News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Here is a short excerpt from a book on infant circumcison by Dr. Paul Fleiss (MD type of doctor):

CIRCUMCISION IS UNHYGIENIC AND UNHEALTHY

One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constahntly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto-mucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.

Thanks for the info Carla.

I've also read that circumcision desensitizes the penis, which means it takes longer for an uncircumcised man to ejaculate. The foreskin protects the penis like the clitoral hood does the clitoris in a woman.

Also, the foreskin is erogenous, which means that it is very sensitive and pleasurable to the touch. The "gliding" over action increases sexual pleasure for the man, one of the reasons circumcision was believed to help avoid masturbation. The foreskin also plays a function in sexual intercourse.

Thanks, Demi. But I'm only just getting started. If it is all right with Russ, I'd like to post, each week, one or two paragraph's from
Dr. Fleiss' writings on the topics of Harm of Circumcision, The Foreskin's Functions and Care of the Foreskin.

For today's lesson, children, we will discuss a couple of the foreskin's functions, as follows:

IMMUNOLOGICAL DEFENSE: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme. Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection.

EROGENOUS SENSITIVITY: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis. These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.



[Note from Carla: If anyone wishes, I can post references for all these statements.]

:

For the purposes of keeping this information balanced, I am posting resources that provide a more mainstream view about circumcision:

BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION, MEDICAL, HEALTH and SEXUAL, 2006 Edition

Circumcision: A Lifetime of Medical Benefits

International Circumcision Information Reference Centre

Questions young people ask about male Circumcision

Circumcision Reference Library: STDs other than HIV

Circumcision Information from Dr. Gerald Weiss, M.D.

Please do post the "more mainstream" views. But mainstream or non-mainstream, truth isn't determined by vote. If it was, we'd all be singing the praises of amalgam fillings, and this website would not exist.

While you are at it, I hope you will post the views of some Africans and MIddle Easterners - INCLUDING DOCTORS - on the intact female genitalia. There are millions of men in those parts of the world who won't come close to a woman who has not had a greater or lesser genital alteration (usually at a very young age). They are considered to be good only for prostitution because their "down there" parts are considered filthy and smelly.

Your first link refers to circumcision being beneficial because of the 25% rate of this "elective" surgery. Elected by whom? Not the one who has to endure the procedure and the period of healing (can be up to 2 weeks) and live with the consequences. The circ rate is as high as it is precisely because it is being done to a baby or a small child, who clearly cannot resist or run away. For adult males who wish to be genitally reduced - that's no problem at all, because then it truly is an elective surgery in their case.

Genital surgery is not the tea party your links make it out to be.

You said:



What we decide to sing praises about is allowed by free speech, not legislated by law. (Free speech is not a law, it is a God-given right and therefore cannot be legislated away.)

Some mainstream positions are based on good science, others aren't. We should not throw out all mainstream views simply because they are mainstream (what color IS the sky, anyway). Positions should not be accepted because they are or are not mainstream. They should be chosen because they are logically and scientifically sound.

It's a tragedy when someone gets hurt in any kind of surgery, but just as in true medicine, you have to look for the real cause. Using the logic in some of the articles you've linked to, we need to outlaw cars because of the number of deaths they cause. We also could conclude that traffic accidents are cause by skidmarks on the road. They throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is obviously short-sighted and opressive.

These trajedies that happen during circumcision are not caused by the simple act of circumcision, otherwise all circumcision would be harmful. They are caused by improperly performed procedures—human negligence, and as is so common in modern medicine, this is the true cause of the problem. And I do agree with you; there IS a problem. I simply don't agree on the broad-handed dictatorial solution suggested by many of the articles you link to.

Of course, if you study this out, you will find that when bad things happen, you nearly always find elements involving human negligence, yet, this is hardly considered and you seem to simply want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying, "we have to do away with this procedure completely" disregarding the benefits of the procedure and the rights we have to benefit from it. The solution is training and education and accountability, not elimination.

Demi once stated that circumcisium should be outlawed and then in another post complained harshly that vaccines were being forced on her by law. Do you see the problem with this logic. This is a completely and blatently hypocritical position.

The same holds true here. To attempt to legislate this right away would be forming a dictatorship. Circumcision is a parent's right and quite frankly, I'm glad my parents exercised it properly.

I am not a socialist or even a leftist-liberal. I am nothing, politically - maybe a bit of libertarian in there, though. Free enterprise and all that. Adults can do what they like - smoke tobacco, do dope, take alcohol, get amalgam fillings, take any kind of medical treatment they want, buy supplements, get their genitals altered, get vaccinated, etc. etc. I even favour freedom to form racially-pure towns and cities that exclude all others (Jews only/blacks only/aboriginals only/whites only/Hispanics only), i.e., I'd like to see anti-discrimination laws repealed. (But nobody would be forced to live anywhere that they didn't want, of course.)

Protection of children, of course, from un-necessary surgery would indeed be part & parcel of any system of laws I could support. And you call this a "socialist" attitude?

If a genitally intact male of age doesn't like it, he can get himself circumcised. No problem here.

If a man who was un-necessarily subjected to penile reduction as a baby is not happy about that, then what do you expect him to do when he realizes he wants that normal body part back - a part that the vast majority of genitally intact males do value and decide to keep?

Further - if a man was genitally altered at birth and is " happy" to be that way, hey, that is okay too. Though I think such men are huffin' & puffin'. They are just trying to make a virtue of necessity.

I personally know one man (trust me, there's a lot more like him) whose un-necessary circumcision didn't go well. I won't even bother trying to describe exactly what "it" looks like, but let us simply say: full of thick scars, no sensation, non-functioning. Please, Russ, what would you say to HIM (not me) in your prochoice views on circumcison? Try telling HIM (not me) that we need proper training, education and accountability. What good does that do HIM, today? No one had any moral right to take off a normal, healthy, functioning part of his body 35 years ago, and it is just as wrong today, your desire for better "training, education and accountability" notwithstanding.

How do you suggest HE should deal with his "problem"? And while formulating a reply to HIM, always keep in mind that (A) the overwhelming majority of intact males have no problems with their intactness, either physically or psychologically, and (B) the removal of the foreskin was completely unnecessary. I am awaiting your reply.

Too bad about your amalgams, Russ. But, hey, you had them removed, you chelated, you're healthy now - what's the problem? None that I can see.

You mentioned "good science". What is good science - any conclusions that you agree with, and everything else is bad science? The anticircumcision position is not based only on science, it is based on observation and common sense. It is based on people seeing that the male foreskin is no more prone to disease, infection, etc. than the female foreskin. Or any other body part of either sex.

Question: Did this man suffer because of circumcision or because it was not done correctly? I am awaiting YOUR reply?

I know many people who have suffered because of cars. Should they be outlawed? I know those who have been unfairly damaged by metal beams, steering wheels, beds, cigarettes, medicine, doctors, dentists, roofs, trees, cops musical triangles and birth. Should there be laws against these as well?

It's easy to appeal to emotion for the purposes of trying to get a law passed when someone gets hurt because someone else does something wrong, but that is stooping to the level of the mainstream media.

There's good saying in constitutional law circles that says:

"Hard cases make bad law."

This means that you can't take something that turned out bad for someone and create a law based on it. That's why the U.S. has arrived where it is today in terms of political correctness—the same political correctness you despise.

The bottom line still stands. This man does not suffer because of circumcision, just as I didn't suffer because of dentistry. He suffers from unskilled, untrained, unqualified or uncaring doctors. There's a big difference.


He should deal with it the same way I deal with the fact that I have had my childhood and most of my prime years stolen from me by evil men: Turn it into good by helping others deal with the problem.

Does that mean I'm out trying to stop dentistry? Am I going to support a law taking away people's rights? No and no. I'm helping people deal with amalgam which is the real issue.

Again, you're throwing the baby out.


OK... here, you are overstepping the bounds of fair discussion. You should know better.

I believe in truth and when information conflicts, we need to look it over and see what is really truth and what is propaganda.

Is the Bible what it claims to be? If so, you're not just wrong, you're very wrong.

I've studied the Book and found it to be true and authentic and to be what it claims to be. Considering this, millions of Christians that have come to the same conclusion as me would not be very happy if you started taking rights away because you don't like them or because you believe differently.

You seem to be interested in rights only when they agree with your ethics—your religion—your beliefs. When they don't, well...

Do you see the contradiction in your ethics here?


People generally think of themselves as thay want themselves to be, yet, we are defined by what we do.

If you ever decide to hold yourself up to the hard reality of what you do, you cannot escape that fact that you're not being honest with yourself. You DO fall somewhere on the political scale, you simply prefer being obsecure because it requires less accountability.

Circumcision is a Christian right, and is therefore a human right. It may not be important to you, but it is very important to many besides you.

If you don't like it, great, but if you outlaw it because you don't like it, you need to look yourself in the mirror and discover where in the political spectrum you really do fall.


Carla,

The most valuable journey of self-discovery you can ever take is to read the Book, cover-to-cover. If you're brave enough to face yourself, you can do it.

It is more than you think it is, a lot more. From prophecy to gematria to boundless insight, it is amazing and revealing and insightful and will change you for the better if you are willing to put forth some intellectual effort and open it up, moreso than you have already, as you have stated.

Your last post is filled with negative personal statements against me. Well, two can play this game.

The issue is one of consent. My friend did not consent to the completely unnecessary removal of a normal part of his body. I have no argument with males of legal age who want to have circumcision out of any motivation whatsoever.

You were able to completely turn your health around thru removal of fillings, and chelation and supplementation. My friend cannot undo the damage to his sex organ.

Unlike you, my friend wants a wife and a sex life and children. Why doesn't he have this? Because of a surgery that was never indicated in any way, shape or form.

You want my friend to turn his botched penis into "good" by helping others? Oh, he is, he is. He is preaching against infant circumcision.

It is laughable for you to claim that the doctor involved was unskilled, untrained, etc. etc. That is like saying that the dentists who install mercury amalgams are unskilled and untrained, and if only they were properly trained, nobody would get amalgam illness. There is no safe mercury filling - and there is no safe infant circumcision because both procedures automatically and necessarily damage. A circumcised penis is forever damaged and de-natured, but at least a person who has mercury fillings can be cured.

Why is my lack of identification with a specific category of politics so disturbing to you, anyway. What do you care? You make it sound like I am concealing something! Well, guess, what. Politically, I am all over the lot, as my friends say. They think I have contradictory views, and they can place me absolutely nowhere on the known spectrum.

You say we are defined by what we DO. Fine, I guess that makes me a Grade-A a**hole, then, because I preach and teach that medically unnecessary penile reduction surgery inflicted on unconsenting males must be banned as soon as possible.

Infant Circumcision is "a Christian right"? It's not even a Jewish right. It's the epitome of filth and human degradation. The person who invented it (Abraham) was a psychotic, claiming he talked with, and heard, God. Claimed he got his orders from God. Anybody who pulls that kind of stunt nowadays is locked up forever in a padded cell, with daily injections to keep him quiet.

Re the Bible: I ask: How on earth can any book be its own authority? Yes, some of the prophecies have come true, and it looks as if others will, also. So what? Why does that mean I have to gobble up the whole chunk of meat? There's gristle in that there steak, and I don't eat gristle.

You, Russell, revere the Bible and the ancient people who produced it. Fine, why don't you follow their entire lifestyle, not just the parts that suit you. For starters, in that ancient culture, any man who didn't find a wife and have children was likely to be looked down on, even viewed suspiciously. Marriage and family were everything to those ancient Hebrew tribes. How come they aren't everything to you, too?

Carla,

Nearly every paragraph in your previous post contains items that can only be from your imagination. Where on earth are you getting these ideas from Carla?

"negative personal statements against you"? Where Carla? I honestly don't see them. Point them out to me so I can understand the nature of your response.

Carla, I'm simply telling you the truth and I feel that I'm being fair and polite. That's what any human should do for another. I have no reason to treat you any other way than with respect. You simply seem to be making assumptions from the top of your head.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask that you read my previous post carefully and not project into it your own emotions or your own disrespect. There simply isn't anything personal there.

In fact, you sound like a great gal with lots of passion for things you believe in. I credit you for that.

Just take care, slow down, catch your breath and try again.

About the Bible,

You have amazingly strong feelings about this amazing Book that you know nothing about. Do you know about the prophecies it tells and how they are coming true today? Do you know about gematria? Do you know about Biblical numerics, symbolism and past (confirmed) prophecy? There is truly no other Book like it.

The opinions you hold about the Bible sound like they are coming directly form the Discovery Channel, which is one of the biggest slanderers of the Bible I've ever experienced. I know because I've caught them many times. They have no integrity at all. Don't believe them. Read and study the Book for yourself.

I'm telling you, it's real; It's very real and many of those millions of Christians that actually do their homework know exactly what I'm talking about. It's very clear to them because they've searched with integrity.

You're missing out on a very real relationship with a very real God, and His name is Yahweh. He loves His children and has given them every advantage possible to discover the truth about these things. Those who don't, don't because they simply don't want to.

Invest in the most important thing you can have in life: A relationship with the living, loving God.

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."
—Acts 7:51

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."
—Deuteronomy 10:16

"I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;"
—Isaiah 65:2

Infant circumcision is only "mainstream" in the USA and in Muslim countries. It's estimated that about 80% of men in the world are uncircumcised, therefore the "mainstream" opinion is against it. The three main circumcisers are Muslims, Jews and Americans.

