Recently in Christian Church Life Category

I genuinely understand many of your frustrations. Is the answer to give up on church or try and help in reforming it?

Mac Swift and I had a big debate about that a week or so back- come and have a look on my blog if you are interested.

I want to say Amen so bad, but I'll bite my tongue. As a missionary/pastor I know the feelings of frustration you are experiencing. I go through this all too often. I am so desirous to see the Lord's church grow up and be whom the Lord called her to be. I think when we learn to love one another, genuinely love one another and really need each other then we will see much of the foolishness go away and move us toward maturity. Press on, don't let them get you down. There's a great cloud of witnesses cheering us on.

I'll just go ahead and write a post up as a response. I supposed that if I took off my selfrighteous blinders I would have seen all the things that I do to cause the Lord grief, instead of always looking out.

OK, I lied: I'll say something under this.

I'm not sure that the Church needs reforming so much as I do. It's odd that all of this bile came up just as I am connecting with a local congregation again, one that I won't have to check a few doctrinal disagreements at the door. I think that the need is for my own reformation. God may choose to reform the Church, too, but I will let him decide. Me, I'm pretty sure about.

We certainly must not think that we can leave the Church Eternal, in some form &em; allowing for the various different ways of gathering locally. There are a variety of decent sociological reasons for continuing to gather together, even with people we have disagreements with, even if we think that someone else is silly (which I will say is probably my real feelings about "life verses"). I think that leaving it has never worked and makes no sense. I am speaking of some form of local gathering and not of any particular denomination or congregation. It may be that you must leave a congregation for some reason, but we should gather together locally with other Christians in some way.

I agree with everything you said and I say ... Christianity is not the right religion for democratic people. too many things have to be changed so now the bible is just a man made book... not from God

Concerning being fed up with christians, I would like to ban christianity in particular in the Unite States namely for its fanatical influence in politics. I want to live in a country, or world for that matter where laws are made to inhance the lives of people based on this one attribute, "humanism", why can't we do things for each other because it is right, not right-tious. I'm sick of christians getting their superstitious hands, sweaty with trying to make people live according to their religious values medling in our lives when not everyone wants to be superstitious and ignorantly devoted to some unseen unkown intity. A big example of this is how christians support one of the worst presidents in history who lies constantly, absolved over 400 environmental laws, the result of which now has raised mercury levels so high 1 out of 6 women are giving birth to children with low I.Q.s and 19 states have fishing bans. Thank you, thank you christians for ruining almost a decade of environmental progress, thank you for the war in Iraq, thank you your all so good.
You people make me sick, I want to burn a bible just to feel I've helped stop the insanity your kind spreads. If you think I'm angry, be glad you are not speaking with me in person, especially if you are holding your bible.

Bill, Humanism doesn't work. For the primary reason why, please read your own post. - j

I think he raises some good points. Most of us Christians (and I am one of them) don't realise the problems that we create with others when we attach Christ's name to certain things. Environmentalism has been attached to Christianity, as has their opponents. The current media trend is to portray Christians as being on a certain side of issues, which, quite plainly from the survey data, isn't true. Christians have been and will continue to be one a variety of sides of issues, certainly across the aisles of the American parties (and I suspect in other countries as well).

One of the things that Christians are very bad at currently is being gracious. I surely have a very hard time with grace-full living, although I would enjoy more of it from others. We have forgotten that evangelical churches spearheaded the way back from slavery (Abolitionists were almost overwhelmingly people of strong Christian practice), led the way to racial equality in the South (black churches led the Civil Rights Movement; white Southern Baptists condemned segregation in a statement in the early 1950s; racists became against white churches in addition to African-American ones because of their faith leading them reconcile with their darker-skinned brothers in Christ).

The construction of the Religious Right is what most people complain about. (Happened in 1973 or so, and the people who spearheaded it had no religious convictions at all but simply wanted more evangelicals to stop voting for the man who best exemplified Christ, or even stop not voting.) And it's a valid complaint against us.

I agree that almost any group wants to dominate other people. What folks call "Political Correctness" comes down to that most of the time. But as Christians, we should be different.

We do not have to worry about overcoming the world because He has overcome it already. We all too often fail to make the distinction between those who are within our community and those who are without, with respect to what people should be allowed to do.

One of my initial reactions to Bill was to suggest that instead of burning the Bible, he take a look at it, starting with the Gospels. But I would rather take that and point it back to us. What we should do in response to the strong criticisms like this is not fight back — our arguments gain us naught in the world — but go back to the Gospels themselves. Who is Jesus? What did he really say? I am constantly crushed by the size of Jesus' statements, the scope and complexity of his words.

As for humanism, yes, it probably has run its course. In the end, humanism requires a leap of faith, although one much smaller than what Christ calls those who love him to. You must accept as truth that humans have some inherent value. It's not an arguable point: you simply have to take it as axiomatic. I tend to like a great deal of the humanist points, going back to the Humanists, but I know that's because I have accepted these things as true in a way. And that's informed by my faith which leads me back to the value of all humans being not in what they can do but in their being made in the very image of the Increate.

