Derf & Denise - I found this: http://slacktivist.typepa...jonah.html and thought it might lead to some interesting discussion.

Particularly:

It shouldn't be surprising that the Bible contains more than one identical view. This is an anthology of 66 books by a host of different authors, written over a span of many centuries. That all of those authors and all of those books do not present lockstep unanimity doesn't mean we're being presented with contradictions so much as that we're given an ongoing conversation -- one that includes and encompasses many points of view, some of which disagree, sometimes vehemently.

I think this is point that some (who may believe that the words of the bible were inscribed in stone yea even before the land split the seas) overlook or otherwise dismiss.

I like the way the same article you cited concludes, Bridgier.

What matters here, with regard to Andrew's question, is that we have both meanings, both views, both perspectives, in the Bible we Christians read. Both are a part of our canon. And given these two opposing perspectives we must, like the author of the book of Jonah, choose one. We have to take sides.

We can choose the exclusive vision of Jonah-ism, the view that says we alone are blessed and the rest of the world can go to Hell. Or we can choose the expansive, inclusive vision of the book of Jonah, the view that sees God as madly in love with the great city of Ninevah and indignant at the suggestion that there could be any such city, any person or beast, beyond the scope of that love.

What Scripture actually says may depend more on the nature of the God we have encountered than anything else. Is grace in every single verse? I think so.

Is grace in every single verse? I think so.

Even Ezekiel 23:20 or Song of Solomon 5:4?

Forgive me, but I don't think that's "grace" in them thar passages, Derf.

What Scripture actually says may depend more on the nature of the God we have encountered than anything else.

And immediately, through careful proof-texting, Brian proves my point.

I think it's really important to keep in mind that every book in the Bible, indeed every chapter, and every sentence was written by a specific person, at a specific point in time, for a specific reason. Both author and audience had a specific set of values, and a specific culture that they related too. Only when we understand every one of these specific things can we THEN begin to compare their culture to ours, their values to ours, and their circumstances to ours. Once we understand how the story relates to them, we can ask ourselves how the same things would relate to us.

As Derf pointed out, it depends a great deal on the particular way in which you have encountered God in your own life. God doesn't change, but the way we perceive him certainly does. The authors of scripture certainly had very different daily encounters than we do, if for no other reason than they dealt with different peoples.

Amen.

As Derf pointed out, it depends a great deal on the particular way in which you have encountered God in your own life. God doesn't change, but the way we perceive him certainly does. The authors of scripture certainly had very different daily encounters than we do, if for no other reason than they dealt with different peoples.

What's wrong with attributing what the authors of the bible wrote to the authors themselves? Why is there a necessity to bring "grace" into the discussion?

Forgive me for not being able to equate "grace" and one's substantial endowment and copious volume of semen.

Joshua - just because you believe that you've encountered God and this "encounter" makes the God you've found seem real to you, don't assume that your god is a constant. To you, perhaps. To the universe? You presume too much.

Here's another dilemma- it is said that in order to understand the Qur'an, you must speak and read Arabic, that it can not be translated from language to language. Does, or should the same hold true for the Bible? How much has been lost or changed in interpretation? How much has been "altered" to suit the needs/fancy of the scribes and interpreters?

Brian, those are the finer points of faith that make debate lively and fun . Indeed not everyone will see things the way that I do, believer or not. That's why we call it faith, it's based on things that cannot be proven, let the debate begin haha.

Chad, you ask a VERY good question. Indeed knowing the original language is a huge help, and a lot of that is because you have to learn a LOT about ones culture to understand ones language. On the other hand, the Qur'an HAS been translated to English, and many people use that translation everyday. What they are or are not missing in translation is a great topic for discussion indeed!

More from Fred: http://slacktivist.typepa...-fish.html

Here is the main point as I see it:

My fundie Bible teachers considered this the main, or even the only, point of this story worth considering. Their task, as they saw it, was to defend the story as being "literally" true, and so they'd share legends (see Bartley, James) of sailors swallowed by whales and go to great lengths to argue that such a thing was possible. This led to some rather strange and uninspiring sermons, the main point of which seemed to be that God is capable of creating a fish that could swallow a man whole and keep that man alive for several days. The message of those sermons was, at best, difficult to apply in one's daily life during the following week.

