[satjas]

Hey TM

>Where do you dig up your list of lies?

Hmm......let's take a wild wild guess........the bible?? TM......dah!!!!!

-the paradigm shifter.......God's friend.

The soul is that which beholds beauty even when the mind denies it.

[ATLian]

>> Funny thing is (king) David and
>>(Saul's son) Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, and god
>>still blessed David many times over. I guess that's the
>bible
>>for you, contradiction after contradiction.
>
>Where do you dig up your list of lies?

TM,

like Satjas said, this "list of lies" comes from your bible. David wasn't ati a man to emulate, kwanza when it came to sex. Si he's the one who had a man killed in battle coz he really wanted to have sex with that man's wife?

Anyway, to answer your question, Saul was very pissed off at his son Jonathan for having a gay affair with David, and he blasted him about it:

1 Samuel 20:30 "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him ... do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

When Jonathan died, this is what the grieving David said about his dead lover:

2 Samuel 1:26 "... Jonathan my brother ... Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

I don't feel like pasting a lot of info, so read 1 Samuel Chapters 18 - 20, ama do a google search on

Jonathan David Homosexual

amd you'll be suprised at what you come up with. Of course the religious conservatives will intepret what they read about the homosexual relation differently from what the religious liberals will, so I know you'll definitely side with the conservatives.

This is stuff they'll never teach you in your church of course, which explains why you may not know about it. It's huko in the trash can with other storos of god killing innocent kiddos.

If you read the WHOLE bible, and not just those parts that sugar-coat what the Christian god is, you'll realise why I have absolutely no time for the hypocritical genocidal maniac the Christian god is.

BTW, for more reading, there are also storos that the prophet Danial had a homosexual relationship with Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, and Ruth and Naomi may have had a lesbian relationship, so you may be intereested in checking on that too.

[teejay]

ATlian has created unnecesary tantrums over the issues of wine here. In your thinking Jesus is an alcoholic. Now today I want to purposely inform you about the issue of wine.

You asked me about those churches that serve wine well this is what my take is. Some churches that were originally influenced by the teetotalers but which then forgot their history argue that the Bible has always meant unfermented grape juice when it talked about Communion. They insist that all references to wine are really references to new wine, unfermented grape juice. While their argument might not be very compelling, their practice of serving grape juice is perfectly acceptable.

In the Greek New Testament two words are used for wine/grape juice. One is gleukus, literally "the sugar stuff" (from glukos, sugar), which is typically translated new wine. The New Testament only refers to gleukus once, and it uses the term to describe people who were acting boisterously in public and who were supposedly drunk. Gleukus is roughly equivalent to the kind of wine that comes in a bottle with a screw-on cap, as opposed to the wine that comes in a bottle with a cork.

Every other reference to any kind of wine in the New Testament is to oinos, either by itself, or as "new" wine straight from the grape, or as "good" wine. From oinos (Latin oenus) we get the words wine, vine, vin, wino, vino, vintner, as well as the word for the study of wine, oenology. Oinos is wine/grape juice in all its forms. When used by itself in the New Testament, a little oinos can calm your stomach, but a cupful makes you drunk.

The phrase "good wine" is used only once in the New Testament. Jesus and his disciples happened to be in a village the day of a wedding. In that culture it was your duty to attend a wedding, and a major offense if you didn't. In a small village the addition of a dozen or more adults to the guest list is fairly significant, and they ran out of wine, another major offense.

Six stone washing vessels were nearby. Jesus had the servants fill them with water and take them to the wine-steward. When the guests tasted it, they asked the wine-steward why he had saved the "good wine" until so late in the wedding festivities. Some argue that this wine was unfermented or barely fermented grape juice, but to us that argument is not compelling.

New Wine:- There is only one context where the New Testament refers specifically to "new" wine, and there it is clearly referring to unfermented grape juice, straight from the grape. That was where Jesus referred to the everyday process of making wine from grape juice when drawing an analogy. The illustration is repeated several times, but that is the only way the New Testament refers explicitly to new wine.

