The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: vesta111 on October 02, 2010, 07:05:42 AM
-
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/ufos-and-the-bible-close-encounters-of-the-sacred-kind/19646526
Any comments?
-
"UFOs" were addressed throughout the old testament. Look in Ezekiel & Daniel. What do you think that Jesus' ascension was??
-
"UFOs" were addressed throughout the old testament. Look in Ezekiel & Daniel. What do you think that Jesus' ascension was??
Oh crap.....you had to go and do it, in THIS forum too........MrsSmith is gonna kick your butt for that comment.......and likely drag me into it as well......I might as well toss this in FC right now......
doc
-
Oh crap.....you had to go and do it, in THIS forum too........MrsSmith is gonna kick your butt for that comment.......and likely drag me into it as well......I might as well toss this in FC right now......
doc
She can try, but anything she may have to say will fall on blind eyes because I've carefully considered this subject over the years, my own studies of the Bible (and the Apocrypha) and formed my own opinion. ;)
She's entitled to believe how she wants to and I'm entitled to my own beliefs. That doesn't make me any less Christian.
-
Using UFOs to explain away Biblical events is just an excuse to deny the Word of God.
If a person is going to justify his unbelief...please don't just make up stuff.
The article is plain silly. Show me photos and physical evidence from the UFOs or it didn't happen.
This is America and nutty people are always claiming things. Free speech means you have to tolerate the nutcases, like I tolerate you, Vesta.
-
Using UFOs to explain away Biblical events is just an excuse to deny the Word of God.
If a person is going to justify his unbelief...please don't just make up stuff.
The article is plain silly. She me photos and physical evidence from the UFOs or it didn't happen.
This is America and nutty people are always claiming things. Free speech means you have to tolerate the nutcases, like I tolerate you, Vesta.
Send me evidence of God or God doesn't exist!! ::)
Oooooooopppppppppps......... you can't. Also, please explain the many references throughout the bible to UFOs, (extra-terrestrials, spaceships, etc) Nutcases?? Seriously ?? You've got to be shitting me. Nutcases are those that follow a religion to a "T", without question or without free thinking. To only think in "black & white" is beyond absurd.
-
My religion is based on faith.
But UFOs are not religious icons and I need solid evidence to believe them. I know UFOs are fun to believe in...but did I step your sacred cow?
A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. It's not a spaceship...its just unidentified. at this moment there has not been one single piece if physical evidence to prove that a Spaceship has landed. No one has showed up with an alien flashlight or even an ET cigarette butt to show "They" have been here.
I know the excuse that there is a massive worldwide cover-up is floated as the excuse for the lack of evidence. But there are several things wrong with that.
1) If the govts of the world were so concerned about UFO there would be far more unity against a perceived threat.
2) idiots and liberals cannot keep secrets. They would have blabbed by now. Certainly Iran's Imanutjob would have said something by now.
2A) Take for instance that most of the third world is ruled by corruption and bribery. Why hasn't an enterprising reporter (backed by a big news org) simply bribed his way to serious evidence...or at least a photo that isn't out of focus?
3) Photos. Photos can be faked. CGI is available to anyone with a computer. Still all the photos presented are out of focus. If we can get pictures of Rodney King being beaten, where is the photo os a spacecraft with the door open? Where is the photo of an alien walking about?
Religious faith is one thing. The faithful believe, the infidels do not.
UFOs are something else. they are supposed to be factual. That means I need more than just faith to believe in them. When i hear some guy talk about how he saw a light in the sky that followed him home, and now he believes in extra terestials...I say nutcase. All he saw was a light. The line between a light in the sky and an alien spaceship is pretty broad: it tales a leap of faith to believe UFOs are spaceships.
--Bottom line: UFOs are NOT a religion. Faith doesn't cut it with aliens.
I'm justified to use the name nutcase. I don't need to show proof of God, you either believe or burn. Wild claims like aliens abducting Billy Joe Bob need some type of evidence.
-
Using UFOs to explain away Biblical events is just an excuse to deny the Word of God.
If a person is going to justify his unbelief...please don't just make up stuff.
The article is plain silly. Show me photos and physical evidence from the UFOs or it didn't happen.
This is America and nutty people are always claiming things. Free speech means you have to tolerate the nutcases, like I tolerate you, Vesta.
Mr. Mannn, How do you explain coincidences or miracles, or accidents that lead to discovery's that benefit human kind.?
How do you explain the fact that for thousands of years the Bible has survived and every day new discovery by scientists give proof of the actual happenings at that time. Finding the Rosetta Stone was a true Miracle as was finding the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Why now have our astronauts and military officers decided to reveal the inexplicable things that they saw with their own lying eyes.?
Why did the UN decide we need an Ambassador to off world Alians if and when they visitor have they all ready and we need to find a way to keep our religious faith intact.?
Actually, for me it is easier to believe that these UFO are us, humans from the future then to believe they come from outer space.
I can not see any reason to believe that science and religion are separate, I was taught to believe that both are like the wings of a dove, if one wing is lost the dove cannot fly. Both science and religion seem to in the long run prove each other out.
Thanks for tolerating me Mr. Mannn, I :heart: you too.
-
I don't have a "dog in this fight", and I didn't read the material at Vesta's link, and don't view the presence (or lack thereof) of UFOs from a religious perspective, but from a scientific one. And based solely on the mathematical probability that extraterrestrial life does exist, it isn't such a great leap to the possibility that they might, however remote that possibility might be.
That said, I had the opportunity to spend a brief time with several Kabbalistic scholars and Rabbis at Yeshiva University in Israel, some years ago, and the possibility of ancient visitations being at the root of many of the rather bizare events described in the Tanakh is a topic of ongoing debate among even the most devout of these scholars........of further interest is the fact that they certainly don't view such a possibility as a challenge to their faith, just a possible explanation of events.
Interestingly, Judaism being at its base, the roots of Christianity, unlike many Christians, the Jews (at least those who study) view interpretation of the Scriptures as an "evolving process" that has been ongoing for thousands of years, where Christians seem to trend toward accepting them at "face value", and lack either the interest or the ecumenical motivation to delve in depth into such interpretive studies........many discussions here have more than demonstrated that tendency.
All are certainly free to interpret their religion as they wish, however, as I have spent a substantial portion of my life as a "student", I will always seek to find truth far beyond where many have ceased to pursue it. I further refuse to accept the premise that the quest for additional knowledge, or alternative explanations to events in Scripture as a "sin"......
(Archbishop) Thomas Becket once said......"The quest for new knowledge and greater spiritual understanding is the highest calling of the faithful......"
doc
-
I don't believe in UFOs anymore.
-
Oh is it that time of the year again. UFO's or Chucacabra sightings? :beer:
-
Mr. Mannn, How do you explain coincidences or miracles, or accidents that lead to discovery's that benefit human kind.?
I do NOT blame it on aliens. Aliens did not cause the Red Sea to part: God did.
That's how I explain it. God did just what He said He did.
In the same way, I believe men built the pyramids, with sweat, hard work, and a little brain power-UFO's or alien technology were never needed..
How do you explain the fact that for thousands of years the Bible has survived and every day new discovery by scientists give proof of the actual happenings at that time. Finding the Rosetta Stone was a true Miracle as was finding the Dead Sea Scrolls.
God is powerful enough to preserve His revealed Word to us exactly the way He wants it. The fact that history only verifies the events in the Bible, simply add to the veracity of God's Word. The Dead Sea Scrolls are important because they preserve scripture from a 1000 years earlier than other sources--and the scripture is written EXACTLY the same as it is today. God can work miracles, We do not need to explain away history with phantom aliens that were never there. Physical scripture is more evidence than any pop-culture theory to explain away the miraculous.
