Dobson's mighty mouth

[K6BBC]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html

Will someone explain why so many people follow this mean-spirited, self-absorbed, jerk? Since Falwell croaked, and Robertson's brain has gone to mush, this guy gets all the press. Do people really care what he thinks about the bible. I've lesten to him spout, and frankly he sounds irrational most of the time. Well, he found a good gig and he is playing it to the hilt.

bbc

[W5GA]

Do people really care what he thinks about the bible.

Yes, a great many people do care about what he says...although I'm not one of them.

[KP3FT]

Sure, because he is a good example of being the "salt of the earth" as Jesus said Christians should be. Salt was a preservation agent in those days. If Christians sit back and do nothing, the world falls further into debauchery and beastly values. Dobson's a hero in my view; not a compromiser of his faith and willing to fight for what's right. He's exactly right about Obama. Obama has the audacity to claim being a Christian and but holds very un-Christian values...a hypocrite.

[K6BBC]

So what you are saying is he is the wrong kind of Christian. But let's face it, in Dobson's mind there are only a few who are the right kind of Christian. And what of the non-Christian world? How do they hold it together?

bbc

Sure, because he is a good example of being the "salt of the earth" as Jesus said Christians should be. Salt was a preservation agent in those days. If Christians sit back and do nothing, the world falls further into debauchery and beastly values. Dobson's a hero in my view; not a compromiser of his faith and willing to fight for what's right. He's exactly right about Obama. Obama has the audacity to claim being a Christian and but holds very un-Christian values...a hypocrite.

[KB9YCO]

Unfortunately, there are far too many people that listen to this nitwit. He's just another religious zealot that represents all that is wrong with religion practiced in it's extreme form. Sadly, there are quite a number of people that actually take this moron seriously, and that is a scary fact.
I thought about posting this story when I saw it yesterday, but I figured it would just be the usual back and forth about who is more extreme, Dobson or Obama. I don't necessarily represent Obama either, but I'd take a million of him before I'd take one religious extremist wacko like Dobson and his sheeple ilk. Dobson is just another professional moralist with a wacko agenda. What a loser, we can only hope that he goes the route of Jim and Tammy Baker or Jimmy Swaggart.

[N4VGB]

He's exactly right about Obama. Obama has the audacity to claim being a Christian and but holds very un-Christian values...a hypocrite.


Black Liberation Theology is what Wright teaches at Trinity Church. It is nothing more than the old Black Power or Black Panther movement with a so-called church wrapped around itself as cover. It is all political and has nothing to do with Christianity.:mad:

[N4VGB]

So what you are saying is he is the wrong kind of Christian. But let's face it, in Dobson's mind there are only a few who are the right kind of Christian. And what of the non-Christian world? How do they hold it together?

bbc

Black Liberation Theology is not and has never been a part of Christianity. Trinity Church is not and has never been a Christian Church. Obama is not and has never been Christian. Or has the resignation of Obama from his church escaped your attention? When Christianity was needed as a political tool, Obama proclaimed himself to be one, when it became obvious that he belonged to a Black Liberation Theology church, he resigned. ;):D

[K6BBC]

The "Black Power" movement, although militant, was one component of the gains make by African Americans during the sixties after hundreds of years of oppression and abuse by white America. Don't you agree it often takes radicals to motivate a movement? After all, our founding fathers were radicals. So was Jesus.

bbc

Black Liberation Theology is not and has never been a part of Christianity. Trinity Church is not and has never been a Christian Church. Obama is not and has never been Christian. Or has the resignation of Obama from his church escaped your attention? When Christianity was needed as a political tool, Obama proclaimed himself to be one, when it became obvious that he belonged to a Black Liberation Theology church, he resigned. ;):D

[N4VGB]

The "Black Power" movement, although militant, was one component of the gains make by African Americans during the sixties after hundreds of years of oppression and abuse by white America. Don't you agree it often takes radicals to motivate a movement? After all, our founding fathers were radicals. So was Jesus.
bbc


Never try to debate subjects that you are void of knowledge on! You've already proven your own void, just as Obama has done.

The "Black Power" movement accomplished nothing except making some people a lot of money, getting a lot of people needlessly killed and allowing some to gain political power. The changes that were needed were already happening on their own, truth is always self evident.

There was nothing radical at all about the founding fathers of America, or has it escaped you're attention that kingdoms of Europe and most of the world are gone? The Queen of England really has no power.

I'm happy to see that you cast Obama as a "Black Radical" by your own post. Very interesting.

Barrabas was a radical, preferred by the Hebrews. Jesus was not.

[K6BBC]

We were having a polite discussion. Your sudden rudeness is quite surprising.

bbc


Never try to debate subjects that you are void of knowledge on! You've already proven your own void, just as Obama has done.

The "Black Power" movement accomplished nothing except making some people a lot of money, getting a lot of people needlessly killed and allowing some to gain political power. The changes that were needed were already happening on their own, truth is always self evident.

There was nothing radical at all about the founding fathers of America, or has it escaped you're attention that kingdoms of Europe and most of the world are gone? The Queen of England really has no power.

I'm happy to see that you cast Obama as a "Black Radical" by your own post. Very interesting.

Barrabas was a radical, preferred by the Hebrews. Jesus was not.

[KB9YCO]

..There was nothing radical at all about the founding fathers of America, or has it escaped you're attention that kingdoms of Europe and most of the world are gone? The Queen of England really has no power...

Barrabas was a radical, preferred by the Hebrews. Jesus was not.

The founding fathers were most certainly considered radicals in their time, as was Jesus if you choose to believe the storyline. Maybe not a complete radical, but certainly a liberal by that era's standards.

================================================== =======

We created this website because we believe the historical, Biblically documented teachings of Jesus
Christ clearly show that Jesus is a Liberal. His philosophy, based in compassion, equality,
inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and - most importantly - love, is 100% Liberal.

For 20 years we have seen the growing domination of the radical right wing evangelicals on TV, on
the radio and in the news, newspapers and magazines and in politics - claiming to own a virtual
monopoly on Jesus. They have redefined what He meant and used His name to advance their
radical right wing social, business, governmental, political and military agenda... (http://www.jesusisaliberal.org)

[NOTE: I'm not advocating the beliefs of that website, but it does make a very valid point.]

[N4VGB]

The founding fathers were most certainly considered radicals in their time, as was Jesus if you choose to believe the storyline. Maybe not a complete radical, but certainly a liberal by that era's standards.


Then radicalism must have been sweeping the globe in the days of the founding fathers, since the same changes took place elsewhere. If radicalism is common, it is no longer radical. :rolleyes:

The English language is just like the Bible, confusing if you don't know the definition of the words. :)

Any idea that becomes common is no longer radical at all. ;)

[n2ize]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html

Will someone explain why so many people follow this mean-spirited, self-absorbed, jerk? Since Falwell croaked, and Robertson's brain has gone to mush, this guy gets all the press. Do people really care what he thinks about the bible. I've lesten to him spout, and frankly he sounds irrational most of the time. Well, he found a good gig and he is playing it to the hilt.

bbc

Dobson talks their langauge. He says what they want to hear.

[K6BBC]

There is no instantaneous proclamation that denotes the passage of a radical movement to common acceptance. History is the judge.

The founding fathers declared their independence from England, a long established monarchy, to form a democratic nation based on the writings of the philosopher John Locke. This can only be view as a radical act.

bbc

Any idea that becomes common is no longer radical at all. ;)

[AE6IP]

Then radicalism must have been sweeping the globe in the days of the founding fathers, since the same changes took place elsewhere.

If by "globe" you mean Western Europe, then yes, the ideas were "sweeping the globe.

If radicalism is common, it is no longer radical.

But since, at that time, it wasn't particularly common, it was definitely radical.

The English language is just like the Bible, confusing if you don't know the definition of the words.

Which is why it is amusing that you're trying to treat the word 'radical' the same as the word 'rare'.

Any idea that becomes common is no longer radical at all.

You're confused again. "Radical" doesn't mean 'rare' or 'uncommon'. In the context of politics it merely means 'extreme' or 'dramatic'.

By comparison to Newtonian Physics, General Relativity is radical. It was radical back when Einstein was the only one who accepted it and it's still radical now that it's doctrine.

The concept of individual liberty and the rule of law is a radical departure from most of human history and remains radical to this day.

[N4VGB]

The founding fathers declared their independence from England, a long established monarchy, to form a democratic nation based on the writings of the philosopher John Locke. This can only be view as a radical act.


Naw, not enough executions in the American Revolution to consider it a radical movement. Now the French Revolution, that one was radical, heads rolling everywhere! ;)

[K6BBC]

I guess you are kidding.

bbc

Naw, not enough executions in the American Revolution to consider it a radical movement. Now the French Revolution, that one was radical, heads rolling everywhere! ;)

[N4VGB]

I guess you are kidding.

bbc

Not at all. The early Americans didn't even execute the English after being defeated here. EVERYBODY even associated with being in the class of nobility in France was executed, even many that had supported the French Revolution.

[K6BBC]

And some how this is evidence the American REVOLUTION was not a radical movement? Perhaps you just view the word "radical" as a negative.

bbc

Not at all. The early Americans didn't even execute the English after being defeated here. EVERYBODY even associated with being in the class of nobility in France was executed, even many that had supported the French Revolution.

[w2amr]

We were having a polite discussion. Your sudden rudeness is quite surprising.

bbc
I'm not surprised.