In Jesus' day you preserved grape juice by putting it into new wineskins, leather bags usually made from the skins of young goats. As the grape juice aged and fermented, the gases it gave off stretched the wineskin. Since leather stretches, the wineskin holds the wine and you end up with "old" fermented wine in an old wineskin.
You would never put new, unfermented, wine into an old wineskin because the old wineskin had already been stretched out, and the expanding gases would burst the old wineskin. On the other hand, you would readily transfer old wine from one wineskin to another since it had lost its capacity to stretch a wineskin.

The church I got to does not serve fermented wine. It serves pure grape juice. I am still in the process of getting the procedure and the ingredients needed to make unfermented wine. The wine that Christ made at the wedding feast. The same Wine that He said was symbolic of his blood at the Lord’s super. Then He say that he will not partake of it until when he comes again and the wine is new (read unfermented.). Ref All Four Gospels.

According to Ralph Earle’s research based on Paul’s advice to Timothy, oinos is used in the Septuagint for both fermented and unfermented grape juice. Since it can mean either one, it is valid to insist that in some cases it may simply mean grape juice and not fermented wine.

...the Roman writer Cato, in his treatise On Agriculture, gave this prescription: "If you wish to keep new wine sweet the whole year round, put new wine in a jar, cover the stopper with pitch, place the jar in a fishpond, take it out after the thirtieth day; you will have sweet wine all the year round." ...

Does fermented wine have medicinal value? The present writer once put this question to a noted surgeon, the head of a department in a university medical school. His answer was an emphatic no.
One thing, of course, must be insisted on: Paul was not advocating the general use of wine as a beverage. The most that that can be said is that he was suggesting that Timothy, because of frequent stomach illness, should take "a little wine" as medicine. And the possibility is still open that the apostle referred to unfermented grape juice, which of course is good for a weak stomach. 1 Tim 5:23-Ralph Earle - Word Meanings in the New Testament, Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1986, on 1 Tim. 5:13.

I hope this little information will inspire you to study the bible ardently and with sincerity. You will find no contradiction that you always talk about. By the way reading carefully John 2:1-11, you will find that Christ and his entourage were invited guests and was only imperative that the host should have had more wine for the late arrivals. In the event that it ran out they could have easily ordered more wine from the neighborhood. But that was not the case the wine ran out on purpose. God’s son would not be an alcoholic and must not taste alcohol. No wonder all the organizers of the wedding had their thoughts stranded so as not to salvage the situation. Only unfermented wine would be Christ’s drink.

I will be giving you more on wine. In the meantime Study the bible. But first of all try to invite Christ in your life.

[ATLian]

>ATlian has created unnecesary tantrums over the issues of
>wine here. In your thinking Jesus is an alcoholic.

>God’s son would not be an alcoholic and must
>not taste alcohol.

No-one stated that Jesus was an alcoholic. Just because you drink wine doesn't mean you're an alcoholic. Many of my saved friends, and some pastors I know, take wine once in a while with their food, as well as serve it in their churches. I don't think god has any objections to wine, just excessive indulgence in wine.

Also, I don't think these are "unnecesary tantrums", it's just a different way of looking at the same situation.



>I will be giving you more on wine. In the meantime Study the
>bible. But first of all try to invite Christ in your life.

If Christ is exactly as his dad (god) is, then I've no need, want or desire for Christ in my life. Secondly, I do study the bible, it's one heck of an interesting read.

[TeamManager]

>Secondly, I do study the
>bible, it's one heck of an interesting read.

Saw you comments on David, Daniel, Ruth and others.

GIGO thinking

[ATLian]

>Saw you comments on David, Daniel, Ruth and others.
>
>GIGO thinking

TM,

did you even bother googling the info I presented you, ama was the thought too blasphemeous for your saved mind? Then, I didn't say I necessarily believe in them or I don't believe in those stories, I just said they make for some interesting reading. If you confine all your reading to just one aspect of something, you will never know the enitre truth about it. You'll be like the 10 blind men who touched a different part of the elephant and thus came away with different perceptions as to what an elephant was. Open your mind to different perspectives, it's quite an enriching experience.