Circumcision of infants is rare here in Britain, and most of Europe. I believe it's illegal in Finland.

So, if you are talking about" mainstream" opinion, you really mean amongst American, Muslims and Jews. The rest of the world's overwhelming opinion is to leave men intact. This is Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South America and Asia

America is alone of advanced countries in performing infant circumcision.

PS I didn't say it "should" be outlawed. I said my personal preference is for it to be outlawed BUT it would cause too many problems for Muslims and Jews.

I really don't see how that has anything to do with vaccines. If it's wrong to force a parent to give vaccines to a child, if it's wrong to give amalgam filling to a child, then it certainly must be wrong to remove a child's body part without their consent. THAT is my problem with infant/child circumcision - it's removing a body part from a person who has no say in the matter.

Choice is all well and good when you are talking about individual choice over their own body. If a man wants to be circumcised, all the best to him.

Infant circumcision is not about the choice of the individual concerned - they have no say in the matter. A part of their body is forever removed without their consent and by the choice of their parents, not themselves. He is the one who forever must live without that body part because someone decided on his behalf that is what he would have wanted. To make such a decision on the behalf of someone else is, in my opinion, very wrong.

I started this thread and entitled it "non-religious infant circumcision", so to be logical, we should leave the bible and ancient religious practices out of it.

So Carla,

What do you think about religious infant circumcision?

That's what I thought.


About having control of your own body...

The real bottom line question about this is:

(1) Is the Bible what is claims to be?

and

(2) Does the Old Testament apply today?

Of course, you cannot know the answer to either of these questions without first studying the book so here's an excellent link for you:

Bible.com


If everyone would just do their homework before forming strong opinions, the world might actually have peace and harmony. How cool would that be?

There are a few billion folks in this world who have access to the bible, but also access to other ancient holy scriptures, who have chosen to believe that those other holy writings are the revealed truth from Up Above.

And there are others who have never seen or heard of the Bible that you choose to revere. God may have a plan for them, also, that you are not aware of.

I could just as easily urge you to read those ancient holy writings (some of them predate the bible, some don't) and keep asking you, over and over, that if you haven't, WHY NOT?

I've read part of the O.T. and all of the N.T. I do believe that Jesus was One With God and knew it, and that is why the Chosenites had him killed. They did not want to hear his message. Jesus' message was entirely for Jews, not gentiles living in the 21st century. That some of the prophecies have come true does not mean I have to buy the whole philosophy hook, line & sinker. You may interpret the situation that way, but I don't. My mind is just as good as yours, Russ, and don't forget it. God will ultimately decide.

And, yes, circumcision is evil and wicked. If it were so good, God wouldn't have sent his only son to try and fix its inventers up.

The real question Carla is: Is the Bible truly from God?

If so, then you have no basis for your argument at all. You're just flat wrong. If not, your argument would have to be made on a purely medical grounds to have any validity at all, and even then, with evil men in the world who distort information for their own whims, finding the truth in medical research can involve some work, certainly more work than you've invested in investigating whether the Bible was divinely inspired.

If in investigating the Bible I had discovered that it was not what it claimed to be, or that Christ what not who He claimed to be, I would base my opinion on this subject entirely on a different basis. However, having done my homework, I have discovered that the Bible is exactly what it claims to be and Christ is indeed the Son of the living God.

This is foolishness to some, but be that as it may, so is mercury-related illness.

Nevertheless, however you look at it, there are camps with very good arguments that circumcision is beneficial and others with seemingly good arguments that it is bad, but as I've said before, the real problem is deeper than that.

To find out what the core of the problem is, even if you were to ignore the Bible, which you seem intent on doing, you have to ask yourself why some circumcisions work out fine and why others have problems.

The answer—although deep—is simple.

Some doctors don't perform the procedure correctly and others do.

Now, if you attempt solve the problem by calling the act itself bad, that would be considered short-sighted. You have to find out why some go bad and solve the real problem. Ironically, you are doing the same thing in generalizing this subject as are the pharmaceutical companies by trying to claim that "herbal supplements are harmful". Again, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as it is often spoken.

As for the argument about parents making decisions affecting their childrens bodies...

Parents are forced to make decisions on behalf of their children all the time. This is by design.

Althouth my parents decided to allow the dentist to put fillings made with mercury in my mouth, as an adult, I don't think that dentistry should be abolished. Again, this would be short-sighted.

If you understand the "whys" in reference to why the world was made this way and why people are born and die the way they do, you will learn some of the most important lessons in life, which usually have to do with relationships.

Now, even though parents make some bad (asumptive) decisions, should we put all children in the hands of the god-state for thier own protection? Certainly not. Yet, this is the road down which your philosophy leads, yet I'm quite certain you have not recoginized this as of yet because you have not followed it through to its logical conclusion. (Reading and studying the Bible will help tremendously in the process of learning how to follow things through to their logical conclusion.)

There are advantages to circumcision and more than that, there are advantages to having it done on the eighth day. You have to realize that there is only a single 24-hour period in my life where that could have been accomplished at the proper time and taking that right away from my parents would create a whole new set of problems.

The real conflicts on this issue are caused by the same thing that conflicts have always been caused by: greed—the type of greed that says, "I do what I want", or "my life is mine".

Having appeared on this earth, not having designed yourself or your body, not having any say as to the timing of your arrival or the method of your departure, would it not be wise for you to answer these fundamental questions first, without first trying to assert your own will upon the world?

I mean no offense to you at all. I respect you, but I also recoginize how harmful it is when people form opinions on subjects based on emotion rather than facts and research. This emotionally-based psudo-intellectual poise is a cause of every kind of problem among humans.

Study first: Assert opinions later. This process is function of the fine-but-far-too-often-lacking human attribute: humility.

As far as your position about having to read all the so-called religious documents in the world to know what the truth is...

This is a common debate tactic used to try and confuse opponents in a discussion through subtly-false logic. Except, I don't for a minute think you're attempting to use it that way. Instead, I believe you—having heard this propaganda before—actually believe it. (Actually, in a very deep way, it facilitates an easing of the conscience that leads to the attitude, "I do what I want".)

Do I, desiring to know a birch tree, study every other tree in the world?

Do I, desiring to identify counterfeit money, study every counterfeit ever made?

No.

I find a real birch tree or real money and I know it well. Then I will readily identify everything that is NOT.

For my own deepening education and to help others who fall into these traps, I have read many other religious documents (you'd be surprised). Some in part. Some in whole. I have found these other documents to be exactly what the Bible claims them to be, whether explicitly or implicitly. There is simply no other book in the world like it. If you put in your time, you may just find how true this is.

But the final conclusion I have arrived at, after putting in my time at study is, the Bible is indeed exactly what it claims to be, and those who deny it fall into the all-too-common yet self-induced traps of:

- Emotionalism, which amounts to obeying or self worship of the soul;

- Lazyness; which amounts to obeying or self worship of the body; or

- Pride; which amounts to the obeying of the desire for the worship of others.

If we are to solve the problems related to circumcision errors, we must find the source of the errors without removing yet another right we all possess, which will do nothing more than create a new set of problems.

If we are ever forced to vaccinate in the United States, it will be under the identical philosophy with which you condemn circumcision.

Study.

Whenever somebody wants to do something cruel, or support others' cruel actions, the very first thing they do with their opponent is - guess what - accuse them of being overemotional. This is almost like a running gag, it has been going on for so long.

Saying that others have given in to "emotionalism" has been used to justify the most astonishingly ugly actions, including but of course not limited to, infant circumcision.

Carla,

Just because people other than myself have claimed that some have made emotionally-based decisions in the past does not mean it isn't true. I am not into tactics or games. I'm into the truth, whether it be about mercury, vaccines, law, or God, Truth is the most important subject in the world to me for reasons you don't know.

You have to understand that when those who understand that God mandates people to do something are barred from doing it because some people don't believe it, it is a fundamental voilation of God-given (not state given) rights. Those who support these opressive positions, particularly when they have no desire to understand the reasoning or truth behind them, become despots.

I'm quite certain you don't want to be a despot, so in order to resolve the conflict between this emotional subject you feel strongly about and the desire you have not to hold despotic positions, please consider the following advice:

I encourage you to work (seek) to know God and He may reveal Himself to you. I can only testify to you that the Bible is true and Christ is who He said he is. The rest is up to you.

Please always bear in mind that He is watching you through "a one-way mirror" right now and you will meet Him one day.

Welll, I have come upon this topic rather late, but I will put in my two cents worth. I am a Christian, and have also studied the Bible. God commanded the Israelites to circumcize their babies at 8 days. That was part of being a Jew. If God commanded it, I feel that He knows what He is doing. I don't see it commanded of Christians, although some see it differently. Although as Christians we did not have our boys circumcized for a religious reason, as we don't feel it has been mandated, but for medical reasons. I had read many scolarly articles on the issue that stated that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis in the male, and also, of the cervix of the wife of the circumcised male. Of course, this is true only if the couple are monagamous - which is also Biblical. Circumcision is also cleaner - leading to less infections. For these medical reason, we
chose to have our 5 sons circumcised. Four were done with no hesitation on the behalf of the dr. One dr, though, gave us a REAL problem and only did some kind of partial something or other, to shut us up. Oh, the "operation" was well done, but it was only partial. The four boys who were fully circumcised were absolutely fine and still are. The other boy got infection after infection - just the thing I was trying to avoid.
Parents make decisions for their children all the time - it can be no other way. I resent any government intrusion in these rights. And right now, I am having to be really careful because I have decided not to have any more immunizations for my kids - even the upcoming bird flu vaccine - and that is for my children's health. Should the government mandate that I allow these vacs. because they, and the Carlas of this world, feel differently? Carla, you are asking for tyranny!

Enforced circumcision is the same as enforced vaccination. I don't believe in either.

I used to be a Christian, but now I'm not sure. The Laws of Leviticus are ludicrous, so if we are supposed to follow them today, there is no way the God of the Bible can be the real God.

This doesn't mean I don't believe in God, I am a Deist.

Hi Testify,

I'm glad to hear your input and sorry to hear about your son's experiences.

It's good to hear from those who believe in freedom and understand the deeper implications of too much government power. There is no doubt that there are those in high places that work to subvert Christian truths and bring people into poverty and submission to them as a result.

I wish you the best in keeping your children healthy and free from the garbage they put into vaccines.

Demi,

You said...


I love the laws of Leviticus and believe that they make perfect sense. To understand why they worked so well in history, it's important to understand the nature of mankind.

As for me: The more I've lived and come to know myself and others around me, the more I've come to understand the selfish nature of mankind. These laws buffered that nature and protect us from ourselves in a way that only God could have invented.

I have read the Bible numerous times and studied it and found it to be the most amazing book I've ever found. The patterns and information in it are so deep and tightly tied together that I do not believe any man could have written the incredible books it contains without, in some cases, induction (Gods exact words, i.e. "Thus Saith the LORD") and in other cases, inspiration (Paul's letters, for example).

I believe that understanding the nature of man is pivotal to understanding why Biblical law is what it is.

If mercury didn't do it, then the Laws of Leviticus would certainly give someone OCD. I don't know how you can live by them, Russ. For example, when you go to the dentist, to the cinema, or anywhere that requires you to sit on a chair, you'd need to check that no woman previously sitting on it was on her period, or you'd be unclean and need to wash your clothes, bathe in water, and consider yourself unclean. And then every month women must sacrifice two doves. And so forth.

This is supposedly the word of all powerful reasonable God, which, according to you still applies now. Yet, how many Chrstians are even vegetarians, when Genesis says clearly God's vision was for people to be vegans?

I've become a Deist-Pagan. The hypocrisy and contradictions in Christianity finally got too much. Some Pagans believe God reveals him/herself to us on a personal level, and we can experience the divine through nature, which we are to love and respect, cherishing all life-forms, and harming no one.

This has not been an easy decision for me, I have been a Christian all my adult life. But there is no solid evidence even that Jesus existed, and the Bible is not consistent regarding his identity. But this in no way changes my morality or my perceptions of the need to be moral, and to speak out against injustices and cruelties. I do like the morality of Christianity, and I live by it, but there is a lot I just can't believe anymore.

Demi,

There is no question that you are simply misunderstanding the Bible. In fact, you don't even know the differences between law, statute and ordinance. You are generalizing and imposing your own opinions on the Bible which you most certainly do not understand.

I do not say any of this to offend you, however, you have strong opinions and I have learned from past experiences with you that you form and change your opinions rather quickly.

I have become a Christian after years of Bible study (and other types of study) and learned how amazing the Bible really is. Few I have met, even in the modern Christian church realize the depth and intellect found in scripture. For those who can see it, we share a great treasure.

If someone doesn't live all the laws of Leviticus, then they are merely picking and choosing - which is what all Christian denominations do, but disagree which ones to follow.

Please don't respond to points by insulting the writer/questioner. That is the weakest form of debate.

If you don't believe God requires people to not sit on a chair a woman with a period has sat on (as Laws of Leviticus clearly state) please explain succinctly, without resorting to personal attacks.

Demi,

I didn't attack you. Everything I said is true and I mean it sincerely.

Let me ask you a single question that would settle this once and for all:

Do you believe the statement in the Bible relating to sitting on a chair law, statute or ordinance?

Finally, if you're concerned about picking and choosing, how can you speak on this matter when you have choosen to reject the whole Bible?

