Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Wednesday 16th April 2014 01:13:05 AM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 
These are answers that PraiseJah has provided in Christi.

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 06/07/04 - No part of this world?

Can someone please clarify to me what Jesus meant by when he said' we are to be no part of this world?
Can anyone tell me where I can find this scripture? How could one live in this world but be of no part of it?
Thank you.
Liz.

PraiseJah answered on 06/07/04:

In his final prayer he prayed for his followers that they were to be no part of the world. John 17:14,15. He also instructed them not to be part of the world. John 15:18-20.
Paul added by saying that Christians are ambassadors for Christ, our King and so as such must not get involved in the political disputes and conflicts.2 Cor 5:20. In 1 John 5:19- John stated that we must not have the spirit of this world which is contolled by satan. Greed, corruption, immorality and aggressive, abusive behavior are all wordly and satanic traits that must be avoided.

Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/05/04 - Scapegoat

The basis of Christianity in the New Testament is the ancient Hebrew concept of a scapegoat. Christ was the scapegoat for all humankind. He was sacrificed to GodAlmighty to "cover" the sins of mankind against the wrath of God. Christ's sacrifice is an umbrella under which Christians can seek refuge from God's punishment.

Comments?

PraiseJah answered on 06/05/04:

Certainly Jesus was without sin and took on himself the sins of mankind, just like the original scapegoat spoken of in the Law of Moses. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) But God gives us the gift of eternal life through faith in Christ's blood. We cannot abuse the privilege because if we continue to sin wilfully then Christ's blood does not cover our sins. Heb 10:26.27. It's not a license to sin, it is a license to approach God and ask for forgiveness.

Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ROLCAM asked on 06/04/04 - Why did such a clever man say this ??

Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).

"Religion is all bunk."

ROLCAM.

PraiseJah answered on 06/05/04:

The religion of the day was mainly fundamentalism and you will see if you read my previous post (Modern creation myths) why a scientist would take that view. Also many relgions are extremely superstitious. He also may have had in mind all the miracles in the Bible which is somewhat of an irony, since he invented a "miracle" himself.

ROLCAM rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/05/04 - World Fundamentalist Movements

In a new book, Malise Ruthven talks about Fundamentalism since the end of the Cold War in 1989. Fundamentalism as a revolt against modernity. The authors lists the common factors that the Fundamentalist movements in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hunduism have in common. Adherence to textural and scriptural literalism, rejection of pluralisn, apocalyptic embrace of violence, and the repression of women.

Fundamentalism has emerged as the greatest threat to world peace.

So, you can see why I am so anti-Fundamentalism no matter what.

Do you agree with this author's assessment?
Do you have any comments?

PraiseJah answered on 06/05/04:

Fundamentalist "Christians" believe Christ will return to Jerusalem and so they support Zionism which puts them on a collision course with Islamic fundamentalists.
If only they read their Bibles they would know that God's kingdom with Christ as king is in heaven and that the nation of Israel, while given the first opportunity among all nations to accept Jesus as their king and become his "bride" have actually lost their status as God's chosen people. Matt 21:33-44.

ATON2 rated this answer Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PhilDebenham rated this answer Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/04/04 - Cool Baby Names

According to the ladies who wrote the book about cool baby names, there are five names that parents should not name their children in order to spare the child excessive teasing. Can you name one? (Answer Later)

PraiseJah answered on 06/05/04:

Usually teasing results from either the sound of a name o the use of words that may
rhyme with it. I always got "Pam the ham" at school.

Very few names cannot be rhymed with but Brian is probably one ( thank's Cherab).

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Fr_Chuck asked on 06/04/04 - Picket of store for not supporting troops.

This one is about hard to believe. But here in beautiful downtown Sparta TN, a Raceway Gas station, refused to serve two service men, and then latter that day refused to serve the wife of a serviceman.

They say they don't support the war and the soldiers that fight in it.

It is hard to beleive that could happen in a town of 5000 in backtown TN. Most of the town is either past military, or have family in the military. Things like veteran day and memorial day are "big" things in town.

So now large crowds of people have been picketing the store for the past two days.

This is a torn issue for me, since I support the troops and don't beelive we should disrespect them, for choices that our government leaders do.

But on the other hand, I also beleive in a stores right to not sell to someone if they don't want to.
Of course most stores have to because sex,religion, race and so on, are are protected.

Do you beleive that a a persons legal occupation should be grounds to be discrminated by??

PraiseJah answered on 06/04/04:

Jesus healed the child of a Roman centurian, and so while I dont support any war I have had servicemen and women come to me for treatment just as I have had homosexuals come to me for treatment. They are all human beings to me.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Fr_Chuck rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/03/04 - Boogeyman

Why do some Christian religions and the Islamic religion have to have someone to blame, a boogeyman, in order to rally the faithful to the cause, their God.

Fundamentalist Christians attack the ACLU, Catholics(Christians!), atheists, the media, they are all over the map. Why? The Muslims attack Jews and the Americans as Infidels, as well as others.

I really wonder...

What is lacking in these religions or in the followers that causes them to be haters?

PraiseJah answered on 06/03/04:

Depends on what you mean by attack. Jesus was not reluctant to speak out about the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharasees and to some extent today Christians may need to expose false beliefs for the light of truth to shine through. Personal attacks are not acceptable - Jesus never singled out or named individuals. But groups or organizations that showing intolerance and hatred for Christianity should be exposed.

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 06/03/04 - What do you think?

I happened upon this today...

"Another victory for the ACLU in its war on Christianity. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Take a look at the county seal in Los Angeles because it's about to change. [The County] Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to cave in to the ACLU's demands that the small cross on the right be removed, and it soon will be, even though it's been there for 47 years. The ACLU's Los Angeles director, Ramona Ripskin (ph), says the cross makes some Angelenos feel, quote, "unwelcome," unquote. Sane people point out that the cross signifies the historical founding of Los Angeles by Catholic missionaries.

That historical argument seems to have some merit because a few hundred miles north of L.A., federal judge Phyllis Hamilton recently ruled that 7th-graders at a Contra Costa County school could be forced to say Muslim prayers in a history class for the sake of history. By the way, just yesterday, Judge Hamilton declared the law banning partial-birth abortion unconstitutional, thereby wiping out the will of the president, Congress and the vast majority of Americans. Of course, Judge Hamilton knows far more about the Constitution than anyone. And it would be interesting see how this woman would rule if a public school history teacher forced his or her students to say Christian prayers. I'm sure the judge would support that, just as she supports Muslim prayers.

Judge Hamilton and the ACLU are part of the anti-Christian cabal in America that sees the Christian majority as oppressors. These people know they can never impose their secular agenda on this country while Judeo-Christian philosophy dominates the philosophical arena. That's because Judeo-Christian philosophy requires judgments about right and wrong in personal behavior. The secularists deplore that. They want an open society where anything goes, including legalized drugs, any kind of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and explicit images and speech on the public airwaves.

Unless America's tradition of opposing these kinds of behaviors is changed, the secularist agenda will never become a reality. So diminishing any Christian display in public is the goal and encouraging alternative thought, like Muslim prayers, helps that goal. The harsh truth is that many American Christians don't really care about what's happening. L.A. County could have fought the ACLU using lawyers at the Thomas More Law Center and the Alliance Defense Fund, who would have taken the case for free. But there's little outcry from the Christians of southern California to fight, and so the ACLU wins again.

"Talking Points" wants you to know that we are rapidly losing freedom in America. Judges are overruling the will of the people, and fascist organizations like the ACLU are imposing their secular will. And when was the last time you heard your priest, minister or rabbi talk about this? For me, the answer is simple. Never."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121644,00.html

Comments?

Steve

PraiseJah answered on 06/03/04:

Abortion is a moral, not a religious issue and so many non religious people are opposed to it. As for remving what is a heritage symbol because it also happens to be a religious symbol - that is taking the church/state separation too far. Here in Australia we have a portrait of the Queen in most government buildings. The Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
darkstar asked on 06/03/04 - somehow i just don't understand

i have never been able to understand this concept, and i don't mean any offense by it but with the separation of church and state that is supposed to be the law...i thought, why would the president of the usa say he is against gay marriage? in most if not all legal marriages God and scripture is quoted, so why should the government be able to say who can marry who?, in all honesty and respect, darlene

PraiseJah answered on 06/03/04:

The issue of gay marraige is not a religious issue. It involves mainly the welfare of children. Gay marriage has been outlawed here in Australia to stop gays adopting children.

darkstar rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
darkstar asked on 06/03/04 - what do you believe?

Mark chapter 12, verse 25." For when they rise from the dead, neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but are as angels in the heavens".

Mormons believe that man and woman can be married for all eternity and also believe that man may take on more wives in heaven, what do you believe?, respectfully, darlene

PraiseJah answered on 06/03/04:

Those who attain life in heaven and who reign with Christ or are as Jesus said "like angels" and have no gender - they are spirit beings and as such do not reproduce, hence have no need for reproductive parts nor would they marry and produce children in heaven. They dont need a physical body as they are immortal - they "cannot die" as Jesus said in Luke's account of these comments. Luke 20:33-36 They do not need food, water or oxygen to survive hence no need for a physical body. As Paul said flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Cor 15:45-50.

darkstar rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 06/02/04 - A beautiful message

my son has just gladdened my heart by reminding me God is in the little things

>Subject: This is a beautiful beautiful message...

>Don't stress about the small stuff!!
>
>After Sept. 11th, one company invited the remaining members of other companies,who had been decimated by the attack on the Twin Towers to share their
available office space.
>
At a morning meeting, the head of security told stories of why these people were alive......
>
>and all the stories were just: The 'L I T T L E' things.
>
>As you might know, the head of the company got in late that day because his son started kindergarten.
>
>Another fellow was alive because it was his turn to bring donuts.
>
>One woman was late because her alarm clock didn't go off in time.
>
>One was late because of being stuck on the NJ Turnpike because of an auto accident.
>
>One of them missed his bus.
>
>One spilled food on her clothes and had to take time to change.
>
>One's car wouldn't start.
>
>One went back to answer the telephone.
>
>One had a child that dawdled and didn't get ready as soon as he should have.
>

>One couldn't get a taxi. The one that struck me was the man who put on a new pair of shoes that morning, took the various means to get to work but before
>he got there, he developed a blister on his foot.
>
>He stopped at a drugstore to buy a Band-Aid............. That is why he is alive today.
>

>Now when I am stuck in traffic, miss an elevator, turn back to answer a ringing telephone ... all the little things that annoy me.
>
>I think to myself, this is exactly where I'm supposed to be at this very moment.
>

>Next time your morning seems to be going wrong, the children are slow getting dressed, you can't seem to find the car keys, you hit every traffic
light, don't get mad or frustrated; someone is watching over you.
>
>May that someone continue to bless you with all those annoying little things and may you remember their possible purpose.
>
>Pass this on to someone else, if you like.
>
>There is NO LUCK attached. If you delete this, it's okay.

so what do you think how many thousands are alive because God is in the little things. And if there is cynic who dares to say coincidence, I will just say when I see coincidence I see God at work

PraiseJah answered on 06/02/04:

Im afraid it is luck. What about the firefighters who died trying to save the victims? Why didnt God protect them too?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 06/01/04 - How will Christians react to this?

Sanctions and the threatened war against Iraq

Letter from Ramsey Clark to UN Security Council


The following letter by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly and Senator Biden of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Please circulate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 29, 2002

Dear Ambassador,

Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq. Threats to attack, invade and overthrow the government of Iraq by President George Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, various cabinet officers and Pentagon officials have been routine for a year. The psychological warfare is itself a crime against peace and violates the U.N. Charter. Today's front-page headline story in the New York Times, "U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike As Iraq Option," is typical of the in terrorem intention of the threats. The danger to civilian life in Baghdad from such a strike would be enormous.

The United Nations must act to prevent an attack by the United States Against Iraq.

If the United Nations is unable to restrain the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, from committing crimes against peace and humanity as well as war crimes against a nation that has already been violated by the U.S. beyond endurance, then what is the United Nations worth? At the very least, opposition to any attack or attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq by force must be publicly expressed by the United Nations.

United States bombed defenseless Iraq mercilessly for forty-two days in 1991.

The U.S. led and glorified the massive assault on Iraq in January and February 1991. The Pentagon announced it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against the defenseless "cradle of civilization," dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. The widespread bombing destroyed the economic viability of the civilian society throughout the nation. It killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and others. A major part of the bombing was directed at civilians and civilian facilities. It was less accurate than the recent indiscriminate attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. bombs destroyed Iraqi water systems, electric power transmission, communications, transportation, manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, poultry and livestock, food storage facilities, markets, fertilizer and insecticide production, business centers, archeological and historical treasures, apartment houses, residential areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and synagogues. The Pentagon stated its casualties were 156. One third were from "friendly fire" the rest were accidental. The U.S. had no combat casualties.

The United States forced the Imposition of Genocidal Sanctions on Iraq in 1990.

The U.S. crafted economic sanctions against Iraq which the Security Council approved on August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. Those sanctions are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people. This is the greatest crime against humanity, in the last decade of the most violent century in history. Each painful death of an individual wasting away - from malnutrition; Kwashiorkor; the rush of dehydration from contaminated water and from diseases - was preventable. The sanctions continue to this time to cause hundreds of deaths each day. Every United Nations agency dealing with food, health and children - including FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF - has proclaimed the horror, magnitude and responsibility for this human catastrophe.

The great majority of the deaths caused by the sanctions are infants, children, the elderly, the chronically ill and emergency medical cases. These are the people most vulnerable to polluted water, malnutrition, and the lack of medicines and medical equipment and supplies. U.S. claims that it is the Iraqi government that is responsible for deaths from shortages of food and medicine are false. The U.S. blocked oil sales by Iraq for six years before appearing to yield to humanitarian pleas to permit oil sales to purchase food and medicine. Since 1997, when sales began, it has effectively frustrated and delayed the Oil for Food program, which does not provide sufficient income at the levels approved to stop the daily deterioration of health and growing death rates in Iraq. Before sanctions there was virtually no malnutrition in Iraq and free hospital, health services and medicines were a model for the region. Its present system of government distribution of available food staples is a model of fairness and efficiency, lacking only in quantity and variety of food.

United States military aircraft have attacked Iraq at will for Eleven Years

The U.S. has engaged in air strikes against Iraq at will since March 1991, when the massive attacks averaging one aerial sortie every 30 seconds ended. Without losing a single plane, U.S. attacks have killed: cleaning personnel at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in a failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein; scores of people each year in attacks on radar stations in or near the U.S.-imposed no-fly zones; all the persons aboard a U.N. helicopter shot down by U.S. aircraft; and civilians from all walks of life, including the internationally famous artist and Director of Iraqis' National Center for Arts, Leila al Attar.

Iraq is not a threat to the US, countries in the region or others

The U.S. has falsely claimed that Iraq is working to develop weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S., Israel, its neighbors and others. The U.S. claimed its 1991 attacks destroyed 80% of Iraq's military capacity. The U.N. inspection efforts claimed to discover and dismantle 90% of Iraq's post-1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, its peoples and resources are exhausted. It has a "stunted" generation of children under age 10 and a debilitated population at all ages. It is the victim of the worst crime against humanity in recent decades.

The United States is the Greatest Purveyor of Violence on Earth

Two of the highest U.N. officials responsible for U.N. weapons inspection within Iraq and a principal U.S. citizen participating in the inspections have resigned, denounced the sanctions and denied that there is a threat that Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. has more nuclear weapons than all other nations combined as well as the most sophisticated and numerous systems for the delivery of nuclear weapons, including the Trident II submarine fleet. It possesses the greatest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the most advanced and extensive research in mass destruction weaponry in the world. Military spending by the U.S. exceeds that of the nine next largest budgets for war combined. President Bush has repeatedly declared the right to strike first. The U.S. attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs and continues to justify those acts.

The U.S. has renounced treaties controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation; voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Conventions; and rejected the treaty banning land mines, the International Criminal Court and virtually every other international effort to control and limit war. The U.S. War Against Terrorism is a declaration of right by the U.S. to attack first - anyone, anywhere, on mere suspicion, or without excuse, unilaterally.

The U.S. wants to overthrow the government of Iraq and many others in violation of law. Unless restrained the chance for peace and global equality of economic, social, cultural and political opportunity among nations will be lost. Which government presents the greater threat to peace globally or for Mesopotamia and its neighbors - the U.S. or Iraq?

An attack by the United States on Iraq to overthrow its government would be a flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg Charter and International Law

If, as promised so many times, the U.S. does attack Iraq to overthrow its government, it will be the most notorious, arrogant and contemptuous violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter and international law yet experienced, or likely hereafter. Only absolute power unrestrained by any rule of law or standard of human decency openly taunts an intended victim as President Bush has taunted Iraq. Because the U.S. has committed historic injustices against Iraq, most during his father's presidency, and still seeks dominion in the region, President Bush, his Vice President and others in his administration hate Iraq and want finally to destroy it.

I am writing this letter to you; to each U.N. Representative of a Security Council Member; the President of the General Assembly; and President Bush. This is one of a series of letters describing and protesting U.S. and UN wrongs against Iraq. The threatened wrong addressed here is the worst. If twelve years after its devastating aerial assault and after twelve years of genocidal sanctions, the omnipresent risk and frequent fact of random attack with the ever present stalking by U.S. aircraft and endless threats against its helpless victim, the U.S. commits its coup de grace on the people of Iraq to the silence of the U.N. and wealthy nations of the world, human shame and impotence will doom us to ever greater violence.

A U.S. assault on Iraq will cause more and greater violence; Urgent action by the UN to prevent a U.S. assault of Iraq is required

I urge you to immediately activate the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Security Council and all its agencies to denounce the continuing threats by the United States against Iraq, to demand immediate cessation of the threats and to warn the United States that an attack by it on Iraq will violate the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the friendship of all who seek peace and respect the dignity of humanity.

An attack by the U.S. on Iraq would violate the Constitution and Laws of the United States requiring Impeachment, Trial before the US Senate and Criminal Charges in Federal Courts against President Bush and all officials responsible

An attack on Iraq by the United States would also violate the Constitution and laws of the United States and expose President Bush to impeachment by the House of Representatives under the Constitution of the United States for the highest of crimes, those against peace and humanity, to judgment by the United States Senate and trial in federal court for crimes charged.

Unfortunately in recent years our Constitution has been more honored in the breach than in faithful observance of the rights it is intended to protect for all. But the effort to hold accountable any U.S. authority who participates in an assault against Iraq will be made here by those who love their country and for that reason insist that its acts be just.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark

[International Action Center, 39 W. 14th St, #206, NY, NY, 10011 212-633-6646 Fax: 212-633-2889 iacenter@action-mail.org www.iacenter.org Founded by Ramsey Clark.]

PraiseJah answered on 06/02/04:

Strictly speaking the US should be kicked out of the UN for going against the decision of the Secrity Council not to go to war against Iraq in a pre- emptive strike. Bush and co should be tried for war crimes - the thousands of innocent civilians killed by their so called smart bombs and whose deaths have been callously described as "collateral damage". They should have to answer for these.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 06/02/04 - Something to think about and smile!

Hello Experts,

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.

How long a minute is
depends on what side of the
bathroom door you're on.

Birthdays are some thing everyone dreads,
but thing about it, the more you have,
the longer you live.

Happiness comes through doors you
didn't even know you left open.

Ever notice that the people who are late
are often much jollier
than the people who have to wait for them?

If Wal-Mart is lowering prices every day,
how come nothing is free yet?

You may be only one person in the world,
but you may also be the world to one person.

Some mistakes are too much fun
to only make once.

Don't cry because it's over;
smile because it happened.

We could learn a lot from crayons:
some are sharp, some are pretty,
some are dull, some have weird names,
and all are different colors....but
they all exist very nicely in the same box.

A truly happy person is one who
can enjoy the scenery on a detour.

Have an awesome day, and
know that someone
who thinks you're great
has thought about you today!..

"And that person was me.".....
Please don't keep this message
to yourself.....send it to those
who mean so much to you.... "NOW"..
Working for God on earth does not pay much,
but His Retirement plan is Great!

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 06/02/04:

Glad to see you are staying and not giving up.

Great thoughts.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 06/02/04 - Fun, or the lack thereof.


C’mon Christians tell me the truth.

What is it that you have against people enjoying their selves. Sex seems to be a preoccupation with you people. People can’t read about it, watch it on TV, learn about it in school, and it has to be done the way the church decides it should. Drugs? Can’t do that – its way too much fun. Alcohol? Well, that’s what we use to get high with, and we shouldn’t, but we’re gonna anyway, and you can’t stop us. But we can stop you from using the drugs you like.

So, what do have against fun?

excon

PraiseJah answered on 06/02/04:

True fun involves recognizing the boundaries. Drugs are harmful to your health and extramarital sex encroaches on the rights of others to enjoy a permanent relationship with one person. And it's OK for a man to talk - no contraceptive is 100% and abortion is not a viable option for most women. Then there are the STDs. Alcohol is good for you in moderation, harmful if consumed excessively. I cant figure how being sick the next day can make all the drinking the night before truly worth it! Im sure the restrictions God places on our fun are for our benefit. I dont know if you have heard the song Monsoon sung by Robbie Williams ( a UK pop singer). He's a guy who has done it all - has "had his blondes and brunettes" and he says "Oh Lord, I feel nothing" and "it's all coming down on me". He also refers to the way some of them are putting their knives in him and are making money out of kiss and tell stories to the press.
So the high life - wine women and song are not what it's cracked up to be - that from someone who has done it all.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/02/04 - Christian Marital Sins

After all the discussion of homosexuality, I have become curious; what heterosexual practices do Christians consider "sins"? For example, oral sex, masturbation, caressing the entire body.... What is a sin in heterosexual marriage, if anything, both partners willing?

PraiseJah answered on 06/02/04:

Anal copulation (sodomy) in a heterosexual marriage is a sin and is specifically mentioned in 1 Cor 6:9,10 and Romans 1:26,27. Just kissing in the genital region which can be a part of foreplay like manual caressing is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Actual oral copulation is defined in my dictionary as a form of sodomy. Mutual masturbation is not specifically mentioned and may be a way that some couples avoid having children or passing an STD to a spouse.
The Bible gives definiate descriptions of sexual sins in 1Cor 6:9,10 and Romans 1:26,27. Anything not mentioned there is a matter of conscience.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 06/01/04 - Satan's Scriptura



You might be familiar with the saying,


"Satan will cite scripture for his own purposes."


What scriptures have you known Satan to quote?

PraiseJah answered on 06/01/04:

Three were quoted directly to Jesus by satan when Jesus was in the wilderness. Matt chapter 4.

Im sure his spokesmen misquote many scriptures. eg astrologers claim the "signs" provided by the sun, moon and stars spoken of in Gen 1:14 are their money making racket of making predictions. Yet clearly it is referring to marking the changes of season - the calendar.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 06/01/04 - Should we pray for peace?

Someone asked me a strange question yesterday, and I didn't really know how to answer. Given the following passage:

Mt 24:6
"You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end."

Should we bother praying for peace, when Jesus himself told us that "those things must take place?"

Is praying for peace futile?

DK

PraiseJah answered on 06/01/04:

Although Jesus foretold that there would be global wars - Matt 24:7,8 and in the Revelation ( chapter 6) spoke of the red horseman who would take peace away from the earth, he did not mean that we cannot pray for peace. Even though we know world wide peace will come only when Christ rules the earth, we show love of neighbor by praying for conflicts to be resolved - the ones who suffer most in any war are the innocent victims, those who warmongers callously call "collateral damage"

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/01/04 - What is Perfect?

Over the months, we read in answers that Christians are supposed to try to be perfect. Perfect how? Dare I say, perfect, why? If those that answer could be specific. Thanks, Choux

PraiseJah answered on 06/01/04:

Jesus said we must be perfect - Matt 5:48. He was not referring to being immaculate or completely without fault. In this world that is not possible.In context Jesus was saying how God loves all - He gives rain and sun to both the just and the unjust. Hence when it comes to showing love and kindness, we must be perfect like God and not be cruel or unkind even to our enemies.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
bluevision asked on 06/01/04 - homosexuality

There has been too much talk on homosexuality on this board, but not many experts really understand it. Some experts even think that all homosexuals are born that way. Let's read what Robert Berkow, M.D. & Mark H. Beers, M.D. said about homosexuality:

"It is estimated that about 6 to 10% of adults are involved exclusively in homosexual relationships throughout their lives. A much higher percentage of people have experimented with same-sex activities in adolescence but are heterosexually oriented as adults.
The causes of homosexuality are not known, nor are the causes of heterosexuality. No particular hormonal, biologic, or psychologic influences have been identified as substantially contributing to a person's sexual orientation. Homosexuals discover that they are attracted to people of the same sex, just as heterosexuals discover that they are attracted to people of the opposite sex. The attraction appears to be the end result of biologic and environmental influences and isn't a matter of delibrate choice. Therefore, the popular term "sexual preference" makes little sense in matters of sexual orientation."

PraiseJah answered on 06/01/04:

Ive always believed they are made, not born. But abnormally low levels of the respective male/female hormones may account for some cases, not all.

bluevision rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 05/31/04 - Kids explain bible



The following statements about the Bible were written by children and have not been retouched or corrected (ie. bad spelling has been left in):

'In the first book of the Bible, Guinessis, God got tired of creating the world, so he took the Sabbath off.'

'Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree.'

'Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark.'

'Noah built an ark, which the animals come on to in pears.'

'Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day, but a ball of fire by night.'

'The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with the unsympathetic Genitals.'

'Samson was a strongman who let himself be led astray by a Jezebel like Delilah.'

'Samson slayed the Philistines with the axe of the Apostles.'

'Moses led the Hebrews to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread without any ingredients.'

'The Egyptians were all drowned in the dessert. Afterwards, Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the 10 amendments.'

'The first commandment was when Eve told Adam to eat the apple.'

'The seventh commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery.'

'Moses died before he ever reached Canada.'

'Then Joshua led the Hebrews in the battle of Geritol.'

'The greatest miracle in the Bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him.'

'David was a Hebrew king skilled at playing the liar. He fought with the Finklesteins, a race of people who lived in Biblical times.'

'Solomon, one of David's sons, had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.'

'When Mary heard that she was the mother of Jesus, she sang the Magna Carta.'

'When the three wise guys from the east side arrived, they found Jesus in the manager.'

‘Jesus was born because Man had an immaculate contraption.'

'St John, the blacksmith, dumped water on his head.'

‘Jesus said the Golden Rule, which says to do one to others before they do one to you.'

'He also explained, "A man doth not live by sweat alone."'

'It was a miracle when Jesus rose from the dead and managed to get the tombstone off the entrance.'

'The people who followed the Lord were called the 12 decibels.'

'The epistles were the wives of the apostles.'

'One of the opossums was St Matthew who was also a taximan.'

'St Paul cavorted to Christianity. He preached holy acrimony, which is another name for marriage.'

'A Christian should have only one spouse. This is called monotony.'

Bless their little hearts!

which one do you like the best? all in the interests of levity by the way

PraiseJah answered on 05/31/04:

They are all so cute - who can choose the best?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PhilDebenham asked on 05/31/04 - What is Christianity?

This is the Christianity Board. I recognize that this does not mean the it is the Christian's board. However, it is a board in which we are supposed to discuss Christianity (there are other boards for other topics). That being the case, I ask you; "what is Christianity?" There are many definitions (most of them secular) as to what Christianity is. Many speak of "Christian" denominations. Are denominations, any of them, Christian denominations?

Another question that must first be answered before we can authoritatively answer "what is Christianity?" is; what is a Christian? What say you? What is a Christian and What is Christianity?

Phil Debenham

PraiseJah answered on 05/31/04:

Christianity is a religion, Christians are followers of Christ. Many non Christians come to this Board to discuss our faith. Being a Chrsitian is not a pre-requisite.

PhilDebenham rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/31/04 - Thank you:

Hello Experts,
To those of you who answered my question on homosexuality with respect and dignity, I thank you from my heart and I will be rating you as soon as I finish reading them all.

At this time though I will be leaving answerway for the reason that I am sad on how many have given some answers that were rude and also called other names all because of differences of opinion. Yet this is suppose to be a Chrisitian board. Even if it wasn't, where is the respect that one should have for another human being? Doc, was called a non-Christian and Laura has been shown disrespect, and so were some others. Any one who was giving their opinion which went against what another thought another believed was treated rude and without concern for their emotional and well being. I always thought that adults can converse in a respectful and dignified manner. I think I was wrong. Now in order to keep myself respectful of ALL humans, I need to leave this board. I wish you all good thinks for I never meant any harm or for any to be mistreated. I posted this serious question because I thought that was what being an expert was all about. Thanks for your answers again and before I leave I will rate them.
Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/31/04:

No need to leave because some users get testy. Stick it out for the sake of those who do use the brains God gave them.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/31/04 - A serious question, requiring a serious answer:

Hello Experts,

Please read all of these comments because I am searching for answers not playing games. You are experts on the “Christianity Board” and I have a serious question that needs answering.
I first need to apologize for any arguments or disagreements that my post about homosexuality has caused. I did not mean to cause any difficulting among the experts. I am searching for an answer on the Christianity board. I am truly trying to find the answer for a few questions I have. All the posts or comments where people say they are bored or tired of the question, I want you all to know, I did not post this question to disrupt this board. You are all experts and I am in need of an answer. Please answer my question for me. I recently made friends with someone who used to be a homosexual. They are now a practicing Christian and married and have children. I am trying to understand, if she was born a homosexual and she claims she was, and that was natural for her how could she then change into someone who is now married to a man and happy. What happen to her homosexual genes?
I first thought of two sides to the matter:
First a look at a Christians point of view taught to us in God’s word the Bible:
The Bibles viewpoint is crystal clear: “You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing,” states the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22
22 “‘And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing. The New Jerusalem Bible) No apologies, no concessions, no ambiguity—homosexuality is detestable in God’s sight. For ancient Israelites living under the Mosaic Law, the penalty was death

Leviticus 20:13
13 “‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13
13 “‘And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. And with the advent of Christianity, God’s condemnation of homosexuality continued. —1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, or men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

Then there is the point of view of many who say homosexuality is a genetic matter and that they are born that way.
Now all of a sudden I am learning that some men and women who where homosexuals have changed their lives and have brought it into God’s way of thinking. My post was for the purpose of trying to understand how a person who is born a homosexual, how they can change that function if it is natural? I have also seen some that were homosexuals get married to the opposite sex and have children and are now happy. How is that possible if my friend was born a homosexual? How can they just turn off the genes that have the homosexual tendencies?

Because of my lack of comprehension on this matter and seeing that you are so sure about homosexuals being born that way, can you as an expert, explain these things to me please. Isn’t this where we must ask our questions that need to be answered by experts such as yourselves?

Please I need an explanation about this; I do not truly understand it. Don’t get angry and don’t think I am playing around, I am not. I am really looking for answers to my questions. As an expert can you please answer them for me? I appreciate your time and efforts:

Please stop all the hate remarks to others and please answer my question, isn’t that why you are all here in the first place?
Thank you very much and have a great day. Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/31/04:

Even if homosexuality is inherited ( an oxymoron since true homosexuals dont have children) there is no reason why they cant change. Alcoholism or the addiction gene can also be inherited, and as Paul said in 1 Cor 6:9,10 of drunkards, sodomites and even compulsive thieves - that is what some of you WERE. People can change.

CeeBee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 05/31/04 - Real Christianity

I am always shocked by how little of value "Christians" really know about the PRACTICE of Christianity.

I'd like to get your opinion on the following. Jesus said that we must become like little children(not childish!) in order to enter The Kingdom of God. For me, this is one of the most profound verses.

When we are like children, we have a child's view of the world and a child's reactions to the world...children live in the moment, are honest, expect positive interchanges with others, are guileless, etc.

Living in the Moment, we are in the Eternal Now as mentioned in the book of John(not the exact words), we are able to relate to other people with the indwelling spirit of God, the Holy Spirit; there is the living breathing place we encounter The Living God as promised by Jesus in the Book of John.

There is no time to judge others sexuality, morals, appearance, etal. There is no NEED to judge anyone at all!

Love Life one Moment at a Time!

Comments?


PraiseJah answered on 05/31/04:

Certainly children have all those qualities. They are also innocent and inqisitive. If you are referring to our "judging" homosexuals, then perhaps you may like to know how I reacted when I first asked how male homosexuals have sex? I reacted with disgust - how can they deliberately come in contact with feces and call it "love"? I was about 10 at the time.
Most children react the same way. They also react with horror and disbelief when they learn that abortion is legal.

Yes let's all be like children, maintain our love for what is right and not become complacent and desensitized to wrongdoing.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
VisionsInBlue asked on 05/30/04 - OK, I don't understand...

Been trying, been reading and... I just don't get it.

1. Why would being a homosexual be a sin in the first place? People are born that way. PERIOD.

2. Even if it's a "sin"... So freakin' what? They aren't hurting anybody. How is somebody's sexual preference any of our business?

3. Why are so many words devoted to the subject? Don't you think that energy would be better spent talking about crime and things that DO hurt other people?

4. How come some of you reject science in this area and welcome it in all the others? What if God showed up today to tell you that you can't use your refridgerators? I'm sure everyone would jump into inconvenience...

Now I want all of you who are so loud about homosexuality being a deadly sin to go and do something... anything for a gay person/cause/organization. I'd really like to see some action on "Christians being for acceptance". Words don't count.

PraiseJah answered on 05/30/04:

The only homosexuals I know of were seduced by older men when they were under age. So Im not so sure that you could call that harmless.

The physical problems caused by anal sex - injury to the fine membranes in the rectum leads to an increased use of antiobiotics to counter infection and even anal incontinence. The anal sphyncter was not meant to be stretched by insertion of any large object into it - the act of sodomy
is an unnatural act.

If you check out my answers you will see I accept that a hormone imbalance may account for the passive partners in a male homosexual relationship, but that does not account for the active partners whose conversations indicate they have an anal fixation.

VisionsInBlue rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 05/30/04 - Sharing a Miracle

I would like to share what I call a miracle.

During the past week when there were news stories about Arab Terrorists, I have not had an emotional reaction and become filled with rage. I am not sure why. I have had terrible reactions since 9-11. I have even posted questions and answers on Answerway with no emotional response. For me, this is a miracle!

Anyone else had a miracle this week?
Comments?

PraiseJah answered on 05/30/04:

Anger and rage are harmful emotions and while the acts of terrorism should promote compassion for the victims and their families any anger or rage only harms us.

The best way to counter the terrorist mind -set is to promote non violence. With our kids and with others we need to demonstrate that violence and even violent emotions dont promote neighbor love, only hate. We can do that by example in our daily conduct as well as teaching our kids not to retaliate to teasing or bullying with violence.

As Ghandi once said "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

Terrorists are angry raging bulls. Let's not become like them! Andd they only represent the small minority of Muslims in the world so blaming Muslims for the acts of terrorists makes no more sense than blaming all Christians for what Hitler did.

As it says in Phil 4:6,7 that we should not be anxious about anything but pray for peace, and "the peace of God which transcends all understanding will guard your hearts and minds by means of Christ Jesus"

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/30/04 - Born in the Wrong Body? What do you think?

Transsexualism” is a word appearing with growing frequency in the news. A transsexual is not merely a transvestite (one who dresses in clothes of the opposite sex), nor necessarily a homosexual (though that may be the case). A transsexual is a person who rejects the sex with which he or she was born and takes up the life of the other sex. Claiming they were, in effect, “born in the wrong body,” many have undergone radical surgery and hormone treatments to attain a sexual transformation.

A hermaphrodite is an unfortunate person whose sex is ambiguous by birth; a transsexual, on the other hand, is one who, for “psychiatric” reasons, decides to undergo surgery and be physically changed from one sex to another. Regarding the latter, the comments of Albert Rosenfeld, science editor of Saturday Review/World, are appropriate: “I have been surprised to hear so little debate or discussion about the ethics of surgical sex change for purely psychiatric reasons . . . The transsexual phenomenon points up our propensity for underrating people’s willingness to accept circumstances they would once have considered outlandish—and for underestimating the speed at which this process occurs.”

Is it possible to change a normal person (not a hermaphrodite of ambiguous sex) from one gender to another? Is this also genetic or is it a learned behavior beginning with a persons inward desires?
Or
Do you feel the remedy for those with such inclinations are not surgery but a change in outlook, ‘being made new in the force actuating their minds’ with the aid of God’s Word. Eph. 4:22-24.
Do you know personally of any one who was a Transsexual or a homosexual who have changed their behavior by means of the Study and application of God’s Word in their daily life? If so would you please share it with us?

Thank you,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/30/04:

I agree that hermaphrodites or those born with undetermined or ambiguous genitalia are not the same as someone who may just decide he/she wants to be a different gender. While a hormone imbalance may play a role I do believe that doctors usually go with the hormone dominance that is manifest during puberty. Boys generally might have a lot of "puppy fat" in the area of the breasts and hips when they are about 10 and 11 years old, but the testosterone kicks in and that soon changes. If that does not happen then hormones can help.

The xenoestrogens in the environment can cause a man to feel he is in the wrong body as they antagonize testosterone
and Im sure that accounts for many cases of gender confusion.

ATON2 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bradd asked on 05/29/04 - The Bible and Christianity

Is it possible to mistake the Bible for Christianity? There are so many Bible references and quotes here that I wonder if it could be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

With so many versions and translations and interpretations, how is one to seriously consider the Bible as the inerrant word of God? Which version is inerrant? Which interpretation?

The Catholics say one thing, the Jehovah Witnesses another, the Mormons and Baptists and Episcopalians something else, and nobody agrees. Is any one view superior to all others?

Do people REALLY believe their view is the ONLY view? And others are doomed to perdition? Are strict Biblical views a reflection of the people holding such views - their psychology, rooted in fear and ignorance, demanding eternal hellfire for anyone who believes differently?

Was it the intention of God to send Bible readers into a Babel of difference and confusion? If this page is an accurate reflection of Christianity, which it probably is, then these questions deserve some answers.

Why is religion, not just Christianity, so divisive among its followers? The same thing occurs in Islam and Judaism. Probably with Odin and Zeus, too, way back when.

PraiseJah answered on 05/29/04:

The Bible - ie the original writings - were inspired of God. In spite of the fact that imperfect humans have made copies of those writings they are remarkably accurate when you compare , for example, the Dead Sea Isaiah scrolls with the more recent Isaiah manuscripts.

So the Christian faith is based on the Bible.

As for threats of hell fire torment, check out below. Note that one definition of the Greek word for torment is "touchstone" and since the dead are uncoscious and know nothing (Ecc 9:5-10) they cannot be tormented. However their fate can be a touchstone for determining what will happen to any future rebels against God. When Jesus spoke of those in "hell" he described them as beign destroyed ( Greek apollyon) not tormented (basanismos)

Result of search for "torment":
928 basanizo bas-an-id'-zo from 931; to torture:--pain, toil, torment, toss, vex.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
929 basanismos bas-an-is-mos' from 928; torture:--torment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
931 basanos bas'-an-os perhaps remotely from the same as 939 (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch-stone, i.e. (by analogy) torture:--torment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.


Bradd rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/29/04 - Are people born Gay?

Hello Experts,

I am in all fairness going to ask this quesiton. Please be polite and answer according to what you feel and according to your own practices and religions. Anyone who is rude or degrading in their answer will be automatically given a black star, with no commnets to follow.

We can all respond and answer this question below but please give sound reasons why you believe the way you do. All religious and medically sound reasons are good. Now here is my question, please remember now to be polite and mature in your answers. Thank you! :0)

In you personal understanding and knowledge do you believe that Gay persons are born Gay? If so, Why do you say they are? If not, Why do you say they are not born Gay?

Wow! Now think before answering and answer with dignity and respect for others believes.

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/29/04:

Men can be born with lower than normal testosterone levels and even undeveloped genitalia. This can be in some cases the result of xenoestrogens consumed during the fourth month of pregancy. The large dose oral contraceptive pill taken in the fourth - fifth month by a mother who is unaware she is pregnant, plus the hormones used in animal farms to make especially chickens grow faster and overexposure to PCBs in the workplace during pregnancy or even afterwards. Usually the men affected this way are impotent and may become the passive partner in a male homosexual relationship ( the prostate gland is the male G-spot). But this does not explain the active partners who are not impotent. It has been my experience with gay men that they have an anal fixation, which goes back to bad toilet training, not inherited genes.

There is no equivalent explanation for lesbianism (some women may be estrogen deficient and may tend to be tomboys) Some are victims of rape and cant stand being near men at all. But there is no gay gene per se, and obviously you cant inherit true homosexuality from your parents!!!

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/27/04 - Hide the alter boys !

Cardinal Law was given a ceremonial post by the Vatican today .No punishment, but a reward for his coverup of priestly child abuse for years. Boston attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who represents more than 130 alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests, said the Vatican was sending a bad message by giving Law a high profile new job.

"He apparently is being transferred to a position that is comfortable and appears to be some sort of reward," Garabedian said. "The Vatican either doesn't understand the problem of clergy sex abuse, or it doesn't care. That shows by this new prestigious post given to Cardinal Law."


Unfortunately, I have to agree with this statement. This just doesn't look good. Not that the position is any more than a local parish Rector, but "Any appointment via the Pope carries with it an appearance of prestiege. I think this is a mistake.

Meanwhile the Archdiocese of Boston is closing 65 parishes due to low attendance since the scandal broke.That's over 18% of the parishes .

Cardinal Law is a criminal. He is guilty of being an accessory after the fact, and possibly even an accessory during and before the fact. He belongs in a prison, not a basilica.





www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121069,00.html

PraiseJah answered on 05/29/04:

Tomder - Parkinsons causes a form of dementia so I dont think then Pope's decision was based on a full knowledge and awareness of this bishop's history.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 05/28/04 -
Forgiveness and Professional Victimhood

We forgive others because others have forgiven us our shortcomings. But, I think that there are some things that people do to us that we forgive, however, we must leave that person behind, and open the door to new more positive realtionships. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming a martyr or a perennial victim...negative, complaining, passive.

Do you agree?
Personal testamonials or not...

PraiseJah answered on 05/28/04:

Forgiveness does not mean we have to stick around and take more abuse and pain from a person. Jesus said to love your neighbour as yourself, not more than yourself, and staying in an abusive relationship could effect your mental and physical health. Then Proverbs also speak of avoiding those who are mean and nasty.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/27/04 - Hide the alter boys !

Cardinal Law was given a ceremonial post by the Vatican today .No punishment, but a reward for his coverup of priestly child abuse for years. Boston attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who represents more than 130 alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests, said the Vatican was sending a bad message by giving Law a high profile new job.

"He apparently is being transferred to a position that is comfortable and appears to be some sort of reward," Garabedian said. "The Vatican either doesn't understand the problem of clergy sex abuse, or it doesn't care. That shows by this new prestigious post given to Cardinal Law."


Unfortunately, I have to agree with this statement. This just doesn't look good. Not that the position is any more than a local parish Rector, but "Any appointment via the Pope carries with it an appearance of prestiege. I think this is a mistake.

Meanwhile the Archdiocese of Boston is closing 65 parishes due to low attendance since the scandal broke.That's over 18% of the parishes .

Cardinal Law is a criminal. He is guilty of being an accessory after the fact, and possibly even an accessory during and before the fact. He belongs in a prison, not a basilica.





www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121069,00.html

PraiseJah answered on 05/28/04:

I too was surprised to see the Pope giving such an honor to someone with such a disreputable past. I can only say it indicates the Pope himself does not care about abused kids.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/28/04 - Signs of the times:

Hello Experts,

Many children in todays world committ suicide. Why?
Can Television, movies, video games, music or movies have anything to do with it? Who is to blame for such young peoples actions?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/28/04:

Usually it is abusive parents, divorce and other immediate social problems that result in suicide. With teenagers the moodswings caused by erratic hormones can also be a factor. Most music is not morbid these days - it tends to be lively and exciting and many a teenager has got out of a depressed mood with the cheery rhythm of pop music. The games and TV can be a distraction from their problems - the VDU screens actually increase serotonin levels ( serotonin is an antidepressant neurohormone that is produced in the pineal gland in response to bright light). This explains why people become addicted to TV, video games etc. They may become depressed and suicidal if deprived of this stimulus and especially in the winter suicide is more common ( called seasonal affective disorder)because of reduced photo -activation in the pineal gland.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 05/28/04 - Demons vs. Santa Claus

Demons and Santa Claus both "exist" people discuss them, they have properties, there is some emotion attached....however, they exist as fictional characters.

They are imaginary; created by a storeyteller to explain abstract ideas. That is what people did before knowledge. They are mythic.

Is there any reason to believe in either in the TwentyFirst Century?

PraiseJah answered on 05/28/04:

Santa Claus ( the name is a corruption of Saint Niklaus, an Orthodox saint) was a real live person. A good man who cared for the street kids in his day. Of course the embellishments are the sleigh, reindeer etc - such is the nature of legends.

Demons are mentioned in the Bible, Santa Claus is not. There is therefore no comparison.

As for the existance of demons - like with the existance of God - there is no empirical evidence, only faith. I might add that you cant prove Darwin's theory by empiricial evidence (reptiles sprouting feathers eg) nor can you prove the Big Bang.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Doc05 asked on 05/28/04 - Is the Bible and the Book Of Mormon accepted by the Latter-day Saints?

I am interested in knowing if both are accepted and if God is yet to reveal many other great things in the future?

PraiseJah answered on 05/28/04:

The Mormons accept the Bible only insofar as it is translated correctly. Which means that if the Bible contradicts the Book of Mormom then the Bible is wrong on that point.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
darkstar rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/27/04 - Are demons real or what?


Some believe demons are little red imps floating around people giving them bad ideas that seem great, and some believe that demons are just excuses for human weaknesses.

I used to be indecisive about this, but now I'm not so sure.

What do you believe about demons etc?

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

Survey question: (no marks given for this one, only for the actual question above)

Should questioners rate their questions with some indication of the degree of difficulty?

If so, should we use five crosses (+ + + + +) for the hardest, and one cross (+) for simple ones?

Would that be helpful?


:)

PraiseJah answered on 05/27/04:

Cherab, it should be painfully obvious that as a JW I believe what the Bible says about satan and demons. I really thought you were so astute that you would realize that without having to ask!

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/27/04 - Are demons real or what?


Some believe demons are little red imps floating around people giving them bad ideas that seem great, and some believe that demons are just excuses for human weaknesses.

I used to be indecisive about this, but now I'm not so sure.

What do you believe about demons etc?

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

Survey question: (no marks given for this one, only for the actual question above)

Should questioners rate their questions with some indication of the degree of difficulty?

If so, should we use five crosses (+ + + + +) for the hardest, and one cross (+) for simple ones?

Would that be helpful?


:)

PraiseJah answered on 05/27/04:

Matthew chapter 4 answers the question clearly and honestly. While the devil tried to tempt Jesus three times, each time Jesus rejected the ideas put to him. Jesus was not talking to himself, nor was he hallucinating. The devil is a real life spirit being who led the rebellion in Eden and will lead another at the end of the 1000 year reign. (Gen chapter 3, Rev chapter 20) And the Bible indicates he is not the only one - he has "angels" or demons who rebelled with him. Rev 12:1-12.
Satan was also the one who brought all the calamity upon Job - read Job chapters 1 and 2.

Sure we cannot blame the devil for our own weaknesses. One the other hand demon possession is very real and causes erratic behavior. In one instance Jesus cast demons into a herd of swine and the swine ran over a cliff and died. That clearly could not have been simply schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. Matt 8:28-34.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Krewton rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PhilDebenham rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/26/04 - We are watching for another attack

Hello Experts,
I was watching the news last night and we are again under a warning. How do you and your family heed these warnings? What do you say to your children when they come home from school talking about what the teacher said about being careful not to go into crouds?

Enough is enough, why worry children about such matters?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/26/04:

I everyone stays home and refuses to join any any activities involving large crowds then Im sure the terrorists would not only be laughing but also would plan to attack transport services like they did in Spain.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/26/04 - God's Creations are Awesome!

Hello Everyone,
If you want to see something amazing and really see how Awesome our Creator is, go to this link
http://www.criteriumusa.com/pages/space/survey01.asp
After you go there and follow the journey, tell me what you think.

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/26/04:

My emotions are overwhelmed by the fact that God has a name for each star, and there are gigazillions of them! Guess He wont have too much trouble remebering all the life experiences of all the millions He plans to resurrect.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/26/04 - How Much Do You Value Life?


Hello Experts,
Please give your opinion:


Late one summer evening in New York an elderly Christian couple were walking home from a Bible class. Suddenly three young men approached, and one of them accosted the husband. Not suspecting anything, he paused to give a listening ear. The man pointed a large knife at him and said: “Give me your money and you won’t get hurt!” The elderly man offered to give him the contents of his wallet, but the young man wanted the wallet also. Then the robber shouted to the wife, who had stepped out on the street when she saw what was happening: “Your money too!” Raising her hands, she said: “Sorry! I don’t have any money. Do you want our Bibles?” In passing it might be added that two days later the cards from the man’s wallet came back in the mail.

How foolish it would have been for the Christian to have resisted or argued with an armed robber! Yet, we repeatedly hear of people who will argue or resist the efforts of an armed robber to get their money, as though any amount of money was worth risking one’s life. It is especially sad when a person does not appreciate that he is actually taking this chance. For instance, the New York Times, , told of “A Grocer and His Dream Killed by Robbers in Brooklyn.” Around midnight this man was caring for his grocery store in a high-crime section of Brooklyn when two men came into the store, shot him dead and then robbed him. The Times quoted his wife as saying: “I told him not to stay open so late. . . . He said, ‘No, we need the money.’ Twice before he was held up. Once they put the [gun] against his head and pulled the trigger. But the gun did not fire.”

Just to make a few more dollars this man was willing to risk his life by keeping the store open so late at night. It was not as if he needed those few extra dollars, for the report told that within three months after he had bought the store he had been able to pay off his indebtedness.

So, by his being willing to take that risk, had he not really failed to show appreciation for the value of his life? Can we sometimes do the same?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/26/04:

As we say, you cant take it with you. So yes, money, valuables, gold, silver are of no use to anyone if they die trying to protect these material things. And in most cases these valuables are insured anyway.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/26/04 - Jesus Return

Hello Experts,

Does not 2 John 7 show that Jesus would return in the flesh?

What is your understanding of 2 John 7 ?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/26/04:

This passage is not talking about Christ's return in the flesh being rejected by apostate antichrists, but rather denying his first coming in the flesh as the Lamb of God. While somem translations and even the Greek seems ambiguous, the KJV and the Good News Bible both idicate it is referring to his first coming.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/25/04 - TO MY FRIENDS:



Negligence is sinful activity that encompasses the actions of the responsible, the careful, the prudent, the reasonable. So, LET'S PLAY BALL! I'm stayin'!

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes; and those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country, these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak and write, they will declare themselves." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Henry Lee dated August 10, 1824.

Jefferson also relates, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

We now have rationalistic methods and skepticism about established dogmas, my friends. Let's make HONESTY a pleasure and a virtue that requires moral and ethical understanding. As I said, LET'S PLAY BALL!

* Thanks for the great support, guys!

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 05/25/04:

Glad you decided to stay Hank.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/25/04 - Mark and John's gospels. What do YOU think?


My current bathroom reading is The Godpels by FC Grant. It is not a new book (1957), but he raises some interesting points. This morning I read where he says that Mark's gospel was written to convince people that Jesus was divine, and John's gospel was written to convince people that Jesus was human.

I have always seen a very human Jesus in Mark and a very divine Jesus in John.

What do you think? How have Mark and John struck you about Jesus?

I would have posted this on The Bible board, but it seems as quiet as the tomb there, so ...

:)

PraiseJah answered on 05/25/04:

Mark, like Matthew and Luke deal more with the events of Jesus' life whereas John focuses more on his teachings. All the gospels guve us the whole story.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 05/24/04 - Self-Indulgence

Is self-indulgence actually a spiritual sin?

Your comments are welcomed,
MaggieB

PraiseJah answered on 05/24/04:

Self indulgence means to be thinking solely of one's own desires and often this can be at the expense of others. We do need to pamper ourselves when we are facing traumas in our lives. One way we can do that is to listen to beautiful music, meditate, have a long soak in a hot tub and eat chocolatte ( which contains two antidepressants - tyramine and PEA) These "indulgences" are harmless and uplifting and dont fall into the category of self indulgence.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 05/24/04 - DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE IN GOD?

ISAIAH CHAPTER 43 HAS THIS TO SAY TO YOU.

1 But now, this is what the LORD says-
he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
2 When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
3 For I am the LORD , your God,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I give Egypt for your ransom,
Cush [1] and Seba in your stead.
4 Since you are precious and honored in my sight,
and because I love you,
I will give men in exchange for you,
and people in exchange for your life.
5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
I will bring your children from the east
and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!'
and to the south, 'Do not hold them back.'
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth-
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."

8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind,
who have ears but are deaf.
9 All the nations gather together
and the peoples assemble.
Which of them foretold this
and proclaimed to us the former things?
Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right,
so that others may hear and say, "It is true."
10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD ,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

PraiseJah answered on 05/24/04:

The word LORD in that chapter stands for YHWH ( Jehovah in English). It is that text that forms the basis for our name "Jehovah's witnesses"

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
STONY rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/24/04 - An Illustration:

Hello Experts,

This is an illustration given at one of our Congregation meetings, I thought you might like it.
It really made me think about my conduct.

It goes like this:
There was a farmer who raised sheep and had trouble with wolves
stealing his sheep. He loved his sheep and didn't want to lose even
one of them. One day the wolves came and the farmer quickly raised his rifle and POW! - killed every wolf he shot at. As he turned his rifle toward a shadow he saw a puppy wolf huddling beside a fence post shivering.
The farmer felt sorry for him, picked him up, tucked him inside his coat and took him home. As time passed, the farmer grew to love the puppy wolf and took him everyday to help him tend his sheep. The sheep loved the puppy wolf too and thought of him as one of them. The puppy wolf learned to call the sheep by their names, just like the farmer did. It wasn't long before he grew to full size and the farmer trusted him to care for his sheep while he rode to town to buy supplies.

Then one day the puppy wolf was running in the farmer's field
and heard howling in the woods. He ran to the edge of the fence and
watched as a pack of wolves approached. They seemed happy to see him although he didn't recognize them. One by one they told him of all the fun they were having, running anywhere they wanted, doing whatever they pleased...no one telling them what to do!

They invited him to come on the other side of the fence with
them. The puppy wolf thought about the fence and how he'd never been on the other side of it. The more he listened he began to wonder if he was missing out on something. It only took another minute and he dug under the fence and left with the pack. For three seasons he lived with the wolves. They had plenty to eat and did whatever they wanted. It was such fun and he was glad for the choice he made.

But winter came and everyone became hungry and restless. It was cold,
so cold, they had no where to sleep. The puppy wolf began to think about
the farmer and how he'd never slept cold and never felt hunger. Soon
he heard the leader of the pack announce it was time to steal some of the
farmer's sheep, so they could survive the winter.

The puppy wolf loudly exclaimed, "NO, they are my friends, don't hurt
them". But the leader said, "You're one of us now, do as you're told!" They all began to run fast toward the farmer's property.
The puppy wolf reluctantly followed. Soon they arrived and
began to dig under the farmer's fence. The farmer heard his sheep cry out so he grabbed his rifle and ran to shoot at the wolves. BANG!

He killed one after another and soon was face to face with a
wolf backed up against the fence post who cried out, "Wait, don't shoot
me. I'm the puppy you raised. I'm your friend. Don't you remember me?" But the farmer looked at the wolf and saw how matted his coat
was and how he smelled like the rest of the pack. He said to the wolf, "I
don't know you." He raised his rifle and shot....BANG!!! The wolf was
dead!

After this illistration ended,there was silence in the auditorium,
and then the person giving the talk said, "Friends, when Armageddon comes and Jesus is doing his destruction work, will he recognize you"?

May we all be recognized by our leader, Jesus Christ!
Take Care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/24/04:

Jesus said of false Christians "I never knew you" So we certainly do well to avoid running with the pack. We must follow the shepherd at all times. Even those who stray can come back, as Jesus' parable of the prodigal son proves. That's because Jesus will judge all by their hearts. The sheep and goats are not separated yet. As one WT said on this - does that mean there will be a large influx of "sheep" at the start of the great tribulation? The answer was "we wait and see." Often people are like Thomas - they must see to believe. Thomas was no less acceptable to Jesus than the others, so it may be that when it all starts happening many will accept Jesus as their king and not join the rulers of the world when they attack God's people - the attack that will bring on Armageddon.

Unfortunately I cant copy paste the article because for some reason the search on my WT library CD rom wont work. But Im sure you will find it if you search for Jesus' parable of the shepp and the goats.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 05/23/04 - what do you think? Miracle or manifestation?

May 24, 2004 - 3:52PM

Thousands of believers are looking for their own miracle in a small Brisbane Catholic church where statues have supposedly started bleeding and weeping rose oil tears.

The Vietnamese Community Church, in the south-western suburb of Inala, is the centre of the religious fervour with many attendees believing the apparent phenomena is a sign of hope from God in a world now fraught with uncertainty.

"We need this - we need something positive to believe in with everything that's happening in the world at the moment," said Mike Hill, from the nearby suburb of Gailes, today.

Church spokesman Vincent Do said the abnormalities, which are the first recorded religious phenomena to occur in Australia since a fence post in Sydney's Coogee reportedly took on the image of the Madonna, began more than a week ago when rose oil started flowing from the eyes, nose, forehead and fingers of a statue of the Virgin Mary.

He said on Friday drops of blood began falling from the corner of Mary's robe onto her feet and a small cross of Jesus on the altar also began to bleed.

During the Friday night mass, blood again flowed from the small cross and from Jesus' wounds on a larger crucifix behind the altar, in front of dozens of witnesses.

On Saturday, in front of yet more witnesses, another cross and the statue of a saint also began to bleed.

Mr Do said news of the phenomenon had spread quickly, with people coming from as far as Sydney and Melbourne to witness the sight.

He said Catholic Church authorities had yet to examine the phenomena, but he was sure the evidence would soon be tested.

Most of the affected paraphernalia has now been locked behind glass to protect it for later analysis, while a white table cloth that bears a large rose oil stain has also been folded up out of harms way.

Bill White, of Logan in Brisbane's south, said he had come to the church feeling sceptical but soon changed his mind.

"It's quite an awesome feeling, I've seen things on TV like this before where they had things injected with a slow release - but I can't see anything like that," he said.

Worshippers have brought in dozens of their own statues of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ and the saints in the hope the blessings will be passed on.

Ornate flower offerings also decorate the community church, brought by everyday people who believe a miracle has occurred.

AAP

PraiseJah answered on 05/24/04:

No where in the Bible do we read of bleeding statues. In fact the Bible expressly forbids the making of images for worship. The temple and tabernacle in Israel housed only one carved "image" - the Ark of the Covenant which was home for the two stone tablets and a sample of manna which never perished. God's presence was indicated by a miraculous light that came from the tips of the wings of the carved angels. No blood, tears or oil. Just light, because God is light.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Krewton asked on 05/23/04 - How do you stop grinding an spiritual axe?

I realize that the Bible says "lest I forgive neither will I be forgiven", thus this post. My wife's Grandmother is now in her late 70's and has had a severe stroke. The stroke has paralyzed her and left her without most of her reasoning faculties. Most I said, remember this. I have been married 16 years and have rarely gotten along with her. She was always a mean, bitter, angry person. Basically her and I didn't see eye to eye on discipline on my kids. I'm old school, my kids mind,period. Thus I have two great well mannered children. More than once I have had to tell her to mind her own business. So basically I don't receive Christmas cards from her. She gives her husband of 50+ years hell here on earth, even when she comes around periodically, she still gives it to him. I suppose what I'm getting at is, I know I should have compassion for her and pray that she gets well, but basically I am cold as a piece of steel, neither caring about her welfare, or even feeling guilty about not caring. Basically my outlook is, now she is out of my business period. I know I need to drop this attitude, but I can't, so I'm asking you experts to help me by praying for me. Thanx and God Bless.

