Zombies are real!

[Moai]

No sane, rational, educated person falls into the trap of stereotyping entire groups of people.

 

Who am I stereotyping, exactly? Are you saying that there aren't any people who don't think that the Bible is literally true?

 

There are also believers who don't, but see many of the stories in the Bible as metaphorical. I pose this question to them, too. How can you see the story I mentioned in Matthew as metaphorical?

 

There are people who visit these forums who believe the Bible to be literally true. I know people like that IRL. You can watch their television broadcasts on TBN and the like.

 

I don't see how asking someone about their beliefs is stereotyping them.

 

There are extremists among every group. They do not make up the majority, they are just the ones who get the most attention. While I shy away from extreme Christians, I also shy away from extreme atheists, feminists, or anyone else who operates under the assumption that the world is only black and white, us and them, friend verses enemy.

 

As is your right. But it is these moderate believers who give shelter to the extremists. By saying, "Well, most of us aren't like that, they are a fringe group" or the like actually helps them in their cause.

 

Even as a moderate believer you must have reasons why you accept some of the book and reject parts of it, no? How can this be if it is the inspired word of god? Is some inspired and some not? How can you tell?

 

I am not sure what an "extreme atheist" is. Perhaps I am one. I do know that religion is a force in this world that is responsible for a great deal of suffering, and since I don't like it when humans suffer I do what I can to expose it.

 

There are two sides of every coin, and while LB and LH may be on one side of the LS extremist coin, you my dear are on the other. You are just as careless with other peoples freedom to make up their own mind, you are just as convinced that your way is the only way as they are.

 

How am I careless with other people's freedom? Did I pose legislation calling for god-belief to be illegal? Certainly not. Nor would I. If someone wants to believe in astrology or any other nonsense that is their right. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't call it what it is.

 

I will say that I have the advantage of evidence, and so in that sense the discussion will always be one-sided in a sense. But that isn't my fault.

 

I post on these forums precisely BECAUSE I would like people to make up their own minds. I was a believer once, and many of the arguments I have used convinced me. Why shouldn't they someone else? I have since come across many, many more that are even better, and a few of my own.

 

Simply because you see your belief as more moderate than theirs or mine doesn't mean you are an extremist yourself. Any and all beliefs being equally valid is an extreme view.

 

While I respect you for knowing what you believe, why, and being willing to defend it at all costs. I also admire them for the same reasons.

 

I have yet to hear why they believe as they do, beyond them asserting that it is true. All believers think that their way is true, even you. Yet they can't all be right, and they all have the same amount of evidence for their position. I have evidence for mine.

 

Zombies, werewolves, vampires, are not real, yet at the same time they are. They have become a part of our history, our folklore, and our consciousness. While one person starts from a point of view that they do not exist, and therefore sets out to prove they are not real. Another person starts out with the assumption that they do have some basis in fact, and they find scientific explanations for the seemingly impossible.

 

Not the point. Incubi and succubi were once thought to be real (probably still are), and I have no doubt that there is a reasonable, rational explanation for their existence in myth. But these things are REAL for some people. There really are demons possessing people and causing general havoc. I have even read of these very forums that fossils of hominids are planted by Satan, or are the offspring of humans and demons.

 

You are incorrect in your assessment of how we know things. Nothing is "thought not to exist" ad then proven. You cannot prove a negative. If someone says that vampires are real, for example, we look for evidence that supports that position. If there is any, we can plausibly say that they do not exist. Moreover, if there is already known phenomena that shows such a thing to be impossible it makes the job that much easier.

 

But this dodges the question. It is clear from the text that Matthew thought zombies are real, and related a reanimation event. He wanted us to believe it so much he added that it was seen by many people.

 

The text is also clear that people rose from the grave. They weren't sick and got better, they weren't gone and then returned; their tombs were opened.

 

If zombies are not real but Matthew thought they were, what does that say about his judgment? What other things does he relate that he thought were real and weren't? How can we tell what is a factual event and one that is imagined or misinterpreted?

 

That said, if you believe that the Bible is literally true than you believe that zombies are real. Matthew said that people rose from the grave, so it must be true. Everything in the Bible is true. I would also again ask if this is metaphorical what is it a metaphor for?

 

Whenever a person builds a wall around their belief system, discounting anything that is outside of that belief system, only accepting information that supports a preconceived notion of what life is and is not, what people are and are not, what can and cannot be done, all they really do is stop making forward progress. They stay inside their comfort zone and while they are safe, and unchallenged, they also cease to grow.

 

Yep. One of the main points of my belief system is the abilty to change my mind in the face of evidence. I do not see that within god-belief. As Richard Dawkins said, "It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

 

While you may find it sad that people can put their faith in a God that you can see clearly does not exist. They find it sad that you are so blind that you cannot see a God who is so clearly present in everything they see and do. I find it sad that anyone would allow themselves to become so focused on being anti-this or pro-that that they forget that the people behind those beliefs are flesh and blood just like themselves.

 

Yes, I think it is sad. Sad because every god-belief system I have encountered is not only self-contradictory, each contradicts the others. If god is so evident, why are there so many ideas of about his/her/its nature, will, and wants?

 

I don't understand what people being flesh and blood has to do with it.

 

I find humanity a wonderful and exciting race. I don't want everyone to believe the same things I believe. I want shapes, and sounds, and colors. I see the darkness, but I also see the light. I watch people, I see how they react to certain things, I found out why they do the things they do. What is on the outside of a person is only a small fraction of what is within, and what is inside is what fascinates me.

 

And I as well. But that doesn't mean I like everything people do, or think that everything they believe is healthy and valid, or beautiful just because they believe it. There are beliefs that are specifically dangerous, and actually keep people suffering when it is unnecessary. There are people blowing up children on buses because of their god-belief. Right now. There are women being beaten to death, denied vaccines, and children being beaten to death.

 

Now, most believers separate themselves from such behavior. Rightly so. But it is their sense of morality OUTSIDE of their god-belief that leads them to this conclusion. It must, because otherwise no god-belief would tolerate such. But obviously they do. And why is your moral sense correct and theirs wrong? It is based on a holy book, just like yours. They have tradition to support their actions, as do you.

 

I can see you have spent a lot of time examining what Christians believe, but you haven't begun to understand the why. I suspect this is because you are not concerned with understanding them.