I'm sorry that Bill feels so hurt by us and I totally sympathise with him. Sometimes Christians make me so mad that I could spit bullets; this particular post above is a great illustration. My goodness but I was angry! Another illogical, ungracious attack that only served to divide people rather than show them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Man, I was steamed! I always had to come in and clean up after these wild statements: most of my friends are not followers of Christ in any way and this just burns my work, I thought. Which is just nonsense. Thank God the Church takes me in. Their gracious kindness over the years has been a stream of cool water in my scroched desert.

Anyway, I'm glad he vented on the topic. It's good to hear the stuff I sometimes feel as a Christian come out of someone who is definitely outside the camp.

Sometimes I think the only thing we have in common anymore is a fond memory of my salami sandwhiches and their impact on our shared locker back in 6th & 7th grade.

Bill makes no points. He spews hatred.

Most Christians are on certain sides of a few issues. In particular, most Christians are Pro-Life. This is the single most polarizing issue in the U.S. The only other issue of significance is the definition of marriage, and that's pretty much only supported by a very small minority, so he can't hate Christians for that. All the other issues are fairly immaterial from the religous perspective and hence are probably not the source of Bill's hatred. Nor is the Religious Right the reason that GW Bush got elected and we won't get him re-elected either. The Dem's don't succeed because they have put up really bad candidates plain and simple.

The Religious Right, whomever you suppose started it, is religious and it is right (in the political sense). It is in many respects not a movement, but an ethic founded on the 10 Commandments. Regardless of who does the polling, most Americans support this ethic. Americans who don't live in cities support it overwhelmingly. Bill hates this ethic because he believes it restricts his freedom. His hatred of Christians is secondary and grows out of this primary hatred.

I'm now a Southern Baptist. No matter what the head organization said, they propped up segregation well into the 70's and then created their own private schools to continue the segregation into today. You were born here, but I live here now and I have school aged children. Pastors who preach against this have a hard time, and only today can you hear more preaching against segregation.

I didn't say Humanism has run it's course. I said humanism doesn't work. Primarily because people aren't naturally good. They have a tendency to devolve into hatred of something (Carthage delende est - Bill & Christians). In fact, Humanism as a philosophy of human interaction and social structure is just getting started. The EU is its current pinacle, but that will be replicating itself shortly. . . .

I also sympathize with Bill, and I hope he has enough intellectual honesty that he can understand the correct reason for his hatred. I'd also tell him that his hatred will consume him if not checked and recommend he read the Bible to learn about alternatives.

As to Chritians that suck, hopefully they will find the grace to sing hymns when Bill and his buddies turn the lions loose on them and in so doing, Bill's immortal soul may find salvation. And THAT, as you have said before, is all that really matters.

I guess we agree on that. . . . ..

I've been giving this thread some more thought, and I think it highlights an interesting dilema. We have to love our neighbors (Bill, manasclerk, j, sucky Christians, everybody) and yet we can't allow half-truths or incorrect teachings into our congregations. That's a very difficult knife's edge to walk. And what makes it even harder, we have to rely on the Holy Spirit to clue us in when the Apostasy is really clever. To restate the problem more clearly, while fighting for the truth, we have to love those who spread the lies.

When I get stressed out or angry or anxious, it is a red flag that I have taken on something that is not mine to bear.

Our God is a big God. His purposes will be fulfilled regardless of what I do or don't. He allows me "act on his behalf" for my own growth, but his plans do not rely upon my actions. So when I am frustrated that my finely-crafted Christian plans have been thwarted, I realize that they were just that, MY plans, regardless of how noble or well intentioned.

Jesus said above all, our job is to love. If love has not been established, those receiving our "message", no matter how truthful, will feel condemnation and guilt -- exactly what Jesus died for us NOT to feel. Score one for the enemy!!

All things should be born in love, informed by love, and delivered in love. If you are not prepared to do that, keep your mouth shut, halt your plans and take your hardened heart and prideful intentions before God, repent and ask him to redeem you.

As Manasclerk pointed out, it is likely us who need reformation. Work on yourself, and the hooks that are available for others pull on will begin to disappear. As they disappear, you will become more capable to interact with sinners without being tugged around by your emotions.

My Pastor often says, the victory will not be when others change. It will come when you are able to operate in their midst with the Peace of Christ, inert to the things that used to enrage you.

Only at this point, will you be in a position deliver God's ultimate message, LOVE. For it is only through this context that others will truly know who the Lord is and want to serve him.

Michelle, I'm sure you meant well, but you're really missing the point.

