3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:26 AM:Howard Killion's questions the Old Testament acceptance of polygamous marriage and, without citing references, just concocts alleged "troubled domestic arrangements of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon." But the Bible never calls them that, rather it calls them "marriages," even if they don't fit Killion's modernized definition. David express remorseful anguish for killing someone to take the man's wife and (along with Solomon) is chastised for taking foreign wives, but I'm asking Killion's assistance in providing a single instance in the Old Testament where David, Solomon or anyone else is criticized for having multiple Hebrew wives. By New Testament times it seems to have evolved into one man plus one woman (arragned and of the same ethnicity), but that is my point: marriage evolves.

I have cited lengthy lists of chapters/verses in which Old Testament polygamy is supported, in the online edition where there is more room to comment. Killion explicitly rejected online participation, but I'll just assure him extensive documentation has been provided here in this web comments section and, if others need a refresher, I have it ready to copy and paste again.

Killion, along with letter-writer Peggy Stanley, seem to be critical of the tone of my letters. Killion mentions the 200-word and once-a-fortnight limit on submissions, so he must know that space is at a premium. In the more flexible online comments, I often do go out of my way to try to express civility and pleasantries, but in the print edition, where every word is counted, I am forced to get right to the point and, even then, often can't cover the points as thoroughly as I'd like. Ah, the problems of actually having supportive documentation!

Killion is further critical of how I allegedly "attack" others' beliefs. When Killion and other "Christians" stop trying to forcibly legislate their beliefs onto others or usurping public resources for private religious observances, then he can complain about "attacking the views of traditional Christians."
It seems that Killion and others want to be able to promote their religious propaganda, which will often cost innocent suckers thousands of dollars and many hours of participation, but if someone points out the holes in their theories, it is called "attacking."
I say it is the Christians who need to stop attacking those who believe differently (or not at all).
Blessings,
3D

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:31 AM:Peggy Stanley joins the chorus of those chanting about the "will of the people."
Again, a vote of the people cannot overrule basic Constitutional rights. I doubt that if someone passed a Constitutional Amendment outlawing her specific form of religious practice, that she would honor the "will of the people." No, she would be the first in line to file her lawsuits with judges there to protect the rights of the minorities. Similarly, if Prop 8 had been defeated, I doubt we would be hearing anything about the "will of the people." Those who make this complaint only do so when the "will of the people" happens to coincide with their own - when they are part of the mob rule trying to persecute those who are different from them.
When the Roman Empire was persecuting Christians, and large crowds went to the coliseum to cheer the lions or gladiators sent to dispatch them to their eternal glory, and those Christians were a tiny, persecutied minority even smaller than the same-sex communities of today, I didn't seem to recall they had much to say about the "will of the people."
Blessings,
3D

Not free wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:41 AM:of sin. Robert Pickard's letter states that mary was absent of sin, and quotes Luke 1:28. But he does not understand the meaning of what the angel is saying or why. Hail, thou art highly favoured. This was intended to raise in her, a value for herself. At that time mary was very poor, and was the lowest of the scale in reagrds to society. It is not lifting her up to equal Jesus, because she calls herself a servant of God.

To Not free wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:51 AM:You are so far off, you need to look further into what you thing and believe.
Try it with an open mind

To 3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:55 AM:Why is it the Christians are the attackers? Does it not say in the Bible, "Go into all the world, preaching the gospel" Matthew 28:19-20? You are quick to point out how Christians who believe in faith are not followers of Jesus, but in the same breath condemn those who follow the words of Jesus.

We all know the destain you have for Christianity, as Mr Killion has pointed out, and which is reflected in your letters, WE GET THE POINT! So why not change to another forum, where you might be able to contribute something positive.

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:02 AM:The person responding to me at 8:55 a.m. cites a Bible verse commanding followers to "go out into all the world" preaching the gospel.
No problem with that, but they do not have a right to use the force of legislation or usurp public resources for private religious observances to force others to live by their beliefs. They are welcome to persuade, as long as they do so using their own resources and do so in a non-intrusive way.
And even then they should not expect that, if they are going to try to peddle their very expensive snake oil, that others should be silenced from pointing out the gaping holes in their sales pitches. I do not ask for "Christians" to be silenced, only that other voices be allotted equal time.
Blessings,
3D

To To not free wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:08 AM:If Mary was without sin then God would have just used her for the sacrifice. If Mary was equal to Jesus why does he refer to her a "women", and when Mary came to hear jesus preach, the people told Him his mother was here and Jesus said "Who is My mother, or My brothers?"(mark 3:33) If Mary was equal to Jesus, He would have spoke differently.

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:21 AM:The person responding to me at 8:55 a.m. suggests I move to a different forum.
Huh?
What forum could be more appropriate for a discussion of religious viewpoints and issues and extensive quotations from and references to scripture (which somehow the so-called "Christians" do precious little of)?
Or do you just want to silence dissident voices and leave this as a forum for cheerleaders all speaking in one unified voice?
Sorry to disappoint you.
Blessings,
3D

To 3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:44 AM:Likewise others should not use legislation to try and force people of faith to live to their standards.

I know you are speaking of Prop 8, but if you look at all the people who voted in favor of prop 8, I bet there were alot of people do not follow a religion who voted for it, knowing the way marriage is supposed to be, not just because God says so but because civil humanity and nature says so.

Noone is forced to believe or follow Christianity, everyone of us have to make a decision to accept Christ. If you do not want to hear it, walk away or turn off the tv (like I did when those who choose to be gay, were rioting in west hollywood, imagine that.) I believe all of those who oppose Christianity want to hear it, they just do not want to admit it, they know that God is real and want to have a relationship with Him, they just cover it up well.