 

Your suspicion is unfounded. Not only was I once a believer, but my father was a Baptist minister and I went to a Jesuit college for two years. Early on in life I considered the ministry, in fact. And "because it feels good" is no real answer. A delusion that makes you feel good is still a delusion.

 

First consider mans search for meaning in life, to have been born with a specific purpose, to explain why we are here. When an unbeliever presents the idea that we were all accidents, the result of a great cosmic belch, we were born without a purpose, and our lives are essentially meaningless, it is hard to imagine why someone wouldn't want to switch sides. Sign me up for nothingness.

 

Erroneous. Just because I don't believe in an invisible super-being it cannot be said that my life is devoid of meaning. Quite the reverse, actually. And our being here is not accidental in the sense you mean it. If there is an environment that will support life, you will find life there. There is evidence for this on this very planet.

 

To continue on meaning...all humans determine meaning for themselves. You do this yourself. You believe in Christianity, and by making that choice your life has meaning. Others have chosen Islam, and that gives their life meaning. You cannot both be right. Since that is so, can it not be asserted that one of your lives is meaningless? If so, why?

 

Realizing that this is the only shot you have at consciousness is not only freeing, but opens the mind up to the wonder and joy that just living brings. Isn't just being here purpose enough?

 

Second eventually every man must die. What happens when we die? What happens when our parent dies. What happens when our child dies. While we are alive, we all lose someone we love. They were here, and then one day they were gone. We want to, sometimes need to believe that they continue to exist, that somehow they are still here with us.

 

Nobody knows what happens when we die. No matter how fervent the belief, it is still just a guess. Is it not sad that men can be convinced that they should give up their one, precious life here for a promise of some eternal reward--a reward that is based on speculation?

 

What we do echoes down through history. In a way, all of our ancestors are here with us.

 

I would imagine that nothing happens, as with no brain or body there is no sensation, therefore no afterlife.

 

Their death brings in fears of our own deaths as well, will we really go to a better place? Will we come back again in another form? Or will we just dissapear? If there is no God, no divine plan, then not once our meaningless lives are over, we just cease to exist.

 

Why is that so bad? It isn't as if you are aware of it. And doesn't that make life even more valuable--the fact that you only get one ad when it is over it is over? I think that way. I try to be the best person I can be every day, to demonstrate my deep affection for loved ones as much as I can as often as I can because I know that I may never get another chance.

 

Then there is the world around us, we seek to understand it, there is a vast universe and in reality we don't even amount to a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things. More of that great nothingness, no purpose, no meaning, and no real place in the universe. If there is a God, someone who created me specifically, then I am important in that grand scheme, if not, a speck of dust I was born, and a speck of dust I will die.

 

Why do you need to feel special in that way? When you consider all the different ways the DNA in your system could have combined but did so in such a way as to produce you--the only you there will ever be--isn't that special enough? Only you will ever see the world the way you do. It will never be repeated.

 

And you can have all the purpose you want. But as I said, you decide what it is. You decided that an invisible being gives you purpose. But what purpose exactly?

 

Behind almost every addiction, compulsion, obsession, or delusion, you will find one common factor. The need to control some small part of this world around us, if we can control that one thing maybe we can forget the fact that we can't control everything. Eating disorders, one controls their body. Alcoholism, one controls their mind. Even science has its root in control. If we can understand it, if we can explain it, we might be able to control it.

 

And so far science is the only one that works. We can control our immediate environment (heating and air conditioning), prevent diseases, feed millions, and put men on the Moon.

 

God is a big part of that need for many of us, instead of seeking to control that which we cannot control, it occurs to us that there might be someone out there who can. If we can let go of that need to control the uncontrollable, and let someone else control it then we can relax a little and just enjoy life.

 

When you realize that there is no super-being keeping track of everything you do and waiting to punish or reward you for how you think, you can just relax and enjoy life. The one life you have.

 

Christians believe that God created man in his image, but many of them have gone on to create God in their own image. If they have extreme personalities, then their God does too. They bomb abortion clinics, they persecute other religions, they try to make the world conform to their image, and they truly believe they are doing God's will.

 

Yep. And they use the Bible to back it up. Other disagree with their interpretation. How can this be?

 

However there are also people who have more laid back personalities, the hippie Christians. They believe in peace, love and harmony, they are content to live and let live. The too believe they are doing God's will.

 

See above. I would add that if there is a god it would be impossible for me to do anything that is against his will.

 

Mankind has an innate need for some kind of higher power, they worship at many alters. You worship at the alter of science, and consider yourself enlightened. Some worship at the alter of God, and consider themselves just as enlightened. Everyone I daresay worships at the alter of someone or something, and everyone considers themselvs enlightened.

 

Not enlightened, just educated. Mankind does not have an innate need for a higher power. We are pattern seeking creatures, and often see patterns that aren't there, and causal relationships that aren't there. Now we know how to weed these explanations out. It's pretty cool, really. Notice how the more we learn about Nature, the smaller god gets.

 

Now I'll end my lengthy essay with the answer to your question. One can be sane, rational, even intelligent and still believe that there are things we do not know or understand. Many things, as with the zombies, are all a matter of perspective. They do in fact exist, and at the same time, they do not exist.

 

Nice dodge. Is Matthew literally true or not? If not literally true, then what was he saying?

 

So how can a sane, rational, and intelligent person believe in God? It is still just a matter of perspective.

 

Good question.

 

You offer a life with no meaning, an existence with no purpose, a death with nothing beyond. We are born, we live, we die, and all we really were was a bug on the cosmic windshield. Most frightening of all, you could very well be correct.

 

I don't offer a life with no meaning. As I said above, quite the reverse. I don't think that is frightening, myself. I think if you really think about it you wouldn't think it frightening, either.

 

The Christians you so pity believe that God created each of us specifically, that he loves us and guides us, and that we were each born with a divine purpose. Our lives have promise, and our deaths have hope. The suffering we endure here on earth is promised to be rewarded with paradise.

 

It really does take sanity, rationality, and intelligence to compare the two and decide which one offers hope.

 

I would agree, except that you have not examined both positions equally. Rationalism offers the most hope, as the more who follow it the more man prospers. This is shown everywhere in the world. And which is better to hope for; a world that is better for all people everywhere, or a spiritual reward that is at odds with every other? One is tangible and possible, the other causes irrational actions and decisions here and now.

