Bible Questions

[emilynghiem]

Hi Numan: I don't disagree with you!
Like you I am saying is there is no contradiction from the higher perspective of Christ being both Divine and Human. The conflicts are projected from our human biases and having personal issues with either the divine or human level or both: the religious who demonize the material/human level have problems embracing both, while the secular who demonize the religious have problems with the divinity part.
That is what I mean, and I think it's what you mean, too. There should not be any conflict.

The little lifeforms that are both plant and animal, by God's natural design, are perfectly fine being both where there is no contradiction. They are both, so what.

But it is when people/humans set up some conditional system where each life-being
"has to be either plant or animal but can't be both" THEN this human system causes conflict projected onto whatever being it is we are perceiving. People who push for the little whatever-it-is to be declared an animal and not a plant have issues with this; and the people pushing for the little thingy to be a plant not an animal have issues with it too.

So let's get rid of those either/or conditions, and accept having both without contradiction. So I agree with what you are saying, Numan. We are just stating it differently using our own words. Sorry for that!

'
I just love theology!!

There is nothing I like more than sitting in a chair before a fire on a cold evening, and curling up with an amusing heresy!

It is so indescribably comic and entertaining to see human reason twisting itself into knots trying to come to grips with insoluble contradictions!

RE: Christ having two natures divine and human

I see this division as projected onto Christ from our human perspective
because WE are the ones dividing the two realms, God's divine laws from God's natural laws.

I regret to inform you that the Fathers of the Church would have looked with extreme disfavor on your heretical views.

The Church Fathers were not nit-picky just because they were crotchety scholars. They were trying to reconcile contradictions which to them were desperately important.

If Christ had only a divine nature, then the Infinite Power of God would have too easy a victory over sin, and Divine Justice, which demanded the severest penalty for humanity's transgressions, would be violated.

If Christ had only a human nature, then He would have been too weak to have the power to forgive and heal humanity's sinful nature.

It is conceivable (though suspect) that the Son, before his Incarnation, had only one divine nature, and that it is only when He was born as Jesus that He became the Christ, with two separate and distinct natures -- human and divine. But ever since the Sacrifice upon the Cross, He has, and ever more will have, those two distinctly separate natures.

Those who denied the truth of the two natures, and thought that the Christ had only one, divine nature, were called Monophysites, and were particularly rife in Egypt and the Middle East

-----AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM!! · ·
.

P.S. Where people DO have to stretch to work with my views,
I believe Jesus fulfills the other laws too, from Buddhism to the Constitutional laws.
So you can follow Jesus by accepting that spirit into your commitment to enforce and live by the laws of other tribes as well, and still be Christian in spirit as a follower of Jesus.
Many people question "how can you be both" Buddhist/Christian, Muslim/Christian, etc.
And there are people running around who are both, and they run into these same conflicts!

 

[emilynghiem]

Are spiritual messages ever wrong? The problem is interpreting them properly. Not having the gift I don't pretend to understand dreams, even when I have them myself.

One thing I have to point out, there are three categories of people we, as believers, deal with on a daily basis. We have to deal with other believers, people who are honestly curious, and people who have actively rejected God. If we forget that last category, or pretend it doesn't exist, we forget that that we are in a battle.

Dear QW: Thanks for giving more clarifications, from your signature line, to your statement on guides, and now this explanation. As for you and DT, where we receive each other with forgiveness to seek understanding, and set aside misgivings to try to focus on our merits, I see that as BOTH acting WITH higher faith; and where each of us fails, or contradicts our own principles, we come across as "unfaithful even to our own beliefs." So to be fair, I find most people have both going on at the same time, some areas that align with faith and others that conflict; so I try to apply the side of the conscience that can correct itself. People always believe in something, so how can we align where we agree? While fixing the rest?

If you're interested I'd like to explore your points in a separate thread so I understand fully what you mean by false guides and your creed. Since you have such a strong commitment here, this could be where you set people off when you rub each other the wrong way, because I run into that also! I can also go verbally ballistic over constitutional violations, so I am not one to judge! That is where I focus on improving conflict resolution in this area, especially between people who are not under the same authority, how do we redress grievances between believers and nonbelievers, using which laws? Can we explore this?
We can start small with just your points in your philosophy, and see what that contains.
Thanks QW this is getting better!

 

[emilynghiem]

Lol...I'm sure emily will accept your unconditional surrender gracefully. She's a good winner.

