses from YOUR scriptural canon, and being utterly unable to find one single such chapter or verse to support your own NON-BIBLICAL beliefs, is nothing more than junior high school name calling.
I am still awaiting your chapter and verses.
Until then, mine stand as the unquestioned documentation of what I stated.
Blessings,
3D

SlipStream wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:08 AM:To Quintin: If God installed a moral compass into each person why didn't she install knowledge of God as well. This would save thousands from traveling the globe (and my diveway) to preach about God. Not all those who sale the same religion have the same story to sale. As is obvious in these letters most God salespersons take great liberites when interpresting and marketing scriptures (at the heartless expense of others, e.g. homosexuals, scientists, competing religions). I'd hope a great God would remove this ridiculous transfer of information by hard wiring the truth into each person, so all new believers work with the same information. The stakes (heaven or hell) are too serious to risk misinformation, yet this is the reality. Your personal sales pitch appears to market the notion that God is out here talking to people everyday, implying to nonbelievers that God is as real as you and me. My thought here is that when a holyman (Pope Pius XII) says he talked to God in person you believe him. What do you make of the annnual list of people who make the headlines saying God instructed them to do some evil deed (e.g. shoot an innocent person). I suspect you'd call the holyman insightful and the others delusional. How will God judge my lack of beleif based on the confused stories that you and others tell? Appears I'll burn in hell because of a very obvious design flaw.

To Three D wrote on Sep 15, 2008 9:46 AM:There is 1 severe issue with your "teaching" about works. I know what Jesus said, but you take it way out of context, if we are saved by works alone than that displays a conditional love, vice an unconditional love, or AGAPE love that God has for us. See if we are saved by works than God would have to judge who's works are better than others, and He does not do that. That is why Christ came and died for us, and paid the price for our sins. It seems to me that you stop reading what Jesus says, after the your favorite verse stating that we are saved by works.

As you state you were once a Christian, and because of whatever happened to you has completely clouded your mind and obviously the Holy Spirit has removed Himself from you so you no longer can see the Bible as the truth.

Three D wrote on Sep 15, 2008 1:45 PM:So let me see if I understand the person replying to me at 9:46 a.m.:
Jesus teaches that salvation is through universal compassionate love for all people (neighbors, enemies and the "least of these") expressed actively through deeds (Matt. 25:31-46; Matt 22:36-40; Luke 10:25-37). He says if you DO that, you WILL BE SAVED, and does not predicate it on faith. Paul teaches the exact opposite, that you are saved through faith and NOT WORKS or deeds (Romans 3:28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). While others who followed Paul and came under his evil spell did echo his teaching on faith, no other writer ever says, as Paul does, that works or deeds are unnecessary.
Jesus' brother, James, says in James 2:24, in a direct reply to Paul using exactly Paul's vocabulary choice (in the original Greek), the same syntactical construction and the same example and scriptural reference as Romans 3:28 (by Paul), but switching justification by faith without works as Paul says to justification by works without faith only.
I have never claimed that either Jesus or Paul was correct or logical, only that they directly contradict, and that those who call themselves "Christians" are actually followers of the renegade "apostle" Paul, not Jesus!
My respondant proves me right when he says this is not logical. It is not my teaching, it is Jesus' teaching. My responded is admitting that he believes Jesus' teaching to be illogical and that he favors Paul over Jesus. Thus, he is a "Paulian," not a "Christian."
As to the assertion that I "stopped reading" at the point where Jesus continued on a reversal to agree with Paul, you say it is there, but you're such a tease! You won't tell me exactly which verse it is in. No problem. I couldn't find it, either.
As for Jesus "paying the price for our sins," again, the price (according to Paul's bizarre theory of human sacrifice) is death. But "Jesus lives!" He didn't pay the price! And who would he have paid it to? God? The Devil? Do they take blood money? And how is it logical that killing an innocent man in any way abrogates or ameliorates sin? Seems more like to me that it makes it worse!
He further confirms my earlier statements about the "Christian" belief in a "wimpy" God, as he believes it would be above the meager abilities of whatever deity he does believe it to evaluate the worthiness of individuals' works. Again, that's between Jesus/James and Paul/Peter, I don't take a position on it, just pointing out the contradiction and which side some people are on. But I do appreciate this individual taking the time to confirm so dramatically exactly the points I was making.
Thank you,
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 15, 2008 8:25 PM:to "To Three D", re post of 9/15, 9:46 AM: I disagree that "salvation through works" would be considered a competition. If you agree that God is an omnipotent and loving God, wouldn't He merely look into each individual's heart to see if he had sincerely done the best he could? We can't all be saints, but we can be good enough. You know, "...each according to his ability ..." (from Acts 11:29.)
Regards