PraiseJah answered on 05/23/04:

I know the feeling. My dear mother thinks everytime I get a headache/dizziness ( legacy of a car accident and neck and shoulder injury) that I must be hung over. Ive showed her the X ray reports, Ive told her a hundred times that I have about one drink a week ( probably no more alcohol in that than the average person taking cough mixture for a week will get) but she still gives me the third degree. I hate being called a liar but I love her and put up with it, with compassion. She's not forgetful either, just got a thing about alcohol thinking that I may have inherited the alcohol abuse gene from her father. I didnt any more than she did. But it still hurts when she keeps accusing me.

But you can only do the right thing and love her an dpray for your grandmother in law yourself, even if she is being a pain!

Krewton rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 05/23/04 - Is Christian Fundamentalism here to stay?

please read this article and lets have your opinions
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250867903.html

PraiseJah answered on 05/23/04:

If by fundamentalism you mean extreme Bible literalism then yes, sadly, these people will continue to misrepresent God's Word.

ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Average Answer
PhilDebenham rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/23/04 - MY LAST POST AT ANSWERWAY!


Unhappiness is the inevitable lot of anyone who desires that which a person cannot obtain. The wise man, then, resigns himself to limiting his desires to matters within his control. With respect to desires which cannot be satisfied, he is literally apathetic. He knows that whatever is beyond an individual's control is irrelevant to ethics. The virtuous man finds within himself all that is necessary to achieve happiness. Morally, he is entirely self-sufficient! This is God's plan!

To ANSWERWAY'S young Experts and Users:

At birth, you know nothing. In grade school, you learn something. In high school, one should prepare oneself for higher learning, whether it be in college or out in Society as an adult. In any event, you'll soon know the meaning of competition -- your 'enemy.' You must possess the ability and skill to compete. You must win ... but NOT at all costs! Always allow morality and ethics to invade your attitude toward your opponent. There is a difference in the two. The former applies to your duty as a citizen of Society that allows you the know the difference between right and wrong. The latter applies to this duty as well but usually pertains to a specific profession. In all respects, be a good winner ... and a good loser. Condition yourself to deny trivia while being reputable.

To ALL of you:

My favorite quote:

"There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless." - Machiavelli's "The Prince" (1532)

The following applies to the "useless:"

"Most men are so completely corrupted by opinion that they would rather be notorious for the greatest calamities than suffer no ill and be unknown." - Dio Chrysostom

Always remember that God values us more highly than we could ever imagine, far beyond what we deserve. Similarly, like a conscientous father, the Lord calls us to live at a level of LOVE and KINDNESS beyond that which we would normally desire.

(I'll be leaving Answerway Tuesday, May 25, 2004!)

Thank you ALL for your love and kindness. Stay healthy and may God Bless!

Your Friend ... Always,

HANK (& CAROL)

PraiseJah answered on 05/23/04:

Goodbye and God bless you.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/22/04 - What must I do to inherit eternal life?


That is what a young man asked Jesus.

What did Jesus say was necessary?

PraiseJah answered on 05/22/04:

We cant inherit eternal life, nor can we earn it. It is a gift from God - a free gift that comes from faith in Christ's blood. Romans 5:12,13.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Vixen rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/22/04 - My question below, was intended for the duscussion board.


Please do not address the questions here. I will put it there right away.

PraiseJah answered on 05/22/04:

OOPS! It is a bit hard to differentiate between what should be a public question and what is for the expert forum.

ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/22/04 - Crimfests. A good idea?


A California city is to hold a Bonnie and Clydefest to remember the crooked pair.

Should Chicago hold an Al Caponefest, or Utah a Ted Bundyfest? Anyone for a Nixonfest? A Mansonfest?

What do you think? What other crooks should be rememberd with festivals honoring their crimes?

PraiseJah answered on 05/22/04:

No - what about their victims and their families? Such fests cause pain and grief for them!

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Vixen rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/22/04 - DEFINITION:


The following is one definition of Christianity:

... all doctrines and religious groups based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There you have it! Now ... let's get things back to normal on this Board. OK?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 05/22/04:

Yes, and contrary to what one now suspended user once said, Jehovah's witnesses are Christians, by that definition.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Answerway asked on 05/22/04 - Answerway.com Official Note

All postings that do not deal with a specific Christianity question should and from now on will be directed and posted in the forum, not here on the question board. This was made very clear in a previous post by Answerway.com. Here is a list of inappropriate postings here, all of which could have warranted suspension, but will be given one more chance.

- HANK1's post on wetellyou name and password
- Petesharky's post on HANK AND THE CHERABNET
- Laura's post on Hello Hank and wetellyou postings
- hOPE12's For Hank and wetellyou information
- HANK1's request to CHERAB to answer his questions AND numerous other inappropriate christianity postings
- Cherab's From Hanky To Cherub: Don't you dare leave us! You're a peach and I'd miss you.
- hOPE12's Hank please email me at
- PraiseJah's addressing Cherab-Ronnie B etc...

So go to the Christianity FORUM and exercise your rights as Christians or whatever religious affiliations you may be, but do not pollute the public questions boards any further.

Answerway.com Support

PraiseJah answered on 05/22/04:

AW - I was simply defending the public attacks on Cherab and also trying to restore proper decorum. I will refrain from same from now on.

Answerway rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/21/04 - Does God use our sorrows to help us grow?


I used to wonder why the Lord required the sacrifice of a broken heart.

Psalms 34:18
The LORD is close to them who have a broken heart; and saves those whose spirit is contrite.

I couldn't understand why He would want us to wade through sorrow. Now I believe that the very purpose of our adversities, even tests like he put Abraham through, are to break our hearts in a way that makes them open to the Lord’s light and guidance. The gospel cannot be written in our heart unless our hearts are open.

Can our most difficult adversities, even our broken dreams bring the kind of broken heart that is open to the light of Christ?

Trials do not have to crush our hearts. They can open them to the Light of Christ without destroying them.

But do we have the choice between a broken heart and a hard, closed, bitter heart. Why do your think some choose to open their hearts and others choose to close them?

Instead of turning us away from Him, our darkest hours can open our hearts to the golden light of the Lord’s love, wisdom, comfort and direction.

I don't think God piles sorrow on use, but He understands what life is like for us and watches to see how we respond to trials and will use our positive responses to bless us.

What do you think about our trials and disappointments?

PraiseJah answered on 05/21/04:

Paul spoke of trials being like a crucible that refines gold. Separating the dross from the pure gold of our hearts by fire. God does not actively bring trouble into our lives. The book of Job chapters 1 and 2 clearly show that satan is the cause of all evil, even capable of causing storms. But like Job we can be refined by trials - they either make us or break us. And like with Job, God will comfort us and carry us up like with wings of eagles.

CeeBee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Mathatmacoat asked on 05/20/04 - Hello Experts!

I have a question for you!

How do you show brotherly love when your brother is trying to kill you?

Should I give up my life when my brother attacks me?

When is it permissable for me to take the life of another?

PraiseJah answered on 05/20/04:

Self defense is included in the words -you must love your neighbor AS yourself. Not more than yourself.

If I was confronted with an armed attacker I would scream my head off and flee, if possible. If not then I would stay and fight as best I could. If I succeeded against my assailant, got his weapon off him and attacked him and injured him and he was unconscious, even presumed dead, I would not wait around to find out. I would flee and then call an ambulance to attend to him just in case he is still alive.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/19/04 - WHAT'S A CHERAB ... SPELLED WITH A 'U?'

The plural of Cherub is Cherumbim and is the name given to certain symbolical figures frequently mentioned in Scripture!

"They are first mentioned in connection with the expulsion of our first parents from Eden (Gen. 3:24). There is no intimation given of their shape or form. They are next mentioned when Moses was commanded to provide furniture for the tabernacle (Ex. 25:17-20; 26:1, 31). God promised to commune with Moses "from between the cherubim" (25:22). This expression was afterwards used to denote the Divine abode and presence (Num. 7:89; 1 Sam. 4:4; Isa. 37:16; Ps. 80:1; 99:1). In Ezekiel's vision (10:1-20) they appear as living creatures supporting the throne of God. From Ezekiel's description of them (1;10; 41:18, 19), they appear to have been compound figures, unlike any real object in nature; artificial images possessing the features and properties of several animals. Two cherubim were placed on the mercy-seat of the ark; two of colossal size overshadowed it in Solomon's temple. Ezekiel (1:4-14) speaks of four; and this number of "living creatures" is mentioned in Rev. 4:6. Those on the ark are called the "cherubim of glory" (Heb. 9:5), i.e., of the Shechinah, or cloud of glory, for on them the visible glory of God rested. They were placed one at each end of the mercy-seat, with wings stretched upward, and their faces "toward each other and toward the mercy-seat." They were anointed with holy oil, like the ark itself and the other sacred furniture.

"The cherubim were symbolical. They were intended to represent spiritual existences in immediate contact with Jehovah. Some have regarded them as symbolical of the chief ruling power by which God carries on his operations in providence (Ps. 18:10). Others interpret them as having reference to the redemption of men, and as symbolizing the great rulers or ministers of the church. Many other opinions have been held regarding them which need not be referred to here. On the whole, it seems to be most satisfactory to regard the interpretation of the symbol to be variable, as is the symbol itself.

"Their office was, (1) on the expulsion of our first parents from Eden, to prevent all access to the tree of life; and (2) to form the throne and chariot of Jehovah in his manifestation of himself on earth. He dwelleth between and sitteth on the cherubim (1 Sam. 4:4; Ps. 80:1; Ezek. 1:26, 28)."

Source: Christian Answers.net

I know that Cher is a river which flows in France near Tours but ... what's a Cherab ... spelled with an 'a?'

HANK



PraiseJah answered on 05/19/04:

Interesting Cherab.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ROLCAM asked on 05/16/04 - Please answer.

Do you love Jesus with all you heart ,body and mind ?

ROLCAM.

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

Yes. And like him I love the Father, Jehovah, totally.

ROLCAM rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ROLCAM asked on 05/18/04 - DEVILS ??

What are the six types of devils?

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

Accordin to the Bible there is only satan and his demons.

The many types get their names from Greek mythology.

ROLCAM rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/18/04 - JUSTIFIED IMPERIALISM?


Is any sovereign nation ever justified in using deadly force to subdue and occupy another sovereign nation that has issued no threat against the invader's land or people, and after the invasion and occupation has been completed, then seeking to impose its own system of government on the people so subjugated?

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

That many members of the Bush admin planned to do just that is evident from the PNAC statement of principles:





June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/18/04 - WMDs


Is any sovereign nation that considers another sovereign nation to be in possession of Weapons of Mass destruction ever justified in making a preemptive attack against the one they suspect of having WMDs even though that suspect nation has never posed nor issued any threat to the nation making the preemptive attack?

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

No. A preemptive strike for any reason is against international law. If I were to attack one of my neighbors because we thought he MAY attack me, I would be charged with assault. There has to be an immediate and imminent threat to justify a first srtike. Especially with war, there is what is euphemistically called "collateral damage" - an obscene attempt to gloss over killing innocent people.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/18/04 - Psychology and religion



Most Christians seem to take the view that the individual has free choice in all matters during their life time when they are of an age to be responsible for choosing from the life choices that are available to them and they are thus also responsible for the sins they commit volitionally.

However, since Sigmuind Freud, the view of psychologists has been that most choices are profoundly influenced by forces that are below the level of consciousness, and that without our knowledge they intrude their pressures on our thinking and impinge on what we once thought were conscious choices.

My questions is,

Who is right: those religions that apportion to humanity total freedom of will, or those psychologists who say that our predilictions are determined by a mental force that lurks in the antipodes of the mind, beyond conscious thought and which is solely concerned with the preservation of the self at all costs?

Who is right, and why do you say so?

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

In his book Ego and the Id Freud describes the constant war that Paul spoke of - the war between the flesh and the spirit (Romans 7:19-24) Freud simply gave different names to the same areas of the mind : the ego is our consciousness, the superego is the conscience while the id is our basic desires, not harmful in themselves but only if they are not controlled and regulated by the superego or conscience. I see no conflict with this and what the Bible says about free will or choices.
Preservation of self is a natural and healthy instinct, but at all costs? No. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, not more or less than yourself.

Seems you may have misunderstood Freud because he only claimed that conflicts result from a clash between the superego and the id. The decisions we make are equally influenced by both. And we have free will to do that.

eg a man may completely put aside self preservation and rush into a burning house to save a child. That sort of thing happens all the time and proves that we are not ruled by our id.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/15/04 - What is Jesus teaching his followers?


And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

..................

What lesson is Jesus anxious for his followers to learn from this syncope?

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

Both David and Bathsheba were not stoned to death, simply because there were no witnesses to their sin. Uriah, her husband, was the only person who could have pointed the finger ( knowing he was not her baby's father). But he was dead. What David did was bad for sure, but he was very very sorry. Read Psalm 51. His having Uriah killed was to protect himself and Bathsheba from being stoned to death so we could say that he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Still very wrong of him. He suffered the loss of respect of his son Absalom who rebelled and also raped his concubines, just as God had foretold. The child died, possibly due to a premature birth brought on by the stress of the situation for Bathsheba. There is no record that he lost his kingship.

Jesus was highlighting the need to be humble and not self righteous.Also he effectively brought an end to capital punishment by that statement.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 05/18/04 - JUDGING ANGELS:

I Corinthians 6:3 NKJV, "Do you know that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?"

QUESTION:
(1) Who are the "angels" that we shall judge?

(2) "...things that pertain to this life?" (This has been debated for years among denominations.)

Based upon "what" is being referenced here, should we practice this today or how should we handle "judging things" --we or the courts?

Thanks.
bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

Paul was explaining how those who would reign with Christ as judges, kings and priests ( his "bride") would judge angels - satan and those who have rebelled against God both prior to and at the end of the 1000 year reign. Also they have the right to judge matters of this life - ie while on earth. Jesus spoke of this: Matt 16:19. In context Paul was explaining to the Corinthians that they needed to take some action over a man who had committed incest with his brother's wife. This of course is only refrring to sin. We leave the courts to deal with crime. So even if a Christian brother commits a serious crime we should not let him get away with it. eg reporting child abuse to the police is required to ensure that the abuser does not continue the abuse against an innocent defenseless victim.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Uni-Agdistis asked on 05/18/04 - ....and speaking of angels and marriages .....

GUARDIAN ANGEL

A man was walking in the street when he heard a voice: "Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step, a brick will fall down on your head and kill you."

The man stopped and a big brick fell right in front of him. The man was astonished.

He went on, and after awhile he was going to cross the road. Once again the voice shouted: "Stop! Stand still! If you take one more step a car will run over you and you will die."

The man did as he was instructed, just as a car came careening around the corner, barely missing him.

"Where are you?" the man asked. "Who are you?"

"I am your guardian angel," the voice answered.

"Oh yeah?" the man asked. "And where the hell were you when I got married?"

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

As a woman I could find that one offensive and sexist. But I didnt.

Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
VisionsInBlue rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/18/04 - Do you dare to challenge your particular religious authorities?




Peter Boyd says,

"Religious tradition is a source of information of an utterly different kind from the scientific acquisition of empirical data, or the rational development of theories to explain empirical observations.

"Tradition rests on authority, rather than evidence. It preserves the claims of some original figure of authority, without subjecting those claims to scientific testing or critical appraisal."

Is he right?

If you think he is, dare you challenge your own religious gurus and authorities, and, if so, in what ways and about what particular things would you challenge them?

(Please bear in mind that it is accepted that most religious teachings cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny or laborotary experiemt, but they can be challenged on intellectual, scriptural, and sociological grounds.)

[Five asterisks for good taste and appropriateness to the subject of the question - less for less!]

:)

PraiseJah answered on 05/18/04:

The Bible itself says to prove all things and hold to that which is right. 1 Thess 5:21. So it should not be blind faith. In a way it is like a science - remember doubting Thomas who would not accept Jesus had been resurrected without empirical evidence? Jesus did not chatsise him for not believing he had been raised. He commended him for wanting proof and was even willing to provide the proof. And it does take faith to believe what scientists tell us. They can be wrong. They can be biased by personal convictions. At the end of the day it's a case of to each his own faith!

Cherab rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/17/04 - Is it time for yet another change in respect of certain matters taught in the Bible?

There can be a very few Bible believing Christians who continue to believe the Bible when it comes to the question of the sun rising and setting.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that God didn't know that the earth went around the sun, but it is clear that those who wrote the Bible believed in a geocentric universe in common with the rest of the world.


Joshua 10:13

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Habakkuk 3:11
The sun moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, at the shining of thy glittering spear.



Psalms 113:3

From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name to be praised.


Isaiah 45:6

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that none beside me.


Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name great among the Gentile


The inspired Gospellers did not know they were unscientific:

Mark 16:2

And very early in the morning the first of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Even Jesus apparently did not know that the earth revolved on its own axis and also about the sun, for he speaks of an heliocentric universe.


Matthew 5:45

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise


Galileo Galilei was forced to recant his discover that the earth moved around the sun, because the Christian church believed what was taught in the Bible that the earth stood still and the sun revolved around it, although you will be hard pressed to find a Christian who can tie his own shoelaces who continues to believe what the Bible teaches on that subject.


Many Christians were eventually forced to accept that Biblical creation is not scientific, although it took time, but most came around to the scientific explanation. I know some still cling to the Creationism of Genbesis 1-3, but a preponderance of believers have assigned those chapters, and others, to the "Mythical" file. amnd seem no worse for it.

With these example in mind, I ask for answers to two questions:

Question One:-

Because Christianity has to some extent had to become used to accepting alternate explanations for certain phenomena described in God's Word, the Bible, what cognisance or consideration ought Christians to give to the possibility that homosexuality is genetically determined, even if that determination is no more than a predisposition?


Question Two:-

Further, what explanation can Bible believers propose for cases of patent physiological hermaphroditism?

Full marks for answers on the point and free from insult or other abuse.

PraiseJah answered on 05/17/04:

True homosexuality cannot be inherited, for obvious reasons (LOL!) There is one report on Medline that indicates that stress in the early months of a newborn boy's life can suppress the genes that regulate testosterone, just as starvation and stringent dieting can suppress the leptin gene (leptin is a type of hormone that tells the brain when we have eaten enough) But as I pointed out in my follow up to Bradd's question and comments doc's answer, low testosterone levels only explain why some gay men may be impotent and require stimulation to the prostate ( the male G -spot) - ie the passive partner but not the one who plays the active role and can obtain and sustain an erection. That plus an acquired anal fixation (poor toilet training) would indicate there is no actual inherited genes involved. In addition the use of estrogens to force feed especially chickens may likewise lower testosterone. One of my patients said when he was in the army they ate a lot of chicken and all the guys started growing breasts! And there's the xenoestrogens - the many chemicals from industry that act like estrogen in the body and have been found to cause undeveloped genitalia in alligators in Canada and the US. Throw in the fact that some women taking an oral contraceptive unaware that they are pregnant ( a known effect on the male fetus being an increased risk of undeveloped genitalia) and it's not suprising that testosterone levels are low in many men. But not all.

Physical hermaphrodism - that is of a course rare abnormality and the presence or absence of male genitalia would determine what type of hormone therapy is indicated.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/17/04 - Speaking of change ......................


The appalling photographs of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison have embarrassed and angered many in America and beyond. However, the cold-blooded, videotaped murder of Nick Berg by Islamic extremists has refocused attention on the nature of the enemy now literally threatening the West.

An aberrant reading of Islam has created a nihilistic cult of coercion and death in the name of one of the world’s great religious traditions.

Obsession with martyrdom via suicide, the intentional individual and mass murder of civilian noncombatants are neither traditional expressions of Muslim piety nor venerable instruments of Islamic statecraft. This is not the Islam of the poet Rumi, the theologian al-Ghazali, the philosopher Avicenna, or the scientist and historian al-Biruni.

This is not the civilization that gave us algebra and Omar Khayyam and the Taj Mahal. Instead, such practices as wiring Palestinian children with explosive devices, and sending innocent Iranian pre-teens draped pathetically with symbolic “keys to Paradise” around their necks) to clear minefields with their bodies, are horrors that great heroes of Islamic history like Saladin and the Prophet Muhammad himself would have repudiated as cowardly and immoral. Muhammad is known, among other things, for his love of children.

Societies willing and eager to sacrifice their children are profoundly dysfunctional and self-destructive.

It is essential that murderous thugs like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and terrorist CEOs like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri be brought to justice. Terrorism cannot be stopped by platitudes or by negotiations, or ineffectual ruminations about its basic causes.

Islamist terrorism is implacable. It is perceived Western immorality, by which is meant not only materialistic greed, Hollywood excesses, pornography and promiscuity, and high divorce rates, but such things as freedom for women and religious liberty, that infuriates Islamist zealots.

It is not so much what we do as what we are. While much truly merits condemnation in the contemporary West, we can never negotiate enough away to appease those who hate the very foundation of our free and diverse Judaeo-Christian culture.

In the long term, however, the battle against radical Islamism must be won within Islam itself, by Muslims themselves. In a very real sense, the primary victim of Islamist extremism is Islam and Muslims. Outsiders can hope and encourage, and occasionally help, but non-Muslims can not do what only Muslims can do.

That is one of the reasons that perceived Muslim silence about the atrocities of 11 September and numerous other such acts has been so depressing for outsiders who wish Islam and Muslims well. Many have wondered whether their Muslim neighbors (locally and worldwide) endorse the actions of al-Qa’ida and related groups. Where is the outrage? Where are the apologies?

In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center, Muslim spokesmen often seemed more concerned about possible slights to girls wearing Islamic head scarves than about the fact that nineteen men claiming to act in the name of God and their common faith had just murdered 3000 innocent civilians from many nations in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC.

But perhaps the situation is changing. Spurred into action by the murder of Nick Berg, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the most prominent Islamic civil rights and advocacy group in the United States, has finally launched an online petition drive designed to disassociate the faith of Islam from the violent acts of extremists claiming to act in the name of the God of Islam.

The petition, titled “Not in the Name of Islam,” declares:

“We, the undersigned, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror and murder in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also devastating the image of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and disassociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. Islam must not be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside both the boundaries of their faith and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.”

“CAIR’s petition drive,” the group’s Website explains, “comes following the videotaped beheading of an American civilian in Iraq that shocked television viewers worldwide. ‘We hope this effort will demonstrate once and for all that Muslims in America and throughout the Islamic world reject violence committed in the name of Islam,’ said CAIR Board Chairman Omar Ahmad.

‘People of all faiths must do whatever they can to help end the downward spiral of mutual hostility and hatred that is engulfing our world.’”

Such an effort, though unfortunately long overdue, is most welcome. A forthright condemnation, by devout Muslims, of extremist violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, is both the right thing to do and absolutely essential to preserve the good name of Islam against those within the Muslim community who seem determined to destroy it.

Muslims need to sign it in great numbers, and it needs to be heard loud and strong by people in America and the West generally.

As Edmund Burke observed, “all that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.”



Check out the CAIR website is at:
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp

The petition is on CAIR's website at:

http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1071&page=NR


Is this turn of events welcomed by many Muslims also welcomed by non-Muslims? What do you think?

No racist overtones, please.

PraiseJah answered on 05/17/04:

Yes - the Quran in Surahs 190 and 191 clearly states that they can only attack in self defense. These suicide bombers and Al Qaeda are not true Muslims - they have got it all wrong about martyrdom - a martyr is someone who is killed for his faith like Jesus and Peter not someone who does the killing.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/17/04 - Is it time for yet another change in respect of certain matters taught in the Bible?

There can be a very few Bible believing Christians who continue to believe the Bible when it comes to the question of the sun rising and setting.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that God didn't know that the earth went around the sun, but it is clear that those who wrote the Bible believed in a geocentric universe in common with the rest of the world.


Joshua 10:13

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Habakkuk 3:11
The sun moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, at the shining of thy glittering spear.



Psalms 113:3

From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name to be praised.


Isaiah 45:6

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that none beside me.


Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name great among the Gentile


The inspired Gospellers did not know they were unscientific:

Mark 16:2

And very early in the morning the first of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Even Jesus apparently did not know that the earth revolved on its own axis and also about the sun, for he speaks of an heliocentric universe.


Matthew 5:45

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise


Galileo Galilei was forced to recant his discover that the earth moved around the sun, because the Christian church believed what was taught in the Bible that the earth stood still and the sun revolved around it, although you will be hard pressed to find a Christian who can tie his own shoelaces who continues to believe what the Bible teaches on that subject.


Many Christians were eventually forced to accept that Biblical creation is not scientific, although it took time, but most came around to the scientific explanation. I know some still cling to the Creationism of Genbesis 1-3, but a preponderance of believers have assigned those chapters, and others, to the "Mythical" file. amnd seem no worse for it.

With these example in mind, I ask for answers to two questions:

Question One:-

Because Christianity has to some extent had to become used to accepting alternate explanations for certain phenomena described in God's Word, the Bible, what cognisance or consideration ought Christians to give to the possibility that homosexuality is genetically determined, even if that determination is no more than a predisposition?


Question Two:-

Further, what explanation can Bible believers propose for cases of patent physiological hermaphroditism?

Full marks for answers on the point and free from insult or other abuse.

PraiseJah answered on 05/17/04:

Cherab - even we use the expressions sunrise and sunset - it is a figure of speech, not literal.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/15/04 - What is Jesus teaching his followers?


And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

..................

What lesson is Jesus anxious for his followers to learn from this syncope?

PraiseJah answered on 05/17/04:

Forgiveness. And also justice - Jesus probably intervened because the man involved was getting off scott free! The comment - go and sin no more is important. God does not forgive wilfull sinners.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
mr_internet asked on 05/17/04 - "Girl weds dog to break 'evil spell'"

BBC News:

"A nine-year-old tribal girl in eastern India has married a stray dog as part of a ritual to ward off an 'evil spell' on her, Indian newspapers have reported."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3004930.stm


My question is:

When are the judges and lawmaker going to legalize that in United States of America?

As for those who support gay marriages, do you also support marriage between adult human beings and animals? If not, why not? Why discriminate?

PraiseJah answered on 05/17/04:

Bestiality is illegal in most Western nations and will stay that way. Especially adults involving children in it would see the adults jailed for about 50 years. Of course this BBC report is very questionable and may be false.

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bradd asked on 05/16/04 - Homosexuality


An expert (Aton) gave an interesting (opposing) analogy to a reply I made to another expert (Maggie) about homosexuality. Like most analogies, his was not quite the same thing.

For example, (responding to the analogy), I would defend the rights of an anti-semite to express his anti-semitism, but I would not support his "right" to act out his anti-semitism.

But I may be of a generation that, I admit, may be trapped in my negative view of homosexuality. Reminds me of an afternoon long ago when my father and I were in church the day before Easter going to confession, and a woman was on the altar putting out flowers for Easter Sunday. Pop said, "Look at that! A woman should NEVER be on the altar". I didn't get it. Why not, I thought. But that's how his generation thought then. As I think now of homosexuality.

I'm wise enough (old enough?) to understand that mores reflect the society and - if that is true - then homosexuality is steamrolling to acceptance.

But why does the Bible (and just about every other culture) condemn the practice? I wonder if it has to do with times past that demanded fertility for the survival of the group. New members (children) were critical to the continued existence of the group (tribe). That is less true today than it was two thousand years ago. We discard ancient culture at our peril, but change is inevitable, and is inherent in any culture.

Maybe in a world increasingly global, and less tribal, and dangerously over-populated, fertility is not the crucial solution it once was.

This view, of course, will be anathema to those who believe in a static Bible - a scripture whose every word is set for all time. I tend to think of the Bible as a living thing - organic - a book more of principles than of rigid rules.

Maybe I'm repelled by homosexuality in the same way I hate liver and onions, or broccoli, or the Red Sox. A matter of preference, nothing more than that.

I wonder if God REALLY cares whether people are gay or straight? Or is it just us?

Can a homosexual be "born again"? I don't mean that in the fundamental sense, but in the sense of living a Christ-like life. And whenever I say homosexual, I mean practicing homosexual.

I'm still "against" homosexuality, but I pose the question to listen to your views - pro or con.

PraiseJah answered on 05/17/04:

Cherab - your relatives have not deliberately failed to have children and even if they have chosen not and the problem is not infertility to they always can. A homosexual couple cannot.

Bradd rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
CeeBee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Doc05 asked on 05/16/04 - Has anyone heard from XCHOUX?

I haven't seen Chou around for a while, does anyone know if she is okay?

PraiseJah answered on 05/16/04:

Choux has not been suspended and is still active on other Boards.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bradd asked on 05/16/04 - Homosexuality


An expert (Aton) gave an interesting (opposing) analogy to a reply I made to another expert (Maggie) about homosexuality. Like most analogies, his was not quite the same thing.

For example, (responding to the analogy), I would defend the rights of an anti-semite to express his anti-semitism, but I would not support his "right" to act out his anti-semitism.

But I may be of a generation that, I admit, may be trapped in my negative view of homosexuality. Reminds me of an afternoon long ago when my father and I were in church the day before Easter going to confession, and a woman was on the altar putting out flowers for Easter Sunday. Pop said, "Look at that! A woman should NEVER be on the altar". I didn't get it. Why not, I thought. But that's how his generation thought then. As I think now of homosexuality.

I'm wise enough (old enough?) to understand that mores reflect the society and - if that is true - then homosexuality is steamrolling to acceptance.

But why does the Bible (and just about every other culture) condemn the practice? I wonder if it has to do with times past that demanded fertility for the survival of the group. New members (children) were critical to the continued existence of the group (tribe). That is less true today than it was two thousand years ago. We discard ancient culture at our peril, but change is inevitable, and is inherent in any culture.

Maybe in a world increasingly global, and less tribal, and dangerously over-populated, fertility is not the crucial solution it once was.

This view, of course, will be anathema to those who believe in a static Bible - a scripture whose every word is set for all time. I tend to think of the Bible as a living thing - organic - a book more of principles than of rigid rules.

Maybe I'm repelled by homosexuality in the same way I hate liver and onions, or broccoli, or the Red Sox. A matter of preference, nothing more than that.

I wonder if God REALLY cares whether people are gay or straight? Or is it just us?

Can a homosexual be "born again"? I don't mean that in the fundamental sense, but in the sense of living a Christ-like life. And whenever I say homosexual, I mean practicing homosexual.

I'm still "against" homosexuality, but I pose the question to listen to your views - pro or con.

PraiseJah answered on 05/16/04:

Both the OT and NT nave some strong condemnations of sodomy (arsenokoittis - Greek and this applies in a heterosexual relationship too!) Along with adultery, fornication and sexual acts acts between women it is a sin against the divine institution of marriage which God started in the beginning when he created Eve ( not Steve) from the stem cells in the bone marrow of Adam's rib and brought her to the man.

Bottom line - two males and two females cannot have children together who will inherit the genes of both and raise them in the family environment. Two girls who were fathered by two male homosexuals and a surrogate mother were interviewed and both said they would love to see more of their mother who shows up only on birthdays and Xmas. Especially the older one a pubescent felt she could not discuss girl things with two men!

ATON2 rated this answer Average Answer
Bradd rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
VisionsInBlue rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/12/04 - Retraction:

Hello Experts:
I wish to retract my previous post on Cherab person.

I am wrong this person is not sick in the sense of not wanting to be rejected or are the lonely.

This person is a person who used to be on this board and was booted off. Now they come back playing games. Hank has brought to my attention Cherabs profile sounds familiar to another I have read. Also this person is rude and seems to want to disrupt the board and turn others against each other. How sad! If they are really intellegent, then they should be careful or they will get booted again.

Experts, I apoligize for my error and those of you who have dealt with this persons rude attitude and abuse, please just ignore them and they will either grow up, or give up.

How many of you experts feel this person is someone who was on this board before and booted off for rude conduct?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/16/04:

Hope I know he/she is not a JW. And I would never use that kind of strong language myself. But Jesus used very strong words in describing the scribes and pharisees and once called Peter "satan".

I dont think that alone should be grounds to condemn cherab. Anyone who is offended can report him/her.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 05/12/04 - ? to do with end times

From everything I have learned about the end times both Christian and secular teachings there will be a one world government, cashless society, restricted freedom, etc... leading up to the anti-christ & mark of the beast. We already are headed toward a completely cashless society and have the chip implants that people say will be used for the mark of the beast. When I ask people what they think or how they think we will end up from where we are to this point one thing most people say, "Our government would never allow it and definitely not be part of it." My question then is how do you think American will end up a part of the end time thing?
Do you think we will wake up one day turn on the TV and there is the anti-christ saying he is holding Washington D.C. hostage and we all have to go get the mark of the beast? Or do you think the one world government will be gradually slipped in on us and nobody will see it and how do you think it could happen? Or what other way do you think we will get to this point?

I usually just give 5 stars for every reply
Here I am giving 5 only to replies that have a thought out answer.

PraiseJah answered on 05/12/04:

Having the mark of the beast ( the world governments combined in the UN) means unconditional support for the beast with your every thought and deed ( forehead and hand) To what extent it will get to "not being able to buy or sell" without the mark remains to be seen. But it will lead up to the great tribulation culminating in the final war. (Rev 19:11-21)

BTW: the beasts of Revelation, like with Daniel are never symbolic of any one person, but are symbolic of governments and rulers. Rev 17:12.

The anrichrist(s) John spoke of refer to apostates. There is more than one and John said they had already arrived. Historically the gnostics date back to the end of the first century when John wrote his letter.1 John 2:18. Check out the beliefs of the gnostics at the site below:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostics

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
sapphire630 rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 05/12/04 - since this has become the "war" board, paraclete and ...

Paraclete and others of you (in one way or another) indicated the idea (or support of the idea) that the way we treated the prisoners was comparable to the way the Nazi's treated their prisoners. Paraclete, you also indicated that it compares to communism. For everyone's information, communism is an economic system. The Nazi’s (while communists) were practicing a distorted form of socialism, that is what you meant Paraclete. But, back to the idea that our torture is in any way like Nazi Germany.

The statements mildly offend me, not emotionally but intellectually. So, I want to talk about it openly. Perhaps some of you are so far removed from the holocaust (or even do not think that it happened) that you feel the comparison is fair. So, for your education, I’ll only take actual corroborated reports and medical findings of how Nazi’s treated their prisoners. And here is a quick and dirty comparison (please do not read if offended by descriptions of violence):

USA: Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees

Nazi: Pouring boiling oil and acid onto detainees and documenting how the skin melts.


USA: pouring cold water on naked detainees

Nazi: pouring water one drop at a time onto a naked detainee in a refrigerator and documenting their emotional state as they die.


USA: beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair

Nazi: Raping detainees with a broom handle after beating them, then pulling out their teeth and forcing felatio until they die of suffocation and blood in the lungs.


USA: threatening male detainees with rape

Nazi: Raping male or female detainees in indescribable ways


USA: allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell

Nazi: I don’t know of anything that was this nice, but I’m sure it happened.

USA: sodomising a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick

Nazi: Covered above


USA: and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

Nazi: Raping a prisoner with a dog and then allowing the dogs to eat the prisoner alive.

They also did countless unimaginable medical tests, there is still an ongoing medical debate as to whether we should use the results found in their tests. The tests involved putting humans through the kind of tests we used to put animals through before their was PETA.

And the tests they did on genetic twins were possibly worse than all of this.



I studied all of this in high school and then college, a little in med school and it’s all over the internet. I am confused as to why this is not known by everyone at least a little.


PraiseJah answered on 05/12/04:

Neither the Nazis nor the US military can be described as Christians.

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
VisionsInBlue rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/12/04 - help Please!

Is anyone having trouble with the site today?

I seem to get error messages which take me to nowhere but then later it works. Anyone know whats going on or is it just my computer?

Thanks,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/12/04:

I was not online on the 12th so I dont know what was happening.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/12/04 - Retraction:

Hello Experts:
I wish to retract my previous post on Cherab person.

I am wrong this person is not sick in the sense of not wanting to be rejected or are the lonely.

This person is a person who used to be on this board and was booted off. Now they come back playing games. Hank has brought to my attention Cherabs profile sounds familiar to another I have read. Also this person is rude and seems to want to disrupt the board and turn others against each other. How sad! If they are really intellegent, then they should be careful or they will get booted again.

Experts, I apoligize for my error and those of you who have dealt with this persons rude attitude and abuse, please just ignore them and they will either grow up, or give up.

How many of you experts feel this person is someone who was on this board before and booted off for rude conduct?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 05/12/04:

Hope - Cherab has posted on the JW Board. I dont think she/he is playing games with us, but with the English language. Check out her latest post on "spiel chequer" It's just his/her sense of humor - not malicious.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/11/04 - My Spiel Chequer




Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.


PraiseJah answered on 05/12/04:

Your spiel chequer dont correct words that are spelt correctly but used in the wrong context.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 05/11/04 - What's wrong with my common sense

I read that Mike Madden (a sports newscaster)made a comment something about comparing the wrongful (to put it mildly) treatment of prisoners could be compared to College faternity initiations or hazing so whats the problem?

What is wrong with this picture? First of all if something like college hazing pranks by immature college students can be made a comparison to the integrety of our country and what they did to the prisoners a reason for it to be acceptable then it seems to me 2 wrongs do make a right. Thereby college students should no longer get in trouble over student pranks because after all they would therefore have set a precident of what makes the treatment of the prisoners acceptable. Whats the logic here as I sho' can't figure it out. Shouldn't we be concerned with the integrity of our country instead of making lame excuses?

PraiseJah answered on 05/11/04:

Perhaps these men and women learnt the art of torture and humiliation as college freshmen!

sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 05/11/04 - Will there be any outrage?

Will there be any outrage over the beheading of American Nick Berg by the hooded men shouting "Allahu Akbar!" - "God is great?"

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1525439,00.html

Steve

PraiseJah answered on 05/11/04:

Of course. But since when did two wrongs ever make a right? Torture is torture and Jesus said we must love our enemies, even reproving Peter for using a sword when he was being arrested. What the US and British soldiers did is indefensible and has only set back the peace process in Iraq.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Doc05 asked on 05/09/04 - What are we, as Christians, to do now?

The war happened, there is no taking back what was done and is still being done. The question is - what can we do now? There were massive demonstrations all over the world, as were in the US, but the winds of war just ignited and spread. Now how do we redeem the past and rectify the future?

PraiseJah answered on 05/10/04:

Just like with the justification that Hiroshima and Nagisaki were needed to "end the war" I expect the US will continue to justify the war in Iraq as they got rid of Saddam Hussein and his oppressive regime.

But what have Iraq got in his place? Mob rule, almost anarchy, and the death toll from this is rising rapidly.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Doc05 asked on 05/10/04 - I would like to ask all of you

Tomorrow my daughter is going for a biopsy - what I am asking for is for all of you, who have become my extended family, to pray that the findings will be negative. For the first time in my medical career, I am so very worried. I find comfort in the Bible and in prayer. Thank you all.

PraiseJah answered on 05/10/04:

I pray with all my heart that your daughter does not have a malignant form of cancer. Im also in your shoes at this moment with my daughter and our only hope is experimental treatment. If it is breast cancer, check ut the following report:

Cancer Invest 1995;13(2):165-72 (ISSN: 0735-7907)
Habif DV; Ozzello L; De Rosa CM; Cantell K; Lattes R
Department of Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Two groups of patients with disseminated breast carcinomas who had failed radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormonotherapy were treated with natural interferon alpha (nIFN-alpha) alone or in combination with nIFN-gamma delivered in cycles of 10-12 intralesional (i.l.) injections to recurrent and metastatic lesions. In group, I, 16 skin lesions in 12 patients received nIFN-alpha alone resulting in 7 complete regressions verified histologically (CR), 7 partial regressions (PR), and no regressions (NR) in 2. Group II included 4 patients in whom 7 cutaneous recurrences were treated with nIFN-alpha/nIFN-gamma (5 CR, 2 PR), 2 were injected with nIFN-alpha alone (1 CR, 1 PR), and 1 received nIFN-gamma alone (PR). Two additional patients in group II were given i.l. injections of nIFN-alpha/nIFN-gamma to lymph node metastases (1 CR, 1 PR). Clinical toxicity was experienced by 5 of 12 patients in group I and by all the patients in group II and was controlled in most instances by antipyretics. Systemic antitumor effects were not appreciable clinically. Nevertheless, noninjected lesions exposed only to systemic levels of IFNs, when studied immunohistochemically, displayed an immunological response similar to that of IFN-injected lesions, although less intense. Therefore, IFNs can be useful in controlling locoregional recurrences of breast cancer even in patients who are not responding to other forms of therapy. Furthermore, in addition to the local antitumor actions, they appear to be capable of eliciting systemic immunological effects.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 05/08/04 - The secular-liberal war against religion.

Is war being waged against those of Judeo-Christian belief?
+++
What with the current ban on the Ten Commandments, the elimination of the study of religion in school curriculums, no prayer in schools, and the attempt to strike “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Also consider the prohibition of churches in certain zoning area, the prohibition of Christian or Jewish speakers in schools and other forums, the misinterpreting of the Constitution of the United States.
+++
Effectively the secular liberals have launched a campaign to not allow government to be involved with religion al all.
+++
The claim that those who believe in God are discriminating against those who don’t is false. It is the Judeo-Christians who are being discriminated against. In fact what they are doing is unconstitutional. How? By denying the free exercise of religion they are effectively revoking that religious liberty originally granted to all citizens regardless of their faith.
+++
This war against religion is a cultural war. Homosexuality, pro abortionists, the pro-promiscuity liberals and other immoral minority groups are being used as a weapon to assault religion and traditional cultural morality and institutions use as marriage and family. The “counterculture” with the help of the secular ultra liberal media has gaining in their domination of mainstream North American.
+++
Should those of religious faith fight back?
+++
If so how?
+++
Peace and kindness, arcura



PraiseJah answered on 05/08/04:

It do think sometimes they go too far with separation of church and state but I also believe that the government cannot be seen to be promoting any one religion, hence no more praying in schools. But students can still learn about the beliefs of any religion in Humanities classes. Requiring children to pray to a particular God is forcing kids of other faiths to compromise their own faith.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 05/07/04 - A MESSAGE FROM BRUCE.....

GOT THIS FROM HIM IN A RECENT EMAIL, HOPE IT BRINGS A CHUCKLE TO YOU ALL.

Subject: A sense of humour - Bruce
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 15:48:22 +1000




Do this and read the whole thing it is way too funny.

Try this soon, before Google fixes its site:

1) Go to www.Google.com

2) Type in (but don't hit enter): "weapons of mass destruction".

3) Hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, instead of the normal "Google search" button.

4) READ CAREFULLY what appears to be a normal ERROR message.


Make sure you read the whole error message.

Someone at Google apparently has a great sense of humour.

PraiseJah answered on 05/07/04:

LOL!

STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
excon asked on 05/07/04 - Dinosaur bones


Hello,

Where does a creationist think dinosaur bones come from? The devil? Does he deny they exist?

excon

PraiseJah answered on 05/07/04:

In Gen 1:20 it refers to God creating the flying creatures ( which includes some dinosaurs) and also the great sea monsters. Literally the Hebrew for "sea monsters" means large reptiles. Many of the donosaurs were water dwelling animals. We still have their descendant, the crocodile.

So dinosaurs are not excluded from creation. The smaller varieties we still have too - lizards of many kinds.

excon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/06/04 - wot is man????

I heard it that god mad us becaous he was lonley. what du ewe think? does god feel things like we do or has he no feelings like in thecreed?

five * * * * * for all plite answers.

PraiseJah answered on 05/06/04:

We know that God has emotions, but loneliness is not one of them. It was the desire to create like an Artiste par Excellence that prompted Him. He alone had live from eternity and wanted to create and share the universe with others. Man was not the first -His Only Begotten Son, called the Word was first and then He commisioned His Son to create angels. Then the material universe.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/06/04 - deecency In Media – Act Now!



Don’t Let the Proposed Media Decency Bill Die Next Week in the Senate! Act Now Before It’s Too Late

by Steve DeVore

Following Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction”, public outrage has sparked FCC commission hearings and a flurry of legislative activity designed to help American’s reclaim their airways for decency. The legislation would severely punish broadcasters who violate indecency laws but the bill is now in jeopardy and unless the senate votes on the bill in the next few days, it will probably suffer a silent ignominious death.

Kansas U.S. Senator Sam Brownback sponsored Senate Bill 2056 “to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language.”

Broadcasters have responded to the proposed legislation. First, they said they would self-police. The legislation isn’t necessary. They would give their local affiliates, without reprisal, the right not to broadcast programming that was considered offensive to local viewers.

Then, they resisted. They have unfurled the banner of the First Amendment and utter the usual buzzwords: free speech, censorship and "creative integrity."

(Note: This “creative integrity” argument comes from NBC president Robert Wright, who wrote a bold editorial in the Wall Street Journal claiming television networks are the titans of "creative integrity," and must not be protested. "Ultimately,” Wright wrote, “we have much less to fear from obscene, indecent or profane content than we do from an overzealous government willing to limit First Amendment protections and censor creative free expression. That would be indecent," [“The Big Chill” by Robert Wright, President NBC Network, Wall Street Journal, Monday, April 19, 2004]. Of all of the broadcast networks, NBC is the worst offender when it comes to sexual, violent, and profane content.)

And finally, they threaten to sue for the right to continue to merchandise sleaze if the government begins to regulate the public airways.

Why, after all the public outrage, the fiery senate hearings, the promised crack-down on media indecency via legislation, has the fury died? I believe it is a combination of political opportunism (grandstanding), public apathy, and big money

The Super Bowl drew 140 million U.S. viewers. Over two-thirds of these viewers are not frequent watchers of network television. On a good night, network television draws about 44 million viewers. The non-watchers were not aware of how tawdry network television had become. When they were exposed to a concentrated dose, they were appalled and outraged. They spoke out and demanded action.

We are now currently in an election year. Savvy politicians saw an opportunity to jump on the “decency in media” bandwagon and ride the public wave of outrage. They held hearings, press conferences, and promised Americans they would once and for all clean up America’s television wasteland. By doing this, they got free publicity on the very media they were decrying.

Concerned about possible censorship, stifling of creative talent, and the potential loss of advertising revenues (billions of dollars) that titillating and salacious programming generates, the television network lobbying machine went into action. Remember, it’s an election year. Politicians need money to be re-elected and they need positive media exposure. Media can make or break a politician. The networks and their local affiliates hold the trump cards in a politician’s re-electability. In essence, media lobbyists say, “leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone…play ball with us and we’ll play ball with you.” What I am saying here is that we may be looking at a symbiotic relationship between politicians and media ownership.

Don’t Drop the Ball Now

But what about all this public outrage? What about the incensed citizenry –the angry critical mass of voters? Both politicians and media understand the cycle of public apathy. The public vents its outrage and delegates its desire to act to the politicians who promise to take action. This promise placates the public. Time passes and emotions cool. This passage of time allows the lobbyists to do their work. Nothing gets done. Separated by time from the initial inciting emotions, citizens soon forget the cause of their outrage, gradually begin to accept the status quo, and eventually embrace it. The networks then begin to gradually increase the intensity of sex, violence, and profanity until, like the Super Bowl, there is another blowout. Historically this cycle appears every four years. Is it only coincidence that this seems to correspond to the general four year election year? I don’t think so.

So, where are we at now? Senate Bill 2056 is languishing. Unless there is another public outcry and the outcry is now, the bill will probably die in the next few days. We need you to take immediate action to tell your Senators and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to vote on S. 2056 now!

If we are to be successful in our efforts to reduce the obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts from the public airwaves, then the FCC must have the power to impose meaningful fines and/or revoke station licenses of broadcasters who break the law. Senate Bill 2056 gives them this power.

I encourage the 400,000 -- plus Meridian Magazine readers to let their collective voice be heard by acting now before it's too late.

You can take action by going to http://www.cleantv.net/action/2056.htm. And share this alert to everyone who shares your concern on this issue.

PraiseJah answered on 05/06/04:

I do think the use of profanity and crude speech and behavior should be banned. This would not violate civil liberties, just protect our ears and eyes from offensive stuff.

Avagoodweegend. Are you a JW Cherab?

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 05/06/04 - TO cherab***

I sho' kin claim immunity from persecution for laffin at m'self. I am da qween of laffin @ meself!!!

PraiseJah answered on 05/06/04:

Too right mate. You're a right bonza mate.
Avagoodweegend. Hoo roo!

sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ATON2 asked on 05/06/04 - Not a question, just a warning!! :)

If you haven't shot all your darts yet, better do it now. Papa ATON is leaving tomorrow for at least a month of sun, surf, and serenity. Will check in occassionally, to make sure you are all behaving. I may ever miss some of you :) :) :)

PraiseJah answered on 05/06/04:

Enjoy. (Is that a dart or a heart??)

ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ROLCAM asked on 05/06/04 - SIMPLE QUESTION ??

Why did God choose men to write the Bible and not do it Himself?

PraiseJah answered on 05/06/04:

If God wrote it all Himself, today there would be no proof He wrote it. People would accept it no more or less today than they have it being written by men under inspiration of the holy spirit. Even the stones of the Ten Commandments which He wrote are not around any more and if they were how could anyone prove God wrote them?

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ROLCAM rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/05/04 - Is it time to pay this bill?

On this day in 1626 Manhattan Island was bought from native Americans by Peter Minuit for goods and trinkets to the equivalent of $24.

Is it now time to pay the injuns what its worth?

PraiseJah answered on 05/05/04:

Australia has returned much of sacred land that is not privately owned to the aborigines. They can make claims in the courts if they can prove that government land was formerly their own tribal land. Recently they acquired the famous monolith, Ayer's Rock - now named Uluru. It was on government land. But they cannot make any claims on farmland or or other privately owned property.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 05/05/04 - I don't find it funny.

The fatalistic BS of the rapture is Bush's justification for pulling the plug on all the eco-friendly stuff we used to do under Clinton.

Bush is under this delusion that because we are in the end of days he is totally justified in his live for the moment attitude. I wouldn't be surprised if the war in Iraq is some sort of Jihad.



PraiseJah answered on 05/05/04:

Wether Bush believes we are in the the end times I dont know, but it certainly would explain his unwaivering support for Israel if he believes Christ will return to Jerusalem literally.

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 05/04/04 - The trial of God.

"The ancient man approached God as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is judge; God is in the dock." CS Lewis

Have we in this enlightened age put God on trial? It so what hope is there for us?

PraiseJah answered on 05/05/04:

God is not on trial, but like Job we are. Certainly God's name has been defamed, abused and vilified. The doctrine of hellfire torment is a classic example of such vilification. He does not have to prove He is God, but to many people He must prove why He has permitted evil for so long.
These same people forget about the role of free will as well as all the good things we enjoy every day which God provides free of charge.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
mr_internet asked on 05/05/04 - Howmany miles is Jesus willing to drive to get to McDonald's?

***I will rate all responses with 5 stars.***

Okay, okay, that title was ment to be a joke. Some people say: "your questions have nothing to do with Christianity." Well, I know but the members of this board are very active. So in the title I tried to give it a religious flavour.

But here is my real question (it is not a joke):

1. Howmany miles are you willing to drive to get to buy something from McDonalds?
2. Howmany miles or yards are you willing to walk to get to McDonald's?

Please provide a number not pharases like: "few miles."

Thank you

PraiseJah answered on 05/05/04:

There was no McDonald's in Jesus' day.

The nearest McDonalds to where I live is about two miles.

mr_internet rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 05/05/04 - "POOP-FOR-BRAINS FUNDAMENTALISTS"

This was a recent comment from an "expert" on this "Christianity Board."

"...he justifies to the Poop-For-Brains Fundamentalists with words like the Rapture, pure fantasy!!!"

No one is demanding that anyone post on this Board if it is so repulsive that one must brutalize with her words.

Are these comments that any "expert" should be using toward those with whom she disagrees?

Bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 05/05/04:

There's no excuse for outright rude comments and the person should be kicked off. Report him/her to Datheus.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 05/05/04 - "BRUCE" or "CopDoc":

Has anyone heard from him or know the state of his health? Thanks. bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 05/05/04:

He was on We Tell You and is still listed there. He may not know abaout Answerway so perhaps going to We Tell You and letting him know, he may come here.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Doc05 asked on 05/04/04 - When things become to hard

Why is it that when we face adversity, some tend to stop believing in God and Jesus? I know that I myself, have had this happen to me when I lost my best friend who was 33 and left two small children to basically fend for themselves.

However, as much as I contemplated just stopping to believe in Him - I found myself praying even more. Has anyone felt the way I did when something happened that we thought was unfair?

PraiseJah answered on 05/04/04:

People tend to blame God when things go wrong. I could easily say "Why have you let my daughter get this teiible aggressive cancer?" But I know He is not responsible for what happens while satan still rules the world (2 Cor 4:4) (Job chapters 1 and 2) Jesus said, we are worth more than many sparrows yet not one of them falls to the ground without our Father knowing.

I have been applying the advice in Phil 4:16-18 and prayed for guidance. My prayers have been answered because dcotos are going to use intraperitoneal.INFgamma and IL2 both immune system componants to help her body fight this cancer. I have also advised lifestyle changes , diet and a multivitamin supplement to build her up. Also I feel less stressed and depressed myself and this has helped my daughter to remain positive and cheerful.

Doc05 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 05/04/04 - Supreme Court Justice Suter Attacked

Over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Suter was attacked by some thugs while jogging near the Supreme Court Building, a few short blocks from his home.

I immediately thought of "Rev" Fawell a few months ago praying to God that a member of the Supreme Court would die! Did these thugs take it upon themselves to help Suter out of this life??? Also, what kind of "Christian" is Fawell?

Comments?

PraiseJah answered on 05/04/04:

To answer your question - no one should wish anyone dead. But your posts are rude and antagonistic and you could be put off if you keep it up.Datheus is not slack about protecting users from personal attacks and abuse.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/03/04 - Thanx to the welcome camitee

NOW I BEEN MANGLED BY THE WELCOME CAMITEE CAN WE NOW GET DOWN TO BUSINESS???

PraiseJah answered on 05/04/04:

Toms777 has given you a hard time of the JW Board. Ignore him. Most others here are not like him. You have been defending the "faithful slave" on the JW Board and wondering why apostates "the evil slave" are attacking them on apostate websites .

Jesus said they would "beat up" the faithful slave Matt24:45-50. It is prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus will love you as one of his sheep for supporting and defending his brothers.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 05/03/04 - Thanx to the welcome camitee

NOW I BEEN MANGLED BY THE WELCOME CAMITEE CAN WE NOW GET DOWN TO BUSINESS???

PraiseJah answered on 05/03/04:

Huh??

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
mr_internet asked on 05/02/04 - few Questions for you...

***All answers will be rated 5 star***

I am trying to see if users can easily nagivate our site and find the information they want. So, please see

if you can complete the following tasks and let me know what you did to get those information.

(i.e. you want to findout about class grade for "Geog 102". So what you do is that you click on the "Geog

102" and then click on the "Grades" and read the information presented on the table).

Please goto this site and answer the following questions:

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~acampi2/ifsm403/project/

Now try to find the following.

1. Tell me when did Dr. Harries (the teacher) graduate and from what school.
2. I am taking "Geog 102" and I want to buy the required text book(s). What should I buy?
3. I am really interested in the The Geography of religion but I don't know if this course will cover that

or not. Can you help me to findout (Assume I am taking "Geog 102")?
4. I was wondering howmany chapters from the text book we will complete by the end of the year. Can you

help me to figure that out (Assume I am taking "Geog 102")?

PraiseJah answered on 05/02/04:

Try a site that is involved with geography

paraclete rated this answer Average Answer
mr_internet rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 05/02/04 - A Koran or bible question

So, if the Israelis were actually promised the land by god through Moses, then is there something in the Koran or later in the bible that changes that?

And if not, why aren’t the Palestinians just saying, “yep, the land is yours.” since muslims don't refuse the bible they just say that the Koran is greater.


PraiseJah answered on 05/02/04:

This is a political struggle but religion is being used to rally support.

Jesus did say that the "kingdom of God would be taken from you (the Jews) and given to a nation producing it's fruit" That nation is actually made of people of all nations and the kingdom of course is not the literal city of Jerusalem because Paul later spoke of Jerusalem above as being our "mother" while Jerusalem today is like Hagar - a slave.

Check out Matt 21:25-43 Gal 4:25, 26.

The Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet ( not the Son of God) and so they think he was referring to them. Hence Muhammed successfully formed an Islamic "theocracy"

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
ATON2 asked on 05/01/04 - Situational 'aberration' or deep seated hatred???

By now, most of you must have seen, or heard about the disgusting photos that show American service personel abusing Iraqi prisoners. For those of you who have not.... it is alleged 17 members of the 372nd Military Police Company forced their prisoners to strip naked, with hoods over the heads, and made to pile themselves into human pyramids, and simulate perveted sexual acts, while our 'heros' jeered at them, and posed among them for photographs. It has also been reported, my a serviceman who kept a diary and sent it to his family, that abuse of prisoners is routine.
(It appears British troops were also involved in abuse of prisoners). The ultimate insult to the prisoners was that, not only male, but female service personal were involved. The shame and degradation those prisoners must have felt can only be realized when one understand the Arab/Muslim constrictions against nudity...especially in front of captors.
At last count, 14 of the 17 Americans involved had been relieve of duty, and 7 have been brought up on charges.
My question: Does this appear to be an aberration brought on by the horrendous nature of the Iraqi 'conflict'...putting unsophisticated and poorly trained young men and women into a situation they can barely comprehend, or does it indicate a deep-seated, learned, Christian hatred of Arabs/Muslims?????? After all, we have seen this sort of thing happen in Korea and Vietnam. Do we inculcate hatred of foreigners in our children before sending them out to kill?????

If the former, isn't it time we brought these kids home, before they all end up psychotic misfits???

PraiseJah answered on 05/01/04:

They are certainly not Christians and I heard on the news they face a court martial. They are sadists who have used the war as an excuse to get off by humiliaty and hurting people!

ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 04/29/04 - Did you see this news report?

Pope sets date for Armageddon (Written by Goatboy)

The end is nigh!

In a shocking announcement from the Vatican this week Pope John-Paul revealed that he and a number of high ranking cardinals decided the date in a committee meeting last month. 26th March 2004 is the provisional date with Jesus' return tour expected to begin mid January (2005).

'We are very excited about the new tour' a top ranking cardinal revealed to this reporter, 'he's got some really great new parables, as well as the old favourites and a flaming sword finale that will knock your socks off'. The Vatican is now awaiting confirmation from Satan and the anti-Christ are free that week, when asked when we can expect to hear this conformation, Cardinal Smallock replied 'As soon as Mr Bush is ready'.

People have already started to cash in on the event with Wal-mart advertising 'Armageddon survival kits' and copies of the Bible and 'the satanic bible' up 50%. The venue for the apocalypse has yet to be decided but rumours suggest 'the royal Albert Hall, London, Texas or Cliff Richard's underpants'.

The rights to broadcast the event have been sold exclusively to Rupert Murdock who will show them live on his new channel due to launch in late December.

The ultimate battle for good and evil and the souls of mankind is expected to be 'the defining event of this generation......the ultimate gig'. 'Yeah it's gonna be good, lots of salvation and fire and brimstone blood red is going to be very big next year' said the Pope in 'Christian Fundamentalist Monthly' .

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i1285

PraiseJah answered on 04/29/04:

Spoof is just that. Not to be taken seriously.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 04/29/04 - I heard this on the news

They were reading some new rules from the Pope.
They said the Pope doesn't want people to read the Bible. I knew back in the 60's Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible because "only the church could properly interpret it to the congregation"
I thought that teaching was done away with. Is it back or did the Pope just mean they could not give the readings from the Bible during the church service.
Just wondering.

