Anti-Semitism In France!

[BJean 16]

Wheetsin: Lots of people do call me BJ. This day and age, I have avoided it because of the obvious connotation.

[wavydaby 1]

I have "scholarly proof" I can bring to the table. but why bother? My scholars are not as "good" as yours.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I did not insinuate any such thing. If I remember correctly I wondered if it was an isolated thing or if it was a church restriction. Why would you think I insinuated anything?

I am sure you friends are everything you say they are. I am sure they were wonderful missionaries too. But shepharding a church is a completely different enviroment that messianiac ministry when you are on the "front lines", so to speak. We are not talking better or harder, just different. Believe it or not, the only place I EVER lose my cool is on this thread, and I don't treat people badly in the name of God. You know very very little about me or my ministry to make such a judgement!

Ron, if you are insinuating that I made up the story about my cousin and her husband you are completely utterly wrong.

It was not, however, yesterday. It was 30 years ago. They are back in the U.S. and have their own huge, beautiful church in Cincinnati. They not only spent time in Israel (a really long time, both of their children were born there), but they also spent a lot of time all over the Middle East. They could teach you so much about all of the people in that region. They started out their ministry sounding a whole lot like you. They have learned so much more about God, Jesus and the people of the world, they no longer rant, rave and scream in people's faces to get the word across. They have seen too much pain and suffering to waste any more of their time on earth treating people badly in the name of God.

[BJean 16]

Ron you and gadgetlady are doing the picking and choosing. Many of us accept the Bible as the word of God. We do not have the problems that you seem to have in the past of embracing of it and holding it to our breast without having someone assure that it is literal and proven to be literal.

We are not all involved in dissecting it so that we can make something out of it that wasn't meant by God. Most of the Bible is self-explanatory but there are parts that many people debate because they appear to be ambiguous. We don't have to deny the Bible or change anything just because of these ambiguities. You behave as if by accusing us of not having true Christian faith as you define it, you more powerful and a better Christian. But you have done nothing to prove it.

Ron you beat your chest and stomp and huff around, you threaten us with hell, you call us fools. It is ludicris to us but we are highly offended and that's why we continue to argue and take up our own posture in this seemingly silly long-winded debate.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Carlene, that is not true at all! I may have responded, but I never started it.

I never told anyone they were going to Hell. What I said was Jesus told us the ONLY way to get to Heaven, and if we didn't do it HIS way, then the alternative is Hell. Jesus is the one who tells you that you go to Hell without salvation. Only you can judge where you fall into that paln of salvation.

Same thing with the adultry thing! I am telling you what the scriptures say. If you don't like what they say, take it up with God. It's his rules, not mine.

You are taking offence at the Word of God, and focusing your anger and resentment at the messenger. You don't like what you are hearing, but what you are hearing is the truth. Blaming me doesn't change that!

And you don't think Ron precipitated any of that unpleasantness? He told everyone who disagreed with him that we were going to hell. He called anyone who has divorced and remarried (except for adultery) an adulterer.

Ron is not the fat kid in third grade. He is an adult. No one was "picking on him". We made a lot of jokes and some of them may have been at Ron's expense, but at least they were obvious and genuine attempts at humor. Ron's style is to take cheap shots at anyone who does not embrace his version of scripture. He is not a missionary....he is a horrible reminder of how NOT to spread the good news of the Lord.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I am not going to continue to argue the point with you. You apparently have your mind made up. I believe that you are sincere, but I also believe you are sincerely wrong. I don't beat my chest and threaten you with hell. I tell you what the Word of God says, and you reject it. I don't get brownie points for being right. I don't go to the head of the class! This is no ego trip. I am doing what God called me to do. The wonderful thimg about God and the Gospel is that we have free choice to accept or reject the Gospel message. You have that same choice and it's between you and God. End of story!

Ron you and gadgetlady are doing the picking and choosing. Many of us accept the Bible as the word of God. We do not have the problems that you seem to have in the past of embracing of it and holding it to our breast without having someone assure that it is literal and proven to be literal.

We are not all involved in dissecting it so that we can make something out of it that wasn't meant by God. Most of the Bible is self-explanatory but there are parts that many people debate because they appear to be ambiguous. We don't have to deny the Bible or change anything just because of these ambiguities. You behave as if by accusing us of not having true Christian faith as you define it, you more powerful and a better Christian. But you have done nothing to prove it.

Ron you beat your chest and stomp and huff around, you threaten us with hell, you call us fools. It is ludicris to us but we are highly offended and that's why we continue to argue and take up our own posture in this seemingly silly long-winded debate.

[BJean 16]

Thank you, Ron.

[anonemouse 1]

Which came first?? Two wrong don't make a right but there was provoking.

I may have responded, but I never started it.

Ron, don't you remember, way back on the first page of this thread, implying that atheists were uneducated and wishy-washy about their beliefs? THAT is what started this whole mess. So yeah, YOU started it. I would have to agree with this first statement I have quoted, that while two wrongs don't make a right, there WAS provoking.

[Ron Cusano 0]

That is not true at all! I asked Wheesin about her lable as a token athiest and how she came to be an athiest. I asked is she investigated faith, and she did not want to discuss how she came to her comclusions about God. They were honest questions that came about because of the lable she put on herself, which I assumed was there to provoke conversation about it. I never said anything about her being uneducated or wishy-washy. I was trying to understand. There were no implications made to that effect that I can recall or find. If you can please show them to me.

Ron, don't you remember, way back on the first page of this thread, implying that atheists were uneducated and wishy-washy about their beliefs? THAT is what started this whole mess. So yeah, YOU started it. I would have to agree with this first statement I have quoted, that while two wrongs don't make a right, there WAS provoking.

