Christians you are on Trial Bring your Bible and Defend your self

[Faithfulservant]

No Jesus was not a levitical priest he was a priest of the line of melchizedek. So you would not have him in your "lists". He was also a rabbi, a teacher who taught in the synagogues when he was 12 years old. Would you believe it? No probably not since his whole life was fiction..Do I believe it? Without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[dauer]

Dauer your reffering to the Christian Bible as Rubish is a little over the top

In a Jewish court of law it is rubbish. It's circumstantial evidence.

Now you say I am not a Jew according to your perspective fine you have your right to believe this.
However Being taught By Jesus to Have faith in the almighty God who he Claimed was His Father The God of Noah the God of Abraham etc etc
Being taught to Keep the Comandments That there is No other God and to avoid Idoltary.

He taught you to make him into an idol, or at least somewhere along the line somebody taught that he taught that. And what makes you believe he ever preached to anyone but Jews? He called a non-Jew a dog.

Your Statement Funny this is The place spiritually Jesus was leading us to that like Abraham we could hvae a close and personal relationship with God.

Not if it's avodah zerah. There is a view in Judaism that says the one redeeming quality in Christianity is that it is an end to Roman paganism. In a truer sense, Christianity is adapted Roman paganism. Personally, I have nothing against paganism but a spade is a spade.

WE are now on Trial for trying to acomplish this.
Frankly I do know Jews who claim to be athiests but yet say they are Jewish

And they very may well. They are still Jews, just not living Jewishly. Judaism's a tribal religion. That doesn't make their behavior correct. And Orthodoxy (which you seem to be most concerned with) would reject their behavior if it meant not observing the mitzvot.

I think we can safely say that Using the Christian Bible and The Jewish Text you so often refer to will never bring an end to this trial.

I disagree. The evidence from the Tanach, which is earlier, weighs against you. But I agree that we, as a whole, will never reach consensus.

You yourself Know there are many Jews that even in the day and age this mock trial was set in accepted Jesus and his teachings today there are still many Christian Jews (Followers of Jesus whos Bloodline is that of judiasm)

Firstly, messianic Judaism is a form of fundamentalist Christianity, an outreach program that attempts to bring more Jews to Christ, even if it's done dishonestly. I'd ask that you do more research before bringing forth such evidence. Second, for all we know the followers of Jesus who were Jewish stopped following him soon after his death, as at that point they knew he was not HaMoshiach. How can I suggest such a thing? The only church that survived was the pagan church. The one among the Jews faded away. Ask yourself: Why?

Now it seems to me that while it is not a HUGE number I wouldnt want to say that everyone of them is an uneducated Jew who was mislead By us evil Idolators.

I would say that every one of them is an uneducated Jew who was mislead by you evil idolators. Hiss. boo.

I would call on any to join in on this thread so as to get a better understanding on how they came to their choice.

Probably because they were approached, at a college or some other place where cults work their voodoo, and eventually met a messianic "rabbi" who was actually an ordained baptist minister.

But whether they do or not Gives me a clear picture that you my friend donot speak for ever Jews as I dont speak For every Christian.

This is the Jewish opinion, whether or not there are defectors. If a Christian worships Krishna, do they represent a valid Christian view? What if they practice blood rites of BDSM to their savior? Do you understand now?

I will Pray His Son bless you also.

Well, I am the son of God along with every Jew, so I have my blessing. Thank you very much.

Dauer

 

[dauer]

Is that not exactly the way the Jewish who were trying people of that day for Heresy/idoltery would have refered to it. I took it as simple role playing.

Well, I don't think they would have called it rubbish because in a court of law, terms like that don't get thrown around much. But I'm no judge and in such an event it would be considered fairy tales. As I've stated before, I'm a liberal Jew. I think all paths are a way to God. I don't think mine is any better than anyone else's. I also don't think any text is particularly divine, except for the fact that it is considered so by a group of people. I don't believe God ever interferes with the laws of physics. I feel some in this thread may have taken my approach a little personally, or attributed too much of it to the me that transcends this thread.