PraiseJah answered on 04/29/04:

The Church has a long history of suppressing the Bible - from burning at the stake those who translated it into the common languages to more recently discouraging reading of the Bible for the reason given. They didnt want people to find out too much. Like for example, that when we die it's not bliss or blisters - it's an unconscious sleep - Eccl 9:5-10.

sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 04/28/04 - I had Mt 21:28 in mind. Is this basic to every human?

28But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go , sir: and went not.

PraiseJah answered on 04/29/04:

And as to which son was the better of the two- obviously the one who realised he should do what was asked of him even though he said no at first.

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 04/28/04 - The Garden of Eden

For Elliot and All:

Genesis: A book of the Bible in the Old Testament favored by Christians and Jews.

The Jewish folklore blames a WOMAN, Eve, for the expulsion of "Adam and Eve" from the Garden of Eden, a mythical place where there were no problems no suffering.

Anyone who believes in GodAlmighty or that the Bible is a literal interpretation of events in ALL CASES, must accept this SLANDER ON WOMEN as part of their religious beliefs.

Even when our "Lying Eyes" show us that men, psat and present, cause the most misery and suffering on Earth.

Lost my place in a clarification, sorry.

Cordially, Chou

PraiseJah answered on 04/28/04:

If you see my latest post on Religion - "Sh*t happens" you will see I subscribe to the Biblical view that the culprit was the devil.

Both Adam and Eve were sentenced to death for their part in rebellion against God. Eve should not have believed satan's lie and Adam should not have gone along with it. Adam blamed Eve. Men who do the same are as wrong as he is!

UNI - you have really got it wrong. eg Adam's RIB - next to his heart ( to be loved), at his side (equal) not under his feet.

And the "virgin booty" - they were to marry them and a captive virgin could leave at any time. Read Det 21:10-14.

Witches included men who practise sorcery

The so called called "curse" of painful childbirth - Gen 3:16 was due to woman having become imperfect. Just like with sickness and death - the direct consequences of sin ( ageing it has been proven is primarily due to stress as well as our inheriting imperfect genes) Also God stating that man would dominate woman was a statement of fact. Imperfect men do see women as slaves rather than equals. When God married them, He BLESSED them and said to be fruitful and multiply, so it is not a sin or a curse to have children. (Gen 1:26-30)

The menstrual flow itself is clean just like urine, but if not washed from the body ASAP it becomes contaminated with bacteria on the skin. Also the cervix is open at that time and so women are more vulnerable to infection at that time (PID) And - what a mess if having intercourse at that time!

Women were not sold to be sex slaves - that is referring to a man giving his daughter in marriage ( see vs 11) The money exchange would be a dowry. She was free to go if the man did not provide for her.

Lev 19:20-22 does not mention anything about a woman being punished only the man must make a sacrifice ( an animal is worth big bucks)

The poll does not include male children so it is numbering households not individuals

Check out Prov 31:10-31 for God's view of a good woman.

BTW - a promiscuous man in the Bible is called a "dog" or "cur" So labels for immoral people were not gender biased.

ATON2 rated this answer Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
prl182 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 04/28/04 - they don;'t slaute the flag but deserve our salutes for what they have done for religious freedo

http://www.freeminds.org/history/conflicts.htm - read the whole article and see how they have advanced religious freedom even though they are hated by some other snmall 'c' christians.

PraiseJah answered on 04/28/04:

To people who question why we dont salute the flag I ask:

The patriot who salutes the flag but cheats on his income tax or the person who does not salute the flag but obeys all the laws and does not cheat on his income tax - who is the better citizen?

Yes it can honestly be said that Jehovah's witnesses have done more for establishing freedom of religion in so called democratic countries than any other group. Also with respect to opposing the draft - the same happended in Nazi Germany. I have a friend who died recently who spent the best years of his life in the ghetto with the Jews for refusing to join the Hitler youth movement.

Many witnesses were interred in the camps with the Jews also and suffered death, refusing to so much as say Heil Hitler!

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 04/27/04 - stupid question!!

this may be a stupid question but I have often wondered why Jehovas witness kingdom halls have no windows?Maybee someone on here can inform me!

PraiseJah answered on 04/27/04:

I can only speak for the kingdom halls I have attended since I was seven years old - all have had large windows. In hot climates they often have small windows high up ( like you see on many other community buildings). This is because they keep cooler with less light coming in and also since heat rises the ventilation is much better with windows at the top.

There has been more than one petrol bomb attack on kingdom halls so most of the newer ones have shutters on the windows to minimise the risk to those inside. Also there is less chance of vandalism or breakins with small windows at the top.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
prl182 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 04/27/04 - Have you read the da Vinci Code?

Fearing that the best-selling novel "The Da Vinci Code" may be sowing doubt about basic Christian beliefs, a host of Christian churches, clergy members and Bible scholars are rushing to rebut it.

In 13 months, readers have bought more than 6 million copies of the book, a thriller with a plot that Christianity was founded on a cover-up — that the church has conspired for centuries to hide evidence that Jesus was a mere mortal, married Mary Magdalene and had children whose descendants live in France.

Word that director Ron Howard is making a movie based on the book has intensified the critics' urgency. More than 10 books are being released, most in April and May, with titles that promise to break, crack, unlock or decode "The Da Vinci Code."

"Because this book is such a direct attack against the foundation of the Christian faith, it's important that we speak out," said the Rev. Erwin W. Lutzer, author of "The Da Vinci Deception" and senior pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, an influential evangelical pulpit.

The Rev. James L. Garlow, co-author with professor Peter Jones of "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" and pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, said, "I don't think it's just an innocent novel with a fascinating plot. I think it's out there to win people over to an incorrect and historically inaccurate view, and it's succeeding. People are buying into the notion that Jesus is not divine, he is not the son of God."

Among "The Da Vinci Code" critics are evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who regard the novel as another infiltration by liberal cultural warriors. The critics and their publishers are also hoping to surf the wave of success of "The Da Vinci Code," which has been on The New York Times hardcover fiction best seller list for 56 weeks. There are 7.2 million copies of the book, published by Doubleday, now in print.

Dan Brown, a former teacher who wrote "The Da Vinci Code," is declining all interview requests, his publisher says, because he is at work on his next book. But Brown says on his Web site that he welcomes the scholarly debates over his book. He says that while it is a work of fiction, "it is my own personal belief that the theories discussed by these characters have merit."

The plot of "The Da Vinci Code" is a twist on the ancient search for the Holy Grail. Robert Langdon, portrayed as a brilliant Harvard professor of "symbology," and Sophie Neveu, a gorgeous Parisian police cryptographer, team up to decipher a trail of clues left behind by the murdered curator at the Louvre Museum, who turns out to be Neveu's grandfather.

The pair discover that the grandfather had inherited Leonardo da Vinci's mantle as the head of a secret society. The society guards the Holy Grail, which is not a chalice but is instead the proof of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's conjugal relationship; Langdon and Neveu must race the killer to find it. Along the way they learn that the church has suppressed 80 early gospels that denied the divinity of Jesus, elevated Mary Magdalene to a leader among the apostles and celebrated the worship of female wisdom and sexuality.

The book portrays Opus Dei, a conservative network of Catholic priests and laity, as a sinister and sadistic sect.

In it, an albino Opus Dei monk assassinates four people who guard the secret about the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

The real Opus Dei has posted a lengthy response to "The Da Vinci Code" on its Web site, warning, "It would be irresponsible to form any opinion of Opus Dei based on reading 'The Da Vinci Code.' "

Our Sunday Visitor, the Catholic publishing company, has published a book and a pamphlet offering a Catholic response to the book. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has also issued its own guide. One evangelical Christian publisher, Tyndale House, which hit gold with the "Left Behind" books, is about to issue not one but two titles rebutting "The Da Vinci Code."

Several religious groups have published books or pamphlets taking issue with the book.

Though for many readers the notions about Christian history in "The Da Vinci Code" seem new and startling, the novel introduces to a popular audience some of the debates that have gripped scholars of early Christian history for decades.

The academic chatter grew louder after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s and of ancient texts in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. Among the findings were early Christian scriptures and fragments not included in the New Testament, including writings that scholars have come to call the "Gospels" of Mary, Peter, Philip, Thomas and Q.

"The Da Vinci Code" floats the notion that the fourth-century Roman emperor Constantine suppressed the earlier gospels for political reasons and imposed the doctrine of the divinity of Christ at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.

A wide spectrum of Christian scholars agree the depiction of the Council of Nicaea is one of the book's most blatant distortions. While there was a diversity of early expressions of Christianity, they agree, Jesus' divinity was part of the church's established canons well before 325 and predates most of the newly found Gnostic and other gospels.

"People were thinking Jesus was divine in some sense or another from the first century on," said Harold W. Attridge, dean of Yale Divinity School and a translator and authority of the Nag Hammadi trove. Attridge, who recently gave a lecture on the novel in California, said that while he welcomed the book as a "teaching opportunity," it "takes facts and gives them a spin that distorts them seriously."

Much of "The Da Vinci Code" scaffolding of conspiracies was constructed in an earlier best seller, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," published in the 1980s. It relies on a file of documents found in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France that has since been exposed as one man's hoax.

Darrell L. Bock, a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, sees "The Da Vinci Code" not merely as an effort to undermine traditional Christian belief but also to "redefine Christianity and the history of Christianity."

"That's why you see so many Christian people react to a novel," said Bock, author of "Breaking the Da Vinci Code."

Have you read it? What do you think about it?

PraiseJah answered on 04/27/04:

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people living thousands of years after Christ can assume they know more about him than those who were with him and were eyewitnesses to the events of his life. I go for the eyewitness accounts because if this matter was to be judged in a court of law, only the eyewitness accounts would be accepted as evidence and books like the Da Vinci code would be dismissed as hearsay and speculation.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 04/27/04 - What are the basic elements Jesus addressed?

Jesus revealed the basic elements of mankind?

Can you name any?

PraiseJah answered on 04/27/04:

Man was made in God's image ( Gen 1:27,28) Jesus as the "last Adam" was the perfect image of God in every way reflecting fully God's qualities of love, wisdom, justice and power.

Question/Answer
Cherab asked on 04/26/04 - Christianity

Isn't it about love?

~Cherab~

PraiseJah answered on 04/27/04:

The word Jesus used for love in Greek is agape. Agape is love not just for friends and family but for your enemies as well!

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/26/04 - BROTHERLY LOVE?

I have this millionaire brother who is an egomaniac! He worships $$$, lives in Florida and is married to a playgirl who's 20 years his junior! I received a letter from him today telling me that I was a real nut for marrying my present wife, Carol, nine years ago because she was poor and lived in a mobile home! He's known about her cancer from the git-go! Carol and I dated in high school years ago and she became a widow in 1994!

Is there any hope for this turkey in the eyes of God?

PraiseJah answered on 04/26/04:

We must never give up hope for anyone.

You have love whereas this brother of yours does not know what would happen with his young wife if he lost all his money!

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 04/26/04 - "GRACE!" (1)What is it? (2)Why Grace?

(Not speaking of the "thanks" you give at mealtime called "grace." I'm speaking of "grace, through faith" whereby we receive Salvation.)

Ephesians 2:8 NKJV: "For by GRACE you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."
Your thoughts? (1) What is it? (2)Why Grace? Thanks. Bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 04/26/04:

Grace refers to an attitude of favor that is usually extended to someone who has erred and imparts dignity to that person. We are saved by God's grace only if we repent and approach Him through prayer with a sincere heart.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 04/26/04 - "CHRISTIANITY!"

Is it "superstitious and childish" as one expert has described? Thanks. Bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 04/26/04:

Jesus said to be saved we need to become as little children! So dont be offended by being described as being like a child. proud arrogant and haughty people are not acceptable to God as one of the seven things God hates is "lofty eyes"

This user speaks out of ignorance, not knowledge as true Christianity is the only religion that does not ascribe miraculous powers to objects and icons. All other religions teach astrology or as in the case of Islam that a stone object is to be adored and revered.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/25/04 - Has the worm turned or is it just wriggling?

By Brett Thomas
April 25, 2004

Support withdrawn . . . Advertisers gave in to pressure over The L Word TV show.

Five major Australian companies have bowed to pressure from a small, Victorian-based Christian organisation and pulled advertising from Channel Seven's new lesbian drama series The L Word.

In a move that echoes the efforts of the American religious right, which wields considerable power over programming on US free-to-air television, the Saltshakers organisation lobbied the companies to disassociate themselves from The L Word, which screens at 10.30pm on Wednesdays.

The five companies involved - Just Jeans, DaimlerChrysler, Roche, Allianz and Centrum - have since confirmed to Saltshakers through letters and email that their advertisements would no longer be screened during the show.

Although The L Word, which Seven bought from American pay TV network Showtime, features nudity and explicit lesbian sex scenes, Saltshakers' major concern was that it advocated "self-insemination" in the form of a female couple who use donor sperm in an attempt to become pregnant.

"I think there are a lot of people out there concerned, and companies concerned that their ads may be supporting women self-inseminating and women bringing children into the world who haven't got fathers," said Saltshakers chief executive Peter Stokes.

While Mr Stokes saw the ad bans as a "bit of a win" for the Christian right, the gay community has expressed outrage and the advertising industry some bemusement at the situation.

"There are a lot of images of diversity in pop culture these days and it's disappointing that such big companies would respond to a pathetically small group that nobody has ever heard of and be cowed into reacting that way," said Merryn Johns, editor of Lesbians On The Loose magazine.

Mike Wilson of media buyers Mediaedge:CIA said the companies involved should have been forewarned about the content of The L Word by their own media agencies.

"I don't know about political or religious lobby groups," he said. "A lot of clients already have their own policies as to the type of content with which they'll be associated.

"I'm a bit mystified by what has happened with The L Word because it was well publicised by the network. The fact is the agencies responsible for each of those clients should have been informed enough to warn them about the content."

Seven confirmed it had received written and telephone complaints about The L Word, but one insider said "it was nothing out of the ordinary".

However, Saltshakers' successful campaign marked a significant change in tactics, with its email and letter writers targeting advertisers instead of the networks, which the organisation viewed as non-responsive.

"I hope Channel Seven is taking notice of its advertisers," Mr Stokes said. But he admitted that his power was a long way short of his Christian colleagues in America.

"I know the religious right in the US has a million people on its email system. Well, I've got 600."

// I expect we must be thankful for small mercies but for the second time in a week this particular television channel has found itsself under fire from Christians. Perhaps Christians have finally decided that they have had enough of the counter culture, what will happen when the purveyors of filth on TV come under attack, for this channel might have been considered the more mild of the offerings.

It appears the ad agencies are a little mystified as to what happen, could it be that God had a hand in this?

PraiseJah answered on 04/26/04:

Aton, the majority of the population are heterosexual hence targeting a program that promates gay sex is not catering to the majority.

eg Most heterosexual men are offended by the program "Queer Eye For a Straight Guy" because it suggests that gay men no better how to dress and how to court women than straight guys!! Im personally offended by the way some gay men dress in "drag" and behave in a manner the majority of women would not even think of behaving.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/25/04 - Has the worm turned or is it just wriggling?

By Brett Thomas
April 25, 2004

Support withdrawn . . . Advertisers gave in to pressure over The L Word TV show.

Five major Australian companies have bowed to pressure from a small, Victorian-based Christian organisation and pulled advertising from Channel Seven's new lesbian drama series The L Word.

In a move that echoes the efforts of the American religious right, which wields considerable power over programming on US free-to-air television, the Saltshakers organisation lobbied the companies to disassociate themselves from The L Word, which screens at 10.30pm on Wednesdays.

The five companies involved - Just Jeans, DaimlerChrysler, Roche, Allianz and Centrum - have since confirmed to Saltshakers through letters and email that their advertisements would no longer be screened during the show.

Although The L Word, which Seven bought from American pay TV network Showtime, features nudity and explicit lesbian sex scenes, Saltshakers' major concern was that it advocated "self-insemination" in the form of a female couple who use donor sperm in an attempt to become pregnant.

"I think there are a lot of people out there concerned, and companies concerned that their ads may be supporting women self-inseminating and women bringing children into the world who haven't got fathers," said Saltshakers chief executive Peter Stokes.

While Mr Stokes saw the ad bans as a "bit of a win" for the Christian right, the gay community has expressed outrage and the advertising industry some bemusement at the situation.

"There are a lot of images of diversity in pop culture these days and it's disappointing that such big companies would respond to a pathetically small group that nobody has ever heard of and be cowed into reacting that way," said Merryn Johns, editor of Lesbians On The Loose magazine.

Mike Wilson of media buyers Mediaedge:CIA said the companies involved should have been forewarned about the content of The L Word by their own media agencies.

"I don't know about political or religious lobby groups," he said. "A lot of clients already have their own policies as to the type of content with which they'll be associated.

"I'm a bit mystified by what has happened with The L Word because it was well publicised by the network. The fact is the agencies responsible for each of those clients should have been informed enough to warn them about the content."

Seven confirmed it had received written and telephone complaints about The L Word, but one insider said "it was nothing out of the ordinary".

However, Saltshakers' successful campaign marked a significant change in tactics, with its email and letter writers targeting advertisers instead of the networks, which the organisation viewed as non-responsive.

"I hope Channel Seven is taking notice of its advertisers," Mr Stokes said. But he admitted that his power was a long way short of his Christian colleagues in America.

"I know the religious right in the US has a million people on its email system. Well, I've got 600."

// I expect we must be thankful for small mercies but for the second time in a week this particular television channel has found itsself under fire from Christians. Perhaps Christians have finally decided that they have had enough of the counter culture, what will happen when the purveyors of filth on TV come under attack, for this channel might have been considered the more mild of the offerings.

It appears the ad agencies are a little mystified as to what happen, could it be that God had a hand in this?

PraiseJah answered on 04/25/04:

Sponsors should always be careful about offending the majority of viewers as some viewers may boycott their advertised products.

A few years ago an ad for a nameless clothing company suggested women should have abortions so that they will still be able to fit their clothes. They do not cater for larger sizes, apparently.

That was in bad taste and appalling

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 04/24/04 - DEISM: "A system of thought emphasizing morality and denying the concept of interference by Crea

(1) What are your thoughts re "Deism?" (I observe the "principle" of Deism on this Christianity Board in myriad responses.)

(2) Is the belief of a Deist "salvation by grace?" Or is it through "good works; good deeds; etc.?" (I ask this in light of a recent post and a number of responses re "sin" or "What have you done wrong today?" Only one responded with I John 1:9 -- which should have negated the need for "confession" on a Board, rather than to God.)

PraiseJah answered on 04/25/04:

Deism just accepts there is a God without accepting Jesus, the Bible or any other religious dogma.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 04/24/04 - QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CHURCH

This is a very interesting Site and thought I would share this with you, for at one time I did belong to a Cult but because of Sites as this one, I found our Savior Jesus Christ.



http://www.carm.org/questions_church.htm

RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS
About Cult Groups
Religious Movements List
-------------------
Christadelphianism
Christian Science
How to have perfect faith
Intern. Church of Christ
Islam
Roman Catholicism
Seventh Day Adventism
Shepherd's Chapel
Universalism

CHRISTIANITY
Bible, The
Bible Online, The
Christian Doctrine
Christian Issues
Christian Resources
Creeds and Confessions
Devotions
Dictionary of Theology
Evangelism
Misc. Information
Parables
Prayer Ministry
Sermons
Testimonies
To the Christian Church


Its great and a lot of good reading plus all Scriptures backing them up.

PraiseJah answered on 04/25/04:

Check out my answer to arcura's latest question.

If your church accepts Christ as being savior it is not a cult.

Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/23/04 - In this - There we stood - here we still stand...

As a former Lutheran and now Catholic I want to mention something about where I stand on certain Christian positions and beliefs. I think, Dr. Peter Kreeft, a former Calvinist and now Catholic said it best.
“Why would a Catholic think for a minute that a fundamentalist who believes in God, the divinity of Christ, the physical resurrection, creation, the Fall, original sin, the need for salvation, repentance, real moral law, miracles, heaven and hell, would be more of a problem to the Catholic faith that a secularist who believes in none of these things?”
Both Kreeft and I believed in them before becoming Catholic and we still do. Fundamentalists and evangelicals are closer to Catholic’s than any who do not believe it the above mentioned Christian tenets including the virgin birth and the Trinity. Those beliefs have been around since the beginnings of Christianity as is evangelicalism.
For the secular world to try to modify or eradicate those beliefs is an exercise in futility. Those of us who believe in them and live as though they are the basis for our lives here in this world will stand together against secularism with it’s many violations of natural law.
Why? Not because we think it is wrong. Rather because we know it is!
How do we know that? Because God says so. It’s a simple as that.
Peace and kindness, arcura

PraiseJah answered on 04/24/04:

Since Vatican II all Christian faiths have been accepted by the Catholic church. Once they were so bigoted that some nuns told my Anglican grandma that she and my grandfather were not married because they did not marry in the Catholic church! (My grandfather was Catholic)

I once attended a school religion discussion on Jehovah's witnesses conducted by an Anglican priest. Out of concern for me one of my schoolmates asked if JW's would go to hell because of not accepting the trinity, to which he replied, NO. "Jehovah's witnesses accept Christ as Son of God and savior."

So, attitudes have changed.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/23/04 - Whatever you say, boss

April 24, 2004

In 1961, an infamous experiment showed how easily people could be led to kill, but those chilling findings have been debated ever since, writes Lauren Slater in a new book.

Forty-three years ago, a 27-year-old Yale assistant professor of psychology, Stanley Milgram, wanted to study obedience to authority.

In a post-Holocaust world, people were struggling to understand how scores of SS officers had shot, gassed and tortured millions of people to death, supposedly on orders from their commanders.

The generally accepted explanation had to do with the then popular theory of "the authoritarian personality" that certain kinds of childhood experiences of a strict, Teutonic cast produced people who would do anything to anyone if instructed.

Milgram, a social psychologist, suspected that this explanation was too narrow. He purportedly believed the answer to destructive obedience lay less in the power of personality and more in the power of situation.

In Milgram's view, any especially persuasive situation could cause any rational human being to abandon moral precepts and, on orders, commit atrocities.

To test his hypothesis, Milgram set up one of psychology's most controversial experiment. He created "shock machine". He recruited hundreds of volunteers and ordered them to deliver increasing bursts of electricity to a fellow participant every time he made a mistake.

How far would people go under orders? What percentage of ordinary civilians would obey the experimenter's mandates to shock? What percentage would rebel?

The experiment: Possibly you are late. You are running down a small side street in New Haven, Connecticut. It is June 1961.

You are carrying the ad. Two weeks ago, you ripped it from its newsprint page: "We Will Pay You $4 for One Hour of Your Time. Persons Needed for a Study of Memory." And because it was Yale, and because of the cash, and because, well, it's all in the name of science, you said yes.

You come to the address - Linsly-Chittenden Hall - and you are just about to open the grey door when it opens itself and a man comes from the other side - could those be tears streaming down his cheeks? He hustles off into the shadows and you, it's your turn. You go in.

First off, you are paid. You go into a room, which is in worse shape than the footpath that led you here, walls flaking, naked pipes in a complex meshwork on the ceiling, and a stern man in a white coat who gives you $US4, in notes and coins, cold in your palm. He says, "Here is your compensation. It is yours to keep regardless of what happens," or some such thing. What, you wonder, is going to happen?

Another man comes into the room. His name, he says, is Wallace something or other. The experimenter says, "We are interested in learning about the effects of punishment on learning. There has been very little systematic research into this subject, and we are hoping our findings will be of some help to educational systems. In this experiment, one of you will be the learner and receive shocks when you make a mistake in word pairs read to you, and the other one will be the teacher, who will administer the shocks when the word pair repetition is wrong.

"Now," the experimenter asks, "which one of you would like to be the learner, which one the teacher?"

You look at - what's his name? - Wallace. And Wallace shrugs. You shrug. The experimenter says, "We'll do a drawing." He holds out two pieces of folded paper. You pick one, Wallace picks one. You open yours: "Teacher," it says. Thank God. Wallace says, laughing, "Looks like I'm the learner."

The experimenter motions for you and Wallace to follow him. You do. You go down a short dark hallway and into a room that looks like a cell. "Sit in this chair," the experimenter says to Wallace, and Wallace does. This is no ordinary chair. This is a goddamn electric chair, with a switch plate on the table and straps and strange suckers to put on the skin.

"We've got to strap him down," the experimenter says, meaning strap Wallace down, and suddenly you're bending over this big man, buckling him into the seat as though he's just a baby.

The experimenter takes a can of paste and says, "Rub this on his hands, for the electrodes," and "Tighten those belts," and so you do. You grease and tighten, pulling the straps on the black belts so Wallace is harnessed and wired up, and just before you leave, you look at him, a captured man, his pale eyes a little scared, just a glint of fear, and you want to say, "Shhh. Nothing bad will happen here."

You follow the experimenter out of one cell-like room and into another where there is no electric chair, but instead a huge generator with shiny buttons, beneath which are printed the voltages - 15, 30, 45, all the way up to 450. "Danger, Extreme Shock, XXX," it says on the top-level levers. The experimenter is saying, "You will read these word sequences to Wallace through the microphone. For each mistake he makes, you give him a shock. You start at the lowest, 15, and go up. May I give you a sample shock?"

You offer your arm. The experimenter lowers some pronged device onto your skin and you feel a pair of hot fangs, the kiss of a stingray. You flinch. "That was 45 volts," the experimenter says. "Just so you'll know what the punishment is like."

You begin.

"Lake, luck, hay, sun." "Tree, loon, laughter, child."

The word pairs have a kind of poetry to them, and now you are happy, all these lakes and loons, and Wallace, whose voice comes crackling at you through a tiny microphone, also seems happy. "Keep 'em coming boy!" he shouts, and you lob him "chocolate, waffle, valentine, cupid", and that's when he makes his first mistake. He forgets the cupid, unlucky in love. You give the first shock, just 15 volts, a kittenish tickle, nothing to worry about.

But that first shock changes things. You can just tell. Wallace's voice, when he repeats the next word pair, is sombre, serious, but, goddamn it, he makes another mistake! You give him 30 volts. Next try, good boy, he gets it right, and then again, he gets it right. You find you're rooting for him, and then he screws up "tree house". Then he screws up "dahlia" and "grass" and before you know it, you're up to 115 volts; you watch your finger land on the press-pad, the nacreous nail, the knuckle, which is the hardest part of the hand. You press down. Through the microphone comes the sound of a scream. "Let me out, let me out! I've had enough, let me outta here!"

You're starting to shake. You can feel wet crescents under your arms. You turn to the experimenter. "OK," you say. "I guess we gotta stop. He wants out."

"The experiment requires that you continue," this poker face says.

"But he wants out!" you say. "We can't continue if he wants out."

"The experiment requires that you continue," he repeats. "Please continue," he says.

You blink. You continue. You don't know why, you hate to disappoint, and this experimenter seems so sure of himself.

Wallace makes a mistake. He makes three, four mistakes, and now you're up to 150 volts, and he's screaming, "I have a heart condition. Let me out of here! I no longer wish to be in this experiment," and the experimenter is standing right next to you and saying, "Go on, please, the shocks are painful but they are not harmful. There will be no permanent tissue damage."

You are fighting tears. "But he has a heart condition," you say, you think you say, or is your mind just whispering to itself? "There will be no permanent tissue damage," he repeats, and you shout, "For God's sake, what about temporary damage?" and he says, "The experiment requires that you continue," and you say, you're crying now, you say, "Why don't we just go in there and check on him? Let's just make sure he's OK," and Mr White Coat shakes his head, you can hear the bones click in his neck. "Are you a doctor?" you ask. "Are you convinced there will be no permanent tissue damage?" He seems so sure of himself, just like a doctor, which you're not, he knows what he's doing. You don't. He wears a white coat. So you continue up the ladder of levers, reading word pairs, and something strange has happened to you. You concentrate totally on your task. You read each word pair carefully, carefully, you press the levers like a pilot at his panel. Your range of vision narrows to the mechanics at hand. You have a job to do.

At 315 volts Wallace gives one last, blood-curdling scream and then stops. He falls silent. You turn to the experimenter. You feel very odd. You feel hollow, and the experimenter, when he speaks, says, "Consider silence a wrong answer," and that seems so funny you start to laugh, you just laugh and laugh and press those levers, because there is no way out, no way to say, "No! No! No!"

The experimenter says, "We can stop now," and through the door comes Wallace. He looks fine. He pumps your hand. "Wow," he says, "You're sweating. Calm down. Geez, I'm known for my melodrama, but I'm fine." He leaves.

A spry little man named Milgram enters the room. "Do you mind if I ask you some questions?"

Then he shows you a picture of a schoolboy being flogged and takes down your education level and whether you've ever been in the army and what religion you are and you are so numb - you answer everything - and you are so confused. If Wallace really wasn't hurt, then why did he scream so loud?

A rage rises up. You look at Milgram and you say, "I get it. This wasn't about learning at all. This was an experiment about obedience, obedience to authority," and Milgram, who is terribly young to be pioneering such a controversial and damaging experiment, says, "Yes, it was. If you hadn't guessed it, I would have told you later, in a standard letter I mail to my subjects. Sixty-five per cent of my subjects behaved just as you did. It is totally normal for a person to make the choices you did in the situation we put you in. You have nothing to feel badly about," but you won't be taken in. You won't be reassured. He fooled you once, but he won't fool you twice. There are no reassuring words for what you've learned in his lab tonight. Lake. Loon. Swan. Song. You have learned you have blood on your hands.

For Stanley Milgram proved it to be true, in Linsly-Chittenden Hall, and then later in a lab in Bridgeport, and then still later in replications all around the world, that 62 to 65 per cent of us, when faced with a credible authority, will follow orders to the point of lethally harming a person.

Even today, more than 40 years after the lesson of Milgram has supposedly been learned, people still say, "Not me." Yes, you.

The power of Milgram's experiments lies, perhaps, right here, in the great gap between what we think about ourselves, and who we frankly are.

Milgram was certainly not the first psychologist to experiment with obedience, nor the first psychologist to deceive his subjects (the shock machine was utterly fake, the learner and the experimenter paid actors Milgram had hired to do the job), but he was the first to do so, on both accounts, systematically.

He had expected compliance, but not at the astounding rate of 65 per cent of subjects willing to deliver what they believed were lethal shocks. In an attempt to coax more defiance out of his subjects, he varied the conditions. He moved the learner into the room with the subject, removed the microphone, and had the subject deliver the shocks by forcing the learner's hand onto a metal plate.

Compliance did drop then, but not by much. Terrifying. Depressing, yes. A full 30 per cent of subjects were willing to repeatedly slam the learner's hand onto the shock plate, endure the sound of his screams, and watch him slump over, all under orders from the experimenter.

Milgram was a social psychologist, which means he had to understand his findings primarily in terms of the situation, for that is social psychology's clarion call. In the eyes of social psychology, personality - who you are - matters less than place - where you are - and Milgram said he was demonstrating this, how any normal person can become a killer if he finds himself in a place where killing is called for.

He used his experiments, to greater and lesser degrees over the years, to explain the appalling behaviour at My Lai in Vietnam, and in Nazi Germany, where his work is inextricably hitched to Hannah Arendt's thesis on the banality of evil - Adolf Eichmann blindly taking orders, propelled by forces external to him. Today, years after Milgram's experiment, social psychologists still sound this bell, proclaiming that what matters is context, not psyche.

Milgram subscribed to this general view, yet on closer inspection there are glitches that suggest he was not so sure. For instance, if he believed it was all, or mostly, situation that propelled his volunteers, then why did he administer a personality test at the end of each shock session? Why did he gather data on education, religion, military service, and gender?

Milgram achieved 65 per cent, which means that 35 per cent defied the experimenter and the situation. Why? This is a question no social psychologist can answer. It is at this critical juncture that social psychology breaks down. It can tell you about aggregate behaviour, but it can tell you nothing about the nay-sayers, the exotic tendrils that curl off the main frame and give sprout to something strange. Here, Milgram had devised a study in which 35 per cent of his plants, to extend the metaphor, came up crimson, hybrid - it was not the soil; it must have been something in the seed.

While the general public seized the findings with fervour - going so far as to publish them in The New York Times and to incorporate them into a TV-movie called The Tenth Level, starring William Shatner as the wiry-haired, slightly mad Milgram - the smaller circle of psychology looked askance at the experiment.

Scholar Bernie Mixon claimed that Milgram had not necessarily studied obedience at all; rather, he had studied trust, for the subjects who had "gone all the way" had every reason to believe in the experimenter's goodwill. Still others say, no, it's not trust that Milgram studied; what he did is create this entirely staged situation that tells us little about the decidedly unstaged lives in which we find ourselves.

Some say the Milgram experiment "does nothing but illuminate itself". Ian Parker, who wrote about the experiments for Granta magazine, eventually dismisses them as a piece of tragicomic theatre, a view that the distinguished scholar Edward Jones upheld earlier when he rejected Milgram's first obedience paper for his journal because "we are led to no conclusions about obedience, really, but rather are exhorted to be impressed with the power of your situation as an influence context".

One of the most vocal Milgram detractors is Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, a former professor at Harvard University and author of the book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Goldhagen has serious doubts about both the generalisability of Milgram's specific obedience experiment and the resulting obedience paradigm as an explanation for why genocides occur.

"The Milgram experiment makes more mistaken assumptions about the Holocaust than just about anything else ever published," says Goldhagen. "His obedience theories just don't apply. People disobey credible authorities all the time. The American Government says X. We do Y. Even in the medical world, where people assume benign motives on the parts of their physicians, patients still all the time neglect to follow orders.

"Furthermore, the situation Milgram set up, where subjects didn't have any time to reflect on what they were doing, is not how the real world works. In the real world, SS officers were killing during the day and going home to their families at night. In the real world, people have plenty of opportunities to alter their course of behaviour. When they don't, it's not because they're scared of authority, but because they choose not to. The Milgram experiments illustrate nothing about this factor of choice."

So what are we left with? Again, questions of validity, for if the experiment does little to predict how a man's choices in the lab will translate into choices outside the lab, and if we accept prediction, and generalisability, as one of the main goals of a scientific experiment, then, indeed, are not Milgram's critics right?

Milgram's experiments are indisputably in the canon. And yet, no one can agree on the theme. A story of obedience? No. A story of trust? No. An example of ethical wrongdoing? No.

I remember when I first heard of the Milgram experiments, how I felt a shock of recognition, and the immediate knowledge that I could do such a thing, unsteady as I am. And I knew I could do such a thing, not because some strange set of circumstances propelled me to, no. The impetus lay within me, like a little hot spot. It was not external. It was internal.

How often had I, have you, heard a racial slur and said nothing in order to keep the peace? How often have I, have you, seen something wrong at work, maybe a mistreated colleague, and done nothing so your own job stays steady? The little hot spot travels inside us. Certain situations may make it glow brighter, and others dimmer, but the moral failing that lies at the heart of so many humans, well, there it lies, at the heart, which cannot, after it has failed one too many times, be shocked back into being.

This is an edited extract from Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the 20th Century by Lauren Slater, published by Bloomsbury,

Time to ask ourselves, as good christians, at what point would we stop inflicting pain on our innocent victum?

PraiseJah answered on 04/24/04:

Like Jesus, we would stop before we even start!

The decision at Nuremberg said it all - You must obey your conscience and not follow orders regardless of who gives the orders. The following orders defense did not prevent those mass murderers from being senetenced to death for war crimes.

Paul said in Romans chapter 10 that event the pagans have a conscience. We all have that voice inside that says DONT. We should all listen to it, especially if and we anything we do or say hurts someone else.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Uni-Agdistis asked on 04/23/04 - Sharing .....

A friend sent me this … sharing with all.

I WISH YOU ENOUGH!!!

Recently, I overheard a Mother and daughter in their last moments together at a regional airport. They had announced her departure and standing near the security gate, they hugged and she said to her daughter, "I love you. I wish you enough."

She in turn said, "Mom, our life together has been more than enough. Your love is all I ever needed. I wish you enough, too, Mom." They kissed and she left.

She walked over toward the window where I was seated. Standing there, I could see she wanted and needed to cry. I tried not to intrude on her privacy, but she welcomed me in by asking, "Did you ever say
good-bye to someone knowing it would be forever?"

"Yes, I have," I replied.

"Forgive me for asking, but why is this a forever good-bye?" I asked

"I am old and she lives much too far away. I have challenges ahead and the reality is, the next trip back will be for my funeral," she said

"When you were saying good-bye I heard you say, "I wish you enough. May I ask what that means?"

She began to smile. "That's a wish that has been handed down from other generations. My parents used to say it to everyone."

She paused for a moment and looked up as if trying to remember it in detail, she smiled even more.

"When we said 'I wish you enough,' we were wanting the other person to have a life filled with just enough good things to sustain them," she continued. Then, turning toward me, she shared the following as if she were reciting it from memory.

I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright.
I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more.
I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive.
I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life
appear much bigger.
I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting.
I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.
I wish you enough hellos to get you through the final
good-bye."

She then began to sob and walked away.

My friends and loved ones, I wish you ENOUGH!!! They say "It takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them"

Send this phrase to the people you'll never forget and also remember to send it to the person who sent it to you.

It's a short message to let them know that you'll never forget them. If you don't send it to anyone, it means you're in a hurry. Take the time to live.

My friends, I wish you ENOUGH!

PraiseJah answered on 04/23/04:

Enough (love) is all we need

Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/23/04 - A high price for conversion to conscience



By Julia Baird
April 24, 2004


In the late 1980s, there was a narrow blue shape drawn with packing tape on the black and white tiled chancel - the area where the choir sings - at St John's Darlinghurst, the beautiful old church hemmed in between the pubs and cafes of Kings Cross. It was the exact size of the cell occupied by Mordechai Vanunu, the former nuclear technician who converted to Christianity at St John's in 1986 just before taking Israel's nuclear secrets to the press, and being jailed for almost two decades.

Everyone who took communion - "this is my body, this is my blood" - walked over the outline of the thin, windowless box Vanunu was confined in. Someone ripped up the tape after a few months - no one knew who - but the presence of the man they call "Morde" has remained in the parish ever since.

This week, after 18 years in prison, he was freed. As images of his determined face coming out of Ashkelon jail flashed across the globe, about 30 people came to the Sydney church for a vigil for the man who had been baptised there when he was 32.

The mood was gentle, solemn and almost sad, springing from grief at what Vanunu, now 49, called the "cruel and barbaric" treatment he had suffered in jail.

The retired publisher Katharine Brisbane, who has been in the parish since 1972, said the day of his baptism was an ordinary affair in hindsight. No one guessed that the tourist who befriended the assistant minister, Dave Smith - who was standing outside the prison gates to meet him this week - had information in his pocket that would detonate with such global force.

Vanunu made his decision to reveal the secrets of the nuclear plant in Israel he had worked in for nine years while in the parish, but he was whisked to London after The Sunday Times picked up the story, and disappeared soon afterwards. He had been lured to Italy by a woman, "Cindy", who delivered him to Mossad agents. He was sentenced to 18 years jail in Israel for treason, espionage and revealing state secrets.

It is understandable that Israelis feel angry, and betrayed. He gave away government secrets. Many argue they need nuclear weapons to defend their tiny strip of land against Arab forces or a second holocaust. The pressures are immense, and the horrific terrorist attacks are relentless.

But it is a shame that the whole extraordinary, almost mythical tale of a man speaking out against weapons of mass destruction because his conscience drove him to, has been interpreted as a religious fight - as Christianity versus Judaism, as religious hate, rather than a philosophical conviction. Isn't a love of peace at the core of all religions?

Those who oppose nuclear proliferation are not limited to any one faith, or country, or belief system. And as Daniel Ellsberg, a former US Defence Department official, who released the "Pentagon Papers" to the media in 1971 wrote, the world urgently needs more Vanunus, in every nuclear state: "Can anyone fail to recognise the value to world security of a heroic Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean Vanunu making comparable revelations?"

Smith remembers Vanunu's struggle with his conscience, when he came to his bible studies sessions on social issues: "It was very clear what he felt. This was the issue for him - he wanted to do something for world peace."

In a sermon, Smith revealed: "We spoke together about Nietzsche's concept of standing on the edge of your existence and staring into the abyss of your own despair, and Kierkegaard's concept of throwing yourself into the abyss, and finding that Christ is there to catch you and to hold you." Vanunu decided to go with Kierkegaard.

He later wrote he felt he had to overcome "the force of general opinion" around him, but believed nuclear weapons programs were wrong. The chief barrier he had to overcome was "the sacrifice of my private life to exposure and slander, and of my plans for the future". But even in prison, he believed it was worth it: "By this action I [demonstrated] the way in which a man must be willing to sacrifice and risk his life for the sake of an act that is important and beneficial to all mankind."

This week, Vanunu was resolute that he would continue to speak against "all the world's nuclear weapons", and said Israel should open its reactor for inspections. But he insisted: "I am not harming Israel. I'm not interested in Israel ... I want to live a normal life, a simple life, as a free man outside of Israel." Now he has sought sanctuary in an Anglican church in Jerusalem, fearing for his life.

Vanunu is not allowed to leave the country, approach international boundaries and cannot contact or speak to foreigners without Government permission. He will be imprisoned if he discusses his kidnapping or Israel's nuclear plant.

But surely Vanunu - who longs to marry and wants to become a history teacher - has suffered enough for his courage. He was in solitary confinement for 12 years, and the light was left on in his cell for the first part of his sentence. He became delusional and paranoid, believing the colours on his walls were placed there by the secret service. He stopped writing for some time, and friends thought he had died. The fact he has emerged strong, fit, and faithful is incredible.

He even declared to his captors: "You didn't succeed to break me, to make me crazy. The human spirit is free. You cannot destroy the human spirit."

You just never know who might be a Christian do you? and there was enough evidence to convict this man. And here's a Christian question; can you understand how he emerged strong, fit and faithful?

PraiseJah answered on 04/23/04:

It seems strange that with Israel having all that nuclear armory, one of the reason for the Iraq war was to "protect Israel"!

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ROLCAM asked on 04/23/04 - A Special Letter.

Dear Mommy, I am in Heaven now, sitting on Jesus' lap. He loves me and cries with me; for my heart has been broken. I so wanted to be your little girl. I don't quite understand what has happened. I was so excited when I began realizing my existance. I was in a dark, yet comfortable place. I saw I had fingers and toes. I was pretty far along in my developing, yet not near ready to leave my surroundings. I spent most of my time thinking or sleeping. Even from my earliest days, I felt a special bonding between you and me. Sometimes I heard you crying and I cried with you. Sometimes you would yell or scream, then cry. I heard Daddy yelling back. I was sad, and hoped you would be better soon. I wondered why you cried so much. One day you cried almost all of the day. I hurt for you. I couldn't imagine why you were so unhappy. That same day, the most horrible thing happened. A very mean monster came into that warm, comfortable place I was in. I was so scared, I began screaming, but you never once tried to help me. Maybe you never heard me. The monster got closer and closer as I was screaming and screaming, "Mommy, Mommy, help me please; Mommy, help me." Complete terror is all I felt. I screamed and screamed until I thought I couldn't anymore. Then the monster started ripping my arms off. It hurt so bad; the pain I can never explain. It didn't stop. Oh, how I begged it to stop. I screamed in horror as it ripped my leg off. Though I was in such complete pain, I was dying. I knew I would never see your face or hear you say how much you love me. I wanted to make all your tears go away. I had so many plans to make you happy. Now I couldn't; all my dreams were shattered. Though I was in utter pain and horror, I felt the pain of my heart breaking, above all. I wanted more than anything to be your daughter. No use now, for I was dying a painful death. I could only imagine the terrible things that they had done to you. I wanted to tell you that I love you before I was gone, but I didn't know the words you could understand. And soon, I no longer had the breath to say them; I was dead.I felt myself rising. I was being carried by a huge angel into a big beautiful place. I was still crying, but the physical pain was gone. The angel took me to God and set me on His lap. He said He loved me, and He was my Father. Then I was happy. I asked Him what the thing was that killed me. He answered, "Abortion. I am sorry, my child; for I know how it feels." I don't know what abortion is; I guess that's the name of the monster. I'm writing to say that I love you and to tell you how much I wanted to be your little girl. I tried very hard to live. I wanted to live. I had the will, but I couldn't; the monster was too powerful. It sucked my arms and legs off and finally got all of me. It was impossible to live. I just wanted you to know I tried to stay with you. I didn't want to die. Also, Mommy, please watch out for that abortion monster. Mommy, I love you and I would hate for you to go through the kind of pain I did. Please be careful.

Love,
Your Baby Girl


PraiseJah answered on 04/23/04:

It is so unjust that this is happening to millions of babies all over the world and it is being performed by people who have taken an oath to save lives. Such hypocrisy!


ROLCAM rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/23/04 - The Christian thing to do.......

Marvelous Chocolate

Chocolate is a vegetable. Chocolate is derived from cacao beans. Bean = vegetable.
Sugar is derived from either sugar CANE or sugar BEETS. Both are plants, which places them in the vegetable category. Thus, chocolate is a vegetable.
To go one step further, chocolate candy bars also contain milk, which is dairy.
Chocolate also is laced with anti-oxidants that help fight cancer, has caffeine for a quick pick-me-up while at the same time providing a soothing, mellow feeling. So chocolate candy bars are a health food.
Chocolate-covered raisins, cherries, orange slices and strawberries all count as fruit, so eat as many as you want.
If you've got melted chocolate all over your hands, you're eating it too slowly. The problem: How to get 2 pounds of chocolate home from the store in a hot car. The solution: Eat it in the parking lot.
Diet tip: Eat a chocolate bar before each meal. It'll take the edge off your appetite, and you'll eat less.
If I eat equal amounts of dark chocolate and white chocolate, is that a balanced diet? Don't they actually counteract each other?
Put "eat chocolate" at the top of your list of things to do today. That way, at least you'll get one thing done.
A nice box of chocolates can provide your total daily intake of calories in one place. Now, isn't that handy?
If you can't eat all your chocolate, it will keep in the freezer. But if you can't eat all your chocolate, what's wrong with you?
One last note: If you can part with it - Giving chocolate to someone says I love you to him or her so do it often. And if you donate chocolates to your Church you are saying I love you to Jesus and his disciples, so chocolate becomes a religious treat and offering. AND if you’re lucky they’ll share that tasty love with you. A blessing returned. After all doing good and sharing good things is the Christian thing to do.

PraiseJah answered on 04/23/04:

The amount of caffeine in chocolate is only 1/10 of that in coffee. The PMU comes from it's tyramine and phenylethalamine content - both naturally occurring antidepressant neurotransmitters in the brain and that makes chocolate a safer lift for the mood than Prozac.

The Aztec held Theobroma cacao as being the "tree of knowledge" from Eden and that consuming it would impart universal wisdom and knowledge ( check out WB Encyc. - "chocolate") - It's good but it aint THAT good! So even today the Aztec descendants use it in their religious rituals. Theobroma means "food for the gods"

Several years ago young man stranded in the Himilayas for over a month survived on a chocolate bar. So while it may not provide sufficient nutrition long term it was able to keep him alive.

BTW - while the sugar content in particular gives it a bad rap for dieters, chocolate milk has a lower GI than plain milk. The reason is that some unknown componant in chocolate slows down the release of sugar into the bloodstream

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/23/04 - PARACLETE:


"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew." - Adolph Hitler

I wouldn't hang that tag on anyone! Would you?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 04/23/04:

I would take anything Adolf said with a grain of salt. He was mad.

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/22/04 - WHO MADE GOD?



"God never needed to be made because He was always there. God exists in a different way from human beings. We exist in a derived, finite, and fragile way, but the Creator exists as eternal, self–sustaining, and necessary, in the sense that there is no possibility of Him ceasing to exist. In philosophy, many errors result from supposing that the conditions and limits of our own finite existence apply to God."

Citation: Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer, U. of Georgia

Comments?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 04/22/04:

God is the source of all the energy in the universe, including that bound up in particles of matter. Isaiah 40:26-28.

According to the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter, neither can be created nor destroyed. They simply change from one to the other.

Hence God as the source of all energy is eternal, was never created and will never die.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 04/22/04 - could 9/11 be a conspiracy

I have been reading a lot of things written before and after 9/11 about the government conspiring to make America feel secure so they can take away more and more of our freedoms under the guise of "for our safety. The general idea sounds maybe far fetched, but many of the things I heard as far back as the 60's are coming to pass as just as I had heard.

These are just a few main points out of thousands of exerpts from things I have read and heard.

The government feels if they create disaster the average American will welcome “Homeland security” then the government can ruthlessly use the F.E.M.A. act.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7197/concetration1.html
The purpose is make Americans feel they need the Patriots Act so that they can use the right to 'search and seizure' without a warrant due to terrorism is already being used on innocent, unsuspecting Americans.

By Scott Shane and Tom Bowman
Sun Staff
Originally published April 24, 2001

WASHINGTON - U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," said one document reportedly prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the document says. "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation."
The plan is laid out in documents signed by the five Joint Chiefs but never carried out, according to writer James Bamford in "Body of Secrets." The new history of the Fort Meade-based eavesdropping agency is being released today by Doubleday.

A statement recorded in documents from Nuremberg, Germany trials,"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked [by some evil person or country] and they will do it. They will denounce the pacifists {who oppose the war], for lack of patriotism and say they are exposing the country to danger."

On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush, on behalf of Thyssen. Dealing with Nazi Germany, and even financing Hitler weren't illegal until Hitler declared war on the US. Six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. By then, many companies that had been doing business with Hitler's war machine had stopped. But not Prescott Bush and the Union Banking Corporation. Writes Toby Rogers, "Prescott Bush continued with business as usual, aiding the Nazi invasion of Europe and supplying resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany."


On Connecting the dots, President Bush cannot and willnot connect the dots because HE IS the dots.
If you live in the U.S. and think you know what your government is doing to other countries and why, just because you watch cable or read a daily newspaper – think again.

Israeli workers were warned not to go to work at the World Trade Center and that key government officials were warned not to fly on aircraft heading through New York and Washington airspace. No evidence has ever been offered in support of these theories, although John Ashcroft was earlier in 2001 warned off commerical flight "for the rest of his term" by the FBI; Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, was warned the day before against flying; and several "top Pentagon officials" cancelled 9/11 travel plans the day before.
Michael Meacher, a British MP, writes in The Guardian, that "US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It is also said that many of the terrorists were trained by the U.S. government.
The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

The rest is from Alex Jones http://www.infowars.com/

Marvin Bush - brother of George Jr. Marvin is a substantial shareholder and was on the Board of Directors until 2000 of a security company aptly named Securacom. This is not an ordinary security force with canvas badges and walkie-talkies; it’s an electronic security company, which was ‘coincidentally’ involved with Dulles Airport until 1998. Handling electronic security at Dulles seems like an excellent way to gain access to Air Traffic Control communication codes with NORAD, which is in charge of intercept missions. According to CEO Barry McDaniel, the company ‘handled some of the security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down.’ How convenient, huh? Bombs were in those towers… Bush’s presidency was saved by these attacks –

The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic- a grand spectacle. Who would want to divert our attention from the real cause of the collapse of those towers? It must be those who benefited most from these attacks.
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ‘pancaked’ as it’s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel’s ‘don’t trust a truss’ explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, “You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don’t just implode like that; this was a demolition.”
Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, “We think there were bombs set in the building.” Notice he said ‘we’. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn’t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.





PraiseJah answered on 04/22/04:

Im sure there were many explosions heard in those buildings - as any of the fittings and furnishings catch fire with the intense heat from the exploded fuel tanks they would explode not just burn quietly.

sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 04/22/04 - I do not really understand stem cell enough

to say if I believe it is ethical, moral, etc. I had it explained to me that it is just some unfertilized nuclei no different than skin grafts. Then I read it is from aborted babies.
As far as extending life, some of your comments are refering to questioning the quality of life if life were extended to 100 or 110. Consider back in the early 1900's life expectancy was 40 (they thought it impossible to live to 100), by the 60's life expectancy was 70, now more and more people are living to 100. More and more old people live a better life quality at 85 than people 60 years old in the 60's. A lot has to do with our knowledge of pollution, disease, health and other things. If stem cell does eliminate diseases I doubt there will be a question of quality of life because the purpose of stem cell is a better quality of life but not understanding stem cell I can't say whether it is or isn't at the expense of an unborn baby. On the other hand with all our knowledge on how to live longer as society as a whole we choose to find other ways of choosing a slow death such as obesity, playing video games as opposed to excersize etc.
See youin'z in 2055 when I turn 100!---(without stem cell)

PraiseJah answered on 04/22/04:

Bottom line - stem cells from embryos are not necessary since adult stem cells and those taken from cord blood, baby teeth and bone marrow are already being used to produce replacement parts.

Read up on the difference and the results at the site below: (search for stem cell research)

http://www.newscientist

sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Uni-Agdistis asked on 04/22/04 - Extension of life span


Fruits of science worry Bush's bioethicist
By Morton Kondracke


Kass, the controversial chairman of President Bush's Commission on Bioethics, was disputing the claim made by advocates of cloning for medical research that the product really isn't an embryo, a "life."

Kass wants Congress to enact a moratorium on the research. Fortunately, it's unlikely that will happen any time soon, but cloning is the subject of a furious debate, President Bush is against it, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is for it.

Advocates of therapeutic cloning, including scientific researchers, biotech companies and disease groups, claim that so-called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) does not produce a human embryo.

Its slogan is "no sperm, no life," an attempt to remove any moral onus from destroying the "entity" to harvest stem cells for potentially life-saving research.

Advocates contend that the SCNT process -- involving removal of the nucleus from a female egg and replacing it with the nucleus from a donor's cell -- produces "something that has never existed before," which will never be implanted in a woman and therefore should not be considered "human life."

But Kass contended that the product is identical to the one which -- in experiments with sheep, cats, mice, rabbits and goats -- has resulted in a birth. Dolly, the sheep cloned in England in 1996, is the first and most famous case.

Challenging is what Leon Kass does. As a professor at the University of Chicago and author of five books and numerous articles, he challenges the notion that science should be free to produce anything it can in the name of "progress."

Kass leads a movement -- branded "neo-conservative" by its foes -- which sees a danger of unbridled science producing a society resembling that in Aldous Huxley's famed 1932 novel "Brave New World."

Kass' opposition to cloning and his role as adviser leading Bush to restrict federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research has led adversaries to brand him "anti-science" and declare he has "a 16th century sensibility."

Kass declared, "I am not a Luddite. I am not a hater of science. I esteem modern science and regard it as one of the great monuments to the human intellect even as I wonder about some of the uses of the technology."

Kass is specifically worried about the consequences of scientific advances that will move beyond conquering the diseases of aging -- Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, stroke and arthritis -- to conquering the aging process itself and extending the maximum human lifespan from 100 years to 130 or 150.

Public health and medical discoveries increased average life expectancy in the United States from 47 years in 1900 to 79 today, and scientists estimate that if the diseases of aging were cured, life expectancy could go to 90 or so.

He thinks that increased life expectancy and an aging society already have had negative effects on children and have lengthened adolescence and that lifespan extension might make vigorous "old" people reluctant to make way for the young, or innovative ideas.

Moreover, he worries that, "if people can look forward to living indefinitely, they will be less inclined to build cathedrals, write the B-minor Mass or write Shakespeare's sonnets.


"Time is a gift," he said, "but the prospect of endless time has the possibility of undermining our taking time seriously and making it count." In Greek mythology, he notes, the immortal gods were bored and busied themselves watching the purposeful activities of mortals.

Kass said that his presidential council has no power to set policy and that he would not advise curbs on aging research, but hopes that scientific self-regulation might "somehow get control so that we can reap the benefits of research without paying the worst costs."

Having interviewed many aging researchers, I'd say that their ability to extend the human lifespan is not imminent -- particularly given current funding priorities -- and that Kass' concerns are largely speculative.

(Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.)

Source: The complete report can be found at:

http://reviewappeal.midsouthnews.com/news.ez?viewStory=21123


Question: Is it morally wrong to extend the life span?

PraiseJah answered on 04/22/04:

Stem cells from other sources such as cord blood, bone marrow and even baby teeth are currently being used to make replacement parts for diseased organs and tissues. There is simply no need to clone human beings and then kill them and use their stem cells. No need at all.

The dream of living to 150 is just that - a dream. Even if vital organs were replaced by parts produced from stem cells cancer would kill everyone well before they reached 150.

Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 04/22/04 - could 9/11 be a conspiracy

I have been reading a lot of things written before and after 9/11 about the government conspiring to make America feel secure so they can take away more and more of our freedoms under the guise of "for our safety. The general idea sounds maybe far fetched, but many of the things I heard as far back as the 60's are coming to pass as just as I had heard.

These are just a few main points out of thousands of exerpts from things I have read and heard.

The government feels if they create disaster the average American will welcome “Homeland security” then the government can ruthlessly use the F.E.M.A. act.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7197/concetration1.html
The purpose is make Americans feel they need the Patriots Act so that they can use the right to 'search and seizure' without a warrant due to terrorism is already being used on innocent, unsuspecting Americans.

By Scott Shane and Tom Bowman
Sun Staff
Originally published April 24, 2001

WASHINGTON - U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," said one document reportedly prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the document says. "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation."
The plan is laid out in documents signed by the five Joint Chiefs but never carried out, according to writer James Bamford in "Body of Secrets." The new history of the Fort Meade-based eavesdropping agency is being released today by Doubleday.

A statement recorded in documents from Nuremberg, Germany trials,"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked [by some evil person or country] and they will do it. They will denounce the pacifists {who oppose the war], for lack of patriotism and say they are exposing the country to danger."

On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush, on behalf of Thyssen. Dealing with Nazi Germany, and even financing Hitler weren't illegal until Hitler declared war on the US. Six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. By then, many companies that had been doing business with Hitler's war machine had stopped. But not Prescott Bush and the Union Banking Corporation. Writes Toby Rogers, "Prescott Bush continued with business as usual, aiding the Nazi invasion of Europe and supplying resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany."


On Connecting the dots, President Bush cannot and willnot connect the dots because HE IS the dots.
If you live in the U.S. and think you know what your government is doing to other countries and why, just because you watch cable or read a daily newspaper – think again.

Israeli workers were warned not to go to work at the World Trade Center and that key government officials were warned not to fly on aircraft heading through New York and Washington airspace. No evidence has ever been offered in support of these theories, although John Ashcroft was earlier in 2001 warned off commerical flight "for the rest of his term" by the FBI; Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, was warned the day before against flying; and several "top Pentagon officials" cancelled 9/11 travel plans the day before.
Michael Meacher, a British MP, writes in The Guardian, that "US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It is also said that many of the terrorists were trained by the U.S. government.
The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

The rest is from Alex Jones http://www.infowars.com/

Marvin Bush - brother of George Jr. Marvin is a substantial shareholder and was on the Board of Directors until 2000 of a security company aptly named Securacom. This is not an ordinary security force with canvas badges and walkie-talkies; it’s an electronic security company, which was ‘coincidentally’ involved with Dulles Airport until 1998. Handling electronic security at Dulles seems like an excellent way to gain access to Air Traffic Control communication codes with NORAD, which is in charge of intercept missions. According to CEO Barry McDaniel, the company ‘handled some of the security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down.’ How convenient, huh? Bombs were in those towers… Bush’s presidency was saved by these attacks –

The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic- a grand spectacle. Who would want to divert our attention from the real cause of the collapse of those towers? It must be those who benefited most from these attacks.
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ‘pancaked’ as it’s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel’s ‘don’t trust a truss’ explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, “You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don’t just implode like that; this was a demolition.”
Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, “We think there were bombs set in the building.” Notice he said ‘we’. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn’t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.





PraiseJah answered on 04/22/04:

The fact that the US intelligence agencies did not take any action over the warnings does not of itself prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy on the part of the US. I would not put it past them to think of it, but how on earth could they get so many ordinary civilians to cooperate with such a heinous crime? And why would any Islamic extremists cooperate with the US? And in what way could those attacks save Bush's presidency? People have been questioning him since over WHY it happended so easily!

