After trying to objectively consider ways in which this theory has truly benefited and enlightened humanity, I arrived at the following conclusion in which true love supersedes, triumphs over, and contradicts evolution. I think any rational mind that considers the following observations will have to agree even if they believe in evolution because contradict is used in the sense that the true principle of love which we all find so admirable, magnanimous and sublime runs contrary to the ideas that one would expect to extend from evolution.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest both consider that the better, more fit, stronger organism survives and maintains its existence whereas the weaker, less advanced, less adapted to the environment dies off in the natural sense of life. With this being the so-called rule of life and the rule of natural existence, the question I have is this:

Why do so many humans find the principle of self-sacrificing love so admirable?

The words of Messiah aptly sum up the princple of self-sacrificing love:

John 15:12-13
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
KJV

What? Lay down my life? That does not make any sense from the purely naturalistic view life. But again, when we see others fulfill this principle, such as a fireman risking his life to save others or someone truly dying to give others life, we consider that person as braver and even STRONGER than the rest even though stronger from evolution's standpoint are those who continue existence not those who end their life's [nature life that is] Furthermore, such acts of love touch a chord deep within our hearts that tells us that this love and selfless state is the true essence of life and that selfishness and self-preservation of this world's life is odious, distasteful and repugnant.

Before anyone goes into automatic mode to try to defend a theory or doctrine, I hope you will stop and carefully consider that what I am saying is true and that such love really does warm and gladden the heart and bring a sense of purpose and life in it like nothing else can.

Consider another mighty statment of Messiah:

Matt 16:24-25

24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
KJV

If we seek to save our lives in this world [i.e. survival of the fittest, self-preservation, etc) we lose it [that is we lose out on the true meaning of life] whereas if we lose our lives for Love's sake for Truth's sake we find it. This is why the Bible speaks of FAITH. Because there is a part of us that is naturally disinclined from fulfilling this command and which is inclined towards self-gratification, self-promotion, competition, etc.

FAITH comes into the picture because we must reach out and believe these words even when part of our instincts tell us that such actions are irrational. However, even though it appears aloof and somewhat ethereal and ambiguous, FAITH is actually concrete and simply means following the true facts of reality where they lead without any inhibitions or fears or hesitations to do so. And FAITH is essential because the proof that such statements are true come only when they are believed upon and acted upon and can never be simply figured out and rationalized in the mind without acting upon them. I.E. Believing is Seeing and not vice-versa.

Does this not present a much more meaningful and joyful existence than simply seeking to preserve one's physical life. True this is a much more philosophic scrutiny of evolution, however, all theories no matter how much they claim to be purely empirical and scientific do have philosophic and spiritual overtones that do trickle into this realm.

Such is the case with evolution. And this is why I am POSITIVE that the message of evolution will NEVER triumph over the message of TRUE Christianity and the cross of Yahshua. The love displayed on the cross has captivated billions and will continue to captivate any careful onlooker, having the irrestible power to melt even the coldest, most selfish of hearts. I like the words of Paul with respect to love, which state that the true principle of agape love BEARS ALL THINGS, BELIEVES ALL THINGS, HOPES ALL THINGS, ENDURES ALL THINGS, LOVE NEVER FAILS (I Cor 13).

This is why I believe evolution will fail, because though many might not perceive the connection, it is actually anti-love at its foundation, which love is the very foundation and essence of true existence.

Thus, the question for all to consider again is: Why do we find self-sacrificing love so admirable, so splendid and so sublime, in the face of evolution?

My answer: Man was created for a much higher form of existence than what evolution presents and that existence, life and essence is found in emulation of the life of Messiah and in taking up OUR CROSS and following Him.

Matt 11:28-30

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke [i.e. THE CROSS, self-sacrifice for the good of others] upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
KJV

Note: this is the true message of Christ and Christianity - LOVE - it was never intended to create a religious caste system, superstructure or control the people with petty superstitions. It was and is given to re-connect man with his true state of Existence and teach him once again how to love and live in peace.

A link about the 'selfish gene'
[en.wikipedia.org]

on Altruism
[en.wikipedia.org]

The selfish gene suggests that many acts of biological altruism are not really altruistic on the gene level. It also touches on 'altruistic' acts on other levels, like psychology, politics, ethics etc... from the sounds of it, one cannot behave with altruism without having some benefit.

I recently read a book called "Healthy at 100" by John Robbins.

In the book, John Robbins claims that one often overlooked fact regarding evolution is that Darwin did not believe in "survival of the fittest". Instead, Darwin believe in survival of the cooperative society.

The scenario of survival of the cooperative society would not contradict the principle of love. Rather, it would support it.

I wish I could print the exact quote, but I've already given the book away. It's a great book, by the way.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call you out on the following logical and well as moral fallacies:

Quote

After trying to objectively consider ways in which this theory has truly benefited and enlightened humanity, I arrived at the following conclusion in which true love supersedes, triumphs over, and contradicts evolution. I think any rational mind that considers the following observations will have to agree even if they believe in evolution because contradict is used in the sense that the true principle of love which we all find so admirable, magnanimous and sublime runs contrary to the ideas that one would expect to extend from evolution.

Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest both consider that the better, more fit, stronger organism survives and maintains its existence whereas the weaker, less advanced, less adapted to the environment dies off in the natural sense of life. With this being the so-called rule of life and the rule of natural existence, the question I have is this:

Why do so many humans find the principle of self-sacrificing love so admirable?

What? Lay down my life? That does not make any sense from the purely naturalistic view life. But again, when we see others fulfill this principle, such as a fireman risking his life to save others or someone truly dying to give others life, we consider that person as braver and even STRONGER than the rest even though stronger from evolution's standpoint are those who continue existence not those who end their life's [nature life that is] Furthermore, such acts of love touch a chord deep within our hearts that tells us that this love and selfless state is the true essence of life and that selfishness and self-preservation of this world's life is odious, distasteful and repugnant.

Let us take the example of altruism in animals. I'm sure we can both agree that there is no such thing as Abrahamic faiths in the animal kngdom, yet , nevertheless, altruism is a well-documented fact in the animal kingdom. I quote the article in its entirety:

Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may also be evident amongst wider social groups.

Animals have been shown to have altruism towards each other Research in evolutionary theory has been applied to social behaviour, including altruism. Some animal altruistic behaviour is explained by kin selection. Beyond the physical exertions that mothers, and in some species fathers, undertake to protect their young, extreme examples of sacrifice may occur. One example is matriphagy (the consumption of the mother by her offspring) in the spider Stegodyphus. Hamilton's rule describes the benefit of such altruism in terms of Wright's coefficient of relationship to the beneficiary and the benefit granted to the beneficiary minus the cost to the sacrificer. Should this sum be greater than zero a fitness gain will result from the sacrifice.
When apparent altruism is not between kin, it may be based on reciprocity. A monkey will present its back to another monkey, who will pick out parasites; after a time the roles will be reversed. Such reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, as long as the costs of helping are less than the benefits of being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by "cheating" - that is to say, by receiving favours without returning them. How this can be so is elaborated on in game theory and specifically the prisoner's dilemma as social theory.