[anonemouse 1]

You never said it outright, but you did imply it.

You claim to be the token "Atheist"! Do you really mean that??

By asking about your moniker of "token athiest", I was wondering if your really consider yourseld an athiest, and perhaps . . . why??

I guess why I asked about you being an athiest is that most athiests that I have met and spoken with have never explored or investigated the claims of Christianity in depth. Most have a very superficial understand of it.

I have done my homework!! Have you??

[gadgetlady 4]

gadgetlady: I was not insulting you in any way.

Uncalled for, judgmental, closed-minded, and self-serving. Those are specifically your words.

I am honestly trying to understand how someone arrives at a belief in the Bible that is not literal. I thought lisah and I was doing just fine discussing it, and then I get called judgmental, closed-minded, and self-serving. I never judged her; I asked her how she arrived at her reasoning. I am not closed-minded or I wouldn't have asked. And I can't possibly imagine how opening oneself up to criticism is self-serving.

[gadgetlady 4]

Did you know that when my cousin and her husband were missionaries in Israel many years ago and ran a Christian Church there, they were forbidden to try to convert Jews? They worked with and taught Arab children. That was a Southern Baptist missionary school they ran.

I feel like I have to preface everything I say with you: this is not an attack. I'm curious. Who forbade them? Was it a condition of entry into the country or was it their church? What would happen if a Jew came to them asking about Christianity? Could they talk about it then?

[gadgetlady 4]

Basically I think the whole bible needs to be taken in the context of the times and the state of the world when it was written.

The world was small.

People thought you could fall off the edge of the earth

When the americas were discovered, it was well after the time of Christ.

The story of Noah I do believe it was true. In context.

The writters of the story of Noah didnt know how much of the world there was. I think it was "their" whole world, not what we know to be the whole world now. I dont think it was every land mammal, just those in the middle east, where Noah lived.

Thank you for your explanation. I have a question, and it's not an attack <sigh, I'm tired of saying that>.

Do you believe that the Bible was written by men who were trying to document history, or do you believe it was inspired by God. How does 2 Timothy 3:16 which starts with "All Scripture is God-breathed" fit with your beliefs? If you do believe all Scripture was inspired by God, and assuming you believe God is omnicient, didn't He know how big the world was before man did?

One last thing -- there are various accounts in cultures other than Jewish (and had no contact with Judiasm or Christianity), about a global flood (Austrailian aboriginal, Native American, etc.). Do you believe that these were all local floods? Did they all happen at the same time or do you think they happened at different times?

[Carlene 12]

Context is important when the is a clear indication the passage was never meant to be taken literally.

And therein lies a huge part of the problem, Ron. Evidently only you are wise enough, educated enough, or blessed enough to discern what is "clear indication" and what isn't. And the rest of us are just plain WRONG...according to you.

This Baptist Church evidently had a similar problem. For over half a century they failed to apply a literal interpretation to one of the Bible's many commands regarding women. The "clear indication" was a long time coming, in this case.

Aug. 21, 2006 — After 54 years of classes, a New York Sunday school teacher is getting an unexpected lesson in theology: She lost her job because of her sex.

Mary Lambert, 81, has been a member of the First Baptist Church in Watertown, N.Y., for 60 years. She had her wedding on the premises, raised her kids in its halls and taught Sunday school at First Baptist for more than five decades.

But she recently received a letter from the church board notifying her that the board had voted unanimously to dismiss her from her post.

The letter referred to her sex as one of the reasons for her dismissal, quoting the Bible's First Epistle to Timothy, which states: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

"I was absolutely astonished," Lambert said.

As were others in her community, including Watertown mayor Jeff Graham, who said it's "fundamentally wrong" to go after a woman teaching Sunday school and use a passage from the Bible as your rationale.

But the church's pastor stands by his decision.

"I believe that God has a very special role for men and women within the church setting and many people look at it as exclusionary, but I don't view at it that way," Tim LaBouf, First Baptist's pastor, said.

LaBouf added Lambert's sex was only one reason she was fired, and that "Christian courtesy" prevents him from saying any more than that.

Decision Ignites Debate

Shortly after the decision was made, news sources contacted LaBouf and he realized the board's decision was being questioned outside of church circles.

"I am fully aware that not everyone ascribes to my view of the Scriptures, but I would never vilify them for having a different religious view, and I would hope that if you do hold a different view that you would extend to me the same courtesy," LaBouf wrote in a statement posted on his church's Web site.

LaBouf is a member of the Watertown City Council, and his opinion is getting more scrutiny, as the council employees a female city manager.

[anonemouse 1]

And therein lies a huge part of the problem, Ron. Evidently only you are wise enough, educated enough, or blessed enough to discern what is "clear indication" and what isn't. And the rest of us are just plain WRONG...according to you.

This Baptist Church evidently had a similar problem. For over half a century they failed to apply a literal interpretation to one of the Bible's many commands regarding women. The "clear indication" was a long time coming, in this case.

That's my entire problem with it, also. If entire Christian denominations disagree about which passages to take literally, how can one man say he is absolutely right in his interpretation? That's one of the major sticking points I have in regards to Christianity in general, actually. All the denominations say they have the right interpretation and that all the others are wrong. So who's right? They all defend their interpretation by saying that the Bible tells them that they are doing and saying the right things. To say that you (generic "you", not anyone in particular) have the right interpretation and everyone else is ignorant and going to hell smacks of arrogance and blindness. *shrugs*