 

Within that very paragraph are contradictory statements as to the nature of god. I would be happy to discuss them on a more relevant thread.

[Moai]

Vampires find their origin in Jewish mythology, if not in Christian. It was said that God created a first Eve, and her name was Lilith. She was not subserviant to her master (Adam) and in some stories insisted that she be on top of him during intercourse.

 

In some versions she was destroyed, in others she beccame a succubus, a female sex demon, and roamed the earth. Many legends consider her to be the mother of the Vampires.

 

You will not find mention of a "first Eve" in the Bible, however there is some mention of her in the Genesis Rabbah.

 

I have heard of Lilith before, but as I said I do not think that vampires are in the Bible. Wouldn't surprise me if they were, though.

[Storyrider]

This is very simple. In folklore, zombies are re-animated corpses that have no free will. They don't resemble the original person when they come back to life. They are stupid automatons.

 

The resurrections depicted in the Bible clearly state that the people came back to life.

 

In the OT, Elijah asks God to resurrect a boy for his mother (I Kings Ch 17, verse 17-24 Elijah.) He says to the mother, "See, your son is alive." How would this have been a good thing if the son was a zombie?

 

Whether you read the Bible as truth or fiction, you are pasting your own idea on top of the story, not reading the ideas that are being conveyed through the story.

 

Maybe Snow White was a zombie too.

[boshemia]

I would agree, except that you have not examined both positions equally.

 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to examine both positions equally. I was trying to answer the question as to why Christians continue to believe in God.

 

Not being an athiest, I can't really explain why an athiest believes the way they do.

 

I can explain why I disagree with traditional Christianity, why I don't believe you can legislate morality, why I support the legalization of marijuana yet I still believe that we should outlaw alcohol, why I disagree with people quoting scripture to non-believers, or why I believe that we should all quit worrying about what everyone else believes and just try to find some common ground.

 

I could also explain how my beliefs differ from mainstream Christians, but tht would just get us both in trouble. I just enjoy playing devils advocate, I WANT to present the opposite side of every argument. In reality I am a firm middle of the roader... My cousin calls me a liberal conservative, and I call him a conservative liberal. What it boils down to is we really do agree on most things, I just lean a little to the right, and he leans a little to the left.

 

I cannot however present a balanced view on both athiesm and Christianity any more than you can. We both lean in different directions. However, I bet if we worked together, instead of pointing out the flaws in the others thinking... we could probably find some common ground.

 

Imagine That!

[boshemia]

Maybe Snow White was a zombie too.

 

 

LOL!

 

Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure Sleeping Beauty was too.

[Storyrider]

Hey boshemia. Enjoying your posts lately. You are a good writer.

[Moai]

This is very simple. In folklore, zombies are re-animated corpses that have no free will. They don't resemble the original person when they come back to life. They are stupid automatons.

 

So? Why is there idea of what a zombie is right? Beyond that, the Bible says that the dead came back to life. Isn't it reasonable to assume that they were in various states of decay--regardless of their mental abilities (which aren't mentioned one way or the other, by the way)? Matthew just says they reanimated and went into town. They could've shuffled and moaned, who knows? I wasn't there. At the very least the dead rose from the grave.

 

The resurrections depicted in the Bible clearly state that the people came back to life.

 

Yep. It never says anything about their condition afterward, one way or the other. Jesus did still have his wound in the side, though. That being the case, can we not assume that god did not give these reanimated corpses perfect spirit bodies? Why or why not?

 

In the OT, Elijah asks God to resurrect a boy for his mother (I Kings Ch 17, verse 17-24 Elijah.) He says to the mother, "See, your son is alive." How would this have been a good thing if the son was a zombie?

 

Again, you assume one aspect of zombies to be true.

 

In Night of the Living Dead the zombies just shuffle around and moan. In the remake of Dawn of the Dead the zombies have super-speed. Who is to say which is right? I have never seen a zombie.

 

And maybe it was a good thing to her. Just having her son moving around may have made her happy. Who can say?

 

Do you think that actually happened, by the way? And if so, why isn't it happening now?

 

Whether you read the Bible as truth or fiction, you are pasting your own idea on top of the story, not reading the ideas that are being conveyed through the story.

 

Ok. What ideas am I missing? Dead people are reanimated. Use whatever term you like for it. It happened more than once. But in Matthew, it happened to a bunch of people all at once.

 

It would seem you have a problem with the term "zombie". What would you call them? And whatever term you use, people arising out of their graves is not a euphemism for something else. Matthew is very specific. Care to address that? What is the point that I am missing in that story?

 

Maybe Snow White was a zombie too.

 

Nope. Snow White was put to sleep by the apple. It is never mentioned that she died, and her body id not decay. Beyond that, Snow White is not presented as fact, and I don't think that anyone believes it to be true, ever did believe it to be true, nor did they base a religion on it.

[boshemia]

Hey boshemia. Enjoying your posts lately. You are a good writer.

 

*sniff* Thank you, I spent all day on that post. I was really bummed that Moai didn't recognize it's literary genius. Not like I thought he'd drop to his knees shouting praise the Lord or anything, but a simple, "Oh, I see how you are clearly an intelligent person and your beliefs are well thought out. Wanna snuggle?" would have been nice.

 

*sniff*

 

Though I think my novels would be progressing much faster if I didn't have LS as an excuse. After all I am technically writing.

[Storyrider]

the other. Jesus did still have his wound in the side, though. That being the case, can we not assume that god did not give these reanimated corpses perfect spirit bodies? Why or why not?

 

This is a genuinely interesting question. He is partly spirit, right? Because he walks through walls. But Thomas puts his hand in the wound. I don't pretend to understand what this means. Maybe the disciples wouldn't have recognized him if his wounds had been healed. Also, the wounds were an important part of the symbol he became, so it would make sense that they were still a part of him.

 

Do you think that actually happened, by the way? And if so, why isn't it happening now?

 

I don't know. My H. says we are more distant from God spiritually than we were in biblical times, so the big miracles happen less frequently. I'm undecided on the issue.

 

Right now I'm arguing more from the meaning intended by the author(s)than whether or not it was true. I think it is important to respect the intent of any text when analyzing it.

 

It would seem you have a problem with the term "zombie". What would you call them? And whatever term you use, people arising out of their graves is not a euphemism for something else. Matthew is very specific. Care to address that? What is the point that I am missing in that story?