Examples of animal altruism

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.[1]
Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.
Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.
Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.
Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.
Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[2]
According to the research of Gerald Wilkinson, vampire bats have a "buddy system" in which a bat who has had a successful night of feeding will regurgitate blood for its less fortunate companion.[3]
In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other "helper" birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings.
Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).
Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.

If animals show this kind of behaviour without any need for "religion", it is quite clear we humans can, and do, as well. Your argument is devoid of basis.

For much further reading, Dawkins dives into the evolutionary roots of morality and asks the question: why are we good? He devotes a whole chapter on questions such as: Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin? A case study in the roots of morality, and If there is no God, why be good?

Here is an online copy of the book [zinkdifferent.com] , go to Chapter 6 for that discussion.

I would advise everyone to read the entire book as it is very informative. For those religious people out there, if for no other reason than getting both sides of an argument. I've read the Bible, and I've read Dawkins. Have you? Ask questions, search for the answers.

Further ways in which Darwinian evolution has enlightened us is by raising our awareness of our origins. The fact that we share an ancestral gene pool with the rest of living animals on this planet makes for a more caring and compassionate view towards animals, as being in some sense our equals, Something which is completely lacking in the Abrahamic faiths, which place humans as masters of all the world has to offer. You have offered quotes from the bible where "Man" (we shall not mention here the deep sexism that runs through the bible, reflecting the cultural views of the time it was written) is explicitly told he has rule over the world and all living things, a completely human-centered doctrine. As Schopenhauer noted a long time ago now:

In Christian ethics.... animals are seen as mere things. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coarsing, bull-fights and horse-races and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with their heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that fails to recognise the eternal essence that exists in every living thing and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun.
On the Basis of Morality

Darwinian evolution does away with this cruel view of the world, and raises our awareness of our place in the world. We are relatives not far removed from the apes, mammals or even earthworms, as gene studies have shown.

Cheers,
J

Jose,

When God gave "dominion" of the world and it's creatures to man, it was not to allow man to abuse creation. The bible also says, "A righteous man cares for the life of his animal." Proverbs 12: 10

You said:

"In Christian ethics.... animals are seen as mere things. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coarsing, bull-fights and horse-races and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with their heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that fails to recognise the eternal essence that exists in every living thing and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun."

It is inaccurate to state that all Christians approve of that sort of behavior. God's original design was for all creatures to be vegetarian. In glimpses of the new heavens and earth that will one day be created, the lion will lie down with the lamb. Jesus would be horrified by what we do to animals in factory farms and the abuses of his creation. We were more accurately given STEWARDSHIP over the earth--to be it's caretakers, not it's tyrant.

I agree with Cosbynian when he/she said: "His desire is that all intelligent beings would be able to clearly see the outworkings of sin and rebellion, the pain and misery that it causes, and by doing thus--by letting sin run its natural course--it will actually accomplish nothing but its own self-destruction and it will serve as a perpetual safeguard for all time that sin will never arise again."


For it is prophesied that in the future:

Isaiah 11:6-9
11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion
and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed ; their young ones
shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the
ox.

11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice'
den.

11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain :
for the earth shall be FULL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD, as
the waters cover the sea.
[bold mine]

To me that statement in bold reminds us that we do not currently understand Him fully, nor posses His knowledge. And it implies that His perfect plan is harmony between all creatures and reconciliation of us with our Creator. Even though that time has not yet come, I, as a Christian, will do everything in my power to make that a reality now; for why would I want anything less than God's ultimate ideal? Hence I am a vegan and hope that by engaging in this healthy and compassionate living foods lifestyle, I can be an example to other Christians. There are more Christians than you might think who feel the same way.

Evolution offers no such hope of such a glorious reconciliation of even humans to animals, let alone us to God. But the Bible does.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2008 08:43PM by musicbebe.

Thanks Musicbebe for bringin up that verse in Proverbs, because I was going to do so myself. Jose, next chance I get I will try to read at least the chapter you cited because I am interested in hearing his rationale. I do not blindly follow a religion because I was raised in it. I had very little religious education as a child.

However, as far back as I can remember, I always had a consciousness of a creator and talked with Him even though I can never remember being told about Him or learning about Him. I do search for answers and I ask all the hard questions to myself such as those that are commonly addressed here. I firmly believe that if God is real, than there will be sufficient answers to all of these, though they may not be 100% complete yet.

Now to the issues. The fact that altruism exists in animals does not prove it is consistent with evolution. The underlying assumption in your agrument is that evolution is true. Working from that basis, the observation of altruism in animals is taken to mean that altruism must be consistent with evolution. However, just because something is observable doesn't mean it agrees with the evolutionary paradigm. What if this gives evidence that there is an element at work even in animals that causes them to operate at a higher level of existence than what evolution theory proposes?

This is my belief. The existence of altruism in animals is further evidence against evolution and not evidence for it. It reveals that animals too show forth many glorious attributes of the principle of love, which is defined as God. The scriptures tell us:

Job 12:7-9

7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?
KJV

From this passage, it is evident that we can learn many wonderful truths by observing the animals. A perfect example is the loyalty exhibited by a dog. However, the animal world also has been contaminated by man's transgression and a dog can and does often exhibit traits of greediness such as my dog which growls at her baby pup when she tries to come and eat food with her.

To me, the evolutionary train of thought leads minds in the direction of the mother dog growling at her pup and not sharing her food, whereas the teachings of Messiah lead man in a direction in which he will go hungry himself so that his neighbor can eat first.

So again, altruism in animals does not necessitate its harmony with evolution because the assumption is that since evolution is ruling animals altruism and love is in agreement with it.

One last thing:

Quote

If animals show this kind of behaviour without any need for "religion", it is quite clear we humans can, and do, as well. Your argument is devoid of basis.

What exactly do you mean by "religion"? Animals don't need a connection to their Creator? Another underlying assumption perceivable here is that man's and animals' actions are totally automonous from God and hence do not need Him. What if man and animals are still acting upon the residual order and logic of God that was transmitted to them in the original creation? And this, even if they are not cognizant of Him or recognize Him? Have you ever considered that? This order has definitely been badly damaged, but it is not totally obliterated. The mission of Messiah and the Gospel is not to bring a "religion" to the world, but rather to take this residual order that still exists in creation and cause it to grow and become stronger and more prevalent until it becomes the total 100% guiding force of man and animals, and not just a sporadic instance here and there.