The amount of fuel on those jets exploding on impact were the equivalent to bombs and far more powerful than bombs used for demolition. The planes were deliberately aimed at near the top storeys to ensure the collapsing top floors would bring the others down. The sheer weight of the top floors was enough. No other bombs would be needed. The steel columns also melted from the intense heat of what was a huge firebomb in each case - the fuel tanks exploding.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 04/21/04 - Word Was God.

Is not this scripture talking about our Lord Jesus?
This scripture seems hard for some to understand it, why is it so hard when it comes right from the Bible?


The Word Became Flesh

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Thank you. Liz.


PraiseJah answered on 04/21/04:

The Word Was God"


AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person


Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:


1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

In the Bible even the angels are called "gods" because being spirit beings they are godlike. Compare Psalm 8:5,6 in the Hebrew mss with the Greek Septuagint.

Liz22 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 04/21/04 - Japanese Scientists

Just released on the newswire. Japanese scientists have created a mouse out of the DNA of two female mice. Interesting?

PraiseJah answered on 04/21/04:

A female mouse of course! Id like to see them make a male mouse by parthenogenesis!

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 04/21/04 - What Good Have You Done Today?

Enough on sin. It seems everyone here wants to tell me how bad they are, and I want to tell them that they are not "bad"!

What GOOD have you done today?

PraiseJah answered on 04/21/04:

We have mentioned our sins because we gave honest answers to your question on sin.We are not arrogant enough to think we are perfect, hence our answers.
As to what good I have done today - it is 7:30am here where I live so Ive not long been out of bed. I havn't sinned - yet (LOL) so that's good. But Ill go back to yesterday - I visited my aged mother and took her some frozen dinners ( I cook extra so that she does not have to cook herself) I then went with her in my car to a Bible study group where I was able to encourage others. I visited my daughter who has ovarian cancer and gave her a hug. I babysat my oldest grandson ( school holidays) I answered questions on this Board and also on another Board to help people understand the Bible better.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 04/19/04 - something for the ladies

My daughter just e mailed this to me and I thought id share it with the ladies here

Why Women Cry
A little boy asked his mother, "Why are you crying?" "Because I'm a woman," she told him.

"I don't understand," he said. His Mom just hugged him and said, "And you never will."

Later the little boy asked his father, "Why does mother seem to cry for no reason?"

"All women cry for no reason," was all his dad could say.

The little boy grew up and became a man, still wondering why women cry.

Finally he put in a call to God. When God got on the phone, he asked, "God, why do women cry so easily?"

God said:

"When I made the woman she had to be special.

I made her shoulders strong enough to carry the weight of the world,

yet gentle enough to give comfort.

I gave her an inner strength to endure childbirth and the rejection that many times comes from her children.

I gave her a hardness that allows her to keep going when everyone else gives up, and take care of her family through sickness and fatigue without complaining.

I gave her the sensitivity to love her children under any and all circumstances, even when her child has hurt her very badly.

I gave her strength to carry her husband through his faults and fashioned her from his rib to protect his heart.

I gave her wisdom to know that a good husband never hurts his wife, but sometimes tests her strengths and her resolve to stand beside him unfalteringly.

And finally, I gave her a tear to shed. This is hers exclusively to use whenever it is needed."

"You see my son," said God, "the beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair.

The beauty of a woman must be seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart - the place where love resides."


PraiseJah answered on 04/20/04:

We must be careful not to generalize because men can cry too. While raised to be macho and not show their feelings men are still soft inside.

revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 04/16/04 - I Wonder.

What is/are the horrible things you have done in your adult life with your adult relationships that is so horrible so despicable that after having gone to the person "wronged" and talking things out and asking forgiveness, well, god is present and god's grace is washing away the guilt (self-imposed?)so compassion and happiness and joy can re-exist on one's spirit.

Just what are all these horrible and despicable things? Or are these things just normal stuff of life? NO one is perfect nor should one be expected to be perfect, would you agree?



PraiseJah answered on 04/16/04:

No matter how great or small the sin we need to ask God for forgiveness and if our sin has hurt another person we need to ask their forgiveness too. We also need to forgive others if we want God's forgiveness.
Contrary to the popular expression - love DOES mean you have to say you are sorry and follow through and make recompense if needed.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 04/15/04 - What do you think about this?

"Our desire to please God does in itself please God."

What do you think about that?

DK

PraiseJah answered on 04/15/04:

Certainly God appreciates our efforts to please Him but we are all sinners needing Christ's blood to cover our shortcomings.

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Itsdb asked on 04/15/04 - Any serpent handlers here?

The Associated Press

"JONESVILLE, Va. - The Rev. Dwayne Long died a day after refusing medical treatment after being bitten on a finger by a rattlesnake during an Easter service at his rural church, where members believe ritual serpent-handling is a form of obedience to God, Sheriff Gary Parsons said.

"We don't anticipate any charges," he said. "That's their belief."

No one attending the service at the Pentecostal church sought medical help, Parsons said. Members believe when people die from a snakebite during a service, it is a sign that it was their time to go."

Seriously, is this just stupid and senseless or what?

Steve

PraiseJah answered on 04/15/04:

This practise is based on the somewhat questionable last portion of Mark 16 which is not found in most Bible mss.

Jesus said to satan that you must not put God to the test. So while one of the apostles if bitten by a snake in an accidental encounter would be healed, deliberately picking up snakes is putting God to the test. So if they die it's not because it is "God's time for them to go" but due to their disobeying Jesus and testing God.

Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/13/04 - RELIGION IN IRAQ!




"Religious divisions"

"Muslims make up 96 percent of Iraq's population, but sharp divisions exist between adherents to the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam.

The divisions stem from the 7th century, when Muslims split over the issue of who should rightly lead the Islamic community. Those who accepted the rule of the Umayyad family became known as Sunnis. Those who opposed the Umayyads in favor of the descendants of Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, were known as Shias. The two sides eventually became different Islamic sects.

About 35 to 40 percent of the Muslims in Iraq adhere to the Sunni* branch of Islam. Sunni Muslims live principally in the regions north and west of Baghdād. Baghdād itself contains sizable populations of both Sunni and Shia Muslims.
The majority of Iraqis--about 60 to 65 percent of the nation's Muslims--adhere to the Shia* branch of Islam. Shia Muslims live mostly in central and southern Iraq. The area encompasses the country's most productive agricultural region, and also includes strategically important southern cities such as Al Başrah* (Basra), an important oil-refining center, and Umm Qaşr, Iraq's main port city.

Iraq's Baath Party, the ruling party under Saddam Hussein, was dominated by Sunni Muslims. Despite the Baathist movement's original intention to unite Arabs of all religious denominations against foreign domination, in practice Iraq's Baath Party suppressed Shia Muslims. As a result, poverty is particularly widespread among the Shias, including those who live in Baghdād. Few Shias are found in the middle and upper ranks of society.

Troubled relations between Sunni and Shia Muslims were intensified by the 1979 revolution in Iran, which overthrew the country's secular government and established a Shia-controlled government there. Iraq's rulers feared that the success of Iran's Shia revolution would incite Iraqi Shias against the Baathist government. Sunni-Shia religious animosities exacerbated the subsequent Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), which resulted in over 1 million casualties.

In 1994 Iraq conducted a military campaign against Shia rebels in the southern marshlands. The Shias were quickly crushed."

Source: Encarta

Conclusions?

HANK


PraiseJah answered on 04/15/04:

Tomder, the Kurds already have Kurdistan so Sunnistan and Shiastan states would not hurt the Kurds.

BTW -- Kurdistan in the north is the only place any Al Qaeda cell was found in all of Iraq, and that just prior to the war - outside of Saddam's control

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/13/04 - RELIGION IN IRAQ!




"Religious divisions"

"Muslims make up 96 percent of Iraq's population, but sharp divisions exist between adherents to the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam.

The divisions stem from the 7th century, when Muslims split over the issue of who should rightly lead the Islamic community. Those who accepted the rule of the Umayyad family became known as Sunnis. Those who opposed the Umayyads in favor of the descendants of Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, were known as Shias. The two sides eventually became different Islamic sects.

About 35 to 40 percent of the Muslims in Iraq adhere to the Sunni* branch of Islam. Sunni Muslims live principally in the regions north and west of Baghdād. Baghdād itself contains sizable populations of both Sunni and Shia Muslims.
The majority of Iraqis--about 60 to 65 percent of the nation's Muslims--adhere to the Shia* branch of Islam. Shia Muslims live mostly in central and southern Iraq. The area encompasses the country's most productive agricultural region, and also includes strategically important southern cities such as Al Başrah* (Basra), an important oil-refining center, and Umm Qaşr, Iraq's main port city.

Iraq's Baath Party, the ruling party under Saddam Hussein, was dominated by Sunni Muslims. Despite the Baathist movement's original intention to unite Arabs of all religious denominations against foreign domination, in practice Iraq's Baath Party suppressed Shia Muslims. As a result, poverty is particularly widespread among the Shias, including those who live in Baghdād. Few Shias are found in the middle and upper ranks of society.

Troubled relations between Sunni and Shia Muslims were intensified by the 1979 revolution in Iran, which overthrew the country's secular government and established a Shia-controlled government there. Iraq's rulers feared that the success of Iran's Shia revolution would incite Iraqi Shias against the Baathist government. Sunni-Shia religious animosities exacerbated the subsequent Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), which resulted in over 1 million casualties.

In 1994 Iraq conducted a military campaign against Shia rebels in the southern marshlands. The Shias were quickly crushed."

Source: Encarta

Conclusions?

HANK


PraiseJah answered on 04/13/04:

Yes the so called massacres by Saddam were mostly crushing armed rebels. All the bodies found in the southern marshlands were those of men and boys as young as 10 who were armed.

As Jesus said "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

There will never be peace in Iraq. If Bush does not allow the people to elect Islamic rulers there will be hell on earth in Iraq. And even if they do, they will have to represent the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis to stop the fighting. I doubt that a country that allows all it's citizens including children, to carry AK47's can ever have peace.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 04/11/04 - "American Jesus"

I saw an interview with the author of "American Jesus" on public television today, his name escapes me at the moment, he is a theological scholar. He discussed his book and it sounds fascinating.

Anyway, his father is a physician. They talked about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion" and the 45 minute scourging. His father said that there would be no way for a human being to survive that sort of thing. After ten minutes he would have been dead.

The author said that the whole scourging thing was exaggerated in the movie, and that furthermore, there is only one line in the whole new testament that mentions it.

Is that true that there is only one line that mentions it?

Thanks,

PraiseJah answered on 04/12/04:

Jesus was no ordinary man. But even so I dont think the scourging lasted that long. Mel did hype it up based on the prophecy that said "by his stripes we were healed"
Being a Catholic "prodigal" who has done it all, Mel feels especially blessed by the healing of his soul that comes from Jesus' blood being shed on our behalf. That's how he justified it in a TV interview.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/12/04 - Just for balance.

Passion of masses stirred
April 12, 2004


Church leaders say Mel Gibson's effect on congregations has been "incredible", writes Sue Lowe.

For thousands of churchgoers, the mental images of the crucifixion have been more graphic than usual this Easter, but church leaders say that despite the brutal depictions in his latest film, Mel Gibson's effect on congregations has been "incredible".

The Bishop of North Sydney, the Reverend Glenn Davies, jokingly called for a sequel that focused on the positives of resurrection.

The film "does dwell a bit on the physical suffering over the spiritual suffering on the cross, but it is far easier to portray Roman cruelty," he said.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell said the film had focused attention on the Christian understanding of Easter more effectively than any event for years.

The story was repeated across the country. More than 1000 worshippers packed Canberra's St Christopher's Cathedral. Archbishop Francis Carroll directly credited the film for the increased interest in religion this Easter, saying it helped remind people of the story of the resurrection.

And the minister of Eastwood Baptist Church, said Easter attendances were "the largest in 12 years".

The Reverend Gordon Moyes, of the Wesley Mission, in his Sunrise Address yesterday, referred to the film's "remarkable turnaround" from a movie that critics said would be a financial disaster to one of the biggest independent films ever.

"Never in my lifetime have so many people been discussing the atonement: why Jesus died for us," Mr Moyes said.

PraiseJah answered on 04/12/04:

It would have been better for the violence to have been minimised so that children could see the movie.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 04/12/04 - Hello To All.

Hello.
My name is Liz and I'm new on here.
Would like to say hi, and will do my very best in answering questions with kindness and pleasantness and hope to know each of you.
Thank you and Blessings.
Liz.

PraiseJah answered on 04/12/04:

Welcome to this forum and may our exchanges be always pleasant, seasoned with salt.

Liz22 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
akenaten asked on 04/11/04 - The Passion Of Christ- Or Is That Perversion?

By now everyone has heard of the film "Passion Of Christ" by Mel Gibson... NOW you get to read a review by a "true christian". A review by someone who actually puts Christ above all else in his life, and lives to be christian by example, not by stereotype.



Is this film the "true" story of Christ, or simply a perverted version created by Hollywood and Mel to line their pockets at the expense of gullible people? Are we supposed to "love" this film just to be a part of the HERD MENTALITY that we so often find accustomed to the Christian faith? In the following, one man steps forward to remind you that Christianity is about life, love, and example.
He reminds you that just because you are "told" this is the way, or shown on-screen, that you are NOT damned for eternity if you do not accept their views as "gospel". Be yourself, think, question, practice, and LEARN!

Lose the herd, people!
Perhaps THEN your credibility will improve when you "claim" to be Christian.





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



The Emperor’s New Clothes


Christianity, Hollywood, and The Passion of the Christ







“You haven’t seen it yet?”


Many had asked expecting my wife and I to be first in line for the latest installment of Jesus’ last hours on earth as told by none other than Mel Gibson, hunk, heart-throb and icon of the silver screen. The hype surrounding it has been incredible, impressive, a spiritual barometer deciding where each of us stands on the single, most pivotal, event in human history.
From Christian Fundamentalism’s uncontrolled weeping to Judaism’s fears of a new holocaust, everybody has an opinion, and each impression we received told us more about their beliefs than the “awesome, frightening experience” they urged us to see.



The other night, we bowed to the pressure.

I had many doubts and concerns over “The Passion of the Christ” before we ever purchased our tickets. I already knew the story in print and from the many previous versions I had seen. Ever since I could remember I have been drawn to the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, and I seldom let a new installment slip past me unnoticed. I am also well read on the horrors of crucifixion, the knowledge from written words alone making me queasy, asking how humanity could be so inhumane. I did not want to see “the Passion,” to have images, already burned into a very private part of my faith, brought to the surface, igniting my abhorrence to a religion’s glorifying a vicious, gruesome crime, the pinnacle of how badly one man can treat another. I had already silently felt every lash, the nails invading already mutilated flesh, the torment that could even make “the Son of God” wail in uncontrollable agony, the indignant way a human being becomes reduced to a billboard warning all passers by what happens when you don’t “just say no.”



Mel Gibson told me he brought this to the screen. He told me he held nothing back. He told me his story was accurate, Biblical, true to life, as if I would be seeing it for real. He told me this was his faith.



I expected a statement of faith. I expected it to line up with everything I had read and understood. I expected an experience that would bring to the surface my deepest, most hidden, feelings about the torture and death of one I call teacher, guide, inspiration . . . Christ!

I expected to become angry, feel helpless and sick . . . to close my eyes and weep.

I saw a movie, and felt nothing.




I felt like the child at the end of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” asking his mother why the King was naked. I sat in silence, dumbfounded by one cliché after another. As I watched one borrowed image after another, from Satan confronting another Jesus (Jeremy Sisto) in the Garden of Gethsemane. ( Jesus, Vidmark/Trimark.) to the bench full of torture devices direct from Braveheart, Pilate’s words from another telling of the story kept ringing in my ears:



“And so the King is once again our guest. And why is this? Was Herod unimpressed?” (Jesus Christ Superstar, Universal.)



My wife almost burst into laughter when Mel gave us the making of the Shroud of Turin, but I couldn’t feel the dark humor silently shaking my head in disbelief. I couldn’t even draw an emotional response from Jesus’ mother, who stoically witnessed the brutalization of her child, dressed like a nun, an occasional tear reminiscent of the Indian lamenting our trashing the environment. I could not wait to leave after the final scene, a crude rendition of Michelangelo’s masterpiece, followed by a tomb, the shroud deflating (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Lucasfilm) to a raised Christ with holes in his hands I could see through, (Death Becomes Her, Universal) and I agreed with my wife, that all she had experienced was a “gore fest.” (Insert slasher film of your choice)



“But it lines right up with the Bible,” many told me.



It didn’t. I could forgive the bouncing between books, even adding or taking away, but The Passion lost all biblical credibility in my eyes when the woman about to be stoned was none other than Mary the Magdalene. Mel lost all artistic credibility in my eyes much earlier, his “vision” as subtle as the hammer, his scope as original and refined as the cast nails driven home (complete with a fountain of blood reminding me of Conan the Barbarian.) He did not give me anything new. He just gave me more . . . too much more Hollywood when we really could have used less.



“It blames the Jews!” many tried to tell me. It blamed only Caiaphas, the mob only echoing what he said first. Fellow Pharisees walked out on him, calling the trial a travesty. Pilate could not silence the mob, but one word from the high priest, and the shouts were replaced by hushed snickering. Caiaphas mesmerized the mob, reminded me of a Jewish Hitler leading a well-staged rally, and when Jesus says the immortal words, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” a man says to the villain, “see, Jesus asks God to forgive you.” If the movie had any redeeming quality, it was this, but otherwise, Mel Gibson gave me nothing to feel but numbness, boredom and regret, my passion ignited by the audience more than the film.

A lot of things about the experience felt just plain wrong.



I’m sorry, but eating popcorn and sipping a coke while one’s “Lord, Savior, and God” is brutalized beyond recognition is just plain wrong. I did both, along with everyone else in the theater, and felt dirty. I should have felt something. Everyone said I would. I really wanted to, but then I remembered it was just a movie. And yes, a movie can be bad. What I originally thought was a spiritual barometer, had quickly become a religious litmus test, a new question for the “Christian Quiz.”



“Are you a Christian?


“Are you Born Again?


“Have you accepted Jesus into your heart as your Lord and Savior?


“Did you like The Passion of the Christ?”



Say no to any of the above, and you may as well be an atheist. Suggest that the movie did not portray the Jews in a bad light, and the other side calls you a Nazi. Mel Gibson is being vilified by one side, deified by the other, and I find it ironic that the name of his production company, “Icon,” has gone unnoticed. From where I sit, both sides are doing just that to an actor, turned director and producer, forgetting one thing they share: God/G-d is not too keen on graven images.



“You just didn’t get it,” many chided me when I gave my opinion. I got it long before I ever saw the movie. As the story goes, Jesus did this for me, each rending of his flesh one of our sins he carried to calvary. If this is all that Christianity is about, could Mel edit out one of them for me? I care too much for Jesus, what he stood for, to make him suffer because of me. I’d rather take my chances with the Almighty, carry my own “cross,” rather than add to his. My faith celebrates his ideology, tries to emulate his life; it does not cloak me in the blood of an innocent. When I want to affirm my faith, I don’t need a movie. I can always read “The Good Book.” If I want Hollywood, I have plenty of other films to choose from. I can watch the cheesy, safe, “B” flick Jesus, portrayed by Jeffrey Hunter. (King of Kings, Warner Home Video) I would rather rent Max Von Sydow’s off accent, offset by his commanding presence. (The Greatest Story Ever Told, MGM/UA Video) I would gladly pay to see Robert Powell, if I need reaffirmation of the definitive, traditional Jesus. (Jesus of Nazareth, Lionsgate/Fox) I will watch Glenn Carter over and over again and cry every time, (Jesus Christ Superstar) though my heart will always favor Victor Gerber as the heart mind and childlike soul of the Good Teacher. (Godspell, Columbia Tri-Star) I can’t even blame, James Caviezel, who did the best with what he had, but Mel Gibson’s vision now provides the other bookend to my visual experience of the Christ. While Martin Scorsese left me wanting more with The Last Temptation of Christ, a great idea made into a bad film, Mel Gibson left me wanting my money back, sorry I let peer pressure, curiosity, and hype decide against my better judgment.



In my humble opinion, Mel was the master tailor, inventing a suit that he sold to us long before we ever saw it. We are now wearing the suit and would rather be like the crowd, and hide the way we were all scammed, than to see a movie for what it really is. I, for one, will listen to another man and carry the wisdom of a child, no matter what a religion or Mel might do to him in effigy, me in the spoken or written word. I feel naked, and it is time I put my clothes back on.




Note: The above review and commentary posted courtesy of Mrbline. You can read more of his opinions and rewiews on his website, (http://hometown.aol.com/mrbline5784) and by purchasing the book "The Highway, Reflections Of A 21st Century Heretic".

PraiseJah answered on 04/11/04:

Maybe you have been desensitised to violence due to it being so prevalent in movies and even real life on the news. But you are unique if you did not react at all.

akenaten rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/08/04 - A diverted moment for amusement....

Little David, who was Jewish, was failing math. His parents tried everything. Tutors, mentors, flash cards, special learning centers, and nothing helped. As a last resort, someone told them to try a Catholic school.

"Those nuns are tough" they said. David was soon enrolled at St. Mary's.

After school on the very first day David ran through the door and straight to his room, without even kissing his mother hello.

He started studying furiously, books and papers spread out all over his room. Right after dinner he ran upstairs without mentioning TV, and hit the books harder than before. His parents were amazed.

This behavior continued for weeks, until report card day arrived. David quietly laid the envelope on the table, and went to his room. With great trepidation, his mother opened the report. David had gotten an A in math!

She ran up to his room, threw her arms around him and asked, "David honey, how did this happen? Was it the nuns?

"No!", said David. "On the first day of school when I saw that guy nailed to the plus sign, I knew they weren't fooling around!"

PraiseJah answered on 04/11/04:

LOL. For the record, there is no absolute proof that Jesus died on a "plus sign" The Greek word stauros means "stake" or "pole".

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Fulmens asked on 04/11/04 - how do you explain this? .

with holy week almost over, and the movie of the passion of christ (by mel gobson), many people have begun questioning the whole point of jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

so, question for you: how do you explain to a nonchristian the reason why the Father had his son arrested, tortured, massacred, humiliated, and assasinated? why would God need to sacrifice his Son and then resurrected in order for us to be saved?

this non christian told me that the whole story of Jesus is great until his arrest, that he sees no no need for God to torture His son that way. he said that it wouldve made much more sence to have Jesus be, after his ministry, the leader and founder of the new chrstian church, and then have him die of old age like a normal human being.

i must admit that i had nothing to say, i had no idea how to answer his question, because it really made me think. how would you answer him?

PraiseJah answered on 04/11/04:

Jesus' message was not pleasing to the Jews as it did not promote their plans to overthrown Rome, nor did it please the hedonistic Romans whose pleasureseeking lifestyle led to the decline and fall of that great empire.

Like Gandhi and other peacemakers Jesus would have been killed anyway. The fact that God, His Father, turned what would have been a useless tragic death into a victory over sin and death for all mankind is a blessing.

God did not "have Jesus" arrested and executed - He only allowed it - for a purpose, as Jesus' main rason for coming into the world was to "bear witness to the truth" and to show us the Father and lead us to Him and do His will.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/08/04 - Did you know???

DID YOU KNOW...??

As you walk up the steps to the
building which houses the
U.S. Supreme Court you can see
near the top of the building a row of the
world's law givers and each one
is facing one in the middle who
is facing forward with a full frontal
view - it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court
courtroom, the two huge oak doors
have the Ten Commandments engraved
on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can
see the wall, right above where the
Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!


DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone
all over the Federal Buildings
and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president,
known as "The Father of Our Constitution"
made the following statement
"We have staked the whole of
all our political institutions upon the
capacity of mankind for self-government,
upon the capacity of each and all of us
to govern ourselves, to control ourselves,
to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and
Founding Father of our country said,
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly
or too often that this great nation was
founded not by religionists but by Christians,
not on religions but on the
Gospel of Jesus Christ."

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with
a prayer by a paid preacher, whose
salary has been paid by the
taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the
Constitution were members of
the established orthodox churches
in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice,
John Jay, said, "Americans should
select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten
to the point that everything
we have done for 220 years in
this country is now suddenly
wrong and unconstitutional?

PraiseJah answered on 04/11/04:

Having etchings and statues of former laws and law givers of the Bible is to be expected on a US building whose founding fathers were Christians. But Im inclined to wonder which denomination should be THE faith if church and state were to become one.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/07/04 - Have you ever wondered whether you really are a NERD?

Well here is a way to find out

Take the test, its very revealing, you can repent after you have finished the test.
http://www.ahajokes.com/f004.html

PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

Im not a nerd, just an intellectual modern girl with some old fashioned but tried and proven values in life.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/07/04 - Is it all really pointless?

The atheist’s atheist says,“It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning… It is hard to realize that this all (i.e., life on Earth) is just a tiny part of an overwhelming hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seem comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Steven Weinberg, physicist, author of “The First Three Minutes”.
+++
According to Weinberg the more we comprehend and learn about the universe and all that it is, does and that is in it, the more pointless and therfore meaningless it is.
+++
Now isn't that interesting. Serveral sages have said that that is what an atheists life is, pointless and meaningless. However, according to Michael Gallet, if an atheist insists that his life is not meaningless and pointless then that person is not a true atheist for it takes faith of a sort to know that life has meaning and worth.
+++
You comments please....
Peace and kindness, arucra

PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

Certainly learning about the universe has a humbling effect - reducing us to the proverbial specks of dust. But as vast and magnificent as the universe is, it did not come from nothing - ex nihil nihilo fit. Nor can the material universe think, design and plan. It's laws and intricacy are testimony to the power and wisdom of God. The Bible says that the stars ( including our sun, the "day star") are the product of God's energy. For energy to produce positive results it must be controlled and directed by an intelligence.

Given all the large comets that have whisked by us over eons of time, only divine intervention would have prevented a massive collision with earth, the moon or any other necessary part of the solar system. So in spite of some of the apparent random activity in space, none of that has harmed the earth in all that time. Im confident that no such major earth destroying disaster will occur in future because God has promised that the meek shall inherit the earth and live forever on it. Psalm 37:10,11,29.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
drgade asked on 04/07/04 - test the gods

You are correct, but when people are looking among the "gods" of other religions, they do not know that. This is something a person has to learn for themselves.
Acts 17:22-23

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
(from New International Version)

Jesus says that He stands at the door and knocks. Who is He speaking to but those who have not yet opened the door?

I understand that Answerway says that this reply of mine will remain private unless you respond. If you do respond you can keep that private too.

PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

Not until judgement day will anyone be judged as worthy of the second death, and that only after all in "hell" or the graves are released. Rev chapter 20.

drgade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
akenaten asked on 04/06/04 - my personal interpretation on life

I started reading the many different versions of the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Nag Hammadi, Native American beliefs, and many books on occult and mystical philosophy both "fact and fiction" dealing with the likes of wizardry, witchcraft, egyptology, voodoo, satanism, and many other beliefs and religious practices in general.


In all these beliefs I find one similar characteristic, one similarity..... they all seem to focus on a "greater power", something unseen. They call this power God, Jehova, Yeshua, Ra, Great Spirit, MANY different names, yet they all seem to be referencing the same being or force. So this led me to ask myself "Who is right?" or even if ANY are right, for are they not in actuality ALL the same force? The more I read, the more I desired to know.

I asked myself "Is there a god? Or when we die, is that truly the end?"

The very energy of creation and composition! The "godsource" if you choose. Our very beginning in its most basic and purest form! This led to more realization, that in fact that which people call god is in fact the very energy of all things. ALL things are composed of this energy, and all are one, connected through this very energy. Through this common bond, all things also are a part of one another, sharing this common energy between us. Further, all things are a part of this energy, "god, if you so choose", and "god" (this energy) is in all things! ALL ARE ONE, just as one is a part of the ALL! The rocks, the trees, the animals, the people, in fact.. the very earth and sky itself are all intertwined through this energy, and part of each other.


While in different shape and form, they are all STILL the same energy!

"God and heaven is around us and within us..." in fact, this is true. We are all "god and heaven", as much a part, and within us and surrounding us as the very energy that is all things!

"Believe and you shall have everlasting life...." true too. Life is as eternal as the very energy that we are composed of. This energy takes physical shape at conception, and grows and gathers more energy from around us throughout life by the very magnetic attraction that is the property of this energy, forming and changing with every passing day. I have also realized that death is NOT the end. While we may lose this physical shape, the energy that composes us is still present. This energy may decompose from its physical form, and dissipate back into the whole of the energy that surrounds us, but it IS STILL PRESENT!

It may not be in the form we saw and knew, but it is still there and lives on beyond our death, and therefore, so too do we live on. Eternal life indeed!

This brings forth yet a further understanding, that through this energy, all are one. Therefore, with every action we make, we directly and indirectly effect all things and all others who surround us and co-inhabit this world we live in. What does this mean? Well, to put it simple, when you harm another, you in effect harm yourself and all the other beings in this universe, since they are all a part of the whole. This means when we steal from another, we also take from all as well as ourselves, with all feeling the effects of this action. You may think not, but it is true. Look around us, look at the state of the world today as compared to long ago. We live in a world of crime and hatred now, with laws and rules guiding our every step. This is the result of our own actions. Those that steal, kill, and commit other crimes have in fact effected us all, as well as themselves. When you take the time to really read the message behind the words in the bible as well as MANY other texts, both religious and philosophical, you find this common message appearing in virtually all of them.

This message: "Live and let live, treat others as you too wish to be treated".

Think before you act, because whether you realize it or not, it DOES effect you too! Try showing some compassion towards others for a change. Help those who desire help, and in turn help yourself and all things to create a better life and existence for the all collectively.

Can you imagine the result? What a beautiful and harmonious world this would be!
So now, you have seen within my thoughts. While you may or may not agree, these thoughts are truth for me. They are as individual to myself as the individual that I am. I hope in some way my thoughts may encourage you to seek and think about your own personal truth, and help you to also become enlightened to the real meaning of life that exists behind the obvious and within and between the written and spoken words you are so accustomed to seeing and hearing as you journey through the eternity of life as a part of the ALL!

In closing, I wish you one and all- "Peace, love and light!" Be well!


PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

God is more than just the energy of life which is actually electrochemical energy generated in the mitochondria of all animal cells ( or chloroplasts in plants)and ultimately comes from the sun ( photons)

He is the ultimate source of that energy but He is also a real person, with all the attributes of a person - love, wisdom and justice. Hence we speak to him by prayer.

We can get to know God and become His friend, just like Abraham and others. We cant do that with mindless electrons or photons!

akenaten rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/06/04 - To all those wanting to know!

Hello Chou,
You are correct! Notice:
This is for those who may not see it.

Hi Chou,
The name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth.
The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sous´) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stos´, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shi´ach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas the expression “anointed one” was properly applied to others before Jesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12; 2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured the superior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16;


Jesus = 1;ησούς
Iisous


Take Care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

Also the firstborn of all creation. Rev 3:14

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 04/06/04 - AFTERLIFE? SUPERNATURAL?

(1) What is your belief concerning the supernatural existence of God and The Son of God, Jesus?

(2) What is your belief concerning "afterlife?"

There are two of us on this "Christianity" Board who dare to defend such beliefs. What about the other "Christians" on this Board?

(3) Is there a life after death or is the grave the finale?

(4) Is God in the natural or supernatural?

Heads "appear" to turn the other way when this constant barrage of "I don't respect those who believe in the supernatural; there is no afterlife; there is no supernatural."

(5) DARE YOU STAND FOR THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST as found in YOUR Bible?
Thanks. Bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

1. God, the Father of Jesus Christ, whose name is Jehovah (Psalm 83:18 KJV) if the Creator of the universe. His Son now called Jesus, formerly called the Word, was the master builder of all creation, although he himself had been created by God. Rev 3:14.

2. Any afterlife will take a resurrection - a miracle by God. We are not inherently immortal. because as Ecc 9:5-10 states, we all die and are conscious of nothing after death.

3. We can only live again when God remembers us in the resurrection. John 5:28, 29 and Acts 5:28,29 indicates both righteous and unrighteous people will be raised. A few are raised as judges, while others also will gain eternal life and others will not as they will rebel along with satan at the end of the 1000 year judgement day. Rev 20:1-10.

BTW one definition of the word "torment" is TOUCHSTONE (Check out Strong's Greek Lexicon)
hence the "torment" of the lake of fire is not literal. Those who die the second death remain dead and unconscious forever, as a touchstone to determine the fate of any future rebels against God.

God is the creator of nature and of the laws of nature. But He can like us manipulate the laws of nature for any useful purpose ( eg the Red Sea crosssing) Of course our pwers to do that are very limited compared to Him.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 04/06/04 - Kerry and Vatican II

John Kerry became combative when told that some were criticizing him for being a Roman Catholic who supported policies, like abortion rights and same-sex unions, that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

"Who are they?" he demanded of his questioner. "Name them. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. "
(Kerry meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.)

I am confused . What provisions of Vatican II allows Catholics the freedom of conscience to support abortion rights and same sex unions ?

PraiseJah answered on 04/07/04:

None that I know of

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/05/04 - Jesus Christ' Death and you!

This being a month of both holy days and Holidays for different religions, I want to aske each one what the Sacrifice that Jesus gave means to each one of you personally? For those who are not Christian, please answer this: How would you feel if someone gave their life so you could live?

Here is an illustration that may explain why Jesus Christ means so much to me personally.

A young man, about the age of 33 was put in prison unjustly. He committed no crime, and yet he was accused and sentenced to die. On the day of he went to prison he met another man who was mean and rude and guilty as charged of many crimes. He also was sentenced to death.

Now on the day they were both to die. They heard the prison guards shoes coming down the hall. The young man who was innocent started to pray to his father and the guilty man who was rude and mean began to become faint our of fear of being killed. The guilty man began to say as he heard the guards footsteps comeing closer to his door, "I don't want to die, I don't want to die." But the gaurd bypassed his cell and went to the innocent mans cell and opened the door. Then the guilty man could hear the footsteps of two men walking down the hall. A few minutes later the guilty man heard the footsteps of the guard comeing down the hall again and this time the guilty man was so afraid he was next to die he began crying and sobbing. The guard opened his cell door and then to the guilty mans surprise told him he was free to go. The man looked up and said, I don't understand? The guard said that the young man in the cell next to you gave his life for you so you would not have to die and his last words were to tell you that he love you, and he didn't want to see you die.

The guilty man cried with tears of joy for not only was he physically free from prison but also free from
death because of what this young innocent man had done for him. That guilty man went on to show his appreciation by bringing his life in harmony with God's requirements. He showed his appreciation by his actions from that day forward.


How does this illustration compare with what Jesus has done for all mankind? Again, What does Jesus' sacrafice mean to you personally?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 04/05/04:

It was the ultimate demostration of his love for me. Also His Father in heaven must have agonized as He watched His Son die. He too showed the ultimate demonstration of love for me. John 3:16

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/05/04 - SENSIBLE?


Someone once said, "I would rather be a live coward than a dead hero."

Would you?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 04/05/04:

Solomon said similar in Ecc 9:4 - better to be a live dog than a dead lion.
Depends on the circumstances. If I saw a child drowning I would not hesitate to rescue the child. But Im not a strong swimmer so Id think twice about rescuing a 250lb man.


HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/05/04 - Th "sent" of a woman.......

Questions follow......
After 17 years of marriage, a man dumped his wife for a younger woman. He wanted to continue living in their downtown luxury apartment with his new lover, so he asked his wife to move out and get another place.

His wife agreed to this, provided that he would give her three days alone at the apartment to pack up her things. She spent the first day packing her belongings into boxes, crates, and suitcases.

On the second day, she had the movers come and collect her things.

On the third day, she sat down for the last time at their beautiful dining table by candlelight, put on some soft background music, and feasted on a pound of shrimp and a bottle of Chardonnay.

When she had finished, she went into each room and deposited a few of the half-eaten shrimp shells into the hollow of the curtain rods. She then cleaned up the kitchen and left.

What message was this injured woman leaving behind?
In what way was it a Christian like thing to do?
Do you think that the man would bring his new gal into the apartment later if she was not with him at first entry"

If she was. how do you suppose the new gal would "react"?

PraiseJah answered on 04/05/04:

While I can understand her desire for revenge it was not a nice thing to do. Instead she could wait and relish in the divorce settlement - take him for what she is entitled to, cut her losses and move on.

The new gal would wonder where the smell was coming from and probably spend the rest of her days there trying to eradicate it.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/03/04 - an interesting perspective on the times and the meaning of 666

by Hadyn Olsen.


Recently, after reading the account of this historic
meeting between David and Goliath, I was struck by the
significance of it's message concerning the end time period that we are entering into.

this account speaks of the collision of two kingdoms. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.

There are a number of times in the Scriptures that we
witness such a dramatic encounter between these two kingdoms. We may think of the time of Moses and the
exodus from Egypt, the plagues and the Red Sea. We
may think of Joshua and Jericho - or Elijah on Mt.
Carmel. Then of course there is the Lord Jesus Himself and the many occasions of His demonstrating the
kingdom.

In all these events we see something of the nature of these two opposite kingdoms, and of the superiority of
God's kingdom over Satan's. We may also learn
something concerning our own lives and of the conflict
we face from day to day. Each of these historic events
may teach us of the things God wants us to know and
the victory He wants us to share.

We are coming to a time when we shall witness another
great collison between God's kingdom and Satan's. No
doubt it shall be as great, if not greater than all the
others that have preceded it. And it shall be a time
when once again, God displays His all-surpassing
greatness and dominion over Satan.

To this end our spirit's cry, 'Come Lord Jesus'.

As we read in 1 Sam. 17 of the battle between David
and Goliath we can first of all see that there are three principal characters which may represent three different peoples.

Firstly there is Goliath and the Philistines. They
represent the world, or more specifically unredeemed,
rebellious man. There is something about them which
may be encompassed by the term, 'The spirit of this
age'.

There they stand, full of defiance and mockery.
Wilfully and arrogantly railing accusations upon God
and His people. They represent man, in the fullness of
self power and self glory.

This is the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
Evil come to maturity. The Pride of Life that looks
down upon God from it's own lofty height. The fullness
of man which seeks to be 'as God' and even to destroy
all that is of God in his quest to have dominion of the
earth.

We may notice in the description of Goliath that there
is reference to the number six. The number of man. He
was six cubits in height, he had six pieces of armour,
and his spearhead weighed six hundred shekels.

We could say that he represents everything that the
term 'anti-christ' may speak of, as he stands there
mocking all that is of God and calling God's people into battle.

As we look out out upon the world today we can see
Goliath readying himself again. We can hear the
challenges ringing out saying, 'Where is your God' and
the accusations pouring forth to belittle the church and call her to war. This has always been the very essence of that antichrist spirit.

The second character in this story is King Saul and his
army. This group represent the people of God, but
they are the people of God under the dominion of the
flesh.

They are a defeated company. They stand there facing
Goliath, fearful, intimidated and without anointing or strength from God.

We may ask, 'Why is this?.. How can it be?'

How can the people of God find themselves in this kind
of a situation and such a condition? The answer is, that although they are the people of God they are still ruled and controlled by the spirit of this world. They are under the dominion of King Saul - the flesh.

Let us take a look at them.

They stand there in all their wordly armour. They are fitted out with everything that the world counts for
something. They have their horses and chariots and
weapons of flesh - and of course they have their king
who stands so tall above the rest. They look just like
all the other nations in so many ways.

I cannot help wondering how many of our denominations
and church organisations are just like the armies of Saul.
They are full of the ways of the world and their strength comes from money, organisation, and the power of the flesh.
We see in them the same spirit of this world that promotes itself with gimmicks, sales techniques and all manner of human ability.

There is also another characteristic that is common to
the Saul church. That is, disobedience to the word of
the Lord.

King Saul cared more for the outward appearances of
success and power than for obedience to God's word.
He would obey God as long as it suited him and as long
as it didn't threaten his own ambitions and desires to be successful in the eyes of the people.

It is the same today in the denominations. Success
power and outward appearances are the most important
considerations. God's will and His purposes are often
compromised for the sake of human interest and human
traditions.

For that reason they will stand alone on that day that
Goliath confronts them. They will discover that Goliath
is far stronger in terms of this world than they are
themselves, and they will realise that they are no match for him.

How frightening it will be on that day... although today they are so full of their own strength and hypnotised by their own praises and positive confessions.

Thank God there is a third group in this story. It is
the group that is characterised by David.

Yes, David was one of the people of God. But he
wasn't a part of Saul's army. In the same way today
there is a third group. Tbey are scattered around. They have no special organisation or place to call their own.
Yet they have two distinguishing characteristics that set them apart;

They have a heart after God and... they are not of King
Saul.

This David company, like David of old, is small,
insignificant, unimpressive and unimportant. Yet God's
hand is upon them.

David was out in the wilderness tending his sheep when
the call came to enter into the battle lines. He was
doing that which God has placed in his care - even
though it was insignificant and outwardly of little
importance.

In the same way today there are those that ask, 'What
are you doing for God? What has come of your leaving
the system?' They measure everything by outward considerations and spend their lives racing around,
organising great things for God, yet in the end
accomplishing little.

David knew nothing of Saul's ways. He hadn't been in
any of Saul's training schools. He didn't know how to
even polish his armour let alone wear it into battle. All David knew, he had learned out there amongst the
ordinary circumstances of daily life. He had learned the simple things of truth, love and faithfulness. He had learned how to walk with God each day.

But this is God's way. He always takes the lowly
things, the foolish things, and the things that are not,to bring to nothing the things that are.

Likewise God is preparing a people today. They are
nothing now. Some have left denominations, some are
still amongst them wondering why it is that they no
longer feel a part of it all any more. They can no
longer get excited by the latest seminar or out-reach.
Instead they sigh and groan at the lack of God's
presence in the church, and they are grieved by the way human power has filled the gap.

When David arrived on the scene, he had no
organisation backing him. There were no credentials or
any such thing. There was only the anointing. God knew where He wanted David to be. God brought things together as He always does.... in the fullness of
time.

David could stand before Goliath because God was with
him. Nothing more and nothing less. His spirit was
stirred against this monster David was not afraid. He
knew that there was one far greater who was standing
with him.

When David spoke to Goliath to challenge him, it was
not so much David speaking as God Himself speaking.

When David took the stone and placed it in his sling,
again it was God choosing and preparing.

When David sent his stone flying toward it's mark.. it
was God guiding it to just the right place.

Such is the way with all true ministry. It is God in man doing the work and bringing forth the fruit.

There are many today who are trying to achieve great
things for God. They are using all of this world's
resources to try and do it. Yet God is not doing it.
They imagine that human effort is the key to divine
fruitfulness. They have missed God's way completely.

God desires a people who are dead to man's ways and man's methods as far as kingdom work is concerned.
He is preparing a people who will wait for Him, and
move as He moves them, and who will work according
to His power that works in them mightily.

It may take Him a long time to get a man or woman to
that place... yet God has time.

That day is coming when that great conflict will arrive. Which company will we be a part of? Will it be
Goliath's? or King Saul's?... or will it be David's?

It may be hard to say right now, but the day will
declare it. Nothing is surer... That day will declare it... For then we shall find ourselves in the place that our hearts have chosen.

Let us call upon the Lord today, while it is still
today... asking Him to change our hearts and take us
into that David company. May we seek to learn to walk
with God and be faithful unto all that He may call us to do. May we learn the ways of humility and be satisfied with simply living before Him each day. May we also be careful to remain free from the ways of King Saul.

Praise God for His all-surpassing greatness and glory.

PraiseJah answered on 04/04/04:

Jesus never used the story of David and Goliath as an analogy for the last days. He used instead the story of Noah and the Flood - "they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away" Matt 24:37-39.

The activities described by Jesus were not in themselves wrong - "eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage"- even though the world at that time was so violent that God regretted having made humans!

The point of Jesus' analogy was that we should not be so wrapped up in our everyday lives so as to not see the signs of the times and take appropriate action.

There have been many occasions where there have been showdowns between God's and satan's forces. The Red Sea situation fits well because that is similar to what will happen on a global scale, at Armageddon.
Rev 19:11-21.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 04/03/04 - Israel

How did the world get this way? How did Israel get back into the Land? It didn't just happen overnight. It has been a process, a lengthy one stretching back over 100 years. Great movements and ideologies have converged to bring all this about, and equally great movements have come along to attempt to frustrate the return of Israel to the Land. From this point on we must begin to view all modern history from the biblical perspective. We have to realize that all things are happening in the divine plan to bring about the restoration of Israel and the Second Coming of Christ. Everything else must be considered secondary.

PraiseJah answered on 04/03/04:

Read Galatians 4:21-26 and Heb 12:22-24.
Clearly the true Jerusalem is not the city in the Middle East - it is as Paul says in heaven.

ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 04/02/04 - Is it barbarian to speak in tongues?

1Cor 14:11
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh [shall be] a barbarian unto me.

PraiseJah answered on 04/02/04:

Barbarian and baby are not the same in Greek or any other language. How can you read "barbarian" into "child " in 1 Cor 13?
It is the Greek word "parios" which means "infant" or "young child"

I have to question the veracity of your user name! Is that koinegreek or koinegeek?

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/02/04 - Big headlines from Washington DC. What does it mean?

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Unborn Victims of Violence Act that President Bush signed into law this week means different things to different people."

Is this new law one of morals, politics (Kerry voted against it), a threat to abortion supporters, religion, or does it give rights to the soon to be born that they did not leaglly have, or all of the above?

Peace and kindness, arcura

PraiseJah answered on 04/02/04:

It's about time that the Law consistently protected ALL human beings, and not just those who have taken a breath.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/02/04 - there ought to be limits to freedom

do you agree with this statement? please reply with Biblical proof.

PraiseJah answered on 04/02/04:

Freedom to "play in your own backyard" is true freedom. You dont become a slave to your worst primal impulses. You dont become a slave to others who may pressure you to go against your conscience. In Christ you have freedom from guilt and fear of death.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 04/02/04 - A bit of history you might find informative....

In January 1936, a meeting took place between Mohandas Gandhi and Margaret Sanger. The subject of their conversation on that auspicious occasion was
contraception. Mrs. Sanger was, at that time, the high priestess of the birth control movement.


For her, as well as for her legion of llowers, "birth control" meant contraception. Gandhi had a different understanding of birth control. For him it meant temperance, or self-control.

During their meeting, Sanger tried to convince Gandhi of the moral legitimacy of contraception. She wanted people to rely on contraceptive technology. Gandhi, who regarded the use of contraception as sinful, wanted people to rely on human virtue. He offered, therefore, a more human and less technological remedy for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. The great Hindu leader proposed a method in which the married couple would abstain from sexual union during the wife's fertile period (The Works of Gandhi,
vol. iv, pp. 45-48).

It may be that no two more utterly disparate world figures of the 20th century ever met to discuss a moral issue of such critical and global significance. Sanger was a libertine whose religion was pleasure. Gandhi, known as Mahatma or "Great Soul," was an ascetic who dedicated his life completely to truth and peace. He led his people in India to their
political independence, and both his example and his philosophy have continued to inspire others who labor for the same goals, including Rev. Martin Luther King and his fight for civil rights. It is not an exaggeration to compare this meeting between the voluptuary and the ascetic with that between Satan and Christ after the latter had fasted for 40 days
in the desert.

Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1939 and later became honorary president of International Planned Parenthood. Drawing from her second husband's wealth, she established the Margaret Sanger Research
Bureau that financed the development of the pill. Gandhi, a man of God, was entirely self-effacing. He advocated natural family planning and preached that virtuous temperance should be rooted in love. "If love is not the law of our being," he declared, "the whole fabric of my argument falls to pieces."

He called the particular form of temperance he practiced and preached brahmacharya, a Sanskrit word referring to perfect control over the appetites and bodily organs. In 1924, Gandhi stated that fully and properly understood, temperance, or rahmacharya, "signifies control of all the senses at all times and places in thought, word, and deed." It includes, yet transcends, sexual restraint. It rules out violence, untruth, hate, and anger. It creates a state of even-mindedness that allows for self-transformation in God.

Gandhi saw in the use of contraception the potential for man's undoing. The virtue of temperance, or brahmacharya, is needed, he felt, for man to be
truly himself and to allow God to work through him. Therefore,contraception, which divorces the sexual act from its natural consequence,divides man, separating him from the meaning of his own actions. For Gandhi, contraception "simply unmans man": "I suggest that it is cowardly to refuse to face the consequences of one's acts. Persons who use
contraception will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of
children, but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil."

Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (1968) echoes many of the thoughts that Gandhi expounded concerning the evils of contraception. Gandhi stated: "As it is,
man has sufficiently degraded woman for his lust, and artificial methods,no matter how well-meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade
her." In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI wrote:

It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conception practices, may finally lose respect for the woman, and no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and
no longer as his respected and beloved companion (no. 17).
Gandhi advised people to use that particular part of temperance called "self-restraint" to achieve "self-transformation." Pope Paul VI underscored the importance of "self-mastery" in matters of sexuality. They both spoke of the importance of education and the cooperation of external agencies.
Neither was hesitant in identifying the use of contraception as an evil and a disorder. Both saw contraception as an enemy to marriage.

The distinguished British journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge, long before he became a Roman Catholic, offered a comment in praise of Humanae Vitae that
may be taken as an apt comment on the 1936 discussion between Gandhi and Sanger: "One of the things I admired the Church for so much was Humanae Vitae. I think it's absolutely right that when a society doesn't want children, when it's prepared to accept eroticism unrelated in any way to its purpose, then it's on the downward path." The paths of temperance, or brahmacharya, and eroticism most assuredly do not move in the same direction. As current history has indicated, the former leads to a culture of life, while the latter leads to a culture of death.
<><><><>
Dr. DeMarco is a professor of philosophy at St. Jerome's College in Waterloo, Ontario. He is the author of The Many Faces of Virtue and The
Heart of Virtue

PraiseJah answered on 04/02/04:

Vatican roulette - abstinance during the fertile period - works only with women who have a regular menstrual cycle - which in turn depends on good nutrition and a proper balance of essntial fatty acids in the diet. There are literally millions of rhythm method babies born all the time, especially in impoverished Catholic countries.

IT's OK for celebate men to make rules for themselves, but not for others. And they should not go outide the Bible to do it. Paul said not go go beyond that which is written. 1 Cor 4:6.

Contraception and abortion are not the same thing, but the Pope and his Cardinals have not realised that yet.

The Bible does not condemn contraception, even though many methods, such as a sea sponge soaked in Acacia oil, a favorite of the Jews, have been around for thousands of years.

arcura rated this answer Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/02/04 - ????


What prompted Visions In Blue to use Visions In Blue as an Expert's name?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 04/02/04:

My guess - referring to how our vision changes so that everything looks bluer as we age - check out Monet's paintings.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
VisionsInBlue rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 04/02/04 - SOMETHING TO CONSIDER!



"People ask, "How can you be friends
with someone you've never met?"
I tell them,
" You've never been online I bet!"

"It's something people offline
will never understand.
You open up your heart to friendship
with your typing hands.

"It's a world full friendship at your finger tips,
there is so much online,
it only takes a heart to reach people
with your touch.

"First you start out online, surfing all around.
Next thing you know a great friend will be found.

"You will chat a lot and surf cyber space.
Soon it will be your second home,
a comforting, special place.

"A Friend to share your dreams and your tears
and to help each other wipe away life's fears.

"You will share life together
and help each other along
You will make it thru bad weather
because friendship is so strong.

"No matter how far apart you go,
your keyboards will keep you together,
and in your heart you will know
you don't need a face to be a true friend forever.

"So, How do you explain this to people
who've never been online?
I guess it takes a gesture of friendship
& a little bit of time.

"So let's start by posting on the board
and passing our special touch.
A smile, a gesture starts it all
becoming friends doesn't take much."

®Cherokee & Kallie from Beliefnet.com

Any comments?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 04/02/04:


All online friendships are the same - email has replaced snail mail when it comes to having pen pals.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
akenaten asked on 04/01/04 - how do you stop a mother from lying about her daughter?

Hi. My question is this... How do you stop a mother from lying about and degrading her child simply because SHE doesn't like the child's choice? Why do parents feel the need to lie to others about their children just to gain self-worth? What kind of parent would openly bash and condemn their child?


Before I start, let me point out that my friend is 18, and of legal age to make her own decisions, and has chosen FREELY to follow her actions, and is VERY happy with the results, and VERY much in love.


My friends mother who claims to be a devout religious person, yet openly criticizes christianity and all other religions as cults and lunacy has been telling people that her marriage to her husband was a satanic ritual, and making a point to openly lie to other people who she both does and does not know, in order to gain their favor and try to gain sympathy for herself. The truth is in fact, she (my friends mother) is the one that has the problem and should be seeking mental help for her condition. She professes to be an expert on virtually every subject, when in reality she knows nothing at all about what she is saying nor about whom she is standing in judgment against. She is someone that has her own life in such a shambles, that she shouldn't be giving advice to anyone, because she can't even apply her own advice to her own life and family. She has acted most horribly against both my friend and her husband in spite of the fact that they both have been MORE than kind to her. She has condemned them, lied about them, spread rumors in an effort to cause them legal problems, and all for the simple fact that she herself has serious emotional and mental problems that she will not face nor seek help for. She has blamed them for things that have happened in my friends fathers life that he himself has told them and me that they were of his own making, and were in fact the results of his own bad choices, and had nothing at all to do with my friend nor her husband. My friends mother tells people that he had a nervous breakdown because of my friends actions, when in fact, the truth is that his relationship with his ex-girlfriend were the cause of his downfall, as well as drinking and drug usage, as he himself has openly told me and them both. My friends mom has even gone so far as to take texts of emails and conversations that she and my friend had and edited her words, changing them to HER OWN words to make it look like my friend is unhappy and in fear, in an attempt to deceive her (the mom) friends (who know nothing about my friend and her husband nor know either of them personally) to call and make false police reports against her husband in order to create problems for him.


When my friend lived with her mother, her mother often called her names like b**ch, wh*re, sl*t, and many other things. Her mother would often strike my friend for no reason, other than the fact that she (the mother) was either high, drunk, or in a bad mood. She would tell my friend that she was a bad child, and disrespectful, and all kinds of things. My friend is none of these things. She has NEVER been sexually promiscuous, NEVER stayed out all night, run the streets, or anything like that. My friend would go to work, come home at night, cook, clean house, and basically be a model child. My friend does not use drugs or alcohol. (in spite of the fact that her mother was using her child support to do so) Basically, my friend has done nothing to deserve this treatment from her mother. How can this lady even claim to be a mother? Can she not see how much it hurts and damages a child for a parent who is supposed to love their child unconditionally to treat their child like this?


Her mother has a long history of mental disorders and has been diagnosed with severe depression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders before, and should be taking prescribed medication for the same, yet she refuses to do so and claims she is ok, when obviously this is not the case.


I have seen a number of posts on many answer websites that she has written about my friend and her husband, openly condemning them, and ALL have been total BS on her part. My friend and her husband have repeatedly asked her to stop talking about them, stop spreading lies and rumors, and have even considered going to an attorney and the police themselves to file charges on her for slander and deprivation of character. They have proof of all the things her mom has said, as well as proof of her editing emails, and have it printed out for the local authorities to examine if needed.


As far as their marriage being a satanic ritual, this too is one of her insane ravings. Their marriage was done at the Renaissance Festival, and was in fact a druidic ceremony, as is done in England and Scotland, and has NOTHING to do with satanism or anything else. It was in fact a simple handfasting ceremony, but my friends mom, being a self proclaimed expert doesn't even have the sense to look it up or maybe she would realize how ridiculous and phony her claims are, and how ignorant she makes herself appear to the ones who know the truth. Most people know and understand that there are many other faiths besides just christianity, and many ways to perform marriage ceremonies, and simply because they chose a different way does NOT mean it was a satanic ritual nor that it is because they are in a "cult" as she puts it.


My friend told me many times that they had honestly hoped to have a good relationship with her mother, like the one they have with her father, who comes and visits them at times and has even stayed in their home and been supported by them for over a month and seen for himself that they are truly happy together. Her father has even told her mother this, yet she still tells people lies about them, and will NOT stop. My friend has told me that both her and her husband truly wish the best for her mom, but if she does not stop her lies and get some help, their only option is to totally alienate her from their life, and possibly seek legal action against her because her negativity is becoming more than they deserve and should have to deal with.


As I am sure she too will see this post, I ask you to leave it up so the other members of this site can see the TRUTH about this, and not be biased by my friends mothers views, stories, and comments, since she has been lying to you all about it. If she is going to continue to condemn and harass them with this kind of mess, I would at least like the other people here to know the truth, so they can be objective in their reaction and not taken in by the BS that my friends mom is feeding them.


Thank you! Best wishes to all, and thanks for your help in answering my question about how to stop this mess, and understanding the hell my friends mother is trying to create in their life because of her own selfish feelings, mental illnesses, and self-condemnation.


A very concerned friend.

PraiseJah answered on 04/01/04:

Ive been on this and other Boards for years and Ive seen the type of slander you describe.

BY the way, what's the question?

akenaten rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
darkstar rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Matthew rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/01/04 - Barbaric behaviour?

In one place in Scripture there is refereence to the barbarian. Could it be that the people referred to are those who today inhabit central Iraq.

How could any group claiming to follow a righteous God behave in the manner of these Iraqi's. Killing an enemy is understandable, even if these killings are a little incomprehensible to us at such a distance, but to dismember the corpes and parade them through the town, brings such thoughts of disgust and a feeling that such people are beyond redemption.

The Scripture speaks of judgement on many detestable practices, particularly in regard to these lands, and I wonder; will God again curse this land and make it even more of a wasteland than it already is because of such detestable practices.

PraiseJah answered on 04/01/04:

They are not acting in the name of God, but in the name of politics - the barbarians yesterday who mutilated their victims were Saddam Hussein supporters. Is what they did any worse than beheading - once a means of execution by the British! Is ripping open a man's stomach with a bayonet as soldiers in our armies are taught any less barbaric?
I think not!

ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
ATON2 asked on 04/01/04 - What can be done???

He's Baaaaaaakkkk! And my first question was actually raised by an Episcopalian priest. What can be done "to liberate Christianity from legalism, literalism and lethergy" and make it a viable belief system for 21st Century man?????

My own computer is crippled, and I may have to shoot it....so my postings will be sporadic for a while. Try not to get suicidal over it :) :) :)

Missed most of you!!

ATON

PraiseJah answered on 04/01/04:

For me it's not bound up in legalism, literalism or lethargy.

I dont know of any Christian who finds the doctine of love taught by Jesus to be legalistic - it's based on love and good old fashioned common sense. As for literalism - that is a problem with some - then again no one takes Paul and Peter's injunctions about women being silent in the congregation, nor the entire book of Revelation, literally.

I agree that most so called Christians do not show the zeal and enthusiasm demonstrated by the apostles and other early disciples of Christ.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ATON2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Laura asked on 03/31/04 - This isn't really related to Christianity but..
This is another one of my quirky questions

Wanted: opinions.

Charges are dropped against the mother by DHS for an allegation of abuse against her and the step-father because she told the judge that she would give custody of the children to the natural father. Very soon thereafter, the mother accuses the natural father of sexual abuse of their daughter. Before the custody change takes place.

DHS takes the children into custody because of the circumstances surrounding the whole incident. (She claims that the daughter was bleeding and that the child said daddy did it. But she didn't report this for nineteen hours after this supposedly happened and she disregarded the orders of the doctor to take the child to the emergancy room. It was three days after she reported this before the child was seen at the hospital. The child told the doctor that daddy changed her diaper. That is all she has said.

The District Attorney on behalf of the Department of Human services enters an order allowing the non-costodial parent (the father)to pursue custody of his children in the country where he resides, even though there is a DHS case opened against the father. DHS will abide by the decision of the judge in this other county concerning custody and arrange treatment plan for the ultimate custodial parent. Now the DA didn't have to do this at all. The mother is the custodial parent. Do you think that he and DHS believes the father and his evidence?

(If the father wins, DHS would want him to be in a program to help him deal with his ex and also for parenting classes as he has been away in the Army for some time, according to the father's attorney.

