DrDNA

Waratheist, Please check if my mind is missing. If it is, let me know where it can be found because I might need it at some point in the future. A mind is a terrible thing to misplace. Kindest regards, DrDNA

You should be aware of the fact that bromine gas will kill you.

I thought I was losing my mind.

I tried to cover as broad a spectrum as possible using the smallest amount of space. Now, in retrospect, I see that I could have just stated: anyone that doesn't believe precisely what I believe and accomplished my goal Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Which passages in the New Testament are in Egyptian mythology? The cross is a representation of a form of torture that was used by the Romans.

I forgive you. I see where you are coming from now. The problem is the "fundamentalist Christians". And they are arrogant people with an agenda. In your experience, who doesn't have an agenda? Also, exactly what you mean by an arrogant fundamental Christian is unclear to me. It could be related to my "severe lack of comprehension" Many images do come to mind though including 700 Clubbers, the Charles Stanleys, the Jimmy Swaggerts, the John Hagees, the TD Jakes of the world.... the Popes/Cardinals/Bishops/Priests, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, the Holy Rollers, Tea Bagers who happen to be Christian, .... or all "Christians" besides those who happen to be professors or students at ivy league schools of divinity and/or psycho babbling non-denominational, new age Christians that are afraid to offend anyone..... Is it one of these arrogant scoundrels? If so which? Are you using the terms "modern Christianity" and "fundamentalist Christianity" in a similar context or a contrasting context? Please explain. Ya think? I wonder if that's related to all those Jews and their Mosaic laws, traditions and the like that were very frequently passed on by oral traditions. Then there is the annoying fact that Parables are almost never factually nor historically accurate because, by definition, they wouldn't be parables at all would they............they would be dry history lessons......like all those boring Genealogies in the old testament and at the beginning of Matthew that everyone sleeps through. Bingo! Makes it even more amazing that they are as cohesive as they are, doesn't it? Or is it really surprising at all considering the source of the influence? I agree with a lot of what you said after that, but....... If we would all just spend more time and effort intellectualizing the Bible. Making an extra effort to point out to others what we view as inconsistent points or factually incorrect statements in the Bible. If we would all just pick and choose what we wish to accept and believe, then discard what doesn't fit our view of the way things were, are or should be. If we would all just mold it, shape it and interpret it to fit the times and our own views of the world. What crappy stinking world it would be. ------------------------- Luke 18:15-17 "...........Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it." Matthew 18:1-5 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, " Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child, whom he put among the, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Careful or you might get a log in your eye.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2978400/updates_on_dow_jones_drop_includes.html?cat=3 """......... all trades which occurred between 2:40 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Thursday were canceled, but only if the trades were significantly more than or less than the price of that security at 2:40 p.m. Information indicates that there were no signs of a technological issue. The stocks affected can be seen here (http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/wall_st_turmoil/ ) and new stocks may still be added. So far, 296 stocks have had trades canceled. What could have been a huge buying opportunity became a complete mess, with those trying to sell- or buy - stocks shut out of the process. Of course, most didn't realize this till later, when the news of the cancellations were announced.""" This is a personal matter for me, because URE is on the list. I traded URE at $40.14 at approx 2:36 pm. URE then proceeded to go to $20 by 2:48 before coming back up to $41 at ~2:50 So, I missed the 'get your trade back' deadline by 4 minutes. I'm curious to know how they came up with 2:40 - 3:00 and how they decided which symbols to put on/keep off the list. Any ideas?? I also dumped approx 20 other stocks at about the same time and want these trades back also. I'd like to file a formal complaint. Who is in charge of the complaint desk here?

OK I'll bite. Where will you find it?

LOL Absolutely!