An honest question.

Russ, this kind of "answering with a question" debate is futile. Either you believe God is commanding people forever not to sit on a chair after a menstruating woman has sat on it, or you don't. I don't know your view on whether you personally do that or not because you have evaded answering it.

I don't know what my spiritual beliefs are right now. I'm going through a difficult time, really battling with depression. Nothing much makes sense any more. I have been a Christian all my adult life, but I don't know if I still am. Ultimately, I think I always will be. But everyone needs to find a way to touch the divine. A lot of Christians I've met have been inconsistent and hypocritical, and you have admitted that you've had the same problem.

But it is important to not base our beliefs on the behaviour of other people, or to feel bullied into a certain belief, or to have a closed mind. I need time to work out my faith, and I need to do it alone. I am very disillusioned with Christianity. Of all the churches in the world, I can't find one that teaches the God I have always believed in (Catholic and Orthodox come closest). The disregard for God's creation, to begin with, is very disheartening as is the divorce rate and the willingness to abort their own children for the sake of sex by going on hormonal contraceptives. I am so disillusioned. Where is the love? Where is the acceptance? Where is the forgiveness?

But, basically, I think my problem is not with Christianity, but with the way some people live it. I do believe in God, I do believe we can touch the divine through nature, and I think I still believe in Jesus. I just am saddened at what Christ's church has become, what is justified, the hunger for power, the belittling of women.

Demi, I am sorry you are so frustrated. I am the "anonymous" who started this whole circumcision topic again (forgot to log in again). I am now writing re: this whole thing about sitting on a menstrous woman's chair. Many of these laws were in place before Jesus came -they were the ceremonial laws. Those laws have been fulliflled in Christ. They were meant for the nation of Israel, not us. There are some laws that carry over into the New Testament period (now) though, and are usually reiterated in the New Testament. Christians learn much from the Old, but are responsible to follow the New. The Ten Commandments were difficult (impossible) to follow, and Jesus' exposition of these laws in the New Testament leave us with no doubt- it is even more impossible to follow them perfectly. However, the standard we need to meet to reach heaven is perfection! Keep reading. and please stay cool! Because none of us can reach that perfection, Jesus died to pay the penalty for those who would place their trust in HIM instead of their own faulty morality. Heaven is attainable, not through our own efforts, but through Jesus. And the only Christian is the one who has come to realize this and embrace it fully. Jesus called it being 'born again" (John 3) An assent to the facts is not the way, and does not make us Christian. Jesus accomplished salvation for those who would trust in Him and Him alone. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Don't give up on Christianity - seek to fully understand it.

Hi Dallas,

I just feel disillusioned with it all, more than anything else. The circumcision isn't really an issue for me. Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church say it is not necessary, and outside of America circumcision is largely only done by Jews and Muslims. It is unheard of here. No denomination teaches it. Russ is about the only person I ever heard saying it was necessary. Neither have I ever believed we are to follow the laws of leviticus - the 10 commandments yes.

But one thing that always has concerned me is the rather selfish striving for salvation, rather than to do something from the heart. For me, being a Christian has been a sense of experiencing the divine, of seeing things through different eyes, of a better way, of striving for a holy heart - not for getting into heaven, or out of fear of going to hell - but because we should want to be as holy as we can. Not because it has any bearing on salvation, but because it is a natural state of being in tune with the divine. If we are failing (and I know I fail a lot) we should want to change (and change is true repentance), we should strive to change. This i s why I am not Protestant. I believe in "faith = belief + action" not just faith. I've always believed we need a living faith, the drive to want to be holy. Not to get into heaven (which is already done) but because it is a natural following to want to act on a belief. And if there is no action, is the belief valid? If I say I am vegetarian, but I eat meat without any scruple, am I vegetarian? But I have a problem with some of the teachings of the RC and the Orthodox church. However, I might seek out a more liberal branch. I have totally had it with Protestants, who believe they can basically do antying, so long as they believe.

But I do think I am a Christian, I just am going through a difficult time right now. And I am so tired of this mercury thing too and so many different viewpoints on it. Just am feeling a bit down about everything, but trying to snap out of it. Everything seems so frustrating, so irritating. Maybe that's a symptom of toxicity, I don't know. I feel like I want to scream or something sometimes.

Also I am tired of refusal of people to embrace another point of view in another aspect of my life. It seems like no one is ever open to another pov.

Russ commented that my views change. In some ways yes, in other ways no. I was a vegetarian when I came here, I still am. I want to be vegan, but I am finding it difficult (but it is my ultimate goal). I have always seen circumcision as unnecessary. I have always been pro-life, and anti-hormonal birth control. I have always said I am a generic Christian, searching for the "right outlet". I have always been a promoter of living as naturally as possible. But I will be honest and if what I previously believed is for some reason cast doubt upon, I will re-assess. For many years I was a Protestant. It might seem like I am fair-weathered, but I happen to be on this board at a time when I left my last church, which I belonged to for 12 years. I was no longer happy with the teachings, so at the moment I am seeking a new outlet (which I believe is important) and this means exploring several. And I have got so disillusioned, I honestly have questioned the whole thing and feel I am more Deist-Pagan. And yet, I think I am still Christian because I do believe in Jesus and Virgin Mary. Because I was raised a Protestant, and have concluded I am not one any more, this naturally means exploring the various branches of Catholicism. So, in that way, it is unfortunate that I am here at this time of my life, because I am currently exploring different denominations and my beliefs in this respect are not cast in stone.

I don't meant to offend anyone, I just am so fed-up with things at the moment, in many respects.

Oh, Demi, I know where you are coming from. I am Protestant (Reformed Baptist) and I take no offense that you have left Protestantism. I understand. I believe that James speaks to this issue. Faith without works is dead. Not because works contribute anything to salvation (sorry, I know this is not where you are at) but because, to put what you said in another way, what we do shows what we believe. People who say they have faith, but have no works, are only fooling themselves. True faith will naturally produce works. I know it is not all about salvation, but it was not until I was saved that I cared at all about even trying to be holy.
I understand your disillusionment with the church. There are many who attach themselves to the church because, let's face it, the benefits are tremendous! They think that because they go to church and know the doctrines, they are saved! But their hearts are not changed - and without that heart change, they are "wells without water". Without that God-given heart change, we will never see heaven, and also, we will never be holy.

That is so it, Dallas. In a nutshell. All talk and show, but nothing of substance. I got so disillusioned.

I was Baptist, maybe still am (I don't like the ceremonial aspect of Catholicism). But no one in my church cared about things in our society. Going to preach in Africa and so forth, oh yes, but to stand up against abortion, abortificients, and immorality in our society, not a care at all, and lectured me for caring. Wasn't always that way, things changed.

But I do think I am a Christian, just need to find a church I feel close to God and I feel fellowship with likeminded people. I'm not making any decisions, just seeing where God leads me.

There are churches out there - not seeker sensitive and trying to please themselves and draw in the unregenerate with promises of a good time, but churches who have not lost what it means to be a church. I hope you can find one near you. Usually they are very small - oftentimes they are house churches.

I think you have a healthy attitude --and are not willing to blindly enter a any old church just to say you "go to church" - but somwhere that you feel will feed you spiritually and help you.


Why don't you put this entire question before God and ask Him to lead you as though you were "blind" and that He would confirm the decision. Don't rush your choice- just keep your ears and eyes open, and check any opportunities presented-- then ask God to confirm for you.

There are alot of sincere groups out there, but in every church you are going to get hypocrital people -- even the pastor cant control that. Don't let that scandalize you .

A church should be like a hospital , where you know your not an angel, but where you can get help to get closer to God and where you can express your love of God to others by service and just simple kindness.

Some churches are very Action oriented, but they actually pride themselves and brag about how much good they do for Society and the poor. Look for a church that prays before they do anything, and who does good to others --but does it for God and not for religious Ego.

Shopping around for a suitable religion is, to me, bizarre. A religion is simply the natural, spontaneous, built-in, intrinsic expression of one's biology/race/geography. It is not some kind of accident that, at one point in history, ALL Muslims were middle Eastern Arabs, All Jews were Semites, All Buddhists were of the East, All Shintoists were Japanese, and so on and so forth.

It was only through force that our ancestors adopted religions that did not organically grow from their own place on the Earth, and of course their children (you and me) "inherited" these foreign religions that grate against what we know and feel in our bones.

This is why it is so difficult for us to get along well in all these foreign religions if we have any instinct, or sense of self and self preservation at all. Christ did not show up in China or South America or India or what is now called Europe. God sent him to the Jews, because they needed his particular kind of healing and teaching.

You are struggling because your biology and your religion are at odds. Your subconscious mind knows it.

Not true, Carla. Christ did not come only for the Jews. "For God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM, should not perish, but have eternal life." (emphases mine) The Jews were dumbfounded by this. Also, Jesus claims not to be just A way to God, but the ONLY way. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father, except through Me." (emphasis mine).

In those days, "world" meant everybody living in the Roman Empire. Remember the emperor declaring that "all the WORLD would be taxed"? I didn't hear about the assessors/census takers going past those borders.

As to Jesus Christ's claim to be the ONLY way - well, how can he be his own authority? Can anyone be his own authority? Couldn't I present a set of teachings, and then claim, that I am the only way, too?

The Roman world, at that time, was pretty big, and encompassed many more people than the Jews alone, so, Jesus was not just sent to the Jews. If what you say is true, then a South American who has put his/her trust in Jesus for salvation is a fool because the promise does not apply to him/her? And, nowadays, with all the intermarriage, esp. in North America, what's a person to do? What if you are European/Oriental or Oriental/African? YIIKES! What a mixup.
Re: Jesus being His own authority - only One who walked the earth could ever do that and that One is Jesus, because there is none higher than Him to be His authority, as He is God. God, of necessity, must be His own authority.

Hi Carla,

I no longer have any doubts about my faith. I was going through a dark time, but now God has come through - as always <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't undestand what you mean by faith and biology being at odds. Care to elaborate? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I have never found that to be the case. I've questioned the attitues of some Christians, but never doubted the wisdom of Christian morality.

We don't circumcise our baby boys here. It's a non-issue. But I wonder if it explain why American men have a hard time with condoms (at least they are the only ones I've ever heard say they don't "feel" anything). Desensitzation would make it hard with condoms.

Demi, you are absolutely correct about condoms and sensitivity as regards circumcision. The cut men are insensitive enough without having to put a piece of rubber on it.

Declaring oneself a Christian is like putting a target on your back, or your forehead. You can love Jesus Christ without buying into the twisted and transmogrified version of his life. Look how angry he was at the misdeeds of the Pharisees. Christianity is for people who think that all the fun is going to be on the "other side", after death. They think that the more you allow yourself to suffer here, the better you will have it after you croak. Sure! The reality is that JC allowed himself to be put up on that cross so you and I could stop doing it to ourselves.

You are allowed to have whatever set of beliefs you want if it suits you. But Christian morality (ie, our behaviour towards others), is not the only issue. How we let others treat us is equally important - and that is where the modern versions of Christianity fall down.

Dallas, your points about mixed races are well taken. These Hybrids are, I think, in a way, lost souls. They have nothing firm to identify with. They are neither here nor there.

I agree, Carla.

We should be looking to the here and now, and making this world a better place. Those Christians who obsess about the after-life are not making the most of this life. I leave the after-life to God. This world has been given to us to enjoy, as have so many other lovely things in life - music, literature, family, children, animals.

I have my own ideas (and I do believe in a kind of purgatory, or intermediate state) but I just leave it up to God, and I trust God to be just and merciful. If God is everything, hell is in God aswell. Catholics (of all persuasion) believe anyone who lives by their conscience gets to Heaven. It's Protestants who make faith in Christ the be all and end of all.

There's even talk now that one day the Roman Catholic church will emphasise vegetarianism as an ideal (for those able to be so). I know you love animals as much as me, and I totally believe that God made animals to enjoy this world and live naturally, as much as us. God gave "permission" to eat animals, but not for a very long time. Animals are sentient, precious creatures, not to be exploited by humans for skin and flesh.

But it is our responsibilty to help the suffering and unfortunate as much as we can in this world human and animal. I don't know if you've heard of CHRISTIAN AID but their slogan is:

We believe in life BEFORE death.

You CAN be gentle and loving and a Christian. Catholics are generally very gentle. I am somewhat inbetween Orthodox/Roman Catholic. I share their doctrine, but not the way they worship. The form of worship should adapt to the times. I also agree more with the Roman Catholic Church on sex than I do the Protestant, although I think barrier birth control is ok. I also believe in ever-virgin Mary of the Immaculate Conception.

So I'm a Catholic Christian, which is just a name I give myself to identify my beliefs.

There are many people who have strong opinions about who the Messiah is and what the Bible is yet have no knowledge of these things. Most of these people that I've encountered have received this information from television networks or through other people.

The unfortunate thing about this is that television networks lie about the Bible almost every time they talk about it, and listening to other people's opinions is like listening to a dentist support the use of mercury in dentistry because their teachers told them that mercury is safe.

Having read the Bible over 8 times from cover-to-cover and studying it in it's original languages, I have quickly recoginized how these deceptive writers for these channels (like the Discovery and History channels and the major news networks) tell clever and twisted lies about this amazing Book. I also recoginize how people spread their opinions with a seeming authority who know virtually nothing about the Book at all.