 

No, I don't think it is meant euphemistically. It is presented as real. I just don't think they rise as mindless, plodding automatons. I think they rise to become themselves or more than themselves, and that is an important and meaningful distinction.

[Moai]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to examine both positions equally. I was trying to answer the question as to why Christians continue to believe in God.

 

Not being an athiest, I can't really explain why an atheist believes the way they do.

 

I have been both, so I can understand both sides. But you assume that I a a nihilist for soe reason and posts arguments against that position--which is not mine, nor any other atheists that I know. There is a great deal of literature out there which very succinctly explains rationalism and atheism.

 

I have learned more about Christian doctrine since becoming a non-believer than I did as a believer.

 

I can explain why I disagree with traditional Christianity, why I don't believe you can legislate morality, why I support the legalization of marijuana yet I still believe that we should outlaw alcohol, why I disagree with people quoting scripture to non-believers, or why I believe that we should all quit worrying about what everyone else believes and just try to find some common ground.

 

There is a great deal of common ground. It isn't like I walk around arguing about atheism constantly. But there are places and times when I do. And as I mentioned in a previous post, it goes a little beyond worrying about what others believe.

 

Do you want religious dogma taught as fact to your children? Lots of Christians do. What about Buddhist or Hindu children? Should we teach the creation stories of those religions, too, just so all will have equal time?

 

Would you sit back while well-funded groups tried to get the idea of the Sun revolving around the Earth be taught in science class? Lest you think I am being facetious, the Creation myth is just as silly. And it is also illegal to teach in a public school.

 

I could also explain how my beliefs differ from mainstream Christians, but tht would just get us both in trouble. I just enjoy playing devils advocate, I WANT to present the opposite side of every argument. In reality I am a firm middle of the roader... My cousin calls me a liberal conservative, and I call him a conservative liberal. What it boils down to is we really do agree on most things, I just lean a little to the right, and he leans a little to the left.

 

I cannot however present a balanced view on both athiesm and Christianity any more than you can. We both lean in different directions. However, I bet if we worked together, instead of pointing out the flaws in the others thinking... we could probably find some common ground.

 

Imagine That!

 

Actually, I can present a balanced view, and have done so. On some threads I have played devil's advocate on I have been praised as a strong believer and that I am filled with the Holy Spirit and all that jazz. The Christian position is not hard to understand or argue, you just have to blow by the inherent contradictions.

 

I am not aware of any flaw in my thinking. I have read that I need "faith" but that is not a flaw in my thinking, is it? Why am I flawed because I require evidence and use logic? I would add that I would never fall prey to Benny Hinn or Bob Larson, but there are millions of believers who do. These men prey on other's superstitions and irrational hopes to line their pockets with millions from people who can ill afford it. It makes me sick. And I have never read even an ATTEMPT at an answer as to how the Holy Spirit would allow this.

 

Peter Popoff was exposed as a fraud some years ago. He was caught using an ear-piece through which his wife would prompt him, all the while claiming he was talking to the Holy Spirit. You can watch the video on YouTube right now. Here's the link:

 

 

Here's another about two people who gave him money:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxqRN5vjDHQ&mode=related&search=

 

Guess who I saw on TV a few nights ago? You guessed it, Peter Popoff. He was offering free miracle water that would heal your finances. He can afford to buy time on BET to further his "ministry." He made $23 million in 2005.

 

I am not angry at god about this, I am angry at Peter Popoff about this. But he wouldn't be successful if not for the superstition he uses to fleece people.

 

I am so deeply saddened by such things I can't describe it. Am I so evil by hating such things? I don't want to crush the faith of these people; rather, I want to help them reach a position where Peter Popoff will not be able to operate. Or Benny Hinn. These are sick, desperate people who deserve our help and sympathy. Ironically, they think I am evil and hate me. I have read their posts on another site after being critical of these men. And for being an atheist in general. I would be happy to provide you with links to the emails and posts, if you like.

 

How many times have I heard that the Holy Spirit will come into the heart of all who ask, that only with the Holy Spirit can you interpret the Bible and the Holy Spirit helps you determine truth? Hundreds and hundreds. Yet that is obviously not the case, or the Benny Hinn's of the world would be broke.

 

What common ground do you suggest? What would be common ground? Why am I required to find common ground with a superstition? And nothing against Christianity specifically. I have the same issues with every religion on the planet. Ironically, so do you, except for one. You aren't a Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian or Muslim, are you? I would imagine that you rejected most if not all those religions without knowing very much about them. How can you make a decision that concerns your eternal fate so whimsically?

 

I am being rhetorical, as I know it is easy because I did the same thing. I was a believer in Christianity because it was the dominant faith in my culture and my family. It is so easy to see the myth in other's beliefs, but difficult in our own, no? Ask and Christian if Muhammad was taken physically up to Heaven and he will scoff and say, "Of course not." Anyone who worshiped Apollo these days would be locked up as a loon. Shiva isn't going to destroy everything, is he?

 

Of course not. Those beliefs are silly. So silly, in fact, that I'll bet you rarely, if ever even think about them. You aren't as middle of the road as you think.

 

At least I treat all god-beliefs equally. I reject them.

 

But we digress. Would you care to address the questions I have posed, given your more moderate belief? Was what Matthew wrote true? No? Why or why not?

[Moai]

*sniff* Thank you, I spent all day on that post. I was really bummed that Moai didn't recognize it's literary genius. Not like I thought he'd drop to his knees shouting praise the Lord or anything, but a simple, "Oh, I see how you are clearly an intelligent person and your beliefs are well thought out. Wanna snuggle?" would have been nice.

 

*sniff*

 

Though I think my novels would be progressing much faster if I didn't have LS as an excuse. After all I am technically writing.

 

Way to make me feel bad...

 

I do think that you are a good writer, to an extent that I figured you'd know that and it is a given. I certainly disagree with your extrapolations regarding my belief system, but you express yourself very well and it is a pleasure to read your posts. Please, keep them coming. Disagree with them or no, they are a pleasure to read. I am enjoying the discussion immensely.

 

Have any of your novels been published? I understand that you may not want the whole Loveshack world to know your real name, but if you PM me with the titles I'll read them. It would be an honor, honestly. I think that is super-cool.