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 11:19 AM:I agree with the person responding to me at 9:44 a.m. that no one, including me or other liberals, should use force of legislation to make others live according to my choices.
And yes, I was referring to Prop 8, but also much more than that. I am also referring to mandates regarding women's medical choices, medical marijuana, end-of-life issues, stem cell research, and of course, use of public facilities for public prayer or use of Christian holiday symbols in public places.
I have no objections to private homes, private business, private schools or churches of any denomination using THEIR property and resources for these matters, and I do not ask that any woman be forced to have an abortion or that someone who wants to fight to every last breath be denied the right to do so.
But since you mentioned Prop 8, which has been a heavy topic of recent dialogue, the point is that there is nothing in the Court decision to grant equal marriage rights that takes away anything from heterosexual marriages (such as mine), but Prop 8 does take rights away from others.
Please tell me how anything I or other liberals have ever suggested imposes any infringement of the rights of the Christian majority to make their own religious choices.

You say that "no one is forced to believe or follow Christianity." This is not true. When you use my tax dollars to pay for public land and public upkeep on a cross on public policy or a manger scene on public property, you force me to participate in your religion. When I go to a public (governmental) event and someone makes a Christian prayer as part of the OFFICIAL proceedings, you force me to participate in it or be denied participation in the public event.
Please note that I am not talking about private expressions. While I am not too fond of crosses, which to me represent death by torture, I absolutely respect the right of Christians to wear them on their persons, in their homes and in churches or private schools.
And, coming from a Christian background myself and enjoying fond memories and traditions, and with great respect for Jesus (whose teachings are rejected by nominal "Christians" who are actually followers of the renegade "apostle" Paul), my wife and I do choose to include a manger scene in the Christmas decorations at our home. That is our choice. But I do not feel it right to impose that on others in the public square.
Do you understand the difference?
Blessings,
3D

Zeus wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:05 PM:To "To 3D and 9:44" You are wrong about “those who oppose Christianity want to hear it, they just do not want to admit it, they know that God is real and want to have a relationship with Him, they just cover it up well. “ No, I don’t want to hear a single thing about Christianity (I’ve heard it for 54 years and I’ve already heard more than I’ve ever wanted to hear), I do not think your God (or any of the 1000s of Gods before and after your God) is real, and I don’t want to have relationships with invisible Gods (your invisible God included). What if I told you that you believe in the tooth fairy, that you want to have a relationship with the tooth fairy and that you just can’t admit it. That would be a silly assumption on my part, wouldn’t it? My believing in tooth fairies doesn’t make my silly assumption any less silly. As for what nature wants in the way of sexual orientation, are you attracted to the gender you are attracted to by instinct or by choice? I don’t decide to be attracted to females, I am attracted to females, that is my nature (if I or you like it or not). Is this attraction I have for females natural ("what nature wants") or not? The silly thing here is that you can’t answer this unless you know my gender (and I'm not tellin), and the fact is that your knowing my gender doesn’t change the fact that I’m attracted to females. It's that simple, no rocket science or speaking in tongues required. Again, silly assumptions.

To 3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:07 PM:Did you speak out about the use of the fire trucks that were part of the gay pride parade in hillcrest? Where several firemen were subject to sexual harrassment, and were forced to participate because it was their shift and they are employed by the city? That is a real abuse of tax dollars!

If you look at the government buildings in Washington, and you see all the references to God, do you think that was a bad use of goverment money? Obviously the government at the time did not, because they knew what they were basing this nation on.

There are plenty more decorations on public places for non-christian holidays. Just look at the schools, county offices, and government places that are paid with your tax dollars that decorate the offices, classrooms, and the outside with witches, and goblins. But for Christmas where is Jesus, for easter you see the bunny, but where is Jesus?

It is amazing how there is more expression for things that are not Christian that no one has an issue with, but put a manger scene or a cross and all heck breaks loose.

Now you tell me who is pushing what! If someone offers a prayer at a public event, just because you hear it does not mean you have to believe in it. I hear things all day that I do not agree with but I do not let it get to me, or I do not run around screaming about tax dollars being wasted, or my rights being violated, because I am secure in who I am and what I stand for.

People need to remember that we live in a democracy, in a land of free choice, in a country where we have more opportunity than we can shake a stick at, but we also live in a society where hard work is no longer appreciated and evryone thinks they are entiltled.

To 3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:17 PM:There you go again, judging others relationships with Jesus, and calling them "nominal Christians". Please sir, let those who believe the whole bible as being the Word of God, coming from God, (including the writings of Paul) believe! What gives you the authority to say what is the right interpretations of the scripture. You claim that Paul taught against Jesus, but actually Paul, when he spoke about living by faith, was refering back to the OT in Hab 2:4 "the just shall live by faith". He does not at anytime say Jesus was wrong, or say that the people needed to live according to his teachings, but he says that we must accept Jesus AS OUR SAVIOR, knowing that we cannot do anything in our own sinful nature to earn our way to heaven, but must rely on JESUS! Boy that sure sounds like teaching against Jesus to me, get over your hateful obsession of Paul, and understand that he was taught by and lead by the Holy Spirit.

To Zeus wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:28 PM:Actually I can tell if your attraction to females is natural or choice without knowing your gender. If you are a man you do it by nature, if you are female you do it by choice.

And for your information I AM THE TOOTH FAIRY! (not really).

Questioning God wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:42 PM:How can an man with a finite mind understand a God who is infinite and omnipotent? Why did God require a death to forgive sins? If the answers are not in scripture, then maybe those things are for God himself to know. Maybe He will give us more info when we see him face to face. Why did God tell Moses that he (Moses) could not look at God's glory, but only his backside? could'nt God turn down the power so Moses could see him for a second? The Lord is mysteriuos.

