News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

The faith of each individual Christian rests upon the bedrock foundation of the Bible’s inspiration. If the Bible is of human origin, then it logically follows that the facts and doctrines found therein are only as reliable as human knowledge can be. However, if the biblical records were provided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), then we have every reason to believe that the facts and doctrines recorded therein are free of those imperfections and blemishes that characterize all purely human efforts.

The Greek word used in the New Testament to express the concept of inspiration is theopneustos, and itself derives from two roots—theos, God, and pneustos, breathed (from pneo, to blow or breathe). Theopneustos, therefore, would mean “God-breathed.” The word implies an influence from without producing effects that are beyond natural powers. The proper view of inspiration often is referred to as being verbal (word-for-word) and plenary (complete). This concept suggests that men wrote what God directed, without errors or mistakes, yet with their own personalities reflected in their writings.

A close examination of the Bible reveals startling proof of its inspiration. Sometimes that proof comes in the form of prophecy (always minutely foretold and completely fulfilled). Sometimes the proof comes in the form of scientific facts that were placed in the divine record hundreds or thousands of years before they were known to the modern scientific mind. This brief article deals with the latter—an important piece of scientific foreknowledge found with the biblical text that was completely unknown to man until fairly recently.

In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?

On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.

Dr. McMillen observed:


We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham....

Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K (1984, p. 93).


Moses’ information, as recorded in Genesis 17:12, not only was scientifically accurate, but was years ahead of its time. How did Moses have access to such information? The answer, of course, is provided by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16—“Every scripture is inspired of God.”

REFERENCES

Holt, L.E. and R. McIntosh (1953), Holt Pediatrics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), twelfth edition.

McMillen, S.I. (1984), None of These Diseases (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).

---
Source:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204

Russ, I urge you read the New Testament. There you will find answers to your questions on life before Christ and after Christ. The law that you are referring to (circumcise on 8th day) was only meant to last until Christ fulfilled the law. As Paul tells us, after the law had been fulfilled, we are free from it.

Paul tells us that the law was there to help humans know what sin was. He also tells us that circumcision represented a physical covenant with God in a time before the law had been fulfilled. After Christ, and the law had been fulfilled, what matters for Christians is circumcision of the heart. Paul did not teach the need for circumcision, and it was a defining chracteristic of early Christians that they did NOT circumcise. It's was a sign of our liberty in Christ.

As Paul tells us, if you place any worth on the law, then you have to fulfill all the law - as the Jews try to do. And if you try to put yourself right with God through the law, you are effectively denying what Christ did. Therefore, those who believe circumcision is necessary are Jews, not Christians.

GALATIANS 3: 19-29 - "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added in order to show what wrongdoing is, and it was meant to last until the coming of Abraham's descendant, to whom the promise was made. The Law was hadned down by angels, with a man acting as go-between. But a go-between is not needed when only one person is involved: and God is one. Does this mean that the Law is against God's promises? Not at all. For if mankind had received a law that could bringlife, then everyone could be put right with God by obeying it. But the Scripture says that the whole world is under the power of sin; and so the gift which is promised on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ is given to those who believe.

But before the time for faith came, theLaw kept us all locked up as prisoners until this coming faith should be revealed. And so the law was in charge of us until Christ came, inorder that we might be put right with God through faith. now that the time for faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.

It is through faith that all of you are God's sons in union with Christ Jesus. You were baptized into unions with Christ, and now you are clothes, so to speak,m with the life of Christ himself. So, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free men, between men and women; you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are descendants of Anbraham and will receive what God had promised."

Again I'll restate: GALATIANS 5 - 3-4 "If you allow yourselves to be circumcised then you are obliged to fulfill the whole law. Those of you who tryt o be put right with God through the law have cut yourselves off from Christ. You are outside God's grace."

Circumcision had value before Christ, and may have had health benefits in that territory and age, but it has no value now and there are no health benefits, unless someone lives in the desert.

Also:

Hebrews 10 - 5+ "When Jesus was about to come into the world, he said to God:
"you do not want sacrifices and offerings,
but you have prepared a body for me.
You are not pleased with animals burnt whole on the altar
or with sacrifices to take away sins.
Then I said here I am
to do your will, O God
just as it is written in the book of the Law.
First he said "you neither want not are you pleased with sacrifices and offerings or with animals burnt on the altar and the sacrifies to take away sins. He said this even though all these sacrifices are offered acdording to the Law. Then he sad "Here I am, O God, to do your will" So God does away with all the old sacrifices and puts the sacrifice of Christ in their place. Because Jesus Christ did what God wanted him to do, we are all purified from sin by the offering that he made of his own body once and for all.

Every Jewish priest performs his services every day and offers the same sacrifices many times: but these sacrifices can never take away sins. Christ, however, offered one sacrifice for sins, an offering that is effective forever."

15 - "This is the covenant that I will make with them in the days to come, says the Lord. I wil put my laws in their hearts and write them in their minds. And then he says "I will remember their sins and evil deeds no more." So, when these have been forgiven, an offering to take away sins is no longer needed. We have then, my brothers, complete freedom to go into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus. He opened for us a new way, a living way, through the curtain - that is his own body."

Doubtless, this will offend a great many of you (if not all) but... the problem with this forum is that it's dominated entirely (and perhaps not surprisingly) by Christians. The only source used to defend anything from eating meat to circumcision, here, is the bible. The bible, the bible, the bible. ad nauseum. Hasn't anyone taken influence in their life from something besides the bible? I would be absolutely thrilled to pieces if, just once, I saw someone on here say:

"Yeah, well Siddhartha Gutama said we shouldn't eat meat because..."

...or...

"Yes, but the Hindu faith doesn't acknowledge circumcision as ... because they've proven that ..."

I mean this as no offense, truly.

The name of this forum is Creation and Evolution, but it seems to me that it should more appropriately be called Christian Values Type X versus Christian Values Type Y.

And again, I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally trying to offend anyone but that's all I ever see on this thread, here, is quoting one excerpt from the bible after another. Creation, as a theory, is not the sole providence of Christianity, rather, any and all religions. Creationism tries to prove neither Christianity nor Jesus Christ as fact, but instead that the Universe and life cannot exist without intelligent design. That's it. The bible doesn't really enter into any of that whatsoever.

Just to add, part of the problem I have with people always using their religion to defend an argument is that in doing so one implies, of their own volition, that their religion and their religion alone is the one "right" religion and all others are wrong. That's a rather presumptuous and arrogant approach to take, don't you think? Let me expound on what I mean by this.

If we started a discussion on whether or not abortion is "humane", invariably religion (and by religion, here, I mainly am referring to Christianity) would be brought into the debate. The problem with that is, if you're going to say how something should or should not be (as in a law) then you can NOT use religion as a means of your debate. All the anti-abortionists of the world would be doing themselves and their goals a huge favor if they put their religious views aside in effort to defend their argument. You want me to understand why circumcision is acceptable or unacceptable? Great, but we don't necessarily share the same religious views so do me a favor and convince me without using your beliefs as a source of debate. Otherwise, the only people you're speaking to are the people who already agree with you (and there's no point trying to convince them if they already believe you to begin with, no sense in preaching to the choir.)

If you want to convince people of all walks of life (of all religions) to accept something as ethically and morally "right", then you need to back up your reasoning with logic and proven fact, not: "Verse XX:XX from the Bible states thou shalt not..." Because let's face it, not everyone is Christian and suggesting what should or should not be permissible because ONE religion dictates it, well you're essentially making yourself an imperialist dictator. Thank god (no pun intended) for separation of Church and State! If the pro-lifers of the world had their way, we'd all be bent in abject prostration with the Christian will forced upon us. For that matter, anyone who backs up their argument with religion falls under the same category (whether they are consciously trying to or not).

If you can win an argument or make a solid defense feasible without religion, then you are able to address all people without discretion. When you start bringing religion into the picture you instantly limit your audience (not to mention your credibility).

It is entertaining when people speak of "bringing religion into a context". Those are invariably people who know nothing about the Bible and mistakenly label it religion.

If you do not know the difference between religion and the Bible, then the only way you can attempt to become intellectually honest about the subject is to actually read and study the Bible for yourself. Anything less is hearsay and deserves the same level of credibility.

Those who have done their homework clearly understand what I am saying.

I hear what you are saying, Egan. And I agree in many ways. I would like to see more non-religious arguments used in the abortion debate, on both sides. This is not a clear-cut religious-non religious argument. There are pro-choice Christians.

To me, the simple fact is that a new human being comes into existence at conception.That is a scientific fact. To terminate the life of that human being at any point afterwards is done on the basis of a subjective belief system. Those who kill the developing human being do so on the basis of their belief it is not a valid human life. They disagree over when it is a valid life. Some say three months, others at the point when the baby can survive outside the womb. They kill on the basis of their belief that a certain thing makes us who we are. For atheists, this is often sentience. For those who believe we have a soul, it's at the time they believe the baby gets a soul, which can vary from implantation, to sentience, to actual first breath outside the womb.

All those things are subjective opinion. The only science in the issue is the fact is that a new human being exists from conception who will go through all the normal stage of human development (fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult) unless someone kills it, it gets sick, or dies some way else.

Abortion is the prime example of how a belief system is justified to kill. Science is totally ignored in favour of individual beliefs, profit, and convenience. Those who support abortion can't very well condemn others who make decisions about their children's lives based on a belief system i.e. circumcision or spanking because they are prepared to kill on the conviction that they are right.

It is amazing still that so many people believe in evolution, even though it is the most unscientific and illogical belief that has ever walked the earth.

Those who have studied this fraud will discover that it is no different than federal reserve notes being called "money" or mercury in amalgam fillings being called "safe":

It is in place for the profit of the perpetrators.

The reason many still accept evolution is because they are not able to believe in such well organized control of information ranging from textbooks to mainstream media. Others accept evolution simply because they don't want to believe such misinformation could have entrapped them, either because of their own pride or because of fear of what others may think if their opinion differs.

Anyone who has done their homework and has studied these things will clearly get to the bottom of the matter. Everyone else is just following, whether by fear or pride, they follow.

I don't mean to be harsh Eagan, so do not take what I say in an unintended way. I simply have respect for truth and so I speak it when conversation touches areas in which I am well-studied. I faithfully stay quiet and humble when conversation touches areas in which I know little or nothing.