If the mother won, DHS would retain custody until she got psyciatric help for untreated bi-polar and schyzophrenia as well as help for some major physical problems. She would have to prove parental fitness. I don't know what they would do about the step-father, as one of the charges against him in the case that had been dropped was that he had abused the stepson)

What do you think? Laura

PraiseJah answered on 03/31/04:

The mother is ill, not deviant like the other candidates for custody. With treatment she may be abtter able to cope with the children.

If the father or anyone else is accused of abuse their entitlement to custody is very much in doubt.

BTW - bleeding could be due to constipation and trying to pass hard bulky feces which can cause fissures in the anus. It is not of itself an indication of abuse.

Laura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
VisionsInBlue asked on 03/31/04 - For KOINEGREEK...

...who seems oblivious to anything he's told, be it even repeatedly. Koinegreek, please note the part about DISCUSSION FORUMS. And about experts who post questions AGAIN and AGAIN. And DEBATING instead of asking.

Maybe, just maybe this will get his attention and he will finally READ and UNDERSTAND what Dathaeus was trying to convey.

Well, let's hope, anyway.

Author: Dathaeus
Date: 03-25-04 23:25

Here are a few decisions and announcements in which you may all take interest:

- As we have stated before, we are planning on revamping the site as a whole, in major fashion, at some point down the line, one that will even require a shutdown of the site for a couple of days (I know, gasp, but...), and when the site reopens it will be... well, you'll see... so as far as any ENGINE improvements, please be patient... the situation is not in my hands right now, and we will just have to wait, unless someone hires us a programmer at $150/hr to do the revamping for us right here and now. For perspective, it would probably take us more than 30-40 hours to make the complete change.

- We know some of you have reported glitches and errors that may be annoying, but unless it is detrimental to the basic functions of this site, please wait for the above. AFTER the changes are complete, we still welcome any error reports, etc... We DO read EVERY feedback report you send us, even if we do not read every forum post or question board. Please understand we rather not respond at all than send you a auto-responder at this time. However, for those who need the attention or validation, if you truly think even an auto-responder is better than nothing, let us know. That can be implemented fairly quickly, although we really see no use for it.

- For now, all of you experts who post "questions" again and again (especially in the religion boards) on question boards that are meant to start a debate, not require a proper answer, post them in the appropriate DISCUSSION FORUM. In the forums, our rules of language and argument are more liberal, although obvious rules such as profanity will still be maintained. There you can argue, point fingers, team up, play your name calling games, whatever.... Anyone who violates this suggestion will be warned once or twice. Claims of "I meant it as a serious question" or other excuses of ignorance will not be tolerated. If you cannot distinguish the above, then you are not fit to be an expert in that category, obviously. Continued trangressions in this area will be cause for indefinite suspension. All experts are encouraged to report the violators, not to "tattletale" but to aid in the advancement and perfection of Answerway.com. Judgement and execution will be swift, so when in doubt, GO TO THE FORUMS.

- To all experts who were suspended and come back under different ID's, as I have said we are allowing it for now, but when you get suspended again for appropriate reasons (no warnings will be given), we will not answer your emails or pleas, etc... because you were suspended the first time for a reason and we will not waste our time on you any more. Also, for all those "friends" of these violators, anyone who complains about "unjust suspensions" who try to defend their friends through emotional ties and who do not have the proper perspective and assume their position is a correct one, will also be suspended if they continue to display public defiance aimed towards Answerway.com management concerning this topic.

- We try to make rules as black and white as possible. However wherever humans, especially ones who are intent on finding loopholes and shortcuts for their own agenda, are concerned, there will always be gray, and that gray is owned and operated by us. Case closed. The only proof that matters is what is available publicly. If you feel there is some public proof we may have missed that affects our decisions feel free to email them to us. Otherwise, leave your complaints at home.

- If any of this has been unclear, continue to post to this thread. I will check this post until it runs dry. All opinions and suggestions are welcome as always.

- Dathaeus

PraiseJah answered on 03/31/04:

It seems you can post lengthy debate type posts as long as you ASK A QUESTION it belongs on this board.

If you dont like his posts then dont answer them.

BTW visions - you could be suspended for attacking koinegreek - posting this instead of asking a legitimate question.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Average Answer
VisionsInBlue rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/31/04 - Please give your opinion:

Hello again,
In our families, each member has certain responsibilties towards the family.

1- The husband works and is head of the houssehold and he supports the family.

2- The wife either works and the husband and wife take care of household chores and the children together or the wife is a stay home mom thereby providing for her household and spoken of in proverbs chapter 31.
3- Children go to school and learn and obey their parents. (hopefully)

We all live here on this earth and it is our joint home. God has placed us here and he also must have responsibilties that he requires each of us to care for. What do you feel your responsibilties that God requires of you, perosnally? How does he want you to care for our earthly home and those who are part of our human family?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/31/04:

Apart from caring for loved ones, earning a living, helping others in need and paying my way there is also caring for the environment. I cant stop making some contribution to environmental problems ( eg if we all drove horse and carriages instead of cars all the methane from the horsey- doo would pollute the air in cities as much as the carbon emissions from exhausts!) But Im mindful of Rev 11:18 about God's plan to destroy those destroying the earth.
I also have a moral responsibility as commanded by Jesus to share the good news with others.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/31/04 - Draw Close to God?

Hello my Fellow experts,

How is everyone this fine day?

I have been thinking of things that I can do to draw close to God. We never can be too close to God.

What are some of the ways that you personally draw close to God?

Thanks
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/31/04:

Gazing in wonder at the stars at night or working in my garden or watching nature documentaries on TV make me feel close to God. Reading the Bible also. But most important of all - prayer.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Matthew rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/30/04 - Hope

Hi Everyone,

This is my favorite subject, Hope, that's right, not Hope12, that's me, but hope.

Does having hope really make a difference in a persons life?

Do you feel we really need to have hope?

How can we have hope and will it help us? If so, how?
Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

Faith, hope and love. 1 Cor 13:13. All three are quintessential qualities needed to please God.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/30/04 - The Wild beast and its mark.

Hello Experts,
Revelation 13:17, 18 speaks about the wild beast and its number six hundred and sixty six. 666
What is the number of the wild beast mean and what does it mean to have the mark of thee wild beast?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

The beast represents all the rulers of the world combined, spec. the political part of the UN. The number 666 is imperfection emphasised - 6 is 1 short of 7 and hence is described as a man's number and it occurs three times. (All nations including even the good ol' democratic USA came to power by means of bloodshed hence they are appropriately described as beasts.) This beast has sprung from the 7 beasts or world powers that have preceeded it

The mark on the forehead represents devotion while that on the hand - active support.

To what extent the phrase "not be able to buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast" applies is probably in the future.

God's people have His name, Jehovah, and the name of His Son, Jesus written on their foreheads. Rev 14:1,2. Their devotion is to Jesus and Jehovah.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 03/30/04 - To save us all a lot of time!

So that koinegreek can get on with teaching us greek and avoid teaching us english.

1. Avoid alliteration. Always.

2. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.

3. Employ the vernacular.

4. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

5. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.

6. Remember to never split an infinitive.

7. Contractions aren't necessary.

8. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.

9. One should never generalize.

10. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

11. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

12. Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

13. Be more or less specific.

14. Understatement is always best.

15. One-word sentences? Eliminate.

16. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

17. The passive voice is to be avoided.

18. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

19. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

20. Who needs rhetorical questions?

21. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

22. Don't never use a double negation.

23. capitalize every sentence and remember always end it with point

24. Do not put statements in the negative form.

25. Verbs have to agree with their subjects.

26. Proofread carefully to see if you words out.

27. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.

28. A writer must not shift your point of view.

29. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.)

30. Don't overuse exclamation marks!!

31. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to the irantecedents.

32. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.

33. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

34. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.

35. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.

36. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.

37. Always pick on the correct idiom.

38. The adverb always follows the verb.

39. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; They're old hat; seek viable alternatives.

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

Great, but the best way to control spam is to ignore it. From now on Im not answering any spammmed questions because the user in question always insists I havent answered or like with the latest post to me, that I gave contradictory answers ( to what was two DIFFERENT questions) ??!!

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
BoBro asked on 03/30/04 - Christians and Forgiving Others

As Christians, are we supposed to forgive transgressors in an effort to restore them to Christian faith? (I know the answer..). I have run across a few Christian families over the past few years who just don't get the idea of forgiveness and loving kindness when someone has wronged another. I feel an air of actual hatred, not hatred for the actions, but pure disdain for the one's who have sinned.

How can we live our lives, especially as Christians, with hatred and disdain in our hearts for those who are making honest efforts to repent and bring their lives around. I can honestly say, (and I'm NOT putting myself above ANYONE in this universe) that there is absolutely no one who has commited a crime, or acted in a purely "odd" manner against me, that I can honestly say I hate.

At one time, hate burned me up, tore down my very soul, and completely engulfed my mind, my will and my emotions in flames of pain all about me. Now, with the healing help of God's love, I can finally see people in need of guidance, rehabilitation and just someone to talk to, someone to show them that God still loves them, and as brothers and sisters in faith, allow them a bit of space and time to repent and heal. Mind you, there are those who make me a bit wary, however, I look at these people until I can see an area to either give loving support or offer up prayer for their needs.

I also find the same people who have hatred in their souls tending to make me nervous about even saying "Good morning" or asking "How are you today", or even socializing with them for fear of getting my tongue cut out and thrown on ashes.

I don't know what to ask you folks, but I'm open for ways to understand how these Christians (and I'm NOT saying 'so-called', because I witness some powerful Christian witness in these same people) and coming to peace with myself in regards to them. I pray for me to understand them, I pray for them to see how hatred and disdain for others can keep them from experiencing the same wonderful life I have in Christ.

God's love to all of you,
Bob

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

We need to remember that we who know Christ are also imperfect and make mistakes and try to overlook their nasty ways and forgive as God has forgiven us. I know it is hard, but remember underneath their rough exteriors there may be a diamond or two!

BoBro rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sapphire630 asked on 03/30/04 - drawing lines

I like helping people with their problems because I have been thru just about everything and wished I had had people to help me. But people end up taking advantage. People tell me "it's not your responsbility
so don't feel bad about not helping." It's not the its not your responsibilty part that gets me but rather the fact that once I do help someone it ends up my responsiblity and ends up putting me and my life in a mess. Why can't you help people any more without it ending up biting you in the butt and making your own life a mess?
Right now my problem is this girl I knew since she was 12 and has had 4 babies to 4 different guys. Now she is 23. Her oldest is 7 her youngest 11 months. She was living in the same building as me but the landlord kicked her out a year ago. She quit her job and got on welfare. Her mother would only help her with some of her bills. She blew all her welfare money on drinking instead of paying the rest of the bills and taking care of her kids needs. Now she is homeless and gave all her kids except her baby away to grandparents. She comes knocking at my door at 1:00 in the morning with her baby and says she is waiting for a ride. The supposed ride never shows up and she is asleep on my recliner all night. A lot of times I don't answer the door. I don't want to get in trouble with my landlord for her being there and I don't want to call any agencys because that could cause trouble with Child Protective Services with the grandparents
(they all have too many living in their places).
I just letting her stay at my house when she can't find any place else is enabling her and not doing her kids any good because as ling as she has somewhere to stay she won't wake up to the fact she needs to grow up and take care of all her babies. If I thought she would find a job and save for her own place I would feel better about it but I know that wouldn't be the case. What are your thoughts?

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

In the long term as much as you may hate the idea, thee children are being negelected and welfare agencies should be consulted. How would you feel if ue to your failure to act something happened to one of those kids? You need to put your loyalty to your friend aside and think of those kids. She may hate you for it now but in the end she will thank you - for caring.

sapphire630 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/30/04 - To my Fello Experts:


Hello Experts:
Do some people have Artificial intelligence?

To reason, to understand, to discover meaning, to deal with unfamiliar circumstances, and to make decisions—these are things usually associated with the human mind. The ability to do these and many other tasks is what intelligence is all about. Ever since the 17th century, scientists have been dreaming of a “thinking machine” that could solve mathematical and logical problems. However, it was not until the advent of the electronic computer in the mid-1950’s that the dream began to take on substance.
Most of us are familiar with the computer’s ability to store, retrieve, and process large amounts of information at great speed. Because of this, computers are used in accounting and bookkeeping; handling files, catalogs, indexes, and so forth. In all these operations, raw data is fed into the computer’s memory, and the computer is given a set of instructions, or program, on what to do with the data. In a computer used for accounting, for example, the machine may be programmed to process all the information at the end of the month to produce bills and statements for all the accounts.
Of course, it takes a certain kind of intelligence to do the kind of work described. Essentially, however, such systems merely follow a predetermined set of steps, specified by humans, until the job is accomplished. If something is missing or has gone wrong during the course of operation, the machine stops and waits for further instructions from the human operator. Such machines can be said to be efficient but hardly intelligent. Computers with artificial intelligence,
Today, expert systems are being used in various aspects of medicine, computer design, mineral prospecting, accounting, investment management, space flight, and so on. Computer scientists are working on expert systems that can process not just one if-then situation at a time but many such operations simultaneously, as does the human mind. Also under development are systems that can “see,” “hear,” and “speak,” albeit in a limited way. All of this has caused concern in some circles. Will computers become as smart as, or even smarter than, man? Is this possible?

Also can man become as a computer, full of book knowledge but not able to use it wisely or in certain circumstances without turning back to the instruction manual? Can a person be over knowledgeable to the point of not being able to communicate in a logical and coherent manner? Is it possible for a person to have an abundance of book knowledge but yet lack the intelligence on how to use it to benefit themselves and others? Would this not be Artificial intelligence also? What do you think?

Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

Certainly the man difference between a human brain is the ability to reason, understand, comprehend as well as to feel emotions like love, fear and compassion.

Even the spell check on the computer reveals it does not understand what is typed in.

eg the other day my mother showed me a letter from my brother which had been typed on a wp. Because the spelling of the word - "lake" was correct, the spell check did not correct it, even though the sentence called for "like" not "lake". Hence it read:

"he would lake to....." My mother felt my brother's abililities were failing as there was more than one such error in the letter. I had to explain to her that computers do not undertand or comprehend anything and so they will only correct a word that is misspelt.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/30/04 - Please can you answer this for me?

To all our very intellegent Experts:

Why is it that certain ones need to be on stage at all times? Who cares what another persons abilities are and are not. Don't we prove who we are by our actions?

Why would someone feel that they need to put others below themselves? Does God think of one above another? What do you think?

Does God feel that we are better because we speak a language and the other person does not?

Take Care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

The ratings system may tend to imply performance is necessary - sort of like applause from an audience, but in reality we are here to answer questions and that's all.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/30/04 - This list below sounds diverse and separate? But they are all common to each other. What is their co

Protestant -- (an adherent of Protestantism)
WASP, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant -- (a white person of Anglo-Saxon ancestry who belongs to a Protestant denomination)
Anabaptist -- (adherent of Anabaptism)
Christian Scientist -- (a member of the Protestant church founded in the United States by Mary Baker Eddy)
Baptist -- (follower of Baptistic doctrines)
Congregationalist -- (a member of the Congregational Church)
Nonconformist, chapelgoer -- (a Protestant in England who is not a member of the Church of England)
Anglican -- (a Protestant who is a follower of Anglicanism)
Episcopalian -- (a member of the Episcopal church)
fundamentalist -- (a supporter of fundamentalism)
Jehovah's Witness -- (believer in imminent approach of the millennium; practitioner of active evangelism)
Latter-day Saint, Mormon -- (a member of the Mormon Church)
Methodist -- (a follower of Wesleyanism as practiced by the Methodist Church)
Orangeman -- (a member of a society founded in Ireland in 1795 to uphold Protestantism and the British sovereign)
Pentecostal, Pentecostalist -- (any member of a Pentecostal religious body)
Presbyterian -- (a follower of Calvinism as taught in the Presbyterian Church)

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

All claim to be Christian and are loosely classified as Protestant or non Catholic.

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/30/04 - What defined marriage in the O.T.? Did Jesus understand marriage since he was not married?

BOSTON — After seven weeks of heated public debate and frantic backroom maneuvering, the Massachusetts Legislature on Monday approved a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions for same-sex couples.

Did Adam and Eve have a marriage license?

What defines marriage vs. civil union?

Was Adam and Eve common law partners?

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

God brought the woman to the man, so He in effect performed the marriage ceremony. It was binding as they became one flesh. There was no ring, no licence but something far mor binding than that - an act of God!

Bobbye, if a marriage ceremony is performed by a wiccan priest who is also registered with the state, is that a marriage or not?

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/30/04 - Why?

Why did you answer "three" when your previous answers stated that two separate words was used by Jesus?

PraiseJah answered on 03/30/04:

Jesus asked the same QUESTION three times. But he did use both agape and philea in those questions. Reason being that
agape refers to altruistic love ( ie to love (agape) even your enemies) while philea refers more to brotherly love - a closer and more personal bond.

I have to wonder, is English your first language? because I clearly stated in answer to your question that Jesus asked the same question three times. That WAS your question this time and it had nothing to do with the two words for "love" which you referred to in previous posts.

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/29/04 - Who understands English & an English question on this site?

I was invited to spend over a half-day with kindergardener's, today.

They asked ME questions and I answered them. I did not give them MY opinion or hard luck story. I asked THEM questions and THEY answered them. They did not give me their opinion or hard luck story. They know a question and an answer! Remember this is English in kindergarden!

The teacher asked them questions and they answered. They asked the teacher questions and she answered.

SYNONYMS: ask, question, inquire, query, interrogate, examine, quiz These verbs mean to seek information. Ask is the most neutral term.

"Question implies careful and continuous asking. Inquire refers to a simple request for information."

Query usually suggests settling a doubt. Interrogate applies especially to official questioning. Examine refers particularly to close and detailed questioning to ascertain a person's knowledge or qualifications. Quiz denotes the informal examination of students.

I signed-on to answerway.com and found NO ANSWERS, but I had posted questions as defined by English.

English DEFINES “question” as careful and continuous asking.

As an expert on answerway.com, do you agree or disagree with the English definition of “question?” How many questions did Jesus ask Simon in John 21:14 to end of chapter?

Please no partial answers.

SYNONYMS: answer, fill, fulfill, meet1. These verbs mean to supply fully or completely.

PraiseJah answered on 03/29/04:

Yes.

Jesus asked him three times "do you love me" and three times the answer was yes. Three times Jesus repeated how that love could be shown - "feed my sheep"

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 03/29/04 - What is your answer?

I receive this query in an email today, I thought I would share it with you to show that there are seekers with real questions out there! How would you answer?

What did the people who practice christianty call thier unlimted reality god like figure?

PraiseJah answered on 03/29/04:

He says His name is Jehovah - Psalm 83:18 KJV

BTW willbe hasbeensuspended - check his profile. You did ask how I know.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 03/29/04 - Here's another guy's take--

Here's what another guy thinks about the Israel/Yassin situation. He may be kind of famous, but his opinion is that of just an ordinary guy.

Makes a lot of sense to me, though.

>>Defending Ourselves

A couple of days ago Israeli forces sought out and killed a Palestinian named Yassim. He was a pathetic figure, small, emaciated and confined to a wheelchair.

Yet under those innocent looking white robes he wore beat the heart of a wanton terrorist. He was the founder of Hamas and responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent Jewish women and children, masterminding an untold number of suicide raids against the Israelis.

Yet when the Jews finally take him out world opinion runs from
caustic criticism to outrage. How dare the Israelis retaliate, how dare they take out a terrorist who was dedicated body and soul to their destruction.

Well I don’t care what the rest of the world says, I say, way to go Israel, we could take a lesson from you in this country. What it comes down to is do we destroy our enemies or do we sit back and let our enemies destroy us? And believe me folks, it’s going to be one way or the other, there is no middle ground.

Too long the U.S.A. has yielded to world opinion and political correctness and the inane and feeble edicts of the United Nations. Too long we have ignored our enemies until we find them on our doorstep.

There are parts of the world that are not going to like America
no matter what we do. We could consign fifty percent of our gross national product to them and they would still criticize and hate us.

One of the things which appalls me most is that there are so many people in this country who just don’t get it. They think that if we leave the terrorists alone they’ll leave us alone, that if we placate them they will go away.

Well nothing could be farther from the truth. They’re never going to leave us alone no matter what we do and every little acquiescence is interpreted by them as weakness and in reality, it really is.

There are those who say that America has brought this on herself, that we are a mean and malevolent nation who rides roughshod over the rest of the world. There are even those who would side with the Palestinians who say that we were complicit in the assasination of Yassim.

The Palestinians say that they are going to hold the U.S.A. accountable and start terrorist attacks on American soil and interests.

Well I for one think that at the very first sign of Palestinian
terrorism that a few well placed bombs in the Bekah valley might be in order along with the immediate cutting of all aid to them.

But the best thing we could do is to encourage the Israelis to take the gloves off. They know how to deal with terrorism and are ready and willing to do it if their only ally would just get out of the way and let them have at it.

Pray for our troops.

God Bless America.

Charlie Daniels<<

DK

PraiseJah answered on 03/29/04:

While he is as much to blame for inciting terrorism as anyone, killing Yasin will not stop the terrorists and will in fact increase acts of terrorism. Like with Sadam Hussein and the Malaysian JI cleric Bashir, it would have been in everyone's interests for Yasin to have been captured and tried. If he is proven to have actually planned terrorist attacks then he could receive the appropriate death penalty. As it is he died a martyr - not proven guilty. The injustice of his being executed without a trial will always remain as a black mark on Israel's record.

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/27/04 - More Cyber Madness

This message is doing the rounds again, so if it lands in your INBOX, just delete it.

Hello, everyone. It will be interesting to see who responds! I told this guy that I could find 300 people who believe in God before he could find 300 people who do not believe in God. If you believe in God, please copy and paste this onto a blank e-mail form (leaving off the headers). Add your name, and send it to your friends and family. If you happen to be the 300th person signing this, please send it back to: Dorothy Wiser. Her email address is: dwiser@serv.net


This leg-pull goes back at least as far as August 2001, which was when we first saw it. Since then, it has continued to circulate, primarily as two word-for-word versions that differ only in the proffered identity of whom to forward the completed petitions to: either dwiser@serv.net (also dwiser@iserv.net) or kountrygirl11@hotmail.com. (As of 2004, e-mail to all three of these addresses bounces.)

Usually these exhortations conclude,

"This isn't a hoax or a chain letter, just wanted to prove a point," but sometimes that ending is omitted.

Cynicism leads us to suspect the point being proved is that it's possible to get any number of decent, good-hearted folks to mailbomb someone set up as a prankster's goat, provided you convince them they're doing it for the greater good.

In this instance, the innocent were likely being conned into assisting with a practical joke through their sense of pride in their beliefs and their desire to make a public affirmation of their being played to.

A moment's thought ought to be all it takes to convince anyone to not forward this nonsense any further.

First, the purpose of this "petition" is never stated, so suppose whoever started this thing gets 300 e-signatures from believers before the other fellow collects his 300 from unbelievers.

What then? They compare notes along the lines of "Yep, you were right about that, Clem," then go back to arguing about which operating system is better?

If the point is to prove that there are more people who believe in God than those who don't, easily gathered statistics already demonstrate that quite handily — in the U.S., for instance, four out of five adult Americans identify themselves as Christians.

Those laboring under the misconception that the numbers of believers and non-believers are running approximately neck and neck are sadly out of touch, as it's not even a race.

Second, anyone considering that maybe the 300 signatures would be used to convince the other fellow that he should believe in God and thus that the signer is taking part in bringing a troubled soul to religion should quickly be struck with the realization that belief in a supreme being is not triggered by the presentation of a certain number of e-signatures.

While it is true folks have come to an awareness of God in any manner of unusual ways, we've yet to hear of anyone who was e-petitioned into it.

Finally, this exercise in getting folks to chase their own tails bears a striking resemblance to another such inbox uprising from 2000, an effort to convince a pregnant gal deviled by a controlling boyfriend to refrain from seeking an abortion:

Hey everyone.....one of my friends is pregnant and her boyfriend won't let her have the baby, I already told him and her it is wrong to have an abortion because you should not kill a live human being. Then I said if I get 500 people to sign a paper that says it's wrong to have an abortion then would you let her have the baby and he said yes. So I'm asking you please sign this that says an abortion is wrong and to let her have the baby.

If you are the 500th person please send this back to Cutiegirl152@hotmail.com Thanx.


Be a smartie - stop the party!

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/28/04:

will has been suspended

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/28/04 - Fr_chuck on becoming a "child of God"?

Fr_chuck, a priest, said the following is how he teaches/instructs to become a "child of God."
"By presenting the way of the cross, the story of Jesus crucified for thier sins. only by faith in him are you saved. No speical knowledge of teachings. The early church had no bibles, no written text and they converted people when it could mean death," end of quote.

Is this what the N.T. teaches to become a "child of God?"

PraiseJah answered on 03/28/04:

They did have Paul's and Peter's letters. And a frgament of the gopel of Mark has been found dated to 66AD And they had all the OT

The apostle John said we are born of God if we practise righteousness.

Fr_Chuck rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/28/04 - I KNOW THE ANSWER!


Out of the last ten questions posted on this Board, seven have been posted by one Expert! I don't need this! Do you?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 03/28/04:

I too get a bit miffed at having to answer the same question over and over - agape/philea have been done to death as has John 1:1.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dathaeus asked on 03/28/04 - Please read "Addendum" in Expert Forums

I am posting this notice just in case some of you do not check the Expert Forums. Please read "Addendum" in Expert Forums, posted 03-26-04 by Dathaeus. Thank you.

Dathaeus

PraiseJah answered on 03/28/04:

Have read. Hope the revamp will sort out some of the glitches. Apart from the occasional glitches I find this site easy to navigate.

BTW - on this Board it is hard to post anything without it becoming controversial.
Occasionally we posts jokes which are not questions - is that OK?

Dathaeus rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Matthew rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/27/04 - Polling all experts on this site?

Polling Experts on Christianity:

Based upon the questions & answers regarding, agapaO, phileO, being the "same" or being "different"? What is your conclusion now? "Same" or "Different"?

Let me tell you a true story: When I was young I heard two groups debate one word in one verse. And the two groups were exactly opposite each other. So, the logic was that one had to be right and the other wrong. BUT, when I learned Koine Greek I
discovered that the two groups were BOTH WRONG! That is why I love[agapaO]Koine Greek more than English! And this is a clue to John 21:15.

PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

Philea literally refers to brotherly love whereas agape is the word Jesus used when he said we must love our ENEMIES.

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/26/04 - Bigotry or Plain Good Sense?

Religion to be banned
Written by: DaBeast
Created: 23 January 2003

The United Nations have today announced their intentions to ban all religions.

A spokesperson for the UN said that they wanted to outlaw religion because 'it caused a lot of hatred and had no factual evidence to back up any of it's claims.'

A few people turned up to protest the annoucement, including Pope John Paul Ringo the Third, leader of the Catholic Church.

The Catholics were at one point the largest cult on the planet, but had seen their members dwindle over the last 20 years due to shock revelations and boring services.

The Pope declared that it was a sad day for mankind and also mentioned that the Catholic God was a vengeful God.

On the whole, the demonstrators were peaceful, mainly singing songs and drinking tea. There were no arrests.

Religion has never quite recovered from the 2011 discovery of alien life, which proved most religions wrong when they claimed God had made us in his image.

The management of this newsgroup would like to point out that God may or may not exist, and if he does take an interest in religion, he would have told us which was the right one to follow by now.



You might have guessed (I hope!) that this is an imaginary news item from a website, but do you think that all religions could or should be banned?

==============

But now for something that is NOT imaginary!

==============


The Subversive Manifesto

Bootleg copies of the Passion hit Middle East 25/3/04
Marriage banned in Oregon 25/3/04
Franciscans Condemn Apartheid Wall at UN Commission 25/3/04
Allegiance to God row reaches US Supreme Court 25/3/04
Tutu visits death row inmate 24/3/04
Popes autobiography tipped as bestseller 24/3/04
CRE to promote new ways of being church 24/3/04
Pro-Jesus ads published by Muslim group 24/3/04

Hear Ekklesia's politics report every Friday morning on UCB Talk, Sky Channel 891

Bible and other religious books banned in Malaysia -16/3/03

The Malaysian Home Ministry (KDN) has banned 35 books, several of them by Christian authors, and one of them a translation of the Bible.

Considered detrimental to public peace twelve of these are popularly viewed as Christian books, eleven of them in the national language, Bahasa Malaysia.

The twelfth is a translation of the Bible in Iban, the language of the Iban people of Sarawak, which has been freely available in the country for over five years.

The statement issued by the KDN stated that the “printing, import, production, reproduction, sale, circulation, distribution and possession of books listed under the schedule are banned in the country”.

The Iban Christians of Sarawak could now face a three year jail sentance or a maximum fine of 20,000 Malaysian ringgits (approx. £3,340) simply for possessing an Iban Bible.

Those books banned include translated works by John R W Stott which are not banned in their original English form.

A press statement issued by the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) stated that the ban “infringes on the rights of Ibans to practise their religion” and it calls on the government “to immediately lift the ban”.

Ibans comprise 30% of the population of Sarawak (the largest ethnic group in the state) and the majority of Ibans are Christian.

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia guarantees the right to practise one’s own religion.


===============

Is this bigotry by Muslims?

Is it any better or worse than Christian bigotry?

:)

will


PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

Atheist regimes have been no less tolerant than strick Islamic states. Also,the Greek Orthodox, some Catholic countries such as Spain and more recently the Russian Orthodox have all at times banned Jehovah's witnesses.

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/27/04 - Movie question



The Christian Film and Television Commission held its annual Movieguide Awards honoring the movies and television shows that best uphold Christian morals and values.

Wednesday's ceremony in Beverly Hills was the centerpiece event of the 12th Annual Faith & Values Gala. The event was videotaped and will be telecast on PAX TV.

Here are the winners for the best family films of 2003:


"Finding Nemo"
"Visual Bible: The Gospel of John"
"Piglet's Big Movie"
"Spellbound"
"Peter Pan"
"Cheaper by the Dozen"
"Secondhand Lions"
"Spy Kids 3D: Game Over"
"Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas"
"Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl"
The top 10 films for mature audiences were:


"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
"Gods and Generals"
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"
"Luther"
"Tears of the Sun"
"In America"
"Seabiscuit"
"X2: X-Men United"
"Matchstick Men"
"The Matrix Revolutions"
"The Gospel of John" was honored as the most inspiring movie of 2003, receiving a $25,000 Epiphany Prize. Also receiving the prize was the Hallmark Channel's "Love Comes Softly," honored as the most inspiring TV program of the year.

Actor Stephen Lang of "Gods and Generals" received the Grace Award for the most inspiring movie acting, while Dale Midkiff received the same for the most inspiring acting on television for his work in "Love Comes Softly."

"Gods and Generals" was honored as the best historical epic, "Ghosts of the Abyss" for the best Imax movie, and NBC's "Zenith" for best documentary.

The commission bestowed the Father of the Year Award to writer and director Andrew Stanton for his uplifting portrayal of fatherhood in "Finding Nemo."

A special Lifetime Faith & Values Crystal Teddy Bear Award for Dedication to Redeeming the Values of the Entertainment Media went to Ken Curtis and Bob Yerkes "for their selfless Christian work in the mass media of entertainment," a statement from the commission said.

Dr. Ted Baehr founded the Christian Film and Television Commission in 1978 and established its purpose as "redeeming the values of the entertainment industry according to biblical principals." Baehr's publication, Movieguide: A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, reviews Hollywood films from a Christian perspective, providing ratings for families with children while supplying information for discerning adult viewer.

http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=301

Do you and your family watch anything that hits the movie theaters, or do you seek quality, family-safe high standard entertainment that upholds Christian values?

:)

will





PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

My two year old grandson became quite distressed when the bad guys were fighting and put Nemo down the loo. Sometimes these
kids movies dont always consider the sensitivity of young children to violence.

I figure if a movie is not suitabel for kids it's not suitable for anyone.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
mr_internet asked on 03/27/04 - Who do you believe? Why?

Two conservative Bible loving people but two different views when it comes to economy:

"Because of tax relief, Americans have more to save, spend and invest — and that means millions of American families have moved into their first homes," Bush said

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_home_ownership_1

"PHOENIX — President Bush traveled to two swing states with sizable Hispanic populations Friday and talked up his proposals to increase home ownership opportunities for minorities."

"Not enough minorities own their own homes," he said at a stop in Phoenix, which followed a talk about home ownership in Albuquerque. "And it seems to me it makes sense to encourage all to own homes."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/8289324.htm

Compare that optimistic view with this:

02.04.04, 9:00 AM ET
"...That, at least, is the view of Sir John Templeton, the 91-year-old founder of the Templeton Funds who made a killing four years ago shorting technology stocks. Now the legendary investor is predicting it will take 'several years' before a sustained rise in U.S. stocks because he believes they are way overvalued."

"His big concern today: the U.S. consumer. He says Americans have taken on too much credit card and mortgage debt. Household borrowings hit a record $9 trillion last year, or 110% of personal disposable income. Meanwhile, personal bankruptcies rose to 1.6 million, another record. Templeton predicts home prices will fall and defaults rise."

http://forbes.com/2004/02/04/cz_bc_0204templeton.html

PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

I treat all politicians statements, especially at election time, with absolute skepticism. Templeton is more likely to have his finger on the pulse than Bush has.

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/27/04 - Time to change God's image says Bishop


Since its appearance in print, an intense theological debate has been waged around a volume entitled "Honest to God", in which Dr. Robinson, then Bishop of Woolwich of the Anglican Church, asks the question whether it is possible for modern men to accept traditional Christian faith, to believe in the established conception of God, and to accept Christ as their Savior.

He questions whether Christianity carries with it the trappings of an ancient world and culture, and whether it can be made relevant to the thought and character of modern scientific man living in a rapidly shrinking technological world.

The bishop says, "Our image of God must go,' and the Church Times comments:

"It is not every day that a bishop goes on public record as apparently denying almost every Christian doctrine of the Church in which he holds office."

Dr. McIntire, of the University College of Oxford, says,

"Dr. Robinson's book needs not only to be understood as a symptom of our condition but to be sympathized with as a desperate attempt that cannot succeed," and he adds, somewhat cynically, "The creed of the English is there is no God and it is wise to pray to him from time to time."

This book is not just the voice of an individual, but it testifies to the existence of a whole group of theologies which have retained a theistic vocabulary but acquired an atheistic substance and wonders whether they can continue to co-exist.

The then Archbishop of Canterbury said:

"... if Dr. Robinson's argument is right, the traditional views of God are not merely outmoded, they are simply false."

The argument that has ensued around these and other questions has engaged the leading minds in both Europe and America, and they indicate a sense of loss, frustration, and failure that are so much a part of modern life.

The hope is expressed that there will be a new birth in our time that will restore something of the meaning and value of human existence.

Where, if it is to be found, do you think it will be found other than in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

:)

will

Five points for:

A. decent language,

ii. answers on the issue, and for

3. those who do not use the clarification function to sidestep the answer function when they are clearly rendering an opinion and not seeking clarification.


:)

PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

Im not an LSD but I have found the meaning of life and who God is and what He is from the Bible.

Dr Robinson has succumbed to empty reasonings and wordly philosophies.

Cherab rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/27/04 - What Was the Nature of Paul's Sin at the Stoning of Stephen?


In our Sunday School the question of the nature and scope of Paul's sin at the martyrdom of Stephen was discussed.

There was a wide divergence of opinion in the class.

Some felt that he was justified by the teachings and policies of Jewish law.

However some felt that it was in defiance of Roman law which was supreme at the time.

What is the correct conclusion?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

Paul described himself as a persecutor of Christians. Whether he actually cast any stones at Stephen, we cant be sure. But he was well and truly in favot of it at the time.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 03/27/04 - Who is Jehovah?

There is much discussion about the trinity on here, but what might be interesting is to examine the Bible to see what it says about who Jehovah is.

Who is Jehovah? Is it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit?

Five stars for all respectful and concise answers which includes an identification of your opinion along with a scripture reference which supports the opinion expressed.

PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

Jehovah is the Most High God (Psalm 83:18) KJV ASV NWT etc.
He is the Father of Jesus Christ who now sits at His right hand. Psalm 110:1,2. (ASV)


When the apostles prayed as recorded in the book of Acts, they prayed to the Most High God, Jehovah in the name of His SERVANT Jesus. Acts 4:23-30,

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/27/04 - Are you an honest tax payer?


Statistics show that a growing number of Americans feel like they pay more than their fair share of taxes, enough to warrant perhaps cheating a bit, adding that "extra" business expense or fudging on some numbers.

An Internal Revenue Service survey last year of individual taxpayers showed that 12 percent of surveyed taxpayers felt it was all right to cheat "a little" on their taxes.

That was up from 8 percent from a similar survey in 1999. The survey also showed that as many as 5 percent of taxpayers felt that cheating as much as possible on their taxes was acceptable.

When asked if they thought paying taxes was part of their civic duty, 68 percent of Americans thought that it was; that was down from 81 percent in 1999.

But while many Americans rationalize why they should hold back on paying taxes, tax officials and ethics experts say cheating on your taxes ends up doing more harm than good.

"If people paid their fair share, then we probably wouldn't have a budget deficit," said IRS spokeswoman Jean Carl.



Should Christians be honest in their tax paying?

Should they be honest in everything else?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/27/04:

We must pay outr taxes even when we think we are being overtaxed. Romans 13:6,7.

Ive had even accountants suggest ways and means of dodging tax - one even suggested some years ago when I could not get employment that my husband and I pretend to be separated so I could claim unemployment benefits from the government. No way!

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 03/26/04 - JWs banned in Moscow

The BBC is reporting that a court in Russia has banned the JW from carrying on it's activities in Moscow for the following reasons:

"The court ruled that group's practices broke up families, encouraged suicide and threatened its members' health by not allowing blood transfusions."

Is this action justified?

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

The link to the actual Moscow News article is on the JW pr media section on the official website at http://www.watchtower.org/

On the same page is a report that the Orthodox Church is opposing the construction of a Hare Krishna temple.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 03/26/04 - Question???

I went back to find my place to start answering questions(I'm behind), and I saw that somwone had inserted two questions between a couple of old questions I answered? What the heck is that? Is this hacking the Christianity Board?

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

Ive seen my clarifications come up as someone else's answer! The site is flawed in many ways.

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 03/26/04 - JWs banned in Moscow

The BBC is reporting that a court in Russia has banned the JW from carrying on it's activities in Moscow for the following reasons:

"The court ruled that group's practices broke up families, encouraged suicide and threatened its members' health by not allowing blood transfusions."

Is this action justified?

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

With respect to breaking up families - apart from the fact that my own parents were about to part company when they became Jehovah's witnesses but stayed together and were much happier, Jesus did say that his message would divide families. Matt 10:34-37. But it does not have to if everyone remains tolerant of each other.
No where do we encourage suicide. There are many viable alternatives to blood transfusion and only a Judge ignorant of the medical facts would make that claim. I ask you to go to our officila website and view the two videos on this topic - statements by DOCTORS about viable alternatives to blood transfusion. What of women who refuse to have abortions even if their own lives are at risk from a pregnancy? That is, like blood transfusion a matter of personal conscience. Abortion on demand is legal in Russia so they cant take a high moral ground with respect to "saving lives"

I expect our lawyers will appeal.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 03/25/04 - At Last a leading Christian is prepared to tell it like it is!

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving.

In a speech that will upset sensitive relations between the faiths, he denounced moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers.

He attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith.

Dr Carey's comments, in a lecture in Rome, are the most forthright by a senior Church leader. He was speaking on the eve of a seminar of Christian and Muslim scholars in New York, led by his successor as archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams.

He acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions.

Contrasting western democracy with Islamic societies, he said: "Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of which rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces.

"Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional sovereignties, each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege."

Dr Carey said he was not convinced by arguments that Islam and democracy were incompatible, citing the example of Turkey.

He urged Europeans and Americans to resist claims that Islamic states were morally, spiritually and culturally superior.

"Although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought, the beginnings of calculus, Aristotelian thought during the period known in the West as 'the dark ages', it is sad to relate that no great invention has come for many hundred years from Muslim countries," he said. "This is a puzzle, because Muslim peoples are not bereft of brilliant minds. They have much to contribute to the human family and we look forward to the close co-operation that might make this possible.

"Yes, the West has still much to be proud of and we should say so strongly. We should also encourage Muslims living in the West to be proud of it and say so to their brothers and sisters living elsewhere."

Dr Carey said that, while Christianity and Judaism had a long history of often painful critical scholarship, Islamic theology was only now being challenged to become more open to examination.

"In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness to be an illiterate man, is said to have received God's word direct, word by word, from angels, and scribes recorded them later.

"Thus believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah, they are not to be questioned or revised.

"In the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past 500 years critical scholarship has declined, leading to strong resistance to modernity."

Dr Carey said that moderate Muslims must "resist strongly" the taking over of Islam by radical activists "and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah."

He said: "We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn, clearly and unconditionally, the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people.

"We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are martyrs and enter a martyr's reward. We need to hear Muslims expressing their outrage and condemning such evil."

Christians, who shared many admirable moral values with Muslims, such as respect for the family, must speak out against the persecution they often encountered in Muslim countries.

"During my time as archbishop, this was my constant refrain: that the welcome we have given to Muslims in the West, with the accompanying freedom to worship freely and build their mosques, should be reciprocated in Muslim lands," he said.

The former Archbishop, who initiated several top-level meetings between Christian and Islamic leaders during his period at Lambeth Palace, urged the West to tackle the Palestinian problem and other inequalities in the Muslim world.

"I for one do not accept that the future is one of escalating violence, deepening bitterness and a grudging dialogue between 'incompatible faiths' and cultures," he added. "Compassion and understanding are the only tools to handle hatred and violence.

"It will do us little good if the West simply believes the answer is to put an end to Osama bin Laden. Rather we must put an end to conditions, distortions and misinformation that create Osama bin Laden and his many emulators."

The Daily Telegraph, London

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

Lord Carey is somewhat misinformed about what Muslims teach and believe.

According to ther Quran life is sacred and martyrdom refers to being killed for one's faith, not killing yourself and others. It also specifically condemns initiating violence. Suras 190,191 all have Muhammed being told only to kill others of they attack first ( self defense)

I know some Muslims and none agree with the suicide bombings.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/26/04 - THANKS FOR YOUR PRAYERS, GUYS!

Carol had both a Catscan and a Petscan at Barnes in St. Louis yesterday. Nothing was found on either scan. So, she is definitely in remission ... thanks to a phone call early this a.m. from Barnes with the results. Now I have something to say to all of you:

I have witnessed a miracle that began some 33 months ago. (Carol was in Stage 3 ... lung cancer) Bottom-line: Cancer can be beaten! Your prayers have helped pull her through and we sincerely and gratefully thank you from our hearts. Never give up ... no matter what ... if you come down with an illness! Miracles begin everyday and terminate in happiness! Just have a great relationship with our Father and take care of your business down here where the buds are popping. IT'S SPRING!

I LOVE YOU ALL!

(I've written better letters but ... I'm still in shock. We found out about the results just 10 minutes ago)

HANK (& Carol)

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

I could not be more pleased. Faith hope and God's love are miracle cures!

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/26/04 - A gift for all mankind!

Hello Experts,
We all have a great gift, some appreciate it, others take it for granted. What is that gift? It is our very life!

Please can you tell me please each one of you experts out there, what are some of the ways we can show we appreciate our gift of life?

How is each one of you "PERSONALLY", useing your life to benefit other?

What are some ways in which we all no matter what faith or belief, use our life in benefiting others? Can you name at least 20 ways?

I look forward to hearing from each one of you.
Take care,
Hope12

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

I am a health care worker, mother, grandmother, wife and minister of God's Word. Im also principle carer for my aged mother. I also regularly visit sick members of the congregation. All those activities involve taking time to help others. All are important.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/25/04 - A Question for Bible Experts



Zechariah 9:9
9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys as one artists portrayed in his painting?

If not, did this prophecy fail?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/26/04:

If you can find a painting of anyone riding two asses at the same time - sitting on both their backs Im sure we'd all like to see it!


Why not accept the obvious - that the second phrase is a clarification - describing the ass that he rode on as being a foal. Two of the gospels only mention that he rode on the foal while another states they had to get two asses - an ass and it's foal. His robes were placed on them but he could only ride on one

Now do you see it?

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/25/04 - Women in Judaism & in Christianity


It is recorded in some of the encyclopedias that Paul based his thinking upon certain Jewish traditions and customs that had accumulated through the years.

It was an ordinance that women were not permitted to teach, even to ask questions in any of their assemblies.

According to Clarke's Commentary, the rabbins taught that "a woman should do nothing but the use of her staff," and Rabbi Eliezer is credited with the statement that it would be better, "to let the words [records] of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women."

Therefore Jewish women were not permitted to hold any public office, to speak in any gatherings, or even to ask questions in any public assembly.

Paul was strictly conforming to this law.

Is it time to get rid of this ancient tradition or does it still reflect God's thinking in the 21st century?

:)

will



PraiseJah answered on 03/25/04:

I cant go better than Toms777 answer except to say that women have a lot of responsibiity as carers - home, kids and aged parents. There is just not enough time in a day for women to take on the role of elders or pastors as well.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Itsdb rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/25/04 - A Question for Bible Experts



Zechariah 9:9
9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys as one artists portrayed in his painting?

If not, did this prophecy fail?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/25/04:

Only one - the follow up statement simply qualifies the first -that he rode on a colt of an ass or a foal. No way could Jesus ride astride TWO animals - LOL! The mother was there two - she carried his robes. Check out the gospel accounts.

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 03/25/04 - Willbe - in response to your answer regarding Balfour

Willbe,

I read with interest your answer to PraiseJah's question regarding the Balfour Decrlaration.

If course, it was the same sort of interest with which one watches a train wreck. You know something is about to go horribly wrong but you just can't take your eyes off it.

Your response is full of inaccuracies, both historical and logical. I will now go through your answer point-by-inaccurate-point.

>>>There are a few errors in your post.<<<

Ummm.... yeah.

>>>Even from a biblical point of view, ancient Israel was told that they would keep the land if they remained in the Covenant. They broke the Covenant and were thrown off the land in the first century of the common era.<<<

They wre also promissed that they would return to the Land. Please see the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and pretty much ALL of the the other prophets for more details.

>>>That is almost two thousand years ago and any fsmilial titles to their lands were overthrown by the subsequent conquerers and settlers who eventually gained right of possession by remining on the land for much longer than the Israelites had.<<<

First of all, there has never been a period of time since the time of Joshua i which there were not Jews living in the Land of Israel. Not during the Babylonian exile, not during the Roman Exile, not during the Ottoman Empire and not during the British period. Places like Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron and Safed have Jewish communities that date back 3500 years to the time King Solomon. So on that account you are dead wrong.

But even if you were right, and there were no Jews living there... so what? Since when does absence from a piece of land invalidate the ownership of that land? If I invest in a tract of land in Montana, is my ownership in question because I don't live on the land? If so, when? How long must I be absent for the land to no longer be considered mine? On what date did the Jews' title to the land expire?

And you certainly can't claim abandonment. We've been voicing our intent to return to the land for 2000 years. We haven't abandoned our claim on the land.

>>>Whatever "agreements" were reached about the division of the land, were reached without the assent or cooperation of the indigenous Palestinians, and very much against their wishes.<<<

That would actually matter if the land we were given was actually ocupied by Arabs. But the lands we were given were carefully deliniated to cover the areas in which we were already living (and had been for thousands of years) and undeveloped tracts of land that nobody was on.

>>>Palestinians were forced into involuntary exile in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, where they lived in concentration camps. Some Palestinians were born, lived, and died without ever leaving these horrific camps.<<<

Historically inaccurate.

1) You have jumped 20 years in history without telling anyone. Between 1948 and 1967, there were no refugees. The refugees happened because of the 6-Day War.

2) The Palestinians were not forced to do anything. They left their homes at the behest of their own leaders in order to allow Syria, Egypt and Jordan to attack Israel. They were told that the war would only last a few weeks and that, upon the defeat and massacre of the Jews, they would be allowed to return to their homes. The war only lasted 6 days, but the other side won.

3) Upon the completion of the war, Moshe Dayan invited all the refugees to return to their homes with a promise that there would be no reprisals. He even went so far as to personally drag several Arab leaders back to their homes to show that he really meant it. By-and-large, the Palestinians refused. The few who did return became Israeli citizens. Why did they refuse? Some were afraid of reprisals despite Dayan's promise. Others were just defiant of Israel and the Jews. Still others wanted to create a 'refugee crisis' that could be blamed on Israel. (And naturally, you fell for it.)

>>>It was in these concentration camps that Palestinian anger fomented and eventually crystalised into several factions who sought to liberate their stolen homeland by whatever means necessary, inlcuding the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). <<<

"Concentration Camps". Nice slanting of views there.

Have you ever seen a real concentration camp? If you ever did, you would never compare one to the "camps" that the refugees are living in. Most of the refugee camps are actually full fledged cities in all but name. They have large apartment buildings, markets, electricity, plumbing, good, paved roads, lighting, public utilities, schools, universities, etc. All built with Israeli money, and mostly by Israeli engineers. The refugees, for the most part, are hardly living in squalor... except when cameras come around. That's when they turn on the 'poverty'. And in fact, Israel for decades risked its own security to open its borders to allow Palestinians to gain employement in Israel. You can't do that in 'concentration camps', Willbe.

>>>It is hard to criticise them for wanting restored that from which they had been forcefully ousted, so that their lands, their homes, and their businesses could be given to the descendants of a people who had last lived in some parts of that land 1900 years earlier.<<<

See above for the historical truth.

>>>Apart from imaginary WMDs, the same rationale could be used by Bush to invade Israel, and free the opressed Palestinians from the terror of Israeli occupation, brutality, and harsh policies.<<<

That would be true if the Palestinians were an oppressed people, as opposed to a group actively committed to the death and destruction of the Jews, and anyone else that isn't Muslim. As it is, Bush recognizes the truth.

>>>Many Christians cannot see the Palestinians' problems because they can only see the Jewish Homeland and they tie that establishment to some prophecies made almost three and a half thousand years ago, which is an alarming confession.<<<

But most do see the Palestinian problem and want to alleviate the situation. Unfortunately they have come to the conclusion that the Palestinian leaders themselves do not wish the problem to end, because if it does, they're out of a job.

>>>"How would you white Americans feel if native Americans decided to drive you out of your homes and off your land?"

I am all in favor of the Indians relocating all immigrants and descendants of non-Amerindians onto reservation lanmds, and restoring all other places to their original owners. <<<

Glad you feel that way. Then you agree that Jews, the true natives of the land, should relocate the Arab immigrants on their land onto 'reservations'. Glad to see you agree.

>>>I hold this position because of a deep sense of right and justice.<<<

Glad to hear it.

>>>Bin Laden is not acting to restore anyone lands to them, and he does not pretend to do so.

He is against western culture and religion because of his distorted interpretation of Islam, which has been fueled by hundreds of years of western arrogance towards the Arab and Muslim people: an arrogace that I have witnessed first hand when I lived in the Middle East.<<<

And what of Sheik Yassin? Was he any different from Osama?

>>>Sad facts of life. But history teaches those who will learn that it is easier to start a war than it is to start a peace.<<<

Any true student of history knows that in most cases war is the ONLY way to bring peace.

>>>If Bush and the rest of Washington were to take the same kind of action against the Israeli regime as it has against the Iraqi regime, using as the excuse Israel's failure to conform to UN resolutions, which Israel choosees to ignore, even as Saddam chose to ignore those against his regime, then the whole problem could be settled in short order.<<<

And if the USA truly allowed Israel to defend itself from terrorism in the same way that Bush has in Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem could be settled in short order. But the fact is that most of the world doesn't see Palestinian terrorism as part of the war on terror, and apply different standards to it. Hunting down and destroying terrorists is ok for the USA, but not for Israel. That is a double standard.

>>>While the US piles billions of dollars in cash and armaments into Israel, and does not take a strong stand agsint Israel's policy towards the Palestinian people, then nothing will change except more and more Palestinians will be slaughtered by the descendants of those who initiated terrorism as a means of gaining political control after World War II, who murdered in the name of Zionism, which is a political not a religious movement, and who slaughtered Arabs, Palestinians, and British soldiers who exercised the League of Nations mandate over the land of Palestine.<<<

And now we see your true agenda, Willbe. You are against Zionism, and you need to justify it by claiming that Israel is as bad as a) Nazi Germany, and b) the terrorists. But you know, and everyone reading this knows that that is incorrect. Even when the Irgun, Haganah and Lechi were using guerilla tactics to gain Israeli freedom, they didn't attack civilians. They only attacked military targets. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this. Some civilians may have been hurt, but never because they were the deliberate targets of the Jews. So they do not fall into the category of "as bad as the terrorists". Nor has Israel embarked on a plan to commit genocide of the Arab world... or even the Palestinians. Even now, as they fight the terrorists, their goal is the destruction of the terrorists, not the innocent civilians. Again, civilians may get hurt in the crossfire, but not because they are the targets. That is why Sheik Yassin was killed with a precision missile strike, rather than Israel simply blowing up the entire street he happened to be on. Israel actively limits the civilian casualties. Civilians may get hur or die, but the number is always much fewer than if Israel were deliberately targeting them. And you know it.

>>>The difference between US policy to Iraq and Israel is maintained by fear of losing the votes of the Jewish lobby in the eastern United States.<<<

Again, you have revealed your true agenda. You hate Zionism, the Jewish Lobby... and mostly likely the ZOG and the Jewish controlled media as well.

The jig is up, Willbe. You are revealed as what you really are... and anti-Semite. Your use of the anti0Semitic code-words reveals the truth.

>>>There will be no peace between Muslims and Jews until they behave like Christians do in settling their differences.<<<

No thanks. We'll stick to being who we are.

>>>Peace is a dead duck, but it doesn't have to be that way.<<<

I agree. And if the Muslims just stop trying to kill innocent civilians, at can be.

>>>It is in the hands of the US and its foreign policy.<<<

No it isn't.

The USA has just established the fact that no country in the world needs to wait for the opinion of any other country before taking action to defend itself and its interest. Israel will keep to that standard as well... no matter what the foreign policy of any other country says. Even the USA.

>>>Someone ought to ask a question about Christian ethics and morality and apply it to the Christians in the White House.<<<

Check out the Religion Board. The topic came up there about a month ago.

Elliot

PraiseJah answered on 03/25/04:

Elliot, Israel did breach His covenant and so God allowed the Babylonian captivity. (Deut 28 from verse 15 onwards) Ezekiel Isaiah and other prophets sure did foretell liberation and return to Judea. But there was a later destruction of the temple - by the Romans. No way would God allow that unless they had breached his covenant AGAIN.

That is why the Christian church became the new Israel of God - to be a Jew is in the heart. The new covenant was to be written on hearts according to Jeremiah's prophecy and as it states in the original promise to Abraham, ALL nations are to enjoy God's blessing, not just Judeans. (Genesis 22:18)

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 03/24/04 - Kolbo - Should look there for God?

I noticed quite a few posts regarding Kolbo. So I though you might enjoy the following.
Looking for GOD in all the wrong places... like KOLOB
By Brian Paul

In three short months, Joseph Smith would be dead - murdered at the hands of an angry mob. But on this day in April of 1844, his followers were assembled in a lush grove to pay homage to one who had already passed beyond the veil. The crowds settled into the wooden benches surrounded by a line of trees, and fell silent. All eyes followed the Prophet as he stood up, walked to the fore, and began to deliver a sermon that would be etched deeply into the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS).