Why now have our astronauts and military officers decided to reveal the inexplicable things that they saw with their own lying eyes.?
What they saw were unidentified lights. I've seen the points of light filmed by the astronauts. No one got close enough to see view ports or rivets in the hull. It makes for a nice story, but a moving point of light is not a spaceship. I need more evidence for that.
Why did the UN decide we need an Ambassador to off world Alians if and when they visitor have they all ready and we need to find a way to keep our religious faith intact.?
The UN does silly stuff every day. They want to tax US citizens for water on our own soil?
POINT: If there was an imminent contact with aliens (being kept secret from the people), the govts of the world leaders would be acting very different than they are now.
Actually, for me it is easier to believe that these UFO are us, humans from the future then to believe they come from outer space.
---That takes a greater leap of faith than linking lights in the sky to spaceships. Sorry I don't buy that either.
I can not see any reason to believe that science and religion are separate, I was taught to believe that both are like the wings of a dove, if one wing is lost the dove cannot fly. Both science and religion seem to in the long run prove each other out.
Thanks for tolerating me Mr. Mannn, I :heart: you too.
Science and religion are not opposed to each other. Science is just the study of God's creation.
But UFOs and visitors from the future are the stuff of fantasy--modern mythology if you like. People in the dark ages spoke of goblins and dragons. We replaced them with aliens and men from the future.
I have never said that I do not believe aliens exist. Maybe they are out there. I'm just not convinced that earthlings have been visited by aliens. Not yet.
-
I do NOT blame it on aliens. Aliens did not cause the Red Sea to part: God did.
That's how I explain it. God did just what He said He did.
And just WHO is "God"??? Can you PROVE that God parted the Red Sea?? No, you can't. I will say that there is more written evidence to support that visitors from another planet (or time) have come to Earth.
In the same way, I believe men built the pyramids, with sweat, hard work, and a little brain power-UFO's or alien technology were never needed..
No, I think that you're wrong, at least in the time frame that is alleged that the pyramids were built. Also, Humans weren't so intelligent in that era that they could get the alignment as closely as they did to true North.
God is powerful enough to preserve His revealed Word to us exactly the way He wants it. The fact that history only verifies the events in the Bible, simply add to the veracity of God's Word. The Dead Sea Scrolls are important because they preserve scripture from a 1000 years earlier than other sources--and the scripture is written EXACTLY the same as it is today. God can work miracles, We do not need to explain away history with phantom aliens that were never there. Physical scripture is more evidence than any pop-culture theory to explain away the miraculous.
Again, I disagree, for the most part. The Bible was written by men and assembled by men. (Research Constantine at 325 A.D.)
What they saw were unidentified lights. I've seen the points of light filmed by the astronauts. No one got close enough to see view ports or rivets in the hull. It makes for a nice story, but a moving point of light is not a spaceship. I need more evidence for that.
The UN does silly stuff every day. They want to tax US citizens for water on our own soil?
POINT: If there was an imminent contact with aliens (being kept secret from the people), the govts of the world leaders would be acting very different than they are now.
---That takes a greater leap of faith than linking lights in the sky to spaceships. Sorry I don't buy that either.
Science and religion are not opposed to each other. Science is just the study of God's creation.
But UFOs and visitors from the future are the stuff of fantasy--modern mythology if you like. People in the dark ages spoke of goblins and dragons. We replaced them with aliens and men from the future.
I have never said that I do not believe aliens exist. Maybe they are out there. I'm just not convinced that earthlings have been visited by aliens. Not yet.
The why are there distinct drawings and distinct pictures of spacecraft that pre-date our ventures into space by THOUSANDS of years which CANNOT be debunked?
Like vesta stated, there is No reason that science & religion cannot be blended and in all actuality, there is MORE reason for science & religion to be blended. I also don't buy the strictly scientific attempts at explaining away some of the historic religious miracles. Those "miracles" were far too coincidental to be explained in the way that some folks try.
Explain the Manna Machine. There is PROOF that it existed and even further proof that it worked. Who or what gave the Israelites that machine? Who taught them how it worked??
Hell, let's go back to the beginning, Genesis.... To summarize, God made Adam from dust. OK. Then how did God change dust into a human. MY answer is some sort of genetic manipulation. An even better example of cloning is when God made Eve from Adam's rib.
And in Exodus: 19:9. The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.
This is typical of some extra-terrestrial visits. There was also something about a barren woman (I want to say Sarah, but I could be wrong) who was fairly aged and all of a sudden was able to bear children.
Then we can get into the New Testament and the Virgin Mary. This represents an alien abduction and implantation. Was Jesus a human-alien hybrid?? Possibly.
Like I said, you are not going to change my mind on the matter. I do NOT intend to change yours. In the end, we'll know what the truth is.
-
Perhaps a more interesting question arises from this:
Hell, let's go back to the beginning, Genesis.... To summarize, God made Adam from dust. OK. Then how did God change dust into a human. MY answer is some sort of genetic manipulation. An even better example of cloning is when God made Eve from Adam's rib.
Where exactly, did Cain and Abel's wives come from? There is no discussion in Genesis of God creating additional humans.......
Jewish Kabbalists believe that Adam and Eve, although created by God, were not the ONLY humans (or humaniods) on earth at the time........Adam and Eve were the "chosen", but they were not the sole human inhabitants of the planet....... :fuelfire:
doc
-
And just WHO is "God"??? Can you PROVE that God parted the Red Sea?? No, you can't. I will say that there is more written evidence to support that visitors from another planet (or time) have come to Earth.
No, I think that you're wrong, at least in the time frame that is alleged that the pyramids were built. Also, Humans weren't so intelligent in that era that they could get the alignment as closely as they did to true North.
Again, I disagree, for the most part. The Bible was written by men and assembled by men. (Research Constantine at 325 A.D.)
The why are there distinct drawings and distinct pictures of spacecraft that pre-date our ventures into space by THOUSANDS of years which CANNOT be debunked?
Like vesta stated, there is No reason that science & religion cannot be blended and in all actuality, there is MORE reason for science & religion to be blended. I also don't buy the strictly scientific attempts at explaining away some of the historic religious miracles. Those "miracles" were far too coincidental to be explained in the way that some folks try.
Explain the Manna Machine. There is PROOF that it existed and even further proof that it worked. Who or what gave the Israelites that machine? Who taught them how it worked??
Hell, let's go back to the beginning, Genesis.... To summarize, God made Adam from dust. OK. Then how did God change dust into a human. MY answer is some sort of genetic manipulation. An even better example of cloning is when God made Eve from Adam's rib.
And in Exodus: 19:9. The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.
This is typical of some extra-terrestrial visits. There was also something about a barren woman (I want to say Sarah, but I could be wrong) who was fairly aged and all of a sudden was able to bear children.
Then we can get into the New Testament and the Virgin Mary. This represents an alien abduction and implantation. Was Jesus a human-alien hybrid?? Possibly.
Like I said, you are not going to change my mind on the matter. I do NOT intend to change yours. In the end, we'll know what the truth is.
[/quote]
Then we can get into the New Testament and the Virgin Mary. This represents an alien abduction and implantation. Was Jesus a human-alien hybrid?? Possibly.
Thor, this brings to mind a Catholic Priest that made mention that even if the story of Immaculate conception did not occur as written, nether the less Mary was the mother of Jesus----A riot broke out in the church and that poor liberal Priest got punched squarely in the nose by one of the members of the Parish. Most interesting church service I have ever been to.