I encourage believers to recoginize these two types of sources of misinformation—"Direct" and "Indirect"—and to understand the blindness working in those who spread opinions as if they were well-studied facts. The world has no lack of them.

To those who have the resolve, the caring, the patience and the intellect to persevere through the empty words and ideas; Those who have understood the weight of the prophecies that were made pertaining to the coming of Christ thousands of years before His appearing; Who know the scripture intellectually understanding it and not having been given to their emotional whims; These are the ones to whom these truths will be received, although made available to the whole world through the grace and love of God.

The scripture makes many references of those who "speak from their own hearts", being moved by their emotions to convince others to follow their own feelings rather than to wisely intellectually discern the evidence found in Biblical scripture of the truth about Christ.

I encourage those doubting these truths to study scriptural gametria and prophecy, looking for yourselves to scripture and not being deceived by empty words spoken by those without knowledge of the things they profess. Christ told us these would come and work to separate us from what we know through our own study.

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. "

Romans 1

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. "

Romans 10

You do realize, Demi, don't you, that evangelical Christians do not consider Catholics to be Christian? Personally, I don't know. They seem pretty Christian to me. I do know that some in the Orthodox Church have expressed the opinion that it takes a hard heart to kill an animal, and even to eat it. I have an Orthodox Lenten cookbook which says just that.

Russ, if reading & studying a book many times is all it takes to be converted to a religion, then I hope you don't read the Koran or the Talmud 8 times! There has to be a pre-existing mental state that makes the reader/studier of ANY religious or philosophical book want to lap it up lock, stock & barrel. There are jewish scholars, Moslems also, who have studied your holy book inside out, but they never converted. So why do you believe that lack of sufficient study is the only "cause" of a person not wanting to be a (real) Christian in the sense that you are?

Carla,

So much of what you say simply isn't true.

You have made numerous grossly over simplified statements on this thread that any real Biblical student would recoginize. I am concerned for those who are not well-studied who may be swayed by your misinformation and intellectual facade.

As for me, I personally don't have some deep sense of pride in my knowledge or some ulterior motive regarding these things. I simply have set out to find truth in my life because as a young man, I realized how important it was to do so.

I truly attempt to be a gentleman when making posts in reply to you, but so often you make statements that are so far off in left field and so completely misrepresentative of the Bible that I wonder if you enjoy debate more than truth and honest inquiry.

You, Carla, truly sound like someone who has received the bulk of their Biblical information from TV. You really do. You seem not to care to know anything about the massive evidences of the truth of the authenticity of the Book or the reality that Christ is exactly who He said He is. What motivation do you lack to really study these things?

Attempting to respond to your posts in a specific manner is often difficult, not because you make deep or resounding statements, but rather because you make such massive assumptions and leaps outside of the realm of logic that explainations would involve teaching you how to walk a logical path of reasoning, and that is a huge undertaking.

For the sake of those reading this thread who are not Biblically studied or are searching for purpose in life, I hope they are not swayed by the outlandish opinions Carla espouses. They are innacurate and misleading; Truly.

Yes, you have the freedom not to believe Christ, but you don't have the freedom to speak falsely.


"Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Heb 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Heb 10:33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
Heb 10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
Heb 10:35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
Heb 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Heb 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. "

Hi Carla.

Yes, I know some don't consider Catholics to be Christian. That is just silly, in my opinion, because for 1500 years, the Catholic Church WAS the Christian Church. As Catholics, we celebrate church heritage, tradition, and wisdom of the church founders. Protestants rely only on the Bible.

I believe everyone who accepts Christ as personal saviour is a Christian. As a Catholic Christian, I believe that true faith is "belief + action". That we need a LIVING FAITH. Protestants believe that faith is enough, and that church tradition is useless. So, you can murder someone or do what you like, it has no meaning whatsoever, because faith in Christ is all through a philosophy of "Once saved always saved".

In my personal opinion, this is leading Christianity into all kinds of weird directions, because the further they go from the starting point (Catholicism) they get more and more wrong messages.

Catholics have always believed in ever-virgin Mary of the Immaculate Conception, because that is what the early church founders believed. Mary took a vow of celibacy as a young girl, and was married to Joseph (because it became necessary for her to marry) who was much older than her because he would honour that vow. This is what the church has always taught. Protestants say this is rubbish because it's not in the Bible (neither is trinity in the Bible). But the early church fathers decided what was going to be in the BIble and not. Mary was born with Sanctifying Grace. No other human being has been born with it. This means Mary was "right with God" from the moment of her conception - hence The Immaculate Conception (This is the Orthodox view. RC word it differently in that they relate it to original sin). Early Protestants like Luther also believe in the Immaculate Conception. God's revelations over the years i.e. St Bernadette at Lourdes have confirmed that. God still speaks in Catholicism. They have always not circumcised, have always held up human life to be sacred and contraception "unnatural", always promoted the ability for sexual control, and the communion of saints.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything in the Orthodox/Catholic church, but they are closer to what I believe than Protestants.

I have read the NT - I simply have freely chosen, after thought & struggle, to not base my life on it.

It is not a Christian attitude to accuse someone of just wanting debate for its own sake, and not caring for the truth.

When I say something, you ignore me, too. I asked you why some people who have studied and read the NT choose to NOT be Christians (of the sort you approve of). I was referring to Muslim and Jewish scholars. This would disprove your statement that all that is needed to accept Christ is to read his teachings and study them.

There is some pre-existing "condition" in people that causes them to be attracted to, or uninterested in, or repelled by, a book of teaching, ANY book of religious teaching. I tried reading the Koran, couldn't finish it, it didn't even remotely satisfy me. The Muslims would say I didn't try hard enough! Just what you are saying!

I do believe that God sent Jesus Christ, that he was the highest human ever to exist. He was One With God, not merely speaking with God, as Moses did. That is as great as it gets. But that does not mean that we have to be like him. We can't be like a great being anymore than we can be like a chicken or an ant. We have to be who and what we are.

Hi Carla,

It isn't so much about being "like" Jesus, but having God given "advice" how to live. What the NT gives us is ideal values that will help us and society to grow. This is basically to be decent citizens (i.e. not steal, lie, murder), and regarding sexual morality to be responsible (i.e. to be sexually intimate only in committed relationship (marriage being the ultimate committment), and to consider children as good things i.e. not abort them (which often happens as a result of sex out of committed relationships).

It's about always considering the consequences of our actions, not just to people, but to the world around us and animals. So many people just think about what they want, not how what they want can negatively impact others or the natural world around us, as though they are an island existing only unto themselves.

Whether or not a person who reads the Bible agrees with it, and repents of their sin. and puts their trust FULLY in Christ and his atonement for them on the cross has nothing at all to do with how many times they read the Scriptures. It has to do with the action of the Holy Spirit, and that ALONE. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8 No one can make themselves Christian - it is a work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible declares that we are "dead in trespasses and sins" Eph. 2:1 Of course it is speaking of spiritually dead. Dead people cannot do a thing to save themselves - never mind doing anyone else any good.
Demi, the difference between Catholicism and Protestanism is this. Martin Luther saw in his day, that the Catholic "church" had strayed far from the original Scriptures -- so much so that they had lost the gospel (good news). The reason that this had happened is precisely this - they allowed things other than Scripture (ie: papal decree, church tradition) to speak authoritatively (sp?) and put them on par with God's Holy Word. However, in Revelation, we are warned decisively not to do that -
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: IF ANYONE ADDS TO THESE THINGS, GOD WILL ADD TO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: AND IF ANYONE TAKES AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROPHECY, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE, FROM THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. " Rev 22:18,19 (emphasis mine)
The Roman Catholic "church" has done just what was forbidden in the words quoted above with their papal decrees, traditions and what not. Demi, the things you say about Mary are not found in Scripture and are added by the Roman " church to their everlasting damnation. The Bible specifies that Mary was a sinner in need of a Saviour " My soul magnifies the Lord And my spirit has rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR" (emphasis mine). There is no purgatory in the Bible and purgatory is a damning doctrine. Even if you are angry, please read on.
The Bible says in Ephesians - speaking of those who have been born again "For by GRACE (grace is unmerited or unearned favour) you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the GIFT of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast." Eph 2:8.9 (emphases mine). Salvation is a GIFT. You don't earn a gift, it is freely given. I once had a friend that tried to pay me for a gift I gave her. I was really offended. However, the RC "church" has stated that we must do penance, works of righteousnessmasses, confessions etc, etc, and in the old days, buy indulgences (for a fat, happy "church" - do they still do indulgences?) for salvation. They try to add to the work of Christ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> To try to add our own filthy works to the work of Christ is shameful and will bar His free grace from our lives. The Bible says that "He who lives by the law will die by the law." In other words, if we try to be justified by doing good deeds (the works of the Law) we will be judged by the Law. Anything less than perfection warrants hell. The Law is meant to be a tutor to bring us to Christ. In other words, if we REALLY study the law - and how Jesus expounded on the Law in the Beatitudes and elsewhere, we will finally reallize that "all our righteous deeds are filthy rags..." to God. There is NO WAY we can even come close to fulfilling the demands of the Law. By the Law, we stand condemned!! But, by realizing this, we will come to the end of our own self-righteousness and realize that without someone else to pay for our debt (lifetime of sin) we are lost. Jesus came to PAY IN FULL that debt for those who would fully trust in HIM and HIM ALONE for salvation. Good works only come afterward, as we show our gratefulness for all that He did for us. No true Christian will live as if sin does not matter. A true Christian realizes that without the sacrifice of Christ, and that ALONE, he would be eternally doomed. The RC "church" says that salvation can be bought by good works, penance, indulgences(?), confession, Hail Mary's etc, etc, etc. but that is like slapping Jesus in the face and saying that His work on the cross just is not sufficient. I repeat, the doctrines of the Roman Catholic "church" are pseudo Christian and, if believed, will damn a person for all eternity. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Read the Scriptures! Don't let some pseudo "church" seal your eternal destiny! Only when we are free from our continual striving to please God for our own salvation ( through what Jesus did for His people on the cross) can we then concentrate on doing good for others out of pure thankfulness to the God who saved us. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Carla said...


Great, but it's important to understand that not "basing your life on it"—as you said—pivots on one question, namely: "Who is Christ" (more on this later).

One of the best ways to reveal errors in an argument or belief system is to show internal conflicting ideas (ideas that are mutually exclusive) within the belief system. Your belief system has several very large internal conflicts. A belief system with this flaw leads to hypocrisy in either action or belief.

You have accused me (as has Demi) of "picking and choosing" what I want from the Bible, yet, you have decided to accept Christ as "being one with God" but have rejected the New Testament.

Assuming that the place you learned about Christ is the Bible (correct me if this is not true) and you decided to call Him "one with God", how is it that you choose not to accept the New Testament? When, in fact, the entire Old and New Testament is about Christ, and every book and letter within the Bible has Christ as it's central theme and symbolism, how can you hold these conflicting ideas without seeing the hypocrisy?

Why do you reject the New Testament?

If you can answer me this question, we can, perhaps, have some intelligent dialog about this subject.

Carla said...


If you would kindly pass along to me the chapter and verse where the Bible defines a Christian attitude as something other than being honest with someone, I'd like to see what you come up with. "Tough love", on the other hand, is a very familiar Biblical concept.

Again, (I told you this in a post some time ago) if I didn't care, I would not waste my time posting on this subject, however, I do care about the Bible and about those precious souls who will read this thread in the future; And I do not want to them to be mislead by your words; We already have most of the mainstream media that takes care of that rather efficiently.

I wish for these persons to see the truth about Christ and to be free to experience the same love, power, and self control that I have since accepting the gift of Christ; That is, the just payment for my errors (sin), my rebellion, my thoughtlessness that originally separated me from God. I wish for these to experience the quality of life that I have received by humbling myself to these truths that are from God. No money can buy this peace. It is the free gift of a loving yet just God.

"Behold therefore the goodness and [color:"red"]severity of God: on them which fell, severity;[/color] but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
—Romans 11:22

Many people don't like to talk about uncomfortable things. They avoid them and try to ignore them for the sake of their own emotional comfort, but there are those among us that bring to our attention the difficult things as well as the comfortable, and I am one of these.

Notice in Romans Paul spealing about severity. People don't like to speak about these things much because they are uncomfortable because they are scary; They cause fear in many people, yet they are true. But we are called not to be fearful or cowardly:

"And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm."
—Matthew 8:26

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
—Hebrews 11:6

and notice the first item in the following list:

"But the [color:"red"]cowardly[/color], unbelieveing, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
—Revelation 21:8

So we are to be brave and strong and to overcome fear, for fear is not from God:

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
—2 Timothy 1:7

And so I don't speak to you unknidly, but without fear, and you interpret that as being rude or unkind, but then, you are being subject to our warped culture in this opinion, among those who have come to believe that fearful people are "nice" and brave people are "harsh" or "rude". I don't wish to be unkind, but to speak the truth without fear.

"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."
—1 John 4:18

(This being one of my favorite verses in the Bible.)

Carla said...


This is what I mean by misquoting.

Of course there are those who have read the NT and do not accept it, however, I don't personally know any. In fact, those who do read it—with sincerity and humility—will eventually come to know the depth of the truths of which I am speaking and most will eventually come to experience the love, power, and self control which I made mention of.

Of course, if you base your opinions on the deceptive decidedly anti-Christian mainstream media, you would quickly come to another conclusion, and that is just as they want it to be.