I have stayed out of this post but I must admit Dauer has definately shown a great knowledge of his religion and his religious books and just shows me I knew much less about it than I thought. Thank You.

Thanks. I try.

Dauer

 

[dauer]

i thought there was over 700 laws to the Jew.

In the church I grew up in they counted around 900 laws (total) when you add the ones from the OT and the NT into the gentile.

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

613, listed here. When you add the specifities of individual mitzvot, it would appear that there are more. But there are 613 mitzvot found in the Torah.

Dauer

 

[dauer]

No Jesus was not a levitical priest he was a priest of the line of melchizedek. So you would not have him in your "lists". He was also a rabbi, a teacher who taught in the synagogues when he was 12 years old. Would you believe it? No probably not since his whole life was fiction..Do I believe it? Without a shadow of a doubt.

If he was a rabbi, he would have been recorded, especially such an exemplary one, at least a few of his words or a story about his life. I just said that. Even bad rabbis are mentioned. If he recieved smicha his name would appear. Even if he did recieve smicha, that would not give him the authority to go out into the streets making random rulings. As I said, more likely he was a moreh and not a rabbi, and more likely his credentials were inflated ad infinitum by later followers. That's how these things work. Ever heard of the Baal Shem Tov? Would you believe the stories about him? Why? Why not?

He also clearly said the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses without including himself. If he was really a rabbi, he would also be in that position.

How do you know he was a priest in the order of Shem? And what does that even mean?

I don't think his whole life was fiction, just most of the nonesense we have today. Clearly his actual life was not fiction.

Dauer

 

[Faithfulservant]

Psalm 110:1-4 A Psalm of David. The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." 2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! 3 Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth. 4 The Lord has sworn And will not relent, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

Hebrews 5:5-6So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." 6 As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek";

Genesis 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.

Hebrews 5:10 called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek,"

Hebrews 6:20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek

Hebrews 7:1-28 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The Lord has sworn And will not relent, 'You are a priest forever* According to the order of Melchizedek' "),+ 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. 23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.


First of all I was under the impression that Melchizedek is not a name, but a title. In Hebrew, it literally means "My King" (malchi) "is righteousness" (tzedek) right? I read that Jewish sages say that not only was this man a righteous king, but that he was king over Tzedek, a descriptive nickname frequently given to Jerusalem, because it was a place known for its righteousness. It was a place which would not tolerate any form of injustice or abomination, as it was the future site of the Temple, the dwelling of the righteous Shekinah of God Himself. Hebrews 7:2, gives us further insight into the meaning of this title, saying, ". . . first being, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and after that also, King of Shalem, which is, King of peace." Shalem, of course, is Jerusalem, (Ps. 76:2), which got its later name when Abraham called Shalem, Yireh (Gen. 22:14), and the two were put together by God to become, Yerushalem.

I understand that Shem means "name" noone knows Shems real name just that he is "name carrier" and I also understand how Israel believes that Shem is Melchizedek I posted the verses above of what this means. We have these following verses that we use to determine how Yeshua fulfills the order of Melchizedek:

1) He was also a man (Heb. 7:4; I Tim. 2:5);
2) He is a king-priest (Zech. 6:12-13);
3) He is also a "king of righteousness" (Isa. 11:5);
4) He is king of Shalem (peace) (Isa. 11:6-9);
5) He has no recorded "beginning of days" (Jn. 1:1) or "end of life" (Rom. 6:9, Heb. 7:23-25); and
6) He was not made high priest by human appointment (Heb. 5:5; Ps. 110:4).


"The teachers of the law (the scribes) and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So, you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt. 23:2-3).

Is what Jesus said about the Pharisees. If you were to ever read further in the NT you would see that Jesus came to fulfill the law under a new order the order of Melchizedek not the order of Aaron.

I understand that this is once again heretical garbage to you... but isnt it amazing Jesus came to save Israel from their attempts at salvation through works when its impossible to work your way to God. Dont you also think that its strange that Israel rejected it and Gentiles accepted it whole-heartedly. I dont understand why. If you could feel what I feel...the pure joy and love when I experience God you would know how real it is and not some delusion.