I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent anything. And no, I'm not going to read the entire book. Are you saying that the review is inaccurate? I'd consider your opinion on at least the same grounds as the reviewer's. And if you, having read it in its entirety, say it is not deconstructionist, I'll take your word for it. So, back to deconstructionism. Stating the Bible contradicts itself (which I do not believe that you actually did, but was done in this thread) or that it was manipulated (e.g., things selectively, purposefully put in and left out...which I think you did) by Paul et al to suit his own wants, needs, desires, wishes.....is clearly deconstructionist. Would you agree that what you are doing with Paul and Clement has at least some similarity to the following? ""Deconstructionism is a basically a theory of textual criticism or interpretation that denies there is any single correct meaning or interpretation of a passage or text. At the heart of the deconstructionist theory of interpretation are two primary ideas. First is the idea that no passage or text can possibly convey a single reliable, consistent, and coherent message to everyone who reads or hears it. The second is that the author who wrote the text is less responsible for the piece's content than are the impersonal forces of culture such as language and their unconscious ideology. Therefore the very basic tenets of deconstructionism are contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible that absolute truth does exist and we can indeed know it (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 65:16; John 1:17-18; John 14:6; John 15:26-27; Galatians 2:5). The deconstruction approach to interpreting the Bible comes out of postmodernism and as such it is simply another denial of the existence of absolute truth which is one of the most serious logical fallacies anyone can commit. The reason the denial of absolute truth is a logical fallacy of the greatest magnitude is because it is a self-contradictory statement. The deconstructionist or postmodern thinker who denies absolute truth cannot rationally make such a statement because to do so would be stating an absolute which is what they are saying does not exist. When someone claims that there is no such thing as absolute truth, I always want to ask them; “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say yes, then they have made a statement that is contradictory to their very premise. Like other philosophies that come out of the postmodern movement, deconstructionism celebrates human autonomy and places the autonomy of man at both the beginning and the end of determining what can be deemed to be truth. Therefore according to the postmodern thinker all truth is relative and there is no such thing as absolute truth. At the heart of this type of postmodernism and the deconstructionist thought process is pride and arrogance. The deconstructionist thinks that they can discover a personal or social motivation that lies behind what is said and therefore can determine what is “really being said.” The end result is a very subjective interpretation of the passage or text in question. Instead of accepting what it actually says the deconstructionist is arrogant enough to think they can determine the motive behind what was written and come up with the real or hidden meaning of the text. However if one were to take deconstructionism to its logical conclusion then the results of the deconstructionist’s efforts would have to be deconstructed themselves to determine what the deconstructionist really said and the endless line of circular reasoning is therefore self defeating. When one thinks about how fundamentally flawed this type of postmodern thinking is, one cannot help but bring to mind 1 Corinthians 3:19, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness.” The deconstructionist does not study the Bible or a text in order to find out the meaning intended by the writer, but instead tries to “read between the lines,” so to speak, in order to discern the cultural and social reasons and motives behind what was written. The deconstructionist is really only limited in his interpretation of the passage by his own imagination. To the deconstructionist there is no right or wrong interpretation and the meaning of the passage or text becomes very subjective and one that can only determined by the reader. The proper way to approach the Bible is to first recognize that each passage has only one correct interpretation (that which the Holy Spirit intended to communicate to the original recipients), even though it might have many applications. The deconstructionist on the other hand would attribute the primary meaning of the text to the reader, not the author. Therefore there is no one right way of interpretation and the reader’s cultural and social background will influence the meaning of the passage. One might imagine what would happen if legal documents such as wills and deeds were read this way. This approach to the Scriptures fails to recognize the fundamental truth that the Bible is God’s objective communication to mankind and that the meaning of the passages being studied comes from God and is not subject to man’s interpretation as to the truthfulness of the message. Instead of spending time debating deconstructionism or other postmodern theories, we should try to concentrate on exalting Christ and emphasizing the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures. Romans 1:21-22 sums up most postmodern thinkers who come up with and hold to such theories as deconstructionism. “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” http://www.gotquestions.org/deconstructionism.html

Agreed. I will rephrase. Sometimes stupid acts lead to favorable outcomes.

I dunno, but the review quacks like a duck. Reviews Editorial Review - Reed Business Information © 2003 What if Marcion's canon-which consisted only of Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity's canon? What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party? What if various early Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Secret Gospel of Mark, had been allowed into the canonical New Testament? Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture), a professor of religion at UNC Chapel Hill, offers answers to these and other questions in this book, which rehearses the now-familiar story of the tremendous diversity of early Christianity and its eventual suppression by a powerful "proto-orthodox" faction. The proto-orthodox Christians won out over many other groups, and bequeathed to us the four Gospels, a church hierarchy, a set of practices and beliefs, and doctrines such as the Trinity. Ehrman eloquently characterizes some of the movements and Scriptures that were lost, such as the Ebionites and the Secret Gospel of Mark, as he outlines the many strands of Christianity that competed for attention in the second and third centuries. He issues an important reminder that there was no such thing as a monolithic Christian orthodoxy before the fourth century. While Ehrman sometimes raises interesting questions (e.g., are Paul's writings sympathetic to women?), his book covers territory already well-explored by others (Gregory Riley, The River of God; Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief), generating few fresh or provocative insights. (Oct.) FYI: Oxford will simultaneously release Ehrman's edited anthology Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament, which contains new translations of many of the non-canonical writings analyzed in this book. http://books.google.com/books?sitesec=reviews&id=URdACxKubDIC “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

Stupidity isn't always bad.

Gotcha. Somehow, I got the idea that you were referring to Clement of Alexandria. I see now that you were referring to Clement of Rome. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No thanks. It looks interesting, but I try to steer clear of deconstructionists. There's enough of that out there already.