To To 3D at 1207 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:48 PM:Fireman (as city employees) are routinely in parades. If they don’t want to serve all the members of their community (in work or parades) they shouldn’t work for the city. If fireman participation in parades is tax abuse then fireman shouldn’t be in any parades, not just gay parades. Are you serious that we see little mention of Jesus at Christmas? You need to get out more, Jesus stuff is everywhere, and most of it goes on sale if you wait until after Dec 25. Come to think of it, you could go to church to see displays of Jesus, but I guess you are more concerned with public displays than with private wporship. As for your claim that God-fearing people have been silenced, how many times a week do we hear politicians invoke the word God? Too many? How many times a week do you hear them invoke a disbelief in a God? Never. Believe it or not, for many of us, hearing our public leaders request the help of God would be like you hearing them ask for the help of Zeus and garden fairies. Would you be OK with this? How about if I (or Sean Hannity) complained there are not enough pictures of Zeus on display during the holidays? As for your claims of free choice and opportunity, please explain how Prop 8 fits into this picture you have painted? Are you saying free choice is great, but limited to only those who have not had their free choice taken away by the majority?

Born Again wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:48 PM:Where does Jesus say that people should pray to Mary. Or where does it say that marry sits at the left side of God?
Roman Catholics added alot to the scriptures to appease the old roman culture that were used to worshiping other false gods. Jesus deserves all the Honor and all the Glory!

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:59 PM:To the person responding to me at 12:07 and 12:17 p.m.:
I do not accept any sexual harrassment by anyone, gay or straight.
Since I have never supported this, nor have I seen anyone who does, I am not sure what your point was in bringing it up other than to change the subject to an irrelevant distraction.

As to "God" in public buildings in Washington, please be specific as to which you are referring to. And please, do NOT mention the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building, which is often cited, but is incorrect. The Ten Commandments are not quoted. There is a bas relief sculpture that cites many different examples of Ancient Legal codes which influenced the development of our legal system, including the Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi, Greek Democracy, Roman Law and many others. For the Ten Commandments, the depiction is a small image of Moses holding up the tablets. The tablets do not actually contain any words. The text of the Ten Commandments is not provided.

I do not support use of public resources for any private holiday observances. Let people pursue these as individual preferences however they wish. Why should tax dollars be used for this?

As for referring to nominal "Christians," I am stating my opinion and have supported it with numerous instances in which modern Evangelical, Pentecostal, Fundamentalist and Conservative Christians and Bible Literalists follow the renegade "apostle" Paul in opposition to Jesus.
Do your really want me to provide, yet again, a list of specific examples, none of which you have ever responded to?
I am prepared to do so if you would find this helpful.
I'll promise to offer the short form of the list first.
But in the meantime, I am expressing my opinion.
An opinion supported by facts, but my opinion nonetheless.
I do not object to you doing the same, though when you do then I will likely explain why I have come to a different conclusion, and then it will be your turn. It is called a dialogue.
Blessings,
3D

To To 3D at 1217 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:01 PM:No problem letting "those who believe the whole bible as being the Word of God, coming from God." Big problem when these same individuals take away the rights of others because of what they believe the bible says. There is no shortage of religious books, of myths, of superstitions that people believe in. It’s better for all of us if these are limited to those believers, rather than forced upon us all. If you read 3Ds letters they are initially in response to individuals who want to force their biblical interpretations onto others. That’s not acceptable, and it’s different than what you are accusing 3D of.

Prophet wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:11 PM:Dear 3D:

I don't pretend to be the biblical scholar or theologian you are, but I still take issue with part of your letter appearing in today's paper.

You claim, "If the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) but "Jesus lives," then he didn't "pay the price"!

In my mind, although "Jesus lives.", he still did die, so if you accept Romans 6:23, the prerequisite of death has been made. If you do not accept the verse, well, that's a different issue entirely than the claim that Jesus did not die.

The verse concludes that the price of sin is death. It does not quantify death by saying such death is eternal, for indeed, if you believe other scripture (and, I am not making the assumption that you do, or must, for that matter), there will come the day of resurrection of the dead who obviously were all former sinners.

But, back to our little death argument, I leave you with the words of the Apostles' Creed (which again I am not asking you to embrace, but rather am just using it for justification of faith of many--and in the same spirit of understanding, I am asking if you don't agree with it, do not simply dismiss it as in error, or sumarily dismiss the faith of millions based on your own opinion):

"...[Jesus Christ]was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven..."

So to many believers, Christ did, indeed, die. Fortunately, perhaps one could argue that due to his uniquness, death simply did not "take".

Amen, and Amen

Prophet wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:17 PM:To Born Again:

You tread on dangerous ground, in terms of a debate, by asking "Where does Jesus say that people should pray to Mary?"

If every philosphical, or theologic argument requires that there be recorded words of Christ to prove or disprove a religious riddle, than it can easily be countered that ABORTION and GAY MARRIAGE are non-issues to Christians because, while there are no words of Christ specifically condemning abortion or homosexuality.

And, your attack on Catholism might be warranted and understandable, but like your other argument it is void of substance.

Amen, and Amen.

Zeus wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:25 PM:12:28 post: I expected a weak response, and you didn't disappoint. Are you saying that you consciously have to choose whether to become sexually attracted to members of your same gender or not? That's interesting, because for me there is no choice here, at least no more of a choice than deciding whether to eat grilled lobster or eat raw rancid cow eyeballs. I’d say my instinctive attraction for lobster and my lack of attractions for raw rancid eye balls is my natural inclination (what nature wants as you would say), rather than a conscious decision I have to make. Perhaps you’re actually attracted to both and therefore for you it is a choice that has to be consciously made. But then if this were true, one would think you’d be more tolerant about sexual orientation than I am. Unless of course, the intolerance is but a disguise for what lies within? Interesting.