Some people hold that every part of the bible is is absolutely literal and true - "God breathed", I believe is the term - but seem unable to understand that parts of the bible contradict one another and that this might be a problem for their point of view. Or if they do understand the problem, invent extra-canonical solutions to explain away the inconsistencies (see rope, Judas, broken).

How much has been lost or changed in interpretation? How much has been "altered" to suit the needs/fancy of the scribes and interpreters?

Chad, read the article Bridgier linked to begin this thread. Some of it deals with the difficulty of translating Hebrew. Believe me, he only scratches the surface of reading a Semitic language that has to have the vowels provided by the reader.

But there is some indication that modern translations are becoming more accurate as we recover more ancient manuscripts and as more information becomes available. Even so, there is always a slant in translation. Compare the theological stances of the translators of the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible and you'll find the reasons for the variations in some selected passages from them.

Even more so, if you'd like, you can pull items out of context almost anywhere in the Canon of Scripture and make them prove almost anything you want. You wouldn't necessarily convince anyone except to yourself, but you could go right ahead. You could pull racist quotes out of context from To Kill a Mockingbird and prove it was a racist book. Would you be right?

Let's use Brian's randy quote from Ezekiel 23 as an example. It is very different in the various translations. I prefer "The Message" paraphrased version. Ezekiel is speaking for God of the two sisters (Samaria and Jerusalem) I turned my back on her just as I had on her sister. But that didn't slow her down. She went at her whoring harder than ever. She remembered when she was young, just starting out as a whore in Egypt. That whetted her appetite for more virile, vulgar, and violent lovers-stallions obsessive in their lust.

Just reading this fragment points toward understanding the text, but you'd need to read deeper to understand that Ezekiel, prophet of the Exile and a then non-existent nation (Israel), is trying to understand how his country and his people have violently disappeared and been carried off into captivity. In Brian's non-contextual quote, the Oracle is attributing Israel's demise to immoral and cultic practices (literally whoring after other Gods). The language he uses to describe Israel's unfaithful practices is quite vivid. But then various fertility cult practices were vivid indeed.

The grace? The chapter is part of God's lament over the unfaithfulness of His chosen ones. God's fidelity and compassion in spite of this is grace in and of itself. And then the final resolution is found in Ezekiel's vision of the Restoration of Judah and the Revival of Israel outlined in the latter chapters of the book. Once you've read to the end of the book you can understand the beginning. There's grace upon grace.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (9/30/2009)]

And isn't that "God breathed" scripture talking about how we live our lives in light of the scriptural gudance we have received? I don't think it's meant to be a testimony to the Bible itself, but to inform Jesus followers in the way to live.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God (some translations say "God breathed") and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (II Timothy 3:14-17)

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (9/30/2009)]

On the subject of errors by scribes and their embellishments in the bible I highly recommend Bart D. Ehrmans works on the subject...He is well written in that area..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._D._Ehrman

Derf - Again, if the author was describing part of the culture of the day in which he lived, why not just call it what it is: a historical narrative? Why does "grace" ever need to enter the discussion?

You're determined to find the grace you seek. And that's not a bad thing. I, however, have no such compulsion (also not a bad thing). I have no problem calling the bible a collection of historical narratives. But divinely inspired? Hardly - non credo quia absurdum est. They're not even that well-written.

Happy Blasphemy Day, everyone!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/L...index.html

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (9/30/2009)]

Why does "grace" ever need to enter the discussion?

You'll have to ask yourself that question.

Howdy, do you have any copies of Ehrmans' books? It seems from the Wikipedia article that he's popularizing a lot of ideas that have been around for a quite a while. (There's nothing new under the sun. I think I read that somewhere.) But Ehrmans seems to be getting an audience in some churches that could threaten the powers that be.

I have read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why...It is around here somewhere or I may have loaned it to a neighbor (can't recall) but I will try to locate it if here...It was an excellent book and I also communicated with the author by email as well...What do you mean by threaten powers that be??

I'm just saying that the churches who push the inerrancy thing in a not necessarily healthy way and demand that their members buy into that concept, would be threatened by his work. I guess I'm just not saying it very well.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (10/1/2009)]

If I find the book I will contact you by email and drop it off for you if that is OK...

You'll have to ask yourself that question.