[N4VGB]

And some how this is evidence the American REVOLUTION was not a radical movement? Perhaps you just view the word "radical" as a negative.
bbc


Most "radicalism" only accomplishes things that will come to pass anyway.

George Wallace was supported by the NAACP in his first failed bid to be the governor of Alabama. So Wallace became a segregationist, does that make him a radical, no it makes him a politician. The telephone tape of George Wallace and John Kennedy planning that infamous charade at the door of the University of Alabama when the first black student arrives to register doesn't sound at all like two radicals of different views speaking. ;)

I'm considered quite the radical for supporting my 2nd Amendment right, the many infringements on that right that are common today would have damned near brought about an armed revolution in my youth.

Radical is a very subjective word.

[K6BBC]

Well, I guess that's why Obama will be the first black president.

bbc

Most "radicalism" only accomplishes things that will come to pass anyway.

George Wallace was supported by the NAACP in his first failed bid to be the governor of Alabama. So Wallace became a segregationist, does that make him a radical, no it makes him a politician. The telephone tape of George Wallace and John Kennedy planning that infamous charade at the door of the University of Alabama when the first black student arrives to register doesn't sound at all like two radicals of different views speaking. ;)

I'm considered quite the radical for supporting my 2nd Amendment right, the many infringements on that right that are common today would have damned near brought about an armed revolution in my youth.

Radical is a very subjective word.

[N4VGB]

Well, I guess that's why Obama will be the first black president.
bbc


I do not believe that it is within your power to appoint Obama to the office, think we'll vote on that one in Nov. ;):D

[AE6IP]

I do not believe that it is within your power to appoint Obama to the office, think we'll vote on that one in Nov. ;):D

Indeed we will. And then in January, Senator Obama will be sworn in as President Obama.

[N4VGB]

Indeed we will. And then in January, Senator Obama will be sworn in as President Obama.

Maybe, there's still the Clinton Arkansas hit squad possibility ya know! :eek:

Hey, Hillary mentioned it ya know! :eek:

[K0RGR]

Black Liberation Theology is not and has never been a part of Christianity. Trinity Church is not and has never been a Christian Church. Obama is not and has never been Christian. Or has the resignation of Obama from his church escaped your attention? When Christianity was needed as a political tool, Obama proclaimed himself to be one, when it became obvious that he belonged to a Black Liberation Theology church, he resigned. ;):D

Trinity Church is a UCC Church - a MAINSTREAM congregation - something neither you nor Rev. Dobson would know anything about .

Dobson has now revealed himself as the one who is truly preaching weird religious beliefs. Dobson is a member of the Nazarene church - a very small sect that is the result of merging a number of smaller evangelical groups.

If you follow my posts, you'll know that I often ask the same questions Obama raised in his speech. Those questions were asked of me by my MAINSTREAM Lutheran pastor about 20 years ago. And I have heard Dobson's answer before, too. But mainstream churches, and most certainly the Baptists, don't tell you to throw out the Old Testament!

[N4VGB]

Trinity Church is a UCC Church - a MAINSTREAM congregation - something neither you nor Rev. Dobson would know anything about .
Dobson has now revealed himself as the one who is truly preaching weird religious beliefs. Dobson is a member of the Nazarene church - a very small sect that is the result of merging a number of smaller evangelical groups.
If you follow my posts, you'll know that I often ask the same questions Obama raised in his speech. Those questions were asked of me by my MAINSTREAM Lutheran pastor about 20 years ago. And I have heard Dobson's answer before, too. But mainstream churches, and most certainly the Baptists, don't tell you to throw out the Old Testament!

The Old Testament is not for Christian practice, it is currently only practiced by Islam. To Christians it is a history lesson only, but still contains some applicable lessons and information. Many individual congregations of a "mainstream" denomination have practices far removed from that denomination. I do not believe that any in UCC would support the teachings of Wright as their denominational doctrine. In fact, I believe that UCC has no doctrine and leaves that matter to each individual congregation. Many UCC congregations are also heavily comprised of openly gay members, something not normally accepted by most denominational congregations, that caused quite a stir among Episcopals lately ya know.

I've never heard this Rev. Dobson, so I know nothing of him?

By nature of it's teachings "Black Liberation Theology" cannot be considered as Christian by anyone familiar with the Bible.

[k7van]

N4VGB---The Old Testament is not for Christian practice, it is currently only practiced by Islam

This will come as quite a surprise to my Catholic and Jewish friends! To say nothing of how surprised the local Moslems will be when I tell them they are supposed to use the OT instead of the Holy Koran....my goodness!
Hope you can defend that one!

de K7VV

[k7van]

Just wondering,
who gets to decide what are and what are not 'Christian' practices?

de K7VV

[N4VGB]

This will come as quite a surprise to my Catholic and Jewish friends! To say nothing of how surprised the local Moslems will be when I tell them they are supposed to use the OT instead of the Holy Koran....my goodness!
Hope you can defend that one!


Never being one to fear stirring the pot, it is difficult for most Christians to view Catholicism as proper practice of Christianity. I am quite familiar with Catholic practices, having cohabitated with a Catholic lady for some time. We sinned a lot and I had to drive her to early Mass and Confession on many occassions, the girl nearly wore out those beads while mumbling her required penances. It concerned her greatly when I informed her the guy in the booth couldn't absolve her sins.

For your information and enlightenment, the Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament. That is what Jews follow, still waiting for the Messiah ya know.

I can see how one totally unfamiliar with the Old Testament would be surprised by the parallels between what was practiced by Hebrews and what is now practiced by Muslims. Reading both a Quran and Bible should help your understanding of the matter. Might open your eyes to find that both Jews and Arabs claim Abraham as their father?

[K6BBC]

A history lesson? I guess you have never read it. It written as complete parable. And good stuff in there too. But history. Me thinks not.

bbc

The Old Testament is not for Christian practice, it is currently only practiced by Islam. To Christians it is a history lesson

[K6BBC]

Two people. Me and W2ILP.

bbc

Just wondering,
who gets to decide what are and what are not 'Christian' practices?

de K7VV

[N4VGB]

A history lesson? I guess you have never read it. It written as complete parable. And good stuff in there too. But history. Me thinks not.
bbc

Read many times. Some factual and some allegory, that is well known. It's all very good stuff. Since you believe the Old Testament to be all only a "parable", no belief in Jesus could be possible for you either and any reading of the New Testament would be wasted time on your part. :rolleyes:

[n2ize]

Indeed we will. And then in January, Senator Obama will be sworn in as President Obama.

Not that that is going to be any bargain either. :eek: :(

[AE6IP]

The Old Testament is not for Christian practice, it is currently only practiced by Islam.

Don't look now, but you forgot the Jews. Oh, and most Christian sects.

Or did you forget that the ten commandments are OT?

[AE6IP]

Never being one to fear stirring the pot, it is difficult for most Christians to view Catholicism as proper practice of Christianity. I am quite familiar with Catholic practices, having cohabitated with a Catholic

Given that the Roman Catholic Church is, by far, the largest Christian sect, I wonder how it is that "most" Christians could possibly not find it Christian.

You may return to your pot stirring now that I've had my laugh at how dumb it is.

[NR7J]

Well, I guess that's why Obama will be the first black president.

bbc


But for how long?

[K6BBC]

If he does well, 8 years. If he sucks, 4 years. That's how it works. Wait. Hold on...

But for how long?

[KP3FT]

So what you are saying is he is the wrong kind of Christian. But let's face it, in Dobson's mind there are only a few who are the right kind of Christian. And what of the non-Christian world? How do they hold it together?

bbc
Sure, the only good Christian is a silent one or a compromiser, right? The "right kind" of Christians are those who follow God's word.
When you read the world news, does it really look like the non-Christian world is "holding it together"?

[KP3FT]

The founding fathers were most certainly considered radicals in their time, as was Jesus if you choose to believe the storyline. Maybe not a complete radical, but certainly a liberal by that era's standards.

================================================== =======

We created this website because we believe the historical, Biblically documented teachings of Jesus
Christ clearly show that Jesus is a Liberal. His philosophy, based in compassion, equality,
inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and - most importantly - love, is 100% Liberal.

For 20 years we have seen the growing domination of the radical right wing evangelicals on TV, on
the radio and in the news, newspapers and magazines and in politics - claiming to own a virtual
monopoly on Jesus. They have redefined what He meant and used His name to advance their
radical right wing social, business, governmental, political and military agenda... (http://www.jesusisaliberal.org)

[NOTE: I'm not advocating the beliefs of that website, but it does make a very valid point.]

Interesting link, but they shamelessly cherry-pick scriptures to fit their view and omit scriptures that weaken their view. Taken as a whole, Jesus complete ministry would be (and is) rejected by liberal churches today. Before I even went to the link, I knew they would quote the common scripture where Jesus told the men they could start throwing stones at the adulterous woman if they themselves had never sinned. Sure enough, there it was, along with the usual omission of Jesus' words to the woman right after the men left: go, and sin no more . They like the part about not judging people, but always conveniently leave out that "sin" part. Today's "liberal" mindset is that there is no sin, yet Jesus actually talked about sin and Hell more than Heaven. According to Jesus, if a person stays in sin without repenting and turning to God, they will go to Hell. That's what the fundamentalists focus on: sin and Hell. Yes, it's also good to be nice and loving to people, but rejecting the concept of sin has an eternal deadly consequence. With all the focus on liberals, fundamentals, neoconservatives, moderates, denominations and such forth in Christianity, it's easy to stray from the only authoritative final say: the Bible. A glaring example of certain "Christian" denominations is the recent acceptance and ordination of gay priests and pastors. The Bible makes it so unbelievably, unmistakably clear that this is wrong, that it's mindboggling that these churches could even entertain the notion. According to the Bible, homosexuality is sin. Jesus said to love the sinner, but he also said to hate sin. As with everything else, balance is needed.

