Tired_Old_Man

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Only when he uses it to put other people down and only when he says don't blame me, God says it. People do not want to be told they have to worship his way or else, but don't blame me, blame yourself for not following God's way. NONE OF US HAVE ANY PROOF THAT WE HAVE THE WAY TO ETERNAL SALVATION. We may have faith, but no proof. I do not want anyone's interpretation of his holy book held over me as a Weapon of Mental Destruction (WMD).

Ron, the Bible may say it, but you are the one writing it.

Who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl on Sunday?

Thank you for a wonderful lesson. I have read the Qur'an (Yusufali translation) from cover to cover and use a website that allows me to find Suras that contains topics I want to quote by keyword. I read the Qur'an to increase my knowledge and to help me be more tolerant of what I expected to be a belligerent religion. Instead, I found less belligerence than in the Old Testament. Moses was the person most mentioned in the Qur'an, though Allah was the name most mentioned (but he is not a person). Jesus was spoken of more that Mohammed.

Just because you can quote a verse in the Bible that says something, don't be so assured that someone else can not quote another verse from the Bible that says the opposite. Or don't be so sure that someone can not interpret the verse that you quoted as meaning something different (maybe exactly the opposite). I have heard people much more knowledgeable that I argue over scripture. When one quotes one verse, the other quotes a verse which says the opposite, only to be told by the first one that his verse actually means something else. I have seen Bible verses used as justification for almost anything including the agenda of Hitler, the KKK and the Confederates states' rights to keep slaves. The Bible is a complex, self-contradictory set of books, which originally were a handful of letters and pamphlets (so to speak), that were edited to someone's taste (canonization).

Actually, people who believe in the death penalty are in the majority in the USA. I even think that the posters to this thread who believe in the death penalty are in the majority, though I am too lazy to take a head count.:faint:

Someday, Lap-Bands may become passe as scientists learn where to hit the brain (to damage a section of it) in order to control addiction. It seems to have worked by accident to stop a 2 pack per day smoker. Much more reserach will be needed. So, "Don't Hit Yourself in the Head with a Hammer Just Yet" may be the best advice.

I respect your beliefs about the Bible except when they put down other people's religions. Your interpretation of the Bible doesn't allow for anyone else's interpretation or other people's “Books of God”, yet many ministers and theologians can accept other people's beliefs and Holy Books. I do not question your love for Jesus. I do not question you relationship with Jesus. I do question your intolerance for other people's method of worship, and I question your right to blame it on God. "Who are we to question God's way" is the answer I have heard whenever a Christian is stumped. Who are you to question God's ways as expressed by other Holy Books than your Bible? You have no more right to call another Holy Book false than the readers of that Holy Book have to call the Bible False. You have no more right to call another person's interpretation of the Bible false than that person has to call your interpretation of Bible False. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance.

That is the problem. You say "with all due respect", but you give none. Just because I don't use the Qur'an as my Holy Book, doesn't make it any less of a Holy Book. You have no respect for the religion of anyone else, but demand total respect for yours, and don't tell me that it is God's way. It is your way and your style. You are not the first “man of God” that I have met. Allah is the same God as you worship. You make this into a debate over God, but it is a debate over the men who wrote, translated, transcribed and canonized the books purported to be divinely inspired. Do not accuse me of bashing your God, because I am not bashing "OUR GOD". I am discussing the short sightedness of the people who bring about never-ending war because they can not discuss their Holy Books without killing each other.

No, it is not a legitimate question. It is a statement disguised as a question. Have you stopped beating your wife? How would you like if I asked you that question and didn't stop asking follow-up questions until you admitted beating your wife? You will not stopped asking (me and others) questions until I (we) admit beating my (our) wife(s). It is none of your business how I or anyone else worships.

I have had many discussions with Jewish friends (some that kept us up all night in college) and I also believe that your way and their way of worship is as valid as any Christian way. Even the "Holy Qur'an" says that Jews, Christians and Muslims have equal rights to Heaven. But even if the "Holy Qur'an" didn't say that, I doubt that the God would allow Moses or Noah, or any of their followers who keep the faith to be pushed out of Heaven by Christians or the ideas of Christians. Maybe God has put out all these contradictory ideas to test us. That would be compatible with God's MO. Look at Babylon for example.

Maybe I am being unfair to you, but the way you have come off (IMNSHO) is that when you say, "I guess others are just trying to understand what you are saying" it means to me that you are trying to question me until I accept your way. Maybe I am being unfair to you, but I doubt it.