 

Regardless of our disagreements (minor thought they are, really), I always wish you the best and haev the deepest respect for you, and your skill with language. Thank you again for your participation!

[Moai]

This is a genuinely interesting question. He is partly spirit, right? Because he walks through walls. But Thomas puts his hand in the wound. I don't pretend to understand what this means. Maybe the disciples wouldn't have recognized him if his wounds had been healed. Also, the wounds were an important part of the symbol he became, so it would make sense that they were still a part of him.

 

It raises all sorts of questions. Are the wounds healed now? After his resurrection could he become formless at will? I won't even get into the whole man/god percentage thing.

 

I don't know. My H. says we are more distant from God spiritually than we were in biblical times, so the big miracles happen less frequently. I'm undecided on the issue.

 

Haven't heard that one before. Of course, there are people out there claiming that big miracles are happening, but they are shown to be liars. I don't think that people are any different now than they were then, either. But I do know that their understanding of nature and phenomena was limited, and so their way of explaining things wouldn't be correct by definition. I am sure that will be said of us in 2,000 years, if people are still around.

 

I read recently that some Sumerian tablets were found that described how horrible the children were, that they ignored their elders, were undisciplined; all the thing that are said about kids now. They were certain man was doomed because of it. Thomas Jefferson said similar things as well. Some things never change.

 

As far as being spiritually further from god, that would be difficult to determine, of course, but I would say not. The idea of what god is and how he operates has certainly changed. And it is true that atheism is a growing view throughout the world, but that followed no miracles, it didn't proceed it. And in America, where god belief is highest in the West, we don't see any more miracles than anyone else.

 

Right now I'm arguing more from the meaning intended by the author(s)than whether or not it was true. I think it is important to respect the intent of any text when analyzing it.

 

Me too, actually. It seems to me it was important for Matthew to convey that the people really did rise from the grave and that he wants me to believe it. Hence him adding that the reanimated "were seen by many." It is an event that helps prove Jesus' divinity.

 

No, I don't think it is meant euphemistically. It is presented as real. I just don't think they rise as mindless, plodding automatons. I think they rise to become themselves or more than themselves, and that is an important and meaningful distinction.

 

It would be, but the Bible doesn't say. If we read the text as is, we would have to make assumptions to that end. If I assert that they were plodding automatons I don't add any miracles to the story. If I say that they were just as they were when alive, that raises (sorry for the pun!) even more questions. If the person died old, were they old when reanimated? If not, what age were they? If they had a physical affliction that was not fatal, did they still have it? And if god gave them perfect bodies, why not mention that also? And what of a saint who was over a hundred years dead? Nobody would know he was reanimated, he would just be a stranger walking around, unless there was some way to tell that he was dead recently--which implies the plodding, rotting variety of zombie. Or were the saints reanimated only recently dead? Again, Matthew doesn't say. It would have been easy to add these small details, and in fact I would expect them considering the extraordinary claim.

 

But that is interesting, too, as he doesn't treat it as so extraordinary. He is rather off-hand about it. To me, that means that reanimation was not uncommon, at least not to him or his intended readership.

 

Is the fact that Matthew claims this event happened enough evidence to believe it true? Why or why not?

[boshemia]

Do you want religious dogma taught as fact to your children? Lots of Christians do. What about Buddhist or Hindu children? Should we teach the creation stories of those religions, too, just so all will have equal time?

 

Benny Hinn. These are sick, desperate people who deserve our help and sympathy. Ironically, they think I am evil and hate me.

 

What common ground do you suggest? What would be common ground? Why am I required to find common ground with a superstition?

 

And there you have already found some common ground. I despise televangelists, Pat Robertson is my least favorite person in the world, well he and George Bush. Benny Hinn would have to be a close second.

 

It's not that I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. I remember watching one of his programs when I kept hearing his name. I tried to believe, but then I watched him bless a woman, I watched her fall down, slain in the spirit, praise the Lord. Then I saw the look on the face of the child in her arms. The poor child was scared to death. I mean terrified, if the power of the Lord went so strongly through the woman, then why didn't the kid look serene, or blessed, or at the very least not ready to pee his pants.

 

So our first area of common ground.

 

Ironically, so do you, except for one. You aren't a Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian or Muslim, are you? I would imagine that you rejected most if not all those religions without knowing very much about them.

 

Oh, boy... have I got you fooled. I wasn't raised Christian, in fact I didn't become one until I was 20. I studied every major religion, and a few minor religions. While I was married to my first husband I explored many faiths, and all of the focus on rules, and sin, and hell, and punishment seemed to fit my life at the time. I didn't know what I had done to make God so mad at me, but whatever it was it was pretty clear to me that he hated me.

 

My family all mass converted about the same time I did, and I really loved my family, but for some reason becoming Christians didn't make them better people, in fact... it made them worse. At family dinners the amount of hate that comes out as Christian love shocks me.

 

My family refers to me as the pagan, and they pray for my soul constantly. If I drink a beer in my own home, my mother has threatened to take my children away. This in the family that once had a keg in the kitchen for after bar parties.

 

I walked away from the Church and started from scratch. I'm happier this way. I am for the most part unconcerned with doctrine. It's like watching a game of football, where everyone is playing from the same rule book... but each player is interpreting it differently. Everyone is running in different directions, worried about this rule or that rule... when in reality there is just one goal. Get the damned ball to the end zone. That's it. Why make it more complicated than it has to be?

 

But we digress. Would you care to address the questions I have posed, given your more moderate belief? Was what Matthew wrote true? No? Why or why not?

 

First of all, I don't believe that the Bible in it's current form is correct. I know the history of our modern Bible, and I know the motivations of the men who pieced it together into its current form. I know that the texts used were copies of copies of copies. The Nicene Council sat down and first decided what they believed, and then they decided what texts supported that belief.

 

A central belief was the divinity of Christ, the beginning of the trinity as we know it. That father, son, and spirit, were not seperate, but one and the same. Given the motivation behind the Bible as we know it, I cannot accept it as the whole truth, if some books that should have been included were not, then I believe that some books that were included should not have been.

 

Which is one place that I differ from the mainstream, I do not believe in the Trinity. It became a central point of Christian doctrine almost 300 years after the death of Jesus. Jesus himself never spoke of it in that manner, and at his baptism, all three were present.