[KP3FT]

A history lesson? I guess you have never read it. It written as complete parable. And good stuff in there too. But history. Me thinks not.

bbc

What?? You are at least a century behind the times, when that idea was common. In this modern era, we know the Old Testament is positively loaded with history. In fact, it mentions civilizations and people that were, until recently, unknown in any other writings. Two examples are the Hittites first mentioned in Genesis, and King Sargon who was mentioned in only a single verse in Isaiah. We know today through archeology that they were real people. Also, those two examples were formerly used by skeptics to "prove" the Old Testament was not history. Another example is the ancient city of Jericho which has been found, along with specific unusual features that verify the Biblical description. The Old Testament, especially Genesis, is laced with Kings, Pharaohs, cities, lands, customs, etc. which have been verified via archeology. It's interesting because just how far back do we need to go in Genesis where it stops being history and becomes just "myth" that the skeptics so eagerly wish for?

[w2amr]

Fairy tales for the gullible, designed to control.

[W3MIV]

...just how far back do we need to go in Genesis where it stops being history and becomes just "myth" that the skeptics so eagerly wish for?

That's easy to answer, myth begins at July, 4004 BCE (going backwards), if I remember my Bishop Ussher correctly.

[KV1M]

Sure, because he is a good example of being the "salt of the earth" as Jesus said Christians should be. Salt was a preservation agent in those days. If Christians sit back and do nothing, the world falls further into debauchery and beastly values. Dobson's a hero in my view; not a compromiser of his faith and willing to fight for what's right. He's exactly right about Obama. Obama has the audacity to claim being a Christian and but holds very un-Christian values...a hypocrite.

And here I thought the "salt of the earth" thing was about killing off your neighbors land for eternity.

[KB9YCO]

...In this modern era, we know the Old Testament is positively loaded with history. In fact, it mentions civilizations and people that were, until recently, unknown in any other writings...The Old Testament, especially Genesis, is laced with Kings, Pharaohs, cities, lands, customs, etc. which have been verified via archeology. It's interesting because just how far back do we need to go in Genesis where it stops being history and becomes just "myth" that the skeptics so eagerly wish for?

No offense, but there are plenty of examples of fiction throughout history that include historical events and places, it still doesn't prove the truthfulness of the overall work. Egyptian texts contained pieces of history from real events, does that make it all true as well? There are many, many other examples too numerous to list here, yet none of them prove that any one theology is the 'true faith', only faith itself can convince an individual of that, and that is not tangible evidence. If it works for you then great, but claiming pieces of history contained within is not proof of anything.

The Old Testament...To Christians it is a history lesson only, but still contains some applicable lessons and information. Many individual congregations of a "mainstream" denomination have practices far removed from that denomination.

This is what always amuses me about staunch believers of religion. My book is right but yours is just bunk. Yet, each religious book claims to be the only way and if you don't follow it then you're wrong. What makes your 'right' anymore correct than any other religion? That's the problem, there's no way to verify any of it, thusly the reason that faith is required. All the history in the world could be contained in any number of religious texts and it still can't prove that the overall theology is true.

[N4VGB]

This is what always amuses me about staunch believers of religion. My book is right but yours is just bunk. Yet, each religious book claims to be the only way and if you don't follow it then you're wrong. What makes your 'right' anymore correct than any other religion? That's the problem, there's no way to verify any of it, thusly the reason that faith is required. All the history in the world could be contained in any number of religious texts and it still can't prove that the overall theology is true.


It's all about free will, you come willingly to GOD or not at all. ;)

[n2ize]

If Dobson is an example of a "good Christiian" then I hope I'm a bad Christian... better yet, not a Christian at all.

[K6BBC]

Would you mind explaining to me why Christmas and Easter appear to be closely related to the Pagan holidays that came before?

If your version of God is the true version, why did he neglect to tell the folks in India, China, Korea, Japan, etc?

Clearly ones religious affiliation has far more to do with geography than divine message.

A number of years ago I was traveling trough Europe and discovered the people there had never heard of Johnny Carson.

bbc

It's all about free will, you come willingly to GOD or not at all. ;)

[N4VGB]

Would you mind explaining to me why Christmas and Easter appear to be closely related to the Pagan holidays that came before?

If your version of God is the true version, why did he neglect to tell the folks in India, China, Korea, Japan, etc?

Clearly ones religious affiliation has far more to do with geography than divine message.

A number of years ago I was traveling trough Europe and discovered the people there had never heard of Johnny Carson.

bbc

Because Christmas and Easter are the inventions of man.

He didn't. The Book of Job is thought to be the oldest text contained in the Bible and is also thought to be from somewhere in Asia. It's style is completely different than other books.

Are you unaware that in many parts of the world you profess the religion commanded of you or risk your life?

I've noticed that Oprah Winfrey has started her own religion, I didn't konw that Johnny Carson had followers also.

[K6BBC]

Well, you have your ideas I guess.

I still chose to worship the Randy's Doughnut sign at the bottom of the Manchester exit near LAX. To me, it makes about as much sense and far less harmful.

bbc

Because Christmas and Easter are the inventions of man.

He didn't. The Book of Job is thought to be the oldest text contained in the Bible and is also thought to be from somewhere in Asia. It's style is completely different than other books.

Are you unaware that in many parts of the world you profess the religion commanded of you or risk your life?

I've noticed that Oprah Winfrey has started her own religion, I didn't konw that Johnny Carson had followers also.

[KB9YCO]

It's all about free will, you come willingly to GOD or not at all. ;)

Understood, and even appreciated, to each their own as long as they don't force it on me. But, it still doesn't change the fact that a religious text in and of itself does not prove the existence of a god or the truthfulness of one religion over another.
Zealots like big mouth Dobson trying to claim that their version isn't distorted while someone else's version is just further proves the point that there are many different interpretations (and distortions) of many different re-interpreted texts and theologies. Who is to know which one is the right one? Even the Christian religion as a whole can't agree since there are Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans and so on. Who is to say which one is more 'right' than any other?
If your religion works for you then great, but all this pompous railing away by people like the nitwit Dobson only serve to further the divisions and misunderstanding in an era where common ground and tolerance for varying opinions is needed more than ever.

[KP3FT]

No offense, but there are plenty of examples of fiction throughout history that include historical events and places, it still doesn't prove the truthfulness of the overall work. Egyptian texts contained pieces of history from real events, does that make it all true as well? There are many, many other examples too numerous to list here, yet none of them prove that any one theology is the 'true faith', only faith itself can convince an individual of that, and that is not tangible evidence. If it works for you then great, but claiming pieces of history contained within is not proof of anything.

No offense taken. I was responding to K6BBC's comment that the Old Testament is a " complete parable". It certainly is not, as proven by the multitude of verifiable history it contains. You are also right in that verified historical facts do not prove unverified claims in a particular volume. However, it can add to the credibility of the volume and should cause us to pause, think, and examine more closely the rest of that volume. As time passes, we verify more and more of the Bible. For example, in the past it was popular in many academic circles to believe Jesus Himself was not an historical man, but only a myth. Now we have proven via non-Biblical manuscripts, etc. that His physical existence was a real event. His sensational miracles are hinted at in one non-Biblical Jewish manuscript where he is referred to as practicing sorcery or magic. Absolute proof of miracles? No, but it is circumstantial evidence from a hostile witness. There's more non-Biblical evidence of unusual or supernatural claims made by the Bible, but I can't post them here at the moment due to time.

This is what always amuses me about staunch believers of religion. My book is right but yours is just bunk. Yet, each religious book claims to be the only way and if you don't follow it then you're wrong. What makes your 'right' anymore correct than any other religion? That's the problem, there's no way to verify any of it, thusly the reason that faith is required. All the history in the world could be contained in any number of religious texts and it still can't prove that the overall theology is true.

That can be taken to the extreme as well. The inference, maybe not by you but definitely by others, seems to be that religions are all untrue because all followers think theirs is the one true religion. Well, what if there is one true religion and the others are false? That concept is seen all the time in non-religious things. Some people believed the earth was flat, others that it was round. One group was wrong, the other right. A woman believes she is pregnant, her husband doesn't. One of them is right, the other wrong.

[KP3FT]

Understood, and even appreciated, to each their own as long as they don't force it on me. But, it still doesn't change the fact that a religious text in and of itself does not prove the existence of a god or the truthfulness of one religion over another.
Zealots like big mouth Dobson trying to claim that their version isn't distorted while someone else's version is just further proves the point that there are many different interpretations (and distortions) of many different re-interpreted texts and theologies. Who is to know which one is the right one? Even the Christian religion as a whole can't agree since there are Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans and so on. Who is to say which one is more 'right' than any other?
If your religion works for you then great, but all this pompous railing away by people like the nitwit Dobson only serve to further the divisions and misunderstanding in an era where common ground and tolerance for varying opinions is needed more than ever.