The reality of 21st century America is that the "church" is turning apostate at a huge rate. Incorrect teachings and pop philosophy and yes, even power point are taking over while people who should know better are arguing over the style of music. I have had 9 different addresses across the U.S. over the last 15 years. In some places we never found a church that preached the Bible inerrant. The reason Christians suck is because we're getting pop culture and not truth. The reason Christians suck is because we're becoming more like the world and less like Christ everyday. The reason Christians suck is because we've believed the lie that Christ was a liberal. The reason Christians suck is because we don't even understand the basic concept of the "Body of Christ" and the assignment of gifts. The reason Christians suck is because we're trying to evangelize or do other works for which we may not even be gifted, and when we need to fix our homes first(the people not the building).

The Truth was the Truth a hundred million years ago. It's still Truth today. It will be Truth a hundred million years from now. What the world needs is not my message, not your message, not power point, not scriptures modified for cultural differences, not modern music, not hymns. The world today needs what it has always needed: The Truth (Jesus Christ).

I agree with you J. What I am adding is that the truth delivered with haughtiness for the purpose of one glorifying himself for "being in the know" does not work. God is not going to let his word be used so that man can boast.

The truth delivered in love will proliferate.

The truth delivered in love will proliferate. - Michelle

Agreed.

The Bible was written by the Roman Empire/ Illuminati to keep people scared, confused, fighting amongst one another, as the catholics and protestants do, and generally to keep people under control. There is no historical record of jesus, other than in the new testament, which was written by Calpurnius and Arius Piso, cousins of constantine, back in the day. The idea of Jesus is an amalgam stolen from "Pagan" religions, like Odinism, and the 'cult' of Mithra. There are so many versions of a half human son of god who was born on dec. 25th to a virgin mother etc. etc., ALL OF WHICH predate christ by a good thousand years. Look into it from a non christian perspective. You too can be saved. You can do it yourself!

I love that this post still gets people responding! I was just being a jerk, as d0g0wa5 observed.

Of course, I don't agree with a lot of what you say, Jason, although you are right in that the story of a virgin birth is not unique to Christianity including things that predate it.

The Gospels, while controversial dating does not agree on them being written before the end of the first century A.D., there are some pretty interesting manuscript pieces of them that date early, certainly well before Constantine. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri start at about A.D. 150-200 for the Pauline Epistle to the Romans (since I figure that you won't buy that the Apostle Paul wrote it) and there are several more (10?) from the third century.

There is also a passage in Josephus about Jesus, although the authorship has been contested: many argue that it must have been written in the third or fourth centuries. Tabor of UNC Charlotte has an interesting and balanced account of Josephus's Jesus passage, including a translation of a tenth century Islamic translation of Josephus. Alan Humm, grad student at Penn, has a set of early Jewish references to Jesus.

It may be worthwhile investigating whether or not the Christian stories about Jesus —, for that's what the Gospels are, the stories about Jesus that the early Christians (through the first half of the second century) accepted — are later exaggerations by the community but it seem fairly safe to say that a man named Yesu or some variant attracted a following in Palestine during the first half of the first century and the Romans executed him. Evidences for the other particulars, including the resurrection, are weaker but I feel safe saying that the early Christians believed that they were true.

You're right that pagan stories often contain the same elements found in Jewish and Christian scriptures. But even the story of the Exodus, an even that is hotly debated as to whether or not it ever happened in any way whatsoever, show a different character from most tales of the sort. Fox describes much of this line in his excellent translation of the Books of Moses. This is not to deny the richness of pagan religious life, simply to point out that these Jewish and Christian stories are somewhat different.

I remember Philip K. Dick going on and on about the wonderful dialogue that occurs in the Gospels. He stated that the way that people had interior thoughts and talked differed from the way contemporary writers did this. He believed that the gospels were early and this proved some divine inspiration of them. Of course, Dick was an entirely heretical man who had weird opinions, but it seems interesting to this here.

None of this is to argue that the parallels of virgin birth stories aren't there. You're right: they are. The Dec 25 date is clearly made up or a co-opt of pagan practices. A lot of Marianism is, too, and so are many other Christian practices. I'm not against them all, just admitting that you're right.

And if I had to save myself, well, I wouldn't have even tried.

Hope you find what you're looking for. Sure wish you could get to know the man I know.

Christians Suck!

For a forum with that title, this one sure has a lot of christians! Perhaps you feel obliged to defend yourselves? Got guilt!

I think Bill makes a few good points. And if he spews a little hatred it's far less than the church has propagated. You Christians are so very hateable too. You think you're the pinnacle of spiritual achievement, you walk around with an air of superiority, condemning anybody who follows any other path than your own particular little denomination as being 'pagan', 'heathen', from the devil.