Just because something was taught in the first century does not make it right . Some scholars have a view that a few (or more) early church leaders applied scripture to their own situations, in some cases without any regard for its original context. For example, you have referred to Clemente more than once. While stating that Paul was not as believable as Peter because Paul did not walk with Jesus upon the soil. But Clement did not become the leader of the Alexandrian school until MUCH later, almost the second century AD. While Clement alluded to the Old Testament in his Epistle to the Corinthians many times, some scholars believe that this was more a basis for moral obedience and less intended as a discovery the Old Testament's teachings. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Obviously, you know the answer to this. I didn't say Jesus was wrong about anything. Is that (Jesus wrong) what you are saying? Peter made mistakes as I detailed in some depth. How does that equate to Jesus or the Bible being wrong (as you associate with me above)? That fact that Peter made mistakes and they were documented by Paul (and Matt, Luke, Mark and John) does not invalidate Paul either It is obvious that you have an issue with Paul. I don't agree with your stance, but I respect it. I think...... But why you seem to think that Clemente (AD 200) and other early scholars that are not included in the Bible had all the answers and/or that he is somehow hovering above Paul, who was with the disciples, is beyond my current level of understanding. Is the rest of your disagreement with the Bible and/or Jesus? Please elaborate or restate, because either your message is not clear or my brain is too small to comprehend it.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head ydoaPs. As you have probably gleamed by now, I accept the Bible in a literal sense, including Peter's imperfections, which were major. And not a record of differing opinions. In contrast, it appears to me that you view as more of a historical record and other documents of roughly the same period as equivalent to the Bible. Peter was wrong on major doctrine, as I noted above, then corrected himself.

I do not understand your correlation between textread for centuries and the Bible. Also you seem to view Peter as infallible (and his letter as gospel) and Paul as some kind of wacko. But the Bible indicates time and time again that Peter made many mistakes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Do you view Letter to James and similar texts as equivalent to that which composes what is commonly referred to as the Christian Bible?

While I respect the authors opinion, I view that post are speculation. By picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe or discount and substituting other texts, you are modifying it to fit your own worldly views. Basically making up your own religion.

1 Thanks for your permission 2 I'm not pretending 3 You need to look up the definition of religion 4 As a devout atheist, you either wish to punish yourself by debating religion or you are simply being antagonistic. Which one is it?

There seems to be some confusion here. Peter and Paul were men. Men have conflict. God does not have conflict. Peter was stubborn (like 'rock') and Paul was a brash dude. The conflict went like this: The beginning of Jesus' ministry was directed toward the nation of Israel and after Israel had rejected Jesus, he instructed the disciples to "make disciples of all the nations" Matthew 28:19. Despite this, the early church did not focus on Gentiles. The ethnic Jews felt that the Gentiles were beneath them, so the services were directed solely to Jews that had accepted Christ. In Acts 10, it was revealed to Peter in a vision that the gospel was to be freely given to the Gentiles. In that vision, God told Peter that it was permitted for him to enter a Gentile home and freely give the gospel to Gentiles. 10He (Peter) became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. Peter was of course an extremely stubborn man, so even God had to tell him three times. It was difficult for Peter to accept because, as a Jew, he was brought up to believe that it was forbidden for him to have close fellowship with a Gentile or even for him to eat a meal in a Gentile's home. In spite of this, Peter obeyed the instructions of God and, subsequently, he entered the home of Cornelius, who was a gentile, and led him and his family to the Lord and Christianity. As I quoted from Acts 15 in my earlier post above, Peter later related his experiences with Cornelius at the council in Jerusalem when the question arose as to whether Gentiles could be saved apart from circumcision and keeping the Law. The Jerusalem Council (along with Peter) agreed that the Gentiles did not need to submit to Jewish customs, would not be required to offer sacrifices, to keep the same Sabbath day or observe Jewish dietary laws, etc. So, by the time of the Jerusalem Council, Peter understood that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the church in the same way that the Jews were admitted. Which was by faith alone. The earliest Christians, who were ethnic Jews, knew that they could only be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. However, they did not abandon their heritage and continued to live their lives under 'the law'. For example, they continued to keep their Sabbath day as in the law of Moses and they continued to observe their Kosher dietary requirements. A similar scenario comes up again in Galatians. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. Galatians 2:12-13. Jews who were still keeping the Law were inhibited from going into Gentile homes and eating meals that had been prepared by Gentiles. These meals were not kosher. The problem came to a head when Peter went to Antioch and saw Paul. There, Paul also confronted Peter over this issue of the followers of Christ not having fellowship with the Gentile believers (this, after God had already been over it with him). The conflict was resolved. In the process, both groups, the Gentiles and the Jews were made into one. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. Ephesians 2:14-16. Regarding texts that I probably don't have: I'm talkin 'bout the Bible