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:27 PM:Questioning God at 12:42 p.m. tries to dismiss questions about why god had to kill an innocent man in a violent, torturous death in order to forgive sins by simply saying that it is all a big "mystery"?
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
Do you accept the ancient human sacrifices of the Aztecs or Incas because they say it is all a big mystery? Or do you call such practices barbaric?
I see the requirement that an INNOCENT man be nailed to a cross and left to hang there for hours to die a painful death to be bloodthirsty and barbaric and, yes, if you expect me to believe in it, you will have to justify it.
Why do you think ancient mythology handed down from primitive peoples should be accepted in the modern world just by calling it a "mystery"?
You don't accept that from the Moslems, Hindus or Wiccans.
If all you can do when you get stuck is call it a "mystery" then you offer no more reason to belief your supersititons than they do, especially when you try to justify it with a book you claim to be the inerrant and infallible "Word of God" when HUNDREDS of direct internal contradictions, failed prophecies and simple factual errors (known today but not in those times) can quickly be produced, as I have many times in this forum.
Blessings,
3D

Beth wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:45 PM:To Born Again
Honoring Mary is following the example of God Himself. Mary was chosen by God. Read Luke 1:26-56. Note how the Archangel Gabriel shows Mary great honor in his greeting. How Elizabeth calls her blessed twice in four short versus. Luke 1: 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Shall call me blessed... These words are a prediction of that honor which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. “Some religions” should examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy. This is ALL in the Bible, and more. Certain religions need to realize that Mary is the mother of God, and she deserves honor, just like she received in the Bible from God and others. Asking for Mary’s intercession is the same as asking fellow Christians for intercession. Jesus is the one mediator between heaven and earth, we as Christians, intercede for one another. If fellow Christians praying for one another down here on earth does not destroy Christ’s role as the one mediator, then I doubt all those we ask to pray for us in heaven will destroy His role.
How ignorant of you to say the Catholic church "added a lot to scripture" obviously you've never been to mass, guaranteed a lot more is taken from the scriptures in a Catholic mass than in any prostestant church I have ever attended. Check it out, than get back to me

CAVEL wrote on Nov 7, 2008 4:20 PM:From Wikipedia: "Egyptian religion was generally polytheistic, believing in a number of gods and goddesses, who were known as the neteru. Many of these deities controlled a specific aspect of nature, for instance both the god Ra and the goddess Hathor were considered to be deities of the sun." That civilizaton existed for thousands of years, far longer than ours has. Just think of the "religion" that those people had and how it had a theological explanation for everything that frightened them or caused them misery or joy or grief and how that "religion" evolved and changed with time. Are modern religions really so different from theirs? Why should we think their numerous gods and goddesses were pure fiction but ours are real? Why is the mythology of either the Old or New Testament any more reasonable and logical than was the religion of the Ancient Egyptians? I believe that religion is merely a coping mechanism, universally used by human beings to deal with matters they don't understand. Those who cling to it are culture bound. Bound to the culture of their childhood and bound to the social and emotional rewards they obtain. Religion is superstition and belief in the reality of magic and ghosts and angels and deities and devils and a world beyond the real one. That is some of what I believe about it, but I respect the right of others to believe whatever they wish, so long as they do not force those beliefs on others. I respect their RIGHT to believe what they wish, but not necessarily the belief itself.

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 4:30 PM:Prophet gives a much-appreciated thoughtful response to my comments, which is far superior to the cheap jabs of others who simply repeat banalities. Thank you.
However, I'm sure it is not a surprise that I do not find the conclusions convincing.

If you say that the "wages of sin is death" and, since Jesus died, even though he didn't stay dead, and you say that the statement is not qualified, i.e., not eternal, then what you are saying is that a TEMPORARY death is adequate to pay the "price" for those sins. In the case of Jesus, he died late Friday afternoon and was buried before sundown, as reported in all four gospels. And he arose in resurrection sometime at or before sunsrise Sunday morning, again based on all four gospels, though they don't agree as to whether it was at or before but, at the moment, that is a tangential point. This means that dying and then staying dead for 36 hours was sufficient "justice" to "pay the price" of every sin ever committed by every man, woman and child now living, who ever has lived, or ever will live.

Therefore, according to your logic, if I have sinned and thus cannot enter the Kingdom of God (and the logic here escapes me as to why the cosmic death penalty MUST be applied for every minor infraction), and the "death" price for those sins in somehwere less than 36 hours, I can die, pay the price and then come back to life 36 hours later.

Deal!
I can live (or die) with that.
Blessings,
3D

To Beth wrote on Nov 7, 2008 4:45 PM:Yes i have been to Mass. I went to mass for years. I was never asked to bring my bible to mass so I could read for myself. i don't remember the preist ever bringing forth a real bible study. Most of the services were taken up by what I consider meaningless rituals and reapeted chant-like prayer. Please forgive me if I come forth like an attack. It's just that i believe the only ones who can pray for me are people living on earth or Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
3D. You are obviously to inteligent for me and maybe for your own good. I do respect that you question the validaty of Christianity. But there are some things that require fAITH. I'm not a teacher of scripture yet, I'm studying to be able to give the reason why i believe in what I believe. But I can tell you this, Jesus has come into my life. he has shown himself to me, he has set me free from drug and alchol dependency. He has turned me from being a criminal into a peacefull man that obeys the law. And he has given me a few God encounters that I wish you could one day experience. I will study up on the scriptures and get back to you.

Peace.

Zeus wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:41 PM:3D at 4:30: I never thought the about the 36 hour sacrafice that has made generation after generation fall to their knees. Thanks for the thought.