I have, Derf. I was asking you. Thanks for reminding me why it's futile to ask you anything. I appreciate it, I really do.

Thanks, Howdy. Just let me know.

My faith is not blind faith. But if I could know how it all works in every case, it wouldn't require faith, would it?

To me it was fascinating the journey that Bart D. Ehrman took from his teen years...He started as a teen being an avowed evangelist and initially attended a Bible College...Then he felt a desire to learn more about his faith so he went to universities and studied the old languages so he could read the old scriptures...He ended up with a doctorate from an ivy league university...When I corresponded with him, I asked him "now that you have gone thru all this learning and thirst for knowledge, what is your belief now?" His answer shocked me....He replied...."I am a happy agnostic"....what an incredible journey from an evangelist to an agnostic...

But if I could know how it all works in every case, it wouldn't require faith, would it?

Didn't Kieregaard call that the leap to faith?

I am a happy agnostic

Don't you think that people who realize that uncertainty is a necessary part of any belief system are, in general, happier?

Yeah, I suppose they are as long as they accept that fact...I was just amazed that he evolved from evangelist to agnostic after a very thorough interpretative study of the Bible...There is a lot of room between those two beliefs...

"I'm just saying that the churches who push the inerrancy thing in a not necessarily healthy way and demand that their members buy into that concept, would be threatened by his work. I guess I'm just not saying it very well."

No more than you are threatened by the concept of inerrancy.

I was just amazed that he evolved from evangelist to agnostic after a very thorough interpretative study of the Bible

It's amazing the way a thorough read of the material can change you. I've found that folk who are most vocal in their beliefs (or dis-beliefs) ABOUT the Bible are often the least familiar with the TEXT itself.

Richard, I'm working on how that "concept" (Since when did inerrancy become a concept to you?) threatens me. If I come up with anything, you'll be the first to know. My comment on threatening the powers that be came about by actually reading the article howdy linked.

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (10/1/2009)]

A couple of random questions:

1. If sin is viewed from a historical-critical perspective (which is at the center of Ehrman's point of view) one has to consider the social norms of the time. For example, something may have been a sin in King David's day or Jesus day, but is no longer considered sin because of our current view of what is "moral" or "sinful". Why would Jesus need to die on the cross for our sin, if sin is a moving target?

2. If the Bible is not to be viewed as a set of Divinely inspired texts, it is necessarily implied that a Biblical text means only what its author intended for it to mean, and that meaning is necessarily tied to the historical context. Necessarily, if one wishes to conduct research on Jesus based on historical-critical principles the rejection of the assumption that a text can have a meaning that exceeds the authorial intention, the historical meaning, which assumption, of course, underlies those texts produced by the early church that preserve the Christological interpretation of the Scriptures initiated by Jesus and continued by the early church.

Jesus, for instance, is reported to have read Isa 61:1-2 in the synagogue at Nazareth: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). He then claimed, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21b). The historical-critical scholar must judge that what Jesus is doing is illegitimate (assuming that he or she believes that Jesus even did this), since there is no reason to suspect that the "I" in the text is anyone other than the author himself.

How does one reconcile this seeming contradiction, if Scripture is not inerrant? What role does faith play (if any). Should we abandon intellectual autonomy?

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (10/1/2009)]

1) Maybe God has a different list of what she considers sins than the ones that you and I have. And I know there are several different interpretations of the Passion beyond the "died for mere accounting rules" model that some promote.

2) I have no idea what you're saying here.

3) Biblical authors aren't allowed to make use of literary devices?

And none of the above really engages the article which initiated this thread. What is the point of the book of Jonah? Is it the miracle of the fish, or is it the condemnation of the idea that God is a genocidal monster? Or is it something completely different?

Lobster tastes good.

Shrimp tastes good.

sure does Bob...Yummmmmm!!!

Too bad Ricardo isn't allowed to eat lobster or shrimp, as it is expressly prohibited by the inerrant Bible.


Jesus died so I can eat shrimp and lobster! Christianity is the best!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (10/2/2009)]

The idea/concept of being agnostic and being Christian aren't as far off as you may assume at first thought.

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Agnostic-Weatherhead/dp/0853053006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254495950&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christian-Agnostic-ebook/dp/B0015T685G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254495950&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Chr...950&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Jes...950&sr=8-2

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee learn to do URL postings!!!