Again, all the denominations, etc. are meaningless as far as "right and wrong". It all comes back to the Bible as the authority. The very first Christian church had no denomination, it simply was Christian. Even during the Apostles lifetime certain groups were leaving and/or teaching false ideas in the churches. These groups were not referred to by Jesus and the Apostles as "liberal, progressive, conservative, etc." but instead "false teachers". If a denomination rejects the Bibles teachings, then they are flatly wrong. It's just that simple. Who cares what Dobson thinks...instead, what does the Bible say? Dobson is trying to get Christians back to the Bible. He's not a cult leader with fanatical followers. He's an influential Christian who publicly fights against non-Biblical teachings, and there's many Christians who happen to share his view and support him.

[K6BBC]

Well said. And regarding Dobson -- he is just another self-loathing closeted gay using the bible to self flagellate. This is the result of being raised on the unprovable, shamed to hide ones nature, and given a healthy does of busy-bodiness.

bbc

Understood, and even appreciated, to each their own as long as they don't force it on me. But, it still doesn't change the fact that a religious text in and of itself does not prove the existence of a god or the truthfulness of one religion over another.
Zealots like big mouth Dobson trying to claim that their version isn't distorted while someone else's version is just further proves the point that there are many different interpretations (and distortions) of many different re-interpreted texts and theologies. Who is to know which one is the right one? Even the Christian religion as a whole can't agree since there are Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans and so on. Who is to say which one is more 'right' than any other?
If your religion works for you then great, but all this pompous railing away by people like the nitwit Dobson only serve to further the divisions and misunderstanding in an era where common ground and tolerance for varying opinions is needed more than ever.

[k7van]

Ah, so, which version of the bible are you referring to? There are a great many variations. Which one is correct?

de K7VV

[KB9YCO]

Again, all the denominations, etc. are meaningless as far as "right and wrong". It all comes back to the Bible as the authority. The very first Christian church had no denomination, it simply was Christian...
If a denomination rejects the Bibles teachings, then they are flatly wrong. It's just that simple.

Again, we're back to the same problem. Which version of the bible is the correct one? In my life I've read a number of different interpretations that all claim to be the 'true bible' and yet varied in quite a number of way. So, who decides which version of the bible is the one that is really the "word of God" as opposed to the word of man?

Who cares what Dobson thinks...instead, what does the Bible say? Dobson is trying to get Christians back to the Bible. He's not a cult leader with fanatical followers. He's an influential Christian who publicly fights against non-Biblical teachings, and there's many Christians who happen to share his view and support him.

On that I have to flatly disagree. The so-called Doctor Dobson is a prime example of exactly what Christianity is not supposed to be; intolerant, unforgiving, fanatical, quick to condemn and judge, and just plain the opposite of the message of Jesus.
While there may be many that share his view and support him that doesn't make him any less fanatical. I supposed it's all relative to what your personal ideology is, but I know a number of clergy people that are not intolerant, extremist, and reactionary like "Dr." Dobson. In my mind he represents exactly all that is wrong with the extreme religious right and only furthers the stereotype that all Christians are fanatical, which most of us know to be not true.

Oh well, you know what they say about opinions, I'm sure we could go in circles for a long time about this one.

[N4VGB]

Well, you have your ideas I guess.
I still chose to worship the Randy's Doughnut sign at the bottom of the Manchester exit near LAX. To me, it makes about as much sense and far less harmful.
bbc


I was a regular at Dunkin Donuts myself. Expanding waistline brought my visits to a halt. :o

[N4VGB]

Well said. And regarding Dobson -- he is just another self-loathing closeted gay using the bible to self flagellate. This is the result of being raised on the unprovable, shamed to hide ones nature, and given a healthy does of busy-bodiness.
bbc

Might be a much simpler motivation, MONEY! Ever seen the financial reports from some of these guys? ;)

Obama and Wright managed to snag $15 million in fed grants alone via Trinity, that ain't chump change ya know! :rolleyes:

[N4VGB]

Ah, so, which version of the bible are you referring to? There are a great many variations. Which one is correct?

de K7VV

Plain old King James man myself, but there are others in the library here. Along with the Apocryphal Works, Gnostic Gospels, Quran, etc. :)

[k7van]

Part history,
part fable,
part myth,
part morality play,
part law,
part good example,
part bad example,
part literature,
part deliberate fraud (on the part of 'the church' during the middle ages)
but the real issue issue is,
is any of it the 'divinely inspired and revealed word of God'?
and how would we know?
(and ya can't claim 'because it says so' as proof.)

de K7VV

[N4VGB]

part deliberate fraud (on the part of 'the church' during the middle ages)
but the real issue issue is,
is any of it the 'divinely inspired and revealed word of God'?
and how would we know?
(and ya can't claim 'because it says so' as proof.)
de K7VV


Via interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is no evidence of deliberate fraud in the interpretation of the King James Bible. There is some question on a few words here and there that don't really change the overall meaning to me. Ancient Hebrew to Greek to Old English translation, there's bound to be a word here and there that is a little off.

"divinely inspired and revealed word of God", that one's up to you, can't help you on that one. It's all about free will. :)

[k7van]

Many Americans and ALL DX'ers are sun worshipers, following the cult of Amenhotep (Akhenaten) who worshiped Ra, the Eqyptian sun god.

I mean, think of the tens and hundreds of thousands of American males who sit in huge stadiums every fall and shout Ra! Ra! Ra!

Think of the Palus Verde Sundancers and all the work it takes every 11 years or so to turn the sunspot cycle around again so we get better radio conditions! The sacrifices we make just to work DX!

Our God is the true God, and I've got the DXCC stickers to prove it! His works are mighty and truly revealed to me in the A-Index, the K-Index and the Solar Flux!

And Galileo was his prophet!

de K7VV

[N4VGB]

Our God is the true God, and I've got the DXCC stickers to prove it!


But do you have Scarborough Reef!? :D

[k7van]

I recommend to you the works of Bart D. Ehrman, "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew", "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", and "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament".

de K7VV

[k7van]

Yes, phone, cw and rtty.
I have everything on the current DXCC list and about 15 deleted as well, total of 352 worked. 'Number 1" Mixed and Phone, and need 3 for CW Honor Roll (oh, it's frustrating to have missed so many on CW when I could have worked the darn things, but didn't....) But, there again, I've been DX'ing for 50 years!

de K7VV

[k7van]

Actually, I'm told that the King James Version is one of the least accurate translations around, just the most popular because language used.

de K7VV

[N4VGB]

I recommend to you the works of Bart D. Ehrman, "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew", "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", and "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament".
de K7VV


Why would I read books about books that didn't get included in the Bible, when all the books named in those books can be purchased at any decently stocked Christian bookstore? :rolleyes:

Now if you're a big believer in the idea that the Catholic Church has multiple texts hidden away, can't help you on that one. :)

[NC5P]

Back in the 90's I worked at a radio station that carried his show. The station was a secular station, they just had his show in amongst other talk shows. I didn't think he was extreme at all. Nothing like many other televangelists like Heretic Hagee or radio shock preachers like Bob Larson. To be fair I haven't listened to him in many years, maybe he's changed. After leaving broadcasting I quit listening to talk radio.

[k7van]

N4VGB......Well, help me follow ur logic here. I'm not sure I understand the point ur trying to make.

My point(s) are,:a. What we ordinarily think of as 'the Bible' is the result of a 1000 year long selection process in which some books were added, some dropped, many different versions of books reworded. Some of this was done for various theological (broadly thought of) reasons, some for political reasons at church convocations, some were 'bad translations' , and some are at least partially frauds.
b. Most christians (so called) have not the foggist idea of the above processs, or they would not and could not believe in a 'literal' understanding of 'the bible', simply because there is no such thing as 'the bible', thats what 'biblical criticism' from the 18th century on-ward was and is all about.
c. Reading the commentary and explanations by scholars gives the reader an understanding of the evolutionary (almost a pun here) development of 'the bible', it gives the historic CONTEXT that is necessary to understand what you're REALLY reading when you're reading 'the bible'.

de K7VV

[KP3FT]

Part history,
part fable,
part myth,
part morality play,
part law,
part good example,
part bad example,
part literature,
part deliberate fraud (on the part of 'the church' during the middle ages)
but the real issue issue is,
is any of it the 'divinely inspired and revealed word of God'?
and how would we know?
(and ya can't claim 'because it says so' as proof.)

de K7VV

Prophecy that has been fulfilled is a good indicator of divine inspiration. The prophecies in Daniel were amazingly accurate, as well as the prophecies regarding the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.

[n2ize]

Prophecy that has been fulfilled is a good indicator of divine inspiration. The prophecies in Daniel were amazingly accurate, as well as the prophecies regarding the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.

I have made several prophecies which have come true. Therefore I am God.

[KP3FT]

Again, we're back to the same problem. Which version of the bible is the correct one? In my life I've read a number of different interpretations that all claim to be the 'true bible' and yet varied in quite a number of way. So, who decides which version of the bible is the one that is really the "word of God" as opposed to the word of man?