Prophet wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:50 PM:3D...I respond to our last discourse, and then we can move on to another topic, perhaps...but then again, if we continue on this topic, its fine with me because the civility of the discussion is quite heartening.

My response to the 36 hour "death penalty" (if you will)is that it can be argued that the 36 hour rule only applies to God himself, in the guise of Jesus Christ, and not you, I, or any other mortal.

And then I would submit, if we are to believe the scriptures (I choose to, you may not, but I respect your opinion as I have come to feel you respect mine--now if we could get all the other posters to believe that!) Christ's temperal life ended on the cross.

While God is a heavenly entity, man is worldly. So removing us from our worldly entrappings, even with the promises that the heavenly (or perhaps "the other side" is a more acceptable secular term)experience is wonderful, we will grieve our removal from the environment we are more familiar with.

I evidence this by my own, all most predictable utterance upon the death of friends or relatives, theat "they are in a better place." They may be, but really it offers no solace to me, because I am missing them so...and, it may offer no solace to them for inverse reasons.

Anyway, I accept your conclusions, and no I am not surprised. But golly, sure is nice to escape the blathering rantings of fanatics who only subscribe to "my way or the highway".

Amen, and amen.

3D wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:35 PM:Again, Prophet at 5:50 p.m., I appreciate your thoughtful and constructive dialogue.
However, you made a comment that I was confused about, no doubt owing to my own limited capapcities of perception.
You said that the "price" is different for God than for us.
But I always thought that, when Paul referred the "wages of sin" being death (Romans 6:23) he was referring to us mortals. And the whole point, as I understand it, is that Jesus' special role allows him to be a "substitutionary sacrifice" but that the role he plays is just that, a "substitutionary sacrifice" - a sacrifice substituting himself to pay for my sins in lieu of me paying that "price."
HE is supposedly different, not the "price."

So again, if 36 hours of TEMPORARY death and then staying dead for just 36 hours was sufficient "justice" to "pay the price" of every sin ever committed by every man, woman and child now living, who ever has lived, or ever will live, that's a price I can live (or die with).

And while you're at it, please again explain WHY every smallest sin mandates the cosmic death penalty. This seems terribly unjust.
Why is it that the smallest stain precludes me from the presence of my Heavenly Father.
Is he my spiritual FATHER or not?
If so, should he not be a better eternal Father than I am as an earthly father? (Matt 7:11)
I am a "Daddy" as well as a "Grandpa." If my daughter or granddaughter did something wrong, or got "dirty," I would still have the ability (as weak and imperfect as I am compared to a god) to stoop to her level, hold her close to me and try to help her through the problem. Her imperfection, even if it required some form of punishment or discipline, would not prevent me from being able to remain close to her, if I really loved her. It might require some form of remedial attention, but that would not necessarily mean separation. So how can some people claim that a god described as being all powerful can't even remain close to his spiritual children if that's what he wants? Why are they imposing limits on what god can or can't do? Is he all powerful or isn't he? Why does he need a mediator? And if Jesus is really god, and they are one and the same, then he isn't really an intercessor or mediator at all - he is interceding to or mediating with HIMSELF!
Blessings,
3D

Prophet wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:56 PM:Perhaps it all depends on interpretation, 3D.

I see God as you describe as both father and grampa. But, only, in my mind, God is a god of grace and mercy, while others may view him as God the Judge.

Some Christians, right or wrong--that's not my place to judge-- view God as a strict legalist. I just, perhaps because of the indoctrination I received, do not.

To each his own, I suppose.

Amen, and amen.

LIfeless wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:27 PM:The above comments are a bunch of empty words, void of any power or inspiration. Arrogant and proud, these people have not been with the living God,and are like the pharisees of old, they have fancy words and arguments but are dead inside. Open your hardened hearts to YESHUA.

Beth wrote on Nov 8, 2008 4:04 AM:To: to Beth,
Re:11/7, 4:45 post.
No worries, I never feel attacked when someone else is voicing their own personal beliefs. I, for one, like to hear the different views and different beliefs. They help me grow and learn. With that being said, I had the opposite experience from you at Mass. I spent many years searching for a Church (many different denominations)that I felt had some “meat and potatoes” instead of jello. My friend asks me to go to Mass one day and I did. I walked in the doors with the feeling of, this will be no different, and to my surprise, for the first time, I really felt the presence of Christ. The readings made sense, singing the Gloria was beautiful etc.
I don’t expect everyone to be a Catholic; I have friends of many different denominations. I don’t attack them for not believing in the same things I do, but we do have discussions about them. I am not a theologian, but for the most part I can hold my own. I do have a firm belief of “just because you walk into a church/go to church, it doesn’t make you a Christian. It takes a lot of work to follow Christ.
I am so happy that Jesus has come into your life, and has helped you in your time of need with your dependencies, I am sure everyday is a struggle for you. Stay strong.
Peace be with you.

Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 4:38 AM:Well, "3D", I just want to say that, with respect to crosses, my family moved from Camillus, NY to San Diego (University City) in 1962. From that day in September 1962 until now, every time I go into the back yard of that house I can see the Mt. Soledad Cross, except when there is really bad fog.
I knew that there was an Easter Sunrise Service there, but for the most part I always considered it a landmark, a place to go and absorb the view. I later came to know that the original cross and its successor were a war memorial that some religions congregate at from time to time.
Until or unless the Soledad Cross is declared strictly for a specific religion or sect, for many like me it stands as a landmark that has been there as far back as we can remember, before Interstate 5 had been built in the canyon between La Jolla and University City.
That's just my take on that specific cross and also the primary reason that I objected to attempts to remove it.
Regards, Alf.