The true meaning of the phrase "The Separation of Church and State" is exactly the opposite of the manner in which you're interpreting it. In other words:

If you knew what it really meant, you would not have used it in the context in which you did because you're perfectly contradicting yourself.

...And this is a sign of the times—that is—the ignorance in which people use these fundamental phrases which should be well understood. This is why we lose freedoms to opressive governments:

Misinformation leads to misunderstanding leads to misapplication of law.

It has a name. It's called:

Democratic rule by an ignorant majority.

The fact is, you're doing precisely the same thing in your expression of the separation clause as you are with evolution... exactly. Here is an example:

I am educated in electronics. If somone said to me, "You can remove all the resistors from a radio and it will make your batteries last longer," I would immediately know how ridiculous this is. Nevertheless, your statements about the Bible, The Separation of Church and State, and previously, evolution are no less ridiculous.

- Just as corrupt research has lead most people to believe that amalgam fillings are safe,

- Just as corrupt information has lead most people to believe that NutraSweet is harmless,

Many have come to take at face value the concept of evolution, the separation clause, and—the most slandered book ever written—the Bible, without ever studying these things for themselves.

When people simply repeat what they hear from the mob without verifying it for themselves, they become participants in misinformation, and thereby directly or indirectly, they harm others.

Study.

Is the theory of Evolution (see definition below) any more preposterous than the notion of some omnipotent entity -- who just happens to look like a male human being -- that "magically" brought the world to life with his human-like fingertips and, voila, here we all are!?

The problem lies with defining 'Evolution' in the first place. It's important to realise that just as there are various schools and sects of Christianity (or any other religion), so, too, are there different schools of thought on Evolution. But before we expound on any of that let's get one thing straight here first.

The defition of Evolution.

If you're talking about some outlandish notion that humankind manipulated its way through the gene pool, turning from amoebas, into monkeys and then homo sapiens then, yeah, I agree that's a bit outlandish. Like you've said, Russ, I don't see how anyone could believe that at all. But there's just one problem... THAT ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION!

Evolution's strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. It's proven that bacteria evolve (change) to survive against anti-bacteria drugs. It's proven that male lions who live in swamps have shed their thick and lustrous manes as part of adapting to such a different climate than scrub plains. It's proven that many different species have actually CHANGED as a consequence of their environment changing. If there is no such thing as Evolution, then God is a trickster who has created a world specifically to make it LOOK like evolution exists.

Maybe you're simply hung up on the word evolution and all the images it invokes. Instead, think "adaptation" rather than evolution. If life wasn't capable of adapting (what the dictionary defines as 'evolution' but you can choose a different word if you like) then all life, not just humans, would have died off millenia ago.

As far as Evolution being some grand conspiracy by the government to ... do ... whatever, well I find that highly unlikely if only because evolutionists are both a) a minority and b) highly discrimenated against by the mass. So, to me, that's kind of like saying the government is secretly promoting anti-nationalism in attempt to bring about true democracy (when, in actuality, what's happening is the opposite). It's very obvious what's being promoted and shoved down our throats and what's not. It's very obvious that the government in the Corporate/Mafia-led country, the U.S., wants me to buy, Buy, BUY. Wants me to drink soda -- Coke, have a can of dumb-down today. It's the real thing! Wants me to eat McDonald's. Wants me to get fat. But... evolution? Where is there the mass propaganda? Where are the leaflets, the pamphlets, the subtle suggestions in media and news? The Pope gets far more attention on CNN than even one single utterance of the word 'evolution'. And if anyone is a successful propagandist, it's CNN! So you tell me, how is evolution being secretly promoted/propogandies? Maybe I'm somehow shielded from its effects or unaware of the subtle influence it plays upon society as part of some diabolical and deliberate plot to make us all convert from Christianity to Evolution (which, by the way, if I haven't said before, Religion and Evolution don't have to oppose one another: they're perfectly compatible.)

I have to ask, are you in favor of forcing religion into school curiculums? If so, how do you feel about people born and raised of different religions going to school and having someone else's beliefs forced upon them? That doesn't invoke any sympathy in you whatsoever? You don't feel the least bit concerned that their freedom's are being violated and that maybe, just maybe, we don't all have to be Christian?

You raised some interesting points, Egan. I know they weren't addressed to me, so hope you don't mind me responding to one of them.

It is the opinion of some people that the existence of a God is unscientific. However, that is not true. Science demands and confirms the existence of a God.

Science tells us that everything has a cause. For example - a book is made of paper, paper is made from trees, trees grow from seeds, seeds come from trees which previously come from seeds in a process that goes back to the beginning of the planet, which goes back to big bang, which goes...?

Everything comes from something. That is the chain of events. However, there must be a first link. There must be an uncaused cause. There is no way around that. Scientifically, there must be an uncaused cause that could exist and happen independent to itself, that had no cause. It has to have been infinite i.e. timeless. It couldn't be big bang because that is not a cause, it is an effect. There had to have been a cause of big bang.

The unknown uncaused cause has to be able to exist independently, infinitely, and be able to set in motion the chain of events that leads up to the present moment, which is my typing this.

Add to that is the other aspect of science - life needs to come from life. To the beginning of earth history life comes from life. Where did the first living cell come from?

Science tells us that time is governed by the laws of the universe, that the temporal laws of physics are not the same outside the universe. Science tells us that time travel is possible.

Science doesn't merely suggest there is a God, science confirms the need for one - the uncaused cause.

Take away the label "x" for the uncaused cause and call it God.

Science says:
1. Must be uncaused cause
2. Must exist outside the universe
3. Must be infinite
4. Must be alive
5. Must be intelligent (capable of setting in motion chain of events leading to present).

Bible says:
1. God is the source of everything (the uncaused cause)
2. Exists outside the universe
3. Is infinite (not goverened by temporal laws of physics)
4. Is alive
5.Is intelligent.

I am very interested in science, especially astronomy, and love sci-fi. To me, God is not a "magic" theory, God is demanded and confirmed by science.

So, if a God is demanded and confirmed by science, where is that God? Would that God care for us? Would that God talk to us? Would that God come to us? Christianity says yes - that this uncaused cause God loves us, talks to us, and came to us 2000 years ago in human form. I'm a Christian because it makes the most sense to me.

Evolution/adaptation might explain the development of our planet, but it doesn't get into the bigger questions of what exists beyond the universe, temporal mechanics, or where/what the uncaused cause was.

I read that there were 16 other figures very much like "our" Jesus Christ over the centuries! "The World's 16 Crucified Saviours" by Kersy Graves.

There have certainly been a number, but where is their legacy and recorded words? Jesus is unique in this respect. If there is a God, that God would have to have talked to us in some way, wouldn't he?

And, if we disregard Christianity as a false belief, then all we're left with as the truth is one of the other religions to explain God.

I'm just mentioning what I read; I don't care either way.

You said that God "would have talked to us in some way". Yes, indeed; but I don't see why the bible would have been the only method God used/uses to communicate with us. There are other ways he tries to reach us and they may not necessarily involve a book written centuries ago.

Jesus appeared to a certain middle eastern race 2,000 yr. ago because they needed his particular message.

I'd never tell you to stop reading the bible or obeying the teachings therein, but I would point out that times have changed and we have to look elsewhere, at times, for direction.

Times have changed, but God doesn't change. Neither does the moral behaviour that God expects of us. The Bible presents us with a moral code that is the best possible way to live, in my opinion. The media tries to tell us otherwise with all the emphasis on instant gratification and pleasure in every aspect of life, but the state of the world testifies, in my opinion, to the wisdom of biblical morality. There is very little that Christians are expected to do. All Christians are to do is love people and be moral. But we can't look for God in Christians, because a lot of them don't love others, but want to control others, and are a disgrace to the faith.

I do understand your viewpoint. The trouble with Christian teaching is that it is woefully incomplete when it says "all" we are expected to do is love others and be moral.

That is akin to wearing a "KICK ME!" sign on your back when you live in a multi-cultural society, where so many others belong to religions that don't teach quite the same thing. Only Christianity says that everyone else is more important than you are and if they whack you on one cheek, hey, let them whack the other, too. Not a philosophy I want to live by, anymore.

To sum up, I think that God wants us to be good (as you correctly describe) and also SMART. Smart means looking after your own feelings and interests, too. Yes, it is a razor's edge to walk on, no doubt about it!

I really don't think Jesus meant we should have no right to self-defense. He was just trying to say that we shouldn't be vengeful.

Also, it's not so much the idea that other people are more important than ourselves, but more the idea that love should never be selfish. If we love someone, then their needs should, at the very least, be as important as our own. When someone loves truly and deeply, then the needs of the other comes first. But it's not meant to be a one way street thing. It's meant to work in a situation where everyone is caring and supporting the other.

Clearly we live in a very violent and amoral world these days. It seems like everyone is out for what they can get and there is very little respect, consideration, compassion or kindness. But that makes it all the more important that we don't all become like that. Just one candle can banish some of the darkness, and it is a very dark world.

Exactly my point. If everyone has that same love and caring in their heart, then even if they fall down at times - which they will - forgiveness will be easy for the offended party. But the scope of gross selfishness is so great that only a fool would try to live up to Christ's example.

He had himself put up on a cross so that YOU wouldn't have to, Demi, and same for all who call themselves Christians. It is wrong to try to re-do what Christ already did for all of you.

Yippee & Horray! (again)

I just love this part of a debate because we get to define terms (shouldn't that have been done first?) and that gets us closer to truth.

In response to Egan:


Yes, much.

We're walking through a desert. We find a thick, yellowing paper scroll; obviously decades old, badly torn, yet we can see what looks like writing. You carefully unroll it, leaning over, analyzing the writing as if trying to make out the meaning of the curvaceous light-brown symbols amongst what seems to be a map, clearly depicting the dividing lines between what must be land and water. You say, "Look, that's the Atlantic Ocean". You trace your finger along the straight northern border of the United States. "And there's the border between the U.S. and Canada", you add, "This can't be too old."

In the distance we see the gentle outline of what appears to be a man with a gun. As he approaches, he points the gun at you and says, "Give me the map!" You immediately pass the fragile document to him. He disappears into the distance while you and I look, wondering.