Thanks for not ridiculing, name calling, etc. There's so many on this forum who resort to downright meanness when disagreeing. Anyway, the problem with all the various denominations having opposing beliefs is not due to the different Bible translations. It may reinforce certain opposing views, but it doesn't cause them. Every one of those translations have the identical message and all have the same most important points: Heaven, Hell, Jesus died to save all of us, sin is real and against God, we must be "born again", we can be saved by following Acts 2:38. You can lead a person to repentance and being born again using any one of the many translations. The reason most denominations have such opposing views is because they are not taking the Bible (any translation) as a whole. Instead, they base their doctrine on tradition, cherry-picked verses, and wishful thinking.
I've studied the Bible translation issue quite a bit since I moved to Puerto Rico. Since the Bible I would use most often would be in the Spanish language, I researched a bit on which one is the accurate version. In a nutshell, Bible (New Testament) translations come from three different manuscript sources: the Majority Text, the Alexandrian text, and the Latin Vulgate text. The Majority Text is backed up by roughly 5000 surviving copies of the New Testament. It was this text that the King James Bible was translated from as well as the German Bible and others. The Alexandrian text comes from Alexandria (obviously) and is based mostly on only two old manuscripts which didn't even agree with each other, and one was literally found in a trash basket. The Latin Vulgate text is the one that the Catholic Bible is based on. The Majority Text is far and away the accurate one. Most newer translations do not use the Majority Text however; they use the Alexandrian and the Latin Vulgate. Wescott and Hort, two so-called "scholars" in the 1800's, are to thank for introducing the trend away from the Majority Text. They literally wrote their own Greek manuscript which they based on the two Alexandrian manuscripts, and presented it to the Bible Society that was in charge of publishing a new Bible version without the society even realizing what they had done. What the Alexandrian text does is actually subtract certain verses which are found the in Majority Text. the Latin Vulgate adds to what is found in the Majority Text. Unfortunately, publishing newer Bible translations every couple of years or so is a BIG money-maker. They always promise to be "more accurate" than the last. What they are really doing is crumbling people's faith in order to make a buck.
After that loooong discourse, any Bible translated from the Majority Text is accurate. If it's translated from the other manuscripts, it is not accurate. By the way, if you ever read a footnote in a Bible that says "the oldest and best manuscripts read...", they are referring to the corrupted Alexandrian texts. They are not "the oldest and best."

On that I have to flatly disagree. The so-called Doctor Dobson is a prime example of exactly what Christianity is not supposed to be; intolerant, unforgiving, fanatical, quick to condemn and judge, and just plain the opposite of the message of Jesus.
While there may be many that share his view and support him that doesn't make him any less fanatical. I supposed it's all relative to what your personal ideology is, but I know a number of clergy people that are not intolerant, extremist, and reactionary like "Dr." Dobson. In my mind he represents exactly all that is wrong with the extreme religious right and only furthers the stereotype that all Christians are fanatical, which most of us know to be not true.

Of what specific issues is Dobson intolerant, unforgiving, etc? What is the message of Jesus? Do these clergy people you know fear for your eternal soul and tell you about an eternal Hell, about the absolute necessity of being born again, about the concept of "sin"? These were also messages of Jesus. He even commanded the disciples to preach to all nations. What did they preach? They did preach love for fellow man but also preached hard against sin.

[k2kli]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html

Will someone explain why so many people follow this mean-spirited, self-absorbed, jerk? Since Falwell croaked, and Robertson's brain has gone to mush, this guy gets all the press. Do people really care what he thinks about the bible. I've lesten to him spout, and frankly he sounds irrational most of the time. Well, he found a good gig and he is playing it to the hilt.

bbc

Wow. Honestly I hadn't paid much attention to Obama's religious beliefs. But if he really said what was quoted in that article, COOL! I like the guy. Dobson's the one who's spent decades brainwashing people with his picking and choosing parts of the bible that work for him and conveniently forgetting the rest is there. Ironic that he gets upset and accuses Obama of the same thing.

I've yet to meet an evangelical christian who can explain, for example, how they can justify eating shrimp and wearing clothes with mixed fiber on one hand while at the same time condemning gays and lesbians. They'll quote Leviticus, they'll quote Paul in Romans, they spew vile hatred towards the GLBT community, and forget about the Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing exactly what they themselves do. Talk about distortion.

I spent almost 20 years stuck in fundamentalist Christianity and am now pretty much a flaming liberal Celtic pagan, so while everything else you guys talk about on this forum is pretty much boring drivel, I find topics like these of interest and can't help but post in them. :p

-Kelli K2KLI

[N4PRT]

Black Liberation Theology is not and has never been a part of Christianity. Trinity Church is not and has never been a Christian Church. Obama is not and has never been Christian. Or has the resignation of Obama from his church escaped your attention? When Christianity was needed as a political tool, Obama proclaimed himself to be one, when it became obvious that he belonged to a Black Liberation Theology church, he resigned. ;):D

As someone who has served in the ministry at such churches and in the African American community, your comments illustrate two immutable points:



You know absolutely nothing about the American black experience or its spirituality.
You never will.

[K6BBC]

That's exactly correct. I grew up in the hood so I have some street cred on this subject. The African Americans have a very strong and passionate connection to their Christian beliefs. And some how they manage to have these beliefs without judgment of others or trying to stuff it down other people's throats.

For my taste, they have a far healthier relationship to their faith than all of the fundamentalist I have had to displeasure of hearing spout off for the past 40 years.

bbc

As someone who has served in the ministry at such churches and in the African American community, your comments illustrate two immutable points:



You know absolutely nothing about the American black experience or its spirituality.
You never will.

[KP3FT]

Wow. Honestly I hadn't paid much attention to Obama's religious beliefs. But if he really said what was quoted in that article, COOL! I like the guy. Dobson's the one who's spent decades brainwashing people with his picking and choosing parts of the bible that work for him and conveniently forgetting the rest is there. Ironic that he gets upset and accuses Obama of the same thing.

I've yet to meet an evangelical christian who can explain, for example, how they can justify eating shrimp and wearing clothes with mixed fiber on one hand while at the same time condemning gays and lesbians. They'll quote Leviticus, they'll quote Paul in Romans, they spew vile hatred towards the GLBT community, and forget about the Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing exactly what they themselves do. Talk about distortion.

I spent almost 20 years stuck in fundamentalist Christianity and am now pretty much a flaming liberal Celtic pagan, so while everything else you guys talk about on this forum is pretty much boring drivel, I find topics like these of interest and can't help but post in them. :p

-Kelli K2KLI

Kelli,
I'm surprised you don't already know why fundamental Christians believe what they do, after you spent 20 years in it. Yes, there are some preachers and members who actually do fit the Pharisee description, but regarding the Leviticus, Romans, etc. scriptures:
1. God made covenants periodically, starting with the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic (Levitical laws, etc.) and finally the New Testament covenant which we have presently. Many Levitical laws were for that Mosaic covenant and do not apply today and did not apply prior to Moses, which God even pointed out to Peter emphatically. However, throughout the Bible, God makes it clear that He considers certain things "abominations" regardless of any particular covenant time period. One thing I keep repeating here in my posts is the concept of "sin", which Jesus Himself stressed over and over, yet no seems to have an answer for. The modern liberal, "meek and mild" Jesus that people think is Biblical is simply not real. Did you know Jesus preached about Hell much more than Heaven? He flatly condemned sin. Homosexuality seems to be the main issue here that people want "tolerated" and accepted. Homosexuality is "sin". How in the world can Jesus accept a sexual practice that He Himself condemns as sin? For that matter, heterosexual sex is condemned as sin as well if the people are not married, from Jesus' own words. Paul's writings are as valid as Jesus' words...Jesus personally ordained Paul for ministry, and the other apostles accepted Paul and considered his writings holy scripture.
Everything I just said is verified in the Bible, the same Bible that people use to invent their version of the liberal, tolerant Jesus. Jesus preached love, compassion, etc. and demonstrated it, but he also preached "do not sin" to the very same individuals who he had compassion on. I challenge you and everyone else here to find me a scripture where Jesus declares His acceptance of sin.

[KB9YCO]

Thanks for not ridiculing, name calling, etc. There's so many on this forum who resort to downright meanness when disagreeing.

Nothing is added to a good debate by uncivil discourse. Far too many seem to lack the ability to discuss these days.

Anyway, the problem with all the various denominations having opposing beliefs is not due to the different Bible translations. It may reinforce certain opposing views, but it doesn't cause them. Every one of those translations have the identical message and all have the same most important points: Heaven, Hell, Jesus died to save all of us, sin is real and against God, we must be "born again", we can be saved by following Acts 2:38. You can lead a person to repentance and being born again using any one of the many translations. The reason most denominations have such opposing views is because they are not taking the Bible (any translation) as a whole. Instead, they base their doctrine on tradition, cherry-picked verses, and wishful thinking.
I've studied the Bible translation issue quite a bit since I moved to Puerto Rico. Since the Bible I would use most often would be in the Spanish language, I researched a bit on which one is the accurate version. In a nutshell, Bible (New Testament) translations come from three different manuscript sources: the Majority Text, the Alexandrian text, and the Latin Vulgate text. The Majority Text is backed up by roughly 5000 surviving copies of the New Testament. It was this text that the King James Bible was translated from as well as the German Bible and others. The Alexandrian text comes from Alexandria (obviously) and is based mostly on only two old manuscripts which didn't even agree with each other, and one was literally found in a trash basket. The Latin Vulgate text is the one that the Catholic Bible is based on. The Majority Text is far and away the accurate one. Most newer translations do not use the Majority Text however; they use the Alexandrian and the Latin Vulgate. Wescott and Hort, two so-called "scholars" in the 1800's, are to thank for introducing the trend away from the Majority Text. They literally wrote their own Greek manuscript which they based on the two Alexandrian manuscripts, and presented it to the Bible Society that was in charge of publishing a new Bible version without the society even realizing what they had done. What the Alexandrian text does is actually subtract certain verses which are found the in Majority Text. the Latin Vulgate adds to what is found in the Majority Text. Unfortunately, publishing newer Bible translations every couple of years or so is a BIG money-maker. They always promise to be "more accurate" than the last. What they are really doing is crumbling people's faith in order to make a buck.
After that loooong discourse, any Bible translated from the Majority Text is accurate. If it's translated from the other manuscripts, it is not accurate. By the way, if you ever read a footnote in a Bible that says "the oldest and best manuscripts read...", they are referring to the corrupted Alexandrian texts. They are not "the oldest and best."