Hi KG and thanks for sticking around. I posted a msg to you a while back, lost in the shuffle, asking if you want to start a new thread on the field of spiritual healing/demonic energy.
Are you interested in that?

Dear Gracie: On two of my last msgs to you, I revised the bottom of one
and the top of the other to say more positive things than what I wrote originally.
Did you get those or should I msg you and send the links?
they both say "REVISED" and I hope that sounds more helpful and uplifting to you!
Take care and thanks for the most diverse thread on the forum.

The tree of life which Christ is the trunk branches out in all directions,
and somehow the openness of your energy allows the whole tree to
flourish and spread its branches to enjoy the openness of your yard. So this must mean
you are a very free and unconditional soul. That is what it means to be
perfect as our father is perfect, to be that open and unconditional, and all-inclusive.

Please take heart in knowing that all these things are adding to your knowledge,
and not taking anything away. Anything that ends, is being replaced with something
even greater, so thank you for being and sharing such a blessing!

Here is a poem for you, Gracie, Enjoy:
http://www.isocracytx.net/copyrited/adam&eve.html


"The Tree of Life"
for Gracie

I am an ancient Dreaming Tree,
Who dreams of tales once told to me.
My roots go down in history
Before they counted centuries.

The oldest tale that I can weave
Concerns Sir Adam's Lady Eve,
Who made the bold discovery
That sex controlled heredity.

She found out from some fruity tree
(Of no relation close to me!).
She shared this secret with her man
And that's when trouble soon began.

He fought his shame with sword and shield
And built the Church and State to wield
The right to make whole Kingdoms yield
In battles fought upon this field.

So many lost, so many grieve;
I'm forced to stand and count.
I can't "make like a man and leave"
When horsemen start to mount!

My arms I throw to God's great skies
But can't reach Mother Earth.
If you can teach this lesson wise,
That joy my grief is worth.

My favour carry in your tourneys:
Speak with love on all your journeys.
Teach your foe to be your friend,
And fight for truth with ink and pen.

I'll be the paper that you need
To print these words for all to read.
Take life from me, and not from men;
From seeds of peace, I'll bloom again....

 

[numan]

P.S. Where people DO have to stretch to work with my views,
I believe Jesus fulfills the other laws too, from Buddhism to the Constitutional laws.
So you can follow Jesus by accepting that spirit into your commitment to enforce and live by the laws of other tribes as well, and still be Christian in spirit as a follower of Jesus.
Many people question "how can you be both" Buddhist/Christian, Muslim/Christian, etc.
And there are people running around who are both, and they run into these same conflicts!

I commend your tolerant spirit !

May I test it, just a little?
.

 

[numan]

Genesis is a collection of useful myths and beliefs BEFORE the religious establishment of judaism. The part you are referencing is probably taken from a polytheistic religion such as that of the Sumerians whose creation myths and floods are suspiciously similiar to that in Genesis. Also the names of some of Abrahams forefathers are also similiar to the names of cities that were establish in the region that Sumeria ocupied.

In short, any written before the Books of Moses or relating to the history of the Hebrews/Jews can be considered pre-Judaic literature and maybe considered pagan ruffrage that was taken in to answer questions that were impossible to answer without guessing.

Well, careful Biblical scholarship, extending over almost two hundred years, has established beyond any reasonable doubt that Moses never existed.

He is just a myth, and all the stories connected to him are just fables.
,

 

[koshergrl]

You betcha, skippy.

Lolol...

 

[BreezeWood]

'

RE: Christ having two natures divine and human

I see this division as projected onto Christ from our human perspective
because WE are the ones dividing the two realms, God's divine laws from God's natural laws.

I regret to inform you that the Fathers of the Church would have looked with extreme disfavor on your heretical views.

The Church Fathers were not nit-picky just because they were crotchety scholars. They were trying to reconcile contradictions which to them were desperately important.

If Christ had only a divine nature, then the Infinite Power of God would have too easy a victory over sin, and Divine Justice, which demanded the severest penalty for humanity's transgressions, would be violated.

If Christ had only a human nature, then He would have been too weak to have the power to forgive and heal humanity's sinful nature.

It is conceivable (though suspect) that the Son, before his Incarnation, had only one divine nature, and that it is only when He was born as Jesus that He became the Christ, with two separate and distinct natures -- human and divine. But ever since the Sacrifice upon the Cross, He has, and ever more will have, those two distinctly separate natures.

... before his Incarnation - - no, after.


not before but divinity was accomplished after Incarnation - as the sole Commandment from God to acquire Remittance, while on Earth - to the Everlasting or perish is the same as becoming divine.