Years later we again walk together, this time, through a museum. Commenting on the enormous care taken to protect the historical artifacts, you suddenly hear children. A guide directs the large group of young kids, all holding hands, to a display along the wall over which hung an inscription imprinted on a heavy brass plate: "Dante's Enigma".

As you watch, the kids stare with wonder at the broken paper, the guide speaks: "This amazing artifact displays the power and intelligence of mother nature. Found in a remote desert by U.N. peacekeeping forces, scientists believe that this object is a result of the forces of nature compressing sand and dust like a pancake into thin sheets and then depositing lines formed by iron oxide dust accumulated from years of blowing wind. Scientists are amazed at the complexity and form of the deposits."

As the group moves on, you hastily approach the document. Astonished, you look at me and say, "This is that thing we found in the desert. Look! This is really it! I can't believe it made it here and is now on display. How many people do you thing have seen this? Isn't it wild." Soberly, I reply: "No. It's a lie."

You are the evolutionist.

I am the Christian.


Ahhh, very good. Definitions are dividers between knowledge and speculation.


More than a bit, much more, yet, some still actually believe this. Amazing.


Very good. You see well.


Ah yes, the definition of evolution. A very fluid thing (keep that in mind).


And here we have the problem which exposes of the tactics of the liars.

Is this really the definition of evolution? Who's definition? Did Darwin "define" evolution in relationship to allele frequencies?

Actually, the definitions of "evolution" have changed through the years, and this, not by mistake. You see, as bad ideas evolve <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, they have to specialize <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> in order to survive; That is, they become more specific and scientific-sounding because as technology exposes their flaws—just as when an investigation exposes a lie—the lie has to change to survive.

Most scientists would be embarrassed to say they embrace Darwins raw concepts. They will now instead say they embrace the adaptations <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> of Mendel's ideas ("systhesis"). Why? Because technology revealed something closer to the truth, and nobody likes looking stupid.

We know a lot about genetics today but there are still people running around proclaiming the ideas of chemical evolution, although one of it's two inventors gave in to the evidence and became a Christian.

I hope you're not changing the debate midstream.

Nonetheless, although science is purposefully further along than education is, the politics of science will eventually give way to the truth—yet not without resistance—about amalgam fillings. Likewise, ideas about mutation—particularly those derrived from Mendel's ideas—will change somewhat, even though the facts we now know about genetics will remain.

Within the context of this thread, particularly the things you said pertaining to Creationism, the separation of church and state and God, it's suspect—to say that least—that you now seemingly specialize <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> your definitions. In other words, this refined definition of your argument related to evolution is out of context in respect to prior posts on this thread. Why?

I am a bit suspicious.

Are you specializing your definitions? Have they become fluid—hard to pin down?

If we were to stay in context, and now based on your clairified definition of evolution, would you say there is a good explaination for life, symmetry, high order, intelligence?

Is it really unreasonable to suspect that a high intelligence put all these highly-ordered things together in a highly-ordered place with intelligence? The Mandel revisionism of evolution does not explain this. How would you?

It seems to me you actually have a problem with Christianity. Well so do I, but for different reasons. I believe Christ is exactly who He said He was precisely because it is the most logical conclusion when you study the events, prophecies and numerics involved. In fact, once you've studied it, it's hard to deny. It's really the false preconceived ideas that keep some people from reading the Bible in the first place. And these false preconceived ideas come from that thing I've mentioned so often in this thread: slander.

I watched the History channel Sunday night for several hours just to hear how they would slander the amazing book this time, and boy did they. Lies, lies, lies. Anyone who has reached even 202 level would see the lies clearly. 101'ers would be suspicous.

But some will never know the amazing benefits of understanding the concepts written in it even though people like myself openly speak about it. They will just follow the crowd and stay away—"Oh! What would people think?"

Yes, I have a problem with the religion of Christianity. Yet, I have no problem with the practice of Biblical concepts. The two—unfortunately—are no longer the same. I have no problem with Christ.


Here's another place special interests try to confuse by being ambiguous.

There is a big difference between evolving (in the traditional sense of the word) and adapting—real big, but because it is instinctively hard to see the difference, it's used as another point of confusion.

As I've said in other places on this forum, the ability for an organism to adapt is yet another evidence of intelligence in design. It's the difference in complexity between a toaster and a computer; Which one is more likely to have evolved? Yes, the more simple one, yet, hilariously, evolutionists use this added complexity—this incredible technology—as evidence for evolution. Amazing.

You see, when I look at a tree, I don't just see a tree. I see technology; A machine. We don't even understand the workings in a leaf; The systems, subsystems, systems-within-systems. How do they work? We don't yet know. It's beyond us. High order; Very high. Advanced technology, all based on a set of rules. Layer upon layer of systems based on rules.

I'm a computer programmer, among other things. I see the parallels between the internal design of a computer and man. I used to design computers (embedded systems) from the chip up.

The CPU is, of couse, the brain. The memory is, of course, the memory. The BIOS is instinct. There is a missing component, however, that's faith, creativity, inspiration. These are functions of the spirit that a man made computer does not possess. People often mistake deep algorithms for intelligence, but it only feels like intelligence. That's why those who are most emotional are least discerning.

This body is, again technology. A machine to be possessed for a time, for a purpose, to an end. It has high order and amazing construction, way beyond our current capabilities.

I challenge people to be unconventional. In this age of technology—which could be great if there were not evil people so often wanting to control everything—we know enough to know that complex things don't evolve or "adapt" without that functionality—the ability to adapt is a very high-functioning ability indeed—being already incorporated into the system.

We also have to remember this: DNA is a program, a program that is highly-formed and far more complex than any code we have today.

Who wrote it?


No, actually, you've confused adaptation—a highly intelligent design feature—for evolution. Very simple.

It's all in the interpretation of the evidence. Here's an example. This example is actually more in-depth and complicated than the distinction between evolution and adaptation, but it makes the point well.

There has been a long-standing belief that animals make people live longer. It's said that having a companion around to pet and talk to makes a person healthier so they live longer.

This belief is based on the interpretation of a study that showed that people who own pets have an average longer life.

Think for a minute. They didn't study the personality types of the people owning pets, neither did they consider a host of other factors that could be involved, but most importantly, they didn't consider this:

Many people are lonely, yet who are the ones who do something about it? Are they not the ones who go out and find a companion—they solve the problem of loneliness—as opposed to those who don't?

Logic seem to dictate that people who own pets are problem solvers. They get out and do something about the problem. They are also not afraid of responsibility, which a pet certainly brings to the table.

So, looking at this logically, you would be more likely to conclude that people who are problem solvers and not afraid of responsibility are more likely to live longer. There are other conclusions as well but this demonstrates the shallowness of this popular conclusion.


Adaptation was a pretty intelligent design feature, don't you think? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Exactly, "unlikely".

You use the word unlikely because you've never studied conspiracy theories. If you have, you would see the logic in what I am saying. I will tell you, a true conspiracy is no less persuasive than anything you know because it is just that, a study. Like science, you perform research.

People who deny conspiracy theories deny the most pervasive form of corruption, and it's just plain naive.

And I'm not changing any perceived definitions here. I'm talking about things from Enron to Oklahoma City to 9-11 to Waco to Whitewater to the Florida SWFTMD ('swiftmud') scandal to your local cop who covers for the drug dealer for a buck.


Hint: Public _ _ H _ _ L System. Give me an "S". The coverage there is huge, and that's exactly where they want it.


To the children, the implications are obvious. If evolution is true in the way they're taught it, there is no God and the Bible is incorrect. If you visit the Smithsonian Institution as I have, it's a propaganda machine when it comes to evolution, promoting the mud to ape to man concept in artistic clarity.

However, for the adult, assuming you haven't experienced the childhood inundation as I have, most don't even know who Mendel is. And even if you do, the misrepresentation of the implications is still intellectually dishonest.

Nevertheless, the mainstream evolutionary belief undermines the Bible, and this is by design. But you say: How can it be by design when it's based on science?

Well, the same way NutraSweet is based on science; The same way mercury amalgams are based on science; The same way Vioxx is based in science. The punchline is:

The scientists don't make the decisions. The politicians and corporations do.

The bottom line is that we're both after the same thing, and that is truth. The difference between us is that I've done some serious homework on these matters and you haven't.

I don't mean to offend you in this, nor do I mean to brag. (that kind of) Pride (bragging) is a waste of time. It's simply that I've put many hours into searching for the truth in these matters, and everyone else I know who has, has come to the same conclusions. Furthermore, all of us who have researched these things have become astounded at how easy it is to fool the masses, and we clearly see the millstone at work.

A lie is the same whether it's told to one person or to the world, and if the lie is appealing, it goes over big. Even the unstudied in this area see remnants of these lies because they are hard to conceal. Yet, as the media explains it away—much as a con artist explains away his seemingly illogical actions—so do the media-mobster-bankers.

A visible remnant of these lies appeared on the History Channel Sunday night for three hours. They were plain to me, yet to anyone unstudied, well, they can't be sure.

This world is a great filter and it's doing it's job just as itended: To separate those who care from those who don't.

Denial.

Those who don't often study often suffer from it. They tell themselves they care, yet they don't use their actions as a mirror to see who they really are. It's the burdon we should all face if we are to become mature.

That's why the Bible states that the judgement of God toward each individual person, whether good or bad, will be based on our actions. Our actions are our mirror.


No. In fact, I'm not in favor of public schools at all.

The founders of America stated plainly and boldly that public schools would eventually be used by the government to propagandize children.

In a free society, you don't have these issues. Each family is free to teach however they choose.

In fact, this is the Christian way which is evidenced by the laws that depict the intended rights and freedoms everyone was supposed to have in the United States. In other words, where did these freedoms come from that they who slander us are taking away so feverishly while claiming to protect freedom (how incredibly ironic that you take away freedoms to protect freedoms)?

They came from God—the God of the Christians, Yahweh is His name.

Like I said before, we have a lot in common. You just have a lot of incorrect preconceived ideas about several things.


Wouldn't happen if there was no public school system.