Theory's abound and the pagan faiths had their Gods born of virgins, seems that normal men and woman could not give birth to a God. Had to be that way, outher wise just anyone could claim to be a God.
I find it interesting that in the Bible New Testament the disciples came to Jesus and told him there were others that made the same claims and created miracles in the same way Jesus did. What were they, the disciples to do about them. IIRC correctly Jesus told them to leave them alone as long as they were doing the work of God.
20 years is a long time in the life of a youngster--12-32 or so-- where was he, was he studying with the Essene, the faith of Joseph.?
Why is it when I ask questions in order to understand the Bible people jump all over me for asking logical question or even wanting to examine a 2000 year old book.?
I become confused with the history of Christianity, was it at the Diet of Worms that 600 years or so after the life of Jesus the trinity was placed into the Christian faith.?
There are many people on earth that can duplicate with hook or by crook the workings of Jesus, Lazarus's was risen from the dead for example. Question here is if he in fact dead or in a coma.
The one thing that really unsettles me about Jesus was when he asked a disciples who was with him at the time, who had touche his cloak as he had felt his strength drain out of him. How could that be unless he was either using this as an excuse to rest or was he who he said he was---
No doubt about it Jesus became one of the most interesting man to walk the earth. Fascinating that just 2 years of his life has caused such controversy, love and hate in the world. Wars, torture and mayham. Love and devotion and civilization of others.
However he got here and the question of if he was God himself, or as he repeated, just the Son of God, and then telling his followers that they also were the children of God, will never be answered.
One could ask the same questions about Buddha, or any other intellectual that rules the lives of millions.
Now about the Muslims, they also swear that thousands of people watched as Mohamed aboard his white horse assended into heaven in a cloud. No mention of what happend to the horse, did the poor thing fall back to earth as heaven was for people not animals.?
I watched a documentary where a world famous contractor decided to try to replicate the building of the Grand Pyramid in 25 years on paper, using modern technology. He had the all the big time bull boozers, the cranes that could lift 50 tons, laser cutters to cave the stone and on paper 100,000 workers that would put in the hours that the workers did 8,000 years ago. Logistics, how to feed and cloth the workers, shelter them. He even put in helicopters to fly the top stones into place.
With modern technology he figured out it would take 60 years to replicate that pyramid using the best of the best things we have today.
Question here is who built that darn thing in 25 years as we are told.?
We are told the Egyptians built all this and the Spinx's. bull shit, I believe these things were in place when the first people came out of the
jungles and settled on the Nile.
Lots to question in our past history, things that mankind cannot duplicate today with all our technology.
I do believe in a god, and I also believe I would not recognise him if I bumped into his big toe.
I don't want to get into all the pyramids found all over the earth at this time---it boggles my mind where the information on how to build these things to cultures that were not yet into the iron age came about.
-
Well, if one goes by the Bible and it's interpretations, mankind is roughly 5000 years old. However, there have been archaeological discoveries showing that humans have been here at least 150,000 years. That would place humans and dinosaurs together (maybe the "dragons" Mr. Mannn mentioned?) Behind every legend or myth, there is some truth. We also have the missing city of Atlantis and all of its inhabitants. Allegedly, they were VERY technologically advanced.
-
Perhaps a more interesting question arises from this:
Where exactly, did Cain and Abel's wives come from? There is no discussion in Genesis of God creating additional humans.......
Jewish Kabbalists believe that Adam and Eve, although created by God, were not the ONLY humans (or humaniods) on earth at the time........Adam and Eve were the "chosen", but they were not the sole human inhabitants of the planet....... :fuelfire:
doc
One day, I gave birth to a son. A few years later, I gave birth to a second son. When the oldest was 16, I came home to find them in a terrible fight. Luckily, I separated them before one died. How many children do I have?
(The answer is 5.) Just as in Genesis, the facts given do not detail everything. If they did, the Bible would be the size of an encyclopedia set...or several encyclopedia sets.
-
Well, if one goes by the Bible and it's interpretations, mankind is roughly 5000 years old. However, there have been archaeological discoveries showing that humans have been here at least 150,000 years. That would place humans and dinosaurs together (maybe the "dragons" Mr. Mannn mentioned?) Behind every legend or myth, there is some truth. We also have the missing city of Atlantis and all of its inhabitants. Allegedly, they were VERY technologically advanced.
How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? Yes, I know the Bible counts the years of Adam's life, but what immortal man living in Paradise, having no knowledge of death, would count his years? His life didn't have an end until he ate of the Tree. Once there is an end, a man would start counting. At most, a careful counting could give the years since Adam was tossed out of the Garden, but nothing else.
While Adam and Eve were in the Garden, there was no death anywhere. What were the animals in the Garden doing? What were the animals outside the Garden doing? Talk about a population explosion!
-
One day, I gave birth to a son. A few years later, I gave birth to a second son. When the oldest was 16, I came home to find them in a terrible fight. Luckily, I separated them before one died. How many children do I have?
(The answer is 5.) Just as in Genesis, the facts given do not detail everything. If they did, the Bible would be the size of an encyclopedia set...or several encyclopedia sets.
Your explanation above is too cryptic for me........
However, errors of omission are none the less errors........not explanations. One would think that if God truly inspired the writing of the OT, and it is not a collection of legends and allegory, mixed with some historical facts, he would have taken more care to insure the infallibility of understanding..........particularly in the case of the origions of man.....
doc
-
Your explanation above is too cryptic for me........
However, errors of omission are none the less errors........not explanations. One would think that if God truly inspired the writing of the OT, and it is not a collection of legends and allegory, mixed with some historical facts, he would have taken more care to insure the infallibility of understanding..........particularly in the case of the origions of man.....
doc
A very good "parable" would be: where is the bible does it explicitly say that abortion is wrong?? When does an embryo actually become life?? It doesn't. What I always heard was , "well, it's murder". I struggled with that for YEARS!! Finally, I found my answer. It was in a book called, "The Lost Books of the Bible". It may be in the apocrypha. It explicitly states that we shouldn't destroy the seed of the womb, nor kill a child after birth. That discovery totally changed my attitude towards abortion. It's almost as if some people didn't trust us mere mortals to comprehend some parts.
-
Your explanation above is too cryptic for me........
However, errors of omission are none the less errors........not explanations. One would think that if God truly inspired the writing of the OT, and it is not a collection of legends and allegory, mixed with some historical facts, he would have taken more care to insure the infallibility of understanding..........particularly in the case of the origions of man.....
doc
Perhaps He is more concerned about man's heart than mans' beginning...though, to be fair, He made sure to tell us how He did it...
The Bible speaks of some of Adam and Eve's children.
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Note in this passage, the only son named is the 3rd one we know by name, no mention of Cain or Abel. It mentions that he begat sons and daughters, but no mention of other names, numbers, anything. However, even if Eve spaced her children very carefully, and was only fertile for half of Adam's lifetime, we're talking quite a few kids in that 465 year fertile span...
In my example, I did the same things, mentioned only the salient facts about 2 of my kids.
-
I am conflicted about this honestly. The universe is so immense, so much that we can never know about it. Would any life found on another planet change people's beliefs? Even the life of a nasty roach found on another planet?
I know what I believe as far as God goes. And I believe what I do wholeheartedly. That doesn't mean that I can't fathom life outside of earth. I surely can. The Bible has many gaps. Many things left unsaid.
Science and God can go hand in hand, but I also believe people (some people) need to open up their mind. Still, having said that, I don't know what to believe. Maybe I'll believe it when I see it. Same with "ghosts", but I've already had that experience. And I believe. And anyone who wants to tell me that makes me un-Christian has no idea, and NO ONE can tell you BUT God what is in your heart.
