The Whole Bible in a Few Words

[bob x]

Bob X, that is so immature !!! 99% of the time , my username is mispelled or cut as for many others.

But you have, up to this point, made a point of mangling my name or avoiding it. If you want to start over, perhaps we could try.

What is the real reason ?

Because you came in here as a particularly noxious representative of a movement that I see as inherently evil. You seek to interfere in my life in ways where I would never presume to try to interfere in yours, and make wild and baseless accusations against me and anyone else who would resent your interference.

 

[bob x]

I just see you ranting as an oppressed member of a particular group that is ostracized by portions of society...and no consideration for others in the same boat?

What do you mean, the "same" boat? No-one has ever questioned the validity of Moonie marriages.

 

[wil]

What do you mean, the "same" boat? No-one has ever questioned the validity of Moonie marriages.

Because you came in here as a particularly noxious representative of a movement that I see as inherently evil. You seek to interfere in my life in ways where I would never presume to try to interfere in yours, and make wild and baseless accusations against me and anyone else who would resent your interference.

Seems you've answered your own question.

Surely you must be aware that there is a percentage of the population that could easily have the same thoughts about you? That is what I was referring to as the same boat.

Now since you insist on referring to his belief system with a name he considers derogatory are you giving everyone carte blanche to use deragotory names in reference to your sexual orientation? No golden rule 'round here?

 

[soleil10]

But you have, up to this point, made a point of mangling my name or avoiding it. If you want to start over, perhaps we could try.

The first time, I misread it. You corrected me. Often I shorter names and did not include the X in your name. It is not done out of disrespect but friendliness.

Because you came in here as a particularly noxious representative of a movement that I see as inherently evil.You seek to interfere in my life in ways where I would never presume to try to interfere in yours, and make wild and baseless accusations against me and anyone else who would resent your interference.

I am standing up to those who are hijacking the democratic process and intend to silence those who do not agree with it. The facts are publically known not wild accusations

 

[Faithfulservant]

Sums it all up...don't even need that crusty old testament eh?

Considering that even Jesus said that He was I AM ... in the OT.. and there are some of us that believe that Jesus was all over the OT pre-incarnate. I still stand by what I said.

 

[bob x]

Surely you must be aware that there is a percentage of the population that could easily have the same thoughts about you?

That I am interfering with their private lives? Anybody who said that would simply be lying. But that he and his kind are interfering with mine is simply a fact.

Now since you insist on referring to his belief system with a name he considers derogatory are you giving everyone carte blanche to use deragotory names in reference to your sexual orientation? No golden rule 'round here?

He insists on the term "Unificationist": do you know what it means? It means that he wants all Christian denominations to unite under Sun Myung Moon's purportedly prophetic leadership. This is not a goal that I would endorse. If a KKK member insisted on being called an "imperial knight", I would not grant him that "courtesy". Klansmen are socially ostracized too, you know, particularly by black people; there are reasons for that.

 

[wil]

He insists on the term "Unificationist": do you know what it means? It means that he wants all Christian denominations to unite under Sun Myung Moon's purportedly prophetic leadership..

And Baptists don't want everyone Baptist, or Catholics wish everyone came back to the 'one and only true religion'? This is a normal thing for Christian religions.

As for doing personal harm to your personal life...I don't believe he has...the organization may have, he may think your lifestyle and beliefs wrong, just as you do.

I'm sorry bob, your rants in this regard do not increase my desire to support your cause...quite the opposite. Of course if that is your desired end result, ie have more people opposed to your line of thinking, you are doing an admirable job.

how about bible in three words...

love your enemy.

 

[17th Angel]

Love your enemy.

But, but..... But, then they are not your enemy???? You have to have an enemy....

Christians...... Do you loves teh Satan! *offers all the christians "I love Satan" stickers* Got plenty of them... Here take some for your kids!

 

[wil]

don't believe in no little mythical critter...hard to love what you don't believe in.

now 'evil' the 'perceived' negative things that happen in my life...I've learned to love them...as the lessons and results over time have always proved beneficial....so I expect the ones I don't understand will as well.