Three D wrote on Sep 15, 2008 9:23 PM:To John the Baptist at 825 p.m -
Love ya, guy, and you're mostly a good ally here, but I am truly puzzled by your comment about disagreeing with "salvation through works" being "a competition."
The word "competition" does not appear in either my post or the one I was referring to, so I do not even know which of us you were putatively disagreeing with.
As for myself, I reiterated that I was not asserting any belief about salviation, either by works (Jesus/James) or faith (Paul/Peter). I was merely pointing out the depth of the discrepancy.
He further accused me of not reading the "rest of the passages" that I cite, but is stragely silent in response for my request that he stop being a tease and help me fill in the gaps in my Bible literacy by pointing out exactly which verses I missed, since I still can't find them.
As for God being able to judge works, yes, you are saying the same thing I said, that for the person responding to me earlier to claim that God could not do this is for him to minimize the capabilities of a deity he otherwise supposedly claims to be omnipotent.
Or did I misunderstand and it was not "omnipotent" but "impotent" - oh my god!
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:30 AM:to Three D, re your post of 9/15, 9:23 PM: Sorry, I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to "To Three D's" post of 9:46 AM. It does get confusing, doesn't it?
Regards

To Three D wrote on Sep 16, 2008 9:51 AM:You always fail to answer the scripture found in John 14:6 where Jesus says" I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but through Me". This clearly shows that we must accept Jesus and the fact that He came and died for us. As far as the "missing scriptures " just read everything after your famous "do this and be saved". As far as your broken record statement on being a follower of Paul not Jesus, because I belive in Faith, before works, which IS the same thing Jesus taught, because if His followers did not believe in Him and that He was the Messiah, they would have not listened to a word He said, so they also had FAITH. Our works are a reflection of that faith, Paul just reemphasises this fact in his teachings.

Yes, you are correct in saying that Christ lives, He is alive in heaven seated at the right hand of God, living in His people through the Holy Spirit, you can deny it if you wish, but that does not change the fact that it is true, no matter how hard you try and make everyone who believes this feel less than those who believe your teaching.

Saved by faith wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:18 PM:Read Luke 7:50, Jesus clearly says to the woman that she is saved trhough her faith, but of course Three D will say that this shows a contridiction in the bible, or that Like somehow was a follower of paul and this book was really written during the ministry of Paul made to look like Luke wrote it, or that Luke was uneducated, oh but wait wasn't Luke a doctor, sounds very educated to me.

Three D wrote on Sep 16, 2008 1:45 PM:To the person responding to me at 9:51 a.m.:
If you are too lazy to read through the history of this blog, please don't misrepresent it.
I have repeatedly addressed this specific scripture in two ways:
A. First, it doesn't matter. IF your point is valid, at best all you have found is another contradiction. It still does not erase all the places in the synoptic gospels where Jesus says exactly what I accurately quoted.
B. But I cannot include this with the many Bible contradictions I have confirmed, because it can be reconciled. Because Jesus does teach the process of character transformation through universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds, which no one else had ever done in that part of the world before him, he is, at the point, as far as he knows, the sole provider of the secret to salvation, whether as true spiritual peace and happiness in this life or eternal salvation in the next.
You still have not responded to ANY of the places where Jesus says what I said he (reportedly) did and, by taking exactly the opposite position, based on the renegade anti-Christ "apostle" Paul, you join Paul's vicious attack on Jesus and his teachings.
Blessings,
3D