That he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . . Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938], 343, 345-346).
And so went the King Follett Discourse, named after the Latter-Day Saint whose death they were gathered to remember. It’s unknown how the crowd reacted to the Prophet’s words. There seems to have been no great disturbance - not surprising, since the teachings were, for Mormons, nothing new. For Christians, though, these claims are shocking if not offensive. This raises an important question: What is the Mormon view of God and how does it compare with that of classical Christianity? The answer may surprise you.
The late B.H. Roberts, the most influential scholar in the history of the LDS church, boiled the main differences down to three:
“First, we believe that God is a being with a body in form like man’s; that he possesses body, parts and passions; that in a word, God is an exalted, perfected man. Second, we believe in a plurality of Gods. Third, we believe that somewhere and some time in the ages to come, through development, through enlargement, through purification until perfection is attained, man at last, may become like God - a God” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity [Infobase Collector’s Library, Infobases, Inc.], chapter 1). Let’s examine the three points.
One god, two god, three god, four. . .
It’s a big universe out there - plenty of room for a plurality of gods. Well, at least that’s what LDS would have us believe. One of the central tenets of Mormonism is that while this world has but one God (Heavenly Father), there are countless other gods out there, each governing his own world or system of worlds. This position can be best labeled “henotheism,” that is, the belief in many gods, coupled with the worship of only one. The idea of a plurality of gods is found clearly in the Book of Abraham, one of Mormonism’s inspired writings. In it, the Genesis creation story is restated, with a significant modification:
“And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light; And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright. . . . And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night” (Abraham 4:3-5). It goes on from there, adding “Gods” to every action in the original Genesis account.
Is there a biblical basis for this belief in a plurality of gods? Mormons say yes, and fasten onto Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:5 that there are “many gods and many lords,” as evidence. This claim breaks down, however, when the passage is read in its entirety. St Paul said: “Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is no God but one.’ For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ - yet for us there is one God, the Father. . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
Notice that the “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” mentioned are idols, not actual Gods. This passage, far from proving a plurality of Gods, actually refutes it.
Mormon apologists will also frequently refer to Psalm 82:1, 6 to buttress their belief in more than one God: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment. . . . I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.’”
Unfortunately, like the 1 Corinthians passage, this text is also ripped from its context. When read together with verses 2-4, we see that the “gods” mentioned are really unjust human judges who are oppressing the people: “‘How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?’” (82:2) God demands of them. Indeed, the “gods” in this passage are doomed to “die like men, and fall like any prince” (82:7). Why? Because they are men. Not exactly the immortal gods of Mormonism. We see then that the LDS interpretation of this verse doesn’t hold up under careful scrutiny.
If there’s one teaching the Bible is absolutely clear on, it’s monotheism. Again and again, the Scriptures testify that there’s one and only one God. The prophet Isaiah allows for no exceptions: “‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God . . . . I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God’” (Isaiah 44:6, 45:5). The common LDS response to these passages is to claim they refer only to this world, not to the numerous deities that reign in other corners of the universe. Notice, however, that the passages do not say, “I am the only God of this world,” but that besides Yahweh, “there is no God.”
Psalm 86:10 repeats this point: “For thou art great and doest wondrous things, thou alone art God.” God is not one among many; He is utterly unique in His divinity. There is none like Him.
What, then, are we to make of Genesis 1:26, where God says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”? Doesn’t this imply the existence of more than one God? Not at all. The author of Genesis is simply employing a common literary device known as the plural of majesty. Historically, popes or kings or royalty will speak of themselves in the plural form to underscore their grandeur. I often write my Christmas cards using the plural of majesty. It gives me a certain class, I think. Of course, my friends attribute it to the numerous voices I hear in my head day and night, night and day. (Thankfully, the voices shut up when I have to write articles or at least they talk softly and are very polite.)
Another tact Mormons often take is to point to the deity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as evidence that there are at least three Gods. For the LDS, the three members of the Godhead are separate personages - three Gods distinct from one another, but united in purpose. Joseph Smith stated as much in his King Follett Discourse:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).
The Christian Churches, of course, reject this view because it is polytheistic. Joseph Smith didn’t have the advantage of a good course in Christian theology. If he had, he would have been able to move past this problem of God being one yet three persons, a problem that has tripped up many a sincere Christian before him.
Frank Sheed, the famous Christian apologist, explains that, “Nature answers the question what we are; a person answers the question who we are. Every being has a nature; of every being we may properly ask: What is it? But not every being is a person: Only rational beings are persons. We could not properly ask of a stone or a potato or an oyster: Who is it?” (Theology and Sanity [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993], 92).
He goes on to show how this person/nature distinction applies to the Triune God: “We must not use any phrase which suggests that the three persons share the Divine nature . . . The Father possesses the whole nature of God as his own, the Son possesses the whole nature of God as his own, the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of God as his own. . . .
“The phrase ‘three men’; would mean three distinct persons, each with his own separate human nature, his own separate equipment as a man; the phrase “three gods” would mean three distinct persons, each with his own separate Divine Nature, his own separate equipment as God. But in the Blessed Trinity, that is not so. The three Persons are God, not by the possession of equal and similar natures, but by the possession of one single nature. They do in fact, what our three men could not do, know with the same intellect and love with the same will. They are three persons, but they are not three Gods; they are One God” (Ibid. 97-98).
Gee, you’re a lot shorter than I imagined.
God is a Spirit - a being without a material body. In Jesus Christ, He was incarnated as a man. Nevertheless, the human nature of the Son was something that He took on; it was not part of His original nature. The Mormon view of God is vastly different. To begin with, the LDS God looks an awful lot like your neighbor: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Indeed, for the Mormon, God the Father is an exalted man, not an omnipresent Spirit:
“Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do not view the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are created in the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image (Genesis 1:26)” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “God”). In this way, God has arms, legs, flesh, passions - all things that we, his children, have ourselves.
But wait, there’s more. Not only is Heavenly Father a man, but he lives with his wife on a planet near the star Kolob (Abraham 3:2-3, 16). There, from a distance, he reigns over the earth. To say these beliefs are outside the mainstream of Christianity is like saying Hitler wasn’t a very observant Jew. So divergent is the Mormon theology of God from that of orthodox Christianity, that the two can hardly be said to be related. The controversy over whether or not Mormonism is Christian springs from this fact.
So, how would a Christian respond to the claims of the LDS church regarding the nature of God? First, the assertion that the Father is an exalted man, with flesh and bones, is utterly unheard of in the pages of Scripture. John 4:24 is very clear when it states “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Often, to avoid the clear teaching of this passage, LDS apologists will point to the second part of the verse, saying that God is spirit in the same way that we worship Him “in spirit.” If we as humans (with flesh and bones) worship God in spirit, then it makes sense that God can also be said to have flesh and bones, and yet be described as “spirit.” This claim falls apart when the verse is read more carefully. Note the passage states God is spirit, while we worship in spirit. In other words, all our worship is carried out by the Holy Spirit, who is indwelling us. In this way, there is a clear line between God who is spirit by nature, and his followers who have in their bodies the Spirit.
The Bible is very clear in its distinction between man and the Divine. In Hosea 11:9 God declares, “I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst.” Numbers 23:19, a well known passage, underscores this point: “God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should repent.” The LDS God is indeed a man - an exalted man - but a man, nonetheless. It’s hard to see the God of Mormonism described here.
But what are we to make of the various scriptural passages that describe God’s body parts? One can certainly find those, especially in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:11, for example, says God spoke to Moses “face to face”). LDS often point to these to “prove” God has a body. Are we to take these passages literally? Certainly not. The ancient Jews often used symbolic language to anthropomorphize God. Recall that they were a primitive people, struggling to express the transcendent in terms they would understand. In a sense, their use of language is no different than ours. If I were to tell you I feel myself resting securely in the hands of God, you wouldn’t think I was claiming God had actual hands. I’m simply speaking metaphorically, an artifice of language found in just about every culture. Over and over in Psalms, God is described as having wings (Psalm 17:8, 36:7, 57:1, 61:4, 63:7 and 91:4). Are we then to assume that God the Father actually sports a set of real, flesh and bone wings? Of course not. To do so would be to ignore a very basic form of poetic communication.
“But wait,” our Mormon friends exclaim. “Doesn’t Scripture teach we’re created in the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God? Surely, if we’re created in His image, then He must look like us!” Well, that sounds pretty good at first, but take a closer look at Genesis 1:26-27:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Notice, first of all, that the “image” of God encompasses both male and female. This point alone keeps us from a slavishly literal interpretation of what image here means. Add to this the fact that the passage itself implies what is meant by being created in God’s image: humans are to have dominion over the world’s lesser creatures, just as God has dominion over humanity. This verse is less concerned with the appearance of men and women (much less God) as it is with their role in the new creation (cf. Genesis 1:28-30). So, there’s no evidence for a manlike God here.
One heckuva promotion...
There’s a saying in Mormonism, attributed to Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the LDS church, that states, “As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” There’s an awful lot packed into that brief couplet. In Mormon theology, God the Father was once a man, living a mortal existence on a planet very much like ours. Through hard work and perseverance in the Divine ordinances available to him, he was eventually exalted to Godhood (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 347). The good news of the LDS gospel is that this same destiny is possible for us as well. The faithful Mormon male who performs the ordinances of the Church and is married in the temple will have the opportunity to have dominion over his own world, populated by the spirit children he creates with his wife. This is the way it has always been, at least according to most LDS sources: a man becomes a god, creates other men who themselves become gods, and on and on. How did it all begin? Who created the first man? These are questions that Mormons will generally shrug off, with the comment that, “It hasn’t been revealed.”
Was God the Father once a man who progressed to Godhood? That’s certainly not the witness of the Scriptures. Again, the Deity of Mormonism is seen to be utterly alien from the God of orthodox Christianity: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God” (Psalm 90:2). God was not only God during His creation of the world, but from the very farthest reaches of time - from “everlasting to everlasting” - He is God. There is not a moment in the expanse of history where God is not God. He is eternal in His Deity.
Not only is that the case, but additionally, God created all things: “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth - Who was with me?’” (Isaiah 44:24) God created all things, even the heavens themselves. There’s nothing in the universe that God didn’t create. If this is the case, He had to have always been God, for if He had, at some point, lived as a man on a planet somewhere, He could not be the Deity described in Isaiah 44:24. The God that creates all things is the One who precedes all things; He doesn’t need to progress to Deity - He alone is Deity.
So, where does this put humanity? Can we, through faithful adherence to the Mormon gospel, expect to be gods ourselves one day, as Joseph Smith claimed? Sorry, but no. The hope for the Christian is to be united with God, to share in His Divinity. This sharing, however, does not give us our own Divine nature. Rather, we take part in the unique, untransferable Deity of God; we enjoy eternal fellowship with Him (Revelation 21:1-5). The old example of the metal rod in the fire is a good one here. If the heavenly glory of God can be represented as a fire, then we are like metal rods thrust in. As the rods glow white, they participate in the fire. The moment they are removed from it, however, they return to their natural state. In this way, we have no measure of Godhood that is independent to us, apart from that found only in the one God Himself.
A final view from Kolob
In the end, the God of the LDS church is incompatible with that of traditional, orthodox Christianity. An exalted man who lives on a planet near the star Kolob is a world away from the omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and unchanging God of orthodox Christianity. This fact is vitally important, for the LDS church and the orthodox Christian Church have two very different Gods. If one of those Gods is true, the other must necessarily be false - the flickering, phantasm of man’s imagination. It’s our solemn obligation to find and know the one true God, for no false Deity has the power to save (John 17:3). If we get the question of God wrong, nothing else will really matter. It’s the foundation for all other truths, and the key to our salvation. So said the Mormon Prophet himself:
“It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 343).
At last, Joseph, something we can agree on.

In the end, the God of the LDS church is incompatible with that of traditional, orthodox Christianity. An exalted man who lives on a planet near the star Kolob is a world away from the omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and unchanging God.

PraiseJah answered on 03/25/04:

The NIV at 1 Cor 15:50 used the word "perishable" - hence flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does perishable inheritable the imperishable.
How can a material body of flesh live on a star and not be destroyed?

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 03/24/04 - Kolbo - Should look there for God?

I noticed quite a few posts regarding Kolbo. So I though you might enjoy the following.
Looking for GOD in all the wrong places... like KOLOB
By Brian Paul

In three short months, Joseph Smith would be dead - murdered at the hands of an angry mob. But on this day in April of 1844, his followers were assembled in a lush grove to pay homage to one who had already passed beyond the veil. The crowds settled into the wooden benches surrounded by a line of trees, and fell silent. All eyes followed the Prophet as he stood up, walked to the fore, and began to deliver a sermon that would be etched deeply into the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS).

That he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . . Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938], 343, 345-346).
And so went the King Follett Discourse, named after the Latter-Day Saint whose death they were gathered to remember. It’s unknown how the crowd reacted to the Prophet’s words. There seems to have been no great disturbance - not surprising, since the teachings were, for Mormons, nothing new. For Christians, though, these claims are shocking if not offensive. This raises an important question: What is the Mormon view of God and how does it compare with that of classical Christianity? The answer may surprise you.
The late B.H. Roberts, the most influential scholar in the history of the LDS church, boiled the main differences down to three:
“First, we believe that God is a being with a body in form like man’s; that he possesses body, parts and passions; that in a word, God is an exalted, perfected man. Second, we believe in a plurality of Gods. Third, we believe that somewhere and some time in the ages to come, through development, through enlargement, through purification until perfection is attained, man at last, may become like God - a God” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity [Infobase Collector’s Library, Infobases, Inc.], chapter 1). Let’s examine the three points.
One god, two god, three god, four. . .
It’s a big universe out there - plenty of room for a plurality of gods. Well, at least that’s what LDS would have us believe. One of the central tenets of Mormonism is that while this world has but one God (Heavenly Father), there are countless other gods out there, each governing his own world or system of worlds. This position can be best labeled “henotheism,” that is, the belief in many gods, coupled with the worship of only one. The idea of a plurality of gods is found clearly in the Book of Abraham, one of Mormonism’s inspired writings. In it, the Genesis creation story is restated, with a significant modification:
“And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light; And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright. . . . And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night” (Abraham 4:3-5). It goes on from there, adding “Gods” to every action in the original Genesis account.
Is there a biblical basis for this belief in a plurality of gods? Mormons say yes, and fasten onto Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:5 that there are “many gods and many lords,” as evidence. This claim breaks down, however, when the passage is read in its entirety. St Paul said: “Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is no God but one.’ For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ - yet for us there is one God, the Father. . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
Notice that the “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” mentioned are idols, not actual Gods. This passage, far from proving a plurality of Gods, actually refutes it.
Mormon apologists will also frequently refer to Psalm 82:1, 6 to buttress their belief in more than one God: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment. . . . I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.’”
Unfortunately, like the 1 Corinthians passage, this text is also ripped from its context. When read together with verses 2-4, we see that the “gods” mentioned are really unjust human judges who are oppressing the people: “‘How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?’” (82:2) God demands of them. Indeed, the “gods” in this passage are doomed to “die like men, and fall like any prince” (82:7). Why? Because they are men. Not exactly the immortal gods of Mormonism. We see then that the LDS interpretation of this verse doesn’t hold up under careful scrutiny.
If there’s one teaching the Bible is absolutely clear on, it’s monotheism. Again and again, the Scriptures testify that there’s one and only one God. The prophet Isaiah allows for no exceptions: “‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God . . . . I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God’” (Isaiah 44:6, 45:5). The common LDS response to these passages is to claim they refer only to this world, not to the numerous deities that reign in other corners of the universe. Notice, however, that the passages do not say, “I am the only God of this world,” but that besides Yahweh, “there is no God.”
Psalm 86:10 repeats this point: “For thou art great and doest wondrous things, thou alone art God.” God is not one among many; He is utterly unique in His divinity. There is none like Him.
What, then, are we to make of Genesis 1:26, where God says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”? Doesn’t this imply the existence of more than one God? Not at all. The author of Genesis is simply employing a common literary device known as the plural of majesty. Historically, popes or kings or royalty will speak of themselves in the plural form to underscore their grandeur. I often write my Christmas cards using the plural of majesty. It gives me a certain class, I think. Of course, my friends attribute it to the numerous voices I hear in my head day and night, night and day. (Thankfully, the voices shut up when I have to write articles or at least they talk softly and are very polite.)
Another tact Mormons often take is to point to the deity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as evidence that there are at least three Gods. For the LDS, the three members of the Godhead are separate personages - three Gods distinct from one another, but united in purpose. Joseph Smith stated as much in his King Follett Discourse:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).
The Christian Churches, of course, reject this view because it is polytheistic. Joseph Smith didn’t have the advantage of a good course in Christian theology. If he had, he would have been able to move past this problem of God being one yet three persons, a problem that has tripped up many a sincere Christian before him.
Frank Sheed, the famous Christian apologist, explains that, “Nature answers the question what we are; a person answers the question who we are. Every being has a nature; of every being we may properly ask: What is it? But not every being is a person: Only rational beings are persons. We could not properly ask of a stone or a potato or an oyster: Who is it?” (Theology and Sanity [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993], 92).
He goes on to show how this person/nature distinction applies to the Triune God: “We must not use any phrase which suggests that the three persons share the Divine nature . . . The Father possesses the whole nature of God as his own, the Son possesses the whole nature of God as his own, the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of God as his own. . . .
“The phrase ‘three men’; would mean three distinct persons, each with his own separate human nature, his own separate equipment as a man; the phrase “three gods” would mean three distinct persons, each with his own separate Divine Nature, his own separate equipment as God. But in the Blessed Trinity, that is not so. The three Persons are God, not by the possession of equal and similar natures, but by the possession of one single nature. They do in fact, what our three men could not do, know with the same intellect and love with the same will. They are three persons, but they are not three Gods; they are One God” (Ibid. 97-98).
Gee, you’re a lot shorter than I imagined.
God is a Spirit - a being without a material body. In Jesus Christ, He was incarnated as a man. Nevertheless, the human nature of the Son was something that He took on; it was not part of His original nature. The Mormon view of God is vastly different. To begin with, the LDS God looks an awful lot like your neighbor: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Indeed, for the Mormon, God the Father is an exalted man, not an omnipresent Spirit:
“Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do not view the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are created in the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image (Genesis 1:26)” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “God”). In this way, God has arms, legs, flesh, passions - all things that we, his children, have ourselves.
But wait, there’s more. Not only is Heavenly Father a man, but he lives with his wife on a planet near the star Kolob (Abraham 3:2-3, 16). There, from a distance, he reigns over the earth. To say these beliefs are outside the mainstream of Christianity is like saying Hitler wasn’t a very observant Jew. So divergent is the Mormon theology of God from that of orthodox Christianity, that the two can hardly be said to be related. The controversy over whether or not Mormonism is Christian springs from this fact.
So, how would a Christian respond to the claims of the LDS church regarding the nature of God? First, the assertion that the Father is an exalted man, with flesh and bones, is utterly unheard of in the pages of Scripture. John 4:24 is very clear when it states “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Often, to avoid the clear teaching of this passage, LDS apologists will point to the second part of the verse, saying that God is spirit in the same way that we worship Him “in spirit.” If we as humans (with flesh and bones) worship God in spirit, then it makes sense that God can also be said to have flesh and bones, and yet be described as “spirit.” This claim falls apart when the verse is read more carefully. Note the passage states God is spirit, while we worship in spirit. In other words, all our worship is carried out by the Holy Spirit, who is indwelling us. In this way, there is a clear line between God who is spirit by nature, and his followers who have in their bodies the Spirit.
The Bible is very clear in its distinction between man and the Divine. In Hosea 11:9 God declares, “I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst.” Numbers 23:19, a well known passage, underscores this point: “God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should repent.” The LDS God is indeed a man - an exalted man - but a man, nonetheless. It’s hard to see the God of Mormonism described here.
But what are we to make of the various scriptural passages that describe God’s body parts? One can certainly find those, especially in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:11, for example, says God spoke to Moses “face to face”). LDS often point to these to “prove” God has a body. Are we to take these passages literally? Certainly not. The ancient Jews often used symbolic language to anthropomorphize God. Recall that they were a primitive people, struggling to express the transcendent in terms they would understand. In a sense, their use of language is no different than ours. If I were to tell you I feel myself resting securely in the hands of God, you wouldn’t think I was claiming God had actual hands. I’m simply speaking metaphorically, an artifice of language found in just about every culture. Over and over in Psalms, God is described as having wings (Psalm 17:8, 36:7, 57:1, 61:4, 63:7 and 91:4). Are we then to assume that God the Father actually sports a set of real, flesh and bone wings? Of course not. To do so would be to ignore a very basic form of poetic communication.
“But wait,” our Mormon friends exclaim. “Doesn’t Scripture teach we’re created in the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God? Surely, if we’re created in His image, then He must look like us!” Well, that sounds pretty good at first, but take a closer look at Genesis 1:26-27:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Notice, first of all, that the “image” of God encompasses both male and female. This point alone keeps us from a slavishly literal interpretation of what image here means. Add to this the fact that the passage itself implies what is meant by being created in God’s image: humans are to have dominion over the world’s lesser creatures, just as God has dominion over humanity. This verse is less concerned with the appearance of men and women (much less God) as it is with their role in the new creation (cf. Genesis 1:28-30). So, there’s no evidence for a manlike God here.
One heckuva promotion...
There’s a saying in Mormonism, attributed to Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the LDS church, that states, “As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” There’s an awful lot packed into that brief couplet. In Mormon theology, God the Father was once a man, living a mortal existence on a planet very much like ours. Through hard work and perseverance in the Divine ordinances available to him, he was eventually exalted to Godhood (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 347). The good news of the LDS gospel is that this same destiny is possible for us as well. The faithful Mormon male who performs the ordinances of the Church and is married in the temple will have the opportunity to have dominion over his own world, populated by the spirit children he creates with his wife. This is the way it has always been, at least according to most LDS sources: a man becomes a god, creates other men who themselves become gods, and on and on. How did it all begin? Who created the first man? These are questions that Mormons will generally shrug off, with the comment that, “It hasn’t been revealed.”
Was God the Father once a man who progressed to Godhood? That’s certainly not the witness of the Scriptures. Again, the Deity of Mormonism is seen to be utterly alien from the God of orthodox Christianity: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God” (Psalm 90:2). God was not only God during His creation of the world, but from the very farthest reaches of time - from “everlasting to everlasting” - He is God. There is not a moment in the expanse of history where God is not God. He is eternal in His Deity.
Not only is that the case, but additionally, God created all things: “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth - Who was with me?’” (Isaiah 44:24) God created all things, even the heavens themselves. There’s nothing in the universe that God didn’t create. If this is the case, He had to have always been God, for if He had, at some point, lived as a man on a planet somewhere, He could not be the Deity described in Isaiah 44:24. The God that creates all things is the One who precedes all things; He doesn’t need to progress to Deity - He alone is Deity.
So, where does this put humanity? Can we, through faithful adherence to the Mormon gospel, expect to be gods ourselves one day, as Joseph Smith claimed? Sorry, but no. The hope for the Christian is to be united with God, to share in His Divinity. This sharing, however, does not give us our own Divine nature. Rather, we take part in the unique, untransferable Deity of God; we enjoy eternal fellowship with Him (Revelation 21:1-5). The old example of the metal rod in the fire is a good one here. If the heavenly glory of God can be represented as a fire, then we are like metal rods thrust in. As the rods glow white, they participate in the fire. The moment they are removed from it, however, they return to their natural state. In this way, we have no measure of Godhood that is independent to us, apart from that found only in the one God Himself.
A final view from Kolob
In the end, the God of the LDS church is incompatible with that of traditional, orthodox Christianity. An exalted man who lives on a planet near the star Kolob is a world away from the omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and unchanging God of orthodox Christianity. This fact is vitally important, for the LDS church and the orthodox Christian Church have two very different Gods. If one of those Gods is true, the other must necessarily be false - the flickering, phantasm of man’s imagination. It’s our solemn obligation to find and know the one true God, for no false Deity has the power to save (John 17:3). If we get the question of God wrong, nothing else will really matter. It’s the foundation for all other truths, and the key to our salvation. So said the Mormon Prophet himself:
“It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 343).
At last, Joseph, something we can agree on.

In the end, the God of the LDS church is incompatible with that of traditional, orthodox Christianity. An exalted man who lives on a planet near the star Kolob is a world away from the omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and unchanging God.

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

I could not agree more! God is a spirit (John 4:24) being and has no gender ( why would He be a man and have reproductive hormones and body parts if there were no goddess to be His consort?)

He is also invisible. If He was made of flesh He would be corruptible - check out 1 Cor 15:50

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
sxhtzofsunshine rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Matthew asked on 03/24/04 - Can God make evil?

In Isaiah 45. God says "I make peace, and create evil"' Does this mean God created evil? Or perhaps God Could had been talking about when he had created Satan?
Thank you.

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

The Hebrew word translated evil in the KJV is translated "disaster" in the NIV.

What was going to happen when Cyrus overthrew Babylon would be disaster for Babylon, but it would bring peace and prosperity to the enslaved Judeans who would by the decree of Cyrus, be released and return to their homeland.

Cyrus the Persian ruler was according to the historian Josephus and the Greek historian Xenophon quite impressed that he had been named almost two centuries before to be God's "shepherd". The details of the manner in which Babylon would be taken were also outlined in Isaiah 45.

For more details read Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Book XI chapter 1.

Matthew rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/24/04 - Is it only a question of "compromise"?



I have been thinking about the Palestinian situation, where Palestinians feel aggrieved that their lands, homes, and businesses were taken from the to provide a Jewish homeland.

I ask,

"If you had been a Palestinian when the Jewish homeland was being established and you were required to leave behind your fanmily home and lands, perhaps your garm or your manufactory, would you be comforted by being told that God had given the Jews the land almost four thousand years ago, so that your family's forcible removal was the Will of God and should not be resisted"?

How would you take that bit of news?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

I would not accept it, but I would not use violent resistance. Material possessions - homes,land are of no use to anyone if they are dead. I would not kill or die for land, because LIFE IS SACRED to God.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/24/04 - Crystal gazers and other occultics


If crystal gazing really works, why do crystal gazers make so many mistakes?

Do you agree with the following statement about Crystal Gaxers?

"Crystal gazing may be likened to a voluntarily induced schizophrenia.

The gazer, through physical and psychic stimuli induced by concentrating his gaze upon the crystal or any bright object, produces a 'split' in his personality.

The normal personality is lulled temporarily to sleep.

In its stead, one or several personalities, all different from the normal personality and different from each other, may emerge.

Automatic writers, operators of Ouija boards, and spritualistic mediums induce themselves into analogous states.

Their faculties are seized through the medium.

Psychical research has progressed too far, and its accumulated evidences are too overwhelming to admit of doubt about them; and too many names honored in the scientific and philosophical world stand sponsors for the fact to allow of them being laughed out of the arena of human experiences, or dismissed from consideration by asserting that they are born of ignorance, and are real only to the superstitious. Crystal gazers are subject to occult fascinations"



What have these practices to do with Christianity, and why do their practitioners fly into rages at the merest hint of opposiiton?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

read Deuteronomy 18:10-12.

powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 03/24/04 - Christianity, a Religion for Men Only?

I think that Christianity is a religion very well-suited for men. It really has nothing for women's salvation FROM all the historical abuses by men.

Comments?

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

Galatians 3:28:

"For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female for all are ONE IN CHRIST"

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 03/24/04 - to praise jah
to Praise Jah

you statd
"Retaliation against a cleric is bound to cause more prblems because it looks like an attack on Islam.

why not!Islaam attacked us remember 9/11!!!!
i AM TIRED OF ALL THIS PUSSY FOOTING AROUND AND PRETENDING THAT ISLAAM IS A PIECEFULL RELIGION

IT IS NOT!!!THEY DO NOT WANT ISRAEL CONTROLED THEY WANT THEM DEAD !!When we realise this mybee we can win untill then they win!!

Also as for the land God gave to Israel and your claim that they Lost it!what part of forever do you not understand???
Genesis 13: 14. The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west.
15. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [[[[[forever.]]]]]

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

rev - calm down! Islam did not attack the US, only a bunch of fanatical Islamic extremists. Hitler was a "Christian" - does that mean Christians killed 6,000,000 Jews? And what of the "Christian" KKK - does their behavior make all Christians racist bigots?

The Quran condems aggression - read Suras 190and 191. It specifically states they were not to kill pagans UNLESS they were attacked first. And it says they must respect "people fo the book" - Jews and Christians.

While the US had not attacked any Muslim country until 9/11 Bin Laden's objections were to the support the US has given to Israel's incursions into Palestine - ie the US has vetoed every attempt by the UN Security Council to censure Sharon and stop him and his army from invading Palestinian territories. His other objection was the presence of US military bases on sacred land in Saudi Arabia. I certainly cant see that their actions were in agreement with the Quran!

So rev - dont make the mistake of blaming all Muslims. GWB didnt - he stated clearly the 9/11 terrorists had "defamed a noble religion" - just like Hitler and the KKK have defamed Christ.

revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 03/24/04 - Pledge Of Allegiance



As many of you have heard, in a 2-1 decision, the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States said the phrase "one
nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to a government
endorsement of religion and is in violation of the separation of church
and state as set forth by the U.S. Constitution. There has been wide
spread public outcry to this ruling. Today, the United States Supreme
Court is hearing this case. Therefore, I thought I would resend this
piece by Red Skelton.

In 1969, Red Skelton gave his personal view of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The statement he made at the end, I think, tells it all.


From THE RED SKELTON HOUR, CBS TV, January 14, 1969
COPYRIGHT 1969 RICHARD RED SKELTON

Red Skelton, one of America's best loved Comedians and star of Motion
Pictures, Radio and Television, was also a true Patriot. A man who loved
his Country, its Flag and the Freedom America stood for. On January 14,
1969, Red touched the hearts of millions of Americans with his "Pledge
Of Allegiance," in which he explained the meaning of each and every
word. Red's "Pledge" was twice read into the Congressional Record of the
United States and received numerous awards.

RED SKELTON: "I remember this one teacher. To me, he was the greatest
teacher, a real sage of my time. He had such wisdom. We were all
reciting the Pledge Of Allegiance and he walked over. Mr. Lasswell was
his name...He said, 'I've been listening to you boys and girls recite
the Pledge Of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is
becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to
explain to you the meaning of each word:

I - me, an individual, a committee of one.

Pledge - dedicate all my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance - My love and my devotion.

To the Flag - our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she
waves, there is respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity
that shouts freedom is everybody's job.

Of the United - that means that we have all come together.

States - individual communities that have united into 48 great states.
48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all
divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and
that's love for country.

Of America. And to the Republic - a state in which sovereign power is
invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And
government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not
from the leaders to the people.

For which is stands. One nation - meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible - incapable of being divided.

With Liberty - which is freedom and the right of power to live one's own
life without threats or fear or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice - The principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

For all - which means it's as much your country as it is mine.'

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and
two words have been added to the Pledge Of Allegiance - 'under God.'
Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, 'That's a prayer' and that would
be eliminated from schools too?"

-- Red Skelton

This information was garnered from a Christian Internet Newsletter, thought you may be interested in reading it.

MaggieB

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

The word God is a generic term used by people of all faiths and hence is not of itself promoting any one religion.

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 03/24/04 - to praise jah
to Praise Jah

you statd
"Retaliation against a cleric is bound to cause more prblems because it looks like an attack on Islam.

why not!Islaam attacked us remember 9/11!!!!
i AM TIRED OF ALL THIS PUSSY FOOTING AROUND AND PRETENDING THAT ISLAAM IS A PIECEFULL RELIGION

IT IS NOT!!!THEY DO NOT WANT ISRAEL CONTROLED THEY WANT THEM DEAD !!When we realise this mybee we can win untill then they win!!

Also as for the land God gave to Israel and your claim that they Lost it!what part of forever do you not understand???
Genesis 13: 14. The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west.
15. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [[[[[forever.]]]]]

PraiseJah answered on 03/24/04:

They broke his covenant and so He did allow them to be driven out - twice. Deut 28 from vs 15 onwards. The land , His blessing and everything that went with it was conditional on their keeping His covenant.

You have msiquoted the Quran on this site before - Muslims are not to attack others FIRST. They are only allowed to defend themselves. I have corrected you by referring to the context so please go back and read the Quran before.

Muslims and Jews live in Weetern countries peacefully side by side. Theer are radical extremists in all walks of life.

BTW the word translated "forever" simply means an indefinate time period.

Check out Strong's Concordance - Hebrew Lexicon.

revdauphinee rated this answer Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/23/04 - KOLOB - What 5 minutes WWW research revealed about - KOLOB :)

Arabic

1. qalb - "heart, center

Hebrew -

1. qereb
"middle, midst"
2. qarab "to draw near"

Egyptian

1. m-q3b - "in the midst of"

I found this interesting exhange on the Internet:

It is part of an exchange between two hebrew (non-Mormons) scholars and answers the irrational charge that only Mormons know of qlb ...

As you can now see, that is an untruth.

I don't know, but do you think it might have something to do with Deuteronomy 10:16 ... Other than Deuteronomy 10:16 the "Q" is an "unstable consonant in Semitics.

Eugene with the brilliant answer and Maria with the accent,

I think Eugene must be right. The Q is gone from "LEBH" because it was commanded to be gone. The wording of Deut 10:16 could not be more clear "UMALTEM ETH 3ORLATH LEBHABH'KHEM" ...

#84342 Ira Weiss Sun Oct 14th 00:03:37 2001

OOPs, a premature submission circumcised my name from the above post addressed to Eugene and María and, more to the point, cut off the translation I meant to supply for those who don't read Hebrew:

Eugene's response to my query is the most astute bit of etymological reasoning I have come across in a long time.

" ... The wording of Deut 10:16 could not be more clear "UMALTEM ETH 3ORLATH LEBHABH'KHEM" ... And you shall cut off the end of your "HEARTS". Following the commandment, in biblical times Jews cut off the "Q" at the front end of heart "QLB", leaving them with only the irregular two letter root "LB", and thus changed QaLB to LeBh."


Found on: http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/011025b.html

#84344 Steve Ganot Ganot @ my dog, my tailor dot com Sun Oct 14th 01:23:36 2001

maría wrote: "for the record and for our failing memories. I recall Ahmad saying that his mother had called him hamoodi, or śamudi"."

That's right. For a recap, see #2426 at http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/arcjune5.htm

And since Sherry wrote "my heart" and not "my dog" (bracing myself for a variation on the "ya qulbi, ya 7ayyati" lecture about how non-Arabs frequently mix up words, with amusing results...), I guess Ahmad was mad about something else.

Interestingly, a number of websites refer to wordplay involving qalb and kalb. Many of these refer to a Book of Abraham, which apparently plays an important role in the Church of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons).

Search for "qalb", for example, in http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/mutants/abraham.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml

And this site http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/Facsimiles.html relates the Arabic QLB (heart, center) to the Hebrew QRB (middle, midst, draw near) and Egyptian m-q3b (in the midst of).


#84351 Ira Weiss Sun Oct 14th 05:20:26 2001

Steve,

Ahmad blew his stack at Shirin because he objected to a Zioinst lover (which is how he perceived Shirin) having the 7utzpa to assume the kind of familiarity with him implied by those endearing greetings.

BTW, all the word play notwithstanding, it seems to me the Arabic to Hebrew cognates have to be these:

QaRiB (near) to QaRoBh (near)

QaLB (heart) to LeBh (heart)

KaLB (dog) to KeLeBh (dog) but not to (Marvin) Kalb (Yid. calf)

If qalb and qarib are related, then they are related in both languages. The shoresh for lebh must really be QLB, and we are dealing with an orthographic change that they forget to teach me about when I learned dikduk -- Hasrei Peh Qaph.

Fi aqrab wakt, insh'allah; (Nitra'eh) biz'man qarobh me'od, "myirtashem"

Ira

===
The following is from:


http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/2003jan_comments.php?id=220_0_17_30_C

Arabic is a poetic language whose alphabet consists of twenty-two consonants supplemented by diacritical markings that serve the function of vowels. Most Arabic words stem from roots that consist of three or four consonants. Thus the meaning of any one word is related at its root to many other words. Even taken alone, an Arabic word can have multiple meanings.

For instance, qalb, the word for “heart,” can be read as the root word QLB in the original Arabic. Other variants on QLB include taqallab (“to be restless”), munqallab (“one who transforms”) and qalab (“to extract the marrow of a palm tree”). Thus, in the original Arabic, the human heart implies both the core and something changeable or changing.


--------

Will this information lead anyone out of the darkness into the light, as St John would say, or from death to life, from beneath to above, and from ignorance to the fire of wisdom? (see 'Dualism in the Fourth Gospel')

Happy to have helped.

:)

will

Justified and Vindicated

PraiseJah answered on 03/23/04:

will, do you know what "bolloks" means? If you do you are being downright rude and are in danger of being put of this site.

For the records "bollocks" is a crude term for a man's testicles.

paraclete rated this answer Average Answer
powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 03/22/04 - The Gifts of the Holy Spirit

According to the Baltimore Catechism(Catholic), the following are gifts of the Holy Spirit:

Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety and Fear of the Lord.

These sound like wonderful gifts. Well, except fear, I would use the word wonder and awe.

Comments about gifts of the spirit welcome...

PraiseJah answered on 03/23/04:

Paul said that LOVE is more important than those gifts. 1 Cor 13:4-10

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 03/23/04 - Elliot (E.T. Wolverine),

what a delight to see your responses on this Board. I've missed your wisdom -- and you well remember the many times I leaned on you for guidance in specific Jewish matters.

Great to see you here. Don't wait so long.
Bobbye

PraiseJah answered on 03/23/04:

Certainly Elliot's input is most welcome, even though I dont agree with his radical Zionist views. (Neither would most rabbis!!)

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/21/04 - Christian Child Sexual Abuse ...



Child sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC or to Watchtower.

No one should be engaged in diminishing the extent and severity of sexual child abuse by pastors, priests, and other Christian leaders, and no Christian whether in leadership or not, should undertake any course of action to shield those accused of child sexual abuse, but must facilitate honest, speedy, and thorough investigation by law enforcement officers.

Those who fail to report, or involve law enforcement agencies, are as guilty of child sexual abuse as the perpetrators, and should be subject to the same penalties.


Over 230 Examples From the Book
Christian Child Abuse: The Reality

1979, Newfoundland, Canada. Fr. Kelly convicted of 10 sexual offences against 5 boys aged 13 to 17. After receiving a suspended sentence, Kelly was appointed vice-chancellor of Temporal Affairs for Toronto Archdiocese.


1984, Louisiana USA. Fr. Gauthe sentenced to 20 yrs. for molestation of more than 100 boys, 1971-83, aged 7 to 9. His paedophilia had been known since his first year as priest, yet his superiors transferred him whenever scandal threatened to become public.


1986, Washington. Fr. Fontenot convicted of raping boy. He had shared 4 boys with Gauthe in mid-1970's.


1988, Newfoundland's best-known priest, Fr. Hickey, convicted of 32 sex crimes involving boys. The local vicar had known about Hickey since 1975, but had done nothing.


1988, Newfoundland. Fr. Corrigan jailed for 7 offences against boys aged 10 to 13.


1988, Lancashire, England. Congregational Church Minister Garvock convicted of raping 4 yr. old girl.


1988, Winchester, England. 2 Anglican vicars, a choir master, a solicitor, and an already convicted molester jailed on 21 charges of sexually abusing boys at church outings, YMCA and churchyard.


1989, Newfoundland. Fr. Bennet pleads guilty to 36 charges of paedophilia. His Archbishop had known about him since 1979.


1990, Taupo, New Zealand. Fr. Brown jailed for indecent assault on 2 altar boys, 1980 to 1986. The Hamilton Diocese Archbishop states that Brown could be assigned other duties when released, and describes him as "a very compassionate man".


1990, Minneapolis USA. Rev. Adamson admits paedophilia since 1961, in a lawsuit brought by a young man who had been abused by the priest 1979-87. Adamson was joined in the abuse in 1984 by a nun. The Archdiocese had known of Adamson's paedophilia.


1990, Solihull, England. Pentecostal Minister D. Stenhouse jailed on 5 charges of indecent assault on boys aged 12 to 15.


1991, Newfoundland. 9 Christian Brothers charged with sexual and physical abuse of boys in their care at Mt. Cashel orphanage.


1991, Minneapolis USA. Rev Thurner admits sexual abuse of a boy. The Archdiocese had known of his paedophilia since 1982.


1991, Ontario, Canada. Rev. Pappi convicted of 2 charges of 'sexual interference' of two 13 year old boys.


1991, England. Baptist Minister Ashby Breneman jailed for molesting 6 boys at his Christian Youth camp.


1991, Arlington USA. Fr. Chleboski charged with 6 counts of molesting a 13 yr. old boy, student of Our Lady of Victory School.


1991, Hamilton, New Zealand. Lay Minister Whalley jailed for indecent assault on a 10 yr. old boy. Had 5 previous convictions. His Church had sought to keep him out of court.


1988-1991, New Orleans USA. Fr. Cinel is discovered to posses huge collection of child pornography, including 160 hrs. of homemade videotapes depicting himself - and his dog - in homosexual acts with boys. After a public outcry, the Catholic DA reluctantly charges Cinel with 60 separate counts of possessing child porn, in 1991.


1991. Civil suit brought against Ferrario, Bishop of Honolulu for sexual abuse, 1972-1982, by David Figueroa, who states he had been abused by priests since 1964, when he was 5.

In all, this represents over 230 examples.


PraiseJah answered on 03/23/04:

will, we never had apolicy of sheilding child abusers. As far back as I can remember (Ive been a witness for more than 40 years) abusers have had to be handed over to the police for prosecution. My dad handled a case of a father who was abusing his two boys ( the wife came to dad for help) The man was jailed and my dad who worked for a housing commission had her and the boys spirited away so he could not find them when he got out of jail.That was in the 60's!

In the 50's to the 70's there was very little publicity given to this very serious community problem. It was hushed up generally. Most abuse cases occur within families and when kids complained the other parent often dismissed it. So it stopped there.

One major problem developed in the US over the McMartin case. A family operating a child care centre were accsued of child abuse. Claims about satanic rites in churches and murdering babaies was also made by the children ( via their social worker)
The social worker actually scolded the children if they denied abuse had occurred.

It turns out is was all false and the McMartins were all acquitted.

Other cases involving repressed memory which turned out to be false have also created a
problems for genuine victims.

One case here in Australia - a woman went to a therapist because she was infertile. The therapist using hypnosis had her say that she had been raped by her father when she was 14, that he and her brother had taken her into the bush and aborted the baby that had been conceived from the rape. Medical evidnece weas given in court to prove she had never been pregnant and there was no evidence injury from an abortion. The case against the father and brother was dismissed.

So now all therapist-induced repressed memory claims are treated with skepticism.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 03/23/04 - TO DARKSTAR

FROM MY HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING ALLOW ME TO TRY TO WORK THRU THIS. GOD CREATED A PERFECT GARDEN FOR A/E TO LIVE IN. A PLACE WHERE EVERYONE LIVED IN EASE. AT THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN, BY SATAN, "DIS-EASE" BECAME THE NORM. THE SHEKINNAH GLORY WAS GONE FROM THE INHABITANTS. I APPOLOGIZE FOR JUMPING ON YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT WHEN IT SEEMS SO NATURAL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. I EQUATED YOUR COMMENT WITH SAYNG THAT THE DEVIL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST...IF THERE WERE NO SIN INTRODUCED INTO THE WORLD THEN THE REDEEMER WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD TO COME. ALL EVIL COMES FROM SATAN, IT IS ON CERTAIN OCCASSIONS THAT WE AS INDIVIDUALS MAKE IT A PERSONAL CHOICE. AS IN THE CASE OF THIS CHILD THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT SO, THE LIFE WAS STOLEN AWAY IN ORDER TO DESTROY WHAT REMAINS OF THAT FAMILY. IF I UNDERSTAND THINGS DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU THEN THAT'S JUST WHAT IT IS; IN THE BIBLE ITS CALLLED REVELATION KNOWLEDGE.

PraiseJah answered on 03/23/04:

Darkstar? Dont recall that one. Maybe another casuality of the site' arbitrarysuspensionpolicy

VisionsInBlue rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
STONY rated this answer Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
AliMcJ asked on 03/23/04 - There is a forum here that has not been used for months

I think that the board should be opened up for people to come and ask questions and get short informative and unbiased answers on, while the forum here is a place where experts can debate the various merits of different points of view without being saddled with the rating system.

This is not a question -- just a suggestion that would improve the mess that's been going on lately on AW.

http://www.answerway.com/forumview.php?pgtitle=Christianity&category=633&msection=&parent=2633

PraiseJah answered on 03/23/04:

LOL. Will if you are unbiased then Im Queen Victoria!

I admit to being biased in favor of Jehovah and His Word. But Im open to discussion and reason.

AliMcJ rated this answer Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 03/22/04 - Is this a Christian thing to do?
Is this a Christian thing to do?

There's been a lot of discussion about getting prescription drugs from Canada thus saving as must as 35 to 50 percent off the cost of the same medication in the good ol' USA.

Some say the medications from Canada may not be safe. I got news for you, the medications from the USA may not be safe so what's the big deal....OH YES the higher prices we pay here go to helping the companies that manufacture drugs continue to do so and have something left over for the development of new. Isn’t that nice?

Well then, let me ask this I'm going to provide you with a web site a friend gave me from where he orders his prescriptions from Canada....so...Is this a Christian thing to do or am I being sinful in doing so?

Here is the ULR...
http://www.canadadrugmart.com/optiona.htm

Peace and kindness, arcura

PraiseJah answered on 03/22/04:

I have a problem with ordering medicines without first consulting your doctor to be sure it's the right meds for you. But even if it has a different trade name , if the chemical name is the same as those you are already using, then by all means, why pay more? Most meds need to be monitored so please continue to see you MD to supervise this as your condition can change.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 03/22/04 - Calvinism - do we have perfect free will?

Calvin denies freedom to creatures, fallen or unfallen, except that God does not compel man to act by brute force, yet he determines irresistibly all we do, whether good or evil. The Supreme is indeed self-conscious -- not a blind Fate or Stoic destiny; it is by "decree" of the sovereign Lawgiver that events come to pass. But for such decrees no reason can be rendered. There is not any cause of the Divine will save Itself. If we ask why has the Almighty acted thus and thus, we are told, it is His good pleasure. Beyond this, an explanation would be impossible, and to demand one is impiety. From the human angle of sight, therefore God works as though without a reason. And here we come upon the primal mystery to which in his argument Calvin recurs again and again. This Supreme Will fixes an absolute order, physical, ethical, religious, never to be modified by anything we can attempt. For we cannot act upon God, else He would cease to be God. .

PraiseJah answered on 03/22/04:

Free will is always relevant. If we dont have free will and everything is predestined it means God is directly responsible for a sick pervert raping a child, the 9/11 atrocities etc etc.

No way! That sort of thing is more characteristic of satan than the God of love I know. ( Job chapters 1,2)

We have the freedom of choice that goes with free will. But we cannot escape the consequences of our choices. We could choose to jump off a ten storey building without a parachute. But the laws of nature implemented by God for a good purpose will catch up with us.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/22/04 - euthanasia by omission

VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II said Saturday the removal of feeding tubes from people in vegetative states was immoral, and that no judgment on their quality of life could justify such "euthanasia by omission."

John Paul made the comments to participants of a Vatican conference on the ethical dilemmas of dealing with incapacitated patients, entering into a debate that has sparked court battles in the United States and elsewhere.

The pope said even the medical terminology used to describe people in so-called "persistent vegetative states" was degrading to them. He said no matter how sick a person was, "he is and will always be a man, never becoming a 'vegetable' or 'animal.'"

In a vegetative state, patients are awake but not aware of themselves or their environment. The condition is different from a coma, in which the patient is neither awake nor aware. Both, however, are states in which the patient is devoid of consciousness.

If the vegetative state continues for a month, the patient is said to be in a persistent vegetative state; after a year without improvement, the patient is said to be in a permanent vegetative state.

Providing food and water to such patients should be considered natural, ordinary and proportional care -- not artificial medical intervention, the pope told members of the conference, which was organized by the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy for Life, a Vatican advisory body.

"As such, it is morally obligatory," to continue such care, he said.

Since no one knows when a patient in a vegetative state might awaken, "the evaluation of the probability, founded on scarce hope of recovery after the vegetative state has lasted for more than a year, cannot ethically justify the abandonment or the interruption of minimal care for the patient, including food and water," he said.

Similarly, he said that someone else's evaluation of the patient's quality of life in such a state couldn't justify letting them die of hunger or thirst.

"If this is knowingly and deliberately carried out, this would result in a true euthanasia by omission," he said.

John Paul has consistently voiced opposition to euthanasia, which the Vatican defines as "an action or omission that by its nature and intention" causes death to end pain. It says euthanasia always is a violation of God's law.

The issue over removing feeding tubes has prompted several court cases and legislation in the United States, Australia and elsewhere.

In a highly publicized case in Tampa, Fla., the husband of a severely brain-damaged woman, Terri Schiavo, has battled her parents for years to have his wife's feeding tube removed so she can die. He says she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive with it.

The issue has involved the state legislature as well as the governor, who was given the authority to have the feeding tube reinserted after the woman's husband had it removed.

In his comments, John Paul said families of such ill people needed more emotional and economic support, so that they can better care for their loved ones. In addition, he said, society should commit more money to find cures for them.

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press



What do you think ?

PraiseJah answered on 03/22/04:

Last I heard the Pope was against people being kept alive artificially - ie respirators. If they cant breathe on their own their own they should be allowed to die naturally. But if a person is alive they must receive hydration and nutrition otherwise it is murder.

I have always had concerns about organ donations because the organ must be taken while the heart is still beating , even if an EEG shows the person is dead. The latter in 1965 was determined by only 8-10 electrodes whereas now they use as many as 30 to ensure the person is not just in a deep coma from which they could in time recover. I have friends whose relative's organs were wanted and they felt pressured - he was "brain dead" but his heart was till beating. It's a sticky situation - having a machine determine whether or not a person is dead or alive.
The expression "vegetative state" does not change the fact that a person is a living human being and should be cared for as such.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/21/04 - KOLOB - a stumbling block to the blind


Reading back questions on the religion boards at A/way shows many question, each surprisingly similar on the subject of KOLOB.

To anyone who is obsessed with this admittedly fascinating subject and who might be seeking to find KOLOB in documents other than those generated by unsinkable Christian-Mormons, of whose number I am pleased to be one, what I post under this necessary explanation will point them in a direction which, if followed assiduously, with scholarly intent, and with Christian honesty and integrity - ancient but necessary virtues for followers of the Nazarene - will reveal to them not only the probable origin of the word KOLOB, but also reveal to them the types of documents they should search to find KOLOB in a non Mormon-Christian setting.


Joseph Smith said that "Kolob [signified] the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."

To the ancient Egyptians, this was symbolic of God, endowed with the primeval creative force, seated at the center of the universe. The name Kolob is right at home in this context.

The word most likely derives from the common Semitic root *QLB, which has the basic meaning of "heart, center, or middle," which is precisely the way the Prophet Joseph Smith used and explained it.

The Arabic form of this word, qalb, forms part of the Arabic names of several of the brightest stars in the sky including Antares, Regulus, and Canopus.

That should satisfy the most severe critic who believes KOLOB to be an MORMON invention without support in Semitic or Egyptian languages.

That is, unless facts do nothing to enlighten those who are resistant to enlightenment.

+++++++++++++

Do you think they will be satisfied?

PraiseJah answered on 03/21/04:

Cant find qlb in Strong's Concordance under any of the the words used above to define it.

sxhtzofsunshine rated this answer Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/21/04 - Christian Child Sexual Abuse ...



Child sexual abuse is not confined to the RCC or to Watchtower.

No one should be engaged in diminishing the extent and severity of sexual child abuse by pastors, priests, and other Christian leaders, and no Christian whether in leadership or not, should undertake any course of action to shield those accused of child sexual abuse, but must facilitate honest, speedy, and thorough investigation by law enforcement officers.

Those who fail to report, or involve law enforcement agencies, are as guilty of child sexual abuse as the perpetrators, and should be subject to the same penalties.


Over 230 Examples From the Book
Christian Child Abuse: The Reality

1979, Newfoundland, Canada. Fr. Kelly convicted of 10 sexual offences against 5 boys aged 13 to 17. After receiving a suspended sentence, Kelly was appointed vice-chancellor of Temporal Affairs for Toronto Archdiocese.


1984, Louisiana USA. Fr. Gauthe sentenced to 20 yrs. for molestation of more than 100 boys, 1971-83, aged 7 to 9. His paedophilia had been known since his first year as priest, yet his superiors transferred him whenever scandal threatened to become public.


1986, Washington. Fr. Fontenot convicted of raping boy. He had shared 4 boys with Gauthe in mid-1970's.


1988, Newfoundland's best-known priest, Fr. Hickey, convicted of 32 sex crimes involving boys. The local vicar had known about Hickey since 1975, but had done nothing.


1988, Newfoundland. Fr. Corrigan jailed for 7 offences against boys aged 10 to 13.


1988, Lancashire, England. Congregational Church Minister Garvock convicted of raping 4 yr. old girl.


1988, Winchester, England. 2 Anglican vicars, a choir master, a solicitor, and an already convicted molester jailed on 21 charges of sexually abusing boys at church outings, YMCA and churchyard.


1989, Newfoundland. Fr. Bennet pleads guilty to 36 charges of paedophilia. His Archbishop had known about him since 1979.


1990, Taupo, New Zealand. Fr. Brown jailed for indecent assault on 2 altar boys, 1980 to 1986. The Hamilton Diocese Archbishop states that Brown could be assigned other duties when released, and describes him as "a very compassionate man".


1990, Minneapolis USA. Rev. Adamson admits paedophilia since 1961, in a lawsuit brought by a young man who had been abused by the priest 1979-87. Adamson was joined in the abuse in 1984 by a nun. The Archdiocese had known of Adamson's paedophilia.


1990, Solihull, England. Pentecostal Minister D. Stenhouse jailed on 5 charges of indecent assault on boys aged 12 to 15.


1991, Newfoundland. 9 Christian Brothers charged with sexual and physical abuse of boys in their care at Mt. Cashel orphanage.


1991, Minneapolis USA. Rev Thurner admits sexual abuse of a boy. The Archdiocese had known of his paedophilia since 1982.


1991, Ontario, Canada. Rev. Pappi convicted of 2 charges of 'sexual interference' of two 13 year old boys.


1991, England. Baptist Minister Ashby Breneman jailed for molesting 6 boys at his Christian Youth camp.


1991, Arlington USA. Fr. Chleboski charged with 6 counts of molesting a 13 yr. old boy, student of Our Lady of Victory School.


1991, Hamilton, New Zealand. Lay Minister Whalley jailed for indecent assault on a 10 yr. old boy. Had 5 previous convictions. His Church had sought to keep him out of court.


1988-1991, New Orleans USA. Fr. Cinel is discovered to posses huge collection of child pornography, including 160 hrs. of homemade videotapes depicting himself - and his dog - in homosexual acts with boys. After a public outcry, the Catholic DA reluctantly charges Cinel with 60 separate counts of possessing child porn, in 1991.


1991. Civil suit brought against Ferrario, Bishop of Honolulu for sexual abuse, 1972-1982, by David Figueroa, who states he had been abused by priests since 1964, when he was 5.

In all, this represents over 230 examples.


PraiseJah answered on 03/21/04:

No one is pretending that almost every community group, whether it be a church, school , scouts, sporting clubs or whatever have no problems with creeps who prey on children. Almost all however have an "in house" policy when it comes to dealing with rape cases. However in most Western countries child abuse of any kind must be reported and it overrides privileges such as doctor/patient, lawyer/client/, clerical or ecclesiastical and even spouse privilege.

Often it is a parent who may fail to act or tends to brush it under the carpet since most abuse occurs within families.

Your list does not include a pedophile ring in the Anglican church here in Australia which victimised kids at youth camps for over 40 years. The statute of limitations has recently been extended here to allow police to investigate and prosecute offenders.

The JW policy on child abuse is clearly outlined online in the PR section: search for
pedophiles at: http://www.watchtower.org/
Even in states where it is not compulsory to report child abuse, the WTS considers it a moral obligation to report it to the police.

As the congregation letter I posted previously indicates we must obey the Law Romans 13:1-4. That letter was sent to all congregations, not just to Australian congregations.

Also there is a video on the WT website with an interview with a non- JW child psychologist, Dr Ruth Infante who has commended the WT policy of elders reporting abuse when there no other adults will.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 03/21/04 - How come we arn't cheering?

Thousands of Pakistani army reinforcements joined a major offensive yesterday in tribal border villages where al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri and hundreds of other militants are believed to be surrounded, while Afghan authorities reported the arrests of mid-level terrorist leaders on their side of the border.

Army spokesman General Shaukat Sultan said the army believed several hundred militants - a mix of foreigners and local Pakistani tribesmen - were holed up in heavily armed fortresses in several villages in lawless south Waziristan, where Pakistani paramilitary forces began an operation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban four days ago.

"From the type of resistance we are getting the militants could be anything from 300 to 400 strong," he said.

General Sultan said the intelligence assessment was that a high-level fugitive was among the fighters, although this man had not been seen and it was unclear whether it was al-Zawahiri.

Villagers in Wana, the main town in south Waziristan, said heavy guns fired through the night and jet fighters were visible in the area, as fighting spread to two more tribal villages.

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf said yesterday that a "high value" target was believed trapped, and four senior Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity that intelligence indicated it was Osama bin Laden's deputy, al-Zawahiri.

US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said a "fierce battle was raging" but the US did not have any independent confirmation that al-Zawahiri was surrounded in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said US and Afghan troops had captured "semi-senior" terrorist leaders along the border with Pakistan, as they tightened security along the rugged frontier.

A Taliban spokesman, Abdul Samad, told AP in a phone interview that both al-Zawahiri and bin Laden were alive and hiding inside Afghanistan.

"Muslims of the world, don't worry about them, these two guests, they are fine," he said.

The semi-autonomous Tribal Areas, which has resisted outside control for centuries, has long been considered a likely hiding place for the top two al-Qaeda leaders - but there was no indication bin Laden was with the Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri.

The US has offered a $US25 million ($33.4 million) reward for information leading to al-Zawahiri's capture. The reward for bin Laden's capture has just been doubled to $US50 million.

"We have been receiving intelligence and information from our agents who are working in the Tribal Areas that al-Zawahiri could be hiding there," a Pakistani military official said.

Al-ZawahIri, 52, a former surgeon, is believed to be the brains behind the terror network, with bin Laden more a spiritual leader and financial backer. He is also thought to have been the al-Qaeda leader's physician.

For days there have been reports of an Al Quaeda leader cornered and resisting and yet there is not a single comment. Have we become so blaise that these things no longer have any importance.

Let's have some prayer here that this mess will be quickly over and the murders caught and brought to justice.

PraiseJah answered on 03/21/04:

Until they capture his there is no reason to cheer.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Matthew asked on 03/20/04 - Being Saved?

How does one feel when being saved for the first time?
And, how can one tell if they have been saved?
Thank you. Matthew.

PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

While I agree with doug that being saved is not dependant on a feeling, I certainly felt very elated and happy the day I was baptised. To be relieved of the debt of sin by accepting Christ's blood gave me comfort, as did my making a committment to Christ and to do God's will gave me joy. It is still with me to this day.

Matthew rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/20/04 - Here is an invitation? Will you be rudely treated?

Our Invitation to You

We have enjoyed talking to you through the pages of this brochure. We hope that you have enjoyed learning more about Jehovah's Witnesses. Please accept our invitation to visit us at our local Kingdom Hall. See how our meetings are conducted. See how we endeavor to share with others the good news of a paradise earth under Christ's Kingdom.
www.watchtower.org

I will be presenting material from this site to them.

Do you have any suggestions or comments for me?

PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

Go for it!

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/20/04 - Gen 2:2? I remembered Koine Hebrew? Do you?

Gen 2:2
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, built he a woman, and brought her
unto the man.

Hebrew word, hnb, strong number 01129

God built the woman, WOW, hand crafted!
This is the FIRST use of God as builder.

What is your expert opinion?

PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

What are you on about?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/20/04 - SEE YA!


After reading the thread at the Expert Forum and viewing the spamming on this Board this a.m., it's time for me to take a hiatus from said Board until the negative issues we have discussed diminish in their entirety! Take care, guys, and have a great Spring and Summer! I know God is with all of you. So, perhaps He'll lead me back to Answerway at a later date!

Pray for Carol! She has her six-month Catscan at Barnes this coming Thursday (3/25). She's been doing great. So, I hope she's in remission. I thank you for your past prayers and considerations. I love you all!

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

Gonna miss ya Hank! Take care and all the best for you and Carol.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/20/04 - WOW! Wo-man?

The woman was in beginning and the woman was with the man and the woman was man.

Expert Opinion Needed: Who is the subject of the above sentence?
Beginning shows that at one time the woman is NOT in view. But man is in view.
But as beginning unfolds the woman is with the man. As one man.
As beginning is completed and woman is built, she is man. Not a man.

Gen 2:2
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, built he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Lets see if I can get this all straight?

JW would write:
In the beginning was a woman and the woman was with a man and the woman was A man.
"We would say "IN the beginning was a woman and the woman was with a man and the
woman was A man. It cannot be the same man that it was with!"

"How can the man, Henry Ford, be an automobile?????????"
How can the woman, Eve, be a man?

"That is how I understand it. The Word could not be WITH God and be the same God.
But he was divine or of divine nature."
The woman could not be WITH man and be the same man.

"We would say "IN the beginning was a car and the car was with a Ford and the car was A Ford.
It cannot be the same Ford that it was with!
So John 1:1 : IN the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God, an a God was
the word."

"And the absence of the definate article in the second phrase of John 1:1:
"....and - God was the Word"
Doesnt that mean that Jesus was not THE God whom the first phrase says he was with:
"IN the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God...."

"I always compare it to architect and builder. Jehovah, the Father, God Almighty was the architect,
while His Only begotten Son, the Word was the builder. That's why Jesus said many times over
that all authority he had was GIVEN him by the Father. Even at the end of it all , he hands the
Kingdom or rulership of the earth back to the Father and remains subject to the Father.
1 Cor 15:24-28."






PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

????????Are you serious??

The womam Eve is a separate individual to the man just as the Word was a separate individual to God.
Later we read that the same woman gave birth to a son and went on to have more.

Can men give birth???

While you continue on this somewhat illogical line of argument you will continue to get yourself tied up in linguistic knots ( and give us all a good laugh!)

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 03/20/04 - Christianity and Science

I have been terribly troubled by the apparently recent schism between Christianity and Science. I wonder why this is happening? Is it that Fundamentalists speak against science for a hidden agenda? Do other Christian fear science.

Yet, Christians use the benefits of science such as medicine, civil engineering, architecture, water treatment, technology(huge catagory)...on and on.

There was no such schism when I was young.

I'd apperciate any honest answers.

PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

The divide between true Christianity and science is created by those who take the Bible, especially all of Genesis literally and the scientists who make evidence such as fossil finds fit their theories rather than vice vera.

Somewhere in the middle of the two extremes is the truth.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/20/04 - A Bible question


What was the significance of the Scapegoat in ancient Israel?

:)

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/20/04:

It carried the sin sof the people. Hence it symbolizes the Lord Jesus who takes away our sin.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Moonlight2danceby asked on 03/19/04 - Oh Yeah!



Here is a copy of what we just posted in the Expert Forum in case some of you didn't get to see it.

We almost forgot--you know the Anonymous feature? It's really not.

If you receive a question from an Anonymous user, or answer one from the
question board, after answering you can go to your answer archives and
click on "remove"--the post will come up showing the name of the person who
asked the question.

We advised Answerway administrators of this "feature" several months ago
but for some reason they have chosen to leave it as is.

You know all the "nonbelievers"? You'd be surprised at how many of them
have gotten readings from us, despite what they say in public.

Have fun with your archives,

Princess0061 and Queenofwands62


PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

ho hum!

Moonlight2danceby rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/19/04 - PraiseJah, Can't answer YES or NO? Why?

"I always compare it to architect and builder." said PraiseJah.