The main difference I perceive in the growth and perfection through the Gospel and the growth to perfection of evolution, is that one is the outgrowth and outworking of a gracious and loving creator to His creation that has strayed from Him in which He promises to repair the damage wrought by sin; whereas the other is the growth and perfection of a person through his own merits and own exercise. The Gospel teaches man to look to His creator which is Love, Reality and Order and the other teaches man to look to himself. The Gospel brings glory to God and Evolution brings glory to man.

So lastly, using my own animal of which I am a steward of (and which she enjoys it). My dog displays many wonderful attributes of loyalty and love, but she also displays the not so favorable attributes of greed to her own puppy and my mom and dad's dog. Seeing that both good and bad attributes are present, I see nothing in evolution and natural selection that would drive either animals or man in the direction of becoming more generous and less greedy in a totally selfless way, which does not accrue a benefit or advantage to the one doing it. Many will argue that it is not possible to become totally selfless, to these I respond that such thinking would contradict another epochal stage of evolution if it were true and also that believing such to be impossible is unpleasant and a sad outlook on life. To me, Messiah's words are more savory and LIVELY in which He says: "Nothing is impossible to those who believe."

So my question to you Joses is this:
I recognize the altruism in animals that already exists, you say that this comes from evolution I say that it comes from the creator. Now, taking what already exists, how would evolution encourage and cause animals to progress further in the path of altruism?

Also: Is there any evidence that there has been major advances in the animal kingdom in altruism, as such has been observable in man? i.e. if evolution is true, we would expect to see major advances in the realm of altruism in animals. i.e. Not just its existence, but its ongoing state of growth.

Cosbynian,
I recently became aware of some pretty strange sounding bible verses which make me very uncomfortable. I have been aware of how much blood is mentioned in the O.T. and the 'blood of christ' in the new testement. Even as a church goer I was actually very uncomfortable with the idea of a God that required blood.

SHOULD THIS GOD BE A TOPIC ON A VEGAN FORUM?

Exodus 22:29:30-""Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [a]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day."

It sounds like the hebrew god requires a human sacrifice, but there is a posibility that the children are offered up for service? But in reference with sheep and cattle, it sounds pretty strange.

Cannibalism is approved during hardships
Deut. 28:53- "Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."

the dividing of the spoils is pretty strange, 32 people were offered as a tribute for the lord.
[www.biblegateway.com];
"16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32."

I'm not so sure about this passage, but it sort of reads that Jephthah promised a tribute to the lord for defeating his enemies, the Ammonites. There is some other possibility, I guess. But it sounds so sad that he came home to see his daughter dancing. "When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
[www.biblegateway.com];

Mislu,

I am interested in what Cosbynian has to say in response to your points but I must defend the God of the Bible against some serious misinformation.

BEWARE to all of getting your research on Christianity only from anti-Christian websites, which are completely biased. Don't even solely base your view of Christianity on what other Christian's say. You must visit the source-- the Bible--for the full story. Verses MUST be taken in context! Beyond that, try to get a balanced view from opposing sides. Any fair judge and jury listens to BOTH sides before reaching a verdict.

You said: "SHOULD THIS GOD BE A TOPIC ON A VEGAN FORUM?"

Absolutely. Our discussion is in no way advocating abusing the creation, eating animals or anything like that. It is sad that some Christians believe things should be that way, but WE (as Christians ourselves) are supporting veganism in our discussion and are not introducing pro-meat arguments at all into this forum. In fact our discussion has shown how the biblical ideal IS vegetarianism. This could actually serve to witness to meat-loving Christians who might stumble across this thread and prove that there is a biblical basis for veganism. In the end, animals are better served.

You said:

Exodus 22:29:30-""Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [a]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day."

The Bible NEVER, EVER required human sacrifices. No Christian of ANY denomination believes that. Maybe there are some CULTS out there who believe that, but the Bible certainly does not support that. Firstborn sons were given into the SERVICE of the Lord. Human sacrifices were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN:

Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

Jesus was a willing sacrifice. In the same way as a firefighter runs into a burning building to save others and dies, or a mother who throws herself in front of a bullet to save her baby, knowing she will be killed. God ACCEPTED Jesus' death as payment for our own sin. Because Jesus lived a sinless life, God counted his righteousness on our behalf. The writers in the New Testament talk about Jesus' blood as an expression of their gratitude. Our practice today of drinking wine or grape juice (representing blood and therefore life) and eating bread (representing his broken body--his death on our behalf) are done to remind us that he GAVE his life for us. The bread and wine are spiritual representations NOT literal ones!! Jesus clearly stated he was speaking spiritually.

John 6:48-65 explains. If you only read from verses 48-59, you would be utterly confused and disgusted. Many anti-Christian websites will deceptively take verses like these out of context. But the WHOLE context shows the truth! Read on (numbers indicate verse number)

(48) I am the bread of life. (49) Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. (50) But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. (51) I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

(52) Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

(53) Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (54) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (56) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (57) Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. (58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." (59) He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
(60) On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

(61) Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? (62) What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! (63) The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. THE WORDS I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT and they are life. (64) Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. (65) He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." [bold mine]

In the bold type above, Jesus CLEARLY states that he is speaking spiritually and therefore his "blood and body" are to be understood metaphorically.

1 Corinthians 11:23- 26 gives further proof that these words are SPIRITUAL

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" [bold mine]

I would happy to give more scriptural proof on this if you need more.

God's way of testing Abraham by calling for the sacrifice of Isaac...and then the abrupt staying of the knife...was intended to demonstrate that God abhorred human sacrifice and would not accept it (Gen 22.12).

While there is textual documentation on animal sacrifices there are several Christian vegetarian explanations of these.

Here is a quote from the Christian Vegetarian Association's website:

"The Bible relates that God accepted animal sacrifices. However, several later prophets objected to sacrifice, emphasizing that God prefers righteousness. Animal sacrifices are not required or even desired now, for at least two reasons. First, Paul encouraged self-sacrifice, writing, “[P]resent your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). Second, traditional interpretations of Jesus’ death affirm that, because of him, animal sacrifice is no longer necessary. Christians, being new creations in Christ, may model Christ by choosing a loving relationship with all Creation. Indeed, Jesus twice quoted Hosea (6:6), saying, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13, 12:7)."

That is one take on animal sacrifices on the bible. I can give more at another time. No matter what the explanation is for the past (and I believe there are some great explanations that vegans would accept), certainly no Christian believes or practices animal sacrifice now. Jesus came to fully reveal God's character and tell us that does NOT want animal sacrifice. He wants our lives to be a "living sacrifice" to live peacefully with all and therefor begin to usher in the new peaceful reign that will someday come.