-
Mr. Mann is essentially correct when he asserts many people use suppositions of extra-terrestrial life as a means to discredit the Bible. That phenomenon does exist as I have known people who advance that argument.
What I don't understand is the premise of their argument.
Does the absence of any mention of ET life disqualify the Bible as a historical text?
If anything the dramatic difference in nature between carnal being and angels is a trumpet blast declaring the God of the Bible is a creative being that delights in bestowing life in as many forms as possible. Just look at the difference in lifefors from what is found in a dark forest vs. the deep jungle vs. the inky depths of the oceans vs. the swarms in a droplet of water.
And yet, not a sparrow among them falls without His notice, or so I'm told.
As the Bible seems to conern itself with serving as a historical record of a particular people in a particular place at a particular time I don't the argument as following.
But suppose there is ET life and suppose it is even as sentient as humanity.
Did they fall like Adam and Eve or are they still unfallen? Perhaps humanity is the only bird in the universe to shit its own nest.
What if they ate of both trees in the garden, were filled with sin but imbued with eternal life? With no hope of redemption through death their sins would only magnify as the years turned to centuries and centuries turned to millenia on into the ages.
If they are fallen are they redeemed? Grace, being grace, need not be imparted to everyone who is fallen. Scarcity merely increases value of a commodity.
Did they recieve Grace by a different mechanism?
Did they recognize their Redeemer the first go-'round?
What if their world had already undergone final redemption and they were now sinless, strong and immortal? Wouldn't we be tempted to worship them as gods?
The musing only increase from there.
Rather than make Christians defensive the thought of ET life should inspire a myriad of theological discussions and maybe some decent literature/movies/whatevs rather than that pablum-like crap they've been peddling since the 60's in a ridiculous effort to keep up with the hippies.
-
The musing only increase from there.
Rather than make Christians defensive the thought of ET life should inspire a myriad of theological discussions and maybe some decent literature/movies/whatever rather than that pablum-like crap they've been peddling since the 60's in a ridiculous effort to keep up with the hippies.
Just musing.....and admittedly avoiding the more specific points presented in your thoughtful post, I believe that much of the problems that exist in modern (at least American) Christianity today stems from deficiencies in the level of knowledge in the Christian clergy. My experience is that most Christians try very hard to avoid "theological discussions".
American Christians (particularly Protestants) study their Bible, and follow the teachings of their pastor.....and as "leader of their flock" rightfully so. However, over the years, I have had discussions with literally hundreds pastors, and found them woefully deficient in knowledge of "Theology". Many have had a couple of years at some seminary somewhere (the minimum required for ordination), perhaps even qualifying for a four-year degree, however many are "Lay ministers", with very little formal training at all. Universally, most are quite conversant in their particular doctrine, but also universally, most have nearly no knowledge of religious history, or a comparative understanding of religion in general.
I mentioned in another thread a while ago, that if I wish to study the Old Testament......a protestant minister would be the LAST person that I would seek out for a fact-based discussion.....I would speak to a Rabbi.......as I mentioned before, they wrote it, and have been studying it several milennia longer than Christians have... I think that this lack of formal training on the part of the ministry leads many Christians into a certain myopia that tends to fail to place their beliefs in true context, both theologically and historically.
Perhaps the best analogy is the public school system.......if you start with compromised, untrained, and ideologically motivated teachers, you get a result that is less than desirable. Perhaps this phenomenon has made me more skeptical than I should be, but when I ask a pastor a theological question, particularly an interpretive one, and the answer is a quotation from Scripture, out of context, and the sentence is ended with "God said it......end of discussion".......I know that I'm wasting my time.........
doc
-
There are passages in the Old Testament that state that "angels" had sex with humans. Who were these "angels"?? WHAT were these "angels"??
And.... what about that "incest"?? We've been taught that incest is wrong. Why?? Again, something else that's rife throughout the Old Testament.
Where did all of these other "humans" come from that became wives of Adam and Eve's sons??
-
There are passages in the Old Testament that state that "angels" had sex with humans. Who were these "angels"?? WHAT were these "angels"??
And.... what about that "incest"?? We've been taught that incest is wrong. Why?? Again, something else that's rife throughout the Old Testament.
Where did all of these other "humans" come from that became wives of Adam and Eve's sons??
See, this is why TVDOC and I recommend talking to rabbis on OT matters.
I think you're referring to the nephilim of Gen 6:4. In more literal terms the nephilim were rebels and apostates. The Hebraic traditons depict them as men of great, noble, excellent--albeit ungodly--stature. Only those hungry to make a reference to the fallen angels imposed that reading onto the text.
-
There are passages in the Old Testament that state that "angels" had sex with humans. Who were these "angels"?? WHAT were these "angels"??
And.... what about that "incest"?? We've been taught that incest is wrong. Why?? Again, something else that's rife throughout the Old Testament.
Where did all of these other "humans" come from that became wives of Adam and Eve's sons??
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Note in this passage, the only son named is the 3rd one we know by name, no mention of Cain or Abel. It mentions that he begat sons and daughters, but no mention of other names, numbers, anything. However, even if Eve spaced her children very carefully, and was only fertile for half of Adam's lifetime, we're talking quite a few kids in that 465 year fertile span...
As I mentioned in another post, I can tell a story about my 2 sons that is similar to the story of Cain and Abel, but that doesn't tell you how many kids I have. The Bible very seldom names all the children of any couple...and Adam and Eve could have had hundreds of kids. If the Bible gave every detail anyone demanded, it wouldn't be a book, it would be a library.
-
Just musing.....and admittedly avoiding the more specific points presented in your thoughtful post, I believe that much of the problems that exist in modern (at least American) Christianity today stems from deficiencies in the level of knowledge in the Christian clergy. My experience is that most Christians try very hard to avoid "theological discussions".
American Christians (particularly Protestants) study their Bible, and follow the teachings of their pastor.....and as "leader of their flock" rightfully so. However, over the years, I have had discussions with literally hundreds pastors, and found them woefully deficient in knowledge of "Theology". Many have had a couple of years at some seminary somewhere (the minimum required for ordination), perhaps even qualifying for a four-year degree, however many are "Lay ministers", with very little formal training at all. Universally, most are quite conversant in their particular doctrine, but also universally, most have nearly no knowledge of religious history, or a comparative understanding of religion in general.
I mentioned in another thread a while ago, that if I wish to study the Old Testament......a protestant minister would be the LAST person that I would seek out for a fact-based discussion.....I would speak to a Rabbi.......as I mentioned before, they wrote it, and have been studying it several milennia longer than Christians have... I think that this lack of formal training on the part of the ministry leads many Christians into a certain myopia that tends to fail to place their beliefs in true context, both theologically and historically.
Perhaps the best analogy is the public school system.......if you start with compromised, untrained, and ideologically motivated teachers, you get a result that is less than desirable. Perhaps this phenomenon has made me more skeptical than I should be, but when I ask a pastor a theological question, particularly an interpretive one, and the answer is a quotation from Scripture, out of context, and the sentence is ended with "God said it......end of discussion".......I know that I'm wasting my time.........
doc
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong churches. The more conservative the congregation, the more likely they are to have serious theological discussions. I found some of the best were in the college and young adult classes, but it largely depends on the teacher. The more conservative churches tend to have well educated pastors, also. My husband, for example, is very, very well educated on Christian doctrine and theology, though he no longer works in the ministry.
Another thing that you may be running across the the simple fact that pastors are human. They may not actually be thinking of exactly your question when you ask it. Why, they may actually have to give it some thought to get to a good answer for you. Or you may be wanting an answer that isn't theologically correct at all, and so become disappointed by what is actually the right answer.