Question for PraiseJah: Can the architect and builder be one and the SAME? YES or NO?

2. Does the architect and builder automatically mean two separate and distinct entities? YES or NO?

Clarification/Follow-up by koinegreek on 03/19/04 6:18 pm:Praisejah: I asked two "YES or NO" questions.

These two questions are based upon your own words.

Please answer?

Clarification/Follow-up by koinegreek on 03/19/04 6:24 pm:
PraiseJah: If you will not answer, please tell me why?

Clarification/Follow-up by PraiseJah on 03/19/04 6:30 pm:
Why do you keep accusing me of not answering questions before I get a chance to?? And even after I have answered?

Board: Please tell me what there is to mis-understand in "yes or no" questions?

PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

I have answered your questions and the presence of "yes" or "no" should be evident in my answers. My scientific training demands that I dont just say yes or no, but PROVE my answer.

eg in answer to your question about Arius and JW's I copied and pasted an Enc. Britannica article to prove that angel Christology ( ie that Jeses was a being created by God) was a common belief well before Arius lived.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/19/04 - John's Farewell ...


I found the expert forum after some good assitance from bluevision, for which I am grateful.

I read John's Farewell note, and the posts others had written in response. By some of these I was horrified, and made my own response as follows:

=======================================================

Dear John (PLUTUS1947),

I have not known you but was pointed to your 'overview' by Hank.

As you point out, there are contentious people here, and in general they are the ones who are blaming others for the contention, either directly by inference or by naming them in a personal attack, as you will have read in this forum.

Personal attacks are never necessary except when the attacker either cannot express himself (it is usually, but not eclusively, a man thang), or when he continues to miss the point the other fellow is making, or when he cannot deal with the argument he wants to crush, so he goes for the individual.

Answerway does not need self-appointed policemen and detectives.

What AW needs are Good Experts with a grasp of their subjects; experts who are neither bigoted nor prejudiced and who can actually address the issues raised in questions instead of using them as springboards to attack the questioners' faith, and instead of cutting and pasting quotation paragraphs from heaven-knows-where that are completely off topic, which are two of the major problems.

Strange as it seems, the fact that AW has allowed such characters to remain and removed their victims for not lying down and taking their vicious nonsense has been pointed out as evidence that the bigots have been right all along, and that the poor devils they have goaded into vigorous response are the cause of all the trouble in the world and especially at AW.

The problem with the religion boards is that the bigoted malcontents cannot adapt to the view that there are many opinions and many paths, but they have to impress everyone that their particular brand of religion is the only right one, and that every other religious expression is WRONG.

In short, they have turned the board into their own private pulpits, and seek to execrcise proprietory rights over them.

To read that one character boats that he is, of his own accord, going to get busy policing the boards without a commission from the site owners, is evidence of the crazy situation that has developed here.

Any one with any grasp of the principles of law will understand that an individual cannot appoint himself to a position of authority merely because they want to do so.

If that idea was taken to its logical conclusion, any Tom, Dick, or Henry, could appoint themselves to be medical doctors in the place of those they felt were unfit.

They could patrol the streets as vigilantes and arrest suspicious persons for no other reason than that they didn't like the look of them.

They could usurp command of public transport if they didn't think the drivers and guards were carying out their duties as THEY though they should be doing.

They could walk into institutes of education and remove teachers who taught principles with which they disagreed, then stand in the place of the educators and fill the heads of the young with their own nonsenses.

If they were servicemen, they would refuse to take orders from superiors because they didn't like them or disagreed with them, and then they could remove their officers and take their places.

In the lunatic asylums, they could lock up all the staff in secure rooms and take control, if they thought that the professionals were not doing things porperly.

Actually, it would have done these persons some good to have served in the military and been subjected to military discipline.

It would have been to their benefit to have undergone some formal educational training that taught them how to think clearly, express themselves clearly, and understand what others are saying, by clearing away the fogs and mists of bigotry that prevent any other point of view than the one lodged in their heads from being the dominant idea they must hammer into the heads of their spiritual enemies.

It would have done them good, and benefited society, if they had experienced socialisatipon when young, and had learned to share their toys, their candy, and their space.

I agree wholeheartedly that quite often the wrong peole are banished, and the agents provocateur are left to get rid of all others who come with alternative ideas, and that is the greatest tragedy on AW.

What they are promoting is Spiritual Cleansing: a phenomenon as vile and foul as the ethnic cleansing seen in such places as Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Romania, Kosovo, and Iraq, under the supremacist policies of tribal leaders who do not suffer different tribes to live, and as under the heel of evil men such as Hitler, Milosovioc, Ceaucescau, Saddam Hussein, and all their kind, who believe that their philosophy is the only valid one and all others must be exterminated.

I am sorry that you are leaving. Too frequently, it is the good people who are forced to leave by the Javairs (sp?) who hound the Jean Valjeans unto their demise (from the board).

Please stay and add your good leaven to the lumnp, so that the effects of the leaven of the Pharisees and their modern counterparts are diminished, even if they are not brought to a halt.

It is variegation in human life that gives it much of its beauty.

It is opposition to that variation that gives to life most of its ugliness.

This board does not need bigots, policemen, detectives, monitors, orefects, or other authoritarian control freaks.

It needs good people, kind people, sensitive people, people whose hearts are large enough to embrace another even though he disagrees with his theology or political philosophy.

It needs people whose minds are not closed to the rights of others, and who can share God's green earth without the need to control what can and can't be said, and by whom.

It needs people who will take the time and trouble to do honest research instead of finding the most twisted versions of another's position they can, and then insisting (against the other's certain knowledge and experience) on calling that distortion "The Truth".

We cannot afford to lose valiant men in this struggle for right. We need all the decent, reasonable, broad-minded, good-hearted, generous-spirited soldiers we can in the fight for truth and justice.

Will you come back to the colours?

We might not be able to change the justice system behyiond the scenes, but we can always support the rights of people to disagree, speak out boldly against authoritarian experts, and expose injustice, bigotry, and their attendant evils, and by so doing, make this a more welcoming and fair place instead of the private soap box that it sometimes becomes, to the detriment of good and honest folks.

Isn't that worth another try?

Your comrade in arms (REME-RAC-RAMC)

:)

Peace and blessings.

=======================================================

Your thoughtful comments are welcomed.

will


=======================================================
BTW - I don't know if I was the one referred to by one person, but if so, I can prove that I have never had or operated more than one current account, and what you think you know for a fact, you don't, but are mistaken, although I can understand how you arrived at your error, but it is always best to make SURE of your facts before treating your suspicions as if they were Simon pure gospel truth, which, in this case, they were not.

PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

I dont know about you but Im quite happy here.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sxhtzofsunshine asked on 03/19/04 - Jesus wept. ...john 11:35

what do you make of this passage and do you think Jesus was goaded into raising Lazarus because everyone was questioning him as to why he let this happen if he really did have powers?

PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

Only a cynic would believe that. Jesus wept because his friend had died. He had the power so he raised him to life again. He had already raised others without "goading" so why not his dear friend?

sxhtzofsunshine rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
darkstar rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/18/04 - No Arius before 300 A.D.?, No JW before 1800 A.D.?

PraiseJah answered on 03/12/04:
"Im a scientist myself with a practical and analytical deductive mind -"

analytical Word:Adj.
1.analytical - using or skilled in using analysis (i.e., separating a whole--intellectual or substantial--into its elemental parts or basic principles); "an analytic experiment" "an analytic approach" "a keenly analytic man" "analytical reasoning" "an analytical mind"

analytic 2.analytical - of a proposition that is necessarily true independent of fact or experience; "`all spinsters are unmarried' is an analytic proposition"

Adj.1.practical - concerned with actual use or practice; "he is a very practical person" "the idea had no practical application" "a practical knowledge of Japanese" "woodworking is a practical art"

Adj.1.deductive - relating to logical deduction; "deductive reasoning"
2.deductive - involving inferences from general principles

PraiseJah answered on 03/16/04:
Bearing witness is a Christian's work. Of course most of us cant always be talking about the Bible, and it has a lot to do with the time place and circumstances. "I often paraphrase God's Word because I cant always remember verbatim anyway."

Question: 1. Arius came up with his belief sometime in 300 A.D., therefore those that called themselves believer before 300 A.D., did not even know Jesus was created?

2. So the JW came along in the mid 1800 A.D., and said, we believe Arius?

PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

Arius himself was not around before then but the belief that Jesus was Michael the archangel and not God was.

The following form the Enc. Britannica:

The Holy Trinity Attempts to define the Trinity By the 3rd century it was already apparent that all attempts to systematize the mystery of the divine Trinity with the theories of Neoplatonic hypostases metaphysics were unsatisfying and led to a constant series of new conflicts. The high point, upon which the basic difficulties underwent their most forceful theological and ecclesiastically political actualization, was the so-called Arian controversy. Arius belonged to the Antiochene school of theology, which placed strong emphasis upon the historicity of the man Jesus Christ. In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament—such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons. The basic concern of Arius was and remained disputing the oneness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, in order to preserve the oneness of God. The Son, thus, became a "second God, under God the Father"—i.e., he is God only in a figurative sense, for he belongs on the side of the creatures, even if at their highest summit. Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century—namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim—i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica 2002. CHRISTIANITY "The Holy Trinity"



Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/19/04 - PraiseJah, please answer?

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

"Jesus was the beginning or first of God's creation. (Rev 3:14) Everything else was created through him and for him, as John chapter 1 states. That includes man.

So God saying let us make man in our image - he was talking to His Master Worker.

I always compare it to architect and builder. Jehovah, the Father, God Almighty was the architect, while His Only begotten Son, the Word was the builder. That's why Jesus said many times over that all authority he had was GIVEN him by the Father. Even at the end of it all , he hands the Kingdom or rulership of the earth back to the Father and remains subject to the Father. 1 Cor 15:24-28."

VisionInBlue is an architect, www.cadquarters.com, so we have an expert here to correct me if I am wrong.

"I always compare it to architect and builder." said PraiseJah.

Question for PraiseJah: Can the architect and builder be one and the SAME? YES or NO?

2. Does the architect and builder automatically mean two separate and distinct entities? YES or NO?

PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

Rev 3:14 states that Jesus was the beginning or first (arken) of God's creation

(Why is it if I click on stop to correct a typo the darned first incorrect one still gets posted!??)

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/19/04 - PraiseJah, please answer?

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

"Jesus was the beginning or first of God's creation. (Rev 3:14) Everything else was created through him and for him, as John chapter 1 states. That includes man.

So God saying let us make man in our image - he was talking to His Master Worker.

I always compare it to architect and builder. Jehovah, the Father, God Almighty was the architect, while His Only begotten Son, the Word was the builder. That's why Jesus said many times over that all authority he had was GIVEN him by the Father. Even at the end of it all , he hands the Kingdom or rulership of the earth back to the Father and remains subject to the Father. 1 Cor 15:24-28."

VisionInBlue is an architect, www.cadquarters.com, so we have an expert here to correct me if I am wrong.

"I always compare it to architect and builder." said PraiseJah.

Question for PraiseJah: Can the architect and builder be one and the SAME? YES or NO?

2. Does the architect and builder automatically mean two separate and distinct entities? YES or NO?

PraiseJah answered on 03/19/04:

Rve 3:14 states that jesus was the beginning or first (arken) of God's creation

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/18/04 - TO MY FRIEND, PARACLETE:


Now this is a rock:

"Uluru (Ayers Rock) has bewitched travellers from all over the world. Sitting in the heart of Australia it rises 348 metres from the ground. Incredibly, that's only a third of it, the remainder lurking underneath the earth's surface.
"It poses a challenge to seekers of mystery and adventure everywhere. What forces formed this solitary red rock? What secrets does it hide? The Anangu Aboriginal people, who respect this rock as a mother, know many of the answers, and their understanding and legends of this harsh and beautiful land can do much to open the travellers' eyes. They can take you on a walking tour around the rock's mighty feet, sharing stories out of their ancestral culture and introducing you to the wildlife that is linked to the Anangu legends of Uluru."

Anyone know of a larger rock?

HANK



PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

Ularu is the world's largest monolith.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jewels asked on 03/17/04 - interesting statistics found online

Top 25 U.S. churches list now includes 4 Pentecostal bodies

NEW YORK CITY-A fourth Pentecostal denomination has joined the top 25 largest churches list, reflecting the continuing increase in the number of adherents to Pentecostal traditions in the country, according to the National Council of Churches' �� Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches."

The Church of God (Cleveland, TN), with 944,857 members, newly ranked 25th, joins The Church of God in Christ (5,499,875 - ranked 4th); the Assemblies of God (2,687,366 - ranked 10th), and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. (1,500,000 - tied for 16th along with two other church bodies).

Seven of the largest 25 denominations remain predominantly African American churches, reflective of the historic strength of the church within the U.S. African American community.

The "Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches" is edited by the Rev. Dr. Eileen W. Lindner, NCC deputy general secretary for research and planning, and published by Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN. Included with the print edition is a year's subscription to the "Yearbook Online," featuring regularly updated searchable data, accessible from any computer with Web access.

The �� Yearbook" may be ordered through local bookstores or from Cokesbury, which is offering a 10 percent discount on the suggested price of $50. See www.electronicchurch.org for more information, or call (800) 672-1789.

The �� Yearbook" reports on 215 U.S. church bodies with a record high total membership exceeding 161 million. Leading any other single U.S. church is the Catholic Church, reporting 66,407,105 adherents, followed by the Southern Baptist Convention (16,247,736) and the United Methodist Church (8,251,042). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ranks 5th (5,410,544).

In most cases, data published in the �� Yearbook" reflect denominations' 2002 membership. From 2001-2002, major U.S. churches that grew included the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Assemblies of God, American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of God (Cleveland, TN).

Recording membership losses were The United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church and United Church of Christ.

Here are details on some of the U.S. membership "ups and downs" reported in the �� Yearbook:"

 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), an American-born church, continues to grow remarkably, remaining the fifth largest church in the nation. Among the 15 largest churches, the LDS also reports the highest rate of growth at 1.88 percent in the last year, virtually the same as its previous growth rate.

 American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. (19th, up from 20th last year, reporting a substantial 2.87 percent increase). This growth rate of nearly 3 percent exceeds that of any other Protestant church reporting. It follows reported declines in 1999 and 2000. A change in direction from loss to gain (0.41 percent) followed in 2001.

 African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (20th, down from 19th, reflecting a decline in estimated membership of 1.18 percent, a substantial contrast to its previous estimated gain of 11 percent reported in the �� Yearbook." "Such a decline in membership following a year of rapid increase may be explained by a small portion of those new members failing to continue their membership a second year," says Dr. Lindner, the Yearbook's editor.

 The Orthodox Church in America, previously ranked 25th, reported a membership decline of 100,000 (10 percent), reflecting a multi-year adjustment in estimated membership data.

 A look at patterns of growth/decline over a five-year period (1999-2002), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Assemblies of God have reported consistency in both direction and rate of change. This pattern continues with a modest increase in the rate of growth for the Assemblies of God. The Southern Baptist Convention, which had been reporting a slowing rate of membership gain, in the current data reports a significant increase in the rate of gain from 0.585 percent to 1.21 percent.

 The �� Yearbook" reports a similar pattern of membership losses (1999-2002) among the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, between 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent for each church. The �� Yearbook" reports continued decline at a slightly accelerated rate for all except for the United Methodist Church, the largest church in this sample, (1.21 percent, 0.57 percent, 1.41 percent and 1.08 percent, respectively).

Other highlights in the �� Yearbook" include:

 Despite a well-documented clergy shortage, notably in the Catholic Church and for small and/or rural parishes, the total number of students enrolled in theological education continues to grow and is now at a high of more than 75,000 students in member schools of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada.

 The nearly 30-year trend in increasing numbers of women enrolled in theological education remains stable and can be considered a permanent feature of the demography of theological students.

 The 59 U.S. churches that provided full financial data for the 2004 edition account for more than $31 billion, contributed by nearly 48 million inclusive members, in their reports - and this is but a portion of the whole of church giving. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not provide financial data but is a church in which financial giving is a prominent feature of membership.

 In those 59 churches, per capita giving increased on average by $35 (5.6 percent) per person from the previous year, to $658.63. This exceeds the official inflation figure of 2.4 percent for 2002.

 This year's 14 percent U.S. benevolence giving (funds congregations use for the well-being of others) is a new low in Yearbook reporting in at least a decade. While based on the experience of 59 specific denominations, it indicates a continuing downward trend in benevolence giving.

"The overall increase in giving to the churches, at this reporting, is occurring simultaneously with a declining posture in benevolence as a percentage," said Dr. Lindner. "The churches that seek generosity from their supporters have not, at least in this sample, matched that generosity, or even held constant, in their own patterns of giving. The practical consequences of such a decline translates in local settings to less support for church-sponsored day care, fewer soup kitchen meals, less emergency help to persons with medical problems, or reduced transportation for the elderly. Such a decline is occurring even as reports of requests for aid at shelters and soup kitchens are rising."

In contrast, the percentage of benevolence giving for Canadian churches consistently is in the 19 percent to 20 percent range, according to the �� Yearbook." The �� Yearbook" is the 72nd published by the National Council of Churches and its predecessor Federal Council of Churches since 1916.

The seven decades of record keeping represented by the "Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches" is contained on a comprehensive historic archive on CD-ROM (which contains membership and financial data from 1919-1999). To obtain the historic archive on CD-ROM, call (888) 870-3325 or visit www.electronicchurch.org.

I thought this was interesting and maybe someone else will too. Do you think society's overall interest and participation in religion is growing or declining?

On a side note, should there be separate boards for each of the denominations? It looks like some people think there should be and others think otherwise.

PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

Those stats dont really tell the whole story, because many "new" members are children of members.

eg There are 6,000,000 Jehovah's witnesses world wide - ie 6,000,000 who publicly proclaim the gospel - does not include young children. Some 16,000,000 attended the annual celebration of the death of Christ - this figure includes children.

jewels rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/17/04 - I ask you? Is this John's 1:1 finality?

John 1:1 The Finality:

Rev 19:13 And [the name[Nom.] of him has been called [the word[Nom.] of the God. [Greek]

And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and the name of him has been called the word of the God.

Rev 19:16 And he has upon the vesture and upon the thigh of him, [KING[Nom.] OF KINGS
AND [LORD[Nom.] OF LORDS, his name as it has been written. [Greek]

And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

What is the meaning of the subject of any sentence?



PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

He is called the Word OF God, not God, the Word.

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/18/04 - I ask you? Is there still controversy?

Between Finality! 1Tim 3:16 No way of NOT understanding NOW

Without Controversy: As plain as the nose on your face unless you left your nose at home when you went out to study. The touchstone!

1Tim 3:16 Greek
[Great[nom.] is [the mystery[nom.] of piety toward God: [which mystery[nom.] was apparant in flesh, [which mystery[nom.] was justified in spirit, [which mystery[nom.] was visible to angels,[which mystery[nom.] was proclaimed in nations, [which mystery[nom.] was believed in kosmos, [which mystery[nom.] was taken up in glory. [Greek]

1Tim 3:16 English. As simple as, abc def
The mystery[nom.] of piety toward God is great[nom.]: a.) [which mystery[nom.] was apparant in flesh, b.) [which mystery[nom.] was justified in spirit, c.) [which mystery[nom.] was visible to angels,
d.) [which mystery[nom.] was proclaimed in nations, e.) [which mystery[nom.] was believed in kosmos,
f.) [which mystery[nom.] was taken up in glory. [English]

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

What is your controversy now?

PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

The word "God" (theos) does not occur in the Greek text in 1 Tim 3:16.

Therefore the Zondervan Parallel NT in Greek and English uses the word "piety" to describe what Jesus was as manifest in the flesh.

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/18/04 - The end of European dominance may be in sight

The United States' Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to triple in the next 50 years, and minorities could make up half the population by 2050, according to a new projection by the U.S. Census Bureau.

What is the appropriate Christian view of the shift in ethnic dominance?

Is it about time European dominance was ended?

Answer from the Bible, please.


will

PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

We are all sons of Adam. We are allequal in God's eyes - Gal 3:28 rules out any discrimination on the basis of race, gender or social status.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/18/04 - Threats and Imprecations


Please do not be offended, but am I the only one who has have noticed a recent unfortunate trend where people are threatened with either legal action or threats to have them removed from the board for a variety of what I consider to be very childish reasons.

Can we behave like adults and not become enraged when out pet notions are questioned, or when someone is a little robust in their opinions of what has been said?

Are we unable to take the push and pull that is always present when people engage to share their religious views and not behave as if one's personal view is the only possible valid one, and that those who point out faults in thinking, or expose false information, or offer alternate explanations of scripture, religious phenomena, interpretation, or translation, might well be right, or, at least, have a valid opinion that deserves more than a curmudgeonly display of ill temper?

Will you sign the pledge?

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

The only threats Ive seen are reporting of abuse by a user.

Legal action could only be taken if a person's real name or business name was being defamed online.

willbe rated this answer Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/18/04 - Threats and Imprecations


Please do not be offended, but am I the only one who has have noticed a recent unfortunate trend where people are threatened with either legal action or threats to have them removed from the board for a variety of what I consider to be very childish reasons.

Can we behave like adults and not become enraged when out pet notions are questioned, or when someone is a little robust in their opinions of what has been said?

Are we unable to take the push and pull that is always present when people engage to share their religious views and not behave as if one's personal view is the only possible valid one, and that those who point out faults in thinking, or expose false information, or offer alternate explanations of scripture, religious phenomena, interpretation, or translation, might well be right, or, at least, have a valid opinion that deserves more than a curmudgeonly display of ill temper?

Will you sign the pledge?

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

The only threats Ive seen are reporting of abuse by a user.

Legal action could only be taken if a person's real name or business name was being used online.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Fr_Chuck asked on 03/18/04 - wine or grape juice

Ok, lets get those denominations divided alittle today.

There are some churches that would never use anything for communion except wine ( since that is what ever bible text actually says)

But there are those that will use only grape juice.

** and one or two that use water.

I personally normally always use wine, but when doing any prison ministry in the past, or nursing home ministry currently, always use grape juice since it would not offend any that may wish to take it.

OK, I have tried to get to the bottom of the reason why a difference.

The groups that tell me grape juice, do so not from any wording I find anywhere in the bible, even the KJ version that many consider the best. But they say it comes from the tradition and practice of the people of that time.

But then these same people will refuse to honor any other tradition or practice because it can not be found in the KJ verson of the bible.

** of course everyone almost uses those silly little waffers which is for sure not what Jesus or the early church used.

So if the use of the real proper bread is not a problem, why all the excitement over wine or juice.

Since the bible only speaks out about excess of drinking, not that one should not drink, why not use wine. And if it was not suppose to be wine, but juice, why did the bible not translate it that way.

By the way, personally I could use water and be ok, since I beleive it is all offered properly to God as a offering and that God is powerful enough to change water to wine, or grape juice to wine.

Hope I have not rambled too much, but the entire issue appears to divide us so much, and really should not be much of an issue no matter what you wanted to use.
*** no coke and moom pie for communion for you southern churches

PraiseJah answered on 03/18/04:

In Jesus' day they did not have means of preserving such as freezing and vacuum sealing. Hence any grapes harvested in autumn would well and truly have been fermented by the time of the Passover.

The Bible does not condemn the use of wine ( Greek- methuun) only overindulgence.

Fr_Chuck rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/17/04 - I ask you? Will you do your part? Finally, I did it!


a.) The word was in beginning. Beginning is when God created by speaking the word, "Let there be light." The first day of creation began. Before God created by his word, there was eternity without creation.
b.) And the word was with the God. The God, the word, the creation.
c.) And the word was God. The God, the word, was one and the same in the creation.

a.) The automobile was in beginning. Beginning is when Cugnot created with his mind and hands the first
automobile. Before Cugnot created with his mind and hands the first automobile, there was eternity without automobile.
b.) And the automobile was with the Cugnot. The Cugnot, the mind&hands, the automobile.
c.) And the automobile was Cugnot. NO! So, here comes Henry Ford.

a.) The automobile was in beginning and the automobile was with the Ford and the automobile was Ford.
Beginning is when Ford began producing his Model T Ford in 1908. Equal to "Let there be light."
b.) And the automobile was with the Ford. 18 million Ford automobiles by the Ford.
c.) And the automobile was Ford. "It's a Ford!"

Ford began producing his Model T Ford in 1908, and by 1927, when it was discontinued, over 18 million
had rolled off the assembly line.

Is it plain as daylight now? That the word and God was as one and the same?

Is it plain as daylight now? That the Ford automobile and Ford was as one and the same?

Oh Henry said, "You can have the Ford any color you want, as long as it is black!? 18 million BLACK!

Is this black and white now?



PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

Hiw can the man, Henry Ford, be an automobile?????????

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/16/04 - Simply the av says, "raised again"

Rom 4:25
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Help me understand this verse?

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

The word "again" does not occur in the Greek text:

Check it out online, mr koinegreek!!

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/16/04 - A Sad state of affairs


Abstract from a California JW child sexual abuse case. One of mnay.

Despite knowledge of a problem with sexual abuse of minors by leaders in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS acted with wilful indifference and/or reckless and/or intentional disregard for the interest and safety of the children entrusted to their care.

Rather than implement measures to redress and prevent the sexual molestation of these children, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of suppression of information to cover-up and hide incidents of child molestation from law enforcement and their membership in order to protect those within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization who committed acts of sexual molestation against children.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS have likewise engaged in the routine practice of maintaining secret archival files regarding sexual abuse by Elders, Ministerial Servants, Pioneers, Male Publishers and other leaders in the organization.

The existence of these files and the contents thereof were not disclosed to or made available to law enforcement authorities or others in order to investigate the crimes of these leaders in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS furthered this conspiracy of concealment, by among other things, failing to properly report complaints of sexual misconduct to law enforcement authorities and failing to remove molesting leaders or prevent their access to children.

Molesting leaders were allowed to remain as leaders in good standing in the organization and were allowed continued frequent and unsupervised access to children in the organization.

At all material times, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS prohibited the victim and/or accuser from warning others or speaking about the matter to anyone under penalty of discipline.

Victim/accusers were not permitted to report suspected abuse to outside authorities or to other Publishers within the organization, despite secular laws and duties regarding the reporting of sexual abuse.

Violation of this policy would lead to severe sanctions.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also failed to provide Plaintiff and his family with any notice or warning regarding the past misconduct of, and abuse by, leaders in the organization, including James Henderson.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS represented to Plaintiff, members and the public that these leaders were fit to lead, when in fact they were predator pedophiles.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or had reason to know that these leader molesters would continue to sexually molest children, using their leadership positions to gain access and control over their victims.

24. At all material times, Defendant JAMES HENDERSON was also an appointed leader in good standing with the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization. The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS affirmatively appointed and placed Defendant JAMES HENDERSON in leadership positions with authority over women and children in the congregation as an Elder.

25. By 1980, if not before, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS had received non-confidential notice that their appointed agent, Defendant JAMES HENDERSON, had used his appointed leadership position of authority to gain access to and sexually molest children entrusted to the care of the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization.

Despite this information, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS took no action to report the abuse to authorities, discipline their agent, Defendant JAMES HENDERSON or warn members of the organization of the abuse by Defendant JAMES HENDERSON.

Instead, with knowledge of Defendant JAMES HENDERSON’S propensity to use his position of authority to abuse children in the organization, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to appoint Defendant JAMES HENDERSON to the position of Elder in good standing with authority over women and children in the organizations.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS further granted Defendant JAMES HENDERSON the authority to determine how reports of child abuse were to be handled in the local congregation in which he served.

This sexual predator used his position of authority within the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization to gain access to and abuse children in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ organization.

26. In approximately 1994, Defendant JAMES HENDERSON sexually abused Plaintiff TIM W., who was fifteen (15) years old at that time.

27. On November 24, 1994, after the abuse of Plaintiff, TIM W., JAMES HENDERSON was reported to the police by another victim.

28. For well over a decade, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that their appointed agent, Defendant JAMES HENDERSON was using his position of authority in the organization to gain access to and sexually molest and physically abuse adolescents under the care of the organization.

Nevertheless, the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS continued to appoint Defendant JAMES HENDERSON to leadership positions in their local congregations, entrusting him with the welfare of numerous adolescents in the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ local congregations.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS’ agent then used his position of authority in the organization to sexually molest Plaintiff and others.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS failed to notify anyone that Defendant JAMES HENDERSON was molesting or had sexually molested adolescents.

They further failed to take any steps to protect these young victims from his abuse.

Instead, they knowingly concealed this information from Plaintiff and others.

The WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS also aided, abetted and ratified the abuse by disciplining the victims who reported the abuse to the WATCHTOWER DEFENDANTS, allowing Defendant JAMES HENDERSON to exercise increased power over them and to further exacerbate the injuries they had suffered.

< cropped >

Isn't this a sad state of affairs?

Does it show the institutionalisation of protection of child abusers by Watchtower to the continued detriment of and danger to JW children?

Who would minimise their conduct? Isn't it better to expose it and deal with it properly through Law Enforcement agencies and the courts?

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

This case is only pending and the allegations therein are unproven. What you have posted is a statement of claim put to a court, not the judgement by the court. Innocent until proven guilty.

Three similar cases went before the courts last year in the US and Canada and in all three cases WT policy of handling child abuse was exhonerated. At no time can anyone be punished for going to the police to report a crime, regardless of who the criminal may be.

Will, wait for the judgement and you will see that the claim is erroneous. Often people are relying on their memory of what happened decades ago and have turned out be wrong. That happened with Vicky Boer and the Poisson case in New Hampshire. eg Sarah Poisson claimed she took her abused daughter to a hospital in 1984 but the hospital has no record of any admission!! I have read the transcripts of these cases online.

The former Governor General of Australia was accused of raping a girl at a youth camp 30 years ago. It was probably a case of mistaken identity because the GG was at the time miles away - bishop of a different diocese and there is no church record of him being assigned to that youth camp.

The confidential files cannot be revealed publicly but they can and must be revealed to investigating police when the situation involves child abuse. Clerical, lawyer-client and doctor patient and even spouse privilege does not apply in child abuse cases. A record is kept of all who have been ever accused of abuse, even those who were before they became witnesses ( ie if the abuser tell them) so that the appropriate restriction to protect children can be enforced.

ie they are not allowed to be alone with children and not allowed to go door to door alone.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/17/04 - Jesus

Christians are answering that Jesus is "made."

A good man
A prophet
A special, created man
God Very God made flesh!

Is Jesus "made?"

Since around 300 a.d. the church has confessed, begotten not made.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God,
Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all
things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy
Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and
was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on
the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose
kingdom shall have no end.

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

He was created by God - Rev 3:14

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/16/04 - Mormons murder and lie. Their history.

MORMON Massacre at Mountain Meadows: Forensic Analysis Supports Paiute Tribe's Claim of Passive Role


BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH

(c) THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

January 21, 2001


A new forensic study lends credence to Paiute Indian claims that the tribe

did not participate in the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 to the

extent history has recorded.

The analysis of bones from some of the 120 emigrants in a

California-bound wagon train who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows also

shows some of the remains have distinct American Indian characteristics.

Those traits may be attributed to the mixed Cherokee ancestry of many of the

emigrants from northwestern Arkansas who were murdered.

The conclusion could trigger various state and federal laws requiring the

exhumation of the remains to determine which tribes should be given the

non-Caucasian remains for repatriation. The remains were uncovered

inadvertently during construction of a monument over the mass grave and

subsequently reburied in a 1999 ceremony led by LDS Church President Gordon

B. Hinckley.


Utah American Indian officials say they plan to study the report to

determine what steps might be taken, but were pleased with implications of

the new evidence for the Paiute Tribe.


"It is ludicrous to keep saying the Indians jumped out of the bushes and

attacked these people," says Forrest Cuch, director of the Utah Division of

Indian Affairs. "I'm completely with [researchers] on the findings."

Prepared by researchers at the University of Utah Department of

Anthropology, the 200-page skeletal-trauma analysis was delivered in July to

Brigham Young University's Office of Public Archaeology for inclusion in a

final report to state history officials.


That report was due last August under the customary

one-year-from-excavation deadline of a state archaeological permit, but it

has yet to be submitted to the Antiquities Section of the Utah Division of

History. The Salt Lake Tribune recently obtained a draft copy of the

University of Utah portion of the study, in which skeletal biologists used

forensic anthropology techniques to assess age, sex and approximate cause of

death of the massacre victims.


The report represents the first scientific analysis of a crime of civil

terrorism that has few parallels in modern American history. Generally

accepted versions of the massacre hold that members of the wagon train from

Arkansas were slaughtered by Mormon militiamen and their Paiute Indian

confederates in early September 1857 as the emigrants were encamped at

Mountain Meadows, a broad valley in southwestern Utah near present-day

Enterprise along the Old Spanish Trail.


War Hysteria: At the time, Mormons were being rallied by church leaders

into a state of war hysteria against the federal government, which was

marching troops to Utah to replace LDS Prophet Brigham Young as territorial

governor.


After initially repelling the first assault, the emigrants endured a

four-day siege. With food and water running low, local Mormon officials

convinced the emigrants on Sept. 11 to surrender their arms in exchange for

safe passage to Cedar City. Instead, at a pre-arranged command, the emigrant

men were executed by their Mormon escorts while Paiute Indians lying in wait

murdered the women and children. Or so the story has been told.

Details, motive and blame in the massacre have been a source of

passionate disagreement, something the U. researchers noted in preparing

their analysis of the victims' remains.


"As with most mass killings, emotion and propaganda surround this

historic event, often with greatly disparate views," wrote principal

investigator Shannon Novak, a native Utahn. "With time, interpretations often

become bipolar -- either romanticized or exaggerated depending on which side

is recounting the event. Physical evidence can often provide a reality check,

requiring all sides to reconsider what they have 'known to be true.' "


First Findings: The Tribune reported Novak's preliminary findings from

the massacre remains last March. Her research was prematurely terminated when

Gov. Mike Leavitt asked state officials to order immediate return of the

bones to BYU for the reburial ceremony when Hinckley dedicated a new monument

to the victims. In an e-mail sent to state history officials, the governor --

whose ancestor Dudley Leavitt was one of the participants in the slaughter --

wrote he did not want controversy to highlight "the rather good-spirited

attempt to put [the massacre] behind us."


Novak's final study, which was presented in October to the Midwest

Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology Association conference in Missouri,

upholds most of those preliminary findings. At least 28 victims were

discerned from the 2,605 pieces of bone, most of which were broken by a

backhoe digging a foundation for the new monument. The skulls of 18 victims

were partially reconstructed for trauma analysis.


Those findings, in some points, differ with the generally accepted

historical version of the massacre.

"All accounts agree that it was quickly over," wrote Mormon historian

Juanita Brooks in her landmark 1950 study, The Mountain Meadows Massacre.

"Most of the emigrant men fell at the first volley, and those who started to

run were quickly shot down by Mormons or by Indians. The savages, far

outnumbering the women and children, leaped from the brush on both sides of

the road at once and, stimulated by the shrieks and screams, fell upon their

victims with knives and hatchets and soon quieted them."


No Knives: Novak's study of the bones, however, found no evidence of

sharp-force trauma, such as that caused by a blow from a knife or hatchet.

The researcher notes that "skeletal trauma only records lesions that

penetrate to the bone."


The majority of gunshot wounds were in the heads of young adult males,

although one child, aged 10-15, also was shot in the head. That gunshot

victim "suggests the killing of women and children may have been more

complicated than accounts described in the diaries," wrote Novak, who has

since joined the faculty of Indiana State University.


Another indication of women and children being executed is the fractured

palate of a female, aged 18-22. The pattern of the bone fracture, along with

the blackened and burned crowns of the woman's teeth, is consistent with a

gunshot wound.


Suggestions that most emigrant men were shot in the back of the head and

from the rear while fleeing also are questioned by bullet trajectories

through the skulls. Six individuals were shot in the head from behind, while

five were shot in frontal assaults.


Recognizing the new scientific evidence is bound to prompt a reassessment

of long-held views of Paiute Indian involvement in the massacre, Novak

cautioned: "Obviously, skeletal trauma cannot corroborate ethnically who was

responsible for the shooting and whom for the beating."


No Role: Still, Paiute leaders say the forensic evidence supports their

oral traditions that tribal members had little or no role in the killings. In

1998, tribal researchers interviewed elders about the massacre and the Utah

divisions of History and Indian Affairs recently published some of those

accounts in the new book edited by Cuch, A History of Utah's American

Indians.


"Many Paiute leaders (among others) believe and claim that, contrary to

most published accounts, Indians did not participate in the initial attack on

the wagon train nor in the subsequent murder of its inhabitants," wrote Weber

State University cultural anthropologist Ron Holt and Paiute Tribe Education

Director Gary Tom. "Accounts collected by the Paiute Tribe call into question

this recounting of events, claiming that in great part Paiutes have been

wrongfully blamed for assisting in something that was not of their making."


Untruths: As Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President

Hinckley has taken historic steps to honor the victims of the Mountain

Meadows Massacre through erection of two monuments at the site in the past

decade, Paiute tribal leaders have viewed those exercises as perpetuating

falsehoods.


Hinckley's declaration at the 1999 dedication -- "That which we have done

here must never be construed as an acknowledgement of the part of the church

of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day" -- underlined the

belief of many Paiutes that they are still scapegoats for a crime perpetrated

by Mormon church officials.


"The truth will prevail at the end," says Paiute Tribe of Utah Chairwoman

Geneal Anderson of Cedar City. "You hope that learning from history makes a

better tomorrow, but the attitude seems to be that the Indians are not going

to say anything anyway, it's not down in writing so who is going to believe

them?"


The tribe's oral account of the massacre, "stressed there were no Paiutes

involved in the killings," Holt and Tom write. "Paiute involvement was

limited to hearing and watching from a distance the killing of the emigrants

and some of their animals, and the robbing of the possessions of the dead."

One Paiute elder, Will Rogers, related a story told by an ancestor that

the killing "took about three [or] four hours, I think he said, you know to

shoot them people all. Some of them were half-dead, some of them weren't even

dead."


Versions Differ: Those versions differ wildly from accounts of Mormons at

the scene. In court affidavits subsequent to the trial of John D. Lee -- the

only person ever convicted for the massacre -- Nephi Johnson, who served as

Paiute interpreter, said 150 Indians were present and "owing to some of the

white men of the posse failed to kill their men, the Indians assisted in

finishing the work."


However, the journal of Francis Lyman, who died in 1903 after serving as

president of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, recounts a different

version of the story from a conversation he had with Johnson.


"Bro[ther]s Dudly Leavitt and Nephi Johnson were in the meeting. I talked

with those two about the Mountain Meadows Massacre," Lyman wrote in a Sept.

21, 1895, entry at Bunkerville, Nev. "The first gave me but little

information. Bro[ther] Johnson was the man who gave the word to the Indians

to fire at the last general killing. . . . He says white men did most of the

killing."


Another Mormon participant who commanded the territorial militia, John M.

Higbee, wrote in a court affidavit that the Paiute Indians forced the Mormons

to kill the emigrants.


"The savages came to Lee and said if he and the Mormons did not help them

to kill the Merrycats [emigrants] they would join the soldiers and fight the

Mormons," Higbee's affidavit reads.


"The number of Indians there were variously estimated at anywhere from

three to six hundred, all determined it seemed to accomplish the destruction

of the company if they had to fight all the Mormons in the southern country."

In the last half of the 1800s, Paiutes accounted for more converts to

Mormonism than any other Utah tribe and Paiute children were adopted by

Mormon families in numbers greater than any other tribe. Yet the continued

blame shifting over Mountain Meadows has sullied relationships between the

tribe and church.


Not Invited: Anderson, who served as leader of the Paiutes from 1984 to

1993 and was elected to another term in 1997, said she was not invited to the

1999 LDS Church dedication of the new massacre victim monument. She was a

guest speaker at the 1990 dedication ceremony for a separate monument, and

was "really uncomfortable" with the suggestion that Paiutes should ask

forgiveness for the massacre.


"Somebody asked me afterwards how many Paiutes were involved and I said,

' That's your history, not ours,' " she says today. "They still call us

wagon-burners. As things are passed down through generations, people can make

them worse than they are."


Cuch says he believes that no matter how painful, the past must be

re-examined by LDS Church officials and appropriate responsibility taken.

"The LDS Church has to discontinue this denial process and they have to

believe in the power to forgive," says Cuch. "They thought by executing John

D. Lee this thing would go away. But the problem is, that wasn't the truth

and if it's not the truth it cannot possibly contribute to overall

understanding and a sense of forgiveness."

So how does today Mormons answer this?

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

You only have to read the Book of Mormon to know that the LDS teach racism.

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/17/04 - Hail Arius? JW's are you hailing Arius?

When the Apostles' Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Gnosticism, which denied that Jesus was truly Man; and the emphases of the Apostles' Creed reflect a concern with repudiating this error.
When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Arianism, which denied that Jesus was fully God. Arius was a presbyter (elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300's. He taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the Son, and that the Son, in conjunction with the Father, then proceeded to create the world. The result of this was to make the Son a created being, and hence not God in any meaningful sense. It was also suspiciously like the theories of those Gnostics and pagans who held that God was too perfect to create something like a material world, and so introduced one or more intermediate beings between God and the world. God created A, who created B, who created C, . . . who created Z, who created the world. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, sent for Arius and questioned him. Arius stuck to his position, and was finally excommunicated by a council of Egyptian bishops. He went to Nicomedia in Asia, where he wrote letters defending his position to various bishops. Finally, the Emperor Constantine summoned a council of Bishops in Nicea (across the straits from modern Istanbul), and there in 325 the Bishops of the Church, by a decided majority, repudiated Arius and produced the first draft of what is now called the Nicene Creed. A chief spokesman for the full deity of Christ was Athanasius, deacon of Alexandria, assistant (and later successor) to the aging Alexander. The Arian position has been revived in our own day by the Watchtower Society (the JW's), who explicitly hail Arius as a great witness to the truth.

I was enlightened this morning about JW's.

I do not wondered about the false, because the Lord will slay them with the word of this mouth.

I ask the JW's on this site to admit or deny if they are of Arius?

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

And that decision having been made, Constantine ordered all Arians to be slaughtered.

How can that bunch of bishops be Christians?

The following from the Enc. Britannica about how Arius actually reflected the teachings of apostolic Christians:

The Holy Trinity Attempts to define the Trinity By the 3rd century it was already apparent that all attempts to systematize the mystery of the divine Trinity with the theories of Neoplatonic hypostases metaphysics were unsatisfying and led to a constant series of new conflicts. The high point, upon which the basic difficulties underwent their most forceful theological and ecclesiastically political actualization, was the so-called Arian controversy. Arius belonged to the Antiochene school of theology, which placed strong emphasis upon the historicity of the man Jesus Christ. In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament—such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons. The basic concern of Arius was and remained disputing the oneness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, in order to preserve the oneness of God. The Son, thus, became a “second God, under God the Father”—i.e., he is God only in a figurative sense, for he belongs on the side of the creatures, even if at their highest summit. Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century—namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim—i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica 2002. CHRISTIANITY "The Holy Trinity"







koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/17/04 - SURRENDER!


Why don't we just let the Greeks and the Mormons take over this Board for a week? Or name this board "Anything you want to talk about." Greek and Mormon posts are welcome NOW AND THEN but this spamming just doesn't get it. Their questions belong on the Mormon and Greek boards. I realize that these posts are 'stirring up business' but posts about Christianity are more appropriate ... obviously! This, my friends, is my opinion. Twenty black stars won't keep me from playing golf this Spring!

I would appreciate your thoughts! Thanks.

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

I dont think they are taking over and they are as welcome here as any of us, providing they follow the rules.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
sxhtzofsunshine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 03/17/04 - A WORD STUDY ON JN.1:1 FROM THE MAN IN CALIFORNIA...THANKS P.T.

The Logos of God





In John 1:1 the apostle uses the Greek word “Logos” as a name for our Lord Jesus. In koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, there are three words in the Greek for “word”. The first refers to only the sound of the voice. The second refers to sound as a manifestation of a mental state. The third, “logos,” is the one used by John in John 1:1. “Logos” comes from a verb, which means, “to select”. That is; to select words to express thought. It is a word spoken by a human voice to express a concept or idea, not merely a part of speech. It is a concept, an idea.



In Greek philosophy, philosophers spoke of an unknown mediator between God and the universe. This mediator they called “Logos.” John is referring to this concept of Greek philosophy in John 1:1. He is saying that the mediator between God and the universe is the Lord Jesus Christ. The mediator need no longer be unknown to them.



“In the beginning was the Word”


Jesus is the Logos, the Word, of God. He is the total concept of God. The Logos is Deity speaking through Jesus, the Son of God. The Father is speaking through the human life of the divine Person rather than in parts of speech. In John 14:9 Jesus says, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” In Hebrews 1:1-2 we read, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to un in His Son.” Jesus is the Logos of God. He is Deity told out.



In the Greek there is a definite article before “Word” (Logos). This indicates that Jesus (the Logos) is THE concept of God and is in contrast to Greek thought that there are many concepts of God. John is telling the reader that Jesus is the only true concept of God. There are no other true concepts.



We are told that the Logos, Jesus, was “in the beginning.” That means Jesus already was before anything was created. He existed before all created things and is therefore uncreated. Since He is uncreated, He is eternal. Since He is eternal, He is God.



“The Word was with God”


The word translated “with” literally means “facing.” The Logos is a Person facing God the Father. The definite article before the word “God” indicates that John is referring to God the Father. John is saying that Jesus, the Logos, was face to face with God the Father. He is speaking of a fellowship between God the Father and the Logos, Jesus, which has existed and continued from all eternity.



“The Word was God”


There is no definite article before the word “God” here. This indicates that the divine essence is spoken of. The emphasis is upon character or quality. John is saying that Jesus has the same essence as the Father. He has the same attributes. He has the same nature. He is God.



In the beginning was Word, and the Word was in constant fellowship with God (Father), and the Word was, in essence and nature, God.






PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

That is how I understand it. The Word could not be WITH God and be the same God. But he was divine or of divine nature.

Whenever we read in Genesis 1 : "And God said..." ( the words that mark the beginning
of each creative "day") we know that Jesus as the Word was God's spoken word in action.

STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/17/04 - I ask why no one here explained Jn1:1? Jn1:1 explained

Why has no one on this board explained John 1:1?

Jn1:1 fully explained

Mt 1:20 "Joseph! Mary is conceived out of Holy Spirit.", said the angel of the Lord.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,
Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mt 1:21 "She shall deliver son and you shall name him Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins."
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mt 1:23 "Emmanuel, as they shall be calling his name, which means, "God is with us."
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

1. Holy Spirit conceived in the womb of Mary, Jesus!
2. Jesus, the name itself, means he shall save his people from their sins!
3. Emmanuel, they shall call him because it means, "God is with us."
4. Jesus, Emmanuel, means, "God is with us saving us from our sins."
5. The word was in beginning and the word was face to face with God and the word was God.
6. This word [was[en] in beginning [face to face with[pros] God.
7. The word [became[ginomai] flesh and lived among us.
8. As monogenEs [beside[para] father. Full of grace and truth.

9. GOD IS IN FLESH because THE WORD became FLESH! AMEN!!!

10. No one, not even one, has seen God: 1. MonogenEs, the one being into the bosom of the father, 2. that one himself unfolded the father.

Why has no one, not even one, seen God? Because God is invisible.
But God is as good as his word therefore the word became visible.

All these verses verify the falseness of Gnosticism, which denied that Jesus was truly Man;

All these verses verify the falseness of Arianism, which denied that Jesus was fully God;

The first Adam
The second Adam

The first Adam
The last Adam

PraiseJah answered on 03/17/04:

I did! Check out my answer to your previous question about me and queenybee. Im not going to post it again just because you dont bother to read answers!

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 03/16/04 - JUST TO CLARIFY MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.....

Is the Book of Mormon really an ancient book?
... Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Mormon and John ... Book of Mormon as their outward appearance is of the plates. We have already spoken of the Copper Scrolls, riveted metal ...
www.comevisit.com/lds/bom-evid.htm

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THESE COPPER SCROLLS? YOU SEE, I'M SIMPLY A PENTACOSTAL CHARASMATIC; ITS NOT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, ITS THE CELEBRATION IN KNOWING THAT JESUS IS COMING BACK FOR ALL HIS BELIEVERS!!

PraiseJah answered on 03/16/04:

As far as I can tell the copper scrolls found in Cave IV among the Dead Sea collection are not the plates that Joseph Smith is alledged to have translated into the Book of Mormon by means of special spectacles which he thought were the Urim and Thummin in the OT of the Bible

To begin with these Dead Sea copper plates are the work of Ankhenaton, the heretic monotheistic pharoah who lived c. 1300BC. He was a heretic because,as a poltical move, he wanted to unite his kingdom under one god, so he chose the sun God Aton. He went on a campaign of icoboclasm to rid Egypt of their many deities.

Nothing to do with Jesus or Jehovah.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
sxhtzofsunshine asked on 03/16/04 - protect me

The other day i saw a bumper sticker that read"OH GOD PLEASE PROTECT ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS" what do you think of this statement and what it might mean?

PraiseJah answered on 03/16/04:

A somewhat cynical remark reflecting the desire to be spared harrassment from false Christians.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
sxhtzofsunshine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
bal317 asked on 03/15/04 - In Talking to Other's

I would like to know. Does it bother anyone when they meet certain individuals and a conversation begins, no matter what the conversation is, that the one your talking to will always bring in a Bible verse to compare the conversation, like no matter what you say to that person before you leave them you will hear something about the Bible?

If you do have people like this, do you feel they are socially inept and can't talk among their peers?
Or, are they truely talking like we all should?

I find this at times very distracting, because to me, it seems like they are pushing religion and this can ware hard on some, making them stray away from the wording of the Lord, many can't repeat verses, no matter how much they believe in the Lord, enough to hold onto a conversation in dept.
So, should one just let them control the conversation in their way, leaving many listening feel like they are in Church? Or how would one, if they should, redirect so those around won't feel belittled?
What would you do? Is this common? Should it be common?

Thank you,
bal317

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

Bearing witness is a Christian's work. Of course most of us cant always be talking about the Bible, and it has a lot to do with the time place and circumstances. I often paraphrase God's Word because I cant always remember verbatim anyway.

bal317 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 03/15/04 - the passion not anti-Semitic

or is it?

I don't think so.

Over on the philosophy board someone posted this:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/artsandhumanities/story/0,12241,1157639,00.html

As support for it's anti-Semitism.

There is no anti-Semitism portrayed even in the article let alone the movie. I am totally confused how someone could speciously occupy the thread of this story with "historical proofs" when we have no real historical proof with which to defend or attack anything.

The bible (true or not) stands alone as what it is. Any accurate interpretation of that can't be anti-Semitic.

And the account in the movie is accurate as interpretations of the disjoined reports that exist in the New Testament.

So, what is the deal?

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

The movie does in agreement with the Bible state clearly it was the Romans who whipped beat taunted and nailed Jesus, not Jews.

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/15/04 - SOCIOLOGY!


What part does Sociology play in the lives of Christians?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

Sociology involves the study of human behaviour and often scoiologists' standards of what is or is not acceptable behavior go against God's word. eg "it's OK to be gay."

So the best Sociologist is God, our Creator because only He knows what is best for us. Jer. 10:23.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/15/04 - If angels sang Peace on Earth, could you join in the chorus and mean it?

Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin write:

Years ago, while a graduate student in Egypt, one of us was introduced by a friend to a chemistry professor at the University of Cairo. After a pleasant conversation, the professor asked what an American was doing in Egypt, studying Islam. “Are you a Muslim?” he inquired. When he was told no, he asked, “Why not?”

Such a question is, of course, a bit sensitive and difficult for anyone to answer who hopes to avoid offense or argument. So the answer was, simply, “I’m a Christian.”

“Really?” replied the professor. “You believe that God has a son (which, of course, everybody knows is completely impossible), and that he sent his son to earth and arranged to have him killed in order to buy himself off?” The graduate student said that, while that was not exactly how he would have phrased it, he did in fact believe something along those lines.

“Amazing!” exclaimed the Muslim professor.
“How can any intelligent person possibly believe anything so obviously crazy?”

The graduate student, now a professor himself, has reflected on that experience many times since. The fact is, that however strange it may appear to a Muslim scientist (or to any other outsider), many people of extraordinary intelligence have been and continue to be believing Christians.

Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, and C. S. Lewis are just a few who come to mind. And this is true of other faiths, as well.

Brilliant men and women can be counted among the writers and thinkers of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the great religions of human history.

Undoubtedly, of course, there are also uninformed people in every movement who believe on the basis of bad reasons or no reasons at all.

But, while insignificant and transient religious movements might draw their ranks largely from the unbalanced or the ignorant, every religious or ideological group that has appealed to large numbers over extended periods of time has contained elements that satisfied and seemed plausible to sensitive, intelligent, sane men and women. Otherwise, it is simply inconceivable that such religions could have survived for any lengthy period.

An Insight

This leads to an insight: If you encounter a religious group or an ideology that has attracted many people of diverse backgrounds for a considerable length of time, and you cannot see “how any intelligent person can possibly believe anything so manifestly crazy,” the problem is probably in you—at least as much as it is in the other person.

You don’t know or understand enough to make a judgment, for intelligent people undoubtedly do believe it.

So long as you imagine that no “intelligent” person could honestly fall for such nonsense, you dehumanize those you disagree with.

Or, if they are manifestly knowledgeable, you assume (and this is very common) that they are all, somehow, dishonest.

It isn’t necessary, in considering another system of beliefs, to accept it. But it is necessary, if you truly want to understand it, to try to imagine how someone else could believe it, could find it emotionally appealing and intellectually satisfying.

Because of the nature of the claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of that Church should be especially aware of this principle.

However gently we may affirm our beliefs, they do unavoidably put us into something of an adversarial relationship with the religious positions held by the majority of those around us—something that those hostile to the Church have certainly noticed and seldom fail to emphasize.

Critics often publicly wonder how any honest, intelligent person can believe in the Book of Mormon, the visitation of God and angels to Joseph Smith, or the divine potential of humankind.

Yet, although their honesty and intelligence are frequently questioned by anti-Mormon crusaders, many such people do exist, some of them quite well-informed.

On the other side, not a few Latter-day Saints vocally marvel that anybody who knows anything could be (for example) a Catholic, and cannot see how sane, intelligent people can possibly swallow doctrines like the Trinity.

But the fact is indisputable: Many of the most brilliant thinkers in the history of Western civilization have been devout Roman Catholics, and, of these, many have written on precisely the issue of the Trinity.

In the interreligious discussions and, yes, arguments that ensue from time to time from the sheer fact that we are Latter-day Saints and that the vast majority of the world is not, it would help if each side could grant the other to be, on the whole, sincere, honest, intelligent, and sane.

+ + + + + + +

Is that you I hear singing the refrain?

will (singing lustily)

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

Without a doubt - because unlike Mormons Jehovah's witnesses to not go to war and fight or support any political ideology. Our ruler is Jesus Christ, so we have peace and unity among ourselves.

darkstar rated this answer Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/15/04 - An Interesting Post

6 congregations protest gay bishops
By Joe Milicia
Associated Press

FAIRLAWN, Ohio — Launching a new front in the Episcopal Church conflict over the appointment of an openly gay bishop, six defiant congregations joined Sunday in a confirmation service led by bishops acting without permission from the Diocese of Ohio.
Under Episcopal law and liturgy, confirmations are performed only by local bishops or visiting bishops approved by the head of the host diocese — in this case Bishop J. Clark Grew II of Cleveland.
"This business against the diocesan bishop is simply defiant and that's why it's troubling," said Daniel England, a church spokesman. "It violates our constitution and canons."
The six congregations are part of a protest movement nationwide of conservative Episcopalians who oppose homosexual activity on biblical grounds.
The issue exploded last year when the church's national convention approved the elevation of the denomination's first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Grew joined a majority of Episcopal bishops in voting for Robinson and Sunday's service was a personal snub of his authority. A message left Sunday seeking comment was not immediately returned.
As the rift over gay clergy has deepened in the Episcopal Church a key issue has been what to do about conservative parishes within dioceses whose bishops supported Robinson.
Conservatives are demanding substitute leadership from outside their dioceses, bypassing their regular resident bishops.
The issue of oversight will top the agenda when the nation's Episcopal bishops meet behind closed doors at Navasota, Texas, starting Friday.
Sunday's confirmations, performed in an Eastern Orthodox church 25 miles south of Cleveland, represented a warning that if the bishops don't give conservatives what they want, further protests and disruptions are inevitable.
The confirmations of people of varying ages were conducted by five retired Episcopal bishops and one bishop from the international diocese.
"We want to emphasize that the heart of the matter is not sexuality or sexual orientation, but rather holy scripture and the life of the church," said the Rev. Maurice Benitez, the retired bishop of Texas.
Joining Benitez were C. FitzSimmons Allison, retired bishop of South Carolina; William Cox, retired assistant bishop of Oklahoma; Alex Dickson, retired bishop of west Tennessee; William Wantland, retired bishop of Eau Claire, Wis.; and the Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti, bishop of northern Brazil.
The presence of Cavalcanti underscored that in the international Anglican Communion, in which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch, most bishops strongly oppose gay activity. Many foreign Anglican churches have broken ties with the Episcopal Church.
Last October, an emergency meeting of heads of the Anglican Communion's 38 branches jointly stated that bishops must respect the autonomy of each other's dioceses, warning in advance against events like Sunday's confirmations.
But that meeting also called upon the Episcopal Church to "make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities." In response, the head of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and his advisers proposed what they called "supplemental episcopal pastoral care."
The American Anglican Council, a conservative group that played a role in organizing Sunday's confirmations, found that plan unacceptable because the local bishop would retain power to approve visiting bishops.
If the local bishop refused, a parish could appeal to other bishops, but conservatives say the process would remain in hostile hands and there's no guarantee parishes would get what they want.

The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a new nationwide organization for conservatives, is laying plans to provide outside conservative bishops for conservative parishes. The network is allied with the American Anglican Council but did not sponsor the service.

---------

Do you have any comments?

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

This issue has caused a split in the Anglican and Uniting Churches here in Australia. Many have abandoned their former congregations and gone to other churches.
Some local churches have removed the word "Uniting" from their signs.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jewels asked on 03/15/04 - Christian Creeds

The Three Ecumenical or Universal Creeds

These three creeds are accepted by Christians worldwide as correct expressions of what God's Word teaches.

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic* Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

* catholic means "universal" and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.



The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.



The Athanasian Creed

Written against the Arians.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Must someone accept one or all of these in order to be considered a Christian? What creed do you use as the correct expression? Do you consider these creeds to be extra biblical? Do you consider these creeds to be the word of God?

I would welcome answers from all of you including JW and mormons.

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

The closest to the truth of God's word, and to apostolic teachings, is the Apostles' Creed.
The only doubtful statement is the one about the resurrection of the body. The same soul or person will be resurrected but not the same atoms that made that person's body.

darkstar rated this answer Average Answer
jewels rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Uni-Agdistis asked on 03/15/04 - Stirring the pot ...a bit.

Common sense test ......


1. Which one of the five choices makes the best comparison? LIVED is to DEVIL as 6323 is to:
2336
6232
3236
3326
6332

2. Which one of these five is least like the other four?
Horse
Kangaroo
Cow
Deer
Donkey

3. Which number should come next? 144 121 100 81 64 ?
17
19
36
49
50

4. Even the most ___________ rose has thorns.
Ugly
Weathered
Elusive
Noxious
Tempting

5. HAND is to Glove as HEAD is to
Hair
Hat
Neck
Earring
Hairpin

6. is to as is to = no graphics - sowwy!