Sin is serious. Man's rebellion against God's law has brought evil into the world. That is evident by just reading the news. Some may argue that God is causing it. But Christians are the antidote for evil. We are to be like Jesus, who did not even defend himself from his unfair attackers.

You said: "Cannibalism is approved during hardships
Deut. 28:53- "Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."

God is only PREDICTING what will happen--NOT APPROVING IT!!! To show his people how low they will go if they sin against God and rebel against God.

It was always understood by the Jews that human "offerings" were given in SERVICE to the Lord, NEVER SACRIFICED! Jepthah's daughter was never to marry and that was sad. She was NOT SACRIFICED!

For more info on that see:
[www.tektonics.org]

I hope I addressed some of your concerns. There is so much more I can say on this topic, but I don't have the time right now. My adamance that comes across in this post is in no way directed against you, Mislu, but towards the websites and other sources that so shamelessly misquote the bible to attack Christianity. If they are honestly ignorant of the whole story, then my heart goes out to them as well. But their inaccurate points must be proven to be false.

musicbebe

For some reason I couldn't edit my post.

You said: "Cannibalism is approved during hardships
Deut. 28:53- "Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."

Some naysayers would hope you read this verse to mean that God gave them the flesh of the sons and daughters to eat. Rather it is saying God gave them the sons and daughters (to protect, love, cherish, raise in the Lord) and the people will (wrongly) eat their flesh during the siege which resulted from their rebellion. In the whole chapter of Deuteronomy 28, God spells out the blessings and cursings for obeying or disobeying God. The cannibalism predicted in verse 53 is a warning so severe no person in their right mind should want to follow down that rebellious path. Sadly, there are still tribes in existence today that practice cannibalism because they are so depraved and wicked. The Bible has the antidote for that sort of depravity-- submission to God through following Jesus' example which was peaceful to the end.

I think everyone will understand more when they talk less and accept more
Peace all !

Musicbebe,
Thanks, thats a lot of information. It will probably take a long time for me to read all of it carefully and really digest it. It was a shocker to read the verses that I did. The good part is that whenever I pick up a bible and read it, I will really pay attention.

Those parts are still in question for me. All too often when I read from it, its usually done too 'automatically', like people who read the lords prayer. I think I can recite it perfectly, even though I haven't gone to church in a very long time. Most of the book is like that for me. I have read the book several times, and yet most of it, I couldn't tell you even the basic themes. My favorites as a child were Genesis and exodus, my attention pretty much faded once it got into the long list of laws, detestible things etc...

Even with the other posibilities and explanations of the verses, I am still so shocked to find these questionable passages. It is our right for inquiry and to question anything. I don't know yet what I will ultimately decide to believe in reference to those scriptures. I definately respect the source that 'woke me up' to examine things a lot closer. In any case the Bible will never quite be the same for me.

Musicbebe,

I read the post again, and noticed a lot more. Which I am sure I will continue to notice more. You stated the following:'We are to be like Jesus, who did not even defend himself from his unfair attackers. "

Can you explain more?

Mislu,

I have a long post, but I feel it answers your question in depth, with biblical references along with a testimony of my own pre-Christian and Christian life. And it all comes back full circle in the end.

As Christians we are called to follow the example of Jesus. Even when he was put on a sham trial, falsely accused by the Pharisees (the Jewish religious leaders of the day), beaten, mocked and finally crucified, he did not retaliate towards his attackers. In fact, he prayed for his enemies right before he gave his spirit up: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

In Matthew Chapter 26 Judas leads the Jewish leaders and temple guardsmen to where Jesus and his disciples were. Jesus rebukes one of his followers for acting defensively and cutting the ear off of one of the men. Then Jesus heals that man's ear. I cannot for the life of me understand how any Christian participates in war to kill another human being when Jesus never demonstrated such a thing and in fact taught the opposite.

Matthew 26:45-54 tells the story:

(45) Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. (46) Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" (47) While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. (48) Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him." (49) Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. (50) Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for." Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. (51) With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. (52) "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (53) Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? (54) But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Jesus came to pay the penalty for our sins, so that by believing in his substitutional atonement for our own sins, we can be forgiven and counted as righteous, even though by ourselves we are not righteous. Everyone, even murderers, can be forgiven. What it takes is a sincere repentance--admission of guilt and a complete turning from sin. In the Bible, people who repented in this way were immediately baptized in water, by full immersion, to symbolize them dying from their old life of sin and being raised to a new life of freedom from that sin and instead a life modeled after righteousness.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter is speaking to a group of Jews, explaining that their Messiah had come and how they had crucified him. He reminds them how this was predicted to happen in the Old Testament Scriptures. Acts 2:37-38 continues:

"(37) When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (38) Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit is thus given after repentance and baptism. The Holy Spirit is what enables Christians to actually live a life modeled after Jesus.

Galatians 5:22-25 tells us what a Holy Spirit-filled life looks like:

"(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (24) Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. (25) Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit."

In contrast, the fruits of a sinful life are listed in the preceding verses of 19-21:

"(19) The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; (20) idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions (21) and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

When a person becomes saved, they are instantly changed in a spiritual sense. They go from being spiritually dead to spiritually alive. Growth in righteous living, however can take a long time for some...like me, for example.

I was baptized as a Catholic, but after my father's divorce (I lived with him and eventually my stepmother) he and I fell away from the church. I was allowed to pretty much believe whatever I wanted, so I did. As I grew older I began to consider myself to be very intellectual (ha!) and in no need of any God. I completely embraced evolution and read every Science News magazine that I received with anticipation. I went "against the grain" so to speak throughout my teenage years, believing that since I evolved from a monkey that we were just higher-formed primates under no moral obligation to anyone. I was promiscuous, experimented with drugs and everything else. My home life was a wreck, I fought with my parents all the time and really my life then just sucked. I lived the life described in Galatians 5:19-21 (see scripture quote above).

When I was 17 I became pregnant, completely unexpectedly to me. I'd always considered myself pro-choice at that time, but at that point I just couldn't bring myself to have an abortion. The father was not my husband, let alone even my boyfriend. I spend the next few months wondering what on earth I was going to do with my life. I considered adoption, but in the end I did not find a suitable family and ended up raising my son myself (it worked out wonderfully in the end!).

I need to back up a moment. Before I found out I was pregnant I was at a friend's house and lied to my parents to be able to spend the night out with friends away from adult supervision. We got drunk and I went upstairs to pass out. As I was laying there I got this thought in my head that kept repeating, "Get up, go to the bathroom and make yourself throw up. Then go home and tell your dad that you need to go to the hospital. This is God, don't be fooled by your own voice."