-
Just musing.....and admittedly avoiding the more specific points presented in your thoughtful post, I believe that much of the problems that exist in modern (at least American) Christianity today stems from deficiencies in the level of knowledge in the Christian clergy. My experience is that most Christians try very hard to avoid "theological discussions".
American Christians (particularly Protestants) study their Bible, and follow the teachings of their pastor.....and as "leader of their flock" rightfully so. However, over the years, I have had discussions with literally hundreds pastors, and found them woefully deficient in knowledge of "Theology". Many have had a couple of years at some seminary somewhere (the minimum required for ordination), perhaps even qualifying for a four-year degree, however many are "Lay ministers", with very little formal training at all. Universally, most are quite conversant in their particular doctrine, but also universally, most have nearly no knowledge of religious history, or a comparative understanding of religion in general.
I mentioned in another thread a while ago, that if I wish to study the Old Testament......a protestant minister would be the LAST person that I would seek out for a fact-based discussion.....I would speak to a Rabbi.......as I mentioned before, they wrote it, and have been studying it several milennia longer than Christians have... I think that this lack of formal training on the part of the ministry leads many Christians into a certain myopia that tends to fail to place their beliefs in true context, both theologically and historically.
Perhaps the best analogy is the public school system.......if you start with compromised, untrained, and ideologically motivated teachers, you get a result that is less than desirable. Perhaps this phenomenon has made me more skeptical than I should be, but when I ask a pastor a theological question, particularly an interpretive one, and the answer is a quotation from Scripture, out of context, and the sentence is ended with "God said it......end of discussion".......I know that I'm wasting my time.........
doc
Just sent you a high 5 Doc.
People get so darn defensive about that faith that when asking questions make them angry' you know they have great fear that " Satan sent you to corrupt their faith "
At a study class of the Catholic rites I was curious about communion and the differences of the practice in other Christian Churches.
This Priests take on things was that a Priest could in fact turn wine into the blood of Christ and wafers into his flesh.
I asked what happens to the unused wafers, the body of Christ after the service, can a Priest turn them back into wine and bread or what and how were the leftovers disposed of.
I was young then and very interested in the different Rites of Christianity and the cultures and traditions that followed Jesus.
Poor Priest he was old school and much different by 3 generations of his joining the Priesthood.
He most likely had never had that question put to him before and he replied that the wafers were taken to the kitchen soaked in water and disposed of.
Some smart Ass on the other side of the room blearted out, So you flush Jesus down the toilet??
I wanted to walk over and smack the fella but the look on the faces of everyone including the Priest kept me in my seat.
I did one day receive a great honor from and elderly woman when she took me to her Temple for a high holy day the one where the rams horn is blown. It comes in as a close second to the Black Gospel Church's for feeling the power of faith. Most everything I saw and heard that day Jesus himself had grown up seeing and hearing. all men of the Bible at that time had seen and heard the same as I was witnessing.
Makes me wonder in reincarnation as I felt some kind of familiarity with the service, sort of like going to a totally strange place and feeling at home.
Allo is going to kick my Butt for this post with a few others, but I don't care, one has to be there to see and feel the experiences of others.
-
The more conservative the church, the smarter the pastor or the people of the church? I certainly don't agree with that at all. And I am not sure where you get that notion from. Is it because you belong to a pretty conservative church? I would think that doc has talked to all kinds of churches. Conservative, liberal, in between.
I think the discussion one wants to have depends on what message they want to get across. Literal interpretation of the Bible. Figurative. Somewhere in between. Some don't want to talk about the negatives in the Bible. And yes, there are some.
-
The more conservative the church, the smarter the pastor or the people of the church? I certainly don't agree with that at all. And I am not sure where you get that notion from. Is it because you belong to a pretty conservative church? I would think that doc has talked to all kinds of churches. Conservative, liberal, in between.
I think the discussion one wants to have depends on what message they want to get across. Literal interpretation of the Bible. Figurative. Somewhere in between. Some don't want to talk about the negatives in the Bible. And yes, there are some.
Oh am I going to get in trouble here. Getting read to run.
A few negatives you say.?
A man that God decreed to lead his people sees and lusts after a married woman. This ruler sends her husband to his death so he can claim her. King David.
The story of Saul and Jonathan drives me nuts-----
Lott who found shelter with a family that was willing to send their own daughters out to be sodomised by the town folk, rather then have harm come to Lott's family, then this family was vaporised by God and Lott's wife turned into a pillar of salt.
Not to mention that when later Lott's daughters became pregnant he blamed it all on the daughters for getting him drunk and molesting him their father.
Every time men got in trouble they blamed it on the woman from Eve and the apple to all the mayham that the men were too weak to resist.
Even Danial that walked into the lions den complained it was due to his not consorting with his masters wife.
The New Testament calls Mary Magline a whore, yet if she was Jesus had no problem having her around.
Salomi a young girl teased her father sexually until he brought her the head of John the Baptist.
The only female in the Bible that got off Scott free was Jesus's Mother.
What the Heck was wrong with these men that they could not controll themselves when a female walked by.? :bolt:
-
Oh am I going to get in trouble here. Getting read to run.
A few negatives you say.?
A man that God decreed to lead his people sees and lusts after a married woman. This ruler sends her husband to his death so he can claim her. King David.
The story of Saul and Jonathan drives me nuts-----
Lott who found shelter with a family that was willing to send their own daughters out to be sodomised by the town folk, rather then have harm come to Lott's family, then this family was vaporised by God and Lott's wife turned into a pillar of salt.
Not to mention that when later Lott's daughters became pregnant he blamed it all on the daughters for getting him drunk and molesting him their father.
Every time men got in trouble they blamed it on the woman from Eve and the apple to all the mayham that the men were too weak to resist.
Even Danial that walked into the lions den complained it was due to his not consorting with his masters wife.
The New Testament calls Mary Magline a whore, yet if she was Jesus had no problem having her around.
Salomi a young girl teased her father sexually until he brought her the head of John the Baptist.
The only female in the Bible that got off Scott free was Jesus's Mother.
What the Heck was wrong with these men that they could not controll themselves when a female walked by.? :bolt:
You shouldn't feel like you have to run off. You should be able to question the Bible. Like I said before, you don't have to like the answers, but we should all have questions.
-
The more conservative the church, the smarter the pastor or the people of the church? I certainly don't agree with that at all. And I am not sure where you get that notion from. Is it because you belong to a pretty conservative church? I would think that doc has talked to all kinds of churches. Conservative, liberal, in between.
I think the discussion one wants to have depends on what message they want to get across. Literal interpretation of the Bible. Figurative. Somewhere in between. Some don't want to talk about the negatives in the Bible. And yes, there are some.
Doc said: Many have had a couple of years at some seminary somewhere (the minimum required for ordination), perhaps even qualifying for a four-year degree, however many are "Lay ministers", with very little formal training at all. Universally, most are quite conversant in their particular doctrine, but also universally, most have nearly no knowledge of religious history, or a comparative understanding of religion in general.
This may be mostly true for some of the less conservative churches, or the charismatic churches, but is simply not true in the conservative "fundamentalist" evangelical churches.
From past discussions, Doc has suggested that an accurate theological view is not exactly what he seeks. However, it is what most conservative Christians seek, study for, and expect of their pastor. As the pastor is an employee of the congregation, if he doesn't "know his stuff," he doesn't keep his job. Obviously, this is not the set-up in many liberal churches, or those like the Catholic church. If Doc hasn't found someone with the answers, he either hasn't checked with a truly conservative pastor, didn't allow the pastor the time to really consider the question deeply, or didn't appreciate an accurate theological answer.