Jesus was chosen by God for having fulfilled his obligation - it actually is heretical to say he was born divine rather than he became divine.

 

[Foxfyre]

'

RE: Christ having two natures divine and human

I see this division as projected onto Christ from our human perspective
because WE are the ones dividing the two realms, God's divine laws from God's natural laws.

I regret to inform you that the Fathers of the Church would have looked with extreme disfavor on your heretical views.

The Church Fathers were not nit-picky just because they were crotchety scholars. They were trying to reconcile contradictions which to them were desperately important.

If Christ had only a divine nature, then the Infinite Power of God would have too easy a victory over sin, and Divine Justice, which demanded the severest penalty for humanity's transgressions, would be violated.

If Christ had only a human nature, then He would have been too weak to have the power to forgive and heal humanity's sinful nature.

It is conceivable (though suspect) that the Son, before his Incarnation, had only one divine nature, and that it is only when He was born as Jesus that He became the Christ, with two separate and distinct natures -- human and divine. But ever since the Sacrifice upon the Cross, He has, and ever more will have, those two distinctly separate natures.

... before his Incarnation - - no, after.


not before but divinity was accomplished after Incarceration - as the sole Commandment from God to acquire Remittance, while on Earth - to the Everlasting or perish is the same as becoming divine.

Jesus was chosen by God for having fulfilled his obligation - it actually is heretical to say he was born divine rather than he became divine.

I gently disagree. I believe Jesus was God incarnate. God who chose to become a man, fully human, so that he could meet us face to face, show us God's love, show us the wonderful future in store for all of us by God's grace. And fully divine, God himself who chose to suffer and die for us as payment for our sins--the ultimate blood sacrifice that would end once and for all the need for blood sacrifice to be cleansed and free from the ultimate terrible consequence for breaking God's law.

And as the Scripture teaches us, we fully understand this by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Counselor that he sent to us to be with us when Jesus, the man, returned to the spirit realm.

The opening verse of the Gospel According to John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light sines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. . . . .

and then a few verses later. . . .

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. . . .

. . . .For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

**************************************

The faithful of the First Century--those who painstakingly wrote down the story as well as they could--were, as we are, limited in the words they had to explain and describe what they knew. Each of us has knowledge and emotion and understanding and fears and doubts and hopes and dreams that there are simply no words to fully express it exactly as we know it is. Nor can any of us fully see these things in their entirety. We just know they are there.

Which compelled the Apostle Paul sometime later to express, "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face." And hopefully we won't need our inadequate language to express it.

 

[numan]

It is conceivable...that the Son, before his Incarnation, had only one divine nature, and that it is only when He was born as Jesus that He became the Christ, with two separate and distinct natures -- human and divine. But ever since the Sacrifice upon the Cross, He has, and ever more will have, those two distinctly separate natures.

... before his Incarnation - - no, after.

not before but divinity was accomplished after Incarnation - as the sole Commandment from God to acquire Remittance, while on Earth - to the Everlasting or perish is the same as becoming divine.

Jesus was chosen by God for having fulfilled his obligation - it actually is heretical to say he was born divine rather than he became divine.

I had first to rend my garments and throw dust upon my head, before I could respond to such terrible blasphemies!!

You are directly contradicting the Nicene Creed, which condemned all those who claimed that there was a time when the Son was not!!

You are agreeing with the Arian heretics, who refused to give the title, "theotokos" ("Mother of God") to the Virgin Mary -- which provoked fierce riots in Constantinople during the brief period when the Arian blasphemers were in control there.

You are adhering to the heresy of Adoptionism, for which the first recorded heretic in history, Theodotus the Tanner, was excommunicated.

The earliest Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, proclaimed that the Christ was "God made man," not "man made God"!!
And all later Christianity agreed with them!!

The crude, insensate, wicked heresy of Adoptionism is quite widespread in these End Times, it is true -- but the entire history and theology of Christianity is firmly against it!!
.

 

[numan]

'
You aren't, by any chance, an adherent of the non-christian cult of Mormonism, are you?

Mormonism is a vicious source of sin founded by a charlatan and a liar -- of the very same ilk as Mohammed (Peace not be upon him!).
.

 

[Foxfyre]

'
You aren't, by any chance, an adherent of the non-christian cult of Mormonism, are you?

Mormonism is a vicious source of sin founded by a charlatan and a liar -- of the very same ilk as Mohammed (Peace not be upon him!).
.

