Pope says condoms increase the risk of AIDS

[betsy]

WIP,

You said you've tried several religions. Are they all Christian denominations?

What various religious books have your read?

Edited April 12, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

You try to rationalize those exorcisms that He had performed to be such mental disorders....even though He said they were possessions.

Jesus did heal those. Instantly.

Perhaps therapists, psychiatrists and psycho-babblers should learn His technique.

It will save patients money and time spent lying on the couch.

And what success rate have these witch doctors had driving out demons and curing their patients? I would prefer evidence-based medicine to being treated by witch doctors!

If demon possession is a real phenomena, and not the result of mental illlness like the medical community believes, this would be an opportunity for the Catholic Church to put it to the test! Next exorcism, have the subject examined with some of the latest brain-scanning machines like fMRI or S.P.E.C.T. There should be very little higher brain function if the person's body has been hijacked by an immaterial mental force that is activating speech and physical movements of the possessed person.

You seemed to have read the Bible....

Atheists, non-believers, geniuses who scoff at the Bible, disgruntled ex-christians will find fault...chipping away....to justify their stance.

Pick and choose. Take it out of context. Anything to smear Him. Anything to reduce Him. Anything to deny Him.

YOu consider it to be a smear because of the unfounded assumption that you have a perfect book with all of the necessary knowledge. If you fundamentalists accepted the reality that the people writing the Bible only knew as much about medicine and science as was available at the time, there wouldn't be a need to regress and advocate exorcisms for mental illness.

You point out His lack of knowledge with hygiene, yet you conveniently leave out that specific verse....the reason why He spoke of such thing.

Anyway, His words are for the spirit.

He didn't come to give workshops on proper hand-washing techniques.

Why not? Think of all of the lives that could have been saved through preventing the spread of disease over the last 2000 years.

Ironic that those days didn't see the likes of "super-bugs"....when you think that this modern world knows so much about hygiene and the spread of diseases.

You ridicule Him for something taken out of context. If you truly feel that strongly about diseases, then you should applaud him for preaching about fidelity....then AIDS and other stds wouldn't be such major problems these days!

I still don't consider telling people not to have sex, to be great advice. Anyone can do that! Like I said before, I can ask everyone to put down their guns and claim I have created a great plan to stop murder and gun-related crimes.

Btw, He was rebuking the Pharisees for their hypocrisy!

Sure he was. But look at the example he used! He was condemning them for going soft and not ordering those public stonings as required by Mosaic Law. This is the same thing we condemn Muslims for every time it pops up on a Youtube video today.

[betsy]

And what success rate have these witch doctors had driving out demons and curing their patients? I would prefer evidence-based medicine to being treated by witch doctors!

If demon possession is a real phenomena, and not the result of mental illlness like the medical community believes, this would be an opportunity for the Catholic Church to put it to the test! Next exorcism, have the subject examined with some of the latest brain-scanning machines like fMRI or S.P.E.C.T. There should be very little higher brain function if the person's body has been hijacked by an immaterial mental force that is activating speech and physical movements of the possessed person.

I was refering to JESUS! Not the Catholic Church or any other chruches!

I thought you were responding to my reply to Myata's post. Don't blurr my opinion by pulling in rebuttals that really does not address what I was talking about. Stick to the context. Play fair.

YOu consider it to be a smear because of the unfounded assumption that you have a perfect book with all of the necessary knowledge.

Well...you obviously took the Bible seriously enough that you used one of its passages (although you did it out of context), to try to come up with your argument!

If you fundamentalists accepted the reality that the people writing the Bible only knew as much about medicine and science as was available at the time, there wouldn't be a need to regress and advocate exorcisms for mental illness.

Re-read my posts again. Especially my reply to Myata's.

Why not? Think of all of the lives that could have been saved through preventing the spread of disease over the last 2000 years.

As I said, His words were ...and are meant for the spirit. You're grasping at straws.

Support your argument. Where did it say in the Bible?

I still don't consider telling people not to have sex,

You don't know the meaning of fidelity?

I still don't consider telling people not to have sex, to be great advice.

Ha-ha-ha

Millions dying of sex-related diseases AS WE SPEAK TODAY!

And you're foaming over hand-washing! Stuck in the old days. Come back to the present. It's easier to see.

Now, that's quite hypocritical, don't you think so? You're not consistent.

Anyway, hand-washing alone is not working. Where are the super-bugs? Mostly IN HOSPITALS!

You'd think it will be the last places on earth where they'll thrive since it's run by people of science....the very people who should know about the importance of simple hand-washing.

Don't we have enough education on hygiene? From literature to the actual enforcement of it by health inspectors?

Anyone can do that! Like I said before, I can ask everyone to put down their guns and claim I have created a great plan to stop murder and gun-related crimes.

Oh boy. You've lost me.