In Arizona you are not obligated to inform the officer if you are carrying unless he specifically asks you. I should note that this is for a person carrying a concealed weapon with a CCW permit. I'm not exactly sure how or if the new no permit law effects that (but its a good question which I will look up eventually). My own CCW instructor advised us to use our own best judgment in such matters, but he did state that he does not volunteer the information unless directly asked by an officer. His full time job is training Arizona DPS officers and local jurisdictions all over the state in tactical use of firearms, so I would suspect that he has some insight on the matter. Personally, I've had cops ask and not ask. If they just want to see my license and registration without me getting out of the vehicle, I don't volunteer any additional info. But if they ask me to get out of the vehicle, and they haven't already asked, I will tell them what I've got shoved in my pants (or in my belly strap or around my ankle), while my hands are in plain sight on the steering wheel, before exiting.

Certainly not. I am referring to The God aka: ADONAI: “Lord” (Genesis 15:2; Judges 6:15) EL, ELOAH: God "mighty, strong, prominent" (Genesis 7:1; Isaiah 9:6) ELOHIM: God “Creator, Mighty and Strong” (Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33) (Elohim) speaks the world into existence (Genesis 1:1). EL SHADDAI: “God Almighty,” “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5) EL ELYON: “Most High" (Deuteronomy 26:19) EL ROI: "God of Seeing" (Genesis 16:13) EL-OLAM: "Everlasting God" (Psalm 90:1-3) EL-GIBHOR: “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6) I AM WHO I AM: (Exodus 3:14). Jehovah-jireh (the Lord will provide) Jehovah-rapha (the Lord who heals) Jehovah-nissi (the Lord our banner) Jehovah-Shalom (the Lord our peace) Jehovah-ra-ah (the Lord my shepherd) Jehovah-tsidkenu (the Lord our righteousness) Jehovah-shammad (the Lord is present) Jehovah-Elohim (the Lord God) Jehovah Sabaoth (the Lord of hosts) YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH: “LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4; Daniel 9:14) – YAHWEH-JIREH: "The Lord will Provide" (Genesis 22:14) YAHWEH-RAPHA: "The Lord Who Heals" (Exodus 15:26) YAHWEH-NISSI: "The Lord Our Banner" (Exodus 17:15) YAHWEH-M'KADDESH: "The Lord Who Sanctifies, Makes Holy" (Leviticus 20:8; Ezekiel 37:28) YAHWEH-SHALOM: "The Lord Our Peace" (Judges 6:24) YAHWEH-ELOHIM: "LORD God" (Genesis 2:4; Psalm 59:5) YAHWEH-TSIDKENU: "The Lord Our Righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:16) YAHWEH-ROHI: "The Lord Our Shepherd" (Psalm 23:1) YAHWEH-SHAMMAH: "The Lord is There” (Ezekiel 48:35) YAHWEH-SABAOTH: "The Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 1:24; Psalm 46:7) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Nice jab. The 'law of Moses' is intended for Jews. It is not intended for Gentiles. The conflict is amongst men. Not the bible.

I beg to differ. Peter agreed that the gentiles did not have to follow Jewish law. Acts 15: 1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. 5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Then Peter scolded the people who wanted the gentiles to obey the laws of Moses ""6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are. So, it is clear that Peter did not intend that the gentiles should be required to adhere to Jewish law.

Y'all have it.......... The God (not to be confused with "a god") is the: Moral attribute of love: 1 Jn 4:8,16 Moral attribute of Light (truth): 1 Jn 1:5; John 17:17 Moral attribute of holiness: 1 Pet 1:16 Moral attribute of mercy: Ps 103:8 Moral attribute of gentleness: Ps 18:35 Moral attribute of righteousness: Ps 129:4 Moral attribute of goodness: Rom 2:4 Moral attribute of perfection: Matthew 5:48 Moral attribute of justice: Isaiah 45:21 Moral attribute of faithfulness: 1 Corinthians 10:13 Moral attribute of grace: Psalm 103:8 God is everywhere (omnipresent): Mk 5:10; Jude 6; Rev 20:1-3; 1 Ki 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:49; 17:27-28; Ps 139:7-13 God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17 God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6 God is a Spirit, without flesh and bones: Luke 24:39; John 4:24; Matthew 16:17 God is invisible: Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27 God is immutable (unchangeable) in his nature: Mal 3:6; but God can change his mind: Jonah 3:10; Gen 6:6 God is not a creature and never had a beginning point, being eternal: Deut 33:27; Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 1:17; Isa 44:6

You mean this guy?