I have made my sympathy my career and as we all have our issues we tend toward, mine are several:

• Truth and freedom in health so we can all have the right to take care of our bodies as we please.
• Truth and freedom in money so we do business unhindered and can have prosperity which is only sustained by a precious-metal-backed economy which has no direct taxation, i.e. Income Tax (see sec 1 art 9 of the Constitution)
• Truth in government so we can eliminate fear of corruption and disallow the government from providing unfair favor to anyone in business or any other way and to prevent government from oppressing anyone. In other words, stay within the bounds of Constitutional law (which happens derived directly from Biblical law)
• Truth in media so those who lie will be properly punished for the lies they tell and the damage they do.

Truth is my personal "issue" because I believe in letting everyone have access to it, all other good things will be revealed and eventually fall right into place.

Here are a few other issues I'd love to be involved, but working every waking hour of the day and having no extracurricular life as it is, I can only do what I can do, and I do part of it here on this forum.

• There are Christians being severly opressed and killed in China.
• There are Muslims being opressed in Iraq.
• There are people being shipped out of the U.S. by the U.S. and Canadian governments for torture (this is called "torture oursourcing")
• There are atheists being opressed by parents, corrupt cops, dishonest teachers and the like
• There are babies that are never given the opportunity to live.

Take your pick.

I do what I can with more passion than most.

One of my favorite sayings is:

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."
—Edmund Burke

So I'm doing something.

It is wrong to believe we can attain salvation for ourselves, but it isn't wrong to strive to be more caring people. Jesus gave us one commandment, and that was to love others. It isn't always easy, but Jesus told us it wouldn't be easy. He also said it is very easy to care for people who care for us, and therefore it is meaningless. It is hard to care for people who put you down and hurt you and fight for immoral things, but that is when it means something, to still be able to care for them.

That doesn't mean it is wrong to feel hurt or that we should deliberately put ourselves in a situation where we are going to be hurt, but it means trying not to become bitter and hard-hearted. We should be like the good samaritan.

But remember that the Christian God is also a God of justice and hates injustice so much that those who do bad things are damned for all eternity. There are two sides of the coin. Jesus tells us that we should love people and not hate those who hate us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't apprehend criminals or that we should put ourselves in dangerous situations or that we should become doormats. It just means that instead of nasty, hateful and vengeful thoughts we should encourage loving and forgiving thoughts towards others. Hatred doesn't achieve anything.

Everyone is meant to be loving towards each other, but it doesn't happen because people have hard and cold hearts. That means it is all the harder for us to keep love and compassion in our hearts. It is easy to become immoral because everyone else is doing it. But that doesn't make it right. We have to try and keep our values and caring natures because if we don't, we become cold hearted too. We need to be trying to spread love and soften hearts if there is to be any future for humanity, not hardening our own.

"If ye love me, keep my commandment[color:"red"]s[/color] ."
John 14:15

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
John 13:34

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Matthew 5:17

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Jeremiah 17:9

"For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit"
1 Corinthians 12:8

"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"
Ephesians 1:17

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:"
Philippians 2:5

Just to clarify, the commandments doesn't refer to the law of the Old covenant which included circumcision. This covenant passed away when Christ died on the cross. It refers to the new covenant, which means we are born to freedom, but with personal responsibility, and to love others. Paul tells us what life as a Christian should involve, including morality.

DEMI: It is wrong to believe we can attain salvation for ourselves, but it isn't wrong to strive to be more caring people.

CARLA; Well, now, this minidebate all hinges, then, on the definition of "salvation". If it is okay with you, I will make my own definition.

DEMI: Hatred doesn't achieve anything.

CARLA: God gave us all emotions, not just one or two. I keep going back to Ecclesiastes (not that I follow the Old or any other Testament, but in discussion with religionists, why shouldn't I be able to refer to it): it says that "there is a time to love and a time to hate".



DEMI: Everyone is meant to be loving towards each other, but it doesn't happen because people have hard and cold hearts.

CARLA: What you call "cold-hearted", I would call a commonsense response to being kind and then being sh*t on in return. That we should repay deliberate cruelty with love & understanding is utter madness.

Oops. The above, posted by "Anonymous", was by me, Carla.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn't explain it too well. Nevermind. I was trying to say that as Christians we should not to be bitter and revengeful and shouldn't repay an act of evil with an act of evil i.e. rape a rapist. That doesn't mean crime should be ignored or criminals rewarded rather than punished. Jesus was teaching against the "eye for an eye" of the OT.

It's totally up to you if you want to live this way or not, it's your human freedom to decide whether to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or whatever. I certainly won't judge you one way or the other. I live and let live. If someone is interested in my faith, then they will ask me about it. I don't generally do discussions or debate or challenge anyone directly on what they believe. I've never found these to achieve anything, as no one ever changes their mind.

No, they may not change their mind, but it doesn't do any harm to joust a bit, to show interest in what the other person thinks/believes. You may be planting a seed that takes a long, long time to sprout.

Christ speaking about the end-times mentions the sabbath day:

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:"

—Mat 24:20

"And this day shall be a memorial to you. And you shall keep it as a feast to Jehovah throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by a law forever."

—Exo 12:14

"And you shall observe this thing for a law to you and to your sons forever."

—Exo 12:24

"And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in to the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place; so that they do not bear iniquity, and die. It shall be a statute forever to him and his seed after him."

—Exo 28:43

"Every sabbath he shall set it in order before Jehovah forever, from the sons of Israel by an everlasting covenant."

—Lev 24:8

"All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the sons of Israel offer to Jehovah, I have given you and your sons and your daughters with you, by a law forever. It is a covenant of salt forever before Jehovah to you and to your seed with you."

—Num 18:19

"For Jehovah your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Jehovah, him and his sons forever."

—Deu 18:5

"The secret things belong to Jehovah our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our sons forever, so that we may do all the words of this Law."

—Deu 29:29

"And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the Law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to do forever. And you shall not fear other gods."

—2Ki 17:37

"And now in the sight of all Israel, the congregation of Jehovah, and in the hearing of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of Jehovah your God, so that you may possess this good land and leave it for an inheritance for your sons after you forever."

—1Ch 28:8

"Behold, I am building a house to the name of Jehovah my God, to dedicate it to Him, and to burn before Him sweet incense, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of Jehovah our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel."

—2Ch 2:4

"then kings and rulers sitting on the throne of David shall enter into the gates of this city, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their rulers, the men of Judah, and the people of Jerusalem. And this city shall remain forever."

—Jer 17:25

"if those ordinances depart from Me, says Jehovah, the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever."

—Jer 31:36

"where the Forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

—Heb 6:20

"For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made in the law also."

—Heb 7:12

"I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews. As regards the Law, I was a Pharisee;"

—Phi 3:5

"For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." "

—Gal 5:14


It's simplistic to simply say the law is gone. Rather, we're living in the time where we can overcome, through Christ, the limitations of the law, yet, the law is for criminals, not for the righteous. Ideally, we live a life in law and graduate into understanding the freedom that can be ours through faith, which overcomes the law, yet does not cause us to ignore it for the sake of those who come after who also need to understand this process of maturing.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits to see if they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God;
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the antichrist you heard is coming, and even now is already in the world.
1Jo 4:4 You are of God, little children, and you have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
1Jo 4:5 They are of the world, therefore they speak of the world, and the world hears them.
1Jo 4:6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us. The one who is not of God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone who loves has been born of God, and knows God.
1Jo 4:8 The one who does not love has not known God. For God is love.
1Jo 4:9 In this the love of God was revealed in us, because God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation concerning our sins.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1Jo 4:12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us.
1Jo 4:13 By this we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has in us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
1Jo 4:17 In this is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, that as He is, so also we are in this world.
1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has torment. He who fears has not been perfected in love.
1Jo 4:19 We love Him because He first loved us.
1Jo 4:20 If anyone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar. For if he does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
1Jo 4:21 And we have this commandment from Him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

Russ, can you debate a topic without going to the old Jewish & Christian bible to defend your viewpoints? What it boils down to is that you're saying that the Bible is its own authority. How can a book be its own authority?

Suppose you really wanted to convince someone of your point of view - could you debate on a secular level? Because if you can't talk to people without going back to The Book/God as You Know Him Personally, then you are in effect saying that you are the only one marching in step.

OK, Carla. Think in context.

The reply I made was to Demi's statements about the law and the old testament being done away with.

Think for a minute...

What other book would I quote from when demonstrating what the Bible really says?

As a researcher, I prefer to go straight to the source.

We'll just have to accept we disagree on this subject, Russ. I don't think there is anything more I can say to help you see a different point of view.

Disagreeing is good. I do appreciate your opinion on these subjects.

The mainstream protestant church today promotes certain "fashionable" teachings which are not all accurate. The handling of law is interesting and cause many to jump through some twisted hoops to reconcile their teachings with scripture.

It's also important not to get hung up on symantacs. We are not under the condemnation of law, but does that mean it—the law—was done away with? Paul says, "Certainly Not!"

We have to be careful not to oversimplify these things treating them as black and white. They are more in-depth than that and deserve more study.

The Law still serves the purpose today as it did when it was introduced: It reveals us to ourselves; A very important function; Vital even. However, we live in grace free from the condemnation of law, but still without license to break it, so long as we're living in love, which implicitly fulfills law.

All the best!

All the best to you aswell. I am concerned that some of your beliefs are not Christian, but it's between you and God, and I really don't think there is anything else I can say on the subject to convince you, unfortunately. But I will pray for you. Both Protestants and Catholics agree on this issue, that we are free from the law. It's only cultists and Jews who take the view that things like circumcision are necessary. Those who do it in America (it's very rare here) do it on a mistaken belief it's healthy because of misinformation and vested interest of the medical profession (nothing new there eh?) not for religious reasons. God bless.

The bottom line is, what do we use to define Christianity.

• If we just take the words of preachers, then we're practicing a man-made system.
• If you use the Bible, we have to see what the Bible says about things.

As for me, going to the source is the only way to be sure.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely. For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book. He who testifies these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly, Amen. Yes, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen."

Rev 22:17-21

Again, there is more to this than simply saying, "The Old Testament has been done away with." This is a deeper subject because we live in a time when we have the law and grace, and again, we are not "under" the law, but has the law been done away with? To believe this is a gross generalization.

"Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law."

Gal 3:21

Righteousness is not by the law, this we know. So, why do we have the law? Why did Christ say to pray that our journey not be on the sabbath?

There are numerous other examples of Christ making references to show continuing to honor the law. If he is not the Authority, who is?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matt 5:17


"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

Matt 23:23


"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."