Okay, Whoa! you might be saying, you were just really drunk! Well I've been drunk many, many, many, many times in my life and nothing like THAT has ever come into my mind!!! But keep reading...

So I kept thinking this thought and eventually quietly saying it to myself. But I was mortified: How could I go home and face my dad and tell him to take me to the hospital?? I had fabricated a HUGE story and was already walking a very fine line after having been in huge trouble a lot already. But somehow I knew it was serious.

So I got up, threw up, had a friend (who had no idea what I was doing) take me home and I knocked on my parent's door at 3 in the morning. I told my dad I was drunk and needed to go to the hospital. He reluctantly got his things and we got in the car to go. While sitting in the car I had this horrible sense of dread fill every fiber of my being. I was in deep, deep trouble.

Then I got this thought "Don't worry, God is with you," and the most lovely, indescribable feeling came over me and I just felt PEACE. I tensed up a little later, but the same thought was with me again-- "God is with you"-- and I felt completely at peace. I have never to this day felt that pure peace like I did that night.

I checked out fine at the hospital and after that I was in serious trouble and grounded. Three weeks later, I found out I was pregnant. Had I not thrown up that night and emptied my stomach of all that alcohol and not gotten in trouble to where I was grounded and kept from drinking more or even doing drugs I would have seriously harmed my developing baby. After that experience and after feeling the miracle of life within me as my son grew, I then knew there was a God.

I just didn't know who this God was. Was he the God of the Bible? The Koran? Were the Buddists right? the Hindus? So began my search for truth.

Two books other than the bible really convinced me on an intellectual basis that the God of the universe is the God of the Bible. They are "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell and "Many Infallible Proofs: Evidences for the Christian Faith," by Henry M. Morris. They examine Christianity from a logical, proofs oriented perspective. After that I was convinced, but it took me awhile to fully repent and submit to the Holy Spirit's leading in my life. I was finally baptized two and a half years ago and married soon after. My life, my marriage, everything has gotten better since my husband and I have both sought to follow Jesus' example in our lives. The more seriously I take my calling to follow Jesus, the better person I become. I am less prone to anger, jealously and evil thinking the more I try to be like Jesus. I am able to forgive those who wrong me so much more readily. My wants have changed from being selfish to being more concerned with others. My husband has changed in equally noticeable ways. We are far from perfect, but we see steady improvement. I think if you met us in person, you would really notice something different (in a good way) about us. What you would be seeing is not US exactly, but Christ in us. I guess you would say that you would see the fruits of the spirit in our our lives as long as we were living in submission to the Holy Spirit's promptings. If anyone claims to be a Christian, look at their "fruits" first and see if it matches up with Galations 5:22-25. It doesn't mean that they may not one day come around, but take their "Christian" witness with a grain of salt. Jesus is the only perfect example of what a Christian should be like.

When I speak of submitting to the Holy Spirit's promptings, I don't mean like He speaks to me in an audible way. I mean it's a thought that comes into my head at a certain time that I know is telling me the right way to go.--it's very similar to our conscience. The "right way" is often in opposition to my basest inclinations. Like the guy cuts me off in front of me and deep down I have a thought to flick him off, but I get the thought "grace" in my head and so I slow down and let it go. As we continually yield to the "angel on our shoulder" which is really the Holy Spirit in us, we begin to show forth the fruits of the Spirit consistently and mature in our faith.

Everyone has a conscience, but through repeated sin our conscience gets seared, as with a hot iron. Thus, "natural man" cannot fully trust his own conscience. When we firmly decide to turn to God the Creator and repent from wickedness, He repairs our conscience. That is a supernatural gift as well as one that requires fine tuning. We Christians regard the Bible so that we can read about Jesus and get our thinking in line with his. When we do this we adjust our thinking to be back where it ought to be.

While the Holy Spirit only completely indwells true believing Christians, he can still speak to non-Christians as He did that night I was drunk. The Holy Spirit calls everyone to God. It is our choice to follow or not.

Jesus says in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, so that whoever would believe in him would not perish, but have eternal life."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2008 10:38PM by musicbebe.

Cosbynian,
Wow, that was quite an unusual take on christian scripture, and general teachings. I won't say that its wrong, but its a bit different from the general thought that todays christians have on things.

The name 'lucifer' has been a topic of research for awhile, and some feel that 'venus' or 'morning star' or 'day star' is a better translation. And oddly enough, a christian network station uses 'day star' in a title of one of their shows.

"Many modern Christians note that the Old Testament itself does not actually contain a literal account of the rebellion and fall of Satan. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are directly concerned with the temporal rulers of Babylon and Tyre, rather than a supernatural being; allegorical readings of these and other passages were typical of medieval scholarship but are usually not considered legitimate in modern critical scholarship. Accordingly, in most modern English versions of the Bible (including the NIV, NRSV, NASB and ESV) the proper noun "Lucifer" is not found; the Hebrew word is rendered "day star", "morning star" or something similar."

[en.wikipedia.org]

I was actually quite shocked to hear this reference to Jesus as being the morning star, as I always thought it was in reference to 'lucifer'. But apparently Jesus has the title!

"Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star (aster orthrinos)."


If you read the above link about lucifer, apparently the term has been used in Roman poetry. Beelzebub, and other names are discribed in the link below. Although, it appears that some of the names of competing gods were 'evilized'.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Its interesting to note the following:

"Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the so-called Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s; beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers – which depicts Satanism as a vast conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship. Claims of Satanic child-molesting or murder rings are largely unsubstantiated.

People claiming to be Satanists – or outsiders claiming to describe Satanism – ascribe a wide variety of beliefs to this movement. These range from the literal worship of a spiritual being (Theistic Satanism); to a kind of subversive ritual performance stressing the mockery of Christian symbols (most notably the Black Mass); to the claimed rediscovery of an ancient but misunderstood religion (e.g. Setianism, which conflates Satan with the Egyptian god Set)."

The teachings around hell, satan, sin and the sacrifice of Jesus seem largely to promote fear. I appreciate your attempts to curb these tendancies that christians have around these topics, to generate fear. I hope you are really right, because your ideas are certainly more appealing than placing such an emphasis on such fearful things.

In general, popular christianity teaches the blood of jesus as covering for sin, which you deny. Actually do you?

"However, substitution teaches that Christ died in our behalf to take this penalty upon himself, and the righteous deeds which he performed in His life get imputed or credited to you.

I have prayed earnestly for months and even years to God for a correct understanding of this most essential issue; and I have to say as of right now, I do not hold the traditional view of substitution."

Do you find yourself at odds with christians you meet and converse about these issues, and points of doctrine? Most christians I have met are not vegetarian, and many do support the war effort, and some past wars. They aren't concerned about violence in and of itself, but what cause is being fought for.