You missed the point of what I'm trying to say, M.C. Those stories in the old testament were stolen from pre-existing 'pagan' religions, and the romans knew damn well what they were doing. What better way to get people to convert to your religion than to base it on theirs. 1000 years after the fact, who knows the difference anyway? 2005 years after the lie, who knows the diff'? I do! Your religion is a fabrication, a composite religion made up of bits and pieces of others. 'Christ'mass was stolen from 'pagans'- It's about the winter solstace. Burning a yule log is a pagan tradition that goes back thousands of years! Easter was stolen from the pagans too- It's about the spring solstace. And it was made that way. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree, of course you disagree, m.c., it's your program! Why can't you leave the 'folds' (deep, dark, crevasses) of christianity? Because you are so indoctrinated, your scared! I was born again when I was 21. I renounced it a year later. Y'see I read a book about taoism that was written by a catholic. He said he loved it and if he wasn't catholic he would convert to taoism! He too was too indoctrinated (scared). Such is the true nature of your deity. 'Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom' Whatta buncha bullarky! Love and Fear are Direct opposites, and any other emotion you feel is based on one of these two. If God is a loving God, well let's just say he ain't 'cuz he's obviously got issues. God is a vengeful God, God is a jealous God. Vengeance and Jealousy are negative, fruitless emotions and if a deity who is supposedly pure good claims to have these emotions, he's lyin' about something!

When the white people first came to this land (at least according to the commonly accepted view of history), my ancestors welcomed them. And they (who were Christian, Catholic, of that ilk) in turn almost wiped us out completely! My ancestors were put into residential schools where their languages and 'religions' were BEATEN out of them by CHRISTIANS. Now I see natives taking their drums to church and I cringe!

But these weren't real christians, you argue. What is a real Christian then? None of you (celestial cannon fodder) do what jesus did- None of you even do anything any different than most people. Follower of Christ, my ass! D'You think if jesus was here,he'd be workin a good job, paying his taxes and mortgage and car payments, watching T.V., microwaving fish sticks for dinner?

Or do you think that only you and your particular sect of christianity would know it was him and for you it would be peace and happiness, but for all others (especially us 'Pagans')it's fire and brimstone? Do you even know what you think? Or are you just going through life, resting assured in the fact that 'cuz you gave up (your soul to christ) and 'cuz you go to church on sunday, that you've earned your place in Heaven, where the streets are paved with Gold? If we are to "lay not up for ourselves treasures upon the earth" Why why is Heaven made of Gold? It's f'in b.s.! And us pagans, and buddhists, and wiccans and medicine people, who get along with each other, we're all going to hell?

Like a loving god would ever condemn anyone. And a God that would sacrifice his son so we could 'sin' (because you all still do) is not a god I wanna follow! He knew it would all be this way anyway? How come we are still being punished for adam's sin of eating the apple? DO you believe that story as being literally true?

Christians suck... I typed that into a search engine and that's how I got here. THe first hit though is always from satan2000.com and though that path is almost as f**f*d up as yours, Anton sure has a good essay on why christians suck. I think you should read it.

All my relations. -Jason-

Something about evangelical churches spearheading the way back from slavery? Read leviticus 25; 44-46 and you will see that christianity is clearly in favor of slavery!

Just wanted to add that...

Luv'y'all, Jason

Something about evangelical churches spearheading the way back from slavery? Read leviticus 25; 44-46 and you will see that christianity is clearly in favor of slavery!

Just wanted to add that...

Luv'y'all, Jason

my my. wasn't that interesting. sorry to disapoint though, no feelings of guilt here. that's why Jesus died, so I wouldn't have to have any guilt. i hope that someday Jason can have some peace in his life as well. i suspect that someone who searches the internet for postings of hatred against Christians has little peace in his life.

I wrote a longish answer to several of these points, but I'm not convinced that Jason is interested in beginning a dialogue. I am saddened that his experience with Christians has led him to such overwhelming hatred.

i suspect that is was not so much his experience with Christians as much as it was missing the opportunity to interact with Christ. anyone who is waiting for Christians to show them the way anywhere is in for a long wait. anyone who gets to know Jesus Christ will have peace. he's afraid of Christ primarily because he know's a little bit about him. thus he hates what he fears and Christians are merely the visible imbodiment those fears.

My my wasn't that interesting..... Don't patronize me, guy. No feelings of guilt, that's why Jesus died... so me and my minions could continue to 'sin' and 'condemn' and run around spreading spiritual brainwashing (for those who don't know better) and torture (for those who do) and not have to feel anything about it!

Yeah, maybe I could use a little peace in my life. But your making personal attacks on me like that is just revealing your own shortcomings. Y'know why I got no peace? Half of why, anyway? Because I, like everyone else, have been programmed since birth by the media, the government, my teachers, etcetera, to fear god. I am a spiritual person with a real spiritual calling. When every church in North America is burnt to the ground and replaced with a medicine wheel or a sweat lodge, I will have peace.