Sure he was. But look at the example he used! He was condemning them for going soft and not ordering those public stonings as required by Mosaic Law. This is the same thing we condemn Muslims for every time it pops up on a Youtube video today.

Support your argument. Where does it say that in the Bible?

Well WIP, from what you've presented so far....it's all convoluted. So unless you provide me with any passages from the Bible that you refer to as a source of your argument, I will beg to ignore your opinions. Not out of rudeness....but simply acknowledging that we're just both wasting our time.

PS. I'm learning about Christ through the King James Bible. I've got a copy of it but just in case you don't....here's where you can read it.

http://www.biblegateway.com

Edited April 13, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

I was refering to JESUS! Not the Catholic Church or any other chruches!

Really! Well then how is your attack on modern scientific and analytical approaches to the mind relevant in this discussion? You said:

Perhaps therapists, psychiatrists and psycho-babblers should learn His technique. It will save patients money and time spent lying on the couch.

Does that mean you want psychiatrists and psychologists to learn how to perform the exorcisms, rather than the clergy?

I thought you were responding to my reply to Myata's post. Don't blurr my opinion by pulling in rebuttals that really does not address what I was talking about. Stick to the context. Play fair.

Well speaking of context, I wish you would explain your objections so I don't have to go back three posts every time to discern what you are talking about. This board doesn't allow nested quotes, so some reference to details would help.

I assume you are objecting to my question: why didn't God or Jesus teach the people useful information like the germ theory of disease? It's not a question I ask liberals who believe Biblical stories are allegorized or do not claim that their religion holds objective truths and necessary knowledge that no other religion or religious sect has a valid relationship with the creator of the universe: "narrow is the path that leads to the kingdom of God" etc.

But, that's a question I reserve for all of you who demand that everybody in the world convert to whatever your particular brand of revelation is. You claim everything in the Bible is revealed knowledge, and I have to take demons and exorcisms seriously. So, all I want is the evidence; and along with that, why wasn't the existence of disease-causing germs revealed, and real useful advice on sanitation methods revealed instead of a lot of ritual purity laws like pigs are unclean and yet birds are not! The actual fact is far more people die from salmonella each year eating ducks and chickens, than die from eating pork. Or what valid medical reasons would justify ruling that a woman is unclean for 7 days after giving birth to a son, but 14 days if she gives birth to a girl? A modern view would accept that they just considered women to be unclean by nature of the fact that the men who wrote these books were horrified by the phenomena of menstruation, and they certainly didn't understand what its purpose was! The allegorist can insist that I have to accept that these were men of their times, which was the Bronze Age after all; but the fundamentalist has to accept these rules as being handed down from on high and having real, valid objective reasons for being included.

Re-read my posts again. Especially my reply to Myata's.

I'm already wasting too much time backtracking. The point seems to be covered in the previous paragraphs.

As I said, His words were ...and are meant for the spirit. You're grasping at straws.

Support your argument. Where did it say in the Bible?

Do I have to go back and look up to see if this was the same argument or a different one?

You don't know the meaning of fidelity?

Weren't you just complaining about taking things out of context rolly eyes? I might delete sentences or paragraphs I don't find relevant, but I don't parse people's sentences to try to change the meaning of what they are saying!

Ha-ha-ha

Millions dying of sex-related diseases AS WE SPEAK TODAY!

And they've been dying regardless of being lectured. If you and the pope are really serious about stopping people from immoral actions, maybe you two can advocate public stoning like they do in the Muslim countries!

Anyway, hand-washing alone is not working. Where are the super-bugs? Mostly IN HOSPITALS!

You'd think it will be the last places on earth where they'll thrive since it's run by people of science....the very people who should know about the importance of simple hand-washing.

Don't we have enough education on hygiene? From literature to the actual enforcement of it by health inspectors?

Now that's the dumbest thing I've heard recently! Hospitals are always at risk because THAT'S WHERE THE SICK PEOPLE ARE! The reasons why there are superbugs usually start in third world countries where overpopulation and overcrowding in cities creates unsanitary conditions, and the sprawling populations are putting more people into wilderness areas that are animal reservoirs for diseases that periodically infect human populations. And the biggest problem of all is an aspect of evolution by natural selection: common bacteria like staphylococcus, have been under pressure from antibiotics; so the most successful new strains of staph bacteria are the ones which have mutated and turn out to be immune or resistant to one form of antibiotic after another. The chief problem according to epidemiologists is over use of antibiotics -- the dairy and livestock industries being the chief culprits.

Oh boy. You've lost me.

Why? If just telling people not to have sex is an actual AIDS strategy (even when nobody listens), why can't I claim to have an effective plan to stop gun-related homicides and other gun crimes if I just tell everyone to get rid of their guns?

Support your argument. Where does it say that in the Bible?