Carla, reading the Bible and accepting Christ are two different things. I was simply saying that I have found that most who do the former, will eventually do the latter. You are glumping (inadvertently combining multiple ideas, treating them as a single idea).

Carla said...


Again, you are glumping. You are missing the central point.

The reason that people are attracted to the Bible is spiritual.

You have a habit of (I tell you this with good intent) combining truths and not seeing at them separately. For this reason, you attribute this attraction as "some pre-existing condition in people".

As I said in my previous post, it takes much "backtracking" to help someone separate these things they have combined because they are fundamental. Yet, I have posted this information in previous posts to you. Here's what you need to know.

A human is primarily three parts together, just at God is: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

The Father is analogous to our soul, the emotional part of us. I'm not saying that the Father is our soul. Please don't confuse this point. Only that God is three and so are we; Being created in His image.

The Son is, obviously, flesh. The Holy Spirit, obviously, spirit. These parts of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are how humans are modeled. Understanding this opens up scripture to us and ways we could not previously have imagined.

Now, when someone gets to know themselves and begins to see the divisions in these three parts of us, they begin to understand how these work together in us to make us complete. They also begin to understand some deeper concepts, like self control.

"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
—Romans 7:19-25

Self control often means not following your emotions. If you're in a situation and you see your emotions become inflamed, you might realize this it is an inappropriate time to "lose your temper". In this case, you have wisely subverted the misuse of one part of you—your soul—for the other—your spirit.

Some people might try to move objects with their mind. This is the misuse of one part—the Spirit (home of the mind, will, and intellect, among other things) for the use of another—the body.

In the same way, some people use their soul (emotion) to discern whether the Bible is true or not. This is not the proper way to discern the Bible and will lead to erroneous conclusions. You should rather pray that the Holy Spirit would help you intellectually (i.e. spiritually) understand these things, for the Holy Spirit conveys information to you through your own spirit and it takes some quiet contemplation to build the skill of discerning the "sound" of your own emotion from the "sound" of the Holy Spirit's voice, and of your own intellect; A function of your own spirit.

"Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles."
—Matthew 12:18

God was "emotionally" pleased.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [color:"red"]heart[/color], and with all thy [color:"red"]soul[/color], and with all thy [color:"red"]mind[/color]."
—Matthew 22:37

For a deeper understanding of these concepts and assistance in getting to know one's self, see Strong's for "heart" (2588), "soul" (5590), and "mind" (1271). It is very enlightening.

Discerning the differences between these parts of you are, in part, what I refer to as, "getting to know yourself", and this is a vital part of understanding the depths of scripture.

Carla said...


The underlying question we are asked by scripture is:

Who is Christ?

Everyone has to make this determination for themselves. My only job is to make sure they get accurate information so they are well-informated when they do make the decision:

"And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
—Mark 8:27-38


Who is Christ?

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name [color:"red"]Emmanuel[/color], which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
—Matthew 1:18-25

Emmanuel (Strong's 1694) is literally translated, "God with us", as the text says.

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
—Matthew 3:17

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
—Matthew 16:15-17

"While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."
—Matthew 17:5

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
—Matthew 28:20

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
—Mark 14:62

"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
—Luke 3:22

"Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."
—Luke 22:70-71

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
—John 6:35

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life."
—John 6:47-48

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
—John 6:51

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
—John 8:58

I respect your opinions, Dallas. I believe you are a Christian. There are many things I don't agree with in the Catholic churches (RC is just one - I am Orthodox more than I am Catholic), but my personal beliefs are Orthodox Catholic.

Orthodox Catholic's don't have the same view on sin as Roman Catholics and Protesetants. We believe that mortality is the consequence of original sin. Therefore, we believe humans are born only with the consequences of original sin, not original sin actually in their bodies.

We believe Orignal sin separated us from God - deprived us of sanctifying Grace. To be put right with God, we needed a saviour. This was Jesus. Jesus was fully human and fully God. He interited humanity/mortality from Mary, but he had a divine spirit/nature. Because Mary was mother of the saviour, God blessed her at conception with sanctifying Grace i.e. she was always right with him. She was "blessed." But God could not have done this without Jesus's sacrifice. Mary needed a saviour, and Jesus was her saviour as much as ours. She was a human being like the rest of us, a sinner, but she was "blessed" in that she was given sanctifying Grace.

No one has to believe the Orthodox positon, but this is what we believe. Everyone needs to find their own way. I used to be Protestant but it wasn't for me. If it's someone elses way to God, great! We're all one family in the end <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And I understand your concerns with the RC, and the emphasis on mortal and venial sins. I don't agree with that either. It's just that the Orthodox position reflects my beliefs more than the RC and Protestants. But I don't go to church because I am a mix of a lot of things. Orthodox/Catholic is closest, but I don't agree that works is necessary either. However, I don't believe in once saved always saved either, so I am inbetween. I believe in a livng faith - a desire to do good because we want too, not to please God, but because it should be the natural result of being a Christian. I don't personally like old fashioned ritualstic ceremonies, don't like male-exclusive priesthoods, and I don't beleve (as a lot of Orthodox do) that it's wrong to have communion on a period. I also agree that we don't have to follow the law. That's why I don't believe in crcumcsion. I thnk what's in our heart matters to God more than anything. But I don't believe Protestants "do" really believe in salvation through faith alone, because all I'd ever hear at church was "thou shalt not". They undermine their own beliefs by imposing so much guilt.

The important thing to remember about Christ is that He removed all guilt. We have no need to feel guilt if we accept His free gift AND repent when we mess up. We can be imperfect—and we all are—yet live with a clear conscience.

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
—Hebrews 9:14-15


If a "church" is weighing people down with guilt, I would consider whether they are really teaching accurately from the Bible, which is the basis for our faith in Christ.

On the other hand, if a church is teaching people to fear and revere God, and as a result we experience guilt, it would be good to first examine ourselves to see if there is any good reason for the fear that may reveal an impure conscience or if we are simply being "oversensitive" emotionally, and if that is the case, to retrain our conscience.

"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."
—1 John 3:3

I agree, Russ. We should feel guilty, as a Christian, if we are doing something wrong. But otherwise, we shouldn't, and being a Christian should be a positive experience.

I am Protestant in that I think there is nothing we can do for salvation, but Orthodox/Catholic in doctrinal beliefs. I do think we need a living faith, a faith that is reflected in works, and without the works the faith is dead. Not that the works are "worth" anything of themselves, but because they are the fruit of a livng faith. Someone can say they believe all they like, but if they willingly sin (i.e. sleep around), then their actions (works) don't show that they believe, which begs the question of how deep their faith is.

That's what the Bible teaches, Demi. Many people say they are Christian, but it is our life which shows what is the truth about us. What we believe is shown by what we do (or don't do). We can ltry to deceive others and even ourselves by what we say, but we cannot deceive God. Our lives show where we are really at. To make a long post short - "Actions speak louder than words."

Why would you think that "ideal values" come only from J.C. and the New Testament (the apparent word of God)?

Are you suggesting that morality comes only from Christianity? Well, the Jews say that it comes only from THEM. I am not making this up. Corner a Jewish scholar and he will tell you that the Jews' ownership of morality is the reason for anti-semitism throughout the centuries. That is, the rest of us (non-jews) are jealous of the jews' corner on morality and that is why we "hate"them. I have read this on religious jewish sites.

I think that every race/culture is unique, and that it is perfectly capable of devising its own system of morality. I find it difficult to believe that all pre-Christian or pre-Jewish societies were rampantly immoral in all respects. Don't you?

Carla, God has always had his people - even before Judaism or Christianity. It is true that the Jews have their morality, and some of that morality comes from God (ie the Scriptures or the Old Testament). The trouble is, that today, as always, and as we are all inclined to do, the Jews have added to God's word - requiring that which God has not required, and taken away from His word - not requiring that which God does require. The ones that Jesus got the most angry with were the leading religious "authorities" of those days - the Pharisees because they added to and took away from His word - much like Roman Catholicism and other groups today. What the Jews missed then, and are missing today is the understanding of God's word. Yes, God gave us laws to live by and He expects us to live by them. But even one infraction of those laws brings down the wrath of God on our heads! But the dilemma is this. No one can keep the law. It is not possible for sinful creatures! The Jews, and many , many others don't realize that you can be the most moral person in the world and fall short of keeping God's law. That is why, in the OT, the Jews were required to bring animal sacrifices. The animals had to be perfect, without blemish. They were killed in the place of the person bringing the sacrifice. They were a substitute for the person who deserved to die for his sins ("The wages of sin is death') Those sacrificial animals pointed forward in history to Jesus who is Messiah (Saviour) Who, as a perfect, sinless sacrifice, would die on the cross, taking the place of every sinner who would place their trust in Him, instead of their sinful selves, for salvation. Jesus is God the Son, taking the wrath of God upon Himself, so that those who would trust in Him "...would not perish but have eternal life" Jn 3:16 Sadly, the majority of the Jews, who had the prophecies about Jesus, refused to believe those prophecies which spoke of a suffering Messiah. They only believed the prophecies which spoke of a triumphant Messiah and they felt that Jesus had come to remove the Roman foot from their necks. Jesus did not come to do that, but to die for His people. He will return one day, triumphant, and all who have refused to trust in Him will call for the rocks to fall on them rather than to have to face Him. Some Jews, by the way, did believe - in fact the very first church was made up of many, if not mostly Jews. There are Jewish Christians today - they are called Messianic Jews. When the Jews, as a nation, rejected their Messiah, the gospel (good news) was taken to the world - yes the Roman world at the time, but it wasn't long before it was taken further and now there are Christians all over. True Christians are few in number and there are many who profess to be Christian but are not. The Jews, as a nation, "dropped the ball" so to speak, and God's message of redeeming love is now in the hands of Christians (both Jewish and Gentile Christians) to pass on to whoever will listen regardless of race, color etc. And we often do a very poor job of it. The (non-Christian)Jews' morality that they speak of, is their attempt to follow God's Law, with some of their own sprinkled in, and on that basis, they think they are righteous because they think they outdo most other people. But they don't realize thattheir bragging about their morality is sin (pride) and that God's standard is, and has always been, perfection, and that they lack the perfection found only in Christ, so their eternity is no better than that of any other unrepentant sinner. Thanks be to God that He has shown me the way, or I would perish in my sin also, for I am no better than anyone else.
Any culture can form its own morality and may, in some areas, seem to us to be pretty morally upright people. But God does not look at outward appearances, He sees our hearts. Even the Jews fell into the trap of thinking that if their outward behaviour was "decent" they were o.k. but Jesus stripped that line of thought away. "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgement. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca' shall be in danger of the council,. But whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire." Matt.5:21-22 and "You have heard tht it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt.5:27-28 God's standards are above ours. In our culture today, were are tossing God's Laws and developing our own morality to our own peril now, the future, and for eternity. Yes, all cultures, without Christ, although they may have a morality that helps them to get along, are deficient in God's eyes for He is the only Lawgiver and to supplant His laws with our own is foolishness in the extreme. Try telling even a policemen that you have made up your own speed limit!
The "god" that many worship today is, as my husband calls it, a buffet deity - one in which we get to pick and choose the attributes we like Him to have, and it bears no resemblance to the God Who created us and has every right to expect us to treat Him as the King of kings and Lord of lords that He is. He is a God of perfect justice - which we like to forget - and a God of perfect mercy.

Hi Carla,

I believe everyone has their own moral standards, but I don't think they are "absolute". I think only that comes from God. Modern society, for example, says it's ok to abort a baby. If society judges what is moral, that is perfectly acceptable. But is abortion morally acceptable because society says it is? As the former pope said "truth is not a majority vote".

I believe absolute morality comes from God - in whatever way one reaches out to the divine. Christians don't have the monopoly on morality. There are millions of Christians who are prepared to abort their baby on birth control pills for the sake of convenient sex, but pagans who will not use hormonal birth control out of respect for life. Catholics (both Roman and Orthodox) also regard such birth controls as immoral). I will not join a Protestant church for as long as they continue to teach that abortaficients are morally acceptable. I totally believe life begins at conception. I rather be Catholic and feel I can't live up to their high moral standards, than in a church that has lower standards.

I do think that Christianity has the ideal moral code, but that doesn't mean all Christians live by it.

Sorry, that was a quote by the present Pope <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi, Dallas. I really want to read your long entry, but I need some paragraphs to make it easier on my eyes. Could you fix it so it's not like one big sentence? Thanks muchly. - Carla.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

This commandment have I received of my Father.

There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there."

—John 10:1-42

Hi Russ. I know you mean well, but I don't think that quoting from the Bible (especially one in old English) really helps people to understand your arguments. What people like to hear is your interpretations, understandings and so forth.

Very sorry, Carla. I didn't know that it would cause a problem. I have tried to edit it, but it will not allow me to - saying the time limitis up for doing that. I don't know if there is any other way to put those paragraphs in. I guess when I get to going on and on, I should take better care for form. I will try to remember for the future. Maybe, if I find the time, I can rewrite it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Well, Carla, here we go again - probably with a few additions because I never know when to shut up! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

God has always had His people - even before Judaism amd Christianiy. Abraham and Job are just two examples. It is true that the Jews have their morality, and some of that morality comes from God (ie: Old Testament Scriptures). The trouble is, today, as always, and as we are all inclined to do, the Jews have added to God's word - requiring that which God has not required, and taken away from His Word - not requiring that which God does require. The ones that Jesus got the most angry with were the leading religious "authorities of those days - the Pharisees, because they added to and took away from His Word - much like Roman Catholicism and other groups today. What the Jews missed then, and are missing today is the understanding of God's Word.