Oh for heaven's sake numan, please don't turn this thread into another insult laded food fight. It started out as a congenial discussion of honest questions followed by honest if imperfect replies. Okay we--and I include myself in we--wandered off into the political spectrum a bit but we have attempted to pull back on course here.

It is a certainty that we all don't and won't agree on every point of theology and we will be approaching various subjects from a variety of personal experience, perspectives, theories, speculations, and beliefs. And that is fun to look at.

It is not fun to malign another member here for what he or she does or does not believe or trash his/her belief system no matter what it is. I don't agree with Breezewood at all, but his/her perspective in a thread like this is as valid as anybody elses.

 

[numan]

'
Goodness, I am an atheist, and I think it should be obvious that my postings are entirely in an ironic spirit of mock outrage!! I think the only religious people on the entire planet who have a sense of humor are the Chinese Daoists!

I am trying to make a serious point, though. I am trying to express how seriously the early Christians regarded these points, how vital were the distinctions, and how necessary to keep their faith pure.

If you think these were minor, unimportant matters, it just shows how very, very different you are from those who were closest to the times of Christ.

Personally, I think you are all the better for being so much more tolerant, and I think you are much superior to the early Christians (or even to many very recent Christians) -- but I think it is very necessary for you to realize how different you are from your earlier brothers and sisters in Christ.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

'
You aren't, by any chance, an adherent of the non-christian cult of Mormonism, are you?

Mormonism is a vicious source of sin founded by a charlatan and a liar -- of the very same ilk as Mohammed (Peace not be upon him!).
.

Oh for heaven's sake numan, please don't turn this thread into another insult laded food fight. It started out as a congenial discussion of honest questions followed by honest if imperfect replies. Okay we--and I include myself in we--wandered off into the political spectrum a bit but we have attempted to pull back on course here.

It is a certainty that we all don't and won't agree on every point of theology and we will be approaching various subjects from a variety of personal experience, perspectives, theories, speculations, and beliefs. And that is fun to look at.

It is not fun to malign another member here for what he or she does or does not believe or trash his/her belief system no matter what it is. I don't agree with Breezewood at all, but his/her perspective in a thread like this is as valid as anybody elses.

Great post, Foxy. While all voices deserve to be heard there is no requirement that they must be taken seriously. Numan being a case in point. Standing up for the rights of a minority religion is no less important than standing up for the rights of anything else. That doesn't mean embracing their beliefs but their right to express them must always be upheld.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had first to rend my garments and throw dust upon my head, before I could respond to such terrible blasphemies!!

I was going to let you get away with all your sarcasm, but I decided to shove it back down your throat.

You are directly contradicting the Nicene Creed, which condemned all those who claimed that there was a time when the Son was not!!

The Nicene creed does not say anything like what you just blathered.

You are agreeing with the Arian heretics, who refused to give the title, "theotokos" ("Mother of God") to the Virgin Mary -- which provoked fierce riots in Constantinople during the brief period when the Arian blasphemers were in control there.

You should also mention that he was exonerated in his lifetime.

You are adhering to the heresy of Adoptionism, for which the first recorded heretic in history, Theodotus the Tanner, was excommunicated.

If he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church I see that as a point in his favor.

The earliest Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, proclaimed that the Christ was "God made man," not "man made God"!!
And all later Christianity agreed with them!!

Irenaeus and Tertullian are hardly the Early Church Fathers.

The crude, insensate, wicked heresy of Adoptionism is quite widespread in these End Times, it is true -- but the entire history and theology of Christianity is firmly against it!!
.

The history and theology of Christianity is firmly for, and firmly against, a lot of different things, usually at the same time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'
You aren't, by any chance, an adherent of the non-christian cult of Mormonism, are you?

Mormonism is a vicious source of sin founded by a charlatan and a liar -- of the very same ilk as Mohammed (Peace not be upon him!).
.

Oh for heaven's sake numan, please don't turn this thread into another insult laded food fight. It started out as a congenial discussion of honest questions followed by honest if imperfect replies. Okay we--and I include myself in we--wandered off into the political spectrum a bit but we have attempted to pull back on course here.

It is a certainty that we all don't and won't agree on every point of theology and we will be approaching various subjects from a variety of personal experience, perspectives, theories, speculations, and beliefs. And that is fun to look at.

It is not fun to malign another member here for what he or she does or does not believe or trash his/her belief system no matter what it is. I don't agree with Breezewood at all, but his/her perspective in a thread like this is as valid as anybody elses.