But LIfeless wrote on Nov 8, 2008 5:28 AM:Considering that I do not believe that you know any of them personally,
your words and statement are less than meaningless, they are worthless and judgmental.
Judgment is reserved for a power greater than your.

3D wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:14 AM:Alf, a highly respected contributor to these pages, makes a point (4:38 a.m.) about the cutlural and historical importance of the Soledad Cross.
As I noted, I respect the right of those to worship or otherwise honor religious symbols on their private person, in their homes or in churches.
I would extend that to allow for personalized designations of public land, such as individualized gravesites in public cemeteries or individual workspaces within public facilities - i.e., I would not object to an individual worker displaying personal religious paraphernalia in their individual work cubicle, as long as those of all faiths (or no faiths) are treated equally.

But Alf, either we have principles or we don't. Either we follow those principles or we don't. When the government puts up a cross at public expense on public property, it is an "establishment" of a religious observation that is unlawful. It doesn't matter how traditional or generally accepted it may become.

Likewise, when "In God We Trust" was passed by official legislation in 1956 to be designated as a "national motto" (after first appearing on U.S. coinage in 1864) or when the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (after doing quite well for 62 years without them, thank you) it was an act of Congress to "establish" a religious observance and thus clearly unambiguous.
Such acts force nonbelievers to use their tax dollars to subsidize and (if they want to use currency) even participate in religious ritualization. It is unfortunate that so few judgest have had the moral courage to stand up and declare what is patently obvious to anyone.

As a self-described Libertarian, Alf, I should think you, of all people, would recognize the importance of being faithful to small-government principles, notwithstanding popular culture or tradition.
Blessings,
3D

Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:30 AM:Well, "3D" at 8:14AM,
to the best of my knowledge, the Soledad Cross did cost the city $1 after it was erected. The replacement cost the city nothing, again, as far as I know.
I believe the city did pay to have the fence put around it.
As to religion, it was dedicated as a war memorial from the time the original was put up and "sold" to the city for the requisite $1, solely to make the transaction legal.
My 4:38AM post is my personal opinion, not my political one.
Yes, that is conflicting, but aren't we all a mass of conflicts?
Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:44 AM:Re: Howard Killion (letter)
I'm puzzled as to how Killion thinks he is calling for a more positive, "friendlier" dialogue, while accusing Dave Danizier of "chewing on a dill pickle" or "offering sour stews of attempted demolition."
Wow, that's really positive, huh!
What an impressive contribution to a discourse rooted in substance!

I have been following Danizier's letters for years and I cannot recall a single instance where he has made a personal insult or an attack on a person.
He does, however, completely demolish ideas and beliefs that are not carefully thought out or supported, but never the people that hold those beliefs.
I suppose, however, that since many of these ideas and beliefs are extremely close to believers' very personae, they are unable to distinguish between questioning the idea and insulting the person.

TOto Betyh wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:56 AM:Congratulations on your conversion and deliverance. Keep on studying the scriptures, for salvation lies within. I have also let Jesus into my life, and it's been an adventure. He has taken me all over the world to share the GOOD NEWS to many hurting people. I have also been so blessed as to recieve many encounters with Him, and healings. So exitung to hear testimonies of God's goodness. Keep on praying,reading,fellowshiping, and sharing the message.

To Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:40 AM:Alf: what about all the money on lawyer fees used by the city to litigate a constitutionally illegal religious symbol?

CAVEL wrote on Nov 8, 2008 12:44 PM:Alf's comments about the Mt Soledad cross brings to mind the intervention in the history of that case as per Wikipedia: "This veterans memorial designation was added by Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) and Duncan Hunter (R), both of whom represented portions of San Diego County, as a rider to a voluminous spending bill approved in November 2004 by the United States Congress.[10] Under the bill, the site would become part of the National Park Service but would be maintained by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association.[10" Litigation is still pending in this case. Another notorious case of wrongful intervention was the Terri Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo was brain dead and her husband wanted her life support withdrawn, saying that those were her wishes should such a thing happen to her. However, "Within a week, when the Schindlers' final appeal was exhausted, the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law,"[37] giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to remove Schiavo from the hospice." Later the Florida Supreme Court declared that law unconstiutional. These are cases where the government, for political and RELIGIOUS reasons, meddled in matters that were none of their business. The Mt Soledad cross OBVIOUSLY is a symbol of Christianity. It symbolizes the biblical tale of Jesus being crucified on the CROSS. As such it should NOT be on PUBLIC property, property owned by ALL OF THE CITIZENS. In July of this year a Federal judge ruled otherwise, but clearly that person who got his job through POLITICAL patronage had political motivations. His ruling, if you read it, is simply wrong. To my knowledge, this matter is still being litigated and is on appeal by the ACLU. My quote re the Schiavo case is from Wikipedia also. Just think, in the cases I have cited we had Jeb Bush, Randy (Duke) Cunningham (now in prison) and Duncan Hunter all meddling and grandstanding for their supporters. What a pathetic bunch they are: Jeb Bush washed up in politics, the "Dukester" doing 8 years in the Federal pen and Duncan Hunter now being succeded by his son of the same name.

Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:08 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 10:40AM,
the CAUSE of the cost to the city to defend against a war memorial shaped as a cross is the responsibility of he who initiated the suit.
Why not go after Fort Rosecrans?
Hundreds or thousands of crosses right there ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY,no less.
Why not?
Simple, the city has far less ability to defend itself against an unwarranted lawsuit than the federal government.
Regards, Alf.

Grasshoppa wrote on Nov 8, 2008 2:42 PM:Soledad Cross, not just a religious symbol but a way of life

tjefferson wrote on Nov 8, 2008 3:11 PM:To To 3D on Nov. 7 at 12:07. For your information, there are no references to God on public buildings in Washington. There is a reference to the only national deity and she is a Goddess. She stands tall above the Capitol Building and she is called the Goddess of Liberty.