-
Oh am I going to get in trouble here. Getting read to run.
A few negatives you say.?
A man that God decreed to lead his people sees and lusts after a married woman. This ruler sends her husband to his death so he can claim her. King David.
The story of Saul and Jonathan drives me nuts-----
Lott who found shelter with a family that was willing to send their own daughters out to be sodomised by the town folk, rather then have harm come to Lott's family, then this family was vaporised by God and Lott's wife turned into a pillar of salt.
Not to mention that when later Lott's daughters became pregnant he blamed it all on the daughters for getting him drunk and molesting him their father.
Every time men got in trouble they blamed it on the woman from Eve and the apple to all the mayham that the men were too weak to resist.
Even Danial that walked into the lions den complained it was due to his not consorting with his masters wife.
The New Testament calls Mary Magline a whore, yet if she was Jesus had no problem having her around.
Salomi a young girl teased her father sexually until he brought her the head of John the Baptist.
The only female in the Bible that got off Scott free was Jesus's Mother.
What the Heck was wrong with these men that they could not controll themselves when a female walked by.? :bolt:
The Bible doesn't hide the sins of God's people, does it? That's a big argument in favor of it being true.
-
He was taken up in a mother ship? :o
-
Doc said: This may be mostly true for some of the less conservative churches, or the charismatic churches, but is simply not true in the conservative "fundamentalist" evangelical churches.
From past discussions, Doc has suggested that an accurate theological view is not exactly what he seeks. However, it is what most conservative Christians seek, study for, and expect of their pastor. As the pastor is an employee of the congregation, if he doesn't "know his stuff," he doesn't keep his job. Obviously, this is not the setup in many liberal churches, or those like the Catholic church. If Doc hasn't found someone with the answers, he either hasn't checked with a truly conservative pastor, didn't allow the pastor the time to really consider the question deeply, or didn't appreciate an accurate theological answer.
Err.....a total bastardization of my past questions and positions, you twist my words at your peril........I have asked questions in order to stimulate discussions here, and repeatedly you have dug in your heels and stated that unless the rest of us accept YOUR interpretation as the correct one, we are basically hypocrites and apostates.......
"Theology" is the study of ALL religions, and that is the area that we are basing this discussion in.......it is true that Christianity and Judaism (as well as Islam and several others) share similar descriptions of the origion of man. As such, this is NOT a discussion of a Christian concept, but a generally religious one. Let's keep it that way.
Although I consider myself a Christian, I look at all religions with a skeptical eye........that skepticism allows me to question and learn. I have had many discussions with "conservative" pastors, after all, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church that was quite conservative.......I found little difference between the true knowledge demonstrated by conservative pastors regarding "theology", and liberal ones........you seem to suffer from the same blindness when reading what I actually post, as you demonstrate when the issue being discussed is a concept in Christianity.....
The OP refers to the possible origins of life vis-a-vis what is stated in the Old Testament.......to be perfectly frank, I don't consider you (or your "brilliant" husband for that matter) a conversant expert on the Old Testament......you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and are free to discuss it here, however don't expect your thoughts on the subject to carry any more weight than anyone elses........
To further be frank......when it comes to a general theological discussion, I consider Mr. Snuggle Bunny to probably be the most knowledgeable poster here on this subject.......his understanding of religious history, ancient languages and interpretations, and associated subjects is vast........he is further perfectly willing to back up his statements and positions with factual research, (I have learned much from his posts).......madame, you do not.......academic research and knowledge is not quoting scripture.......it is providing the facts (or lack thereof) and sources that lie BEHIND the scripture.
These simple concepts are what separates an "academic" from a "zealot".........it has become more than apparent to the rest of us that you fall in the latter category. Not that zealotry is a bad thing.....it isn't, and I certainly admire your persistance and depth of faith........however in an academic theological discussion, that is simply not enough for you to carry the debate.
doc
-
Err.....a total bastardization of my past questions and positions, you twist my words at your peril........I have asked questions in order to stimulate discussions here, and repeatedly you have dug in your heels and stated that unless the rest of us accept YOUR interpretation as the correct one, we are basically hypocrites and apostates.......
"Theology" is the study of ALL religions, and that is the area that we are basing this discussion in.......it is true that Christianity and Judaism (as well as Islam and several others) share similar descriptions of the origion of man. As such, this is NOT a discussion of a Christian concept, but a generally religious one. Let's keep it that way.
Although I consider myself a Christian, I look at all religions with a skeptical eye........that skepticism allows me to question and learn. I have had many discussions with "conservative" pastors, after all, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church that was quite conservative.......I found little difference between the true knowledge demonstrated by conservative pastors regarding "theology", and liberal ones........you seem to suffer from the same blindness when reading what I actually post, as you demonstrate when the issue being discussed is a concept in Christianity.....
The OP refers to the possible origins of life vis-a-vis what is stated in the Old Testament.......to be perfectly frank, I don't consider you (or your "brilliant" husband for that matter) a conversant expert on the Old Testament......you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and are free to discuss it here, however don't expect your thoughts on the subject to carry any more weight than anyone elses........
To further be frank......when it comes to a general theological discussion, I consider Mr. Snuggle Bunny to probably be the most knowledgeable poster here on this subject.......his understanding of religious history, ancient languages and interpretations, and associated subjects is vast........he is further perfectly willing to back up his statements and positions with factual research, (I have learned much from his posts).......madame, you do not.......academic research and knowledge is not quoting scripture.......it is providing the facts (or lack thereof) and sources that lie BEHIND the scripture.
These simple concepts are what separates an "academic" from a "zealot".........it has become more than apparent to the rest of us that you fall in the latter category. Not that zealotry is a bad thing.....it isn't, and I certainly admire your persistance and depth of faith........however in an academic theological discussion, that is simply not enough for you to carry the debate.
doc
:hi5: and I agree about Mr. Snuggle Bunny. He seems quite knowledgeable on the subject. As do you.
-
Err.....a total bastardization of my past questions and positions, you twist my words at your peril........I have asked questions in order to stimulate discussions here, and repeatedly you have dug in your heels and stated that unless the rest of us accept YOUR interpretation as the correct one, we are basically hypocrites and apostates.......
"Theology" is the study of ALL religions, and that is the area that we are basing this discussion in.......it is true that Christianity and Judaism (as well as Islam and several others) share similar descriptions of the origion of man. As such, this is NOT a discussion of a Christian concept, but a generally religious one. Let's keep it that way.
Although I consider myself a Christian, I look at all religions with a skeptical eye........that skepticism allows me to question and learn. I have had many discussions with "conservative" pastors, after all, I was raised in a Southern Baptist church that was quite conservative.......I found little difference between the true knowledge demonstrated by conservative pastors regarding "theology", and liberal ones........you seem to suffer from the same blindness when reading what I actually post, as you demonstrate when the issue being discussed is a concept in Christianity.....
The OP refers to the possible origins of life vis-a-vis what is stated in the Old Testament.......to be perfectly frank, I don't consider you (or your "brilliant" husband for that matter) a conversant expert on the Old Testament......you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and are free to discuss it here, however don't expect your thoughts on the subject to carry any more weight than anyone elses........
To further be frank......when it comes to a general theological discussion, I consider Mr. Snuggle Bunny to probably be the most knowledgeable poster here on this subject.......his understanding of religious history, ancient languages and interpretations, and associated subjects is vast........he is further perfectly willing to back up his statements and positions with factual research, (I have learned much from his posts).......madame, you do not.......academic research and knowledge is not quoting scripture.......it is providing the facts (or lack thereof) and sources that lie BEHIND the scripture.