The way it looks wrote on Sep 16, 2008 2:38 PM:Is that when somebody finds a scripture that completely shows that Three D is wrong it is a contridiction. Thus, showing that Three D completely misses the whole idea behind Christianity, that it is based on Faith, faith that the bible is God's word, faith that Jesus is the Mesiah, faith that we will end up in heaven if we accept Christ. It cannot be understood in the natural mind, but through revelation by the Holy Spirit, because in man's finite mind, this all sounds like a fairy tale, but we need the assistance of the "helper" which is what Jesus refered to the Holy Spirit as prior to His assention into heaven.

So stop trying to rationalize the bible.

Three D wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:10 PM:To Saved by faith at 1:18 p.m.:
I am glad to see people are at least finding scriptures now instead of shooting off the top of their heads.
Of course, as you so presciently noted (I made my 1:45 p.m. reply before this post appeared), the same points I made in that response would apply to your post as well.
However, you did not cite the verse in context (something people often accuse me of until I ask them for specifics. This is at the end of a lengthy passage. Did you read the whole passage? This is exactly what I have said about Jesus/James and faith before. I have repeatedly stated that Jesus and James include the importance of faith, but never apart from works or deeds. The woman's faith did not save her apart from deeds. Because of her faith, the woman showed kindness and acted upon that towards Jesus. Verse 47 says that because she acted out of great love her sins were forgiven. So because her faith led her to action, it saved her, but not apart from deeds.
But, if you disregard the context, then it would still be just another contradiction and what I wrote at 12:41 p.m. would still apply.
At least you elevated the level of dialogue and thank you for a good effort.

And to "The Way it Looks" at 2:38 p.m., when you try to explain why Jesus did not really mean what he said so you can elevate your hero Paul up above him, who is rationalizing the Bible?
Blessings,
3D

Three D wrote on Sep 16, 2008 3:33 PM:A further comment to "The Way it Looks" at 2:38 p.m.:
When you say that your religion "cannot be understood in the natural mind," please understand that my Moslem friends tell me exactly the same thing.
On what basis should I believe you but not them if you make no more sense than them and your supposedly "god-breathed" holy book, like theirs, is riddled with factual errors, failed prophecies and internal contradictions.
What you are really admitting is that you are the practitioner of a mindless, irrational cult.
Blessings,
3D

ReSaved by faith wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:40 AM:Three D- Thank you for proving my point. Jesus did not respond to the women, Your faith and deeds has saved you. Jesus says, "Your FAITH has saved you". Thus showing that we must have faith prior to doing deeds, in order to be saved. Could this be where the Apostle Paul got the basis of his teachings, from Jesus himself?

ReThe way it looks wrote on Sep 17, 2008 8:50 AM:Three D- Here is a little known fact. The followers of Islam that we see here in America and abroad who say they are a peaceful religion, and want to be friends with those who do not believe, are truly not following their own belief. The ones we call extremeists are truely following their religion. Where do I get this? From a friend who spent over 40 years of his life living in an extremely Islamic culture. SO please do not even compare Christianity with them. There are no failed prophecies in the Bible, who are you to say when these prohecies are to take place? Is there an expiration date on them?