 

When Jesus came up out of the water,

the Holy Spirit descended as a dove,

and the voice of God spoke from Heaven,

saying "This is my beloved son,

in whom I am well pleased."

 

In studying this, I concluded that the trinity was not valid, and therefore assembling the Bible based on this belief led to a flawed document.

 

However,

 

I believe that Jesus did die, and rose from the dead. I believe what Matthew wrote was true.

 

There is some historical record of his existence, and that he was crucified.

 

Based on "eye witness" accounts, the tomb was later found empty. Without the empty tomb there would have been no followers. Jesus would have been just another prophet, and he would have faded into oblivion like the rest. The religion would have died with him.

 

These "eye-witnesses" say they saw the empty tomb, and some of the witnesses actually saw Jesus himself, alive and well.

 

There would have been no reason for the enemies of Jesus to do this, they wanted him dead, and they wanted his teaching dead along with him. The Jewish leaders claimed that his followers removed the body and hid it elsewhere. Which according to historians could not have been accomplished easily because the stone was rather large, and guards were placed at the tomb to prevent that sort of thing.

 

There was no motivation for them to steal the body either. They were persecuted for their beliefs, and it would have been much easier to just forget about the whole thing.

 

I wasn't there, so I don't know anything for sure. I just know that the followers that were left behind believed the accounts so strongly that they were willing to risk scorn, ridicule, torture and even death to spread those beliefs.

 

Jesus had many devoted followers, and it stands to reason that his tomb would have become a gathering place for his early followers. They would have protected it, preserved it, or at the very least remembered where it was. Last I knew they weren't even sure about the location, and had several tombs they believed might have been the real tomb.

 

Unless you get into "the Jesus family" tomb that has been in the news, which I wont. I'm afraid I don't know enough about it to hold a discussion on the matter. It is interesting, and I do wonder what the outcome will be.

 

I'm tired now... I think I'll wander off.

[boshemia]

Way to make me feel bad...

 

I do think that you are a good writer, to an extent that I figured you'd know that and it is a given. I certainly disagree with your extrapolations regarding my belief system, but you express yourself very well and it is a pleasure to read your posts. Please, keep them coming. Disagree with them or no, they are a pleasure to read. I am enjoying the discussion immensely.

 

Have any of your novels been published? I understand that you may not want the whole Loveshack world to know your real name, but if you PM me with the titles I'll read them. It would be an honor, honestly. I think that is super-cool.

 

Regardless of our disagreements (minor thought they are, really), I always wish you the best and haev the deepest respect for you, and your skill with language. Thank you again for your participation!

 

Yeah I was just joking, but yes I also enjoy the discussion. I'd rather argue with you than *some* people who can't even adress the issue at hand. GRIN

 

No, nothing published. I'm afraid my self-esteem wouldn't be able to handle it. I share my writing with very few people. I don't even write under my real name, in reality I'm pretty private.

 

Between you and I, my faith is in a transitional phase at the moment. I tore it back to the ground and am slowly rebuilding it. I'm not even sure where I stand on some beliefs. I've actually gone back and done a full bible study on sex alone, just to see what I believe there. As it turns out, people have a lot more problems with sexuality than God seems to. He's pretty groovy with it as long as you leave relatives and farm animals out of it.

[boshemia]

Oh I forgot... I was reading a book last night and I came across a section that reminded me of you.

 

"Soul is not even that Crackerjack prize that God and Satan scuffle over after the worms have licked all our bones. That's why, when we ponder-as sooner or later each of us must- exactly what we ought to be doing about our soul, religion is the wrong, if conventional, place to turn. Religion is a little more than a transaction in which troubled people trade their souls for temporary and wholly illusionary psychological comfort - the old give-it-up-in-order-to-save-it-routine. Religions lead us to believe that the soul is the ultimate family jewel and that in return for our mindless obedience, they can secure it for us in their vaults, or at least insure it against fire or theft."

 

"Insure it against fire or theft" I LOVE that line...

 

Oh, its from Tom Robbins - Villa Incognito (Great read!)

 

Night...

[Island Girl]

I believe that we should all quit worrying about what everyone else believes and just try to find some common ground.

 

The more distance you get from structured traditional religions -- the more common ground there is.

 

There is no barrier from getting to know people as people. They may have different choices in their sexuality, holidays (or lack thereof), cultural beliefs, and yet can be appreciated as individuals who have something to contribute to society.

 

Religion is divisive. Religion -- any religion -- teaches exclusion of others based on differences. Homosexuals, other races, etc. suffer violence, slurs and backlash mainly in the name of religion.

 

To truly start seeing people as equals on all levels the playing field must be level and that can not be when religion is strongly present.

[Island Girl]

As it turns out, people have a lot more problems with sexuality than God seems to. He's pretty groovy with it as long as you leave relatives and farm animals out of it.

 

Actually God sees no reason why relatives shouldn't be involved.

 

Even incest involving one's own children is in the bible.

 

The participants aren't punished as one would expect.

 

Quite the reverse actually.

 

<I am quoting the scripture directly from the bible -- lest I be called a liar. And I quote it in it's entirety lest I be accused of taking it out of context.>

 

Let's see:

 

Lot was a righteous man - he was the only man saved from Sodom and Gomorrha:

 

2 Peter 2

 

2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

 

2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

 

2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

 

So Lot was a righteous man. HOWEVER

 

He got drunk and slept with his daughters. He got them both pregnant actually:

 

Genesis 19

 

19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

 

19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

 

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

 

19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

 

19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

 

19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

 

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

 

19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

 

19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

 

 

[Island Girl]

Second eventually every man must die. What happens when we die? What happens when our parent dies. What happens when our child dies. While we are alive, we all lose someone we love. They were here, and then one day they were gone. We want to, sometimes need to believe that they continue to exist, that somehow they are still here with us.

 

I had a conversation about this just the other day.

 

I found that when I let go of religion -- and that there is no "after" at least that I can be sure of, believe in, plan on, etc. -- that everything in my life was MORE meaningful.

 

The time I have with people whom I love dearly is more important because I realize this is ALL THERE IS.

 

I have to make the most of my time here and do the things I want to do, see the people I want to see, let those that I care about know I care because there is no tomorrow - no afterlife where I'll see them again.

 

I have the here and now. That has made each moment more defined and more precious than it ever was before.