Yes, God gave us laws to live by and He expects us to live by them. But even one infraction of those laws brings down the wrath of God on our heads! "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10 Like the breaking of one link breaks the whole chain, the breaking of one law makes us guilty of breaking the whole Law. The dilemma is this. NO ONE can keep the Law. It is not possible for sinful creatures! The Jews and many, many others don't realize that you can be the most moral person in the world and still fall short of keeping God's Law. That is why, in the OT, the Jews were required to bring animal sacrifices. The animals had to be perfect, without blemish. They were killed in place of the person bringing the sacrifice. They were a subsititute for the person who deserved to die for his sins ("The wages of sin is death.") Those sacrificial animals pointed forward in history to Jesus, who is Messiah (Saviour) Who, as a perfect, sinless sacrifice, would die on the cross taking the place of every sinner who would place their trust in Him, instead of their sinful selves, for salvation. Jesus is God the Son, taking the wrath of God upon Himself, so tht those who would trust in Him "...would not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 Sadly the majority of the Jews, who had the prophecies about Jesus, refused to believe those prophecies which spoke of a suffering Messiah. They only believed the prophecies which spoke of a triumphant Messiah and they felt that Jesus had come to remove the Roman foot from their necks. Jesus did not come to do that, but to die for His people. He will one day return, triumphant , and all who have refused to trust in Him will call for the rocks to fall on them rather than to have to face Him. (see Revelation)

Some Jews, by the way, did believe - in fact the very first church was made up of many, if not mostly Jews. There are Jewish Christians today - they are called Messianic Jews. When the Jews, as a nation, rejected their Messiah, the gospel(good news)was taken to the world - yes, the Roman world at the time, but it wasn't long before it was taken further and now there are Christians all over. True Christians are few in number and there are many who profess to be Christian, but are not. The Jews, as a nation, "dropped the ball" so to speak, and God's message of redeeming love is now in the hands of Christians (both Jewish and Gentile Christians) to pass on to whoever will listen, regardless of race, color, etc. And we often do a very poor job of it.

The (non-Christian) Jews' morality that they speak of, is their attempt to follow God's Law, with some of their own sprinkled in, and on that basis, they think they are righteous because they think they outdo most other people. But they don't realize that their bragging about their morality is sin (pride) and that God's standard is, and has always been, perfection, and that they lack the perfection found only in Christ, so their eternity is no better than that of any other unrepentant sinner. Thanks be to God that He has shown me the way, or I would perish in my sin also, for I am no better than anyone else.

Any culture can form its own morality and may, in some areas, seem to us to be pretty morally upright. But God does not look at outward appearances, He sees our hearts. Even the Jews fell into the trap of thinking that if their outward behaviour was "decent" they were o.k. but Jesus stripped that line of reasoning away.

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgement. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca' shall be in danger of the council, But whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire." Matt 5:21-22.

and...

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt. 5:27-28

Those are just two examples of how Jesus showed us that the law is even harder to keep than we could ever imagine.

God's standards are above ours. In our culture today, we are tossing God's Laws and developing our own morality, to our own peril -now, in the future, and for all eternity. Yes, all cultures, without Christ, although they may have a morality that helps them to get along, are deficient in God's eyes, for He is the only Lawgiver and to supplant His laws with our own is foolishness in the extreme. Try telling even a policeman that you have made up your own speed limit!

The "god" that many worship today is, as my husband calls it, a buffet deity - one in which we get to pick and choose the attributes we like Him to have, and it bears no resemblance to the God Who created us and has every right to expect us to treat Him as the King of kings and Lord of lords that He is. He is a God of perfect justice - which we like to forget - and a God of perfect mercy.

Many on this forum like to say "Well I believe this..." or "I think God is like that...." . I fall into that trap many times too. But it does not matter at all what I think or what anyone else thinks or believes. He has revealed Himself to us in His Word, the Bible. If what we think or believe contradicts what He has revealed in His Word, we are wrong.

Demi,

The reason I'm quoting scripture is to respond to comments you made about "someone elses way to God."


The scripture I quoted talks about theives and robbers, and those are ones who attempt to enter the sheepfold "not by the door". This scripture is an example of what the Bible teaches about Christ; Christ is the door.

If you study scripture, Christ teaches plainly that there is no other way to the Father except by Him (Christ). My point in posting that scripture was to show that there is no other way to enter the sheepfold except by Christ. This is what He plainly teaches.

All this then pivots on who Christ is, and it is our faith in Him that saves us. It's simple, yet profound in implication.

Demi said...


This is so true.

It's vital not to judge (discern) Christ by those who claim to be His followers. We must read what He said and see if the Spirit bears witness with our spirit as to whether or not these things are true. This is why I spoke earlier about knowing the difference between our soul and our spirit for how could we know the "voice" of the Spirit if we cannot discern it from the "voice" of our own soul?

Demi said...


This may help you understand why there are so many "thou shalt not's.

There are two types of law:

(1) Negativistic and,
(2) Positivistic.

Negativistic law limits the evil among us in that it says things like: "Thou shalt not...". —It limits what evil can be done but permits all else. It says, "you cannot do these things" but all else is OK.

Positivistic law, on the other hand, limits and controls virtually everything we do. It's the kind of law man makes apart from God and is so overwhelming that it severly limits our freedom.

Under negativistic Biblical law, we can work in a trade, support our families, pay for necessities, and defend our property. We can barter, trade, work, and rest freely. None of this is against the law.

Under manmade positivistic law (socialism, actually):

—Before we can work, we have to attain a license to practice a trade.

—We then have to give part of what we earn (money, which actually represents our labor) to the government or we'll go to jail.

—We cannot freely trade without first recording, reporting and then paying taxes on what is traded.

—We cannot fix up our home without first getting a license or permit, then hiring only those who are licensed by the state to do certain kinds of work.

—We cannot freely travel for we must be licensed and insured, pay tolls, register our car, obey speed limits, etc.

—We cannot even paint our place of business or in some cases, our house without first attaining permission from the "authorities". To do so would be "breaking the law".

—We cannot pay a friend for some work they did to fix up our yard without creating a record of the event (1099) and reporting it to the "authorities".

—In fact, there is little I can do "legally" without first getting permission from the "authorities" or paying a tax or attaining a license (permission) or creating a record (1040).

This is the toil of positivistic law.

Biblical law, on it's face, may seem limiting at first, but then, what is limiting about not coveting another's property? Does this not actually protect someone elses property and rights?

What is limiting about not commiting adultry? Does this not actually protect someone elses rights?

When you take the time to understand Biblical principles, you begin to understand that Biblical law contains, in fact, the law of liberty; The law of freedom in that it does not restrict those who are good, as does positivistic law. Biblical law only restricts evil and allows any kind of good that you desire, so long as it does not hinder another's rights or destroy their property.

Biblical law—the law of liberty—is so short, it can be held in your hand and read in a small amount of time. Positivistic law restricts and controls virtually everything you do and would (in the United States, for example) fill an entire foodball statium to over three-feet in depth and cannot be read by any single human in a lifetime.

The United States once fluorished in the blessings of negativistic Biblical law. It now flounders under the weight and burden of manmade positivistic law.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish."

—Psalms 1:1-6

I am not saying that I am in favour of "manmade positivistic law" (of course it's overbearing and heavyhanded), but I thought J.C. said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. My interpretation of that is that all manmade governments are intrinsically crappy and we have to accept that as we can't change it. If it's not Caesar abusing people 2,000 years ago, then it's today's democratic governments who are. JC's kingdom is "not of this world", so why worry is what he was saying about imperfect, manmade governments.

Right on, Carla!

Hey, Dallas - nice to have somebody on my side for a change!

I guess you are all right-wingers, lol. I'm left-wing (equivalent of democrat).

I'm not going to take part in these off-topic (non-amalgam related issues) anymore. Not because I don't believe I can't argue my position and so forth, but because I DON'T WANT TOO! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I don't like debate, which I have said many times. I respect everyone elses opinions.

Carla, I know how you feel. It seems like no one ever agrees with me, lol (except on circumcison, which we don't do here). But that's okay <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I don't need people to agree with me on reigion, politics, abortion, animals or amalgam to have faith in my own convictions on these things. And I don't think any less of people for not agreeing with me.

I do think that sharing what unites us all (and on this board it's suffering through amalgam) is better than arguing over what divides us (religion, politcs and so forth).

If we live to please others, we never learn to live ourselves. That isn't to say debate isn't important, but it appeals to some people more than others, and I'm afraid has never appealed to me.

How on earth can you respect people's opinions in their entirety, which is how you make it sound, anyway. Sorry if I was wrong, maybe I didn't interpret your statement correctly.

I think some people have perfectly wicked opinions, and I can't respect that. Debating can be pretty useless, tho, can't it. But if it stops the buildup of pressure in a person, well, let's do it.

Hi Carla. What I meant was that I respect everyone's right to an opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with the opinions. Some of them I find down right horrible, even sick. But I respect their right to their opinion. It's the only way I've found to cope with life, because most people have opinions that I find terrible i.e. eating meat. To most people it is perfectly acceptable to slaughter little lambs and calves for lamb chops and veal. This repulses me to the core. Some dear friends support abortion up to six months, which to me is absolutely horrendous. But what can I do? I just have to respect their right to that opinion. And if I can respect that right to an opinion, I can still respect the person.

It's just the way I cope. I don't like debate or arguing. I'd like to be friends with everyone. It's not always possible, but ideally I'd like to be friends with everyone, and respect that we have different view points.

Demi, I go along with you to a point. However, when there is a Hitler in our midst, can we, in good conscience, go along, or must we speak up for those who are being led to slaughter? So, while I can respect that someone else likes a different food than I do, I cannot respect a person's so-called "right" to destroy the life of another, as in Nazi Germany or in an abortuary. Likewise, in a theological discussion, I cannot sit back and listen to someone who is in total contradiction to the Bible, because the stakes are too high. A person's eternal soul is too precious for me to accept falsehood - all in the name of getting along. So, a person can say and do many things which I disagree with and it's "live and let live" but they cross a line when they start trying to pass their own personal beliefs off as truth

Well, someone like Hitler is a total different kettle of fish. But if people are going to spend their whole life arguing with those in society who have different views on something, then they have to be a kind of person who likes to "give as good as they get", because they will "get it". I support the causes that I believe in, but in my own quiet little way. I don't go to debate groups arguing about eating meat or abortion, because it's not my nature. I leave it to those who feel that is their particular talent. I just don't eat meat, I support vegetarian causes, pro-life, and other charites that I believe in.

As to Christianity, you can argue all day about that one with people from all kinds of denominations. That's pretty much how it was in my last church home-groups - trashing all the other denominations, especially Catholics, when they didn't really even understand Catholicism. I thought it was petty, stupid, and very childish. It's also cowardly, in my opinion. Rather than trash fellow Christians, go out and tackle abortion doctors, stand up in the pulpit on Sunday and say birth control pills are abortaficient. Talk about the suffering of animals, the pollution of the planet. Go to people of other religions and tell them about Jesus. But no, they would never tackle anything like that. They would sit around trashing Catholics, Anglicans and others, but that we must be "tolerant" of abortion, other relgiions and so forth. Before worrying about my immortal soul, I would suggest people look at the state of their own.

If you like to debate, go for it. I don't like to debate. I like the quiet life, and there's nothing wrong with that. My views are my views.

And what has happened here is exactly "why" I don't like to debate. Airing my opinions here has done absolutely no good whatsoever. All it's done it's annoy those who don't agree with me and made people like me less than some others on this forum. I haven't changed anyone's mind about anything, and my mind hasn't been changed about anything. It's all so much stress for absolutely nothing. So, from now on I'm not airing my opinons on anything other than amalgam.

Firstly, Demi, I am not annoyed at you, nor do I like you any less due to the discussion here on this forum. Secondly, I am not trashing Catholics or Jews or any other religion. Please don't take offense where none is intended. My letter was in answer to Carla and some of the things she said. I only wish for those who are in bondage to manmade rules in "church" or synagogue to step back, take a good hard look at what the Bible really says, and finally, to find freedom in Christ.

'm sorry, Dallas, I wasn't talking about you, but Christians I have come across in my personal life. I can see you are a very sincere Christian and very respectful of other peoples views. As a Protestant (and I believe pastor's wife?) your views would be very different to mine <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm sorry also if it seemed I was negative towards Protestants. There are many great Protestant churches out there. I'm just not really a Protestant - somewhere in between Protestant and Catholic. And that's not a bad thing to have no label, because labelling ourselves a CHRISTian is better than labelling ourselves "methodist" or "baptist" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Right on, Demi! I never had the feeling that you were negative towards Protestants. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Carla said...


Not "of", but eventually in. He is returning.

We have to live with these governments and he's concerned about giving us the opportunity to do it well.

Hi Dallas,

I too am a born again Christian and read your posts. I just wanted to say that you are an inspiration for me to be more bold when it comes to witnessing about Christ. You explained the good news of salvation in such a simplified and loving way which sets a great example for Christ!