Three D wrote on Sep 17, 2008 10:03 AM:To Re Saved by faith at 8:40 a.m.:
You are doing what others accuse me of doing all the time: taking one verse out of context, so as to distort its meaning.
You said: "jesus did not respond to the woman, 'Your faith and deeds has saved you." Actually he did, and right in that passage!
Again, look at the whole passage describing that event. It is not just Luke 7:50, which is the last verse in the whole chapter. The event described is in Luke 7:36-50. In verses 44-47 Jesus lists all the good things this woman did out of love (meaning compassionate, or "agape" love, not romantic love), and said she was forgiven because of that. He then culminates with the verse you state. Her faith saves her because it engendered the loving deeds that Jesus described. There are only two ways to interpret this passage. One is as I have, which eliminates any contradictions. The other is as you have, which (as you earlier noted) not only creates a direct contradiction with all the other statements I have cited from Jesus, but within this very short passage itself!
As to your question, "Could this be where the Apostle Paul got the basis of his teachings?"
No, it could not. Luke was written by Luke, a late-convert follower of Paul who never met Jesus. Luke learned from Paul, not the other way around.
Please note that those who were closest to Jesus are farthest from Paul. It is Matthew, one of the original 12 apostles, who lived with Jesus every day for his 3-year ministry, who is never once mentioned later in regards to interaction with Paul, and who never once includes a requirement of faith.
And it is James, the brother of Jesus, who was also one of the original 12 apostles, who is repeatedly cited as clashing with Paul, and who writes the very aggressive dissent against Paul's bizarre theory, in defense of his slain brother, Jesus.
Those close to Jesus contradict and oppose Paul.
Those who follow Paul are not close to Jesus.

To Re The Way it Looks
You say "there are no failed prophecies in the Bible. Who are you to say when these prophecies are to take palce? Is there an expiration date on them?"
There is if the prophecy specifies when it is to occur and the time passes without the occurrence of the event prophesied. I have cited many on my website. This post is already long enough, so I will just cite one:
Ezekiel chapter 26 ERRONEOUSLY predicts that during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar [Ez 26:7] the city of Tyre will be UTTERLY DESTROYED, become a BARE ROCK [Ez 26:4; 26:14 — KJV says "like the top of a rock"; NIV says "scrape away the rubble and make a bare rock"], and NEVER BE REBUILT [Ez 26:14; 26:21]. The city was defeated in battle in 587 BC, during King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but was NOT "utterly" destroyed or "never rebuilt." In fact, today has more than 20,000 inhabitants at the core of a metropolitan area of more than 100,000 people! The city consists of what was originally mainland and island portions; both are mentioned in Ezekiel 26. Even within Bible times, long after the battle described by Ezekiel, Tyre had already been rebuilt and, in New Testament times it is still portrayed as a CITY (Mark 3:8) and as a harbor where ships could unload (Acts 21:3,7) -- so I guess this could qualify not only as a failed prophecy, but also as a CONTRADICTION.
If this isn't enough, I have plenty more for another day.
Blessings,
3D

Retrogrouch wrote on Sep 17, 2008 5:29 PM:Quintin you have stated that there are "truths and truthiness" Please define these terms as I don't understand what you mean.

Molson wrote on Sep 18, 2008 4:42 PM:I must say that our Faith is just that a FAITH. Regardless of the opinions of some, we BELIEVE that salvation is obtained by Faith and Faith alone. "Good works," "altruism," "benevolence," and "piety" are admirable assets, but they are not enough by them selves to obtain salvation and a life in the hereafter in Heaven with God. "Good works" are subjective and subject to many interpretations as to just what they are. My "good works" may be "bad works" to another. But Faith is easily understood and all that it requires is BELIEF IN GOD and acceptance of Him. Whether or not these tenets are Biblically based matters not, all that matters is that in our particular faith we believe in FAITH. Doing nice things for others is admirable perhaps, but that's all it can be and in some cases "good works" could be actually simply an unwelcome intrustion into another person's life. Faith on the other hand involves only God and you.