Well, apparently it works for you and is enough to cause you to believe it, for me it does nothing. That being said I don't begrudge someone else their right to believe what they want to as long as they don't force it on me. I've read many religious texts over the years (I'm a reading addict) all claiming to be the 'one true religion', none have convinced me of their validity, and many are older than Christianity by a long shot.

Of what specific issues is Dobson intolerant, unforgiving, etc? What is the message of Jesus? Do these clergy people you know fear for your eternal soul and tell you about an eternal Hell, about the absolute necessity of being born again, about the concept of "sin"? These were also messages of Jesus. He even commanded the disciples to preach to all nations. What did they preach? They did preach love for fellow man but also preached hard against sin.

There are lists and lists of quotes from this man, too numerous to list here, that show that he is quite the opposite of what the message of Jesus was. Quick to judge, quick to damn, and quite arrogant about it. Listen to his sermons sometime, if you haven't already, and you will find plenty of material to pick out of his 'message' to show his extremism. I'm not going write a thesis on it, the information is readily available. I just personally think the "Doctor" is a nut, much like the late (and not so great) Falwell or any number of overly-righteous extremists. That's just my opinion, obviously your mileage will vary.

[W3MIV]

Dobson is an agent of the Antichrist.

[N4VGB]

N4VGB......Well, help me follow ur logic here. I'm not sure I understand the point ur trying to make.

My point(s) are,:a. What we ordinarily think of as 'the Bible' is the result of a 1000 year long selection process in which some books were added, some dropped, many different versions of books reworded. Some of this was done for various theological (broadly thought of) reasons, some for political reasons at church convocations, some were 'bad translations' , and some are at least partially frauds.
b. Most christians (so called) have not the foggist idea of the above processs, or they would not and could not believe in a 'literal' understanding of 'the bible', simply because there is no such thing as 'the bible', thats what 'biblical criticism' from the 18th century on-ward was and is all about.
c. Reading the commentary and explanations by scholars gives the reader an understanding of the evolutionary (almost a pun here) development of 'the bible', it gives the historic CONTEXT that is necessary to understand what you're REALLY reading when you're reading 'the bible'.

de K7VV

a:Yes, but all the Books that were considered for inclusion in the Bible but "didn't make the cut" so to speak are still available for reading.

b:Unfortunately most Christians are as lazy as the general population. They think that listening to one man's words and beating a path to a building once a week is their duty. Sticks and bricks do not a Church build, they can only make a building. The Church of Jesus is the total of man who believe in his words and practice his teachings, it is not a physical place.

c:Explanations expounded by others are fine, if you investigate them yourself and agree with them. Otherwise you've just raised up another human to a level higher than yourself and placed him between you and GOD. I'm familiar with the canonical processes that have taken place in the past and the reasoning for some books inclusion and exclusion in the Bible. It was an attempt to produce a single book of reasonable size and volume to be useful in teaching the basics of Christianity, since all available texts fill libraries.

Just as Obama has his flock that wish to be led to a "promised land", guys like Dobson have their flock also. I prefer to not join sheep, either in politics or religion. :)

[N4VGB]

As someone who has served in the ministry at such churches and in the African American community, your comments illustrate two immutable points:

You know absolutely nothing about the American black experience or its spirituality.
You never will.



If you wish to follow the teachings of Cone and his successors, that's fine with me. Have a good day. :)

[K6BBC]

Who is Cone?

bbc

If you wish to follow the teachings of Cone and his successors, that's fine with me. Have a good day. :)

[k2kli]

Kelli,
I'm surprised you don't already know why fundamental Christians believe what they do, after you spent 20 years in it. Yes, there are some preachers and members who actually do fit the Pharisee description, but regarding the Leviticus, Romans, etc. scriptures:

Actually I do understand, but once I got out of it it became obvious to me how illogical it all is.


Jesus personally ordained Paul for ministry, and the other apostles accepted Paul and considered his writings holy scripture.

Paul wasn't even alive at the same time as Jesus, so that's quite unlikely :). As for scripture, if you know your biblical history well, you'd know that men fought, killed and maimed each other for centuries over which books would be included in it. Not exactly something I'd consider to be God-inspired.


Everything I just said is verified in the Bible, the same Bible that people use to invent their version of the liberal, tolerant Jesus. Jesus preached love, compassion, etc. and demonstrated it, but he also preached "do not sin" to the very same individuals who he had compassion on. I challenge you and everyone else here to find me a scripture where Jesus declares His acceptance of sin.

When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees who had set up the woman caught in adultery, his answer to them was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That's my issue with Christianity. What you do is your business, what I do is mine. What you do is between you an God and what I do is between me and God. Stop trying to be Jesus and tell everything else "Go and sin no more." That's God's job, not yours. Take care of your own issues, stop trying to take care of everyone else's. I say all that from a Christian perspective. And BTW, lest you pull the "God will judge the entire US based on the actions of the heathens" card, need I remind you that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved had there been just a few righteous? If you're truly righteous in God's eyes, then you have nothing to worry about, no matter how many gays and lesbians there are living openly in this country. :)

[K6BBC]

Speaking of gay -- is AIDS God's punishment for that lifestyle or is AIDS merely a result of the evolution of a virus.

Serious question.

bbc



Actually I do understand, but once I got out of it it became obvious to me how illogical it all is.



Paul wasn't even alive at the same time as Jesus, so that's quite unlikely :). As for scripture, if you know your biblical history well, you'd know that men fought, killed and maimed each other for centuries over which books would be included in it. Not exactly something I'd consider to be God-inspired.




When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees who had set up the woman caught in adultery, his answer to them was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That's my issue with Christianity. What you do is your business, what I do is mine. What you do is between you an God and what I do is between me and God. Stop trying to be Jesus and tell everything else "Go and sin no more." That's God's job, not yours. Take care of your own issues, stop trying to take care of everyone else's. I say all that from a Christian perspective. And BTW, lest you pull the "God will judge the entire US based on the actions of the heathens" card, need I remind you that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved had there been just a few righteous? If you're truly righteous in God's eyes, then you have nothing to worry about, no matter how many gays and lesbians there are living openly in this country. :)

[k2kli]

Speaking of gay -- is AIDS God's punishment for that lifestyle or is AIDS merely a result of the evolution of a virus.

Serious question.

bbc

If you're asking me, I don't believe in homosexuality is sin, nor do I believe something like AIDS would be a punishment handed out for such a thing. Actually, as pagan, I don't believe in sin, just personal responsibility and every action having a result, whether it be good or bad. I live by two philosophies; live and let live, and do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. :)

[K6BBC]

I was actually interested in what the Christian perspective is -- at least here in the discussion.

bbc

If you're asking me, I don't believe in homosexuality is sin, nor do I believe something like AIDS would be a punishment handed out for such a thing. Actually, as pagan, I don't believe in sin, just personal responsibility and every action having a result, whether it be good or bad. I live by two philosophies; live and let live, and do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. :)

[k2kli]

I was actually interested in what the Christian perspective is -- at least here in the discussion.

bbc

Well all I can tell you is what I believed when I was a Christian, and at that time, as an uninformed, sheltered individual I believed much of what was taught from the pulpit, and that would have included the idea that AIDS was a punishment for homosexuals. If that were really true, then God doesn't even know how to design a method of punishment very well. Think of all the collateral damage. AIDS is not strictly a homosexual disease, though evangelicals will try to tell you otherwise. But then, if you read the OT, God did all kinds of weird and savage things, like ordering entire cities including the women and children to be killed and the goods of those cities plundered. Yep, leave it to a just, loving deity to do something like that.

[K0RGR]

Speaking of gay -- is AIDS God's punishment for that lifestyle or is AIDS merely a result of the evolution of a virus.

Serious question.

bbc

Actually, AIDS apparently evolved as a monkey virus, and is quite common among African monkeys. It's not fatal to the monkeys, either. Most likely, it was passed to humans who eat monkey meat. In Africa, most AIDS sufferers are heterosexuals.

[N4VGB]

Who is Cone?

bbc

The founding father of "Black Liberation Theology".

[N4VGB]

Actually, AIDS apparently evolved as a monkey virus, and is quite common among African monkeys. It's not fatal to the monkeys, either. Most likely, it was passed to humans who eat monkey meat. In Africa, most AIDS sufferers are heterosexuals.

UH, not really. The virus you refer to is known as SIV (simian) in monkeys, HIV (human) is a somewhat different virus.