Jains as far as I know do not have an issue with sacrifice, sins, blood atonement. And as far as I know they do not support war efforts, and have distain for violence in and of itself. Logically, the principle of ahimsa would likely create a religion something like Jainism. The monotheistic faiths don't appear to be built around the principle of ahimsa, but rather to obedience to the laws and dictates of a particular diety.

Honestly, you did your best to minimize the violent aspects of the monotheistic faiths, and perhaps its true, maybe people didn't understand the true nature of god. Perhaps people still don't understand. Why isn't this more clear to people when they read from the bible?

Just to note, my goal has not been to minimize something or do anything myself. I am not seeking to conform the bible to my ideas (at least as much as it is possible for me with the help of God to stay objective rather than subjective). I honestly pray to God to show me the truth about these issues irrespective of where they lead or what changes they demand for my life.
This is where He has lead me thus far, and if my own understanding and thinking has convulted and clouded the truth, my sincere petition is that He will keep leading to truth and correct me, even if I have to do a 180 degree turn in thinking.
Yes, I do find many Christians at odds with myself, but one thing worthy of notice is that Jesus Christ found nearly all of the secular religious people either outright opposed to Him or distasteful of His ways and lifestyle, though they enjoyed being fed for free and healed of their diseases and maladies. He says:

"the foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nest, but the Son of man has no where to lay his head."

There is more meaning to this than being homeless or laying His physical head. Christ is more importantly talking about the knowledge and truth that He carried. He wanted to lay His mind or thinking or knowledge to an open audience willing to learn, however, His statement shows that there were very few truly open to learn the Truth that He brought.
He came to His own and His own received Him not
We hid as it were our faces from Him.

In regards to Lucifer/Satan, biblical scholarship can be thrown in the trashcan if you ask me. The King of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28 and the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14 are used as parallel figures of Satan because their fall from mighty positions convey the same outworking principles of the mystery of iniquity that began with the first angel of creation. In Ezekiel 28, he is called the covering cherub, or one of the cherubs represented in the ark of the covenant. This does not primarily apply to an earthly king but rather the heavenly cherub of which his life was a figure.
This shows the same principle in which man and his life is a reflection of the original rebellion that began in heaven. And if you don't think there is a rebellion, just look within yourself and ask yourself the question why there are certain things that you want to do, but can't and why there are certain things that you don't want to do but end up doing.

My question for you is, what is this element inside of you that does not allow you to adhere 100% to the knowledge and principles that you find right?

How would you define it in concrete terms?

Why is it there?

Why does it feel like a different mind or spirit that is opposed to your own mind?

This, according to the Bible, is evil spirits and there are right within us if you look closely.

Cosbynian,
Thats curious, so you only accept the King James version of the bible? you reject "...most modern English versions of the Bible (including the NIV, NRSV, NASB and ESV)" Are there any other versions you accept or reject?

I have read about some very interesting commentaries about the development of the idea of 'satan'. It appears that the concept of satan has differing aspects during different periods.
[www.religioustolerance.org]

I found a rather strange story of a talking donkey. The chapter doesn't use satan, but rather "adversary".Numbers 22:22 & 32

"and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
23 And the ass asaw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
24 But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.
25 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again.
26 And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.
27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I akill thee.
30 And the aass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever bwont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face."
[scriptures.lds.org]


Some more about the evolution of the concept of satan.
[www.drbilllong.com]

The question I posted above,which you did not address, I asked a short time ago to my friend's dad who I have known most of my life and who has a PHD largely in psychology and who rejects the idea of evil spirits.

Again, the question for you Mislu is:

What exactly is that element inside of you that will not let you adhere 100% to the principles that you believe are right?

How would you define this in concrete terms, instead of using vague terms like my friend's dad who said, "the 'flesh' is weak"?

[Note: this really made my friend's dad think and after I asked him to further clarify exactly what he means when he says the flesh weak, he stood there stupified, unable to explain what it is inside of man that does not allow him to do the things that he desires to do and coerces him to do things which he doesn't want to do (Romans 7)]

So, What exactly is in the 'flesh' of man that makes it "weak," and that wars against the knowledge in his mind, frequently bringing grotesque thoughts into our minds which we find abhorrent and disagreeable?

Some might try to deny this, but I am positive that everybody knows exactly what I am talking about.

How would you define and explain this strange dilemma in man, Mislu?


Note: I do prefer the KJV over the newer translations because the newer translators are largely ignorant of the construction of the bible and the symbolic nature of the words. In their attempts to 'simplify' and 'literalize' the scriptures, much of its deeper truths are harder to attain through the newer translations rather than the KJV translators which were more apt to leave the text intact, even if they did not know what it meant.

Symbolism both conceals and reveals; it conceals the truth from those who would misuse and abuse it, and it reveals it to those who trust God and are willing to let Him lead and guide into all truth.

Prov 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
KJV

Cosbynian,

Ignorance is what comes to mind, and perhaps some unresolved psychological issues, which may have various origins in a variety of people. For the vast majority of people this will not get resolved, and in actual fact everyone has cognitive dissonance to various degrees. Your friend's dad may not have had the reaction that you think he had. In all likelyhood he was probably just trying to understand what you were asking. I don't know, hes not here to defend himself.

There may or may not be evil spirits. All I was pointing out is that the idea of satan developed and changed over time. What comes to mind is that the Christian/jewish faith took pagan gods and re-wrote their attributes and made them out to be evil for their own purposes. From what I know Lucifer was a minor god in roman mythology, and for whatever reason that was written in as another name for "satan".
[www.godchecker.com]

Some additional commentary on the origin of 'lucifer'.
[www.lds-mormon.com]

This commentary states the following about the King James Version,

"The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness."


In contrast another commentary seems to think that the king james version is a great translation.
[www.av1611.org]
However, it does agree that the king james version is largely based upon the bishops bible. (I personally have not heard of it until now)There are also some authorized bibles which they used for comparision. (Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.) However, Bible translation seems to be a continual work in progress, as noted by "...the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue..." which came to be known as the authorized version.

Although this source indicates that the KJV is called the authorized version in england.
[www.av1611.org]
"The act of Bible translation into any vernacular was a political as well as a religious statement"


By no means is it to be considered an objective translation
"James and the Bishop of London wrote the brief that guided the translation, such as prohibiting the marginal notes found in the Geneva Bible and ensuring the position of the Church of England was recognised on various points."

