BJean

laurend: I agree with you. Doing good for goodness' sake is far more admirable than doing good to accomplish one of our own personal goals. Whether it is a personal goal to bring people to the Bible or whether it is because of a personal goal of writing off the contribution on our taxes. One could even do good acts to impress others. Those are all selfish reasons for doing good deeds. The deeds can still be beneficial, but people should own up to their motives and should realize that they are being selfish and self-serving. Hmmm, the word, hypocritical comes to mind when I think of some of the Southern Baptists who have been near and dear to me in the past. I hate to say that, but it is too true and it was a huge lesson to me to have lived with, loved and been loved by someone who is truly a hypocrite.

Missy4gordon: I definitely agree with you - I felt that he was being antagonistic and pompous because not only did I find his verbage distasteful, but I also disagreed with some of the claims he made about Christianity and Biblical beliefs. I do not take the Bible literally. I cannot for the life of me understand how a good person, Christian or not, can decide for everyone that the Bible is to be interpreted strictly literally on the one hand, but then add the words "in context" on the other. Everything is generally interpreted in the context of their usage, but the Bible was written such a long, long time ago and has gone through so many hands, been interpreted so by so many, to believe that it is only to be taken as the literal word of God is naive and somewhat ignorant. It's impossible. Belief is what is needed and relied upon by those who accept the Bible as the word of God. That is, to my thinking, how God intended it. As far as I'm concerned, it is easy for us to "just get along" if we allow each other to believe as we believe, without recriminations and without certain Christians telling us that we are patently wrong to believe as we do. Some say that they can prove that the Bible is literal, but they do not actually go about proving it in fact. There is no way to prove that God wrote the Bible. There just is not. We can believe that God wrote the Bible, but we cannot prove it. We can believe that God speaks to us, but we cannot prove it. We can say that we are good people, but our actions and our words prove it one way or another.

missy4gordon: If you read closely I think you'd have to agree that there have been some really worthwhile exchanges here that haven't been anything but cordial. Yes, some of us have gotten inflammatory with our remarks, but frankly if some of Ron's attacking remarks haven't registered as negative and nasty to you, it might be because you agree with those attacking remarks and that's why you don't find THEM distasteful. To each his own. But the best thing about this thread is that many of us have learned a whole lot. This thread has caused many of us to do some serious researching, thinking and Bible reading. If everyone agreed with everything that everyone else posted, I don't think that would have happened. Perhaps that is why Ron (giving him the benefit of the doubt) uses the methods that he does - they are emotion provoking and thought provoking. Questioning, discussing, reasoning and debate can all be wonderful learning tools. That's up to all of us who read and post on this thread, because afterall as you said, you can lead a horse to water... As unhappy as I have been with some of the posts here (from all sides), I am very happy with the things I've learned from others and some of the things that I have learned about myself.

Thanks very much for your response, but I honestly wasn't asking you to apologize or feel bad for typos or misspellings. We all make those kinds of mistakes. I just sensed that you felt that people were nit-picking and being rude to you. I don't think that the two just previous instances of posters who asked for clarification were intending anything but to understand what you were wanting to say. I feel that I have a confession of my own to make to you Ron. I have been very put off and angry and frankly disgusted by some of the things you've posted here. I have known so many arrogant and pompous people in my lifetime who use religion to feel superior to others and who use the Bible to point out the errors of other men's ways. They used to make me feel bad about my beliefs and about the path I've taken on my spiritual quest. Now they upset me because I remember how they used to be able to make me feel. I don't want others to have the same bad feelings about some Christians that I have felt. But I have become emotional and I have behaved in a very unattractive way and I know that Jesus would not embrace some of the things I've said, even though they were said because I thought that He would be offended by things that you said. Two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I believe that you are sincere in your words. Intellectually I do not agree with you, or most of the things that you say and the way you come back at people and avoid taking responsibility for the things that YOU say (not the Bible), but it is not for me to correct you. If anyone is driven away from the Bible or God because of you, I know that it is for Jesus and God to fix. Not me. So I apologize for my inappropriate comments to you. Although I said earlier that I would, I didn't stick to my word and keep quiet unless I had something good to say. But from here on out, I make a vow to do that. Not out of respect for you personally Ron, but out of respect for another of God's somewhat fragmented children.