It may be a straight forward question, but it seems to have a reason behind it, one that questions my faith. Both you and Ron, and many other members at this LBT board and other boards, and people whom I have met in person have told me that salvation comes through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. How personal can my relationship be if I have to explain it? Wasn't it sufficient to read that I wrote: OR You keep saying that a person needs a personal relationship with Jesus and then you question and question and try to point out the correct way, until it becomes obvious, that my personal relationship is not good enough, that I must have your (type of) personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Gadgetlady, I doubt that you realize that you are doing it, just as I doubt my grandparents knew that they were doing it when they went up to people trying to enjoy dinner in a Chinese restaurant and tried to give them their pamphlets on salvation, just as I doubt many other members here at LBT and other boards realize what they are doing, But Ron, I think you know exactly what you are doing and no matter how much you feign innocence or ignorance or how indignant you become, you will not change my opinion. None of you has a right to question why I accept Jesus. You didn't even have a right to know whether I do or do not or whether anyone else does, or who they worship. But I communicated the information to you. I was not trying to prove a political, scientific or legal point, but just telling you, that you needn't be concerned about my salvation. When someone uses religion as a reason for backing a political candidate or a political argument, then since they have brought up their religion as the reason, it is a legitimate topic. When someone uses religion as a reason for disagreeing with a scientific policy or theory, then since they have brought up their religion as the reason, it is a legitimate topic. When someone uses religion as a reason for disagreeing with a law or legal ruling, then since they have brought up their religion as the reason, it is a legitimate topic. It is however none of anyone's business to know why or how I worship. I gave more than enough information when I said. And that should be and will have to be good enough for you.

"Being Catholic, I'm sure "your" Bible says that Jesus was the Son of God and He was crucified and resurrected on the third day (I don't know of any Bibles that don't). Do you believe that to be literal or figurative?" Even theologians disagree what “resurrected and rose” on the third day really means. Some are sure that Jesus was again a man of flesh and bone, while others think he was more of an apparition, one partially transparent and unable to be touched. Does it matter? Before you scream; Which Jesus approached Paul on the road to Damascus?

Please stop telling me who agrees with you. These topics can not be proved by a vote. Besides Bible scholars have a vested interest.:faint:

I also don't believe that the death penalty is ever justified. Murder is a terrible thing when a private citizen does it, but when the state with all its power does it, it sets a terrible example and can get out of control so easily. The death penalty is a barbaric attempt to satiate a blood thirst. All the civilized countries of the world have done away with it. Yes, I purposely did not say, "All the civilized countries of the world except the USA have done away with it."

I want to say, Joan, that if I was rude to you (and I reread what I posted and it sounded worse than when I was writing it), then I apologize. However, not having a sentence available like "Life with no parole" is no excuse for execution.

I explained much of that a few pages back. Jesus did not write the New Testament. His apostles did not write much or any of it. Much of the New Testament was written by people who were told stories decades after the alleged facts occurred. Sometimes apostles told people who told other people who then wrote it down. Then there was the politics of canonization which is too long to go into. There was also competition between the apostles to see who could build the bigger following most quickly. Errors were inevitable. That is why Gospels of different apostles differ from each other. Before you ask the question, I will say that my level of believe for something presented as myth differs drastically than for something presented as science. If that sounds like double-talk, what do you expect when one has no proof, but only feelings and faith to go by? I may be a better Christian than those that accept the Bible as literal, because anyone who needed to believe the Bible as literal, had to be given proof (that convinced them), while I accepted Jesus on faith and feelings alone.

Ron, do us all a favor: Instead of telling us what God has to say in the Bible, just post a link to a web-site that has the whole Bible on it and let us read it for ourselves. Oh Heck, here is a site: KJV

Yes, but...:faint:

I didn't mean to be rude. Or not barbaric enough. Not relevant, because neither execution nor life imprisonment can bring the victim back to life, but killing an innocent second person is wrong, barbaric and evil. When you wrote, "Grow up", you already did. On that, totally.

It comes from my personal faith and I don't have to share that with you. I am not on a mission to make people conform to my faith system. Maybe you KNOW, but I only think, that there is a God and that following the teachings of Jesus will help me. I will say, (probably against my better judgment), that is by biblical implication, though not by "word for word". If you can not understand that, maybe it is God's way of allowing each of his children to come toward him in their own free (willed) way.

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. It is how you handle that opinion that matters. I do not believe in the Bible as a literal document and I know ministers who know the Bible chapter and verse who also don't. But just as I do not believe that a tortoise raced with a hare, I still understand the lesson of that story. You can talk to me about the Bible. But don't try to prove to me it is literal. I accept Jesus. That should be good enough for you.

You are again being judgmental. You are deciding who has a valid right to differ with you. You are saying that you can have an intelligent discussion only with the choir, per se. Again, (maybe) subconsciously, you are putting everyone down who doesn't agree with you. You are assuming that you are speaking for God. Did not Jesus say, "Judge not lest thou shall be judged"? I have compared you with George W. BuSh (in other posts), because he also only wants to talk with his allies. Talking to his enemies can be more productive. Here at LBT, you had no enemies a few days ago when you first posted. I do not consider myself your enemy, but I do disagree with your method of spreading your message 10 times as much as with the message itself.