Luke 11:42

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Gal 3:10

Here is a good explaination by Gill:

Gal 3:10 - For as many as are of the works of the law,.... The apostle does not say, "as many as were of the law", to whom it belonged, who were born and brought up in it, and to whom it was given, the Jews; for there were some of them who believed in Christ, were blessed with Abraham, and not under the curse of the law; nor does he say, "as many as do the works of the law": for the works of the law are to be done, though not in order to obtain righteousness and life by them; yet it is not the doing of them, but the not doing of them, that entails the curse on men: his meaning is, that as many as seek for justification by the works of the law, and trust in their own righteousness for acceptance with God, these are so far from being blessed or justified hereby, that they

are under the curse, that is, of the law; they are under its sentence of condemnation and death, they are deserving of, and liable to the second death, eternal death, the wrath of God, here meant by the curse; to which they are exposed, and which will light upon them, for aught their righteousness can do for them; for trusting in their works, they are trusting in the flesh, and so bring down upon themselves the curse threatened to the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm; not only that trusts in a man of flesh and blood, but in the works of man; his own, or any other mere creature's: besides, by so doing, he rejects Christ and his righteousness, whereby only is deliverance from the curse of the law; nor is it possible by his present obedience to the law, be it ever so good, that he can remove the guilt of former transgressions, and free himself from obligation to punishment for them: nor is it practicable for fallen man to fulfil the law of works, and if he fails but in one point, he is guilty of all, and is so pronounced by the law; and he stands before God convicted, his mouth stopped, and he condemned and cursed by that law he seeks for righteousness by the deeds of:

for it is written, Deu_27:26

cursed is everyone that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. The law requires doing; it is not content with mere theory without practice; it is not enough to know it, or hear it, it must be done. The Jews boasted of their knowledge, and trusted much to the hearing of it read every sabbath day; but not those who had a form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law, or were hearers of it, were just before God, but the doers of it are justified; and it requires perfect obedience, an observance of all things contained in it, which can never be performed by fallen man. The Jews pretend (p), that Abraham their Father, "fulfilled all the whole law"; and the same they say (q) of the Israelites in common, than which nothing is more untrue; for in many things all men offend: moreover, the law requires constant perfect obedience; not only that a man should do all things commanded in it, but that he should continue to do them from his infancy, to the day of his death; and in failure hereof, it pronounces every man cursed, without any respect to persons, or any regard to pleas, taken from the infirmity of human nature, the sincerity of the heart, or repentance for transgressions. It should be observed, that the word "all" is not in the Hebrew text, in Deu_27:26, but is manifestly implied, an indefinite proposition being equal to an universal one; and agreeably to the true sense of the words, it is inserted by the apostle here, as it is in the Septuagint and Samaritan versions there; and perfectly accords with the sense of the best interpreters among the Jews; one of them has this gloss upon the words (r), "here he (Moses) comprehends all the whole law"; and another (s) says the same thing, almost in the same words; this

"(says he) includes all the commandments which are in the law: and the note of a third is (t), there are some that say, this is to be understood "of the whole law"; and there are others that say, it is to be understood of those things that are mentioned (above), but they say nothing, for it is written "to do them"; and it is right in my eyes, that he curses for the negative commands mentioned, and he curses him who does not keep even secretly the affirmative precepts, wherefore he says "to do them":''

to which may be added, the observation of another of them (u) that these words intimate, that a man ought to honour the law, "in thought, and word, and in deed": nor should this be thought to be too severe, that the law of God curses men for nonperformance of the whole. The Athenians (w) formerly condemned persons as guilty, though they had not broke the whole law, yet if they had transgressed but one syllable of it: upon the whole it is a clear point, that there can be no justification by the works of the law, since it curses in case of want of perfect and constant obedience to it.

(p) Misn. Kiddushin, c 4. sect 14. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 28. 2. (q) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 3. 1. (r) Jarchi in loc. (s) Bechai in loc. (t) Aben Ezra in loc. (u) R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 152. 3, (w) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5.

As I said, we will have to accept we disagree on this issue.

If you do intend to try and earn your salvation or gain God's blessings through the law like the Jews do (the New Testament tells us it's in doing kindness to others that we please God not by bodily mutilations or animal sacrifices), then like Paul says, you will have to follow the law to the letter. As only Christ has ever been able to do this, hence why we are set free from the law now he fulfilled it in our place (hence why we trust him as saviour), you're setting yourself up for one heck of a challenge. Good luck.

Demi,

Please read this carefully as it seems that you haven't been reading my posts carefully before posting your responses and have, therefore, responded to things that I didn't say.

I'm not sure you read what I posted. I never said that you need to follow the law to gain salvation. That certainly is not possible because there would be no salvation.

Where I disagree with you is when you say,

"The Old Testament has been done away with."

That's not true at all, not even close. Although it is a common teaching in the modern church.

The Old Testament contains a heck of a lot more than the law. It contains statutes and ordinances and promises and prophecies and wisdom. That has not been done away with at all.

As for the law, it has not been "done away with" either. It only has no power over us because Christ fulfilled it "for us", in our stead. He did not do away with the law and the prophets, as he plainly says in the quote in my previous post. There's a big difference and I believe you are generalizing it away and missing this important detail.

[color:"red"]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."[/color]

Matt 5:17

Also, the NIV is will known to be a horrible translation of the BIble, as is the NASV. The studies I've followed on this subject made it blatantly clear that these were translated with guile. The only worse translation is the Catholic Living Bible (not talking about the "new" Living Bible as there is a difference.

With all due respect, your posts would be a lot easier to read and follow if you did what you just did above - put your arguments succinctly and without huge quotes that it is impossible to read in their context without looking up each and every one. You are much better at putting things in your own words <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I didn't say the OT is irrelevant or done away with. If that was the case, why include it at all? We can and should read the OT. But it's in the NT that we learn what a profound difference Christ has made, and it's to the NT we should look for guidance how to live as Christians.

There are a lot of things in the OT that are simply not relevant to a life in Christ i.e. if you believe circumcision is necessary on the eighth day, you must also believe that a woman is spiritually unclean during her period and shouldn't be allowed to church for a month after having a baby boy and 2 months for a girl and that she must bring a pigeon or a lamb to church as an offering.

This is what Paul says. If you follow some of the law i.e. the circumcision, then you need to do the rest of it aswell, otherwise it's picking and choosing. But Christians don't have to do any of this and shouldn't. Because it is in Jesus that we place our trust.

I hope that explains my position better.

Hello, Demi. Your statements on genital cutting of boys is well put. I know members of the anticircumcision crusade and one group they have a hard time with are CHRISTIANS - of the evangelical (OT-loving) variety. They are the worst, I am told. They keep giving jewish reasons for cutting their boys and in not a few cases even hire a jewish relligious cutter to do the task. Ugh.

Even some jews are easier to discuss circumcision with, and a lot nicer about it. And Catholics and mainstream Christians. But the OT lovers love that cut and it is easier to convince them to walk into a burning building than to explain that in Christ circumcision has no meaning. Their ears and hearts are slammed shut. No use telling them that if you follow one aspect of The Law, you have to follow ALL, you can't be picky.

I'm afraid you are completely missing the message of my posts. I'm saying only what writing, nothing more. It seems that you're attaching a large body of preconceived ideas to these posts that are not there.

Nevertheless, let me try communicating this way.

What do you think should be done with someone who murders another person and is found guilty at a trial?

P.S.: Is having to look up scripture such a bad thing when discussing... well... scripture? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Of course, if we are discussing Holy Scriptures, we have to refer to them. My question is why you wish to use the scriptures from other cultures for your direction on how to livve and think and act? I do not discount the Bible, but I also look to my own ethnic culture and to my present place of dwelling (nature and humans go together) for cues on how to think and act.

Re an accused killer being found guilty and what should happen to him: The OT says to execute him. I, Carla, say he may not really be guilty (in the past 20 years there have been a bout a dozen famous cases in Canada of innocent men having been locked away for years & years until later exonerated!).

My course of action for the murderer: he should be put into a jail and, FIRST, and only first, given a complete physical exam by MDs and other kinds of medical practitioners. If toxic, and he will be found so, he should be detoxified with help from people such as yourself. He should be fed the most excellent and suitable diet for his body type.

He should be required to do useful physical labour if he has that capacity. If illiterate, he should be taught to read. He should have no TV or computer. He should be given the opportunity to read inspirational books and should receive compassionate counselling, which I believe would ultimately lead to true repentence. 100% of serious criminals have had a horrible family background and childhood and this must be discussed. In an atmosphere where all his fellow criminals receive this same treatment, there would be much less violence and rapes between the inmates. Also, all inmates, including our murderer that we are discussing here, would have opportunity to be out in nature to test themselves physically and spiritually.

Those staged meetings between the murderer and the family of the victim are not sincere, in my opinion. It is play acting. They just want to get out on parole sooner.

Carla...

The unfortunate truth here is that we have history to prove what should be done with the murderer. When you don't handle this type of situation correctly, everyone suffers.

Removing the murderer from this life allows the victim to be a hero for giving their life so others will not lose theirs. It gives deep meaning to the victims life, comforts the loved ones and protects the rest of us.

Concerning the errors in the court system that put innocent people to death...

You are making the all too common mistake of breaking one system to try and fix another. This is a bad way to run a country and is—ironically—the same philosophy that gave us this broken mess.

There is a saying that expresses this:

"Hard cases make bad law."

Hard cases are opportunity for mercy, which is why the law must be in the hands of a fully informed and empowered jury.

There are several deliberately destructive changes that have been made to the U.S. court system that has broken it.

One is that the jury can no longer judge law.

A "fully informed" jury was supposed to have the right to say "innocent" if the law that was being used against someone was faulty. This powerful mechanism put the citizens in the single most powerful position in government and was the final check of power—by putting citizens in judgement of the law, they had the power to nullify bad law, and this bad law is what usually puts innocent people into jail.

The other deliberately destructive change is that the jury was supposed to be "well acquainted" with the accused.

This puts them in a much better position to judge the character of the accused and much more likely to offer mercy if the accused was known to be well-intentioned.

Another important principle is the Biblical principle that a crime must have more than one witness.