Some commentary on the translators of the KJV.
[www.jesus-is-lord.com]

About King James himself
[www.jesus-is-lord.com]

It should be no suprise that the KJV is "The King James Version of the Bible (Authorized Version) is the most common authoritative translation in use by many Protestants."
[www.americancatholic.org]
The Douay-Rheims translation seems to be formerly officially used by the catholic church, but like the KJV its considered out of date.

Reading some more its interesting to note: "...Grinspoon should just refer to the "Christian Devil" since the Jews never believed in such a creature and still don't to this day...."

The christian idea of satan does not square with Jewish notions. "For God, the Bible, and for Judaism, to have an entity that competes with God, that has power and authority of his own in opposition to God, is to violate the basic idea of monotheism."
[whatjewsbelieve.org]

More commentary about the jewish view of 'satan'.
[www.geocities.com]

Note: Most "jews" today do not even live by the Hebrew Scriptures or at least greatly diminish their value. After the Babylonian exile around 538 BC, when the "jews" returned to Palestine they brought with them the Babylonian talmud which is the written form and the oral tradition known as the Kabala. This is the primary basis for Judaism today, the Babylonian mysteries, which is totally at odds with and contrary to Christianity (and the OT Hebrew Scriptures as well).

Christians are badly confused when they use the term judeo-christian because this is similar to saying an atheistic-theist. The Old Testament scriptures clearly teach an adversarious spirit warring against man called SATAN which is a Hebrew transliteration meaning: adversary.

This begins to unfold in the very first book in which the serpent beguiles Adam and Eve. The Book of Job speaks of Satan seeking to accuse and denounce God's people and acting adversariously toward Job. In 2 Chronicles, Satan tempts David to number the people.

Truth has been going through its own form of evolution more aptly called progressive revelation. This is due to the fact of man's ignorance and God's plan to enlighten man without tramatizing him (this is what slows it down--too much light at once would cause man to turn away, just like shining a flashlight in somebody's face who has been accustomed to the dark. This makes the person squint and turn away, thus the Father's revelation of truth has been gradual, like the sunrise, to give man time to acclimate.

Since truth has been progressive in its revelation, and sin itself is called a "mystery", i.e. the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thess 2), then it makes since that the first one to sin would be shrouded in mystery and that his identity would be progressively revealed as well.

I caution you to examine things sharply, because paganism has always attempted to predate its history prior to scriptural truth, and thus make the argument that Christianity is merely a re-invention of pagan myths. However, such is not the case, it is vice-versa, with the adversary and enemies of truth seeking to make slick couterfeits of Christ and Messiah such as Krishna, Matrea, Mithra, Tamuz (from Semiramus and Nimrod), etc.

If you want to, you will be able to find every wacky and absurd belief you want from people who believed in the bible, but this is does not mean it teaches that or that all Christians at that time believed such doctrines.

Also, if you desire to find evidence to believe, you will, if want proof to support skepticism and disbelief, you will find that. The question is: Where is your heart? You need to ask yourself that question and be honest with yourself, because if you are trying to deceive others with a pretense of seeking truth you only deceive yourself.

The "raw and living food" of Christianity is to go the scriptures themselves, most preeminently the words of Jesus Christ, and pray to God to reveal Himself to you if He is real and to reveal the veracity of His Word. You seem to be gobbling up all the "cooked food" from many different websites, and the "fire" upon which they are cooking it is certainly causing it to lose it nutrients and savour.

Says the scripture, beware of those who put light for darkness and darkness for light, sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet; those who call good and evil and evil good.

Lastly, my Messiah, Yahshua, certainly understood and believed in a fallen angel from heaven. He says:

Luke 10:18
I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
KJV

Christ beheld the fall of Satan from heaven, and it most certainly broke His heart. This is why Satan is compared to the day star, because his fall takes on the subtle appearance as if he is bringing more light and so-called "rationale thought" to man, as you suggested (i have to wholeheartedly disagree that sin and the almagamation of good and evil is "rational". Satan is also attempting to counterfeit Christ, thus it makes sense that He would seek to symbolize himself under the same symbol of Christ, just like he has done in countless other areas--"lion," "sun," etc.

Christ makes many other references to evil spirits and sin as the primary cause of disease, sickness, and malady.

Thus, whether you know it or not, your are treading very close to calling Messiah a LIAR. Honest inquiry is certainly acceptable, however, a greek-like attitude of skepticism and doubt, and subtle attempts to discredit and bash Christ will not go unnoticed. Again, examine yourself and your own heart to see if you are humbly seeking truth or arrogantly vaunting your own thinking and ideas above the precious scriptures of which countless numbers of people gave their lives and fortunes to pass them on to us (just read Foxe's book of martyrs to see the Roman Catholic Church's relentless attempts to keep the scriptures from the people and the countless people burned at the stake such as Huss and Tyndale for the work of making the scriptures available to the people in the common language). It certainly is a blood-stained book, both by it misuse and by the multitudes of people who gave their lives to make it available to us. It is certainly the most controversial and popular book that has ever existed! Consider these words, in regards to your derrogation of Christ and His Word.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
KJV

To deny Christ also means to deny the truths that He taught. Anybody who does this as a way of life is defined as antichrist, of which their are many, both active and passive. Christ is our life-giver, in Him we live, and move and have our being. Thus, wisdom dictates that it is not prudent to war against the one to whom we owe our existence. Remember, "The fear [i.e. due reverence] of the Lord, is the BEGINNING of wisdom." If we don't start there, then we are guaranteed to fail in any attempt to acquire wisdom.

Cosbynian,

The name satan appears in the bible, all I said was that there is scholarship to indicate that doctrines around this developed over time, and that the name 'lucifer' is not the best translation of the text.

I also pointed out that Christians all to often read the O.T. with a pair of Christian glasses on, thats all. There are religious jews out there, and the few that I have ever talked to about their religion have a very different view of the O.T. It is true that many jews don't know their religion, they take the meaning of being a jew as an ethnicity.

There are also people who are christian who have different views on just about everything. Some are christian in name only because thats what they believe in, and don't take things too far, and try to understand new information as it presents itself. Honestly its ok if you don't want to examine second or third opinions, but that is how one gets a rounded view of a topic. You certainly don't have to agree, but its helpful to be able to view things somewhat removed to view them objectively, if you can.

Enlightenment?
It seems like, to me, we all have limited awareness. I would say no one is "Truly Enlightened", unless they are not limited in their awareness.

Cosybnian,
There is some commentary on Luke 10:18
[bible.cc]
"Paul writes that the location of the devil and his angels is in the air, as is found in Eph 6:12, and he is said to be cast down from there by force, when his power is abolished by the voice of the Gospel."

And some refer to original references to 'lucifer'
"10:18 I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Various interpretations of this statement are given, but it is probable that Christ refers to the original fall of Satan (Isa 14:12 Jude 1:6). The victory of his disciples over the demons is the harbinger of another fall, when Satan and all his works shall be destroyed."