Prophet wrote on Nov 8, 2008 3:12 PM:To Beth and others, re: adoration of Mary

The Holy Rosary does not elevate Mary to divinity.

The words ask, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us..."

Even we Protestants, often ask others to pray for us. But, when we do, we are not raising those we are asking intervention from to a God-like state.

There is nothing evil about Catholisim, Mormanism, [fill in the blank].

The problem is mankind's misiterpretation of , "..and God created Man in His own image," which, unfortantely mankind bastardized into,
"...and man created God in his own image!"

Amen, and amen.

Prophet wrote on Nov 8, 2008 3:15 PM:And, by the way, in the letters to the editor section to NCT, you will note a poster calling himself "PROPHET".

I do not own rights to the name, therefore "PROPHET" is free to use it.

I am trusting you recognize the difference between the thoughts both of us espouse.

Amen, and Amen.

John the Baptist wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:00 PM:to All: Here are a couple of encouraging notes from the real world:

Massachusetts, by a vote of 56% to 44%, has approved a ban on greyhound racing. All tracks there must be closed by 1 January 2010.

Colorado defeated the “Legal person from conception” initiative with a resounding 71% to 29% vote.

Regards

Alf wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:46 AM:Well, "CAVEL" at 12:44PM on the 8th,
you did not go far enough back, I did.
The history of the Mount Soledad Crosses has been revised and revised, but as one who has lived in the San Diego area since 1962, I can tell you that the first cross on Soledad was placed on private land as a war memorial and the small portion of land upon which the cross sits and xome of the surrounding land was "sold" to the city of San Diego for the token $1.
Being a cross, many have used it and the area for their religion, but, just like many crosses in many graveyards, it was placed as a memorial.
Why didn't the person who sued go after the U.S. government with "In God We Trust" on every piece of currency?
Isn't that far more of an affront, seen by far more people on an every day basis and, therefore, a far greater transgression against "separation of church and state" on a national level?
You can say what you will, the facts do not change whether you or wikipedia attempt to revise them or not.
Regards, Alf.

Beth wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:27 AM:To Prophet: you should read my post from 11/7 @ 1:45 and then you should think about how Jesus feels about people talking badly about his mother. After all, she is the mother of our Lord and Savior. Whether or not you are a Catholic, Mary had a very big part in Jesus’ life. With out her God would have not been made human. I would say that makes her a pretty awesome figure in Christian history.

As for your “Even we Protestants, often ask others to pray for us. But, when we do, we are not raising those we are asking intervention from to a God-like state.” Catholics, contrary to your view, do not view Mary in a “God like state”, but I can ask her to pray for me, just as I ask My 100 year old grandmother who passed away, just like I call my best friend and ask her to pray for me. Unless you believe when we die we go to a grave and get eaten by worms and that is the end of “Prophet” I believe when we die we are alive with Christ in heaven, that’s why I try to live a good life. Though I am not a saint, I tend to fall short everyday.

As for your” There is nothing evil about Catholicism, Mormonism, [fill in the blank].”
You are exactly right, there is nothing evil about Catholicism or Mormonism or the many 1000’s of different protestant denomination that exist today. All of which have different beliefs or there wouldn’t be many 1000’s of them.

”The problem is mankind's misinterpretation of, ".And God created Man in His own image," which, unfortunately mankind bastardized into, "...and man created God in his own image!" I agree with this totally. Too many people try to box God up in their man-made constraints and shape him to their desires.
Peace be with you

to Grasshoppa wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:35 AM:Cross on cross off.

Prophet wrote on Nov 9, 2008 3:45 PM:To Beth:

You misinterpreted by post. I'll try again, but if I an unable to soften a heart hardened by how others have responded, I can't do anything.

My post was in support of the veneration of Mary, not a condemnation, despite my being a non-Catholic.

I suggest you re-read it.

You entire second paragraph rebuffed my comments, while restating exactly what I said...I said Mary is not elevated to God-like status, and commented how protestants as for other mortals to pray for them.

Amen, and Amen.

John the Baptist wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:09 PM:To Alf: Your reference to the Fort Rosecrans cemetery reminded me that a while back, there was some reluctance there to add the Wiccan symbol to the list of approved belief symbols. I checked their website and see that it has been added.

To All: It’s a pentagram in a circle. If the background of the pentagram were painted blue, the symbol would look very much like a marking that was used on some WW II aircraft, though I doubt that Wiccans would approve of any such mods. Also, the list of approved symbols is extensive and includes symbols for Atheist and Humanists, among others.

Regards

Beth wrote on Nov 10, 2008 5:11 AM:Prophet:
I do apologize, I re read it and I do now see how you meant it. Some of it was very unclear until you showed me you meant what you meant. It is not often a protestant agrees with the honor Mary should be shown. Bless your heart.
Peace be with you

To Beth wrote on Nov 10, 2008 5:53 PM:Firt of all, God has no mother. Gos is the begging and the end. God was not created or born. Jesus the man had a mother Mary, who is worthy of honor, and respect. Jesus The Lord has no mother, he is the Alpha and Omega. He is worthy of all honor, all glory, and all praises. I don't think Jesus is going to punish anyone for ststing thay mary should'nt be worshiped or prayed too. What a weak god that would be.

to 3D wrote on Nov 11, 2008 10:50 AM:You keep calling Jesus simply an innocent man. He was innocent, but He was not only man. He was God incarnate and the Son of Man. He was the Word. He was God in man's form.

Mary was innocent, but she was only man. As such, of course she could not die for our sins. She could save no one.

Finally, Jesus died and then rose. That is how He lives today. That is how He defeated death and provides for our salvation through our faith that He is the living Son of God.