This helps prevent false positives as well. An example of this would be the calibration of breathalyzer machines. Two officers should be required to sign off on this calibration process and if it was ever found to be in error, they could be tried in the context of conspiracy. Plus, errors in these machines—which often are calibrated in favor of a guitly verdict—would be greatly reduced. This is a powerful principle.

These awesome checks-of-power would prevent nearly all false accusations and would properly fix the intentionally broken system. Saving the lives of murders is exactly the wrong answer and if history and/or the Bible was your teacher, you would have known this.

When you study this out, you find that the Bible was right again. America was the greatest experiment in this regard and the experiment was tremendously successful. We should have learned, but as usual, people forget and supercede logic with their own emotional overlays; Always a bad idea except in the execution of mercy.

Bible: 1
Carla: 0

I think you are right, Carla. I'm giving up on this discussion. I've given my opinion and if any one stumbles across this thread then it is here for them to see and evaluate for themselves. I'm not the kind of person who feels it necessary to always have the last word.

I really wish you would continue and try to have an intellectual discussion about this subject. To give up would be running away from being accountable for the things you say. You asked that I keep it simple, so I am.

Why not participate with those who have differing opinions instead of running. This is actually a great opportunity learn, which is important for all of us.

Do either of you, Demi or Carla believe that the Bible, in whole or in part, was authored by God?

An honest answer is all I seek.

Russ, I have said all I have to say. I've learnt in my life that sometimes it is sadly necessary to bow out of discussions because the person you are discussing things with is never likely to see your point of view, and, typically, things will get taken to the personal level, which has started to happen in this thread. You question, for example, whether I believe the Bible is God inspired because I have a different view to you.

Anyone who is hardcore in any denomination, whether it is Protestant or Catholic, is never ever going to be open to any other perspective unless something happens in their life that makes then question their current position. Protestants and Catholics have made war against each other in the past, both believing to the point of willing to die, that their interpretation of Scripture is the absolute right one.

I have given my view, a view that is typical of Catholics and mainstream Protestants, which is that we are free from following the law because of Christ. The Bible even tells us that the law was only meant to last until Christ fulfilled it.

You are of a different opinion, and we'll just have to leave it at that. You can't force someone to your way of thinking by trying to bully them into a discussion. Sometimes it is necessary to agree to disagree. The Bible tells us this will be the case, that different Christians will have different opinions and we should respect the right.

I strongly disagree with your position, but I don't believe there is anything I can say to persuade you otherwise. And what you believe is ultimately not my responsibility. It's between you and God.

What do you mean "authored by God"? Do you mean, did the humans who wrote the Bible have a direct line to God , e.g., were "inspired" by him? Sure - the parts that I can see coming true in human society, i.e., prophecies. I do want to remind you that other ancient cultures also predicted a "time of great troubles", based on an understanding of the yin/yang, push/pull which is just how the world works.

The rest of the content of the Bible is: (A) a description of Jewish life thousands of years ago in what we now call the "Middle East". (B) commandments on how we humans should behave. These commandments were invented by humans based on their own personal understanding of the meaning of life and on their own ideas as to how their own particular society would benefit from following certain rules. I do not think that all of these rules necessarily apply to Carla in 2006. Or to you.

Demi...


It's good that you're thinking about the point of this discussion. That is an important point.

I would suggest looking at the point of this discussion not to convince someone of something, but rather to know yourself better.

It's hard to get people to change their minds about anything, even about mercury in amalgam fillings. All I can do is tell the truth and people can respond as they choose. How they choose is how they define themselves. In other words, you are defined by the decisions you make or what you do.

If you want to know yourself better, look at your decisions, your responses and your actions.

Why would you want to do this?

Because it is the first step to knowing anyone else.

Knowing how to know yourself is the first step to having great relationships with others, which is also more-than helpful in having a relationship with God.

I know so many people who live and will likely die without ever understanding this great principle and will never reap the wonderful and all-important benefits it provides.

They are usually those who go through life blaming others for their problems, never taking responsibility for their lives and thinking things are so unfair, never experiencing the freedom and pleasure of taking personal responsibility for their actions.

I don't view this discussion as a way to convince you of my viewpoint. It's a way for me to help you know yourself. Whether or not you do is up to you. The same holds true for all of the silent onlookers, which are many. This discussion will also help me know myself. I'm always open to that because I understand the benefits, both to others and to myself.

So what can you gain by this discussion.

Know yourself. It is the first step to every other successful relationship in your life.

Carla


Specifically, when an Old Testamant prophet says, "Thus saith the LORD", are the following words the words of God?

Also, do you believe the first 5 books of the Bible the words of God?


Did you know the largest, most powerful nation in the history of the world grew up under Biblical law. In fact, the following of this law is the cause of it's greatness. This nation has since changed which law it follows dramatically and is now frail as a result.

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers - and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerc - and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it vas not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

—Unknown (formerly credited to Toqueville)

When you say "commandments", are you referring to the Ten Commandments? That these are written by man?

There is an interesting thing about law and why it never was to change. The bottom line is this, the nature of mankind does not change, so neither does law. Think about it. The only thing that has really changed in human history is technology. The nature of mankind stays the same.

Did you know that law in America was never to be changed. Part of the job of the government was to apply the non-changing Biblical law to different situations. It worked better than anything in history, which should not be surprising. Now, unfortunately, this law is not used in America and only remnants of it remain which is why these economies are failing. If people would only learn from history, things could be pretty good for everyone.

Russ, I am happy to help you learn about freedom of life in Christ and how needless circumcision is, but you have to want to learn. I don't have the time or energy to post here. I am not well and I have a lot of studies and so forth to get through, which is difficult enough to concentrate on.

If you are genuinely interested in learning about how the American medical profession lies about the need for circumcision, the repercussions of circumcision, and the functions of the forekin, then I will take the time to help you.

Demi,

Did you read my post?



...Otherwise, you're not interested?

You're passionate about the subject of circumcision and are willing to talk about it, yet you're not interested in my subject.

But, isn't this the very thing that upsets you? Isn't this the reason other people suffer?

Because someone doesn't care enough about an important subject like circumcision so no one looks into it further? And because no one cares enough to look into it further, people suffer. Right?

Yet, your words about the Bible affect other people too. You have strong opinions about it.

So I ask you if you believe if the Bible is authored by God and you attempt to "bow out" of the discussion.

Do you see the internal contradiction here?

What if what you're saying about scripture is wrong. Wouldn't you want to know? What is people's eternal salvation depends on what they know about scripture. Is that important?

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

—Hosea 4:6

It's a two-way street. I'm willing to learn from you, but you have to be willing to learn from me too.

Hi. Re 10 commandments. Well, this is the way I see it. I do believe that a man named Moses really did go up the mountain and came down with 10 commandments for HIS people, the Jews. They had gone bad and needed some guidance.

However, whether these 10 laws actually came from God or whether Moses went into some kind of a trance induced by the Devil - that is not for me to say.

Apparently, some of these ancient leaders would fast for 40 days in the desert - I mean, come on, without any nutrients for 40 days, you are capable of becoming mentally unhinged, and capable of "hearing voices", ie, this is the Devil's doing. I am saying there is a 50/50 chance that God really did put those commandments into Moses' mind. Which means that there is an equal chance he made it all up, or experienced a psychotic break. When this happens to people nowadays, when a person says he saw and and spoke with God, they give him Thorazine.

The other thing you pointed out is that Americans' building their society around God's laws brought about its greatness. Well, that would mean that God approves of slavery, because Americans practiced slavery for a good long time. America also killed quite a few of the aboriginal people in order to be able to make America safe for settlers. Because America could not have become great without moving the Indians out of the way, then that must mean God approves of the slaughter of non-believers, the unsaved, such as Indians, for one example.

This is why I say that we can believe in God, yet update ourselves for modern times. Do you really want to see the reintroduction of slavery because slavery was practiced in the ancient days of Moses/Abrham/Jesus?

Also, this is not well known, but the jews were heavily involved in slavery in America through ownership of slave ships and through buying and selling of slaves. They felt it was acceptable because their ancestors kept slaves, also. I believe that they would still keep slaves if the Christian government of the USA had not outlawed slavery.

Wow, you have an interesting mix of spin and actual historical knowledge.

You previously accused me of picking and choosing what I want from the Bible. Ironically, this is exactly what you're doing.

I don't have a choice concerning truth because I care deeply about it.

I have studied and learned truth and decided to look into the revealing mirror of truth and saw myself as a child; Selfish, self-serving, and self-focused. Following through with this difficult decision has opened my eyes and transformed me from the inside out into someone who has begun to learn how to look beyond myself. This is the beginning of learning to love.

This processed is touched in my favorite scripture:

"1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jo 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."

The kind of slavery God loves is slavery to the truth. We are all slaves to one system or another. Those who have not realized this are the most blind of all.

"Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

"Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

"Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

"Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. "

"Pro 7:2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye."

The term slavery has a very narrow connotation for you. Do you not know that most slaves willingly stayed with their households and benefitted? In fact, that's where they wanted to be. This is a right of contract.

The historians that work for the powers-that-be have beguiled you with horrible stories of abuse that is repugnant to God. You have not yet learned that this kind of slavery is voluntary, and in fact, most of the world lives in a system of government today that places it's citizens in a state of "voluntary servitude". Study this term in modern law and learn.

Your comments asking me if I want to reintroduce your preconceived ideas about slavery because God allows it is an ulgy tactic used by spin doctors and displays your lack of knowledge about scripture in this respect.

"Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."

"1Co 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."

"1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more."

"Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

"Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."

"Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;"

"Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:"

"Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

"1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
1Pe 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
1Pe 2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
1Pe 2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"



It is your place to choose to believe or not to believe, and this choice is important and should not be taken lightly.

Carla, it's apparent to me that you have only a little more than a hearsay knowledge of scripture, yet you have such strong opinions about it. And your opinions about the origins of America are strongly influenced by the propaganda of the media complex.

Study and you will find a more balanced view of the indian wars. There's another side to the story but you're holding on tightly to the first one you heard. This is what most people do which is why schools are the most effective place for propaganda. "Get 'em while they're young."

The natives were mistreated in many respects, but not as the propaganda says. Study.

Nevertheless, the actions of men who call themselves Christians are not a perfect example of God or scripture, nor ever have they been except in the person of Christ. To judge scripture or God by the actions of men is nothing more than a person's excuse to say, "I don't wanna!" We need to grow up beyond this mentality.