DEUTERONOMY

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

And that's the law that Jesus condemns the Pharisees for being too weak-kneed to carry out in his time:

MARK

7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Well WIP, from what you've presented so far....it's all convoluted. So unless you provide me with any passages from the Bible that you refer to as a source of your argument, I will beg to ignore your opinions. Not out of rudeness....but simply acknowledging that we're just both wasting our time.

It's all in the previous paragraphs.

PS. I'm learning about Christ through the King James Bible. I've got a copy of it but just in case you don't....here's where you can read it.

http://www.biblegateway.com

How much have you been reading from your King James? Because that's the version I've been using for all of my Biblical quotes, since it is considered authoritative (by Protestants at least) and it's public domain, so quoting from it doesn't run the risk of claims of copyright infringement.

Another reason would be that it has not received cosmetic editing like some popular, more recent Bibles. I discovered this a couple of years ago in the abortion debates when a verse from the Mosaic Law I quoted about two men accidentally injurying a pregnant woman while they are fighting, is referred to as having miscarriage, while some of these new versions refer to injuring her child. This revision has been applied because the original applied a fine to the offender, not the death penalty for murder -- and that makes the verse a little embarrassing for the claim of life beginning at conception. Many new versions have all sorts of cosmetic editing to bolster the theology of the particular church or denomination.

[betsy]

And that's the law that Jesus condemns the Pharisees for being too weak-kneed to carry out in his time:

MARK

7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

What you gave of Mark 7 is just an excerpt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

-------------------

Death is death. Which means, there is nothing after death. It's the end.

A sinner who dies will not be resurrected. No life after death. It is the wages of sin.

The Commandment of God clearly says: "Thou shalt not kill."

Therefore Moses could not be referring to "stoning" or murder when he said, "let him die the death."

Jesus had said, "let him without sin cast the first stone...." so it cannot be that He speaks of stoning or murder when he reminded them of Moses. Violating the Commandment of God, in this case "Honor they father and thy mother" is a sin against God.

An excerpt from the commentary by Matthew Henry from Biblegate explains:

III. The offence which the Pharisees took at this; They found fault (v. 2); they censured them as profane, and men of a loose conversation, or rather as men that would not submit to the power of the church, to decree rites and ceremonies, and were therefore rebellious, factious, and schismatical. They brought a complaint against them to their Master, expecting that he should check them, and order them to conform; for they that are fond of their own inventions and impositions, are commonly ready to appeal to Christ, as if he should countenance them, and as if his authority must interpose for the enforcing of them, and the rebuking of those that do not comply with them. They do not ask, Why do not thy disciples do as we do? (Though that was what they meant, coveting to make themselves the standard.) But, Why do not they walk according to the tradition of the elders? v. 5. To which it was easy to answer, that, by receiving the doctrine of Christ, they had more understanding than all their teachers, yea more than the ancients, Ps. 119:99, 100.

IV. Christ's vindication of them; in which,

1. He argues with the Pharisees concerning the authority by which this ceremony was imposed; and they were the fittest to be discoursed with concerning that, who were the great sticklers for it: but this he did not speak of publicly to the multitude (as appears by his calling the people to him, v. 14) lest he should have seemed to stir them up to faction and discontent at their governors; but addressed it as a reproof to the persons concerned: for the rule is, Suum cuique-Let every one have his own.

(1.) He reproves them for their hypocrisy in pretending to honour God, when really they had no such design in their religious observances (v. 6, 7); They honour me with their lips, they pretend it is for the glory of God that they impose those things, to distinguish themselves from the heathen; but really their heart is far from God, and is governed by nothing but ambition and covetousness. They would be thought hereby to appropriate themselves as a holy people to the Lord their God, when really it is the furthest thing in their thought. They rested in the outside of all their religious exercises, and their hearts were not right with God in them, and this was worshipping God in vain; for neither was he pleased with such sham-devotions, nor were they profited by them.

He reproves them for laying aside the commandment of God, and overlooking that, not urging that in their preaching, and in their discipline conniving at the violation of that, as if that were no longer of force,

This he gives them a particular instance of, and a flagrant one- God commanded children to honour their parents, not only by the law of Moses, but, antecedent to that, by the law of nature; and whoso revileth, or speaketh evil of, father or mother, let him die the death, v. 10. Hence it is easy to infer, that it is the duty of children, if their parents be poor, to relieve them, according to their ability; and if those children are worthy to die, that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But if a man will but conform himself in all points to the tradition of the elders, they will find him out an expedient by which he may be discharged from this obligation, v. 11. If his parents be in want and he has wherewithal to help them, but has no mind to do it, let him swear by the Corban, that is, by the gold of the temple, and the gift upon the altar, that his parents shall not be profited by him, that he will not relieve them; and, if they ask any thing of him, let him tell them this, and it is enough; as if by the obligation of this wicked vow he had discharged himself from the obligation of God's holy law;"

Edited April 13, 2009 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

The Pope should be ignored - if Christ was to arrive at the Vatican tomorrow - they would kill him as quickly as possible..... There is no Christianity there - just usery of the poor and foolish.