You seem to have a mental block with regard to these truths. These things can be explained to you over and over again, but you simply disregard them. That's fine for you and promoting your book, but you are not going to convince any believers that you are more of an authority on anything God does than God is.

3D wrote on Nov 11, 2008 11:22 AM:To the person responding to me at 10:50 a.m.
Thank you for again confirming my point.
You say, "Jesus died and then rose. That is how He lives today."
If so, and if you believe the words of the renegade "apostle" Paul in Romans 6:23 that the "wages of sin is death," then Jesus did not pay the price.

Again, thank you for this confirmation.
Blessings,
3D

to 3d wrote on Nov 11, 2008 1:06 PM:does Paul say how long you have to be dead, Jesus did die, yes for only 3 days, but none the less he died. Therefor paid the price.

to 3D wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:07 PM:No confirmation came from the 10:50 post. You are refusing to put these into context, and you are not making sense when you say, "If so, and if you believe the words of the renegade "apostle" Paul in Romans 6:23 that the "wages of sin is death," then Jesus did not pay the price."

Paul was no renegade. He was correct. You taking his comment out of context. The entire verse says "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Jesus, because He was without sin and was more than a mere mortal, was put to death to atone for our sins before God. Having accomplished that task, He then defeated death, eternal damnation and Satan by rising from the bonds of death. Paul understood the words of Matthew 16:21, "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."

3D wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:24 PM:To the person addressing me at 1:06 p.m.:
This is wonderful news!
I'm so excited!
Let's see, while there are a few minor discrepancies in the details, ALL FOUR gospels report that Jesus died Friday afternoon shortly before sundown, about 6:00 p.m. And ALL FOUR gospels report that he rose in resurrected glory at around sunrise Sunday morning.
That is a total of about 36 hours.
So, if staying dead for 36 hours supposedly pays for all the sins of everyone now living, who ever lived or ever will live, I figure the share for my sins is a fraction of a second. Even if I die and have to stay dead for the whole 36 hours, I can, er, "live" with that.

Don't you see how absurd this bizarre doctrine of bloody human sacrifice is? It is so full of holes and not the least bit rational or even internally consistent. The good news for those who respect Jesus is that he never taught anything remotely similar to it.

Regarding your earlier comment (10:50 a.m.), you try to dismiss a factual and rational response as meaning I somehow have a "mental block" to these superstitious legends. But my Moslem friends can turn the same question to you: Do you have a "mental block" against their claim that the only god is "Allah" and Mohammed is his prophet?
It works both ways.
Blessings,
3D

To all the bretheren wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:46 PM:Why do any of you Christians even bother with 3D and his friends. Don't argue with him anymore or reply to his nonesense. We know the doctrine, we believe in the risen Savior and we have better thing to do than going at it with a moslem or whatever he is.
3d lacks faith,humility,and the spirit. all these are needed to come to The Lord.
Jesus loves you.

Phrophet wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:50 PM:To: To all the brethern

Your heart is hard, that's a shame.

But, while I appreciate your concern for fellow Christians, I hardly count myself as part of your "brethern".

My brethern, as you claim, truly "know the doctrine...", and the doctine is far more encompassing than the resurrection of the Son of Man. The "doctrine" of Christ me and my brethern know, also includes compassion, and understanding.

No where in the doctrine of Christ we subscribe to includes exclusionism or hatred for another human because of one's belief that the other is "a moslem or whatever he is."

And interestingly, while I am in no position to truly know if any man "lacks faith, humility, and the spirit," I know enough about this elusive "doctrine" you seem to know so well, that many can come unto the Lord without personally subscribing to another person's personal definition of faith, etc.

Yes, indeed, perhaps in the eyes of my Lord, coming to Him may require faith, humility, and the spirit, but you have proven your definition of such is probably worlds apart from the Lord's.

When you make statements judging the opinions of others as "nonsense", and as "having better things to do than going at it...", it clearly displays that perhaps you are void of humility because you view your values as supreme to someone else's.

Does that mean that because you are at least lacking humility, you cannot come to the Lord, because as you claim, "All these [including humility] are needed to come to The Lord"?

Well know, back to the doctrine that me and my brethern hold dear (and is apparently quite different from yours)...

Despite your lack of humility, if you come to the Lord with an open heart, the Lord will accept you.

Perhaps you should spend more time working on opening your heart so you can gain acceptance by the Lord rather than pre-qualifying others for Christ's embrace based on your own contrived prerequisites.

Amen, and Amen

I believe wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:12 AM:there is a scripture that goes "do not cast your pearls before swine" Mat 7:6.

When we as believers in Christ fall into the trap of the enemy, by responding over and over to the rantings of those who try and influence others to turn from the truth, we are casting our pearls before the swine. No matter what truth is spoken here they will refuse to accept it, due to the idea that we must believe in something greater than ourselves, which will destroy their educated-egos, removing from them the idea that they are the highest authority in their eternity decision.

All we can do is to pray for them, and hope that they see the light before it is too late.

Remember bretheren, we have the truth, and the truth has set us FREE. And that Jesus has told us how we can get into heaven Jn 14:6, and that is through HIM! not our own works.

grasshoppa wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:49 PM:for the wisdom of this world is foolishness in Gods sight

Retrogrouch wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:44 PM:To I believe.
Could it be the other way around?
Could it be that 3D it casting the pearls? And what is "the truth"?

CHASEN wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:33 PM:I must say to Retrogrouch that the truth is the truth and pearls are pearls. That being said, one must recall that Gertrude Stein so rightly said, a rose is a rose is a rose. OK? In other words, it is immaterial one way or the other! OK?

Beth wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:53 PM:Where are the Faith and Values for today? I look forward to these.