It takes humility to look at yourself and say, "Perhaps I've been believing the wrong thing. Perhaps I've been fooled."

Humility is the hinge on the gate of knowledge.

You've been beguiled Carla.

I'll let you in on a secret. The things that convinced me of the authenticity of the Bible is prophecy and gematria.

Being a staunch skeptic, I read the Bible several times before being able to see. But when you do see, it's an amazing sight indeed.

I recommend the following books for intellectual nonbelievers:

Number In Scripture - Bullinger
The Witness of the Stars - Bullinger

Study.

You're a smart woman. If you study past the propaganda, you'll be even smarter.

Russ, of course I believe the Bible is the word of God.

I don't understand your position at all, but I am trying to respect it. After all, it makes NO difference to me. I am not a man and we don't circumcise here and haven't for centuries. Lots of things go on in other countries that I am against, but have no way of changing. I don't understand why you believe we are bound to the Old Covenant, why you feel it is necessary to circumcise baby boys and make sacrifices of animals. I have been to many churches and met many Christians, and never ever met anyone with such opinions. The only place I have come across pro-circumcision from a religious perspective is from Jews and on the internet from a couple of American religious extremists.

I have no doubt that you believe this is required of you from God, but it truly isn't. It's so important to look at the OT through the eyes of the NT, as new creations in Christ.

And, once again you are equating circumcision with salvation. If I am wrong on the issue (and, unlike with other aspects of theology I am 100% convinced I am right on this - I wouldn't make such an absolute claim on other things) then it has no bearing on salvation. We are saved through a living faith in Christ. Circumcised or uncircumcised, it makes absolutely no difference to God through Christ. Roman Catholics don't circumcise, most Protestants don't circumcise. No Christian I've ever met in my personal life circumcises.

I know it is hard to find a denomination where one "fits in", but do you really believe that say 90% of Christians from the beginning of the church to now are all wrong on this issue? Was Paul wrong to tell people that if they allow themselves to be circumcised believing the law has merit, that they cut themselves off from Christ?

By believing circumcision is of value, you are cutting yourself off from Christ, you are denying that there is no more to be done because Christ has done it. Christ died our death, and, if you want to try and look at it from another point, consider this - that Christ was circumcised in the place of men.

Circumcising a baby boy will not impact his salvation at all. To be saved, he will need to accept Christ into his heart and have a living faith. If he does this, then he will be saved, regardless of whether he is circumcised or not. As Paul says to believe circumcision has any value is to cut off from Christ. And note the hidden depth of that - "cut off" symbolising the "cutting off" of the foreskin. Circumcision is totally unnecessary. We put our faith in Christ. The question is, do you believe enough? Do you trust Christ enough not to circumcise? Do you believe Christ is our one and only savour?

PS I have been trying to work out where you believe Paul supports circumcision, and the only passage I can find is below.

After saying that what matters is circumcision of the heart, not the body, Paul goes on to say:

"Have the Jews then any advantage over the Gentiles? Or is there any value in being circumcised? Much, indeed, in every way." (Romans 3: 1-2)

But Paul isn't telling us, as Christians, that circumcision has value. He is saying that the Jews have an advantage over the Gentiles because God trusted his message to the Jews and that, because they follow the law, circumcision has value.

"If you obey the Law, your circumcision is of value: but it you disobey the Law, you may aswell never have been circumcised". (Romans 2: 25)

If you circumcise, then you also have to sacrifice animals:

"Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse. For the Scripture says Whoever does not always obey everything that it written in the book of the Law is under God's curse." (Galatians 3: 10).

"What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added inorder to show what wrongdoing is, and it was meant to last until the coming of Abraham's descendant, to who the promise was made." (Galatians 3: 19)

"Listen, I, Paul tell you that if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, it means that Christ is of no value to you at all. Once more I warn any man who allows himself to be circumcised that is obliged to obey the whole Law. Those of you who try to be put right with God byobeying the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ. You are outside God's grace.... For when we are in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor the lack of it makes any difference at all: what matters is faith that works through love."

In response to those who believed circumcision was necessary: "You were doing so well! Who made you stop obeying the truth? How did he persuade you? It was not done by God who calls you. It takes only a little yeast to make the whole batch of dough rise. "

If you believe God is the author of the Bible, then these are God's words. Please listen to them, Russ. You are a good man who wants to live right with God and do what is right with God. Don't live under a curse, don't separate yourself from Christ. "If the Spirit leads you, then you are not subject to the Law." (Galatians 5: 18).

As a matter of fact, I have read the N.T. (King James version). Your first quotation to me really struck me: "...false prophets are gone out into the world" John 4/1. Exactly. I can't know for certain who is the false prophet and who is the true prophet, can I. Do I just have to follow your opinion as to who are the false prophets, or should I use my god-given brain to figure it out for myself?

Re the history of the black slaves in America and also the Indians: I do strongly suspect that there has been much exaggeration here, but if even 10% of what I read is true, that is bad enough. By what RIGHT do jews and Christians, colluding with Moslems (in Africa) tear people away from their families and haul them 10,000 miles away to work as unpaid labourers, occasionally selling them and separating them AGAIN from their new families? What you like to have this done to you? Mind you, I do feel that we have more than compensated their descendants for this giant SIN, but we are still reaping the whirlwind. Only God know when we have tried hard enough to compensate for the suffering our ancestors inflicted on the black people of Africa. Some things are just plain wrong, and taking people for slaves is one of them, Bible or no Bible. So is infant circumcision, which that clever dog Abraham knew to have a powerful effect on the infant's brain - he knew it would ultimately produce a tribe of people who matured earlier than gentiles, and gave them a peculiar outlook on life and other humans. It's EUGENICS, Russ. Corner a jewish scholar or rabbi, and see if you can get him to admit this. They KNOW what circn does to a race of people, over generations, and that is why they are hell bent on continuing the practice.

Demi Said...


Please point out where I said that. And by the way, how is it we are still talking about circumcision?


Demi, where are you getting this from. I'm going to write it off as mercury. You're really taking some leaps here and I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

Plus, the quote you gave from Paul about circumcision and the law is taken 180 degrees out of context. You're reading the words without considering the context. This is a very common mistake of new Bible students. Read this passage carefully and consider the symbolic and dramatic style of Paul in these letters as well as the context. This is critical to understanding this subject.

You will also discover that if you interpret this passage the way you do, than the Bible would be in conflict with itself, which, if you study it out carefully and most importantly, keep everything in context, you will find the Bible has no internal conflict.

Pay careful attention to context. But again, why are you jumping back to the issue of circumcision?

If we're going to stay in context, we have to ask ourselves why Christ, Paul, and so many other New Testament writers continually refer back to the Old Testament. That is, of course, considering that you believe that these parts of the Bible are authored by God.

Carla Said...


The Old Testament answers this question for you. Check it out.


Couldn't disagree more.

You're confusing your characters and still spinning the information about slaves. Tearing people away from families is called kidnapping. Forcibly turning them into slaves is immoral.

However, when someone comes into hard times and agrees with another party to become a servent so they can get back on their feet and regain their finances, that another thing completely.

Both you can Demi "glump" information together and draw huge misled conclusions as a result.

There is a fundamental question here and that is if you believe the Bible was authored by God. If so, what parts?

You have not read the Old Testament, you are really missing out on understanding the foundational principles that make the New Testament make sense. I have suspected this all along because you are speaking as one who does not understand these fundamentals and are therefore, drawing these strange conclusions.

I've read the Bible about 9 times (I stopped counting several times ago) cover to cover and I will continue doing this for the rest of my life. I also conduct specific studies on subjects. I also study the works of other teachers.

One of the biggest reasons people are so gullible and keep making the same mistakes throughout history is because they form opinions before they're qualified to. This is a side-effect of not knowing yourself. The Old Testament provides you with the tools you need to know yourself, you still, however, have to implement the tools yourself.

I highly recommend you read the Bible a few more times at least and make sure to do it starting at the beginning of the Old Testament and ending at the end of the New Testament.

Otherwise, you're just guessing and spouting opinions.

Well, Russ, there is nothing more I can say to you. I also don't think there is any need for you to be so rude.

Also, not that it makes any difference, I am not a new Bible-student. I went to Sunday school as a child, been to Bible class for months before I got baptised over a decade ago, and been to Bible study since. I am also a trained professional historian and very capable of reading historical documents from the middle-ages onwards that are a lot harder to read. You mention that you read the King James version. Unless you have a degree in Early modern studies, I recommend you switch to a modern Bible, as the language then and meanings was slightly different.

If you want respect for your opinions, please don't treat everyone else like they are less intelligent. God bless you in your journey.

Rude?

Please point out what I said that was rude and I'll stop. I think you know that I don't intend on being rude at all. I'm telling you the truth.

I'm not treating anyone like they are less intelligent. What you're probably sensing is the same thing a person would sense if they came up to you and said the sky is mauve and there is no such thing as night and you responded to them—trying to be kind but seeing the blatent error in their conclusions.

It is your feelings that are not being honest with you.


About degrees...

They mean very little to me except in certain fields.

Doctors are the obedient dispensers of pharmaceuticals, which have never cured a thing.

Dentists are installing mercury like it's going out of style and defending it all the way.

80% of computer programmer graduates are helpless unless they have the initiative to teach themselves.

English teachers learn more about touchy-feely psycology and the failed word-recognition reading techniques then they do about language.

I wouldn't let a computer tech with a degree touch my computer without first proving to me that he/she has personal initiative.

The impassioned and disciplined are much more learned than the schooled for they are students for life and driven to truth.


About reading a modern translation...

As I mentioned in a previous post, most modern translations have been deliberately preverted and are horrible, such as the NIV, ASV, and others. They are craftily designed to mislead people. In fact (and this is important), they lend themselves to and lead people to the kinds of conclusions that you've come to. For this reason, I would have guessed you use one of these modern versions. I would guess your teachers do as well.

The most accurate translations are the KJ and the New KJ, which is now hard to find. It's the one I use most often. The 1611 KJ is helpful too.

The same thing has happened to new editions of Strong's. I have an old edition and in seeing some of the new printings, they have actually changed the definitions and meanings of words to obfuscate the truth.