My PhD carrying friends that are knowledgable on the subject are divided on the issue. Half seem to at least support the possibility that HIV is a mutated form of SIV and half seem to support the engineered virus theory.

The ones supporting the engineered virus theory seem to believe it was an accidental case that resulted from a Soviet Era program in Africa using a particular monkey that carries the SIV with no ill effect to itself. None of them believe the Russians were purposely trying to create HIV. Just one of those UH-OHs in life that we must all live with now.

[AE6IP]

a:Yes, but all the Books that were considered for inclusion in the Bible but "didn't make the cut" so to speak are still available for reading.

Nope. Not even all the books that made into the bible are still available for reading. There are some interesting and significant gaps in the history of the new testament and no evidence at all that any of it was actually written at the time of the events it describes rather than years later.

[AE6IP]

[Cone is t]he founding father of "Black Liberation Theology".

Sort of. James Cone is the founding father of Black liberation theology, but Black liberation theology is merely a North American version of the older liberation theology.

The theology arose separate in three distinct parts of the world, South Africa, South America, and the US. Cone is considered one of the leading proponents in the US, mostly because of his book by that name, first published in 1970, but Black Liberation theology is a derivation of Liberation theology, developed by, among others, The Peruvian Dominican priest Gustavo Gutiérrez; author of A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, Salvation. published a year later, but developed at the same time.

Gutiérrez view originated in the 1950s in the Catholic Church in Latin America,
and he adopted it from the work of Conselho Episcopal Latino Americano.

Amusinglly, Joseph Cardinal Ratiznger wrote some Preliminary Notes on Liberation Theology (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm).

[KP3FT]

Nope. Not even all the books that made into the bible are still available for reading. There are some interesting and significant gaps in the history of the new testament and no evidence at all that any of it was actually written at the time of the events it describes rather than years later.

That's quite wrong. Fragments of scripture have been found that date to the Apostles' time period, and the generation of church leaders after them quoted scriptures that match what we have today in the Majority Text (Textus Receptus). That is evidence of two things: 1. the writers of the New Testament books were in fact who they said they were; 2. the Majority Text is the accurate text.

[KP3FT]

Actually I do understand, but once I got out of it it became obvious to me how illogical it all is.

Apparently you never understood it, because you wouldn't have made your following statements if you did. I'm not making a jab here, just an observation.

Paul wasn't even alive at the same time as Jesus, so that's quite unlikely :). As for scripture, if you know your biblical history well, you'd know that men fought, killed and maimed each other for centuries over which books would be included in it. Not exactly something I'd consider to be God-inspired.

Huh?? Paul was most certainly alive at the same time. He was busy persecuting and hating Christians when Jesus appeared to him and ordained him for ministry. He then went on to spend time with the other Apostles (who were with Jesus before He was crucified) and traveled with some of them during his ministry, and finally killed by the Romans.
That's an odd logic; people fighting, killing, and maiming over any particular object has no effect on that object's origin.

When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees who had set up the woman caught in adultery, his answer to them was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That's my issue with Christianity. What you do is your business, what I do is mine. What you do is between you an God and what I do is between me and God. Stop trying to be Jesus and tell everything else "Go and sin no more." That's God's job, not yours. Take care of your own issues, stop trying to take care of everyone else's. I say all that from a Christian perspective.
Please, don't take offense here, but your thoughts must have been somewhere else for those 20 years in church. It's the Christians job to preach the Gospel. Jesus flat-out commanded Christians to preach to all nations. What is the Gospel? It's the message of being saved from sin. We shouldn't worry about everyone else? Christians are warning people about sin because they are concerned for the other person's eternal soul. I could quote so many verses to back it up. If you were asleep in a burning house, would you want someone to warn you? That is exactly the Christian perspective...a person who is not born again and continues living under sin is in a burning house.

And BTW, lest you pull the "God will judge the entire US based on the actions of the heathens" card, need I remind you that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved had there been just a few righteous? If you're truly righteous in God's eyes, then you have nothing to worry about, no matter how many gays and lesbians there are living openly in this country. :)
That "card" was never in my head. However, God is going to judge the entire world based on it's heathen actions. That's from Jesus' own words by the way, including his statements that the last days will be like the days of Noah and of Sodom and Gomorrah, in that many people will be living utterly in sin without a care for God. Much more than a few righteous will be around but it won't stop the judgment. That's also from Jesus by the way.
As a sidenote, according to the Bible, the world in the "last days" will be such that Jerusalem will a large burden for all nations, and the world's global economy will not allow a person to participate in it unless they have some kind of identification. That sounds more like the evening news to me, but it was written 2000 years ago. Jerusalem is already a powder keg, and the economy is becoming more global and consolidated as we speak. It's time for people to wake up...events are unfolding very rapidly exactly as the Bible foretells it.

[ka5s]

According to Jesus, if a person stays in sin without repenting and turning to God, they will go to Hell. That's what the fundamentalists focus on: sin and Hell. Yes, it's also good to be nice and loving to people, but rejecting the concept of sin has an eternal deadly consequence. With all the focus on liberals, fundamentals, neoconservatives, moderates, denominations and such forth in Christianity, it's easy to stray from the only authoritative final say: the Bible.

The ostentatious Christianity many of us profess seems to me a pure caricature. It is either all forgiveness, or hellfire and damnation for the least of transgressions; Unitarian or Damnitarian, Jonathan Edwards at his most severe (http://edwards.yale.edu/images/pdf/sinners.pdf).
(excerpt)
"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. "

Of course, that sermon was preached in 1741, when failure to go to church was a crime in Massachusetts.

IMO, an ostensible Christian who condemns homosexuality for religious reasons nowadays is himself cherry-picking scripture if he eats ham or uses a toilet built into the house or violates any of 611 other commandments (http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm). The folks who KEEP those commandments don't insist others do so (http://www.aish.com/wallcam/7_Noachide_Laws.asp), though.

So THAT'S all right!


Cortland
KA5S

[ka5s]

Speaking of gay -- is AIDS God's punishment for that lifestyle or is AIDS merely a result of the evolution of a virus.

Serious question.

bbc

Sin? Or a natural consequence of one's behavior? There are rational explanations why we are bid to refrain from a lot of things religion calls sin.


Cortland
KA5S

[ka5s]

...Most christians (so called) have not the foggist idea of the above processs, or they would not and could not believe in a 'literal' understanding of 'the bible' ...

Modern day Ma Fergusons (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/if_english_was_good_enough_for_jesus_its_good_enou gh_for_texas/), eh?


Cortland
KA5S

[W3MIV]

Jerusalem is already a powder keg, and the economy is becoming more global and consolidated as we speak. It's time for people to wake up...events are unfolding very rapidly exactly as the Bible foretells it.

By this statement, I take it you have a bag packed and standing by the bedstead awaiting your moment of flight?

[k2kli]

Huh?? Paul was most certainly alive at the same time. He was busy persecuting and hating Christians when Jesus appeared to him and ordained him for ministry. He then went on to spend time with the other Apostles (who were with Jesus before He was crucified) and traveled with some of them during his ministry, and finally killed by the Romans.

You are correct, but it is not likely he ever met Jesus personally. His Damascus Road experience was after the crucifixion.


That's an odd logic; people fighting, killing, and maiming over any particular object has no effect on that object's origin.

It certainly does when those men are fighting and killing each other over that particular object's content.


Please, don't take offense here, but your thoughts must have been somewhere else for those 20 years in church. It's the Christians job to preach the Gospel. Jesus flat-out commanded Christians to preach to all nations. What is the Gospel? It's the message of being saved from sin. We shouldn't worry about everyone else? Christians are warning people about sin because they are concerned for the other person's eternal soul. I could quote so many verses to back it up. If you were asleep in a burning house, would you want someone to warn you? That is exactly the Christian perspective...a person who is not born again and continues living under sin is in a burning house.

Great. Preach all you want. There is a 1st amendment. Just don't try to oppress others based on your beliefs. Let me also remind you that Jesus also taught a lot of other things too, like not placing an emphasis on material things, even to the point of giving away all that you have and totally trusting in God for your daily sustenance. I know a lot of Christians, and I don't know *any* who live like that.

There's also a big difference between preaching to someone because you really care about them and preaching to them because they disgust you and you want them to either change or drop dead. Most Christians, if they were honest, would admit they'd like to see quite a few people drop dead.

As far as where my thoughts were, they were quite focused on my relationship with God, though it was all rooted in fear, as that is what is taught and how people in churches are controlled and how most of them come to be "born again" (fear of hell). If it seems my current way of thinking doesn't align with being a "true believer" and being "born again" it's because I have been out of it for so long and my way of thinking these days is, thankfully, very far from what it was back then in many ways.


That "card" was never in my head. However, God is going to judge the entire world based on it's heathen actions. That's from Jesus' own words by the way, including his statements that the last days will be like the days of Noah and of Sodom and Gomorrah, in that many people will be living utterly in sin without a care for God. Much more than a few righteous will be around but it won't stop the judgment. That's also from Jesus by the way.
As a sidenote, according to the Bible, the world in the "last days" will be such that Jerusalem will a large burden for all nations, and the world's global economy will not allow a person to participate in it unless they have some kind of identification. That sounds more like the evening news to me, but it was written 2000 years ago. Jerusalem is already a powder keg, and the economy is becoming more global and consolidated as we speak. It's time for people to wake up...events are unfolding very rapidly exactly as the Bible foretells it.