 

[soleil10]

Love your enemy.But, but..... But, then they are not your enemy???? You have to have an enemy....Christians...... Do you loves teh Satan! *offers all the christians "I love Satan" stickers* Got plenty of them... Here take some for your kids!

Even God has to love Lucifer who corrupted his nature to become satan otherwise he would have gotten rid of him long time ago.
He cannot change the law of love he created.
Man put satan in his position willingly. God is waiting for man to put Satan back in his place.
Jesus was victorious over satan. Jesus ask us to be victorious over him too. He is not the scary caricature we see in the movies. He is the sweetest there is until we sin, then he accuses us before God reminding him that we are no good.

 

[bob x]

And Baptists don't want everyone Baptist, or Catholics wish everyone came back to the 'one and only true religion'? This is a normal thing for Christian religions.

Which is what I object to most about Christian religions. But I am not going to refer to Baptists as "the Real Christians" if one of them asks me to refer to them that way; understanding that they hold such a position is a very different thing from giving my personal endorsement to it, which I would not do. For example, when speaking of the Pope, some refuse to call him "Benedict", still calling him "Ratzinger"; now THAT, I will agree, is silly: there is no reason not to call him by whatever name he chooses. But I would never refer to the Pope as "His Holiness": that to me would not be "just a courtesy", it would be an endorsement.

As for doing personal harm to your personal life...I don't believe he has...

You are mistaken, then.

the organization may have, he may think your lifestyle and beliefs wrong, just as you do.

Please do not use that word "lifestyle": it's my LIFE he objects to (my "lifestyle" is that of a bookish mild-mannered professor; that is not what he attacks me for). Your claim that I, likewise, think his "lifestyle" is wrong is simply mistaken: I have no idea how he conducts his life, and do not care; and if you mean that I think it wrong for him to be attracted to the opposite gender, that is just silly. I do think his beliefs are wrong; but he is not saying that any "beliefs" of mine are wrong, unless you think that my direct personal knowledge of who and what I am are some kind of "belief".

I'm sorry bob, your rants in this regard do not increase my desire to support your cause...quite the opposite. Of course if that is your desired end result, ie have more people opposed to your line of thinking, you are doing an admirable job.

You want to be nice and "see both sides", but they are not the same. He believes that majorities should be able to impose their will on minorities, on matters which are none of their business; if you do not see anything wrong with this, then you are just not on my side and never will be.

how about bible in three words...

love your enemy.

You mean that I should pretend not to know who my enemies are when I see them?

 

[immortalitylost]

You can know that they are your enemy. You can know they hate you or wish evil upon you. You can love them anyways. It confuses them.

But only if you're not pretending. That's why it's so hard to do.

(Not saying that I can do this personally either.) But trying is always good. And not because it's what some religion tells you to do. But because it is a good thing to do. Yano?

Sorry to butt in.

 

[bob x]

You can know that they are your enemy. You can know they hate you or wish evil upon you. You can love them anyways. It confuses them.

But only if you're not pretending. That's why it's so hard to do.

(Not saying that I can do this personally either.) But trying is always good. And not because it's what some religion tells you to do. But because it is a good thing to do. Yano?

Sorry to butt in.

You are, of course, totally right. I'm not really good at it, though.

 

[immortalitylost]

Me neither. All we can do is practice to make perfect. No one can ask more than that we try.

Well they can, but those people aren't tryin very hard themselves if they do. So, whatever to those people, pff, let em do theirs, and I can work on mine is what I say, lol...

 

[shawn]

What is the Bible?
A book in which one Author writes about Himself as Creator, Creative Medium and Creation.
As one understands this, the Bible then turns out to be an autobiography.....the Life of God in each one of us.

More could be said but the OP was to keep it down to as few words as possible.

 

[soleil10]

What is the Bible?
A book in which one Author writes about Himself as Creator, Creative Medium and Creation.
As one understands this, the Bible then turns out to be an autobiography.....the Life of God in each one of us.
More could be said but the OP was to keep it down to as few words as possible.