The world is headed in the wrong direction, silently guided by the brilliant passion of evil. The Shepherds lead, singing the song of the soul, believing that God is before them. The sheep follow, knowing not where else to go.


Do not be insluted by my words Demi, for I only tell you the truth.

"Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at Him."

"Luk 7:23 And blessed is he who shall not be offended in Me."

It is your manner that is rude, but clearly you don't mean it to be. Maybe you should reconsider your approach to discussions? That might help in getting things across so that people don't feel insulted.

I believe you are totally wrong, and am disappointed that you chose a position for new born babies that involves needless risk and violation of an individual's rights, especially when you have a choice not to take that position and are so enlightened in other areas, but I am able to agree to disagree.

This is my last post ever to this thread. My silence from now on will not mean I agree, just that continuing here is pointness. If Paul can't persuade you, I have no hope. I will pray for you. God bless.

Demi,

Honestly, what do you think my position is on circumcision?

The reason I ask is that I'm really not sure where you got these ideas that you have about my position. You keep reverting back to certain ideas and I'm honestly not sure where they're coming from.

I feel as though you've stuffed my mouth full of words and now you're separating from the discussion by saying, "I'm not going to say anything else." It's like being slandered. It's quite unfair.

To me, this has been a strange discussion.

It is hard to stay exactly on topic sometimes. It's normal, I think, for discussions to branch out. Therefore, Russ, I am requesting your permission to talk about secular circumcision.

Second, I was quite pleased to hear what you said about computer programmers being useless unless they were also self-trained and had inititive. I have a child in just that category - everything he knows he trained himself, and though he has much to learn, he wants to also learn programming thru self-instruction from a book. He is hell-bent to learn all he can on his own. I am glad that you appreciate initiative in people - because so many employers out there want to see a certificate from a school, and that is the only thing they look at and all they care about.

It is like being a fabulous cook, totally self-trained, but nobody will give you a job as a chef because you don't have the formal credentials. Pathetic situation.

Demi said:
Russ replied:

Demi, where are you getting this from. I'm going to write it off as mercury. You're really taking some leaps here and I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

Carla butts in:

Russ, that was really shocking to hear you tell Demi that her mercury-addled brain (according to you) is causing her to say certain things. I could say the same thing to you about your denial in the matter of non-religious circumcision. I have a few old fillings in my mouth, too - is that why I don't wish to live & think entirely by the Bible? So - once I have all my mercury removed, and chelate thhoroughly, I am going to See The Light? There are millions of people who never came anywhere near mercury or other serious toxins, who don't subscribe to biblical teachings. We are more complicated than that!

You're really taking some leaps here too Carla. More than once on this thread you've sounded like a news anchor spinning a story (this includes your last post). You read into things and draw conclusions that are just not there.

I don't speak frankly to offend people. I speak frankly as a gift. Some can accept it, others can't. I'm glad that some people had the courage to tell me the truth when I needed to hear it. It helped me tremendously and I thanked them on the spot. I'm not easily offended.

Also, I give all people respect. They are potential children of God and I have no business being disrespectful, but I also have a duty to be honest. Some people are offended by that, but then, look how offensive Christ was to most people. They ended up murdering Him.

Considering the thing I said to Demi about mercury: I'm surprised that you're surprised.

I thought you knew that mercury interferes with people's ability to think logically and on an emotional level, it makes people draw conclusions that are not there. My business partner was notorious for this very thing before her fillings came out. Now she's improved dramatically and is like a new person.

I really do write off many of the things Demi says as mercury induced. It's only logical knowing how mercury interferes with people in this respect. She's obviously a bright and helpful person with good intentions. She does have trouble following a conversation, however, and I bet when she's recovered from mercury, that area will also improve dramatically for her. Most importantly, I know her intentions are good.

I make it rule for myself to not have strong opinions on a subject unless I've done my homework. You might be surprised to learn that I'm really good at being humble about things, particularly when I know nothing about them, and, of course, I wish everyone was. This way, people would not harm other people by speaking opinions as if they were knowledge.

As for the Bible...

You're spinning this as well, however, I do believe that people have a better chance of becoming a Christian by believing the Bible if they are mercury free. This is because they can read and understand the precepts of the Bible and follow the insightful, profound truths that are otherwise lost. I experienced this myself.

Even though I believed the Bible is what it claims to be before my mercury came out, my reading comprehension and ability to draw concepts has improved many times over and I am even more impressed and convinced of the authenticity of the Bible than ever.

Can mercury interfere with someone's ability to understand scripture and therefore with their ability to accept Christ?

Absolutely.

Will you get your fillings out and suddenly "see the light" as you put it?

Not likely.

The true acceptance and faith in scripture is an intellectual (a.k.a. spiritual) process that takes time. And because scripture is a representation of Christ (the "Living Word"), those who accept scripture implicitly accept Christ.

"If the truth feels shocking, it's only because you've been indoctrinated into a fiction."


Also...

Glad you hear about your self-motiviated son. If he's learning to code from a book, he's pretty brilliant and self-motivated indeed, and with that kind of drive, he'll be one heck of a good coder. The worlds needs more of them. Good for him! ...He'll be well paid for his valiant efforts.

I know I wasn't going to post again, but I feel I had to let you to know that I am deeply offended at the above. It is pretty low to use someone's illness in this way. I would never do that to anyone. I am perfectly capable of making lifestyle and religious decisions independent of being ill. I don't have trouble keeping up with conversations, I simply am not interested in debate. I would like an apology.

Demi,

I'm sorry if this offended you.

For your benefit, I am going to say some things to you that will help you if you let them.

When you take strong positions on controversial subjects, expect someone to oppose you. Your position on circumcision is offensive to me intellectually, but I don't allow it to be offensive to me emotionally. It's very important to understand the distinction between "being" offended and "feeling" offended.

(Don't get upset at what I'm saying here. I'm not saying anything that should be offensive here. Remember, this can deeply benefit you if you decide to "take" it the right way and if you decide to have faith that my intentions are good, which they are and always have been.)

I have the power to decide what is offensive to me intellectually. It takes time to develop the maturity and self-control to be able to decide what is offensive emotionally, but I have consciously worked on myself and have become someone who is not easily offended emotionally. This is why this discussion has not been emotional for me. It's strictly intellectual. There is no offense had by me from you nor intended from me to you.

If your emotions are offended, please know that they are in error. Yes, I said your emotions are in error. Please don't be offended at this. People's emotions are often in error. That's why we miscommunicate, That's why we misunderstand. That's what drives us to do things or say things we regret. That's why we have so many peoblems in this world; Because people bow down—either knowingly or more often unknowningly—to the alter of emotion rather than the alter of truth. By doing this, they allow greed or other selfish and self-serving and misdirected motives to take presidence over truth, often unknowningly and with "good" intentions. The key knowing yourself. Something people rarely take on as a life project. I have.

Emotions are like children. If you raise them correctly, they will grow up to become your friends. They will respond correctly. They will not "misfire" or become over active. They will live in peace and will correctly interpret the world and correctly respond to truth.

A new problem is introduced with mercury. Mercury interferes with the process of becoming emotionally mature. Mercury causes people to emotionally "misfire" and be emotionally overactive. This is the reason I consider your "being offended" to be from mercury; Because it's out of place. It's a "misfire".

My intentions are not bad. My statements were not intended to be harmful. They are simply truth and truth used to be offensive to me when I was younger, however, I understood these principles of emotion and realized that I must mold my emotions to fit truth. This is a process of maturing emotionally. Many attempt to mold truth to fit emotion. This is called "denial" and is not healthy and causes strife and misunderstandings between people.

If more people had the humility to understand that their emotions are not the compass of truth, there would be more peace in the world. But this takes work and it's not easy, hence, many people don't bother. Furthermore, mercury and other toxins greatly interfere with this process. It hindered me, but with persistance, I overcame. (I don't say this to boast for boasting is shameful and is a waste of time. I say this as an encouragement!)

This said, I hope that you also see my justification for blaming your lack of following the context of the conversation on mercury as well. This is actually a complement because I also believe that you're bright and intelligent and very well intentioned, and this is good; Very good. It's the mercury, not your brain or your mind that is at fault for these things.

It's not you! It's the mercury.

There is no intended insult in these statements at all. To find insult would be reaching far—very far—out of context.

When I was mercury toxic and I knew what the cause of my brain fog was, I would often say, "Oh, it's just the mercury" after forgetting someone's name or forgetting where I just set my cup of water down. And this was the truth. It was the mercury. Now it's gone.

You've stated frequently on this forum how sick you are. I believe you. I don't doubt you. Having said this, is it unreasonable to believe that your sickness is causing you to not follow the context of a conversation? Of course it's reasonable, and so I did. No offense. Just me giving you credit for being intelligent and bright and educated but being burdoned—as so many are—by the horrible symptoms of mercury. Again, no offense. Just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Pass an honest and truthful message along to your emtions for me. Tell them that there was no offense intended. Teach them how to respond in these situations and you will be on your way in helping them to become more mature and to become your friends.

Now, in your post your said


I could take this to mean that you meant to revert the topic and not follow the logical flow of the conversation. At this, I could be offended thinking you didn't bother to read my posts but just responded off the top of your head. This would be intellectually offensive to anybody. But I've decided not to be offended at all, either intellectually or emotionally. I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, if you don't like debate, it would be best not to engage in controversial subjects. I respect you; I respect your opinion; But I respect Truth more than anyone, including myself and I will defend it if necessary.

I'm sorry if anything I said hurt you, but whenever I find myself in your situation, I tell myself (and I mean this with all my heart):

"This is an opportunity to grow."

And growing is something we all need to do.

I see you will not apologise, just add insult to injury. You wanted to know why I think you are a rude man, well the above is an example.

But this is getting extremely petty and childish so, as I said previously, I am no longer going to participate. God bless.

Hi, Demi. Can you send me an email, please. I am at oldswisscheese@gmail.com Tks. - Carla M.

Demi,

I don't understand.

What in that post was rude? Do you really think it was? If so, please tell me what specifically because I'm honestly not seeing it. I had my business partner (Laura) read it and she's not seeing it either. We're at a loss.

I did the best I could to be fair, kind and diplomatic. Unfortunately, I'm just not sure I'm getting a fair trial here. Perhaps if you take the time to point out to me what statements you think are rude, you just may help make me a better man.

Thanks.