 

[dauer]

Psalm 110:1-4 A Psalm of David. The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." 2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! 3 Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth. 4 The Lord has sworn And will not relent, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

I told you before what a horrible translation that is. Have you been following along? I'm not going to burden you by posting it again but I will advise that if you want my response to your garbled translation and schewed reading of the text that you review this thread.


And I really could care less what Hebrew says. It's notorious for misquoting Torah.

First of all I was under the impression that Melchizedek is not a name, but a title. In Hebrew, it literally means "My King" (malchi) "is righteousness" (tzedek) right?

It translates as righteous king.

I read that Jewish sages say that not only was this man a righteous king, but that he was king over Tzedek, a descriptive nickname frequently given to Jerusalem, because it was a place known for its righteousness.

He was king of Shalem, which was to one day become Yerushalayim.

It was a place which would not tolerate any form of injustice or abomination, as it was the future site of the Temple, the dwelling of the righteous Shekinah of God Himself. Hebrews 7:2, gives us further insight into the meaning of this title, saying, ". . . first being, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and after that also, King of Shalem, which is, King of peace."

I told you I consider Hebrews a horrible piece of work. I give it absolutely no credibility. Hebrews is the source of the ridiculous idea that only blood atones.

I understand that Shem means "name" noone knows Shems real name just that he is "name carrier" and I also understand how Israel believes that Shem is Melchizedek I posted the verses above of what this means. We have these following verses that we use to determine how Yeshua fulfills the order of Melchizedek:

Like I said earlier, your translation is bad. How do you know that it says "order of melchizedek" and how do you know that it's a reference to the messiah? You make giant leaps of faith to support your arguments, leaps that have no basis in the Hebrew.

But just for fun:

1) He was also a man (Heb. 7:4; I Tim. 2:5);

I also qualify for this one.

2) He is a king-priest (Zech. 6:12-13);

Where do you get the idea that this applies to Jesus?

3) He is also a "king of righteousness" (Isa. 11:5);

Where do you get the idea that this applies to Jesus?

4) He is king of Shalem (peace) (Isa. 11:6-9);

That's nonsensical.

5) He has no recorded "beginning of days" (Jn. 1:1) or "end of life" (Rom. 6:9, Heb. 7:23-25);

Neither do most mythical people, because their myth goes beyong their real self. And who they really were is forgotten.

and
6) He was not made high priest by human appointment (Heb. 5:5; Ps. 110:4).

Melchitzedek wasn't a kohein gadol. Melchitzedek was a priest of a pre-Jewish religion that recognized God. He was a ben noach in the truest sense. Jesus can't be a priest because such things are determined via patrilineal descent. He can't be a priest for the same reason I can't be Irish.

"The teachers of the law (the scribes) and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So, you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt. 23:2-3).

Is what Jesus said about the Pharisees. If you were to ever read further in the NT you would see that Jesus came to fulfill the law under a new order the order of Melchizedek not the order of Aaron.

First, he said they sit in Moses' seat and that the people should obey them even if they do act in ways antithetical to their teachings. Second, Can't fulfill it. It's an eternal covenant. Doesn't matter whose name Jesus claims to do it in.

(Leviticus 26:44) "And yet for all that (rebellion), when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, destroy them, [nor] break the covenant with them, for I am HaShem, their G-d."

(Genesis 17:7) "and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an *everlasting* covenant."

(Genesis 17:13) "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an *everlasting* covenant."

(Genesis 17:19) "And G-d said: 'Nay, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son; and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an *everlasting* covenant for his offspring after him.'"

(1 Chronicles 16:14-17) "He is the HaShem our G-d; his judgments are in all the earth. Remember His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations, which He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac; and He established it unto Jacob for a statute, to Israel for an *everlasting* covenant."

(Ecclesiastics 3:14) "Whatever G-d decrees *shall be forever*; nothing shall be added to it nothing shall be taken away."

(Numbers 19:21) "and it shall be law *for all time*"

(Numbers 15:14) ". . .There shall be one law for you and for the Ger, it shall be a law *for all time* throughout the ages."