Condescendingly and Patronizingly yours,

The ATLian

[dudette]

Kumbe JC was hitting that....I bet he liked it missionary.

[TeamManager]

>If you confine all your reading to just one aspect of
>something, you will never know the enitre truth about it.
>You'll be like the 10 blind men who touched a different
>part of the elephant and thus came away with different
>perceptions as to what an elephant was.

Now, now, now .... your story has 11 players i.e. the story-teller (who has the right picture) and 10 blind men.
I will not give you marks for guessing between the Bible and the other 10 man-made theories, which one has the correct concept of the 'elephant'

>Open your mind to different
>perspectives, it's quite an enriching experience.

Isn't it funny that you are always anti-'this and that' but never give an opinion where you stand (pro)...

[ATLian]

>Now, now, now .... your story has 11 players i.e. the
>story-teller (who has the right picture) and 10 blind men.
>I will not give you marks for guessing between the Bible and
>the other 10 man-made theories, which one has the correct
>concept of the 'elephant'

Actually the Bible only sees god from one perspective - the biblical one. So you'll be the blind man touching the elephants leg and saying the elephant is like a tree. Same way the Koran sees god from only one perspective - the Koran's, and so the Muslim will be the blind man touching the tail and saying the elephant is like a snake. When you can look at god from many different perspectives, you'll be suprised at what you can see.

As an atheist, I look at your gods from many perspectives. Before you wonder how an atheist can look at god, let me explain it. We can talk about The Incredible Hulk and his personality and strength and color from the way the comic books show him to us, even though we know the Hulk doesn't exist. Ditto with god, although I don't believe in your god, when I talk about your god, I talk about him from the way your bible defines him.

As a believer, you are not allowed to view your god in any other perspective apart from the one that says he's all good, all forgiving, all knowing, all powerful, etc. Since faith doesn't trap me into looking at god from just one perspective (all-whatever), I can see the other sides of him that your faith won't allow you to see. e.g. when he does evil stuff, I see it for the evil it is. When he's not forgiving, when he contradicts himself, when he is irrational, etc, I can see it for what it is. The believer will still tell himself that Yes, god just killed all the first born kids in Egypt, but it wasn't evil, it was the right thing to do. Of course when King Herod later does it, it's now extremely evil. Since I'm free from this "I always have to see god as good" mentality, I can see a better picture of who and what god really is.

By the way is the reason you always criticize Coach's god is because you are far removed to a point where you can see all about Allah clearly, and you can criticize him without the fear of blaspheming. Of course Coach cannot see the bad things that you see about Allah because through his beliefs, Allah CANNOT do bad things.

I hope I've come across more clearly this time about the perspective issue.



>Isn't it funny that you are always anti-'this and that' but
>never give an opinion where you stand (pro)...

TM, you've known categorically and unambiguously where I stand from Day 1. I don't believe in your or Coach's or any other gods out there, I think it's all hogwash. I've never hidden my stand, I've always stated it. Unlike you, I'm anti your god when he does crazy stuff. You just ignore the bad stuff and keep praising him as all-good. On the other hand I'm pro your god when he does good stuff. I disagree with your religion on many aspects, but I also agree with it on many more.

At least I'll give god props once in a while for doing good things. According to you, there's nothing bad god has ever done, even if it's wiping out the world and killing millions of innocent kids in the mix, killing all the first born kids, etc. And I think the bible has more attrocities committed by god than the good things he did.

[TeamManager]

@ATLian,

The assumption that God has not clearly revealed himself is wrong ...... therefore the conclusion that all who see in a particular way (i.e Biblical way) are 'blind' is wrong. Rather isn't it the other fellows who are blind.

If you thought that God punishing men and women in the past was 'bad' ......wait and see the end times.....it will be even worse.