These simple concepts are what separates an "academic" from a "zealot".........it has become more than apparent to the rest of us that you fall in the latter category. Not that zealotry is a bad thing.....it isn't, and I certainly admire your persistance and depth of faith........however in an academic theological discussion, that is simply not enough for you to carry the debate.
doc
I said that you don't want an accurate answer based in Christian theology...and you don't. If you were looking for that, a good conservative preacher can, and possibly has, given it to you. A good conservative pastor also understands the culture in place at the time different books or letters were written, and has either studied the original languages or at least done specific word studies. Your attitude is that they're all ignorant and untrained because they don't give you the answer you want, and they don't refer to heresy in their arguments. You are free to study whatever you want, true or false, but that doesn't mean you the right to smear those that prefer to thoroughly learn a subject based on the most factual information possible. In fact, many consider it very foolish to study what may be truth mixed with certain lies unless they have a very strong basis for telling one from the other.
If studying known truth instead of heresy makes me a zealot, then so be it. I am, after all, a bondservant of Christ, so I suppose I really should be a zealot.
-
I said that you don't want an accurate answer based in Christian theology...and you don't.
I don't think the answers lie with a good conservative preacher. There are many foolish conservative preachers out there. And that goes for any preacher. Also, educating oneself in the ways of all religions doesn't make one more succeptible to be led astray. It should reinforce what you already know. I think having an open mind helps you to be able to learn more instead of just taking your preacher's word for everything (and by "your preacher" I mean that generally).
Why are you so stuck on a conservative preacher? Do you believe others don't have anything to offer? Even if someone isn't religious, they can have a vast knowledge of the Bible, Koran, etc. And just because someone isn't religious or Baptist doesn't mean they are clueless. I thank God that I stepped out of my box and learned something. After all, religion separates more than it unites. The Bible certainly doesn't fall into any one religion.
-
What is this catch-phrase "good conservative pastor"?
Does it imply/claim politically liberal pastors/ministers/priests are not as well-educated or theologically sound?
I can see a liberal pastor believing in socialized medicine or welfare while simultaneously affirming the Apostle's Creed and being well-versed in the finer points of hermeneutics.
I'm not opposed to the idea asserting a more orthodox reading of scripture would lead one to oppose modern sexual mores, gay marriage, pro-abortion etc but "good conservative pastor" seems more self-congratulatory than anything else.
-
I said that you don't want an accurate answer based in Christian theology...and you don't.
,snip>
If studying known truth instead of heresy makes me a zealot, then so be it. I am, after all, a bondservant of Christ, so I suppose I really should be a zealot.
Good grief, madam......You're enough to convince me to convert to Buddism, just so that we can have peaceful religious discussions without your proselytizing, but we'd likely find that your first cousin is a dge long monk, and you're an expert on that religion as well.......it isn't a reach to see why many people who are ambivalent about religion are turned off by some "Christians"......and why we need to keep the zealots as far from political power as possible......
doc
-
I don't think the answers lie with a good conservative preacher. There are many foolish conservative preachers out there. And that goes for any preacher. Also, educating oneself in the ways of all religions doesn't make one more succeptible to be led astray. It should reinforce what you already know. I think having an open mind helps you to be able to learn more instead of just taking your preacher's word for everything (and by "your preacher" I mean that generally).
Why are you so stuck on a conservative preacher? Do you believe others don't have anything to offer? Even if someone isn't religious, they can have a vast knowledge of the Bible, Koran, etc. And just because someone isn't religious or Baptist doesn't mean they are clueless. I thank God that I stepped out of my box and learned something. After all, religion separates more than it unites. The Bible certainly doesn't fall into any one religion.
I know what is involved in becoming a conservative preacher. At the very minimum, the degree is equivalent to the degree a lawyer has. My own husband has 2 Masters and is working toward a Doctorate. Every pastor we know in this area has a minimum of a Masters. The head of the Southern Baptist association in this area has a Doctorate. I don't know if other denominations require a less rigorous study, but I do know what we require, and ignorance doesn't cut it.
As I mentioned before, our pastors are employees of the congregation. They are forced, therefore, to be more educated than our most educated members in order to keep their positions. Not only are we not required to "take their word for" anything, it is not uncommon to have a deep theological discussion. Our pastor once taught a Sunday School that my husband attended. Discussions in there became very deep and spirited. Many of the other members were very well educated, also. It was a very educational group...a lot of fun! :-)
Doc and I seriously do not see eye-to-eye on theology...and that's fine. He is completely free to study anything he wishes. And I'm completely free to point out when he's wrong about something.
-
Good grief, madam......You're enough to convince me to convert to Buddism, just so that we can have peaceful religious discussions without your proselytizing, but we'd likely find that your first cousin is a dge long monk, and you're an expert on that religion as well.......it isn't a reach to see why many people who are ambivalent about religion are turned off by some "Christians"......and why we need to keep the zealots as far from political power as possible......
doc
Proselytizing? :lmao: OK. I'm sorry you always get angry at what I say, you are totally free to believe whatever you want...and to talk about it all you want. At least, until you say something blatantly untrue, like calling all pastors "ignorant."
I take it, however, that you'd rather I was not free to believe what I want and talk about it??
-
What is this catch-phrase "good conservative pastor"?
Does it imply/claim politically liberal pastors/ministers/priests are not as well-educated or theologically sound?
I can see a liberal pastor believing in socialized medicine or welfare while simultaneously affirming the Apostle's Creed and being well-versed in the finer points of hermeneutics.
I'm not opposed to the idea asserting a more orthodox reading of scripture would lead one to oppose modern sexual mores, gay marriage, pro-abortion etc but "good conservative pastor" seems more self-congratulatory than anything else.
It implies that I know what educational standard is required of a conservative pastor. I don't know the same for others. It's possible that Doc has run across some ignorant ones, but they most certainly aren't all.
-
I know what is involved in becoming a conservative preacher. At the very minimum, the degree is equivalent to the degree a lawyer has. My own husband has 2 Masters and is working toward a Doctorate. Every pastor we know in this area has a minimum of a Masters. The head of the Southern Baptist association in this area has a Doctorate. I don't know if other denominations require a less rigorous study, but I do know what we require, and ignorance doesn't cut it.
As I mentioned before, our pastors are employees of the congregation. They are forced, therefore, to be more educated than our most educated members in order to keep their positions. Not only are we not required to "take their word for" anything, it is not uncommon to have a deep theological discussion. Our pastor once taught a Sunday School that my husband attended. Discussions in there became very deep and spirited. Many of the other members were very well educated, also. It was a very educational group...a lot of fun! :-)
Doc and I seriously do not see eye-to-eye on theology...and that's fine. He is completely free to study anything he wishes. And I'm completely free to point out when he's wrong about something.
You know what is involved in becoming a preacher for the church you go to. That is not true for every conservative church. I grew up in the Bible belt, and I went to many southern Baptist chuches. That doesn't hold true for every conservative preacher.
My Episcopal (liberal) and Methodist preachers hold Doctorate degrees as well. I wouldn't consider these men and WOMEN so conservative.
*I used to be Episcopal, and I am now a Methodist. I still hold a lot of love for the Episcopal church. And also, let me say that for me it is somewhere to go that is holy to worship God. That can be found in many places and many religions. You just have to find one that suits you best. I don't agree 100% with any religion I don't think. And this is no offense to you at all, but the Baptist religion has turned me off so bad that I almost won't go to a Baptist church. Many of my firiends are Baptist though, so I will go for their sake.