[betsy]

How much have you been reading from your King James? Because that's the version I've been using for all of my Biblical quotes, since it is considered authoritative (by Protestants at least) and it's public domain, so quoting from it doesn't run the risk of claims of copyright infringement.

I've flipped casually through the bible a few times in the past.

This is just my first serious read....I have not finished the New Testament...I'm currently on John.

The Old Testament is too hard to understand so I skipped it halfway.

In modern analogy, the Old Testament is the Letter of The Law, and the New Testament is the Spirit of the Law.

I aim to re-read it after (New Testament), chewing and digesting some more. From this first read I've come to see that Jesus has a sense of humor.

Edited April 13, 2009 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

I've flipped casually through the bible a few times in the past.

This is just my first serious read....I have not finished the New Testament...I'm currently on John.

The Old Testament is too hard to understand so I skipped it halfway.

In modern analogy, the Old Testament is the Letter of The Law, and the New Testament is the Spirit of the Law.

I aim to re-read it after (New Testament), chewing and digesting some more. From this first read I've come to see that Jesus has a sense of humor.

Get a Harpers Biblical dictionary - and translate what you assume are common terms...yes Christ has a sense of humor but the Roman and Greed translaters did not. For instance after the wedding feast they were drunk and dyhydrated and I am sure it was 100 degrees in the shade...so Christ ordered up some cool water - when they served the water to burned out party goers....they said this of the water into wine joke..."You have saved the best wine till last" Water was the miracle - but this story had the traditional romance added along with the smoke and mirrors approach and eventually the water into wine story took hold - It was a damned joke...and it was funny if you were drunk......no one gets it.. Read that passage and imagine yourself there - you will see the humor.

[betsy]

Btw,

Now that's the dumbest thing I've heard recently! Hospitals are always at risk because THAT'S WHERE THE SICK PEOPLE ARE! The reasons why there are superbugs usually start in third world countries where overpopulation and overcrowding in cities creates unsanitary conditions, and the sprawling populations are putting more people into wilderness areas that are animal reservoirs for diseases that periodically infect human populations. And the biggest problem of all is an aspect of evolution by natural selection: common bacteria like staphylococcus, have been under pressure from antibiotics; so the most successful new strains of staph bacteria are the ones which have mutated and turn out to be immune or resistant to one form of antibiotic after another. The chief problem according to epidemiologists is over use of antibiotics -- the dairy and livestock industries being the chief culprits.

Lack Of Hand-Washing In Hospitals

audit: Authority says problem allows superbugs to spread

Chantal Eustace, with files from Lindsay Kines, Vancouver Sun; with files from CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, March 23, 2007

"VANCOUVER - Human nature and lack of facilities are among the reasons hospital staff don't wash their hands enough, a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority official said Thursday after an auditor-general's report said poor handwashing is a problem in hospitals across the province."

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun

Hand-Washing An Issue In Montreal Hospital

MONTREAL — The McGill University Health Centre has a problem on its hands — literally.

Despite research showing lack of handwashing leads to the spread of germs and deadly infections in hospitals, only one in four doctors on some McGill wards wash their hands between patients — something that is mandatory for health professionals to do.

That's according to an audit last year that also found nurses do a better job, but their rate of compliance is still just 40 to 50 per cent — even though research shows nearly a third of hospital-acquired infections can be prevented through handwashing.

Similar figures apply in Ontario, according to a report by that province's auditor general last year that surveyed 10 hospitals and found compliance with the rules of hand hygiene ranged from just 40 per cent to 75 per cent.

http://www.theprovince.com/health

hrrmm. <cough> <cough>

Edited April 14, 2009 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Listening to the pope increases the spread of ignorance.

[myata]

Only from the recent topics: excommunication for abortion after rape; discouraging birth control; blaming condoms for spread of AIDS; refusing communion to politicians supporting basic human rights (gay marriage); promoting medieval practices to treat mental illness (exoricism).

It's really sad that with the level of influence the Church still carries, it spends so much of its effort on outdated, useless beyond any hope practices!

[cybercoma]

The Cardinals were quick to choose Ratzinger, knowing he is religiously conservative, as their leader. The entire organization bears the blame for the Church's recent displays of ignorance and lack of ethics.

[WIP]

What you gave of Mark 7 is just an excerpt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

-------------------

Okay, that provides the context for what Jesus had said, but rather than attack the Pharisees for their rigid interpretation of the Law, he cites a law that was no longer carried out in his day - the one repeated in slightly different language in Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, and Dt.21:18-21. He doesn't indicate that he finds it barbaric to stone disobedient children to death, instead he chides them for going soft and ignoring the rule.