But as 'Christ' supposedly said 'Do not think I come to bring peace, I come with a sword.'
'i have come to set the world on fire' explain those scriptures to me, christian. Or explain to me how you figure Christ is the only begotten son
when the old testament clearly states differently.
At the end of the book of Ruth, 'Jehovah' gives Naomi Immaculate conception. Kinda blows that theory away! Of course, I'm sure the church has had an 'explanation' for that for longer than you've been in that body. Or how 'bout at the beginning of the next book, Samuel, where some people take a kid up a mountain, sacrifice a bull, and 'lend the child to the lord', and promise that he will be lent to the lord again and again. If you get a KJV of the bible it puts it that way. Newer translations have been modified so as htis passage cannot be translated to say what it really means. THis is a classical example of SATANIC RITUAL. They sacrificed that bull, which is 'sin' itself, then RAPED that child! NO JOKE! I have a friend who was raised in a catholic convent, and another who was raised in a J.W. 'cult' and though they get really nervous and angry and try to change the subject when I bring this up, they have admitted to me that they know this to be true. Their own behavior speaks the truth, hteir mouths don't have to.

You got a rebuttal? Lay it on me! I'll do a 'dialogue'. I don't mean to cast negative expectations on the outcome, but Christians don't listen and I suspect You'll be no different. Me too! We have our minds made up! And niether of us are wrong!

As for me missing the chance to interact with Christ, I'll have you know, my good sir, that this is absolutely not the case. Been there, Done that. I was born again once. I xperienced the "anointing of the holy spirit'(by the way it's father-son-mother, not father-son- holy spirit. The Catholic church just twisted it bcuz they wanna keep women down. Creator is a woman.
But I digress. Sure it works for those countless
GOOD PEOPLE who become mixed up in the hypocrisy.
I merely would not allow myself to believe that a God of such diversity would only allow us one path.

But seriously, that whole "i suspect that it was not his experience.." line of reasoning, well that's just astupid thing to say.

And If I got issues comin' here, you made this place, buddy.

So lay it on me. Any b.s. xcuse you can come up with, I can diffuse. Do your homework though, cuz I've done mine!
peace-LOVE-granola bars
Jason

There was a problem with the server that made Jason's comment post several times. I have cleaned that up: I have not erased his comments. They were duplicates.

I am the person who has created this forum, and as such, I have the responsibility for it, although everyone is responsible for their own comments.

Jason, I am now cautious about entering a dialog with you. Your great hatred for Christians and (therefore me) concerns me because I have not found hatred and contempt — whether practiced by Christians, other religionists or aetheists — my own life to be a creative emotion. They have been powerful forces of destruction only. When you write that:

"I am a spiritual person with a real spiritual calling. When every church in North America is burnt to the ground and replaced with a medicine wheel or a sweat lodge, I will have peace."

I hope that this works well as a life goal for you. I have found anger, disgust and even revenge to be useful, but hate always seems to come out and do the thing I did not intend. I hope that it works out better for you than it did for me, but I'm skeptical due to my experiences and my reading of history. I am indeed sorry that you have found Christians so full of hate and contempt for you. You seem to have learned their lesson very well. Certainly it has been my own experience that when people hate me or have contempt for me, there is little chance for anything constructive. I try to live my life without these, but I also confess that I am just as poor as those I condemn. I hope that you have a greater joy with it.

I certainly have no rebuttal for you. I'm not into having long fights over religious beliefs any more. As you point out, it's not going to go anywhere and neither party comes away with anything but the feeling that they have licked the other one. In the end, it has always struck me as a lot of dust and nothing to show for it. I certainly would not follow the God that you hate, either.

You did, though, raise several interesting points. I do not want to attempt to change your believes or support or defend any actions taken by Christians against you or those you claim.

Indeed, one of the earliest non-bible creeds (although widely contested) from the Jewish Christians identifies the Holy Spirit as "mother of us all" because the Spirit gave them "new birth". And "Creator" is often identified across cultures as a feminine ideal. However, it is also identified as a masculline ideal and different cultures found the "Creator" to be different things, including impersonal forces. Or nothing at all: the world has always existed. The Church at no point (that I have seen in the scholarly literature) has ever identified the Spirit as the Mother birthing creation. The author(s) of the Gospel of John make clear what the epistles also refer to, that the all things were created through the Son of God. I'm not saying that this is what happened: I am only saying that this has been the beliefs of Christians. There have been a variety of groups that threw out the Gospels, of course. Western practice has been to both elevate and denigrate the femminine, as evidenced by both the strong patriarchal nature of the Church hierarchy and the strength of Marianism across the centuries.

There are many practices in the Jewish scriptures that Western Christians misinterpret in light our own current beliefs and practices. The two that you cite, an immaculate conception for Naomi and the "lending to the Lord" of children, are not of them. Naomi is "given" the child of her daughter-in-law, so that she may have an heir. It's a weird practice to us now but there is no conception nor birth by Naomi at this point in Ruth.

