Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GTC Trader who wrote (13052)	7/22/2002 8:21:24 AM
From: James Calladine	Respond to of 28931

ADI DA ON INCEST: <<<Incest may be said to be worth avoiding for any number of reasons, including genetic, psychological, and social reasons. But the primary reason is that sexual intercourse should occur only within the total process of sexual communion, and sexual communion can occur only within the context of total commitment and mutual responsibility, or true marriage. Incest can, in general, only represent the exploitation of sexual or erotic fascination. The parents or siblings of any individual inevitably become the target of casual sexual interest in the years of growth. And there is no natural or functional reason why any individual, within the blood family or not, could not be the physically sexual partner of another. The point is that merely physiological and casual sex must be transformed into a whole bodily and feeling process, exercised within a relationship of continuous commitment. Therefore, casual sex with anyone, whether incestuous or otherwise, is the form of sexual activity that is to be avoided or overcome. It is not a matter of taboos and fears and avoidance of love between any individuals, but of the free human choice of sexual communion, and confinement of sexual contact to the intimate plane of such marriage or commitment. Therefore, promiscuity is inherently bypassed by the truly human realization of sexual communion. >>> from: Love of the Two-Armed Form Namaste! Jim

To: GTC Trader who wrote (13052)	7/22/2002 1:31:55 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"we have determined that the concept of “the blessings of incest” that you claimed on 7/1 was in the Bible is completely foreign to the Text" No. That is inaccurate. You are misconstruing the entire matter. My statement ("I don't presume that "God's" blessing was determined by the incest") was intended to emphasize thast God blessed Sarah and Abraham and Jacob out of free choice and not as a result of determinism. If you go back and read the post you will notice that the brief sentence you quoted above was followed by: "God is supposed to be beyond determinism. What I said is that he blessed her, and that she was an incestuous woman. Thus, there is no censure,but rather acceptance...and the implication of righteousness." "We were not talking about what might or might not have happened before they were married, so don’t claim that I claimed that they didn’t have sex before marriage. The Bible is silent on that question, so I will remain so also." You brought up the issue of fornication and made the wild claim that they had not fornicated. The bible is silent on the question so you had no right to make the claim you made: "Fornication by definition means sex outside of marriage, so Abraham and Sarah never committed fornication together". I correctly pointed out that you had asserted something which you had no right to assert. You have now agreed with me by admitting that "the bible is silent on that question". The bible was indeed silent on the question...but you were not. "It should be clear that God does not declare anyone righteous because of their works. Righteousness only comes by grace through faith in Jesus Chist" What is clear is that you need to develop a better acquaintance with the bible if you are going to use it to attempt to confound others: Jer.17:10 "I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Mt.12:37 "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Mt.16:27 "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." Jn.5:29 "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Rom.2:6, 13 "Who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." 2 Cor.5:10 "For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." 2 Cor.11:15 "Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." Jas.2:14 "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" Jas.2:17 "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Jas.2:21-25 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." 1 Pet.1:17 "The Father, who without pariality judges according to each one's work." So you see, Ken. God was judging Lot according to his works. The incredible solicitousness of God's angels indicates God's approval of Lot. "Your criticism of the text was completely without merit and shows that you weren't paying attention to what the verse clearly states! You call the Bible absurd and then demonstrate your own ignorance!" You are beginning to rant, Ken. In this post ( Message 17738016 ), I clearly acknowledged that the superstitious ritual was for a "cleansing" and not a healing. I made it clear that primitives considered leprosy a moral failing because they had no knowledge of bacteria and disease. I pointed out that even at the Christian Council of Ancyra in 314 A.D, lepers wdere defined as morally unclean. Once again, I hereby acknowledge that the superstitious ritual was for the "cleansing" of leprosy and not the curing of it. I then introduced the "Law of Jealousies" from chapter five of Numbers in order to give you some context for understanding the primitive nature of these old sacrificial rituals, and to help you to understand that there is nothing "Holy" or decent about these ugly superstitious old rites. I can see you are very angry at me, but it is surely misplaced. You are angry because you cannot sanctify the terrible things you read about in the bible. You cannot reconcile the brutal atrocities, absurdities, and contradictions with the concept of Holiness and Divinity. But this, Ken, is not my fault. I did not write the book. I notice you had no comment on the "Law of Jealousies". Just another example of unexplained Holiness, I presume. Look at second Kings, chapter 2 where God kills 42 little kids because Elisha decided to curse them. Do you think this is Holy? Surely the sin of Elisha, a grown man caling down death to children, was much worse than the harmless banter of the little boys and girls. Why did God kill them? Was it Grace? Was it Mercy? Was it Infinite Love? Or must we remember the exhortation of Paul..." "Being crafty, I caught you with guile." "This is clearly your problem. You criticize that which you don’t understand … and that which you don’t want to understand" Well, it seems that one of us does not understand, doesn't it, Ken?