Great post, Foxy. While all voices deserve to be heard there is no requirement that they must be taken seriously. Numan being a case in point. Standing up for the rights of a minority religion is no less important than standing up for the rights of anything else. That doesn't mean embracing their beliefs but their right to express them must always be upheld.

Fuck that. Numan has just as much right to prattle like an idiot as you do. In fact, the fact that he offends you actually means he is a more serious poster, because he doesn't hide behind pretending that behavior is more important than honesty.

 

[numan]

You are agreeing with the Arian heretics, who refused to give the title, "theotokos" ("Mother of God") to the Virgin Mary -- which provoked fierce riots in Constantinople during the brief period when the Arian blasphemers were in control there.

You should also mention that he was exonerated in his lifetime.

Good grief!! Another Adoptionist in sheep's clothing!!

This thread is a veritable nest of the vipers!!

Yes, the heretics played upon the poor, theologically unsophisticated Emperor Constantine, who just wanted a little peace and unity in the Church that he was founding.

However, on the very day that the Satanically inspired Arius was to be received back into the communion of the Church at Constantinople, his bowels exploded in a privy, and that was the end of him!!!

There is hardly a more signal example of Divine Displeasure in all of history!!

Moreover, after Arius' death he was condemned yet again, and that excommunication has lasted, and will last, until the end of time!!
.

 

[Foxfyre]

'
Goodness, I am an atheist, and I think it should be obvious that my postings are entirely in an ironic spirit of mock outrage!! I think the only religious people on the entire planet who have a sense of humor are the Chinese Daoists!

I am trying to make a serious point, though. I am trying to express how seriously the early Christians regarded these points, how vital were the distinctions, and how necessary to keep their faith pure.

If you think these were minor, unimportant matters, it just shows how very, very different you are from those who were closest to the times of Christ.

Personally, I think you are all the better for being so much more tolerant, and I think you are much superior to the early Christians (or even to many very recent Christians) -- but I think it is very necessary for you to realize how different you are from your earlier brothers and sisters in Christ.
.

Some Christians are tolerant, some not so much. Some Atheists are tolerant. Some not so much. But this thread is not about whose religion is superior. This thread was intended as a civil discussion of various ways that scripture might be interpreted. It requires neither tolerance nor appreciation for any particular religion to do that. But it certainly won't happen if we drag religious prejudice and bigotry into it. It does help, however, as you sort of suggested, to understand the text if we know something of the culture, language, and point of view of those who wrote it.

I don't know that I am any different from most Christians back then or that I would have been any different than they were in a culture 2000 years ago. Nor do you know if you would be any different. To judge them through our 21st century eyes is not, so to speak, the Christian way. The One whom all Christians are supposed to used as example though had a great deal of tolerance for those others held in great contempt and/or disrespect. I prefer to follow his lead as much as possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are agreeing with the Arian heretics, who refused to give the title, "theotokos" ("Mother of God") to the Virgin Mary -- which provoked fierce riots in Constantinople during the brief period when the Arian blasphemers were in control there.

You should also mention that he was exonerated in his lifetime.

Good grief!! Another Adoptionist in sheep's clothing!!

This thread is a veritable nest of the vipers!!

Yes, the heretics played upon the poor, theologically unsophisticated Emperor Constantine, who just wanted a little peace and unity in the Church that he was founding.

However, on the very day that the Satanically inspired Arius was to be received back into the communion of the Church at Constantinople, his bowels exploded in a privy, and that was the end of him!!!

There is hardly a more signal example of Divine Displeasure in all of history!!

Moreover, after Arius' death he was condemned yet again, and that excommunication has lasted, and will last, until the end of time!!
.

Amazing what poison can accomplish, isn't it?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Numan: Not to fear. Even in this God has a great purpose. For here, even where misgivings and false things ARE coming out in the open, it is happening in the spirit of love and truth, that these issues may be RESOLVED. All the people here are contributing to this cleansing and resolution process, including you, so thank you. Romans 8:28 that all things can be used for God's purpose for those who love God and follow that purpose. Amen and Thanks!

You are agreeing with the Arian heretics, who refused to give the title, "theotokos" ("Mother of God") to the Virgin Mary -- which provoked fierce riots in Constantinople during the brief period when the Arian blasphemers were in control there.

You should also mention that he was exonerated in his lifetime.

Good grief!! Another Adoptionist in sheep's clothing!!

This thread is a veritable nest of the vipers!!