-
It implies that I know what educational standard is required of a conservative pastor. I don't know the same for others.
That's quite the mantle you claim for yourself. Declaring to know the final standard in a matter presumes you have exhausted all study and you are no longer to be taught but you are the teacher.
Again, I say this seems self-congratulatory and overly so since your exposition.
But how can there be an educational standards based on political leaning? That places politics above spiritual matters. One would hope whether a minister was of a conservative or progressive bent that their studies of a singular source--the Bible--led them to their conclusions, not their voter affiliation leading their studies.
A man can easily and without fault read that there is neither, "Jew nor Greek...but we are all one in Christ Jesus" and feel the unction to become an open borders advocate so people may flee the hell holes they were born into in order to seek opportunity in the US or elsewhere. While this would hardly endear him to the conservative political set his expressions of agape would be hard to fault and might even be seen as a thing to admire (perhaps even spiritually/scripturally correct).
If you look at the disciples you will see the motliest assortment of political and educational leanings and yet the only one to be any real suspicion was Judas and he probably voted for Lyndon LaRouche.
Anyway, I seriously doubt that a soul arriving in St Peter's presence is asked to pull-out a No. 2 pencil for a theology exam and as part of the student ID process they have to produce their voter registration cards.
I take it, however, that you'd rather I was not free to believe what I want and talk about it??
You are free to believe and talk.
You are also free to be questioned and critiqued.
Perhaps you were too busy hammering your own cross to understand what TVDOC has to say.
If someone as demanding as God can say, "come, let us reason together" and thereby invite others to question Him why should you, a person of no particular import, escape scrutiny?
-
Yeah, Christianity, the religion which clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination and yet...... it's believers, participants, etc are all to willing to embrace the homosexual. Some bullshit about love the person, hate the sin. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me.
Furthermore, organized religion is little more than a way to exercise control over the masses. This is why I've freed myself from the bondage that's called the "Church". (I was raised Episcopalian, in the High Church) But, we are WAY off the topic at hand.
-
Yeah, Christianity, the religion which clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination and yet...... it's believers, participants, etc are all to willing to embrace the homosexual. Some bullshit about love the person, hate the sin. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me.
Furthermore, organized religion is little more than a way to exercise control over the masses. This is why I've freed myself from the bondage that's called the "Church". (I was raised Episcopalian, in the High Church) But, we are WAY off the topic at hand.
While I don't agree with you on your first statement 100%, I do agree with you that organized religion can serve and does serve often as a way to control people and their thoughts. That is why I went with what I felt fit me most, but I also know that I don't have to agree with everything that is said, believed, preached.
-
We are ALL entitled to our own beliefs. I find it reprehensible that the Episcopal Church in America has homosexual Priests and even a Bishop. A little research will show the chasm that has developed over that issue. Just one article of 2.75 MILLION: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4B30Q320081204
-
Yeah, Christianity, the religion which clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is an abomination and yet...... it's believers, participants, etc are all to willing to embrace the homosexual. Some bullshit about love the person, hate the sin. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash with me.
Homosexuals are no better--and no worse--than adulterers and drunkards.
Make of that what you will in scriptural terms.
Furthermore, organized religion is little more than a way to exercise control over the masses. This is why I've freed myself from the bondage that's called the "Church". (I was raised Episcopalian, in the High Church) But, we are WAY off the topic at hand.
Disorganized religion can just as easily be exploited for personal gain. Where do you think sham cults come from? And many of them form on the basis that they contain a special truth that the orthodox schools have failed to discern.
Yes, the orthodox schools may become stultified and resistant to exploring new ideas but in that same vein they also serve as hedge and bulwark against nonsense.
It's almost as if people are being prodded away from extremes on either side.
-
Homosexuals are no better--and no worse--than adulterers and drunkards.
Make of that what you will in scriptural terms.
Perhaps, in YOUR opinion. I don't find drunkards that vile. I don't even want to get into the adultery thing. That's a fairly touchy subject with me since before I left MN.
Disorganized religion can just as easily be exploited for personal gain. Where do you think sham cults come from? And many of them form on the basis that they contain a special truth that the orthodox schools have failed to discern.
Yes, the orthodox schools may become stultified and resistant to exploring new ideas but in that same vein they also serve as hedge and bulwark against nonsense.
It's almost as if people are being prodded away from extremes on either side.
I could probably agree with you on those statements. There is a danger of people falling for some cult and hurting themselves or others. Can you say, "Heaven's Gate", David Koresh, or Jonestown?? In essence, it all boils down to power and control, regardless of which side of the fence one may be on.
-
Perhaps, in YOUR opinion.
Not my opinion:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
You might want to look into that "reviler" part.
-
http://hot.aol.com/2010/10/08/new-ufo-sighting-over-china/?icid=main%7Cie8t%7Cdl9%7Csec1_lnk3%7C176023
Can anyone looking at the photos of this thing believe it is swamp gas or a weather balloon.?
-
Not my opinion:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
You might want to look into that "reviler" part.
What are you trying to infer?? That I'm verbally abusing you??
-
We are ALL entitled to our own beliefs. I find it reprehensible that the Episcopal Church in America has homosexual Priests and even a Bishop. A little research will show the chasm that has developed over that issue. Just one article of 2.75 MILLION: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4B30Q320081204
It was a big deal at my former church. People didn't like it. But those churches don't represent them all. My former church has a gay organist. That didn't upset people. But a gay person leading the church did. I didn't leave the church for those reasons. I left because I felt the Methodist church suited me and my family better.
-
What are you trying to infer?? That I'm verbally abusing you??
Nope. I've taken nothing in a personal context.
-
Nope. I've taken nothing in a personal context.
And now Folks----
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/astronomers-worldwide-forge-new-rules-for-et-engagement/19663059?icid=main%7Cie8t%7Cdl5%7Csec3_lnk2%7C176357
Very strange this slow leaking of news about UFO'S is back.
We have had 60 years of speculation on what the heck these reports of strange happenings---WW2- military pilots called them Foo Fighters.
The Vatican owns one of the largest Observatory's in the world just to look for --Any one out there -- The expense must be beyond belief for the Church to finance this project that has been around for 30+ years.
For all these years the most sightings of UFO'S came from the USA and Great Britton.
Now today, it is as China emerges into the space race that they are reporting more strange Phenomena then GB or the USA has seen in the last 5 years.
These UFO'S are reported mostly in country's that are nuclear empowered.
Would be interesting if these sightings take place in the middle east, India or Pakistan.
What fun to ask----What if?----
-
There is no, "what if"..... There's too much historical documentation to prove that Extraterrestrials DO exist. I guess that MY concern is whether or not they are good or evil. There's always that TZ episode to remind folks.... "To Serve Man"
(http://www.smartfellowspress.com/To%20Serve%20Man%20Cannamite%203.jpg)
-
There is no, "what if"..... There's too much historical documentation to prove that Extraterrestrials DO exist. I guess that MY concern is whether or not they are good or evil. There's always that TZ episode to remind folks.... "To Serve Man"
(http://www.smartfellowspress.com/To%20Serve%20Man%20Cannamite%203.jpg)
Gasp, It's a cook book-----
The question now is if these craft are ET are they manned or like our little robots on Mars sending info back home.?
Are you of the seeding theory or the Bible story of Angles having sex with humans? Were there female angles.? OR are Angles just humans that are in fact messengers from the past or the future.?
What fun to examine the storys of the earth written 10,000 years or more, ago.
Did Reincarnation theory come from the fact that this may not be the first time humans have built a world only to destroy most of it and rebuild it again and again.?