Death is death. Which means, there is nothing after death. It's the end.

A sinner who dies will not be resurrected. No life after death. It is the wages of sin.

The Commandment of God clearly says: "Thou shalt not kill."

Therefore Moses could not be referring to "stoning" or murder when he said, "let him die the death."

Jesus had said, "let him without sin cast the first stone...." so it cannot be that He speaks of stoning or murder when he reminded them of Moses. Violating the Commandment of God, in this case "Honor they father and thy mother" is a sin against God.

The apologist who wrote this commentary is making the mistake that nearly all apologists make: they mix and match Biblical verses to build the narrative that suits them or their particular denomination. The problem is that famous story from the Gospel of John where Jesus convinces the crowd to apply mercy and compassion rather than a rigid, harsh application of Law (I wonder if this debate is going on in the Muslim World right now!) is not found in the original Greek manuscripts of the John, and is considered a later addition, many centuries later after the Church had made a clean break from Judaism and wanted to repudiate all Jewish observance. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/a...y/117-31.0.html

It's a wonderful lesson BTW, but it's not part of the original canon, and it certainly is not found in gospels like Mark and Matthew, where Jesus chided the Pharisees about their sketchy application of the Law, and that's why it's totally bogus for a Christian commentator to try to use it as evidence that the Jesus in Mark and Matthew would not have wanted this law carried out. When he says "let him die the death," he is not making some sort of existential comment about our mortality, he is referring to a specific form of death by execution, which usually is interpreted as meaning public stoning, since other execution methods called for for particular crimes like hanging or burning are identified as specific execution methods for specific crimes. I don't recall the source at the moment, but one of the Christian theonomy sites that seriously want a return to Biblical Law (beginning with the 10 commandments) observed that public stoning was considered a community obligation that all adult men are honour-bound to participate in, so that every "righteous" man in the community could have a share of carrying out vengeance in behalf of God or Yahweh, whatever.

The above commentary likely comes from a Christian apologist who is opposed to capital punishment. A quick google search reveals that conservative apologists come armed with quotations to back up their argument that Jesus would want the death penalty carried out, and they even cite Mark ch.7 and Matthew ch.15 for evidence! http://www.learnthebible.org/would-jesus-o...th-penalty.html http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

An excerpt from the commentary by Matthew Henry from Biblegate explains:

Matthew Henry's commentary churns over and over again the theme that the Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for their hypocrisy rather than making an explicit demand for a return of the law which required killing disobedient sons who curse their parents and in Deuteronomy may also be executed for being shiftless drunkards. But Henry doesn't deal with the fact that Jesus doesn't repudiate the Law, which might have been inferred since he apparently didn't consider ritual handwashing to be necessary. Instead, he just makes a counter-accusation, and doesn't indicate that he felt the law was unjust or too harsh. So the really, really modern translation of Mark ch. 7, and Matthew 15, where it is repeated in briefer form would be:

Pharisees: "What kind of teacher are you, when you don't observe the rules of hygiene given to our elders?"

Jesus: "Oh yeah! Well you guys aren't keeping the Law either, because you don't execute sons for cursing their parents!

[WIP]

I've flipped casually through the bible a few times in the past.

This is just my first serious read....I have not finished the New Testament...I'm currently on John.

The Old Testament is too hard to understand so I skipped it halfway.

Much of the OT is ritual rules and geneologies -- not exactly a spine-tingling whodunnit, but one thing that troubles me with the way many evangelicals advocate Bible study is that they always say "start with the Gospel of John," -- no doubt because that's the one that fits their theology best, and they likely hope that the reader won't get far enough to backtrack and ask questions like "why are the Gospels so contradictory."

In modern analogy, the Old Testament is the Letter of The Law, and the New Testament is the Spirit of the Law.

That depends on which book of the New Testament you're talking about, since some books like the Gospel of Mark, letters of James, Hebrews etc., give Christian Law sects their ammo for applying many or even most of the non-ritual observances in the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, the majority of Christian denominations want to ignore the Law, so they'll quote the verses where Jesus is supposed to "fulfill" the Law so that it can be safely put back on the shelf. It all depends on which book is used for reference.

I aim to re-read it after (New Testament), chewing and digesting some more. From this first read I've come to see that Jesus has a sense of humor.

That's good to know. I think I missed most of the humorous aspects of the Bible. Likely you'll come away with a different interpretation of these books than I do.

[WIP]

Only from the recent topics: excommunication for abortion after rape; discouraging birth control; blaming condoms for spread of AIDS; refusing communion to politicians supporting basic human rights (gay marriage); promoting medieval practices to treat mental illness (exoricism).

It's really sad that with the level of influence the Church still carries, it spends so much of its effort on outdated, useless beyond any hope practices!