The passage in Samuel likewise is weird to us today but does not say what you claim:

"And when she [Hannah] had weaned him [her son, Samuel], she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young. And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli [the priest of the LORD]. And she said, 'Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the LORD. For this child I prayed; and the LORD hath given me my petition which I asked of him: Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD.' And he worshipped the LORD there." — I Samuel 1:25-28, King James Version

Sacrifices of bulls is actually something YHWH himself commands throughout the Books of Moses, which Everrett Fox describes at some length in his translation. The child is being "lent" to YHWH for service. (The NASB uses the word "dedicated" but the footnote for it is "Lit lent"). There are other passages that may refer to homosexual acts between bible characters, but this does not seem to be one of them. Samuel is being given to the LORD in the same way that Sampson was, in a Nazarite vow of sorts by his mother.

Interestingly, Everett Fox's translation (the wonderful Give Us a King! [1999] translates it as "lent-on-request". He cites it's connection to Samuel's and Saul's names.

So it was, at the circuit of days,
that Hanna conceived and gave-birth to a son;
she called his name Shemu'el/The One From God,
meaning: from YHWH I requested him.
. . . . . . . .
(It was) for this lad that I prayed,
and YHWH has granted my request that I requested of him!
So I now lend-him-on-request to YHWH;
all the days (of his life) he is lent-on-request / sha'ul to YHWH
And they prostrated-themselves there to YHWH.
— 1 Samuel 1: 20, 27-28, Fox's translation

He also notes on "requested" in v.20:

This verb, sha'ul, is really associated with the name of Sha'ul (Saul) (cf. Verse 28, where "lent-on-request" is vocalized "sha'ul").... [I] find the resulting connections interesting and profound, whatever its origins. [pp. 9]

The "lent-on-request" is a difficult phrase for us Moderns and one that no doubt produces a great deal of confusion.

I still disagree on the issue of sources for the stories of the Jewish scriptures. There is a great deal of scholarship that talks about the similarity between the stories of Genesis and stories found in other cultures. These include the tales of Creation, Abraham, Noah, Jacob and Esau and others. Stories of the Exodus are not duplicated elsewhere as far as I know, although their veracity is certainly called into question by leading archeologists. Roman Christians did not take them from other religions: the Jewish scriptures ("the bible Jesus read") already existed and were venerated as the sacred texts by all of the authors of the New Testament.

The Roman Christians did indeed co-opt religious festivals and practices to ease the transition to Christianity. Festivals like Christmas come from a variety of non-Christian practices across Europe. There is even commonalities with other religious stories. Common Easter practice is a mish-mash of Jewish and pagan customs.

The story of the resurrection is fairly unique in its details, though. I have not found one that parallels it in any text with provenance, but perhaps you have. The resurrection has always been embarrassing to modern Christians but it is a story that frustratingly will not go away. As others have pointed out, it is obvious from his various disciples' (not just the Twelve) later lives that something happened after Jesus died and that they believed that they had seen him after death. It was not a resucitated corpse in their eyes, nor was it quite a regular body. There are serious scholars who postulate the Hallucinatory Hypothesis, which has its own problems.

Christians did indeed destroy the civilisations of the Americas. While scholars debate over the numbers that died as a result of diseases from the Europeans, Native people groups were decimated: up to 90% of the up to 10 million Native Americans (north and south) perished from disease and the aftermath (starvation and deprivation). However, I certainly agree that Christians did a great job of killing a great deal of those who were left and stripping them of their lands and customs. Even when they intended to do good, they often did bad. J's other groomsman, Cliff, tells stories about his grandfather (a Dakota) in the missionary schools getting beaten for speaking Ojibwa. (I think that's the language of the Sioux.) It wasn't a pretty result. He told other reservation stories that were at least as nasty. And that was a century after the end of open hostilities.

[J, whatever happened to Cliff?]

There are many Christians that also live their lives according to hatred, and you seem to have found many of them.

On a personal note, you earlier asked if I just go through life, "resting assured in the fact that 'cuz you gave up (your soul to christ) and 'cuz you go to church on sunday, that you've earned your place in Heaven, where the streets are paved with Gold?" I do not believe that I will ever be able to earn my way to any heaven, or even a nirvanna or enlightenment. I cannot see how that could ever happen. I am not a spiritual person and do not delude myself, at least in that way, that I would ever have any power to attain spirituality. I am at the mercy of Christ.

Still... I wonder if this addresses the issue. What I feel I should say is this: no matter how much you hate him, you cannot escape the love of God. No matter where you go in this life, you will find no mercy from it. The wrath of God is nothing compared to his love. It is searching and unrelenting. If you come and burn down my church and destroy us all, he will simply send others with his love. I do not know why Jesus is this way, only that he is. I do not have any explanation for this but I feel that this is the answer to some desire.

Interesting discussion! What is it that distinguishes a christian as being a christian? For what purpose(s) do christians live their lives? How are these distinctions and the purpose(s) different from those of a muslim, buddhist, jew, atheist, or within christianity; the denominations of catholic versus anglican or methodist, or others? What needs are christians attempting to satisfy?