7. John likes 400 but not 300; he likes 100 but not 99; he likes 3600 but not 3700. Which does he like?
900
1000
1100
1200

8. A fallacious argument is:
Disturbing
Valid
False
Necessary

9. If you rearrange the letters "ANLDEGN," you would have the name of a(n):
Ocean
Country
State
City
Animal

10. NASA received three messages in a strange language from a distant planet. The scientists studied the messages and found that "Necor Buldon Slock" means "Danger Rocket Explosion" and "Edwan Mynor Necor" means "Danger Spaceship Fire" and "Buldon Gimilzor Gondor" means "Bad Gas Explosion". What does "Slock" mean?
Danger
Explosion
Nothing
Rocket
Gas

11. If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, then some Wicks are definitely Snicks. The statement is:
True
False
Neither

12. Ann is taller than Jill, and Kelly is shorter than Ann. Which of the following statements would be most accurate?
Kelly is taller than Jill
Kelly is shorter than Jill
Kelly is as tall as Jill
It's impossible to tell

13. A boy is 4 years old and his sister is three times as old as he is. When the boy is 12 years old, how old will his sister be?
16
20
24
28
32

14. Assume that these two statements are true: All brown-haired men have bad tempers. Larry is a brown-haired man. The statement Larry has a bad temper is:
True
False
Unable to determine

15. Two girls caught 25 frogs. Lisa caught four times as many as Jen did. How many frogs did Jen catch?
4
5
8
10
15

16. Inept is the opposite of:
Healthy
Deep
Skillful
Sad
Happy

17. A car traveled 28 miles in 30 minutes. How many miles per hour was it traveling?
28
36
56
58
62

18. If all Zips are Zoodles, and all Zoodles are Zonkers, then all Zips are definitely Zonkers.
The above sentence is logically:
True
False
Neither

19. Sue is both the 50th best and the 50th worst student at her school. How many students attend her school?
50
75
99
100
101

20. In a race from point X to point Y and back, Jack averages 30 miles per hour to point Y and 10 miles per hour back to point X. Sandy averages 20 miles per hour in both directions. Between Jack and Sandy, who finished first?
Jack
Sandy
They tie
Neither
Impossible to tell

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

I rusged through that online IQ test and scored 109. Had I taken time with it like with the one at high school it would have been more like 129.

But what does this have to do with Christianity?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 03/15/04 - WILLBE.....

YOU HAVE MADE IT NECCESSARY TO GO OVER YOUR RESPONSES IN THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS. YOU ARE RUDE, NOT VERY WELL INFORMED ON WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE BIBLE AND IF SOMEONE THINKS AND BELIEVES DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU
THEY ARE OSTRACIZED FOR IT. YOU ARE A MORMON, IF YOU CHOOOSE TO BELIEVE IN SOME COPPER SCROLL AS OPPOSED TO THE KJV OR ITS SUBSEQUENT TRANSLATIONS, THAT IS ENTIRELY YOUR CHOICE!! BUT, THIS IS A BOARD TO SHARE THE WORD WITH EACH OTHER. I'D BETTTER QUIT NOW BEFORE I START BALANCING ON THAT "USERS GUIDELINES." IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CONVERTS TO MORMONISM, START A BOARD FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

And claiming a user is on drugs as he did to me is not Christian for sure.

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PhilDebenham asked on 03/15/04 - What is a christian?

You state in your profile that you were born a christian, raised a christian, and are still a christian. What is a christian?

PraiseJah answered on 03/15/04:

I was not born a Christian, but I was raised by Christian parents and made my own decision to become a Christian when I was baptised in 1961.

But a Chrsitian is as a Christian does, so many who may claim to be Christians show by their works or "fruits" that they are not. As Jesus himself said "By their fruits ye shall know them"

PhilDebenham rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/14/04 - Comoros - interesting guesswork

Did Joseph copy the names Moroni and Cumorah?

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

The Problem:
On one anti-LDS Web site resides the claim that Joseph Smith got the names Cumorah and Moroni from the Comoros Islands, near Madagascar, off the South-east coast of Africa. Moroni is the capital city of the Islands, and brings up a big question as to whether Joseph Smith copied them or not. This question was submitted to the Studies in Ancient Mormonism email list (SAMU-L), and the following information came from the discussion.

Many thanks to Martin Raish, Gordon Thomasson, William Hamblin and Jim Larsen for their scholarly input, for what could have been a strong argument against Mormonism has actually become a strong argument FOR Mormonism!

------------------------------------------
First off, what are the Comoros Islands?
"The Comorro islands, four in number, lie about midway between the northern part of Madagascar, and the continent of Africa." (A New System of Modern Geography, or a View of the Present State of The World . . ._ by Sidney E. Morse, Boston, 1822, page 598). Today, they are settled primarily by Muslims.

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

Did Joseph have a Gazeteer/Map with this Info?
Could Joseph have gotten the names Cumorah and Moroni from this place? Very unlikely. Of several tomes available in Joseph's day checked, few mentioned the Comorros islands, and none mentioned the town of Moroni. Why not?

Because Moroni became the capital of the Grand Comoros island only in 1876 (32 years after Joseph's death and 47 years after the publishing of the Book of Mormon), when Sultan Sa'id Ali settled there.

At that time it was only a small settlement. Even a century later, in 1958, it's population was only 6500.

So far, it looks like the the names Cumorah/Comoros and Moroni possibly came from a similar ancestry in the Middle East, since Joseph could not have gotten the name Moroni from any source. But it goes farther than that!

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

The Name Game

The name Moroni is Italian as a name in Shi-Ngazija.

One similar word here or there does not make a powerful argument against Mormonism.

What is important are large patterns of parallels of many words.

Considering there are a large number of parallels between the Book Of Mormon and Hebrew words and grammar is far more significant than a single parallel.

Indeed, even if one is impressed by Cumorah/Comoros parallel, it still remains to explain the Semitic and other Near Eastern parallels.

The key is which one does the Book of Mormon parallel closest?

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

The Polynesian Factor

Madagascar is the major westernmost extension of the Malayo-Polynesian language family. Migrants from Indonesia sailed there about 2,000 years ago or so.

They brought with them many foods, music (and musical instruments), traditions and their language.

As Dr. Gordon Thomassen then asks us:

Did my friendly neighborhood ocean- going outrigger Malayo-Polynesian Malagasy friends name the Islands or contribute to their language?

Or is it Arabic?

Or, or, or?

People moved all over that world, long before the Ming treasure fleets....let your mind expand to the worldview of Malayo-Polynesian peoples who navigated by the seat of their pants (almost literally), all the way from the coast of South America to the east coast of Africa."

Why is this important?

Because the Book of Mormon teaches that circa 55 B.C., some of its people, led by a man named Hagoth, left the Americas in ships to settle far away places, and they were never heard from again! (see Alma 63:5-8).

In Joseph's day, and even in our day, the idea of early world travel was not conceivable. Remember, many thought in Columbus' day that sea monsters would destroy ships, or at least those ships which didn't fall off the edge of the world!

To consider such travel 1500 years before such an event as the discovery of the New World by Europeans was foolhardy and unbelievable. Yet, the archaeological record shows that it occurred!

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

Another Weak Theory Bites the Dust!

Given the evidence, Joseph Smith couldn't have known that Moroni was a town on the Comoros Islands.

In fact, odds are he didn't even know the Comoros Islands existed!

Did YOU know they existed before you read of them on an anti-Mormon site?

Whether the names Comoros/Cumorah and Moroni come from the Arabic language or from Polynesian/South America travelers, we don't know.

What we do know, is either of these answers strengthens the story of the Book of Mormon as being valid and truthful.

So, on behalf of all truth seekers out in the world today, I would like to thank those on anti-LDS websites for helping us research this and come up with another strong evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon!

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

Gazeteers of Joseph's Day and what they said concerning Comoros and Moroni:

Mucullock's Universal Gazateer, 2 vols (1843-4), 2257 pages of double columned miniscule print. no reference to Comoro Islands or Moroni

Morris' Universal Gazateer 1821 (831 pp), no mention of either

Brookes Gazateer:

1794 ed = Comora on p. 400
1819 ed = Comora
1835 ed = Comoro p 214
1843 ed = Comoro
but no mention of a city called Moroni.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I got this from URL:

http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/bom/comoros.html

I pass it on without commment.

The question is inherent in the material.

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

Moroni is a common Italian name. As for Cumorah - Id like to know what it means, I think there is a bird by that name ( ro maybe Im thinking of Cormorant)

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/14/04 - What do you think about this?


I am reading Origenes Admantius (c. 185-255), and came across this passage from his De Principiis, I.II.10, and solicit your thoughtful opinions of what he is teaching:

[To the question, What was God doing before this world began, if this world had a beginning in time?] We reply ... that God dod not begin his activity with the creation of this visible world, but just as after the dissolution of this world there will be another world, so also before this world there were, we believe, other worlds.

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

In your comments that went with the rating to my answer to your previous question on Comorah :

"I dont know what you are on"

Hence my follow up - "I'm not on anything. I dotn do drugs..."

Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/13/04 - A little puzzle for you

I have posted this on the Mormonism board, but want to post it here to get your interpretations of what Mormon meant when he said what he said in Mormon 6:6.

Cumorah - a final explanation

It is increasingly apparent that some experts are mistaken in what they believe Mormon 6:6 actually says.

Although I have explained what Mormon 6:6 says three times already in another post, I will try one last time to explain it with even more clarity (if that is possible) so that no one is forced by their own misunderstanding, ingrained prejudice, or simple folly to continue to believe in their mistake.

Mormon writes
"having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites (for the Lamanites would destroy them), therefore I made this record [the Book of Mormon] out of the plates of Nephi, and, save it were these few plates [the Book of Mormon] which I gave unto my son Moroni"

(Mormon 6:6).

In this verse, Mormon identifies to his readers, two parcels or lots of plates.

1. all the records which had been entrusted to me, and,

2. these few plates


His disposal of set 1,. and set 2., is entirely different, and that means that the two sets were entirely different and discrete.

What does he say he does with set 1, the set of records from which he had made an abridgement to give to his son Moroni.

Read his words:

I [...] hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord [...]

What does he say he did with the other set of plates?

Read his words:

I made this record [meaning the Book of Mormon] out of the plates of Nephi, and, save it were these few plates [meaning the Book of Mormon] which I gave unto my son Moroni"

When he writes of "all the records" he means you to understand the many piles of records from which he made his abridgement, and that he hid in the Hill Cumorah.

When he writes of "these few plates" he means his abridgement that he did not hide in Cumorah, but delivered to his son Moroni.

Thus you will see that Mormons speaks of plates that he hid in Cumorah, and plates that he did not hide in Cumorah, but which, instead of hiding them in Cumorah, he gave to his son Moroni, and which Moroni later hid in an unnamed hill in what is now western New York state.

The whole library of Plates put in the Hill Cumorah.

The abridgement made by Mormon from the Library of Plates that were NOT put in the Hill by Mormon, but given into the hands of his son Moroni for safe keeping, preserved to come forth in the due time of the Lord, which Moroni after a long walk hid in a hill that he did not name, but to which he led the boy Prophet Joseph Smith and from which hill, that Joseph Smith NEVER EVER EVER called Cumorah,

Joseph eventually received the plates, and by the gift and power of God, he translated them into the Book of Mormon.

It is called the Book of Mormon because it was Mormon who made an abridgement - a shorter version - of the many records that he then hid in the Hill Cumorah and then gave his abridgement, the Book of Mormon plates, into the hands of Moroni.

And thus it is plain and evident, that the Book of Mormon is an abridgement of more extensive records kept by the ancient-inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.

The more extensive records being hidden in the Hill Cumorah by Mormon after he had made his abridgement, and the abridgement being placed by Mormon into the hands of Moroni for safe keeping and for securing against incursions of the Lamanites.

This abridgement, from which the Book of Mormon was translated, was not hid in the Hill Cumorah, and Mormon tells us that piece of information expressly.

Instead of hiding them in the Hill Cumorah, with the extensive set or records made over a period exceeding a thousand years, he gave them to Moroni, who, at a later date and in another place hid them in a hill in what is now western New York state.

The unnamed hill in which he placed the plates from which the Book of Mormon was produced, was not designated Cumorah either by Moroni or by Joseph Smith, neither of whom gave the hill any kind of name.

Therefore, those who say that Smith or Moroni said that the hill in which the abridgement was hidden was the Hill Cumorah are making a mistake of the simplest kind – that which comes from not reading and understanding what Mormon said, and by putting in to the mouth of Joseph Smith words written by other men, but which never fell from his lips, nor dripped from his pen.

If any cannot now make the distinction between the extensive sets of records that Mormon hid in Cumorah, and the “few plates” that he gave to Moroni instead of burying them in the Hill Cumorah, and which Moroni later hid in another hill in another place, a hill that he did not name, that the Book of Mormon does not name, and that Smith did not name, but which later earned the popular name of the Hill Cumorah, but which is not the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon and into which Mormon placed the extensive records, then I am unable to put light into such a dark place that seems doomed to remain in darkness because that is what it most desires.

I certify that I have done my best to have it otherwise.

“Whoso reads, let him understand”




Do you agree with my deconstruction, or do you have another, different, deconstruction that you care to share?

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

In your comments that went with your rating to my answer to this question:

"I dont know what you are on"

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/14/04 - What do you think about this?


I am reading Origenes Admantius (c. 185-255), and came across this passage from his De Principiis, I.II.10, and solicit your thoughtful opinions of what he is teaching:

[To the question, What was God doing before this world began, if this world had a beginning in time?] We reply ... that God dod not begin his activity with the creation of this visible world, but just as after the dissolution of this world there will be another world, so also before this world there were, we believe, other worlds.

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

What happened to those other worlds? If the issues that were raised by satan at the Fall, and also to God as recorded in the book of Job, were raised in a previous world why on earth do we have to go through that all over again!??
And why would God dissolute any world if it was not in a fallen state like our's is?
Is He just like a petulant artist? Did God make mistakes? - Hardly.

Origen may be right about many things but there is no basis for belief in previous worlds in scripture. Maybe he was influnced to some extent by the gnostics whose beliefs emerged at that time:

From religioustolerance.org website:

The Nag Hummadi find revealed that there was a broad range of beliefs among the various independent Gnostic systems or schools. However, the following points are believed to be generally accurate throughout the movement: Their Role: They believed that they alone truly understood Christ's message, and that other streams of thought within Christianity had misinterpreted Jesus' mission and sayings.
Gnosis: Knowledge to them was not an intellectual exercise; it was not a passive understanding of some aspect of spirituality. Rather, knowledge had a redeeming and liberating function that helped the individual break free of bondage to the world.
Deity: The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God created the earth and its life forms. This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He is viewed by Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and prone to genocide. The Demiurge "thinks that he is supreme. His pride and incompetence have resulted in the sorry state of the world as we know it, and in the blind and ignorant condition of most of mankind."
Duality of spirit and body: Spirit is of divine origin and good; the body is inherently earthly and evil. Gnostics were hostile to the physical world, to matter and the human body. But they believed that trapped within some people's bodies were the sparks of divinity or seeds of light that were supplied to humanity by Sophia.
Salvation: A person attains salvation by learning secret knowledge of their spiritual essence: a divine spark of light or spirit. They then have the opportunity to escape from the prison of their bodies at death. Their soul can ascend to be reunited with the Supreme God at the time of their death. Gnostics divided humanity into three groups: The spiritual, who would be saved irrespective of their behavior while on earth.
The Soulish, who could be saved if they followed the Gnostic path.
The carnal who are hopelessly lost.

Evil: They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God.
Snake Symbol: Some Gnostic sects honored the snake. They did not view the snake as a seducer who led the first couple into sinful behavior. Rather, they saw him/it as a liberator who brought knowledge to Adam and Eve by convincing them to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus to become fully human.
Christ: The role of the redeemer in Gnostic belief is heavily debated at this time. Gnostics seem to have looked upon Christ as a revealer or liberator, rather than a savior or judge. His purpose was to spread knowledge which would free individuals from the Demiurge's control and allow them to return to their spiritual home with the Supreme God at death. Some Gnostic groups promoted Docetism, the belief that Christ was pure spirit and only had a phantom body; Jesus just appeared to be human to his followers. They reasoned that a true emissary from the Supreme God could not have been overcome by the evil of the world, and to have suffered and died. These beliefs were considered heresy by mainline Christians. Some Gnostics believed that Christ's resurrection occurred at or before Jesus' death on the cross. They defined his resurrection as occurring when his spirit was liberated from his body. Many Gnostics believed that Jesus had both male and female disciples.
The Universe: This is divided into three kingdoms:
The "Earthly Cosmos": The earth is the center of the universe, and is composed of the world that we know of and an underworld. It is surrounded by air and by 7 concentric heavenly spheres: one for each of the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. (Although the planet Uranus is visible to the naked eye, it was not recognized as a planet in ancient times.) Beyond Saturn resides Leviathan, a snake coiled in a single circle, devouring its own tail. Within these spheres live demonic, tyrannical entities called Archons. Beyond them lies Paradise which contains the "Tree of Life", the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", and the flaming, turning sword of Genesis 3:24. Beyond Paradise was the sphere of the fixed stars, divided into the 12 signs of the zodiac.
The "Intermediate Kingdom is composed of an inner blue circle of darkness and an outer yellow ring of light. Within these rings is a sphere which is the realm of Sophia.
The "Kingdom of God" consists of two spheres: an outer one of the unknowable Supreme God, and inner ring of the Son.





Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/14/04 - Drat those Mormon Christians!!!


Can anyone identify what happened to the two lots of plates spoken of in this verse?


And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

Sorry, no prize for correct answers.

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

Id like to know that too, so that we can all check whether or not Joseph Smith's translation was correct!!! LOL

willbe rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/14/04 - LATIN!


Who 'invented' the Latin language?

HANK

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

Ut vales?

Like all languages it developed from previous languages that are no longer known to us today. It is an unusual language in that there are no prepositions, articles ( the or a) and the verb is alway at the end of the sentence. Tenses of verbs and cases of nouns are like Greek denoted in the ending of a word.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/14/04 - How do you answer?

Mt 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Now listen to the English here in Mt 1:16, Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,...

Ah ha, Joseph a male, Mary a female, Joseph husband of Mary, Mary wife of Joseph. Jesus born of
Joseph and Mary as husband and wife. Ah ha!

But why is this NOT so? Just using Mt 1:16, tell me why this is NOT so?

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

"of whom was born" refers to the LAST PERSON named, who was Mary, not Joseph.

I sometimes have to correct myself when I accidentally predicate the wrong subject of a sentence.

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/14/04 - 10 reasons, queenbee&PraiseJah, are silent on John 1:1

John 1:1

"The car was in beginning and the car was with the Ford and the car was Ford."
"The word was in beginning and the word was with the God and the word was God."

1. Grammar: "The word" [is a noun, nominative.singular.masculine.] therefore the SUBJECT
in English grammar and MUST be written first. So, "The word" begins the sentence in
English grammar. If you disagree, state why?

2. Grammar: "was" [is a verb, 3rd.person.singular.indicative.imperfect.] So, "was" must follow
the SUBJECT in English grammar. If you disagree, state why?

3. Grammar: "in beginning", ["in" is a preposition, en, "beginning" is dative.singular.feminine.] Therefore,
PREDICATE of "the word" just like English grammar. If you disagree, state why?

4. Grammar: "and" [is a conjunction.] So they are equal both in Greek and English. If you disagree, state why?

5. Grammar: "the word", see #1 because this is an exact repeat of #1. If you disagree, state why?

6. Grammar: "was", see #2 because this is an exact repeat of #2. If you disagree, state why?

7. Grammar: "with the God" [with is a preposition, pros, in Greek,] "the God"[is accusative.singular.masculine.]
"the"& "God" must agree in grammar. So, "with the God" is the PREDICATE in English grammar. If you
disagree, state why?

8. Grammar: "the word", see #1 because this is an exact repeat of #1. If you disagree, state why?

9. Grammar: "was", see #2 because this is an exact repeat of #2. If you disagree, state why?

10. Grammar: "God" [is nominative.singlular.masculine.]. God is not preceded by "the" for the following:
a.) God IS light. God IS love. God IS spirit. God IS true. Every English grammar person should know what
"IS" is in English grammar. If you disagree, state why?

If John would have used "IS" we would say, "The word is God." But he waits to till John 1:14 for that.

And in Greek Grammar you can NEVER reverse it and say, "God is the word." b.) In Greek grammar you
can NEVER reverse: Light IS God. Love IS God. Spirit IS God. True IS God. NEVER!!! If you disagree,
state why?

queenbee & PraiseJah should know English grammar? I have asked them to put John 1:1 into English
grammar and for some reason they will NOT! Why?
Will you, queenbee & PraiseJah, state your "disagreement" to 10 reasons why John 1:1 is so stated in
English grammar?

PraiseJah said,

John 1: 1: Nestle Greek text:
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
The God and * God was the Word

*Note there is no definare article before the word God in the second phrase of that sentence.

PraiseJah answered on 03/14/04:

We would say "IN the beginning was a car and the car was with a Ford and the car was A Ford" It cannot be the same Ford that it was with!

So John 1:1 : IN the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God, an a God was the word"

John 1: 1: Nestle Greek text:

Ch o arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with

ton theos kai * theos hn o logos

the God and * God was the Word

* no definate article in either Greek or English

Other translations:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his superior Almighty God.

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
queenybee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/13/04 - Please explain the usage of?

1. hieros
2. hagios

And the difference between the two?

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

"Hagiographa" is the Greek name given by Jewish scribes to the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. The word hagiographa itself is not in the Bible but it literally means "inspired or sacred writings" ( as opposed to secular writings)
The word sacred occurs many times.

Heiros is Greek for priest - but then, you knwo that, right?

I have the Zondervan parallel NT in Greek and English. There are numerous examples of hieros. eg iereis ( priests) in Rev 20:6. There is no "h" in Greek, but because the word ieros is pronounced with an "h" then the "h" is often included in transliteration - ie to clarify the pronunciation.

The English word "hierarchy" according to Webster

"gr. priest-rule"

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/13/04 - A little puzzle for you

I have posted this on the Mormonism board, but want to post it here to get your interpretations of what Mormon meant when he said what he said in Mormon 6:6.

Cumorah - a final explanation

It is increasingly apparent that some experts are mistaken in what they believe Mormon 6:6 actually says.

Although I have explained what Mormon 6:6 says three times already in another post, I will try one last time to explain it with even more clarity (if that is possible) so that no one is forced by their own misunderstanding, ingrained prejudice, or simple folly to continue to believe in their mistake.

Mormon writes
"having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites (for the Lamanites would destroy them), therefore I made this record [the Book of Mormon] out of the plates of Nephi, and, save it were these few plates [the Book of Mormon] which I gave unto my son Moroni"

(Mormon 6:6).

In this verse, Mormon identifies to his readers, two parcels or lots of plates.

1. all the records which had been entrusted to me, and,

2. these few plates


His disposal of set 1,. and set 2., is entirely different, and that means that the two sets were entirely different and discrete.

What does he say he does with set 1, the set of records from which he had made an abridgement to give to his son Moroni.

Read his words:

I [...] hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord [...]

What does he say he did with the other set of plates?

Read his words:

I made this record [meaning the Book of Mormon] out of the plates of Nephi, and, save it were these few plates [meaning the Book of Mormon] which I gave unto my son Moroni"

When he writes of "all the records" he means you to understand the many piles of records from which he made his abridgement, and that he hid in the Hill Cumorah.

When he writes of "these few plates" he means his abridgement that he did not hide in Cumorah, but delivered to his son Moroni.

Thus you will see that Mormons speaks of plates that he hid in Cumorah, and plates that he did not hide in Cumorah, but which, instead of hiding them in Cumorah, he gave to his son Moroni, and which Moroni later hid in an unnamed hill in what is now western New York state.

The whole library of Plates put in the Hill Cumorah.

The abridgement made by Mormon from the Library of Plates that were NOT put in the Hill by Mormon, but given into the hands of his son Moroni for safe keeping, preserved to come forth in the due time of the Lord, which Moroni after a long walk hid in a hill that he did not name, but to which he led the boy Prophet Joseph Smith and from which hill, that Joseph Smith NEVER EVER EVER called Cumorah,

Joseph eventually received the plates, and by the gift and power of God, he translated them into the Book of Mormon.

It is called the Book of Mormon because it was Mormon who made an abridgement - a shorter version - of the many records that he then hid in the Hill Cumorah and then gave his abridgement, the Book of Mormon plates, into the hands of Moroni.

And thus it is plain and evident, that the Book of Mormon is an abridgement of more extensive records kept by the ancient-inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.

The more extensive records being hidden in the Hill Cumorah by Mormon after he had made his abridgement, and the abridgement being placed by Mormon into the hands of Moroni for safe keeping and for securing against incursions of the Lamanites.

This abridgement, from which the Book of Mormon was translated, was not hid in the Hill Cumorah, and Mormon tells us that piece of information expressly.

Instead of hiding them in the Hill Cumorah, with the extensive set or records made over a period exceeding a thousand years, he gave them to Moroni, who, at a later date and in another place hid them in a hill in what is now western New York state.

The unnamed hill in which he placed the plates from which the Book of Mormon was produced, was not designated Cumorah either by Moroni or by Joseph Smith, neither of whom gave the hill any kind of name.

Therefore, those who say that Smith or Moroni said that the hill in which the abridgement was hidden was the Hill Cumorah are making a mistake of the simplest kind – that which comes from not reading and understanding what Mormon said, and by putting in to the mouth of Joseph Smith words written by other men, but which never fell from his lips, nor dripped from his pen.

If any cannot now make the distinction between the extensive sets of records that Mormon hid in Cumorah, and the “few plates” that he gave to Moroni instead of burying them in the Hill Cumorah, and which Moroni later hid in another hill in another place, a hill that he did not name, that the Book of Mormon does not name, and that Smith did not name, but which later earned the popular name of the Hill Cumorah, but which is not the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon and into which Mormon placed the extensive records, then I am unable to put light into such a dark place that seems doomed to remain in darkness because that is what it most desires.

I certify that I have done my best to have it otherwise.

“Whoso reads, let him understand”




Do you agree with my deconstruction, or do you have another, different, deconstruction that you care to share?

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

Will you and Tom please stop shouting.

All you have proven is the nature of some of the so called contradictions in the Bible involving names, will. LOL!

revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/13/04 - Please explain the usage of?

1. hieros
2. hagios

And the difference between the two?

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

Heiros means priest. Hagios is referring to a revelation or inspiriation. Religious writings eg hagiographa.

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/13/04 - Willbe, Answered Cases

Greek has lost the free use of three cases: 1. Instrumental, 2. Locative, 3. Ablative.
The syntactical functions of the instrumental and locative were taken over by the dative;
Those of the ablative by the genitive. Therefore, Greek has composite or mixed cases.
Cases: 1. Nominative & Vocative, Subject. 2. Accusative & dative, Predicate. 3. Genitive, Subject with nouns; Predicate with verbs.

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

Thanks.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Bobbye asked on 03/13/04 - TOMS777 and WILLBE:

We enjoy the commentary from both of you scholars. The purpose of my post is to remind you that "tampering with the font size" will encounter problems for you -- or at least I believe this has happened in the past. Thus I adjure both of you to adhere to the rules. We need both of you on these Boards. (Please accept this in the Spirit in which it is given.) Be blessed, bobbye.

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

Will someone please post instructions on how you do this? (Im a computer dunce )

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
koinegreek asked on 03/13/04 - If you believe? Answer 4 questions?

If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, do you want to know about “righteousness?” “justification?” “condemned?” “gratuity?”
“Adam's failure?” “grace?” “spirit?” “judged?” “just?” “Jesus' success?”
please answer the 4 questions below?

*kata-kri-ma,2631,judgment fell down on,Rom 5:16,18 - 3 verses N.T.
Question: Can you find the third verse?

*dOrE-ma, 1434,gratuity,Rom 5:16 - 2 verses N.T.
Question: Can you find the second verse?

*dikaiO-sis,1347,justifying,Rom 5:18 - 2 verses N.T.
Question: Can you find the second verse?

*dikaiO-ma, 1345,righteousness as just effect/result,Rev 19:8
Question: Do you know the righteousness of Rom 5:16?

P.S. I only used the Koine Greek to show the “family of words.”
Use as many English versions as you choose.

* -ma, neuter gender is the "result/effect of action."

*paraptO-ma,3900,fall beside,Rom 5:16,18 - 20 times N.T.

*charis-ma, 5486,gift as result of grace,Rom 5:16 - 17 times N.T.

*pneu-ma, 4151,spirit,Rom 8:4 - 379 times N.T.

*kri-ma, 2917,judgment,Rom 5:16 - 27 times N.T.

*dikaio-s, 1342,just,Rev 22:11, - 82 times

Rev 19:8 the righteousness[1345] of saints.
As saints we are righteous
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Rev 15:4 because your righteousness[1345] was made apparent to all nations
The Lord's righteousness is revealed
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

Heb 9:10 righteousness[1345] of flesh
There was a righteousness of flesh
[Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

Heb 9:1 righteousness[1345] of divine service
There was a righteousness of divine service
Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Rom 8:4 that the righteousness[1345] of the law
There was a righteousness of the law
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 5:18 through one fall[paraptO-ma] all humans into judgment fell thus through one righteousness[1345] all humans into justification[1347] of life


Adam fell and all human beings were condemned to death, Jesus' righteousness justified all human beings to life

Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 5:16 yet grace]charis-ma] came out of many failings[paraptO-ma] into righteousness[1345]
Our many failings is why righteousness came out of grace
And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.

Rom 2:26 the righteousness[1345] of the law
There was a righteousness of the law
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Rom 1:32 those knowing the righteousness[1345] of God
God's righteousness can be known
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Lk 1:6 yet they both were just[1342] and unblameable in righteousness[1345] of the Lord
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

And the absence of the definate article in the second phrase of John 1:1:

"....and - God was the Word"

Doesnt that mean that Jesus was not THE God whom the first phrase says he was with:

"IN the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God...."

koinegreek rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 03/13/04 - A {?} ON THE TRINITY.....

IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS, WHERE THE CREATION OF MAN ID DISCUSSED, WHO DO YOU SUPPOSE THE "US" AND "OUR" ARE IF NOT THE TRINITY?

PraiseJah answered on 03/13/04:

Jesus was the beginning or first of God's creation. (Rev 3:14) Everything else was created through him and for him, as John chapter 1 states. That includes man.

So God saying let us make man in our image - he was talking to His Master Worker.

I always compare it to architect and builder. Jehovah, the Father, God Almighty was the architect, while His Only begotten Son, the Word was the builder. That's why Jesus said many times over that all authority he had was GIVEN him by the Father. Even at the end of it all , he hands the Kingdom or rulership of the earth back to the Father and remains subject to the Father. 1 Cor 15:24-28.

PhilDebenham rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
STONY rated this answer Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/12/04 - Could this be why some scientists who are also religious can't understand theology?

Great minds don't think alike

Mark Lythgoe


Working with artists and scientists has demonstrated that great art constitutes an open investigation into the human condition - into experience, memory and love.

These subjects are also common to scientific study. Yet despite these universal interests, I’m convinced that artists are cast from a different mould to scientists and our recent study looking into "brain types" suggests that this is indeed the case.

This year, two Scottish art galleries have been shortlisted for the Gulbenkian Prize for the Museum of the Year, which awards originality and innovation in galleries and exhibition spaces across the UK. This is proof, if any was needed, of a thriving Scottish arts scene that is well prepared to take on its southern neighbour.

But beyond any geographical divisions, the award highlights for me, as a scientist, a deeper cultural divide - only one science exhibition out of 13 has been nominated for the prize.

Science consistently fails to engage the public imagination on the same scale as the arts. Although progress is certainly being made, largely thanks to the enthusiasm and ardour of a few scientists committed to its public communication, this failure may have a deeper cause.

It has become increasingly evident to me that there is a limited number of scientists who can genuinely engage with the public imagination. This certainly reflects a lack of support given to scientists by funding bodies, universities and heads of departments who believe that communicating science diminishes one’s scientific merit.

Yet even if the right channels were available, is the lack of good communicators also due to the relative inability of scientists to engage with other minds and imaginations per se? And if so, why is that the case?

If I were to take you to the faculty of engineering at the University of Strathclyde, then to the Mackintosh building, home of Glasgow School of Art, I wouldn’t have to tell you whether you where in an arts or science institution. Scientists dress differently to artists. Sartorial innovation and even, sometimes, awareness is a rare thing in our science departments. But not only that - the feel of these places is different, the way people talk, they way they walk, the sensual temper of the place.

I have worked with artists and scientists for ten years and there is no doubt in my mind they are different species - and thankfully, you might think.

If, as I believe as a neuroscientist, all our thoughts, emotions and imagination are constructs of our brains, then it would appear that the mind of the artist must work very differently to that of the scientist.

Of course, some of my colleagues would say this is all cultural and no more - but I’m not too sure. Maybe we were born to be artists or scientists.

Part of an ongoing study into science and art, which will be discussed at a talk at the Glasgow Science Centre next week, suggests that when taken as a group, scientists are systemisers while artists are empathisers.

Perhaps this is not surprising. The nature of the scientific endeavour calls for an unwavering objectivity and focus on the systematic classification of knowledge through repeatable measurement, without the presence of the subjectivity of the researcher.

‘There is no doubt in my mind that artists and scientists are different species’




By contrast, artists’ work requires a constant awareness of the existence of other subjectivities, of their own and others’ personal, social and historical context.

In other words, they must have a strong degree of empathy, a trait which scientists, at least as most science is practised today, do not need in abundance.

The survey, using a questionnaire devised by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of Cambridge University, investigated levels of systemising and empathising in 1,500 scientists and artists. Scientists scored 22 per cent higher than artists on systemising, and artist scored 8 per cent higher than scientists on empathising.

So if the ability to imagine the minds of others really is somewhat lesser for scientists, then maybe that helps to explain why there are fewer scientists able to reach out and grab the public’s attention. In my mind, it’s certainly not because science is any less interesting.

Now, systemising and empathising may seem like so much psychobabble, but these concepts have been placed on a firm scientific footing by Prof Baron-Cohen, who argues forcefully that these two "brain types" actually reflect heritable biological differences.

Moreover, one cause of these differences may be down to levels of sex hormones, particularly testosterone. This is central to Prof Baron-Cohen’s argument, since he claims that the "essential difference" between men and women is that men are systemisers and women empathisers. Of course, he is talking about population averages here, and for individuals things are not so black and white.

The results of our study may then go some way towards explaining the perceived sex differences in the arts and the sciences.

Finally, perhaps most tantalisingly, Prof Baron-Cohen has used a similar test to demonstrate that people who suffer from Asperger’s syndrome (a high-functioning form of autism) score very high on systemising and very low on empathising. And Asperger individuals - usually men - are far more likely to be found in the sciences, particularly the "hard" sciences like maths and engineering.

The Glasgow Science Centre lecture will look more closely at just how scientists’ and artists’ brains might differ, and whether these differences are environmentally or culturally mediated, or innate.

On the way, I will look at the recent discovery of a brain area that is thought to be the basis for mathematical ability, and what happens when it goes wrong.

I’ll also look at artistic creativity, through the remarkable story of a 56-year-old builder who developed a profound sense of creativity following a stroke, and how we might all tap into our creativity.

• Dr Mark Lythgoe is a neurophysiologist at University College, London. His lecture is at the Glasgow Science Centre at 7 pm next Thursday. He was assisted in data analysis by Tom Pollak, a visiting research psychologist.

PraiseJah answered on 03/12/04:

Im a scientist myself with a practical and analytical deductive mind - poetry was never my forte and Ive found many others the same. When I used to answer questions on Askme the number of scientists who baulked at having to comprehend symbolic language was staggering. They were poetic dunces, like me. It has to do with which brain hemisphere dominates - the creative side or the reasoning side ( the latter makes a person good at math, the former makes a person artistic)
So it is my way of expressing what the neurologist and others said in your post.

Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/12/04 - Could this be why some scientists who are also religious can't understand theology?

Great minds don't think alike

Mark Lythgoe


Working with artists and scientists has demonstrated that great art constitutes an open investigation into the human condition - into experience, memory and love.

These subjects are also common to scientific study. Yet despite these universal interests, I’m convinced that artists are cast from a different mould to scientists and our recent study looking into "brain types" suggests that this is indeed the case.

This year, two Scottish art galleries have been shortlisted for the Gulbenkian Prize for the Museum of the Year, which awards originality and innovation in galleries and exhibition spaces across the UK. This is proof, if any was needed, of a thriving Scottish arts scene that is well prepared to take on its southern neighbour.

But beyond any geographical divisions, the award highlights for me, as a scientist, a deeper cultural divide - only one science exhibition out of 13 has been nominated for the prize.

Science consistently fails to engage the public imagination on the same scale as the arts. Although progress is certainly being made, largely thanks to the enthusiasm and ardour of a few scientists committed to its public communication, this failure may have a deeper cause.

It has become increasingly evident to me that there is a limited number of scientists who can genuinely engage with the public imagination. This certainly reflects a lack of support given to scientists by funding bodies, universities and heads of departments who believe that communicating science diminishes one’s scientific merit.

Yet even if the right channels were available, is the lack of good communicators also due to the relative inability of scientists to engage with other minds and imaginations per se? And if so, why is that the case?

If I were to take you to the faculty of engineering at the University of Strathclyde, then to the Mackintosh building, home of Glasgow School of Art, I wouldn’t have to tell you whether you where in an arts or science institution. Scientists dress differently to artists. Sartorial innovation and even, sometimes, awareness is a rare thing in our science departments. But not only that - the feel of these places is different, the way people talk, they way they walk, the sensual temper of the place.

I have worked with artists and scientists for ten years and there is no doubt in my mind they are different species - and thankfully, you might think.

If, as I believe as a neuroscientist, all our thoughts, emotions and imagination are constructs of our brains, then it would appear that the mind of the artist must work very differently to that of the scientist.

Of course, some of my colleagues would say this is all cultural and no more - but I’m not too sure. Maybe we were born to be artists or scientists.

Part of an ongoing study into science and art, which will be discussed at a talk at the Glasgow Science Centre next week, suggests that when taken as a group, scientists are systemisers while artists are empathisers.

Perhaps this is not surprising. The nature of the scientific endeavour calls for an unwavering objectivity and focus on the systematic classification of knowledge through repeatable measurement, without the presence of the subjectivity of the researcher.

‘There is no doubt in my mind that artists and scientists are different species’




By contrast, artists’ work requires a constant awareness of the existence of other subjectivities, of their own and others’ personal, social and historical context.

In other words, they must have a strong degree of empathy, a trait which scientists, at least as most science is practised today, do not need in abundance.

The survey, using a questionnaire devised by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of Cambridge University, investigated levels of systemising and empathising in 1,500 scientists and artists. Scientists scored 22 per cent higher than artists on systemising, and artist scored 8 per cent higher than scientists on empathising.

So if the ability to imagine the minds of others really is somewhat lesser for scientists, then maybe that helps to explain why there are fewer scientists able to reach out and grab the public’s attention. In my mind, it’s certainly not because science is any less interesting.

Now, systemising and empathising may seem like so much psychobabble, but these concepts have been placed on a firm scientific footing by Prof Baron-Cohen, who argues forcefully that these two "brain types" actually reflect heritable biological differences.

Moreover, one cause of these differences may be down to levels of sex hormones, particularly testosterone. This is central to Prof Baron-Cohen’s argument, since he claims that the "essential difference" between men and women is that men are systemisers and women empathisers. Of course, he is talking about population averages here, and for individuals things are not so black and white.

The results of our study may then go some way towards explaining the perceived sex differences in the arts and the sciences.

Finally, perhaps most tantalisingly, Prof Baron-Cohen has used a similar test to demonstrate that people who suffer from Asperger’s syndrome (a high-functioning form of autism) score very high on systemising and very low on empathising. And Asperger individuals - usually men - are far more likely to be found in the sciences, particularly the "hard" sciences like maths and engineering.

The Glasgow Science Centre lecture will look more closely at just how scientists’ and artists’ brains might differ, and whether these differences are environmentally or culturally mediated, or innate.

On the way, I will look at the recent discovery of a brain area that is thought to be the basis for mathematical ability, and what happens when it goes wrong.

I’ll also look at artistic creativity, through the remarkable story of a 56-year-old builder who developed a profound sense of creativity following a stroke, and how we might all tap into our creativity.

• Dr Mark Lythgoe is a neurophysiologist at University College, London. His lecture is at the Glasgow Science Centre at 7 pm next Thursday. He was assisted in data analysis by Tom Pollak, a visiting research psychologist.

PraiseJah answered on 03/12/04:

It is true that scientists have no understanding of poetry . They are so used to calling a spade a spade that the language and symbolisms of poetry ( and the Bible) are simply over their heads.

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Uni-Agdistis rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
willbe rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
sxhtzofsunshine asked on 03/12/04 - hmmmmmmmm........................

ummm.....where'd everybody go?

PraiseJah answered on 03/12/04:

Me too!

sxhtzofsunshine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/11/04 - John 1:1

What is the correct translation, into English from the Koine language, of John 1:1, and why do you believe your translation is the correct one?

will

PraiseJah answered on 03/12/04:

John 1: 1: Nestle Greek text:

Ch o arch hn o logos kai o logos hn pros
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with


ton theos kai * theos hn o logos

The God and * God was the Word



*Note there is no definare article before the word God in the second phrase of that sentence.

IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity.

Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.

Three in One

THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."

In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew 28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.

This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."

Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."


When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?

Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.

Other "proof texts" deal only with the relationship between two—the Father and Jesus. Let us consider some of them.

"I and the Father Are One"




THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.


Jesus prayed to God that his disciples might "all be one," just as he and his Father "are one"


At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: "I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one." Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" (hen) is neuter, literally "one (thing)," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.

"Making Himself Equal to God"?


"The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father." —Commentary on the Gospel According to John, by John Calvin


ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."

But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): "To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . 'the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.'"—JB.

By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could "do nothing by himself"? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!

"Equal With God"?


AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:


1869: "who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: "He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Today's English Version.

1984: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"


Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God, saying that he could 'do nothing by himself but only what he saw the Father doing'


From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." What "mind"? To 'think it not robbery to be equal with God'? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death."

Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul's point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one's Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.

"I Am"




AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58


1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!"—The Simple English Bible.

"The Word Was God"




AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person


Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:


1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

Violating a Rule?




SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os'), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the·os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."

But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

"The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself."—Joseph Henry Thayer, Bible scholar


Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.

No Conflict




DOES saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ´elo·him']," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4.


Since the Bible calls humans, angels, even Satan, "gods," or powerful ones, the superior Jesus in heaven can properly be called "a god"

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as "gods," mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is "a god." Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God."—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?"

But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is "the only true God."—John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas' exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: "These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," not that he was Almighty God. And it meant "Son" in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.

Must Harmonize With the Bible




IT IS claimed that several other scriptures support the Trinity. But these are similar to those discussed above in that, when carefully examined, they offer no actual support. Such texts only illustrate that when considering any claimed support for the Trinity, one must ask: Does the interpretation harmonize with the consistent teaching of the entire Bible—that Jehovah God alone is Supreme? If not, then the interpretation must be in error.

We also need to keep in mind that not even so much as one "proof text" says that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one in some mysterious Godhead. Not one scripture anywhere in the Bible says that all three are the same in substance, power, and eternity. The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God, Jehovah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his created Son, and the holy spirit as God's active force.

IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity.

Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.

Three in One

THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."

In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew 28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.

This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."

Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."


When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?

Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.

Other "proof texts" deal only with the relationship between two—the Father and Jesus. Let us consider some of them.

"I and the Father Are One"




THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.


Jesus prayed to God that his disciples might "all be one," just as he and his Father "are one"


At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: "I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one." Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" (hen) is neuter, literally "one (thing)," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.

"Making Himself Equal to God"?


"The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30] to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father." —Commentary on the Gospel According to John, by John Calvin


ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."

But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): "To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . 'the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.'"—JB.

By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could "do nothing by himself"? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!

"Equal With God"?


AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:


1869: "who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: "He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Today's English Version.

1984: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"


Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God, saying that he could 'do nothing by himself but only what he saw the Father doing'


From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." What "mind"? To 'think it not robbery to be equal with God'? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death."

Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul's point here—namely the importance of humility and obedience to one's Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.

"I Am"




AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58


1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!"—The Simple English Bible.

"The Word Was God"




AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person


Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:


1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

Violating a Rule?




SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os'), the predicate, precedes the verb—"and [the·os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word."

But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: "That one was a manslayer" and "he is a liar." Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns ("manslayer" and "liar") precede the verbs ("was" and "is") in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word "a" because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6.

"The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself."—Joseph Henry Thayer, Bible scholar


Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: "It is indefinite ["a" or "an"] in this position only when the context demands it." So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure.

Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell's questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God's Word.

No Conflict




DOES saying that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Bible's teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ´elo·him']," that is, angels. In Jesus' defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that "the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed," that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called "the god of this system of things" at 2 Corinthians 4:4.


Since the Bible calls humans, angels, even Satan, "gods," or powerful ones, the superior Jesus in heaven can properly be called "a god"

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as "gods," mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is "a god." Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a "Mighty God."—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not "Mighty God" with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called "Mighty," there can be only one who is "Almighty." To call Jehovah God "Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os' is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, "in none of these instances is 'theos' used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as 'ho Theos,' that is, the Supreme God." And the Bulletin adds: "If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as 'God', is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?"

But what about the apostle Thomas' saying, "My Lord and my God!" to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like "a god," especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is "the only true God."—John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas' exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: "These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," not that he was Almighty God. And it meant "Son" in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.






willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jewels asked on 03/10/04 - transmigration

Intelligent human beings must always remember that the soul obtains a human form after an evolution of many millions of years in the cycle of transmigration. Human life is distinguished from animal life due to its heavy responsibilities. Those who are cognizant of these responsibilites and who work in that spirit are called suras (godly persons), and those who are neglectful of these responsibilites or who have no information of them are called asuras (demons). Throughout the universe there are only these two types of human being.

The killer of the soul, whoever he may be, must enter into the planets known as the worlds of the faithless, full of darkness and ignorance.

We are given this human form of life to attain the highest perfection of life. If a man fails to discharge his duties as a human being, he is forced to transmigrate to the asurya planets and take birth in degraded species of life to work hard in ignorance and darknes.

I read this in a book a friend gave me. What religion is this?

PraiseJah answered on 03/10/04:


I thought it was Buddhism until you mentioned suras and asuras. Ill check it out and get back to you.

jewels rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/08/04 - Is Strait and Narrow too Confining?


(C) H. Wallace Goddard

Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life —Matthew 7:14

The scriptural observation that the way is strait and narrow is not very encouraging for people who love to roam and explore the mortal landscape. I wonder if God would endorse a re-write for the latter-day frontiersmen: "The possibilities are many and the gates are varied. Have a great time wherever you go."? Strait and narrow just seems so confining.

Possibly most people have a few scriptures that they would be glad to excise from sacred writ. When I was a college student, I was quite irritated by King Benjamin's dated view of human nature: less than the dust of the earth, worthless, fallen, enemy to God, carnal . . .. Why didn't the Lord teach him about self-esteem and its central role in human well-being? Why did the Lord allow such nonsense to be included in the Book of Mormon?

It is amazing how a few decades of experience combined with some earnest study of a subject can modify a person's notions. When I first started reading the solid, negative research about self-esteem (dating back to 1983), I was surprised. Later I discovered the Lord's remarkable program of gifts (D&C 46). Now that I have found great strength in humble dependence, I have a very different view of the whole matter. I now celebrate King Benjamin's insight. I cherish his wisdom and inspiration. In fact I have carved one of his phrases in oak and hung it on our wall: "Are we not all beggars?"

So what is to be done with the strait and narrow? Should it be set aside as provincial? My life course has seemed to be painfully different from the paths of some people I revere the most: David O. McKay, Jae R. Baliff, Andy Gardner, Irvin Haws, Orson Goddard. My life is not like theirs, therefore I must be off the Path.

A few years ago it occurred to me that the strait and narrow may not be a single path that is the same for all disciples; the path could be strait and narrow but still be customized for each of us. It makes sense that the individualized curriculum would be tailored to fit each unique disciple.

The scriptural words "strait" and "narrow" mean approximately the same thing: constricted, or tight. (See "Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3, "Strait and narrow.") Yet the "strait and narrow" does not have to be any more confining that a carefully-tailored suit or a warm and heavenly embrace.

An important step in my understanding of the strait path came on a recent 165 mile journey to the Memphis Temple. I'm not a guy who automatically thinks it is fun to drive three hours, sit for two, then drive another three hours to come home and do chores. I have been blessed many times by temple attendance. Yet I also go because something inside of me says it is right.

So, going to the temple with Nancy and two missionaries from our area, it suddenly seemed clear, so clear that I wondered how I ever missed it.

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. (2 Nephi 31:19)

On the road to Memphis it seem clear that the gate is nothing more than turning our lives over to Christ. Maybe the strait and narrow path is that customized, personalized, and divinely-designed curriculum that He has developed for each person who is serious about being stretched to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. To go through the gate onto the path entails a commitment to be piloted by Christ.

What could be more breathtaking than touring mortality in company with He Who created heavens, earth, and all the inhabitants thereof? What could be a greater adventure than searching truth with Alpha and Omega? What could be sweeter than being filled with the charity that comes from Him whose name is Love? Who could we better trust with our hours and eternities than He who coordinates the orbits of electrons, planets and galaxies in beautiful harmony?

When we think about finding our way along the path, we naturally think of the iron rod. Yet for those of us who are more attracted by the loops and jerks of a roller coaster, the iron rod does not sound like the right guide for an adventure trail. We are in for a ferrous surprise. Nephi tells us that the iron rod is the word of God (1 Nephi 11:25). In our earliest days of spiritual discovery, the "word of God" may mean the scriptures. What a blessing! Where would we be without those blessed words?

Yet even for Laman and Lemuel the word of God had a broader meaning which included all instruction from a perfect and loving Father (1 Nephi 15:24).

Consider the rich load of truth delivered by heavenly messengers to earthlings since Adam and Eve stepped across the threshold into mortality. "Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven"? (Job 38:37).

There is yet another sacred meaning for the word of God. (It is just like God to provide a sacred truth with multiple layers of discovery fitted to our maturity!)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1, 4)

When Nephi teaches that the iron rod is the word of God, my favorite interpretation is that the word of God is Jesus who is the only true guide for getting us to truth, glory, happiness, and home. He is the Way. He is as solid and reliable as iron. To keep company with Him is as breathtakingly exciting as designing and creating worlds.

Alma provides confirming counsel about depending on God even as he provides another physical symbol.

Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever. (Alma 37:36)

After giving this instruction, Alma turns naturally to illustrating his point by telling about the Liahona, that remarkable brass ball of curious workmanship that guided them in the wilderness.

For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, which will point to you a straight course to eternal bliss, as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, which would point unto them a straight course to the promised land. (Alma 37:44, emphasis added)

I wonder if straight should here be understood in a way different from an unvarying and tedious highway across Nevada; maybe straight means direct. Maybe God will not waste a minute of our lives if we are willing to take Jesus as our guide. Maybe every twist and turn in the strait and narrow will minister to our eternal well-being. In inviting us to travel the strait and narrow, God is not mandating a single, uniform, standard personal history; He is inviting a single-minded covenant.

And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. (D&C 88:67)

It is truly cause to rejoice that the God of the universe would reach across eternity both to guide and to sanctify our experience. Should we be surprised that the greatest mystery of all time is also the simplest truth? He aims to redeem us. He will do it if we will turn our lives over to Him. To fail to take Him as our guide is to miss the only journey with a heavenly view.

For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me. (D&C 132:22, emphasis added)

When He invites each of us to relinquish our stranglehold on our puny lives, may we turn to Him in earnest if fearful resolve. Only He can get us to the arms of Heaven.

Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall divide asunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked--

And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out. (Helaman 3:29-30)




PraiseJah answered on 03/09/04:

The straight and narrow is the same as us telling our kids that it is safer to play in your won backyard and not on the streets. The constraints on what we may want to do are for our protection.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/08/04 - More about Muslims (especially for Christians)


Unlike animals, humans know that they must die. And they are frequently fascinated if not terrified by that fact. Every culture around the world features customs, legends, doctrines, and suppositions regarding this greatest of human mysteries. Among Muslims, a wealth of popular traditions supplements the fairly sparse data supplied by the Qur’an.

Izra’il (not Iz-rael) is the angel of death in Islamic folklore. (A similar character appears in Jewish accounts.) He keeps a roll on which the names of all humankind are inscribed. The names of the blessed are surrounded by bright light, while darkness encircles those of the damned.

Izra’il does not know individual death dates in advance. When a person’s death approaches, a leaf falls from the tree below God’s throne.

Every individual has a leaf, with his or her name written on it. Izra’il reads the name from the leaf, and, within forty days, separates that person’s immortal soul from his or her body.

Righteous souls leave their bodies easily. Those of the wicked are torn out, painfully.

Two angels named Munkar and Nakir question the dead in their tombs, who are made to sit upright and testify concerning Muhammad. The faithful acknowledge him as God’s prophet, and are consequently left alone until the day of resurrection. The unrighteous, by contrast, have no satisfactory answer. So the two angels beat them harshly for a certain period -- perhaps until resurrection day. (They take Fridays off!)

The wicked beg to return to earth to accomplish the good that they had left undone during their lives.

But they cannot, for, says the Qur’an, a barrier blocks their way. Many commentators take this as a literal physical barrier between hell and paradise, or between this life and the next.

Resurrection and judgment are central themes in the Qur’an. Both occur at “the Hour” on “the Day of Reckoning.”

Muslim scripture and tradition contain many passages describing the signs of the last days, which include various natural disorders such as earthquakes, dramatic heavenly phenomena, and the coming of the Antichrist.

Jesus or the Mahdi, “the Rightly Guided One,” will descend - in some accounts Jesus is the Mahdi - and kill the Antichrist.

At the first blast of a great trumpet, all things will die.

Then, after an interval, a second blast will recall them to life and bring them to the place of gathering.

Two events are prominently mentioned in connection with this place—first, lengthy “standing” in the presence of God, and, second (and not surprisingly), “the sweat.”

The lord of the trumpet, the archangel Israfil (whose name probably derives from the Hebrew “seraphim”), is one of four archangels in Islamic lists, with Jibril (Gabriel), Mikha’il (Michael), and Izra’il. He is of vast size. His feet are said to be under the “seventh earth,” while his head reaches to the pillars of the divine throne. He has four wings—one in the east, one in the west, one with which he covers his body, and a fourth with which he protects himself against the fearsome glory of God.

Israfil always holds the trumpet near his mouth, so as to be ready, when God gives the order, to sound the blast that will arouse humankind from the grave.

Three times each day and three times every night he looks down into hell and is convulsed by grief. His tears of sadness for the future fate of the damned nearly flood the earth. Some traditions say, on the other hand, that he himself will be roused from slumber at the resurrection, the first to rise on that day. He will stand on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and give the signal that will resurrect the dead.

God will next interrogate each soul directly, examining the heavenly books. In doubtful cases, deeds will be weighed. Israfil will read out God’s decrees.

Finally, each soul must attempt to enter paradise via a bridge over hell.

For the righteous, that bridge will be broad. For the unrighteous, however, it will be as narrow as the edge of a sword, and they will plummet into the abyss below. (A similar idea may lie behind Matthew 7:13-14, and Helaman 3:29-30.)

The final destination of each human soul is either “the fire” or “the garden” of Paradise.

Interesting?

PraiseJah answered on 03/09/04:

Islam has some interesting folklore and is a noble religion. But the Quran contradicts the Bible and truth cannot contradict itself.

willbe rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jewels asked on 03/08/04 - New World?

This morning, I got a visit from a couple of Jahova Witnesses. They gave me a pretty pamphlet containing information about a "Peaceful New World".

"The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it", they tell me.....

That isn't what I thought was going to happen. Is that the way its going to be? What about all those people who put their faith in Jesus and accept him as God's only begotten with the promise of eternal life in heaven?

"No" they tell me.... they say that the "New World" will have everything good that God originally intended for his people to enjoy and that everyone on earth wil be a true friend of everyone else.

They tell me the proof is in the Bible:

Isaiah 11:6-9 and Hosea 2:18
The "New World" will restore the peaceful realtions between animals and humans. "The wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion all together with a little boy being leader over them."

and 1 John 2?17
"This world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever"

Are these the prophecies of God? Are they right?

PraiseJah answered on 03/09/04:

Certainly this world under satan's rule ( 2 Cor 4:4) will pass away. But the earth remains forever. The scriptures cannot lie - as Jesus said : the meek shall inherit the earth. There are two different Greek words in the Bible - ge is Greek for earth, while kosmos is Greek for world. Kosmos refers not to the planet but to people living on it.

For more info go to http://www.watchtower.org/

jewels rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
willbe asked on 03/07/04 - Muslims and the Bible

An expert said that Muslims accept the Bible - old and new Testaments. I got this from a web serach. It is a long article and will probably truncate automatically before the end, but you will taste the flavor. Read it and make up your minds about what Muslims believe about the Bible.
================================
IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD? By Sheikh Ahmed Deedat

http://www.sharif.org.uk/bb.htm

Chapter 1/9 - What They Say
Chapter 2/9 - The Muslims' Standpoint
Chapter 3/9 - The Multiple Bible Versions
Chapter 4/9 - Fifty Thousand Errors (?)
Chapter 5/9 - Damning Confessions
Chapter 6/9 - The Book Christened "The New Testament"
Chapter 7/9 - The Acid Test
Chapter 8/9 - Most Objective Testimony
Chapter 9/9 - The Genealogy Of Jesus


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

WHAT THEY SAY
Chapter 1/9

CHRISTIANS CONFESS

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question - "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:

"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge,1 have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).

Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":

"Not so the New Testament3 ... There is condensation and editing;4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history.ř

If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable6 Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics - equivocating, and playing with words - is amazing!

Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that they are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."

With this sort of drivel, the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to hurry the "heathen.ś A theological student - a not-yet-qualified young evangelist - from the University of Witwatersrand, became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the "noble" thought of "witnessingŜ to the members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence - a stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler: "Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology) does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ." He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist responded again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words, "but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:

"... seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Matthew 13:13

Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also condemns this mulish mentality:

They are deaf, dumb and blind,
so they return not (to the right path).
Qur'an 2:18

These pages are now addressed to those sincerely humble souls, who are genuinely interested in seeking the Light of God, and who wish to be guided by it. As for the other, with a sickness in their souls, the facts presented herein can only increase the disease of their hearts.


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

1 Out of ignorance.
2 The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and compilation of many books.
3 As opposed to the Qur'an.
4 Another word for Interpolating.
5 Emphasis are mine.
6 Indisputable.
7 See "How Lost are the Heathen?" by the same MOODY PRESS of Dr. Scroggie.
8 When the Christian talks of "witnessing" he means propagating, proselytizng, converting.

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

THE MUSLIMS' STANDPOINT
Chapter 2/9

PRESUMPTUOUS CHRISTIANS

Whether Catholic, Protestant or a "Cultist," of the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.

THE DOGGED QUESTION

When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian's own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, or parson cannot refute the arguments - the inevitable Christian evasion is - "DO YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD? On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple "Yes" or "No" cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one's position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient. "Answer - 'Yes or No!' " he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!

The reader will readily agree that things are not always either BLACK or WHITE. Between these two extremes there are various shades of GREY. If you say "Yes" to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything HOOK, LINE and SINKER, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible. If you respond with a "No" he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; "You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?" With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.

THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE

We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:

You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."
You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."
And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnesses or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"
You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:

The FIRST Type:

I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)
I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.

The SECOND Type:

"Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani . . ." (Matthew 27:46)
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).
Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.

The THIRD Type:

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)

The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.

For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!

ONE: The first kind - THE WORD OF GOD - is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’an.

TWO: The second kind - THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadith.

THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!

The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene - all under the same cover - A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.


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

1 MUBALLIGH: The Propagator of Islam


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

THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS
Chapter 3/9

It will now be easy for us to analyse a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.

SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF

Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur'an: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." - (Sir William Muir)

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words - one Arabic, the other Hebrew - are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians.2

Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with h