Oh yeah! So that's what the topic of this thread is! My apologies for getting lost in the forest, but on the subject of the Pope, I agree that his comments on AIDS, condoms, the excommunication controversy in Brazil, actively playing the shell game with sexual offender-priests, and I would include his condemnations of secularism that indicate a desire for the power that his church formerly enjoyed in Europe; should not all be compartmentalized and treated separately. This is a deliberate pattern of behaviour that started when he was playing "Dick Cheney" in the administration of the previous pope.

Even though I am not a socialist, I think the attacks on Liberation Theology that aided fascist regimes in Latin America are also part of the pattern of a man who wants to resurrect the Holy Roman Empire. He doesn't seem all that concerned about losing liberals or moderate Catholics, like the drafters of Vatican II were worried about.

Many liberal Catholics tell me that they have noticed a steady movement of displacing liberal priests and bishops with conservatives who rigidly follow the latest orders from the Vatican. Many liberals will fall away, some going to liberal Catholic organizations that have started during the last 25 years, but the Pope is more than happy to have a smaller but meaner and leaner Catholic Church that jumps every time he gives an order.

[betsy]

Well WIP, what can I say. Those are your interpretations.

You're still on about Jesus' hand-washing comment...even after I've given you the context of how it transpired.

You insist that He should've said this or he shouldn't have said that....yet you pointedly ignore the sources I gave you about the doctors and nurses neglecting to wash their hands...in this present day....when superbugs and other diseases are becoming problems. You nitpick on what happened eons ago, an incident which does not even give the conclusion you wish.

I don't know what denominational leanings this commentator Henry Matthews has.....but his interpretation, including the explanation of the rituals in those days is shared by other commentators. I find it questionable - his introduction to the commentary...but like I said, the part that I quoted is shared by some. And definitely, his explanations about the "death" part.

I agree with that since I've come across other different passages where-in the usage and meaning of the word "death" or "die" as explained, implied and insinuated by Christ as such: death means no salvation. No life. No resurrection.

Death is final. Dead is dead.

Gone to nothing. Which ironically is what atheists believe about death, if I'm not mistaken.

Atheists believe this one time of living is the one and only chance to live life.

Just think for a moment and think hard. Just imagine the immense pressure to make something out of life since it's the one and only chance you've got. And if you happen to be borne in a pathetic situation, or faced with dire life-changing circumstances...too bad.

Too bad if you mess up and see that one and only life you have riddled with what worldly people judge as "failures"...

..."did not reach his/her potentials"...

...never became what they define as a "success"...

....never "made" it.....

..."insignificant"....

....did not leave his/her "mark"....

..."wasted" life away....

....amounted to what they say is, "nothing".....

...did not "get a life"....

Talk about totally depressing! And some say the Christian religion is scary?

How can an Atheist have hope when he sees his life shattered all around him?

His family gone, his job gone, he's age-ing and he still lives in a trailer park waiting for his disability pension...knowing it will take a miracle to at least give him a semblance of what the worldly "good Life" is all about. If he could only but taste it before he dissolves to nothing.

They believe when they die, they're gone for good. No expectation of life after death.

Well at least atheists got that one right....

You insist Jesus is talking about some piddly little physical death (man-made punishments and human iniquities such as stoning etc.,)...when the very act of killing is a direct violation of God's Commandments...and the whole teachings of Christ is centered on the spiritual life!

Well that's the explanation of "death" by Jesus. In other words, if a sinner dies, he goes where the atheists go! Since you're now an atheist, the death He meant was YOUR own belief of death, in fact!

How much clearer can I get than that in my explanation to you?

I explained to you what the meaning of "death" is. You choose to insist your own interpretation. Free will.

I will argue no further.

You were a Christian before WIP. You already know the Word. Or at least some or most of it. As you said you took religion seriously. Maybe, you even know more than me. Therefore you must know about the condition for salvation.

You must know that you cannot plead ignorance. You cannot say "I didn't know."

Faith is hard to sustain. Even the Apostles who had witnessed a lot of miracles struggled with their faith. Jesus even told Peter that He prayed to the Father that Peter will not waver in his faith. How many times did He chide the disciples for their lack of faith after witnessing the miracle of the fish and loaves?

And Thomas, even after Jesus had risen, still doubted....until Jesus asked Thomas to touch his wounds. Jesus could've just blasted Thomas for his doubts. Yet, He patiently dealt with Thomas.

If He can be generously patient for the disciples who witnessed all sorts of miracles and yet doubted....what more with us who were not there to witness anything?

You know, I'm a late bloomer (I can't find the right words to describe me)....all these years being born and raised to Christianity, it's only last Sunday that I've come to really actually understand the significance of the Resurrection to Christianity. All these years, I've taken being a Christian and faith for granted.