Thanks for your imput

 

[bob x]

So OK, soleil10, let me try to start over and explain where I am coming from in an unemotional manner:

Reverend Moon is well-known for conducting mass weddings, of hundreds of couples, many of whom had not met each other at all before the matches were arranged for them. I find this regressive, more than a little creepy, and-- none of my freaking business; as long as these are all uncoerced adults, I think it is their right to marry any way they please.

Should I, instead, be lending my voice and money to campaigns to legally invalidate every "so-called marriage" performed by Moon or his followers? It is quite likely that over 50% of the people find it disturbing: would that make it right to invalidate your marriages? Would it be appropriate to shriek "FASCIST!" at anyone who would leave it up to individual freedom instead?

 

[soleil10]

So OK, soleil10, let me try to start over and explain where I am coming from in an unemotional manner:
Reverend Moon is well-known for conducting mass weddings, of hundreds of couples, many of whom had not met each other at all before the matches were arranged for them. I find this regressive, more than a little creepy, and-- none of my freaking business; as long as these are all uncoerced adults, I think it is their right to marry any way they please.
Should I, instead, be lending my voice and money to campaigns to legally invalidate every "so-called marriage" performed by Moon or his followers? It is quite likely that over 50% of the people find it disturbing: would that make it right to invalidate your marriages? Would it be appropriate to shriek "FASCIST!" at anyone who would leave it up to individual freedom instead?

Bob X, thanks for still talking to me.
Rev Moon is no changing the definition of marriage. That is why.

If he was redefining it and his members were suing the state to change its definition or else for everybody else, that would be a problem. Many people would be reacting

 

[immortalitylost]

Who gets to define marriage? Like in a political sense? I mean, where do they get the definition? From the Christian bible? Isn't that a mingling of church and state so fought against in the constitution?

And what about the love of the couple involved? Is that less important than that it be a man and a woman joined together? Does that mean almost nothing?

I don't mean to be rude to anybody, but I just don't see how marriage is anyone's business but the two people being joined together. I mean, what if the majority of the population was racist? What if they were pushing to make the marriage of interracial couples illegal? Would that be right, I mean if the definition of marriage in the majority of people's mind was a union between two people of the same race?

The phrase, "just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's right" rings a bell...

And it certainly is not the place of the federal government to define marriage. The only reason that they would do such a thing, would be to override the decisions of the states.

I just don't see how it's anyone's business who marries who. They should just worry about who they marry. I mean, seriously, who your neighbor, or anyone else in the country marries isn't going to hurt you personally, it won't deny you any rights that wouldn't harm a fellow man for you to have. So why does every person in this nation feel that it is their right to choose who this that or the other person can or can't marry.

They talk about, if we change the definition of marriage, where will those changes end. And then they usually go straight on to some ridiculous reference to men marrying goats or pieces of pie or something.

What they overlook is that you can go too far both ways. If the government says that some people can't marry certain other people, where will that end? Once we give the government the right to tell us who we can and can't marry, who's to say where they will stop taking away those rights? Who's to say who they think shouldn't be able to get married next?

Soleil, this may apply to Rev. Moon's ceremonies as well one day. I mean, if the govt. decides that it doesn't fit into the traditional definition of marriage it's as fair game as anything else right? And who knows what silly idea they're gonna come up with for what that definition is from one moment to the next? Should we really be campaigning for the govt. to take away more of our rights? Is that really necessary?

So, is it really any of our business who marries who? I don't think so, because it does not affect us personally. Maybe we should all just stop worrying so much about what other people are doing, and start worrying about things that really matter. The world will probably be a much better place for it.

 

[shawn]

Kind of an aside, but, when people get "legally" married.....with a license, then all the fruit of that union (children) then become legal property of the state.
Another subtle thing, but maybe the legal dept here could try to refute that.

Really, if 2 people want to get together and live with each other that is nice, but then our whole society is geared around 2 things:
a religious ceremony so as to do the deed with God's blessing (whichever God they pick) and a legal ceremony (involving a license or permission slip from the state) making things legal and blessed by the state.

Any other union is termed common law and is looked down upon by society for the most part.