That's such a big request, Abdulazeez, that I will have to take it to another post and discussion. It reminds me of the "little questions" that Noboru used to ask me while waiting for the "L" in Chicago that would take hours to answer because they were so perceptive. Great set of questions!

I'll put the link to the new discussion here when I get it done. It will take a couple of days, and it will be the beginning, not a full answer.

Yes this is interesting conversation, isn't it?

That's what I come here for! I love it I revel in it I thrive on it.

But it's missing something. I cannot pinpoint it so I will attempt to outline it.

No, I can pinpoint it. It comes down to two things.
#1- You have put the biggest nastiest ugliest word in my mouth- Hate. I have much anger yes, but I do not hate you. I just think you are confused and dangerously misled. I do not mean to patronize you by saying this, in fact my whole reason for entering a dialogue here is to enlighten you and anyone else who cares to read, as to the lies which have been perpetrated on humanity for centuries. What I do hate is being told that I need to accept christ or I am going to hell. This is exactly CONDEMNATION. We are all directly responsible for the consequences of our own actions. Yes you are a spiritual person, M.C.
that is why you have created this place. You are still looking for answers.
#2-You are beating around the bush. You are speaking in convoluted, politically correct, semantic and honestly quite patronizing ways to attempt to belittle me indirectly. White man speak with forked tongue! Just Kidding.

I will however patronize 'j' directly. I have read your retort on Bill's comments and I must say that you are.. a moron. What did Bill say that details why humanism doesn't work? Humanism is a misnomer anyway. It is the human side of us wghich leads us to lie, steal, rob, covet, kill.
It it the spiritual side of us that motivates us towards something better.

You say you have no rebuttal for me. Then you rebutt. The whole point of this forum is to argue over religious beliefs. And you are following the path I have such ditaste for. THe god of fear.

Yes creator is Woman, creator is a man, creator is all things. Creator is 'Good", creator is 'selfish' Creator is 'Evil'. This of course is inherently true, as any pair of opposites have a distinct polar unity, thay create and define one another. To say that one entity, 'God" is completely pure and just and good while his archetype, 'satan', a entity distinct unto his own, is 'Evil' is just ridiculous. Especially when the 'Good' side, God, displays all those digusting, dark, evil emotions.

No conception or birth by Naomi, eh? Well, my Catholic and J.W. buddies would disagree with you.
And the other 'weird' scripture, when did JHVH repent (a greek word which means merely' change your mind'). So one second God requires animal sacrifices (for what? to appease his anger?) the next he declares this is a sin? This is not a God, this is a schizo! wHAT- Ever. This is a Satanic ritual, as is the one about eating the flesh of christ as bread and drinking the blood of christ as red wine. At least it is based on a satanic ritual where flesh is actually eaten and blood is actually drank.

Saul, shaul, lent on request, what? At least you can admit to your gerat deal of confusion. I have noe on this one topic though. For the last ten years I have studied your religion from an outside perspective, and I have seen the light!

The roman Christians did indeed co- opt religious festivals in order to ease the transition to christianity. Well don't that just tie it up neatly in a little package. Why would they do that? Why would they incorporate foreign beliefs into they own unless they were trying to trick the people? Why do they care so much? All good men will come to God eventually anyway! Doesn't it say something like that in the bible ?
Don't we all have freedom of religion anyway? Sometimes I wonder. But say for the sake of arguement(?) that people in roman times didnot. Why would a tyrranical empire like rome so completely embrace 'the one true religion'? It makes no sense. Until you add that Christianity was designed and implemented as a tool of control and conformity.

I have never met any one christian or any group of christians who are embarrassed by the story of the ressurection. I have no idea on what basis you put this forward. I thought that was the gift itself. Every (every) christian I've ever met loves and chrishes this story. Again, you put words in people's mouths.

Native americans perished from disease and aftermath. Christians did a great job of killing who was left. Why you clueless.... The first time germ warfare was ever used was in those days, and it was employed quite deliberately. Read a book that ain't the bible. Y'know the Hudson's Bay Company? They would take their own blankets from settlers who had died of smallpox, and give them to the native knowing DAMN WELL what would happen. Y'know Buffalo Bill? He was named that because he sat on a mountain and shot ten thousand buffalo! This is why native people started starving. They were fine before white man showed up. Where were you 'educated'? I want to ask if you even were! By the way the sioux speak sioux, I think different bands have slightly vrying dialects. There's Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, Oglala, and a couple more. The Ojibway speak Ojibway. There are many similarities between the languages of the Sioux, Cree (my people) and the Ojibway, though they are not identical. And that story ain't even nasty compared to what really happened. Rape, Maiming, Beating Death... and the mass indoctrination continues today.. in less offensive, less detectable ways of course.