And in Sodom and Gomorrah (which wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality BTW) if there had been a few righteous God would have spared them, according to the OT.

I'm quite happy being pagan and I have no fear of death or the future, however it is sad what men do to our earth and how they oppress each other.

[k7van]

Alright.

I gotta confess. (Confession is good for the Soul (or is it Sole))

I'm really a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

(sigh....)

http://www.venganza.org/

de K7VV (a believer in the separation of spaghetti and state)

[N4VGB]

I'm really a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


By your posts, it would seem the appropriate place for you. :)

[AE6IP]

That's quite wrong. Fragments of scripture have been found that date to the Apostles' time period, and the generation of church leaders after them quoted scriptures that match what we have today in the Majority Text (Textus Receptus). That is evidence of two things: 1. the writers of the New Testament books were in fact who they said they were; 2. the Majority Text is the accurate text.

Actually, it's quite right. Even you had to write down "fragments" and "Apostles' time period".

But even fragments from sixty or so years after the events portrayed don't qualify as writing at the time. There is zero evidence that any of the four gospels were written any earlier than decades after, and that's the period that the fragments date from.

As far as quoting, that's selective evidence, since the church systematically destroyed all contradictory writing, and that which survived is dismissed as heresy. The Textus Receptus is merely a consensus, decades later, of which writings to consider authentic and which not.

[k2kli]

Alright.

I gotta confess. (Confession is good for the Soul (or is it Sole))

I'm really a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

(sigh....)

http://www.venganza.org/

de K7VV (a believer in the separation of spaghetti and state)

Personally I like Mr. Deity (http://www.mrdeity.com). He's pretty cool for a pompous deity (at least he doesn't try to hide it like the real Christian deity), but I'm really a big fan of Lucy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKM_JlCIMak).

[k7van]

Well, not really Holy Crow, more like holy crow....

Anyhow, Mr Deity is great.....gotta watch the whole series.

Had no idea such a thing existed.

Wonder if he accepts converts from Flying Spagettiheads?>.......

de K7VV

[WA8FOZ]

[/U][/I][/B]"Never being one to fear stirring the pot, it is difficult for most Christians to view Catholicism as proper practice of Christianity. "

There are over one billion Catholics in the world. The countries with Protestant established churches have in fact almost no religious life at all among those churches. Today, in England, on most Sundays there are more people in Catholic than C of E churches. Many of the other Christians in the world are Orthodox, and then there are some Anglicans and Lutherans who do not consider themselves Protestant. In total, outside the USA, Protestantism, whatever its virtues, is mostly a sideshow. Thus the above remark is at best ill-founded: "most Christians" are Catholics.

Bible (New Testament) translations come from three different manuscript sources: the Majority Text, the Alexandrian text, and the Latin Vulgate text. The Majority Text is backed up by roughly 5000 surviving copies of the New Testament. It was this text that the King James Bible was translated from as well as the German Bible and others. The Alexandrian text comes from Alexandria (obviously) and is based mostly on only two old manuscripts which didn't even agree with each other, and one was literally found in a trash basket.

Again, ill-founded. There are MANY more sources than these, and the "Majority" text is in fact the result of different, though often similar texts, fragments really. Besides the "Alexandrian" texts there are many other sources such as the Septuagint. These in turn rely on still older multiple texts, some of which can only be extrapolated, notably "Q." The notion of one particular stream being "better" rests upon faith rather than philology, empirical evidence, or textual criticism. In general, the identification of a particular source as "better" tends to be strongly correlated with denominational identity. Indeed, the whole idea that there is a scripture is ultimately an expression of faith. We are free to believe what we wish, despite the intentions of the early Puritan theocrats:p; but we are parri passu obligated by the demands of honesty to call a thing what it is.

What is also fascinating to me is how minuscule the effective differences among the various sources prove to be, when compared with the denominational rancor associated with them. "My, how these Christians love one another!"

From my perspective, the way I see it is that:
1) The Bible is best used by those who have the whole thing; and
2) Obama is as much of a Christian as any other Protestant! ;);)

Bill

[KP3FT]

Actually, it's quite right. Even you had to write down "fragments" and "Apostles' time period".

But even fragments from sixty or so years after the events portrayed don't qualify as writing at the time. There is zero evidence that any of the four gospels were written any earlier than decades after, and that's the period that the fragments date from.

As far as quoting, that's selective evidence, since the church systematically destroyed all contradictory writing, and that which survived is dismissed as heresy. The Textus Receptus is merely a consensus, decades later, of which writings to consider authentic and which not.

It looks like I misunderstood you in my haste. I was assuming you were saying that the Gospels, etc. were written after the Apostles had died, which is a common but wrong belief. Yes, some of the writings were made decades after the crucifixion, but they were still made by the Apostles themselves who were eyewitnesses and participants to the events recorded or by fellow Christians who were with them. (Luke is an example...he was a traveling companion of Paul who was also a doctor and historian; he wrote the Gospel of
Luke and Acts.) It's like you writing a personal account of your high school years, when you are many years older. The account is valid because you are the first-hand witness and participant. One interesting piece of evidence is a fragment from the Gospel of Matthew that dates to around the time of the crucifixion itself. The fragment just happens to match the Majority Text. Manuscripts written by the generation immediately following the Apostles contain quotes of entire sections from, again, the Majority Text.
Authenticity of what books are valid scripture need to meet certain criteria. It's not a case of a bunch of guys getting together and tossing out whatever doesn't fit their agenda. If that were the case, they would have tossed out quite a bit of what was included. Many of the so-called "lost books" are writings found in Egypt from literally centuries after the crucifixion, from the Gnostics who were an oddball cult that mixed mysticism and Christianity to form their elitist religion. They penned the authorship as being not from themselves but from an Apostle, such as the Gospel of Philip.

[N4VGB]

There are over one billion Catholics in the world.


I can easily see it's appeal. Do as you please, talk to the guy in the box, drop extra cash in the box and mumble & play with the beads, all sins forgotten. :D

There's no denying the appeal of the setup and it's ability to draw more converts yearly. No one can deny it's the largest religion. :)

[AE6IP]

It looks like I misunderstood you in my haste. I was assuming you were saying that the Gospels, etc. were written after the Apostles had died, which is a common but wrong belief. Yes, some of the writings were made decades after the crucifixion, but they were still made by the Apostles themselves who were eyewitnesses and participants to the events recorded or by fellow Christians who were with them. (Luke is an example...he was a traveling companion of Paul who was also a doctor and historian; he wrote the Gospel of
Luke and Acts.).

Neither Luke, about whom little is known, and who may never have witnessed anything he wrote about first hand, nor Paul, were among the original Apostles.

It is not difficult at all to make the case that Paul is an usurper who came along later and reformed the church into his own image, having never met Christ, and having never agreed with Peter on anything. It is, indeed, the Pauline texts, and not any writings that may have been authored by people who were directly involved, which survive and have the greatest currency among Christians.

[WA8FOZ]

There are over one billion Catholics in the world.

I can easily see it's appeal. Do as you please, talk to the guy in the box, drop extra cash in the box and mumble & play with the beads, all sins forgotten.

There's no denying the appeal of the setup and it's ability to draw more converts yearly. No one can deny it's the largest religion.
__________________

Well, well, well. I thought that sort of thing had disappeared under a rock after the 1960 election. Don't you have a cross-burning to get to? But please don't answer - I do not wish to hear from you. Indeed, I wish that I did not have to know that such haters exist.

[N4VGB]

__________________

Well, well, well. I thought that sort of thing had disappeared under a rock after the 1960 election. Don't you have a cross-burning to get to? But please don't answer - I do not wish to hear from you. Indeed, I wish that I did not have to know that such haters exist.

Guess you missed my former post on the fact that I cohabitated with a Catholic young lady for quite a while? :rolleyes:

[K6BBC]

Cohabitation? That sounds, well.... rather sinful. Dil, I would have never thought it was so. My world view is shattered.

bbc

Guess you missed my former post on the fact that I cohabitated with a Catholic young lady for quite a while? :rolleyes:

[N4VGB]

Cohabitation? That sounds, well.... rather sinful. Dil, I would have never thought it was so. My world view is shattered.
bbc

We did indeed sin constantly!:eek:

It's fine now, I prayed my way out of trouble. :)

She's fine also. Talk to the man in the box, pay your specified fine amount, fumble beads and mumble magical incantations and a big smile would return to her face. :)

We're both happy now. ;)

Youthful excessive hormones are hard to suppress!!! :eek:

[K6BBC]

Alright, you get a pass this time. Don't let it happen again. I guess during the sixties all you old timers went a little crazy.

bbc

We did indeed sin constantly!:eek:

It's fine now, I prayed my way out of trouble. :)

She's fine also. Talk to the man in the box, pay your specified fine amount, fumble beads and mumble magical incantations and a big smile would return to her face. :)

We're both happy now. ;)

Youthful excessive hormones are hard to suppress!!! :eek:

[N4VGB]

Alright, you get a pass this time. Don't let it happen again. I guess during the sixties all you old timers went a little crazy.
bbc

It was an interesting but very confusing time in history. Hmmm, reminds me of the current situation.

Oh good grief people, we're in a time warp! 2008 is a replay of the '60s and '70s rolled into one year!

[k7van]

and I'll bet you engaged in premarital bisexual interdigitation too!

de K7VV