[This message has been edited by howdy (10/2/2009)]

PLEEEEAAAAAAASSSSEEE learn to cut and paste, I'm lazy haha.

"Too bad Ricardo isn't allowed to eat lobster or shrimp, as it is expressly prohibited by the inerrant Bible."

Not true, but you have such a short attention span and your motive is alway mockery so I won't waste the time to explain why.

http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=37163


Subject: RE: WARNING FROM PAKISTAN
Author: Bob L.
Posted: 11/13/2007 6:52:48 AM From: - ND


RICARDO SAYS

There ARE direct commandments about homosexuality. Much of Numbers and Leviticus is an explanation about the "10 Commandments" proper. It is heretical to attempt to separate the "10 Commandment" from the rest of the text. In Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a women. It is an abomination.

-------------

BOB SAYS

I knew you were gonna go there.

How about these passages from Leviticus?

Leviticus 11:10: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."

Just think about that one next time you order shrimp or lobster at the local fine dining establishment. Since it's heretical to attempt to separate the 10 Commandments from the rest of the text, you'd best avoid the shrimp and lobster, my friend.

Watch out for those stylish 60/40 cotton/poly blend shirts that you probably wear to church or work. Leviticus 19:19: "Do not wear garments woven of two kinds of material." I'm a 100% cotton guy, myself. I guess I'm a WAY better Christian than you.

-------------

RICARDO SAYS:

RE: WARNING FROM PAKISTAN
Author: Richard Bonine, Jr
Posted: 11/13/2007 7:03:24 AM From: - WY

You are assuming that I eat lobster... never tasted it and I don't eat shrimp either. And there is no such thing as one Christian being better than another.

And your point would be? I don't think I explicitly stated that I haven't eaten lobster or shrimp because of a Biblical prohibition. While I greatly value God's input on the matter, I don't eat those things because they are very expensive and I have food allergy issues. I had some sushi one time and it dang near killed me. The OT dietary laws were done away with when Christ established the new covenant.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Suck it, Ricardo!

The OT dietary laws were done away with when Christ established the new covenant.

----

I guess Jesus was a heretic then, since the great Ricardo stated it is heretical to separate the rest of Leviticus and Numbers from the Ten Commandments.

Inerrant Bible, indeed.

Talk is cheap because the supply exceeds the demand.

AJS

I think people would link instead of cut and paste IF we had a link option. It is actually easier to cut and paste with how it is set up now.

all you have to do is cut and paste the link with the: [ url ] and [ /url ] at beginning and end respectively without the spaces...

"And none of the above really engages the article which initiated this thread. What is the point of the book of Jonah? Is it the miracle of the fish, or is it the condemnation of the idea that God is a genocidal monster? Or is it something completely different?"

Actually, it does engage your original article. I suspect that you are viewing the book of Jonah from a historical-critical point of view. Thus, your questions and confusion about how it is relevant to the rest of the Bible. With a Christological interpretation there are numerous foreshadowings and parallels between Jonah and Jesus.

The book of Jonah (as do all of the OT books) looks forward to the day of Christ. God bestowed his unmerited favor on this people and sent his servant to preach a word of repentance.


The first thing to be established here is that the name Jonah in Hebrew means "dove" (See Strongs 3124). At Jesus baptism the Spirit of God is seen descending as a dove. The dove points to Jonah as sign. The dove was an alternative offering for Jews who could not afford a lamb. When John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus in the form of a dove it was a fulfilment of the Sign God had promised him - the sign of Jonah ! Jesus was the sacrifice for the common man. The poor man who could not afford the normal sacrifice.

John 1:32-34
"32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." (BTW all three persons of the Godhead are present here, thus the Trinity is not "derived")

It is interesting that every time the Pharisees ask for a sign Jesus states that no sign will be given but the sign of Jonah.

Matt 12:38-41
38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[a] greater than Jonah is here.

Matt 16:1-4
1The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2He replied,[a] "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Luke 11:29-32

29As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one[a] greater than Solomon is here. 32The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.


The ninevites were a perverse and adulterous people and was the center of worship of Ishtar. Ishtar was a goddess of love, war, and sex. Ishtar is most associated with sexuality and sacred prostitution.