Yes, the heretics played upon the poor, theologically unsophisticated Emperor Constantine, who just wanted a little peace and unity in the Church that he was founding.

However, on the very day that the Satanically inspired Arius was to be received back into the communion of the Church at Constantinople, his bowels exploded in a privy, and that was the end of him!!!

There is hardly a more signal example of Divine Displeasure in all of history!!

Moreover, after Arius' death he was condemned yet again, and that excommunication has lasted, and will last, until the end of time!!
.

Dear Numan: We are in the last days at the end of all the OLD ways. Blasphemies of UNFORGIVENESS against the Holy Spirit are not forgiven in that world or the world to come; but the stage after that where unforgiveness is overcome, then there is salvation for all. All the bad and evil that you speak of is vanquished, burned away in the lake of fire, and is no more but is dead. Only God's eternal truth and love lives on, after all these worldly things are ended.

We are following and reflecting that process now. Salvation is already won in Christ Jesus by Grace; but as humans we "work through our Salvation with fear and trembling"

Yes, you feel fear when you sense there is adversity to overcome. That is wise to discern when great change is necessary so we can prepare our hearts/minds and relations to receive change.
But Perfect Love casts out all fear and allows the changes to take place with love and support. Christ makes all things new and gives us strength. I pray for all those here to call upon the higher truth and love that conquers all these things we fear as false and conflicting. That these shall be overcome and we shall see the coming of the Lord or the Law established among us.

Thank you Numan Please continue sharing fellowship and you shall see all these past wrongs redressed and resolved so we bring out the best in everyone here and overcome the worst!
Take care and please continue praying with the love of truth ad justice to correct all wrongs.
That every heart and mind shall receive, so we freely receive peace in the Kingdom of God.

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh for heaven's sake numan, please don't turn this thread into another insult laded food fight. It started out as a congenial discussion of honest questions followed by honest if imperfect replies. Okay we--and I include myself in we--wandered off into the political spectrum a bit but we have attempted to pull back on course here.

It is a certainty that we all don't and won't agree on every point of theology and we will be approaching various subjects from a variety of personal experience, perspectives, theories, speculations, and beliefs. And that is fun to look at.

It is not fun to malign another member here for what he or she does or does not believe or trash his/her belief system no matter what it is. I don't agree with Breezewood at all, but his/her perspective in a thread like this is as valid as anybody elses.

Great post, Foxy. While all voices deserve to be heard there is no requirement that they must be taken seriously. Numan being a case in point. Standing up for the rights of a minority religion is no less important than standing up for the rights of anything else. That doesn't mean embracing their beliefs but their right to express them must always be upheld.

Fuck that. Numan has just as much right to prattle like an idiot as you do. In fact, the fact that he offends you actually means he is a more serious poster, because he doesn't hide behind pretending that behavior is more important than honesty.

Dear Foxfyre and QW: Yes I find that Numan is honest and admits where he has objections. I receive him equally as a child of God though he is more secular gentile/nontheist than I am. This is good, as with DT, that the gift of objectivity serves as a check on faith based approaches and vice versa. We do need each other, or else God would not put us together. We are designed to complement and better each other. We just need practice how to communicate, so that is what this forum is being used for! QW I see you and I share a lot alike in this way, in respecting others' free speech under the natural laws; and again, we merely need to practice and perfect our own. What you said about poison reminds me of the dangers of unforgiveness: it is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other person to die.

Here, I do not see people are being unforgiving but even where we object, yell, and cut or threaten to cut each other off with walls and words of attack, we can reel each other back in and not fall off in ditches. We can start other threads if we need to hash out some issue.

I was off the computer all day yesterday, but came up with the idea for one group to moderate a thread on Consensus on God and another on a thread for Consensus on Law.
I have the words in my head to post to certain people to ask to co-moderate, so I will try to post those before I forget! We can also use other threads or forums for either venting/bashing to get that out of the way which is part of the process; and for referencing issues that were resolved, so as other people join in, we don't have to revisit as what happens on Craigslist.
We could just post links to thread that resolved this so everyone can follow and catch up.
Something like that, thanks and please encourage everyone to STAY ON HERE and finish whatever conversation or disagreement you have that comes up with someone else on here.
That's GOOD that is not a bad thing, but we NEED this if we are going to resolve with grace.

Love and Thanks
Yours truly, Emily

Thanks again to Gracie for inviting such diverse minds and views to this thread.
We can do a lot with just the people represented here, and I will post a msg just for you!