I will find no mercy from the love of God? Why would I want mercy from love? The wrath is nothing compared to the love? If God is so Good and pure, he would have no wrath. He would have nothing but compassion and forgiveness. I cannot believe you would even say that! That statement is an oxymoron in itself! It is without a doubt the single stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have never heard it expressed exactly like that before... there's just no getting through to you is there? Thank the Creator I had the brains to leave 'the church ephemeral' before I got so caught up in the B.S. Church eternal? Everything, everywhere is sacred. Everything, everywhere, is ALIVE. That is a belief called 'animism'.

You don't know why Jesus is the way? Then he's not! He's definately not the way for me. Jesus died cuz the jews wanted him to, so they could continue to lead lives of sin and iniquity.

The answer to some desire? The desire is (i think) the most fundamental of all human 'desires', even more primal than the will to procreate. It is the spirit's need to be in connection with the universe. Every following speaks of it, from Astrology to Zoroastrianism.

That you could not achieve this own conclusion lowers my faith in your intellect.. exponentially. Why do you pursue religion, so you can feel safe and secure? So you have someone to talk to? Why?

This is beginning to frustrate me. You are clearly not of an open mind. And some of the retorts you come up with are inane, puerile, and straight up ludicrous! I hev come here hoping to create a rapport with an intellect with whom I can have stimulating 'dialogue'. The best you can do is to indirectly patronize and belittle me, while defering the blame and posting some very vague generic excuses. Not answers, not revelations, just excuses.

And yeah, I would burn down Every church. This is not a life's goal so much. Why is their a church on every corner and you have to go milesto find a sweat lodge? Because the government wants us all to be christian, and brainwashed little slaves. Freedom of religion, if it exists at all, was only implemented recently, in an effort to be politically correct.

Read Arizona Wilder. Read Zechariah Sitchin. Read David Icke. Just quit denying yourself by programming yourself with that bible b.s.

I love you.

Mitakuye Oyasin. That's All My Relations in Lakota Sioux - Jason.

The discussion, much of it point and counterpoint, is incredibly interesting to observe. Particularly so when one considers the psychology perhaps more important the sociology, of distinct cultures within the broader human society. It is interesting how these cultures have developed their own distinct mythologies which have set in place for them a context which occurs as being rigid and fixed and decisive. What we listen inside of shapes what we hear. A few distinctions that are interesting to note are Jason's assertion that he resents being told by "j" to accept christ yet sets forth to enlighten. Two opposing yet committed (perhaps entrenched) points of view have set forth to enlighten the other. This appears to be a conversation for no possibility, yet there is an acknowledgement that "any pair of opposites have a distinct polar unity". The notion is intriguing yet would appear to be true only to the extent that one is not intent upon forcing the other to conform to the opposing position. Perhaps we need to acknowledge the entitlement of each individual and his or her associated culture to exist in harmony within the society and need to appreciate that it is the diversity (in viewpoint, religion, race, political belief, gender, etc. etc. etc.) that exists within the society that strengthens it.

Consider that every one of us has been enculturated and socialized into particular beliefs and that we have come to identify, and often times are incapable of separating, ourselves from the beliefs we have endeared ourselves to.

Each one of us has, (very much like Jason has), drawn interpretations, and validated past interpretations attempting to have everything we encounter conform with all that we already know, or all that we have already interpretted, For example the interpretation has been drawn that earlier references were meant to "belittle", "patronize" and "condemn". Surely we could acknowledge that these are interpretations and not necessarily facts, and they have their relationship with our past experience of belittling, condemenation and patronizing. In some respects we need to be capable of distinguishing these "qualities" within ourselves and our past experience (or someone else has distinguished and identified them for us) such that we can validate, through our own interpretation, the intent of the other party. Rather judgmental, perhaps patronizing, belittling and condemning, isn't it?

I might foster the "interpretation" that Jason and the contextual culture that he has identified with has concluded that this unique culture has been oppressed and feels victimized, and can point to past occurrences to validate the interpretation. We might declare that European immigrants massacred and set forth to genetically cleanse the North American society of Native Americans. We might also declare that Native Americans were adverse to coexistence with new settlers, and that either interpretation, or both, might be valid. It would do no particular good to suggest that he who was there first had a greater entitlement than he who settled next for the universe belongs no more to one distinct culture than it does to another.

Within the culture we set forth to have the present assign meaning to the past, and therewith live our lives in a vicious circle, one that prevents us from living into the creation of a powerful future, thus we become destined to a traditional, past-based existence where we have positioned ourselves as victims to the present circumstance. We might ask who suffers within this victimized context? Surely the victim. There is considerable value in both acknowledging and completing the past so that new possibility can be declared and lived into.

I only wish to distinguish from my perspective that both "j" and Jason are entitled to their interpretations, their distinct cultures and their polar and opposing points of view, and that we might learn to appreciate the diversity and the opportunity that these provide. I would suggest that the world would do well to have a few more sweat lodges and a few less church burnings.