 

The people surrounding me, well, I know they only have this time to live their lives as they see fit as well.

 

That lends itself to tolerance of differences in a way that I was unable to experience before. Because I do not believe in some book or deity instructing me that what another person does or participates in is inherently wrong.

 

I believe in societies boundaries and the need to obey laws certainly. But other things like sexuality between consenting adults should be determined by those adults.

 

And those choices that harm no one do not define that person but rather become just a facet of who they are. I relate to people more openly and honestly without condemnation based on something as ridiculous as sexual preference or cultural differences.

 

Each person has become more valuable to me. Life has become more valuable to me. My choices and consequences have become more valuable to me.

 

All as a result of giving up religion.

[a4a]

Island Girl...........

 

I can see how that would happen. It makes perfect sense that you do not see this life as a dress rehearsal.

 

You stop to appreciate everything when you know this is it.

Just maybe that is actual "heaven" and the ultimate enlightenment?

 

Religion simply replaces a parental figure for most.

[Island Girl]

Island Girl...........

 

I can see how that would happen. It makes perfect sense that you do not see this life as a dress rehearsal.

 

You stop to appreciate everything when you know this is it.

Just maybe that is actual "heaven" and the ultimate enlightenment?

 

Religion simply replaces a parental figure for most.

 

Exactly what I was trying to get across. Said more succinctly by you. Glad it translated.

[a4a]

Exactly what I was trying to get across. Said more succinctly by you. Glad it translated.

 

I had to learn bluntness to communicate with the husband--- you take out garbage - do it - now - or I cut off pecker.

[sb129]

Or give you the tater.

 

Hey, this thread is BRILLIANT.

 

Its so nice to see everyone getting along, and discussing their different points of view like adults.

 

Respect.

[Topper]

I had to learn bluntness to communicate with the husband--- you take out garbage - do it - now - or I cut off pecker.

 

Loraina Bobbitt Is that you?

[Moai]

And there you have already found some common ground. I despise televangelists, Pat Robertson is my least favorite person in the world, well he and George Bush. Benny Hinn would have to be a close second.

 

As I suspected, we are not so far apart as it would seem, or others would assert. I will refrain from commenting on Pat Robertson, as I could fill volumes with the hateful ranting from that guy. I despise him, and his ilk.

 

It's not that I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. I remember watching one of his programs when I kept hearing his name. I tried to believe, but then I watched him bless a woman, I watched her fall down, slain in the spirit, praise the Lord. Then I saw the look on the face of the child in her arms. The poor child was scared to death. I mean terrified, if the power of the Lord went so strongly through the woman, then why didn't the kid look serene, or blessed, or at the very least not ready to pee his pants.

 

So our first area of common ground.

 

I have never heard of that. Thanks for the anecdote. I would have thought the same.

 

It used to be that on The 700 Club at the end he and his co-host would pray and he would relate that someone was being healed. "Someone who is watching...their back pain is being healed in the name of Jesus" and things like that. This went on for some time, until someone pointed out to him that his show is not seen live; rather, it was on tape delay. So was the woman being healed then, or did god wait and heal them when the program was on? It all implied time-travel healing, which is flat-out weird. And you know what? Surprise! He stopped doing that. <rhetorical>Did the Holy Spirit stop telling him that, did god stop doing that, or was he making it up the whole time?</rhetorical>

 

 

Oh, boy... have I got you fooled. I wasn't raised Christian, in fact I didn't become one until I was 20. I studied every major religion, and a few minor religions. While I was married to my first husband I explored many faiths, and all of the focus on rules, and sin, and hell, and punishment seemed to fit my life at the time. I didn't know what I had done to make God so mad at me, but whatever it was it was pretty clear to me that he hated me.

 

I am glad that I was wrong. I was simply going by the experience of most people, so I had a high probability of being right. It speaks well of you to have explored things as you did--and probably still do. It saddens me that you felt god hated you at one point. That must've sucked. I am not being flippant, so please don't misunderstand.

 

My family all mass converted about the same time I did, and I really loved my family, but for some reason becoming Christians didn't make them better people, in fact... it made them worse. At family dinners the amount of hate that comes out as Christian love shocks me.

 

Still more common ground! I have read on other occasions and on other threads Christians saying that they hope this person or that person burns in Hell because they deserve it, blah blah blah. This from the same people who claim we are saved by grace through faith. So, by their own belief system, if this horrible person accepts Jesus he gets a free pass and gets to Heaven. No punishment at all. I won't even get into the whole "judge ye not" nonsense.

 

My family refers to me as the pagan, and they pray for my soul constantly. If I drink a beer in my own home, my mother has threatened to take my children away. This in the family that once had a keg in the kitchen for after bar parties.

 

Terrible. I hope that in most ways you do get along well with your family. In my immediate family my mom is still a believer, but a very moderate one, like you, and she is super-cool. Her sisters and brothers are more like your mom, but they stay away from me because 1) I ask questions they can't answer, 2) I have gone off on their hypocrisy and will again in a second and 3) I am Satan's spawn. No kidding. Doesn't bum me out in the least, though, as they aren't nice people and we were never close. Again, my condolences for having to deal with that in your immediate family.

 

I walked away from the Church and started from scratch. I'm happier this way. I am for the most part unconcerned with doctrine. It's like watching a game of football, where everyone is playing from the same rule book... but each player is interpreting it differently. Everyone is running in different directions, worried about this rule or that rule... when in reality there is just one goal. Get the damned ball to the end zone. That's it. Why make it more complicated than it has to be?

 

Couldn't agree more, and I applaud you on your more rational position. Especially given the pressure you must be under dealing with your circumstances.

 

First of all, I don't believe that the Bible in it's current form is correct. I know the history of our modern Bible, and I know the motivations of the men who pieced it together into its current form. I know that the texts used were copies of copies of copies. The Nicene Council sat down and first decided what they believed, and then they decided what texts supported that belief.

 

Yep. I have the "Creed" in my library. As I am sure you are aware, they were reluctant to put all the material in one book, lest people worship the book and not the message--and look what happened. Most born again believers are really worshiping the book and not god, but they'll never see it. Weird.

 

A central belief was the divinity of Christ, the beginning of the trinity as we know it. That father, son, and spirit, were not seperate, but one and the same. Given the motivation behind the Bible as we know it, I cannot accept it as the whole truth, if some books that should have been included were not, then I believe that some books that were included should not have been.