(Dt 4:40) "Observe His laws and commandments, which I enjoin upon you this day, that it may go well with you and your children after you and you may live in the land that the HaShem your G-d is assigning to you *for all time.*"

(Numbers 15:23) "All that the HaShem commanded you by the hand of Moses from the day that the HaShem gave commandments and onward *throughout your generations.*"

(2 Kings 17:37) And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do *for evermore*; and you shall not fear other gods

Have I made my point? Notice that the laws for the ger are forever too.

I understand that this is once again heretical garbage to you...

See, I think you're one of the people who took the things I said personally and has taken them outside of the trial. I consider the early Christians a heresy. I consider modern christianity a completely separate religion with more similarities to Mithraism than Judaism. But, as I've said repeatedly when not being confronted on it, I consider every path, including that of the Satanist, a valid path to God so long as it doesn't trample anyone else's rights. What I said to Bass about evil idolators was sarcastic, because he put those words in my mouth. The sages even recognized the merit of pagan society, that they could do good. So what that I consider Christianity a form of avodah zerah? That doesn't make Christianity suddenly stained forever as a horrible way of life.

but isnt it amazing Jesus came to save Israel from their attempts at salvation through works when its impossible to work your way to God.

Torah disagrees on that too. In fact, the very Hebrew language disagrees on that. A sin, cheit, is a missing of the mark. Teshuvah is turning back to God. And we are told that the righteous fall seven times and still get up, but the wicked stumble in evil.(Prov. 24:16) Therefore, in order to be considered rightous to God, and in order to turn to God and walk in His ways, we should follow the mitzvot which were a gift from God to us.

If you are saying that our actions do not draw us nearer to God (as God desires righteous action more than qorbanot(usually sacrifices but actually means to draw near or come close rather than to give something up)prov. 21:3 and Micah 6:6-8)) then you are going against the word of God as conveyed in the scripture that you and I both make reference to, the earlier one.

Dont you also think that its strange that Israel rejected it and Gentiles accepted it whole-heartedly.

No. Firstly, the Jesus mythos is more similar to their mythoses..es... Secondly, many of them believed that the world was controled by gods who cared little for the people of our world and acted completely unpredictably, sometimes toying with us, sometimes acting as if we weren't even here. For them salvation would make sense. For Jews there was no need for salvation. They had the mitzvot.

I dont understand why. If you could feel what I feel...the pure joy and love when I experience God you would know how real it is and not some delusion.

I don't think it is a delusion. No religion has a monopoly on God. Further, even according to Judaism, when someone prays to Baal or anyone else, it is still God who will end up answering their prayers. You could pray to the giant floating anus and God would still hear you. Your experiences are not unique. Do you believe that only through Christianity can someone have such feelings? If so, the facts are against you. Someone could join with another and be stripped naked, gagged, and tied. Then they could be whipped into a slow ecstacy. They would return for it frequently, like a drug. Spirituality can be this way, like a drug. This is why actions are indeed necessary. Otherwise, you're just hopped up on Jesus. I am quoting a metal song only because it is relevant and I like using diverse sources. The band is Armenian. I am not saying this is you, but it is worth considering:

<edited for content>
Dauer (my name is not actually a part of the song itself, but rather my way of ending this post.)

 

[Faithfulservant]

That was a horrible song there was nothing diverse about it.. it was vulgar.

 

[Blue]

"That was a horrible song there was nothing diverse about it.. it was vulgar."

It may justifiably be so, FaithfulServant, but it makes one think, does it not?

 

[Basstian]

Dauer

All the Christians on this thread welcomed you. And I believe, though sometimes heated showed a deep respect for your beliefs while defending our own (at least I tried too)

I want you to know I was shocked at how vulgar and far away from anything Godly that post was.

But as a Christian I realize there is a world out there where saying those types of things out of disrespect for someones beliefs is "ok"

I forgive you
Just as Christ Died on the cross and was raised and now forgives my sins.

I would ask as a friend (and I have refered to you as that because of the respect I have gained for you.) The you keep that type of vulgarity out of these threads my children often read your writings and ask me questions of this subject. I was shocked to find that post.