Since I started vigorously seeking Christ, and especially reading the Bible....I say again that I feel this inner peace.

Last Sunday....when I found out the significance of the Resurrection - what it truly meant....it was like a giant hammer that pounded and drove that realization right in. It was like Him saying: See? Do you see it now?

It's hard to explain. But it's like some jigsaw puzzles fell neatly into places.

It won't be an easy path. Satan, the mastermind of lies and deceit, will sow confusion and distractions.

Reading the Bible helps a great deal to remain focused.

All Christians should and must read and understand the Bible - King James Version - for themselves.

It will help us know if we are being misled...if the church we're following is following the true teachings of Christ...or if they are just like the Pharisees that Jesus was talking about.

I cannot enforce faith on you WIP.

And I don't feel that I should continue this debate with you....we both have our firm stance.

The argument might goad you into saying things that will only end up hurting you. I pray you find peace.

You might find this site interesting. Includes atheist C.S. Lewis, Frank Morrison etc..,

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadyde...h20/default.htm

Edited April 16, 2009 by betsy

[cybercoma]

All good things are from God and all bad things are from Satan. Well that solves everything, doesn't it?

[betsy]

All good things are from God and all bad things are from Satan. Well that solves everything, doesn't it?

Yes. And Satan comes in different forms and wiles....and uses every and any means and instruments....to sow confusion and draw people away from Christ.

I won't elaborate further on this thread. It will become out of topic (again) - my apology to the original poster.

However, you may use the threads that I've created, "Upon THis Rock" or "Rejoice" if you want to reply. It's so appropriate, since your question is about faith. Or perhaps you wish to start your own thread.

NOTE: I've edited and added some more on my explanation of Christian "death".

Edited April 16, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

Well WIP, what can I say. Those are your interpretations.

You're still on about Jesus' hand-washing comment...even after I've given you the context of how it transpired.

You insist that He should've said this or he shouldn't have said that....yet you pointedly ignore the sources I gave you about the doctors and nurses neglecting to wash their hands...in this present day....when superbugs and other diseases are becoming problems. You nitpick on what happened eons ago, an incident which does not even give the conclusion you wish.

I commented on two of your other posts, and I didn't see where a story about some doctors lack of hygiene today was relevant to the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees. Many emergency room physicians work 24 hour shifts, and that might play a role in stories about malpractice and this one about forgetting to wash their hands; whatever it's irrelevant to the gospel verses. The Pharisees did not understand the reasons why ritual handwashing reduced the spread of disease, but experience may have revealed that people who eat with dirty hands are more likely to get sick than those who wash before eating. So, why didn't Jesus consider it to be one of the rules worth keeping? Many ritual purity laws are superstitious nonsense, like the one I mentioned about women being unclean for 7 day after giving birth to a son and 14 days after giving birth to a daughter, but handwashing seemed to be a good rule to keep.

I don't know what denominational leanings this commentator Henry Matthews has.....but his interpretation, including the explanation of the rituals in those days is shared by other commentators. I find it questionable - his introduction to the commentary...but like I said, the part that I quoted is shared by some. And definitely, his explanations about the "death" part.

I agree with that since I've come across other different passages where-in the usage and meaning of the word "death" or "die" as explained, implied and insinuated by Christ as such: death means no salvation. No life. No resurrection.

Death is final. Dead is dead.

Gone to nothing. Which ironically is what atheists believe about death, if I'm not mistaken.

Atheists believe this one time of living is the one and only chance to live life.

Just think for a moment and think hard. Just imagine the immense pressure to make something out of life since it's the one and only chance you've got. And if you happen to be borne in a pathetic situation, or faced with dire life-changing circumstances...too bad.

Well, don't make the mistake of assuming I haven't thought about death being final. Yes, life isn't fair, and we have to live this life to the fullest and make the best of the ONLY life we can be sure that we have. That is something that many people cannot accept -- not living forever. But, we live in a finite universe that will not last forever, so why should we expect to be immortal? And, when we die, we are no longer alive to worry about it. As Epicurus said:"where I exist, death does not, and where death exists, I am not."

Now, if the supernaturalists are right, and this life, and this whole physical universe is just a facade - what was the point of creating it? What is the point to a physical life on earth if it is just a dress rehearsal for an eternal afterlife of some sort in some non-physical world? Why didn't God just create heaven (whatever that is) and not bother making an imperfect physical world that will only decay and disintegrate!

Too bad if you mess up and see that one and only life you have riddled with what worldly people judge as "failures"...

..."did not reach his/her potentials"...

...never became what they define as a "success"...

....never "made" it.....

..."insignificant"....

....did not leave his/her "mark"....

..."wasted" life away....

....amounted to what they say is, "nothing".....

...did not "get a life"....

Talk about totally depressing! And some say the Christian religion is scary?