Three D wrote on Sep 18, 2008 5:18 PM:To Molson at 4:42 p.m.:
I do understand what you are saying. It is your FAITH and what you BELIEVE. Cool. But my point is that your FAITH is based on the teaching of the renegade "apostle" Paul, not Jesus!
Obviously I don't need to again cite the verses from Paul; you already believe Paul's teaching.
But I will repeat the teachings of Jesus which you oppose that contradict the claim "that salvaton is obtained by Faith and Faith alone."
Jesus teaches that salvation is through universal compassionate love for all people (neighbors, enemies and the "least of these") expressed actively through deeds (Matt. 25:31-46; Matt 22:36-40; Luke 10:25-37). He says if you DO that, you WILL BE SAVED, and does not predicate it on faith. In the passages I have listed, Jesus doesn't even mention faith! Paul teaches the exact opposite, that you are saved through faith and NOT WORKS or deeds (Romans 3:28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5).
Blessings,
3D

To Molson wrote on Sep 18, 2008 5:30 PM:I agree. However, the problem is when religious individuals try to force their FAITH onto others, as they do with science (creationism) and politics (conservative right). When they pretend their FAITH should dictate how the rest of us should live, their FAITH deserves to be questioned. I care less what astrologers, faith healers, reincarnationists, creationists, etc do in their private lives, but when they interfere with the freedom of others they should be challenged. As is evident from the 3D opponents, they don't even understand the religous dogma they want to force upon others. This is a good thing to reveal.

Question wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:29 AM:The original posting was on marriage. Jesus taught about loving everyone and not judging them, but he also taught that marriage was between a man and a woman (Matt 19:5). This is the same lesson taught by “the renegade” Paul in Ephesians 5:31 showing he was following Jesus’ teaching, at least on this issue. So my questions is, Do you support Jesus’ teaching, or want to follow the ways of man?

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:40 AM:Re: Darwin is owed an apology. The Church of England has posted a tribute to Darwin on its website. Although it says Darwin is owed an apology, the article does not constitute an official apology by the Church. You can Google “good religion needs good science” to see it for yourself. If you do, be sure to click on the link “Darwin 2009” for more info, including a preliminary list of events planned for the Darwin bicentenary in 2009.
Regards

The just shall live wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:13 PM:For those who think that Paul is the founder of living by faith, please read Habakkuk 2:4-"Behold the proud,His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith. Written well before Paul ever lived (600 BC).

also read wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:36 PM:James 2:22- "Do you not see that faith was working with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

This passage clearly shows that you have faith first and then you will perform works to perfect that faith. Not have works and then have faith to perfect your works.

Meaning: Works on their own are a good gesture to humanity, but with out faith driving those works, they will not get you to heaven. Jesus said "do this and be saved" but He was also speaking to His followers, those who had FAITH in Him. He was instructing them to carry out and show their faith through works, having the heart of Jesus towards those less fortunate. James also spoke of Rahab in 4:25-"Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?"(read Joshua 2:6-15) Why did she do this? Surely not just because she felt sorry for them. No, Rahab knew of the God that they were speaking of, and she feared that if she did not honor Him her fathers house would be destroyed by Joshua's army.

Where was Paul during this time? HE WAS NOT EVEN BORN YET!! So you see throughout the bible people were living by faith in God, and through that faith good works were produced.

Kevin wrote on Oct 1, 2008 3:53 PM:Well said, "also read" This 3D person picks and chooses from little snippits in the NT and totally IGNORES the mandate of the OT and the entire Bible that FAITH is paramount; FAITH IN GOD. "Good works" is subjective and really has no definite meaning.

To Kevin wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:01 AM:Well said yourself. And you are completely right as far as some only taking little snipits of the NT to try and show that (1) There is no need for a belief in Christ, (2) To try and stir up controversy as to the authenticity of the scriptures and label those (Paul) who teach about walking in faith, as some sort of anti-Christ renegade. Works are nothing more than faith in action, which means that if you do not have faith than our works are meaningless.

what about wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:58 AM:the criminal on the cross who was crucified with Jesus . LUKE 23;42-43
deeds, faith,grace,mercy, what?

To What About wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:46 PM:Obviously saved by faith. It is hard to do deeds or works while hanging on a cross.