May God bless you!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi Russ,
I admire your perserverance and your love for people to explain to them in detail until they fully understand along with Dallas! I wish I had these qualities!!! I admire your patience, and all the time you take to type all these posts with your bussy schedule, to say the lest!!! Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour, and I believe the Bible is perfect with no mistakes too!!!

May God bless you and Dallas!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi Demi,

I just wanted to tell you that about 25 years ago before I was a Christian, I had about 38 infections that were ovary, urinary tract, vaginitis, and especially bladder infections from my first boyfriend that was not circumsized. He washed himself over and over all the time trying to prevent this from happening, but I keep getting infections. The doctor said if this continues, I'll get so badly scarred that I will become infirtile. Well sure enough I became infirtile! Although I believe that mercury, the other heavy metals, and the toxic white composites have contributed to the infirtility, I'm most certain it was my boyfriends uncircumsisim that caused all these infections. How do I know this? Well, as soon as my boyfriend got circumsized I never had these infections again!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hi Scarlet. I respect your opinion, but am afraid I'm still with Carla on this one. But I agree that sometimes circumcision is medically necessary, as is genital surgery for a woman i.e. if she has enlarged labia, hymen or clitoral hood, that either causes soreness, infections, discomfort or difficulty in sexual intercourse.

There is probably some degree of culture clash as Europeans don't circumcise whereas Americans routinely do, so maybe we should just leave it as differences in culture.

Oh Scarlet, thanks for your reply! I am glad that someone appreciates and listens to the plain gospel. It IS such good news, isn't it! So many don't want to hear. You have encouraged me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I find this exchange to be hurtful. I could just aswell say that as Protestants, you are misguided and have rejected the wisdom of church fathers, aswell as insulting to deny Blessed Mother the honour due to her by rejecting Immaculate Conception. But out of respect for all of you, I am happy to "agree to disagree", that doesn't mean I don't think you are wrong. I just think it's a waste of time to discuss these things. I am happy as a Catholic, but was unhappy as a Protestant. I also disagree with many things Russ says. I don't need to be "educated" because I disagree with Protestants, or disagree with circumcision or animal killing for food.

I really have too much going on in my life to deal with all this right now, so I am respectfully not remaining on the board. Respect for differences has to mean respect for all differences and faiths - including mine as a Catholic, and not to say that I am in error. You might think that, but remember, Catholics believe you are in error too.

Dawn, I will be in touch privately as I would hate to lose contact with you. I just am not up mentally to this kind of hurtful exhanges, that is unfortunately the way of the internet.

Sorry again, Demi. I don't mean to be hurtful. I guess there is no way to have a discussion on a subject like this without you taking offense.

Though I don't know you, I have really enjoyed many of your posts and agree with much of what you say. I think we could be good friends. I love animals like you do. I am in the same boat healthwise.

A spiritual discussion, however, should not cause one to take offense, but to turn to the Bible to see whether or not what is said is true. After all, eternity is a long time so our destination is really important. God is not Whoever we want Him to be, but Who He is. He can't be the God of the Hindus, of the Buddhists, of the Mormons, of the Baptists and of the Catholics. What matters is not what I think or you think, but what is revealed in the Bible. As in all of life, spiritual truth is narrow. eg: 2+2=4 and not any other number. And there is an infinity of numbers that 2+2 does NOT equal. Truth is,your username is Demi. There are a bazillion names that are NOT your username. You live at a certain address. There are millions of addresses that you do NOT live at. The truth of your username and your address is narrow. The truth is, God is Who He is and has certain expectations of us. There are thousands if not millions of ideas of who God is that are inaccurate. How many religions are there? They are ALL wrong. For religion is man seeking to make God in his own image (picking and choosing the attributes he feels God ought to have). The only one who is on the right path is the one who reads and follows the Bible without adding or subtracting from it. If, as a Baptist, the church believes something that is not revealed in Scripture, I have to differ.

This is not a Catholic vs. Protestant thing. And I do not believe that there are no Christians in the Catholic church. Nor do I beleive that all who are Baptist are true Christians. I do believe the Catholic church has some terribly erroneous teachings as do some Protestant churches. No matter who we are, or where we are, we need to know our Scriptures so we can discern if the church we are a part of is true.

Well, I don't mean to go on and on. Our eternal destiny is the most important thing in life - more important than whether or not some fool dentist has stuffed mercury in our teeth - though that is important enough, for sure. Rather than take offense, prayerfully search the Scriptures, even if it takes a long time. I know well enough that your health makes it difficult. Remember, I am in the same boat. But, isn't your eternal soul worth it?

If you believe I am in error, Demi, shouldn't you be doing your best to show me the right way? Because if I am in error there will come a day when I hear from the Lord Jesus "Depart from me. I never knew you." It is easier, but not necessarily loving to "agree to disagree" when eternal issues are at stake.

That's just it, Dallas. I don't believe Jesus will turn you away because you're not Catholic. Why would Jesus do that when you have been a loyal follower and put him and God first in your life?

This is one of the main differences between Prots and Caths. We Catholic don't believe God judges by WHICH church you go to, but your faithfulness in your relationship with him. Jesus will acknowledge you, as a Baptist (if that's what you are) and me as a Catholic. We also believe, as Catholics, that God will welcome Muslims and others who have been faithful to Him, even though they haven't fully understood Him (because of their culture).

Protestants believe it matters to God what church one goes to i.e. if Anglicans are right, or Baptists, or Methodists. This is what would be discussed every home group I went too and majorly turned me from Prots. They believed everyone in the entire world was damned and in error unless they were Baptist. This totally undermines Jesus sacrifice on the cross which was so we could come to God individually and not be tied to dogmas and rituals and fears of going to Hell. I know it seems to Protestants that Catholics worry more about it, but that isn't my experience. If Prots truly believe faith in Jesus is enough for salvation, they wouldn't believe it matters what Church one goes to or what one believes on circumcision. In this way Catholics believe and trust in Jesus more, because Jesus's sacrifice on the cross is ABOVE our human endeavours and understandsing and beliefs (which are always shaped by our experiences). That's why we have the crucifix - God's sacrifice for our sins always remembered. It reminds us that Jesus died for our sins, so that we, through fellowship with Christ (faith and acting on that faith, because remember even devils believe) are saved. Prots take away the crucifix and instead have the empty cross to remind them of conquering death and afterlife - which in my humble experience has been all Prots care about - how to get into Heaven. Crucifix reminds us of the crucifixion of our sins with Christ, so that through Christ we can be in God's grace. We honour the Virgin Mary, of the Immaculate Conception who "every generation shall call me blessed", we believe in the communion of saints because death is no bar, just a passage into another room, where saints or the Blessed Mother can pray to God FOR us, or anyone who is dead. Prots believe there is no one in Heaven yet, which can't be right because Heaven is out of the current laws of physics, which means time there is not the same as time here.

We believe in Purgatory, which is the process of cleansing that our souls go through before we can enter God's presence (what it is the Catholic church does not say, because we don't know. It may be over before we know it, but it is the transformation we go through at death to be in God's presence), and then we have the final judgement (our soul at mortal death being judged where to go temporarily at least, until the final judgement at the end of the world).Prots believe there is only one judgement, therefore not believe soul can exist independent of body, hence deny all spiritual phenomenons like ghosts, who are restless souls (some demons) despite many evidence of ghosts. Maybe they are in purgatory and before can enter God's presence need to find peace. We don't claim to have all the answers as Catholics. Then we look at human relationships and sexuality. While Catholics seem more sexist (and is to some degree), it's not so bad as many Prot churches. In Prot churches, a husband is often a god to the wife, and she must obey and so forth (that word obey is not used in Catholic marriage services), and his sexual needs pivotal, even to the point of what I believe (and Pope) immoral things like birth control pills. Every Prot woman I know takes the pill. Catholics believe in sexual responsibilty and self-control, in using as far as possible natural birth control, and the husband to respect the woman's fertility by abstaining certain times, and the couple to always respect one of God's purposes for sex, procreation. I believe this is a good and proper teaching, although I do think barrier methods are ok. However, it's only recently we learnt about abortaficient nature of the pills. So, while Prot churches been using them, Catholic and Orthodox churches have said they are wrong, which makes me think God speaks moer to them these days, than Prots who, if they could make such a mistake over life and death, can make a mistake over anything.

They then say we are a canable for belief in transubstantiation (blood and wine is body and blood), and don't even bother to look into the symbolism. Remember that Jesus said the church is his BODY, therefore through the wine and the bread, we become members of his body by spiritual taking of his flesh and blood. Spiritually, it is his blood and body, and through these things our closeness to God is strengthened.

Then Prots attack our priests and say they take upon themselves Godly powers i.e. to absolve sins, not realising the theraputic function of confession. We see that therapy has benefits, and so someone going to priest and confessing things they believe they have done wrong and then be told that, if they are repentent, they are forgiven (the priest being symbolic of Christ at that moment on Earth) they go away feeling better about themselves.

If I take offence it's because of the assumption that I don't understand the Bible and so forth because I am not in the same denomination as you or someone else. That is insulting to me. And I could say the same about you, that you're in error. But I respect your intellectual choice to be baptist and God's free will that has lead you to BELIEVE that baptism is the truth. All I ask is respect that my God given free will has lead me to be Catholic because I BELIEVE it is the truth. We will only know when we are no more of this world, but what matters most is our relationship with Jesus and how we live and how we treat others, not dogmas and doctrines.

That's why I don't argye with you, because you are my sister in Christ. I don't believe in Christ there are denominations, just people resising in different limbs of the ONE body. There are things in the Catholic Orthodox church I don't agree with, but it it the closest to my personal beliefs.

All I ask is respect for my religion. If that can't be given, without saying I need to "see the error", I really don't believe I can continue to post here.

And I apologise sincerely if it seems I have been disrespectful of someone's beliefs. It hasn't been my intention to be disrespectful. I believe what I believe, but I wouldn't claim it is the "absolute truth". An absolute truth is a fact, and there can't be faith where there is fact. Our faith in Christ is just that - faith. Beyond the BIble, there is no real proof even that he lived. Because my beliefs are my beliefs, I wouldn't say you are damned because you don't share them. That is not within my power. God will judge, not I.

Prots say that the Bible alone is necessary, but the many Prot denominations clearly show they can't agree on what it says. This is partly why I also am Catholic. I believe that God would leave us some human to be our leader. Christ gave the "key to heaven" to Peter, and Catholics believe that the Pope is the God appointed head of the Church so that we have a leader. God knows we need leaders and guidance.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything the Pope says, but in all honestly I agree with 99% of it. You were saying that we mustn't shape God to our own liking, but I do believe that is part of the problem in Protestant circles. Something comes up they don't like or understand so they go off and set up their own church shaped to their liking, or drop books from Scrpture like Maccabees which support things they don't believe in (objecting to Purgatory). Now, as people don't like so many different things, they have so many different churches, and the "truth" is anyone's guess. Interpretation is subjective.

I have learnt in life that I can't be responsible for someone elses choices, be it religion or dental preferences. If you believe it is your duty to convert people to your particular expression of Christianity, I respect that. I just don't feel it is my duty to try to get every Christian I meet to see things exactly my way. Who knows, I may be wrong. I've also learnt that calling people up on what I perceive to be immoral or wrong beliefs only serves to alienate them i.e. on morality things. People respond to acceptance and to love, and I do believe that in life the harshest critcs and judges we face are our own selves. I never felt accepted or loved by Protestants, who really made me feel bad if I didn't believe "exactly" as they did i.e. my belief in Immaculate Conception. And, my experince here is the same, in that I don't feel accepted unless I conform to what your beliefs are. Prots always make me feel that way. That isn't to say it doesn't go on in Catholic circles aswell, though, but as I agree with far more than I don't, it's easier. I don't go to church, though, at least not yet. I wouldt try Anglican church as they are Catholic, but also Protestant, but they accept abortaficient birth control, which makes me think they can't speak for God. I do believe the pill has caused millions of abortions, and that God wouldn't allow that. I know Catholics in the past have burnt heretics, but it was a long time ago. I really can't understand how God would allow all the Protestant churches to have used hormonal birth control and have so many of them continue to say it's ok causing mass termination of life pre-implanation. I really don't understand that, Dallas. This is a problem for others in the pro-life movement too, how they could make such a mistake. Catholics and Orthodox never made it, and now that we know of iit, some are thinking condoms ok. This makes me think God protected the "true" church from this terrible error, to show us which one teaches more truths. Also, it wasn't long after Pope confirmed Immaculate Conception that St Bernadette was visited by Blessed Mother who said "I am the Immaculate Conception". In this way God reassures us that the church is not lost. It may have become tainted by human corruption i.e. priestly celebacy and elevation of the Pope beyond dues (in my opinion) aswell as exclusion of women, but in the doctrine, I think the Catholic church is right.

This is my honest opiinion. If it is offensive, I really can't help that. But is one reason I think keeping opinions to onesself is not a bad thing. Most Prots don't care about things that are important to me, and that's ok, because they are not me, and we all have to make choices. But like a lot of pro-lifers, the birth control issue is an important question on how the churches got it so wrong. Of course, I guess they say they were not wrong, and hence life doesn't begin at conception but an implanation (the abortionists arguing it is at various other times) all for the sake of their sex lives. And, because a lot of American men are circumcised, they find condom use difficult, so they are left with few choices other than the pills. Also, anything is seen as right by some Prots in marriage, wheras Catholics believe the nature of the sex matters. I believe the RC goes too far in some teachings, but at least establishes boundaries. Some Prots support kinky sex and so forth so long as the couple are married. They want no restrictions on sex, like they are beasts to be satisfied, rather than humans with brains and sexual control. RC values marriage and celibacy, and teaches sexual control, which is no bad thing. My ex-pastor actually supported a woman's decision to abort out of wedlock. I was disgusted and could never trust him on anything spiritual ever again.