 

Would you be so kind as to start a thread about that? I am fascinated, but don't want to get off track here.

 

Which is one place that I differ from the mainstream, I do not believe in the Trinity. It became a central point of Christian doctrine almost 300 years after the death of Jesus. Jesus himself never spoke of it in that manner, and at his baptism, all three were present.

 

I don't believe in the Trinity either! I have read some Judaic comments on the Trinity and find their interpretation of its meaning iron-clad--especially considering their use of scripture to support their position.

 

In studying this, I concluded that the trinity was not valid, and therefore assembling the Bible based on this belief led to a flawed document.

 

However,

 

I believe that Jesus did die, and rose from the dead. I believe what Matthew wrote was true.

 

There is some historical record of his existence, and that he was crucified.

 

I am not aware of any reliable accounts of Jesus outside of the Gospels. Josephus mentions Jesus, but the paragraph that refers to him was obviously added later by someone other than Josephus. He does talk about James, Jesus' brother, though. What are the others? For the record, I think Jesus existed.

 

Now, since you believe what Matthew wrote, you believe in the mass reanimation, right? Or no?

 

If that happened, why did none of the other Gospel writers mention it--as that is an even bigger deal than Jesus returning?

 

Based on "eye witness" accounts, the tomb was later found empty. Without the empty tomb there would have been no followers. Jesus would have been just another prophet, and he would have faded into oblivion like the rest. The religion would have died with him.

 

These "eye-witnesses" say they saw the empty tomb, and some of the witnesses actually saw Jesus himself, alive and well.

 

They do not relate te accounts themselves; they are said to have existed by the Gospel writers, whose testimony is contradictory. And there were at least twelve other prophets around at the same time as Jesus. Adam of Aremathea [sic] for one. He did all the things Jesus did. He raised the dead, healed the sick and the blind, and rose from the dead himself. But he didn't have good PR people, it would seem. Remember to that the early church was spread at the point of a sword.

 

Evan as today, though, it was hearing about the empty tomb and believing the story that led to belief, not the empty tomb itself. If that were so, Judaism as we know it would not exist. Everyone in Jerusalem would have converted on the spot.

 

There would have been no reason for the enemies of Jesus to do this, they wanted him dead, and they wanted his teaching dead along with him. The Jewish leaders claimed that his followers removed the body and hid it elsewhere. Which according to historians could not have been accomplished easily because the stone was rather large, and guards were placed at the tomb to prevent that sort of thing.

 

Maybe there were guards, maybe there weren't. Only Matthew (again with Matthew!) says there was a guard. This is a pretty big deal, I think. Notice, though, that the Pharisses are using Occam's Razor without knowing it. If someone comes to you and claims somebody rose from the dead and takes you to an empty tomb, what is the most reasonable explanation? That someone came and took the body, right? That's what I'd think. Oh, and I think the Gospel of Peter mentions guards, too, but that isn't one of The Big Four Gospels, obviously. All of these writings appeared well after the event, too.

 

There was no motivation for them to steal the body either. They were persecuted for their beliefs, and it would have been much easier to just forget about the whole thing.

 

To give him a proper burial, perhaps? And people do things that they are persecuted for all the time. Nobody would bomb and abortion clinic and kill innocent people, would they? Whoops. Even now Christians accept (and I think experience a certain amount of glee in) the fact that they will be persecuted for their beliefs. I have had chapter and verse quoted to me about it. Persecution doesn't seem to be an effective deterrent.

 

I think that most people up until about 70 years afterward did forget the whole thing, or didn't think it as monumental as people do know.

 

I wasn't there, so I don't know anything for sure. I just know that the followers that were left behind believed the accounts so strongly that they were willing to risk scorn, ridicule, torture and even death to spread those beliefs.

 

Good point, and I wasn't there either. But history has shown that people will put up with all sorts of pain and suffering for their beliefs. I have never heard of one case during the Inquisition where a Jew converted. Maybe some did, but I would imagine that some Christians did, too. There are also accounts of early Christians converting to Islam without so much as a pin-prick.

 

As I am sure you are aware, the depth of belief is not indicative of its validity.

 

Jesus had many devoted followers, and it stands to reason that his tomb would have become a gathering place for his early followers. They would have protected it, preserved it, or at the very least remembered where it was. Last I knew they weren't even sure about the location, and had several tombs they believed might have been the real tomb.

 

I haven't been and have no plans to go, but I think that the Tomb location is well known, and Christians flock there. At leas the cave that had the big rock in front of it is. I have seen people visiting on evangelical shows. But it could be a local scam for all I know.

 

Unless you get into "the Jesus family" tomb that has been in the news, which I wont. I'm afraid I don't know enough about it to hold a discussion on the matter. It is interesting, and I do wonder what the outcome will be.

 

I'm tired now... I think I'll wander off.

 

Sleep well! I saw the program about it, but that's all the information I have. The debate at the end was rather pathetic, sadly.

[Moai]

Yeah I was just joking, but yes I also enjoy the discussion. I'd rather argue with you than *some* people who can't even adress the issue at hand. GRIN

 

No, nothing published. I'm afraid my self-esteem wouldn't be able to handle it. I share my writing with very few people. I don't even write under my real name, in reality I'm pretty private.

 

Between you and I, my faith is in a transitional phase at the moment. I tore it back to the ground and am slowly rebuilding it. I'm not even sure where I stand on some beliefs. I've actually gone back and done a full bible study on sex alone, just to see what I believe there. As it turns out, people have a lot more problems with sexuality than God seems to. He's pretty groovy with it as long as you leave relatives and farm animals out of it.

 

Ha! Awesome!

 

Thank you for the compliment. I know what you mean.

 

I think the whole circumcision thing is a little weird, but other than that I suppose you're right. There is a lot of really weird sex in the OT.

 

The rules about rape aren't too cool, but that is beside the point.

 

Between you and me, I developed my views about sex by studying biology, and the various forms of sexuality found in Nature, and then applied that to humans. Which behavior is beneficial and which aren't, that kind of thing. Then I studied how different cultures deal with it, and that sort of thing.

 

I saw a film about a tribe in South America where one woman has many husbands, which was fascinating. Violence is virtually unknown amongst them.

 

I am very much in the "consenting adults can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home" camp.