Eph. 6:12
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]."
That seems to indicate that spiritual forces were apparent in Pauls times. There is a possibility that satan falling like lightning could be a seperate event, perhaps even several events from the christian point of view.


As I pointed out before "Day star" is a reference to Jesus. A complete television Network bears that title, I am assuming that its a reference to christ as its christian T.V.
[www.daystar.com]

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star (aster orthrinos.

Rev 2:28 promises "28 And I will give him the morning star. " This should be the planet venus, its posible that its actually christ, rev.22:16

I am not so sure that the christian scriptures really advocate raw and living foods. This is part of what started the discussion. Its apparent that the O.T. described various animal sacrifices and burnt offerings, in many references god approves the eating of burnt offerings of clean animals.

"27 And thou shalt offer thy aburnt offerings, the bflesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh."
Deut 12:27


Even the eating of meat offered to idols was not an issue for mature christians. (1 Cor. 8)

"...Most meat in the meat-markets of Corinth, or for that matter any pagan city, was meat that had been previously offered to some idol. I mean, why waste the meat? There was money to be had in the resale, obviously. Now Paul brings out that the Christians basically know that the pagan idols are just wooden or brazen statues, and are nothing. To eat or not eat the meat offered to pagan idols did not defile a Christian...."
[www.unityinchrist.com]

I don't believe that early christians were vegan or raw.


The worlds oldest religion is reported to be discovered in Botswanna.
[www.afrol.com]

Some other commentaries on the worlds organized religion, that is still practiced.
[ask.yahoo.com]

Additional comments on what is the oldest religion.
[wiki.answers.com]

Yes.

Give me a call if you want me to explain it to you in language that will make sense to you.

Or....look around & within (they are the same)....

And know.

For yourself.

[www.oneillpaul.com-a.googlepages.com]

Well, I for one believe that since the advent of truly effective birth control, the best women are choosing not to reproduce, the worst men are impregnanting staggering quantities of gullible women, and that we are devolving as a consequence.

But if it makes you feel good to contemplate the meaning of self-sacrifice, then do it.

Hi cosbynian,

IMO love is actually the end point of evolution.

I believe that each species' consumption of a lighter diet is a major mechanism in achieving this last stage of evolution.

Best wishes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2008 10:38PM by learningtofly.

arugula says:

<<Well, I for one believe that since the advent of truly effective birth control, the best women are choosing not to reproduce, the worst men are impregnanting staggering quantities of gullible women, and that we are devolving as a consequence. >>

kind of curious, what do u mean by the "BEST WOMEN"

and also "WORST MEN"

do u mean strictly in terms of what is encoded in their DNA that can be passed onto their progeny?

are you referring to

1) mental "intelligence" ( e.g. "book" intelligence)
2) emotional intelligence
3) physical strengths, attributes ?

I'm actually pretty sure you were referring to traits such as : compassion, spiritual stamina, enthusiasm, curiosity, ebullience as "best" traits

and 'worst' traits like :

impatience, arrogance, hatred

but these things cannot really be passed onto the progeny ( except through emulation, not DNA) so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.

<<I'm actually pretty sure you were referring to traits such as : compassion, spiritual stamina, enthusiasm, curiosity, ebullience as "best" traits

and 'worst' traits like :

impatience, arrogance, hatred>>

Pretty much so. Thoughtfulness, willingness to see the big picture, reverence, etc.

This part we agree on.

<<but these things cannot really be passed onto the progeny ( except through emulation, not DNA)>>

I think they are largely environmental. The people with undesirable personality traits are largely raising their kids to have similar traits and values. The ones that have outstanding self-awareness and awareness of other and buck such upbringing are rare IMO.

<< so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.>>

But, I do. My dad says, "Yes, you are right. But, why should I care, I will be dead soon." (He just turned 80.)

Everywhere you turn there are examples of evolutionary processes...

Quote

What People Owe Fish: A Lot

By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: February 19, 2008

Being a resolute hydrophobe who has no more desire to go for a swim than might a kitten in a bag or Luca Brasi in “The Godfather,” I admit I never thought of myself as a large, scaleless fish out of water.

Yet after reading Neil Shubin’s brisk new book, “Your Inner Fish,” and speaking with other researchers who use fish to delve into the history of vertebrates in general and ourselves in particular, I realize that many traits we take pride in, the body parts and behaviors we exalt as hallmarks of our humanity, were really invented by fish.

You like having a big, centralized brain encased in a protective bony skull, with all the sensory organs conveniently attached? Fish invented the head.

You like having pairs of those sense organs, two eyes for binocular vision, two ears to localize sounds and twinned nostrils so you can follow your nose to freshly baked bread or the nape of a lover’s irresistibly immunocompatible neck? Fish were the first to wear their senses in sets.

They premiered the pairing of appendages, too, through fins on either side of the body that would someday flesh out into biceps, triceps, rotating wrists and opposable thumbs.

Or how about that animated mouth of yours, with its hinged and muscular jaws; its enameled, innervated teeth; and a tongue that dares to taste a peach or, if it must, get up and give a speech? Fish founded the whole modern buss we now ride.

The fish’s tale of firsts is a tall one. “The backbone that holds us upright, that’s a fish invention,” Dr. Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum, said in an interview. “The cranial nerves that we use to control the muscles in our jaw, that we use to talk and to hear, they relate to a fish’s gill arches. The basic wiring in our skull, the body plan we take for granted, that’s part of our story. It’s all from fish.”

Our inner fish extends beyond physicality. New research reveals that many fish display a wide range of surprisingly sophisticated social behaviors, pursuing interpersonal, interfishal relationships that seem almost embarrassingly familiar.

“Fish have some of the most complex social systems known,” Michael Taborsky, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Bern in Switzerland, said. “You see fish helping each other. You see cooperation and forms of reciprocity.”

The rest here [www.nytimes.com]

Cheers,
J

Charles Darwin on Slavery

Quote

In the fundamentalist assault on the teaching of evolution, it is being claimed that the “doctrine of evolution” makes children immoral and antisocial. “If we teach children they are just animals, we should not be surprised when they act like animals.” The blame for all the short-comings of the world inevitably is placed on the godless author of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection - Charles Darwin. It is instructive, therefore, to read what Darwin had to say about an institution so dear to the heart of nineteenth-century Christians - slavery. The excerpt below was published in his book, The Voyage of the Beagle (reprinted by Doubleday & Co., 1962, pp. 496-498). Readers may ponder whether human cruelty is more likely to be the consequence of evolutionary thought or religious ideation.

The rest here [www.americanatheist.org]

Cheers,
J