Well, it's your choice how you want to deal with life and death issues. I don't see it as a choice however! We live with the knowledge that even living a healthy life that is not cut short by accidental death, still will not last forever. Some may choose to accept that fact, and I myself don't see any possible immortality that maintains our personal human qualities (personality, memories, emotions etc.) since these are all physically derived.

I would like to point out that belief in an afterlife is not in all of the books of the Bible. The writers of Job and Ecclesiastes did not believe in life after death, even though they believed in God. Later books of the Old Testament were influenced by the Greek notion of Hades - that the dead were alive in some sort of underworld. And from my days with Jehovah's Witnesses, I can tell you one thing they got right -- most of the New Testament teaches Resurrection of the dead, not souls moving on to heaven. The resurrection is a focal point of the synoptic gospels which taught that Jesus would soon return and dead would be resurrected to be judged before God. It's not till later books written after end time beliefs fell out of favour (the Gospel of John and 2 Peter) that the resurrection gives way to the teaching of a personal resurrection of the soul leaving the body to go on to heaven...or hell. But, what you choose to believe is up to you; personally I think that belief in immortality makes people complacent about this life, and less likely to make this life meaningful.

How can an Atheist have hope when he sees his life shattered all around him?

His family gone, his job gone, he's age-ing and he still lives in a trailer park waiting for his disability pension...knowing it will take a miracle to at least give him a semblance of what the worldly "good Life" is all about. If he could only but taste it before he dissolves to nothing.

And again, life isn't fair! But we all know that. So what does that guy in the trailer park do if he is a Christian and has that misery -- blow his brains out, since all he has to look forward to is the next life! The atheist or Christian who is not focusing all of his attention on heaven, is more likely to make the best of what he can with this life!

Well that's the explanation of "death" by Jesus. In other words, if a sinner dies, he goes where the atheists go! Since you're now an atheist, the death He meant was YOUR own belief of death, in fact!

And just wishing for immortality does not make it real. We all have the same fate awaiting us no matter what we believe in.

You were a Christian before WIP. You already know the Word. Or at least some or most of it. As you said you took religion seriously. Maybe, you even know more than me. Therefore you must know about the condition for salvation.

You must know that you cannot plead ignorance. You cannot say "I didn't know."

Exactly! And this doctrine of diviine blackmail - you better believe and deny all doubt or your going to hell -- is one of the reasons why I rejected Christianity. It's a doctrine designed to eliminate criticism through intimidation of those in doubt.

Faith is hard to sustain. Even the Apostles who had witnessed a lot of miracles struggled with their faith. Jesus even told Peter that He prayed to the Father that Peter will not waver in his faith. How many times did He chide the disciples for their lack of faith after witnessing the miracle of the fish and loaves?

And Thomas, even after Jesus had risen, still doubted....until Jesus asked Thomas to touch his wounds. Jesus could've just blasted Thomas for his doubts. Yet, He patiently dealt with Thomas.

If He can be generously patient for the disciples who witnessed all sorts of miracles and yet doubted....what more with us who were not there to witness anything?

And I don't find this to be very plausible. If the object of faith is so obvious, why is faith so difficult to maintain and always in need of rebuilding?

I cannot enforce faith on you WIP.

And I don't feel that I should continue this debate with you....we both have our firm stance.

The argument might goad you into saying things that will only end up hurting you. I pray you find peace.

At one time the Christian churches could enforce their beliefs, and I am thankful that we now live in a time when they cannot, so I don't want to see a return of their power or new religions like Islam, trying to enforce their religious authority over here.

I think I've found my peace, more or less. I am troubled by the real dangers in this world that threaten to push the human race to extinction, and the main thing that bothers me about conservative, fundamentalist religion, is their complacency about these dangers -- they just assume that if things get really bad, God will take care of it. Well, I don't think we have a safety net underneath us, and a lot of people who believe in God to varying degrees also are troubled by that reaction.

I'm not concerned with whether people believe in God or immortality. What bothers me about the narrow, fundamentalist approach is that it divides the population into two groups -- believers and unbelievers. All of their mercy and attention is devoted to the fellow believers, and the attitudes to the unbelievers may range from indifference to outright hostility. I would be happy if every religion adopted a salvation doctrine of Universalism, since it does not add to the divisions that already exist in the world.

[cybercoma]

It's odd how atheists are looked down upon by Western religions for being humanist, yet many Eastern philosophies, although not necessarily atheist, are humanist in their own right.

[betsy]

It was Jesus who performed exorcism. If I'm not mistaken, 6 times.

Although He gave them the power to heal, I don't think He ever did designate any of his disciples to perform any exorcisms.

Sorry, I have to revise.

In Acts 5, after the death of Jesus, a passage spoke of Apostles healing people "vexed with unclean spirits."

I guess they did perform exorcisms.