 

[Basstian]

I consider modern christianity a completely separate religion with more similarities to Mithraism than Judaism

Here is where Dauer judging the Church of today has a very good case.
Study what little is known of Mithriasm (The most popular cult among the Roman soldiers) and you will find disturbing similiarities in our Doctrine today.

I believe it a sad thing that Christianity does not today resemble Judiasm in the devotion to Gods and the gospel of Jesus only. Doctrines of pagen cults have been "Christianized" and are still being practiced today in many ways through out our religion. Due mainly to the leaders of the roman church coverted from these cults and placed in high leadership rankingings in the early church more for political gain than for there devotion to God and Jesus.

Hundreds of years later nobody questians why Christmas is on the 25th of Dec. Or why easter is called easter and why our children hunt for eggs. Why there is a week long celebration called lent. Why a sunrise service or Mass

Or why we dont sit on the sabbath with our Jewish brethren and hear the law and the prophets and debate the messiah scripture there.

Nobody notices how the Churches built today all resemble the same layout of
the worship places of Mithriasm. with even some of the oldest Cathedrials and monestaries being built over them in europe.

Martin Luther and others started a reform but stopped just after leaving the oppressive rule of the papel power at that time.
That wasnt far enough to convert Christianity back to true Christianity. The type found when they were called Christians in antioch.

I fear like the Leaders of Israel of old lead the people into Idoltary. So did the Church of Rome our people. What amazes me is it is the very same gods they were lead astray to Ashteroth Tammuz even Baal.

Jesus was set against the traditions of men being used as doctrine for this reason.
He warned leaders of Decieving People and leading them away with Divers Doctrine

Had we the Doctrine of 33ad and the scripture used by the apostles this trail may be going well for us.

Just a thought my fellow Christians Maybe it is time to return to our roots to the faith handed us in the beginning.

God be with you all

 

[dauer]

I am sorry if your children may have read that song and I am sorry if anyone was terribly offended by it. It is not speaking specifically about Christianity and it is not generalizing Christianity. It is rather speaking about a specific type of spirituality that would use the spiritual experience like a drug. I find the song particularly poignant and that's why I included it in my post. I did not include it to offend. If you examine the words of the song you will see that what I say about its intended meaning is true. They use Christianity as a model because they are themselves Christians (and religious enough to preach in their songs, I might add, against the excesses that accompany rock music and against the tendencies of modern governments, which is very refreshing in that genre.)

I could give an example of another song by them that embraces spirituality and/or Christianity. For example:

Aerials

Life is a waterfall,
We're one in the river,
And one again after the fall.

Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We lost ourselves,
But we find it all?

Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,

And we are the ones that want to chose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.

Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.

Life is a waterfall,
We drink from the river,
Then we turn around and put up our walls.

Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We lost ourselves,
But we find it all?

Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,

And we are the ones that want to chose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.

Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.

or, even more concretely is this song (although the meaning of the reference has been debated, the controversy over its meaning was clearly created by the vocalist, Serj Tankien)

Wake up,
Grab a brush and put a little (makeup),
Grab a brush and put a little,
Hide the scars to fade away the (shakeup)
Hide the scars to fade away the,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table?
Here you go create another fable

You wanted to,
Grab a brush and put a little makeup,
You wanted to,
Hide the scars to fade away the shakeup,
You wanted to,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table,
You wanted to,

I don't think you trust,
In, my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die, Die,

Wake up,
Grab a brush and put a little (makeup),
Grab a brush and put a little,
Hide the scars to fade away the (shakeup)
Hide the scars to fade away the,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table?
Here you go create another fable

You wanted to,
Grab a brush and put a little makeup,
You wanted to,
Hide the scars to fade away the shakeup,
You wanted to,
Why'd you leave the keys upon the table,
You wanted to,

I don't think you trust,
In, my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die
In my, self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die

Father, Father, Father, Father,
Father/ Into your hands/I/commend my spirit,
Father, into your hands,

Why have you forsaken me,
In your eyes forsaken me,
In your thoughts forsaken me,
In your heart forsaken, me oh,

Trust in my self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die,
In my self righteous suicide,
I, cry, when angels deserve to die.