Jonah 1:1-17

1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me."
3 But Jonah ran away from the LORD and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the LORD.

4 Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up. 5 All the sailors were afraid and each cried out to his own god. And they threw the cargo into the sea to lighten the ship.
But Jonah had gone below deck, where he lay down and fell into a deep sleep. 6 The captain went to him and said, "How can you sleep? Get up and call on your god! Maybe he will take notice of us, and we will not perish."

7 Then the sailors said to each other, "Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity." They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.

8 So they asked him, "Tell us, who is responsible for making all this trouble for us? What do you do? Where do you come from? What is your country? From what people are you?"

9 He answered, "I am a Hebrew and I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the land."

10 This terrified them and they asked, "What have you done?" (They knew he was running away from the LORD, because he had already told them so.)

11 The sea was getting rougher and rougher. So they asked him, "What should we do to you to make the sea calm down for us?"

12 "Pick me up and throw me into the sea," he replied, "and it will become calm. I know that it is my fault that this great storm has come upon you."

13 Instead, the men did their best to row back to land. But they could not, for the sea grew even wilder than before. 14 Then they cried to the LORD, "O LORD, please do not let us die for taking this man's life. Do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man, for you, O LORD, have done as you pleased." 15 Then they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm. 16 At this the men greatly feared the LORD, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows to him.

17 But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.

Here we see Jonah offering himself up as sacrifice to save those on the ship. Being thrown into the water is symbolic or a type of baptism. This baptism occurred prior to beginning his preaching ministry. The extraordinary arrival of Jonah certainly grabbed the attention of the ninevites. They heard the Word of God, repented, and God forgave their sins and spared them.

Again Jesus had an extraordinary arrival as seen in the nativity narratives. Prior to beginning is public ministry preaching repentance Jesus was baptized, and immediately the sign of Jonah was present in the form of the Spirit of God as a dove.

Just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly (middle) of the whale and was resurrected Jesus spent three days and three nights in the heart (middle) of the earth and rose from the dead.

Those who heard and heeded the Word of God proclaimed through Jonah were saved. Those who hear and heed the Word of God (Jesus) will be saved.

In short, the Book of Jonah points to Jesus Christ. Jonah points to a message of God's unmerited favor (grace) on all those who believe and trust Christ for salvation.

What about this verse? Seems like a pretty strong mandate for universal health care to me.


Luke 10:25-37 (New International Version)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[a]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

Agree Wendy, I can never understand the "born again" Christians turning their backs on Universal Health Care...It is so foreign to the teachings of Jesus IMO...

Excellent point. Wendy. I am a Christian who believes we do need to provide health care to all and that the Bible is pretty clear on these issues. Read the book of James and then tell yourself it is OK to take care of only yourself and your family and the rest be damned. It is NOT Christian to have an "all for one" type of attitude.

Oh please! Where in that passage does the GOVERNMENT provide any health care. Care was provided by an individual. It serves as an example how each of us as individuals ought to care for those in our circle of influence who are in need.

And the notion that I as a Christian am turning my back on "those in need" because I oppose the government taking over a huge portion of our economy is a false choice. As I have stated many times if I have any economic resources left over after the government gets done stealing their share, I am more than willing to help others. If we all have this attitude we don't need government involvement. The problem is that liberals are actually pretty stingy.

It is ironic how the government has forced the Church out of providing healthcare. Many of the hospitals in this country were affiliated with a Christian denomination.

Nice try. Next time be sure to wear leather gloves. Grasping at straw can be dangerous.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (10/3/2009)]

I don't think you read the articles Richard, because Fred discusses (and dismisses) most of your "Jonah foreshadows Jesus" spiel. But points for the false dichotomoy between "historical-critical" and "christilogical". Does one invalidate the other?

See, Richard? Your interpretation of this bible passage just differs from mine.

Oh yeah... http://conservapedia.com/...le_Project

Because if The King James Version was good enough when Jesus went to Sunday School, it's good enough now!!!

I can't wait to see how they translate Leviticus and Revelation.

That whole thing seems to be just manipulation of the words in the bible...so if it is a passage they don't like they simply label it as liberal and ignore it?? WOW...Jesus is coming and boy is he
pi$$ed...

The party in Hell,
Has been cancelled
Due to Fire!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?