I can hardly wait for TOM's reply... FWIW, I took TOM's post as serious.

TommyO: I continue to love reading your posts. You sound like a very good person. Thanks for hanging out here with the rest of us and sharing your unique insights and approach to religion! I find them very interesting, indeed.

Maybe God is actually an enormous brain. He gave us these bodies so that we could live and survive in this life before we learn and grow and pass on to the next life. Our energy, that doesn't die, contains our brain which is how we actually survive. Without our brain, how would be know when we are experiencing eternity or an after life?

I got a neat little book for Valentine's Day called "Kabbalah on Love". It is a simple guide to understanding love. It has some very good lessons on love of all kinds: love of your spouse, your children, your friends. It tells you basically that you should do things for others without thinking of yourself. That is sometimes very hard to do. Many times we do good works just because of how it makes us feel about ourselves or what we are going to get in return. As TOM's post pointed out, some of us don't do bad things because of the fear of going to hell. I would say that some people do good things because they fear hell. That fear is very selfish. Selfishness has no part in true love. In the final lesson it tells us that if we practice the golden rule, everyone will benefit and we will be able to achieve true love. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Simple to say, harder to do everyday all the time. But it is definitely achievable and if everyone would practice this most important rule, all of mankind would benefit because we are each and every one a part of the whole of mankind that God created. I may not have done a very good job of relating the meaning of the book, but if you are interested, they have it in the national bookstore chains.

TommyO: Very interesting observations and I am very glad that you shared them with us. Makes a whole lotta sense~!

You may have missed an earlier series of posts, Carlene, wherein lots of people jumped on the bandwagon about the difficulty of reading some of Ron's posts. He has arthritis and we are all sorry to hear that. (I have bad arthritis too, and believe me I have sympathy for anyone who suffers from it.) I guess I was just trying to circumvent the whole "you're attacking poor arthritic me" thing that happened earlier on this thread. I reckon I was also voicing my irritation that someone takes an affront to another person who is trying to understand what they are wanting to convey. We ALL mispell words! And we all try not to by re-reading our posts first before pushing the "post" button. At least I think we do.

Ron, I know you get mightly offended when anyone mentions your misspelled words (no one seems to mention some of your major grammatical errors), but we sincerely want to read what you have to say. It is sometimes very difficult to wade through one of your posts, possibly because you don't have a lot of time and can't re-read what you've typed before you post it. But we really aren't out to get you. It is awfully hard to be sure that we understand what you are saying. It shouldn't be surprising that we need a clarafication from time to time. Please bear with us.

Amen? Or is this at a bad time?

I am for a strong national defense but I am against war. So you can imagine how conflicted I am about this whole argument. Probably a large number of Americans have the same conflict. Unfortunately the ones who are pro war in Iraq and elsewhere don't seem to understand that they are not "scaring the terrorists from planting their bombs" and they are not keeping other countries from plotting against us. I am sure they are amazed that Iran and China and Venezuela could be joining forces against us. The fact is, under the Bush administration and Republican Congress, other countries have had every right to want to do something to stop our aggression. I guess I'm saying that in the wrong hands, all this weaponry we have developed and produced is a handicap to peace, and not a deterrent from war.

I think having concerns about the government intruding in the healthcare of all Americans is quite valid! However that being said, nothing could be much worse than the insurance companies having a stranglehold on our doctors, hospitals and virtually every aspect of our healthcare as it is now. We can't choose our own doctors, we can't go to a specialist without our doctor giving us a referral (at the expense of him getting less from our insurance company) and we can't even get healthcare at a hospital without getting the insurance company's okay in the emergency room. We can't stay in the hospital as long as our doctor says we should stay. We're getting a lot of serious medical procedures done on an outpatient basis and we must use generic meds instead of brand name meds when we get a prescription filled. That's just the people WITH insurance. Surely we understand that some changes need to be made. If government intervention is the only way to whoa down the insurance companies' control of our very lives, then so be it. That would mean that the only real control we have is through our voting. It will all go back to the lobbyists again and whether we have Congresspeople who are only interesting in lining their own pockets or people who care about we, the people. I hear you loud and clear about SS too. Unfortunately not everyone is as smart and clever with their investments as you must be. And if that is true, we might wind up with tons of people on our hands in their old age that are on the streets. SS was never meant to take care of everyone's every need in their old age, just a way to keep from the old people in this country from being destitute. It is a national problem, just as childrens' well being is a national problem. If there was some way you could prove to me that the Republicans will not allow a whole class of people to live on the streets, suffer from hunger and disease, I might feel differently. So far, they've proven quite the opposite as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, it's always fun and informative to read Carlene's yelling. But I know just what she means about sitting in a chair getting fat! I find that I have to push myself away from this thing sometimes! I've really enjoyed reading wavyDavy's posts here! Thanks.