So if you only saw that song as vulgarity, it is because you chose to only see that song as vulgarity. It conveyed an important message about the way people approach spirituality and that is why I included it. The above song, by the way, is about an abused woman. But clearly they were trying to create a little controversy with the language they were using.

Dauer

 

[Ciel]

By whatever humanity that speaks such words, and even more so in response to a woman. NO. Is the world so devalued that it is acceptable and considered okay. NO, never can such sentiment be. When we stand and say, enough is enough, for we were born to be higher mortal than this evaluation. Respect is paramount for each other in all things. Be it here, there or anywhere.

 

[Bandit]

this is nothing new. Half of the lyrics out there today are vulgar, deceptive, full of rape, hate, envy, strife, bitterness, murder child abuse, theft, racism, darkness, destruction, war, terrorism, cursing...

Not only is it in the lyrics but in the headlines, the hollywood movies, playstation and video games AND plastered all over the web..then everyone wonders why people are so mixed up.

I dont put my hope in any of these things.

 

[Ciel]

And the very reason why we do not need to applaud or give reverence to them here.
Praise the light, diminish the darkness.
Seek beauty. don't pay the tolls that hell demands.
Respect the light of goodness, for it is.
Anything other is not.
And know you are here as peace keeper, to applaud a greater moral consensus than the status quo that accepts moral degeneration.
Mmmmm ....Am I walking in Memphis?

 

[Faithfulservant]

No Blue it did not make me think about anything other than F this F that...I couldnt see beyond that..


I accept your apology Dauer and I understand the point you were trying to make. Its very hard for me to take serious anything else you've posted on this subject after reading that, though. I choose not to listen to music like that for a reason.

 

[dauer]

Ciel,

don't we sometimes have to descend into the darkness in order to raise it up?


Fs,

Are you saying that because you disagree with the medium in which a point is conveyed, that now you have difficulty taking the points -- which stand on their own separate from the one who delivers them -- seriously? (and let it be acknowledged that I did not use this medium to offend, but rather because it made the statement about spirituality used as a drug very clear. If I had known it would get this much backlash I would not have used it.) It sounds to me like you're just looking for a reason to discredit and devalue what I've been saying, and this is a good out for you. It would be much easier if you didn't have to sincerely answer what I say. My words speak for themselves. Even the words of a murderer speak for themselves. If you always judge the words by the source you may miss some of the most important lessons of your life.

Dauer

 

[Faithfulservant]

LOL Ditto Dauer

 

[Ciel]

dauer,
When I see proof in this world that darkness is elevated by the illumination of light, that would be enlightenment indeed.
Light is light and darkness dark, each to their own domain.

Seen from the value of all that darkness would wish to achieve it would call its own illumination dark, not light.

Transcendence is a balance between the two that allows the scales of justice to work in accordance with the higher authority of our creator.
If there had been a greater balance at the time of Christ I believe far more would have been achieved by a living man beyond sacrifice, in the unity of all.

 

[dauer]

dauer,
When I see proof in this world that darkness is elevated by the illumination of light, that would be enlightenment indeed.
Light is light and darkness dark, each to their own domain.

But where there is much light there is little darkness and where there is much darkness there is little light. Sometimes there is a blockage that does not allow for the light to fully extend. In order for it to do so, some of those who bear the light must journey into the darkness and open the darkness to the light. This is where free will becomes most important. We can choose to risk diminishing our light in order to remove blockages and allow for a greater brilliance.

If you don't take your message to the streets, the streets will take their message to every place you can't reach. That's what SOAD is doing. If their light is diminished, it is only to illuminate the masses.

Seen from the value of all that darkness would wish to achieve it would call its own illumination dark, not light.

What is this in reference to?

Transcendence is a balance between the two that allows the scales of justice to work in accordance with the higher authority of our creator.
If there had been a greater balance at the time of Christ I believe far more would have been achieved by a living man beyond sacrifice, in the unity of all.

There are many models for light and dark. I'm using one. You're using another.

Dauer


Bass, I just noticed your long post. I have heard that in the US for a while Christmas was banned.