Wow! Long post, Demi! I am not insulted by anything you said nor am I upset. We should be able to discuss these things. I think you live in England, don't you? Maybe things are different there than here. You certainly have different view of Protestants than I have ever seen. I do admire the Catholic church and their stand on abortion and agree that the Protestant churches are all over the map. For a slightly different view on Protestantism, many Protestants also don't believe in abortion or the pill. And some, such as myself, don't believe in birth control at all - except perhaps in some exceptional cases.

To tell you the truth, I went to a specific Protestant "church" all my life until, by the grace of God alone, I became a born again believer. I then realized that the "church I was going to was dead - no faith at all. I left, and have since attended a church where there is living faith. So, again, it is not a case of Protestant vs. Catholic. Some Protestant churches are dead as doorknobs.

I think this all started out with circumcision. Well, circumcision is neither here nor there in this new testament age except for health concerns. It is not circumcision or no circumcision, not Catholicism or Protestantism, but is a person depending totally, fully, completely on Christ and on Him alone, without trusting in any works of their own for salvation? I repeat - I am not against Catholics, or Jews or Mormons or whatever. I love them - or else I wouldn't take the time to write. I am against systems of whatever stripe that add too or take away from the Word of God thus blurring and besmirching the pure gospel - so that people can no longer see the truth.

It's high time someone told it like it is about FEMALES' genital problems that can be "cured" by surgery!

Hey, when a baby girl is born, you can't tell if she might ultimately develop the problems that Demi has listed above. These problems would probably not show up till adolesence, so, Russ, why not do genital reduction surgery on all baby girls?

If it's going to be done, it must be done shortly after birth, same as baby boys getting circumcised, because that way they don't remember it. Can you imagine a 13- or 14-year old girl, or older woman, having to go thru such sexual surgery? The trauma! Not to mention the horrible anticipation of the surgery! With reduction of the female's genitalia done shortly after birth, these problems are avoided completely!

Dallas, I agree that it's how "alive" the church is that matters, not so much the denominations. There are some Catholics who believe that they will go to hell for doing something i.e. using a condom because the of the church's teachings (which I don't agree with on that), but I have also met Protestants who believe they will go to hell for doing something. It depends on how one looks at the relationship between faith and action, and I've met both Catholics and Protestants who put too much emphasis on the "what we do" rather than Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

Excellent point, Carla. And while they are modifying and removing healthy flesh, incase the person happens to be in the very small minority of people who develop infection or problem in the future, they can remove the appendix and tonsils while they are at it. And all without anaesthetic, of course, as they are just babies so their pain is soon forgotten. Or, put them to the risks of knock-outs, because the small number that would die or be left with problems, would be inconsequential to the number of children saved in the future or their trauma as a child having to go to hospital to have tonsils out. Then at 16, routinely remove all wisdom teeth, incase they cause problems. Then at 50, perform routine hysterectomies on women to prevent risk of cancer. In the meantime, ensure all vaccinations are given to children and adults (boosters) to prevent diseases. The small minority who will have a negative reaction are inconsequential to the majority benefit of mass vaccination. As Russ says regardin circumcision, some will die and suffer needlessly as a result of the precautionary surgeries and vaccinations, but that doesn't matter because the interest of the majority are served.

Why remove only the wisdom teeth, Demi? Heck, I went to school with a couple of children (adolescents, actually) who had to have ALL THEIR TEETH PULLED as teenagers because the developing tooth buds were not prophylactically removed shortly after birth. I am not making this up.

If we could develop a tradition of excising all tooth buds (that's the patches of epithelial cells under the gums) shortly after birth, and then fitting these children with false teeth when they are a couple of years old, there would be absolutely no tooth problems, ever, with anyone. Especially no amalgams.

People with natural teeth would be seen as oddities, much as males with foreskins tend to be looked at askance.

Do consider it, all of you.

Another good point, Carla. Or, if not exract the teeth, just fill them up or coat them with some material just incase they get deep cavities or infections. We could also remove the adenoids as a small number of children (one of my friend's did) need them removed for health reasons.

So, cutting and snipping this and that at birth could potentially reduce a lot of risks of problems in the future - genital abnormalities, appendix, tonsils, and adenoids problems, aswell as tooth decay/infections. All done when they are only a few days old so never have to remember the trauma, will grow up to accept their altered body as normal, and if something goes wrong, oh well, it was done in their best interest and their suffering is some one elses gain.

I have to say that in Europe, it's the circumcised men that are the minority. Actually, they are a minority world-wide, with about 75-80% of the world's men not being circumcised.

All well and good for Europe, Demi. But we in North America - well, you know, we are far more advanced, modern and forward-looking than the old country that our ancestors left behind. America/Canada are WAY ahead of you guys. Boy, when I think of the hundreds of genital infections that have been prevented by way of infant circumcision, I am so glad my grandparents came here!

We just have to stop our self-satisfied attitude, though, and start working on all those other prophylactic efforts that you mentioned. First, America---and then the world! No disease! No discomfort throughout childhood, adolescence and adulthood! No medical expenses! Oh, glorious day. I am getting to work immediately promoting these exciting medical initiatives. Pray for me!

Demi and Carla, you two may chuckle and chortle all you want about the foolishness of man re: unnecessary and unwise medical procedures, and you may mock the fact that men do even wise procedures improperly, but to mock the proper implementation of the procedure of circumcision puts you both in the uneasy position of mocking God Himself for it was He who instituted circumcision in the first place for male Israelites. I think God knows what He is doing, and, as a matter of fact, has an intellect that far surpasses either yours or mine. Properly done circumcision has a proven track record of - yes - reducing infecitons AND preventing both penile cancer and cervical cancer in monogamous couples (I am talking about true monogamy-ie one man and one woman married as virgins for life -- NOT the serial "monogamy" we have today.)

This is why I find your comments hurtful, Dallas. You can't address any points I make without making derogatory remarks about my Christian faith. To say I mock God because I, like many Christians, don't believe in infant circumcision, is very hurtful, because God comes first in everything I do. I totally believe that circumcision is unnecessary spiritually, and Paul tells us so in the Bible - even goes as far as to say that those who teach the necessity of it are not from God.

This is definitely my last post in this OT forum. I hope we can still support each other on the mercury issue, because we all need as much support as we can get, but I'm through with discussing anything else, especially my faith.

Demi, you keep entirely missing the point and wrongly taking offense.
See you on the mercury forum.

Demi, I was referring to you and Carla mocking the procedure of circumcision. Whether or not it is spriritually necessary now is not my point. You are mocking a procedure that was instituted by God. Because it was instituted by God, for His chosen people, it is likely not a detrimental procedure when done properly. So, you can't lump it together with other unnecessary foolish things that modern medical people do, or that you can stir up in your imagination. And yes - look back in both your and Carla's posts. You WERE mocking circumcision - a procedure instituted by God. You should be more concerned about THAT than about whether or not I am making "derogatory" remarks about you or your faith. If God truly comes first in your life, you will be more concerned about His honor - and not insulting it - than you wil be about your own.
I am done with this post as you are choosing to get your back up and be insulted when I am only trying to get you to see how you are mocking God by what you say. Don't even bother to answer. I will not even look at it again.

Maybe it was't really Almighty God who required circumcison of the Jews: maybe it was Abraham having a psychotic episode.

When a person says he spoke with God and got instructions from God - nowadays we call that psychosis and the person in question is given thorazine and institutionalized. But when it comes to the Jews and what THEY want to do, all of a sudden it is not delusional any more - it's "God" talking.

A man hears voices, takes a sharp rock, cuts off a piece of his sex organ at the age of 99, commands it be done to all babies - and THIS is what you choose to consider "God's will."

Suppose I start getting instructions from "God" to cut some other part off of my own body, and also to do the same to all newborns of my race - then what? Would you hold still for this kind of behaviour on my part?Would the government put up with this? Would all people of my ethnic background listen to me? What do you think?

Yes.
No.

Check one of the above.

I'm with Dallas on this one. In fact, she is repeating what I have said all along, specifically:

The procedure is not harmful, it's doing it improperly that is.

About the questions between protestants and catholics...

This is a non-issue for people who know the Bible. Honestly, any reasonably mature believer would not attend a catholic church unless they were trying to convert "catholics". I'm not saying that "catholics" cannot be christians. I'm saying that a reasonably mature Christian would not want to be catholic.

If people knew anything about the deeper teachings of the catholic church, they would have nothing to do with it.

About Demi being offended or hurt:

The truth hurts. It hurt me in the beginning but it was for my own good. Let's not be afraid of being hurt or offended. Let's just roll with it and learn from each other.

Dallas is a very knowledgable Christian and we would all do well to listen.

I wasn't going to post here again, but feel I should point out that the above is religious descrimination. It is no less descriminatory than if you had said "All Muslims are stupid" or "All Jews are thick".

As you are owner of this board, which is part of your online business, I would be extremely careful in using comments like what you just did, because you could be in a lot of trouble if someone decided to prosecute your company for "preaching hatred" or religious descrimination.

Just some friendly advice, because I know you mean well.

And, for what it's worth, I wasn't hurt by the arguments, I was hurt by the ATTITUDE. There is a huge difference. I honestly feel not welcome here because I'm Catholic. As to my feelings on circumcision, I actually feel sorry for you, and other American men, who feel that cutting off a part of your penis pleases God. I also feel it makes your American Protestant God look rather stupid in that he would create the male penis in such a way, only for part of it to be cut off at birth, with some degree of risk to the child, rather than make the baby foreskin-free in the first place. This totally defies the existence of a logical and perfect God who makes everything for a reason - I do believe even wisdom teeth (in that in the old days, people lost lower teeth so the wisdom teeth compensated, as happened with mine). From the beginning of Christianity until now, Christians have taught that we are free in Christ, and that cirucmcision is neither desired or mandated by God - that is all Christians except Americans. Americans are thus influenced by the same medical community, who teach it is somehow cleaner to be circumcised (despite God making the foreskin to help protect the penis), who teach that amalgam is ok and vaccines no problem.

So, my problem has not been the discussion, but the heaps of insults poured on Catholics. And this truly will be my last post on the subject because I don't like to argue with you or anyone else here. I am aware of your opinion as me as a Catholic, and I am pretty annoyed at the bigotry, but I appreciate this board, and all the work you do in it, and would not like to leave because we all can help each other so much, but I do find the denigration of Catholics to be a problem here, just as I'm sure a Muslim or Jew would find it to be a problem if it was their religion treated in such a fashion.

Demi said...


Not so Demi.

There is a big difference between what I said and religious discrimination. It's a legal issue and although I appreciate the advice, in the United States, we still have the right to free speech. What I said it 100% true. Catholic doctrine is repugnant to the Bible.

Some people will take offense to this. Others will listen and learn. I take the Biblical view: "A word to the wise is sufficient." For those with ears to hear: You're welcome.

Demi Said...


Regardless of what you feel, you are welcome here and I've told you that before. In fact, I don't care what religion someone is, they are all welcome here. You are human; You are valuable; You are welcome.

Demi said...


Demi, this was done as a symbol. God never said it was a mistake, that's your projection only. You have to study the scriptures to understand that this action was a symbol as was animal sacrifice in the OT.

Demi said...


The quotes about the catholic church are true. The only catholics that will be insulted are ones that don't understand scripture and how catholic doctrine is in opposition to scripture.

If you want to attend a church whos doctrine is not in harmony with scripture, that's fine and it's up to you. The only thing that I am helping make you aware of is that catholic doctrine opposes scripture and because the catholic church states that they believe the Bible is holy and written by God, there is a conflict of logic there.

Again, a word to the wise...

Demi said...


My opinion of you is not formed by my knowledge of you choosing to be a catholic except for one thing: You are not well-read in the scripture and most likely, not in catholic doctrine either. I would never be hurtful towards you because of these things or for any other reason unless you were toward me.

My personal opinion about you is formed by observing your behavior on this board. Namely, that you have strong opinions (sometimes about things that you know little about), and that you are easily offended because you project meanings into conversations that don't otherwise exist. That's all.

These are personality flaws that I observe in you. I don't mean this in a harmful or hurtful way at all. I simply believe people should be honest and I am.

We all have personality flaws, all except Christ that is, and so we forgive each other for these flaws and move on. I'm not holding them against you. I just tell you the truth to help you know yourself so you can become a better person. We could all use a little improvement, don't you think? And having an external set of eyes is always helpful.

Demi said...


As I said before, I have nothing agains catholics as people, nor muslums or jews. I simply am speaking to you about the catholic doctrine.

I have a personal relationship with Christ and have read and studied the Bible for the past 20 years of my life. I have discovered it to be true and I have discovered Christ to be exactly who he claimed to be.

If some other religion claims that Christ is not who He claims to be, I will declare that religion to be untrue, and I'm sure they will do the same to my religion. So the real question is, which one is the real one.

The only way to know?

Study.

[color:"red"]"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."[/color]
—1 John 4:3