Old Chinese Proverb: Man who knows not he knows not, shun him.

Wheet: Bravo. Well done. laurend: Bravo for keeping your cool and just chipping away.

No Ron, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel compelled from time to time (like so many others) to register my disgust. Why in the world would I want to exchange private messages with you?

Before a few months ago how many people had ever heard of Barack Obama? A few interviews and some book exposure doesn't necessarily give us the total picture of a candidate. He hasn't accomplished enough on the national level for us to make a judgment call about how he would perform as a president in a tight situation. I do get the sense that he has a good heart, but it could just be excellent PR at this point.

It seems someone may just be in a little over his head this time. By the way, if you're fairly new to this thread, most of the people here are not atheists as someone just stated. Many of us are believers, but we do not believe that ridicule and condesension are tools that any credible intelligent minister uses to make a point. Plus there's also the fact that many of us here are Catholics as well. Stick to your guns.

John McCain is running and has been running since the last election. He has really tempered his retoric and doesn't sound nearly as war-like as he once did. I'm afraid TOM is right about many of the Republicans thinking that sending more and more troops is a viable answer.

rtgirl77: That was a great job answering the question. Thanks. I agree with much of what you said. I know that our pull out right now, without securing the right people in the right government there, and without ensuring that it's a government that will allow us access to the oil there and possibly nearby regions, is not in America's best interests. However, other countries are banding together to give us big problems with regard to oil in their countries and that should also enter into the equation when it comes to resolving the problems that we have in the Middle East. Unfortunately it is a very complex issue. And the approach the U.S. has taken has caused it to be even more complex and seemingly impossible. Bush still has some time left to keep things on this downward spiral of death and destruction, and hate for us and our actions. It is not helping us rid the world of terrorists and they have in fact been invigorated by our misdeeds. After 9/11 the entire world was behind us and had sympathy for us and were supportive of our going after the group behind the attacks. We've blown it big time and now even our allies are disgusted with us. Our citizens keep dying every day and the tally is higher than anything than transpired on 9/11.. We need a president who understands that America has to regain it's place as a good global neighbor. We have to work at solving problems instead of creating worse problems. We have to find a president that is not willing to lie to Americans. We have to find a president who isn't greedy and who doesn't abuse his (or her) power. We have to find a good heart instead of allowing someone with a black heart run this country into the ground. It may not be Hillary or Obama, but we better be darned sure this time that we really know what we're getting and that candidate better understand that there will be no more free rides and no more being the "decider" without regard for human life or the well being of all of the citizens of this country.

What's wrong with a Mormon president? Or a Catholic president? Hmmm, well now that I think of it Nixon was a Quaker, maybe there is some value in discrimination based on the candidate's religious affiliation? Just kidding. Unfortunately, religious affiliation doesn't necessarily tell you whether an individual actually has high moral standards or just wants you to think he does. Some of the people who rant the loudest about their church and their beliefs are the ones you have to keep an eye on.

Amen to the Guliani issue. When 9/11 happened, it came on the tails of a period of time when New Yorkers couldn't wait to get rid of him. Then when he did all of the politicking around 9/11, people decided he was a great and wonderful guy. Yes he supported the Firemen and Policemen very well, but he also took advantage of the situation just as Bush did, and many of the same people who abhorr Clinton's indiscretion in office need to understand that nothing Bill Clinton did holds a candle to some of the stuff Guliani has pulled in his marriages.

Ok we get the context thing. So now we can get rid of any reference to homosexuality in the Bible because things have changed and it no longer applies as it did in Biblical times.