Question About Religion

[Negative Sun]

It may seem like I'm taking you out to the woodshed, Sun, but my only point is that while it's ok to ultimately believe what you want, you should make more cogent arguments when attacking someone else's point of view.

Right back at you pal, I did make a coherent argument, you just refuse to accept that...And your comeback is weak to say the least, you did not counter anything I've said, just denied it or questioned my ability to speak about the matter.

 

And what you've just said there disgusts me beyond belief, being gay is not a "weakness" as you just called it, I'm finished speaking to you...

[The Source]

Until you look beyond your own narrowminded views, I suggest you do the same and stop atacking me personally.

I have posed very good points and arguments, and I know what I'm talking about, but you haven't answered them and decided to attack me, why? Is it getting to tough for you to answer so you'd rather ignore it?

My knowledge of God goes as far as yours as far as I know, I just don't believe in Him and I have the guts to question it...By attacking me personally you haven't proven yourself smarter, you're just proving my point...

And if you'll look up a bit you'll see that I quoted one of the ten commandments and before that I used an example of the Good Samaritan, how dare you accuse me of not backing up what I say with Biblical references? They're right there!

Attacking Christianity is an attack on me. If you want to make an argument, I would use scripture, and I would utilize the book in question: The Bible. I use to have a narrow perception that religion was flawed, but I realized that I never openned the Bibile to see what it says.

 

Religion is seperate than faith. My religion is a combination of Catholic and Born Again. May faith is based upon Christian doctrine. Each religious sect approaches the Bible is different ways. When you focus on Christianity as a whole, you are being very, very, very ignorant. When you question God's doctrine, and take it out on Religion, you are again very, very, very ignorant. When you jedge a Religious Sect and blame it on God, you are very, very, very ignorant.

 

There are differences in how Christian factions approach the Bible. Catholics have two branches: One follows the pope's interpretation, and the other follows a Gothic King's translation of the Bible.

 

There are futher differences in Prodistan, Born Again, etc... After the Reformation (Reinassance Period), Martin Luther helped fracture the Catholic Church. Hense - Prodistan, Born Again, etc...

 

Be very careful in your choice of words. Use evidence to backup your disbelief, so you don't come off antisematic.

 

I will not argue with something you said, for you were right about one thing. Each religious sect has had their darkest moments. Catholics, Jewish, etc... At the current moment, Islam is having their darkest moment. I don't agree with anyone who kills in the name of God. However, I will defend myself against anyone who is killiing people, for they believe my God is flawed.

 

You really need to be specific.

[Negative Sun]

Where exactly have I not been specific? Have I not always explained everything I said?

 

Btw, it's spelled "naive", and you calling me that is quite ironic actually, because I know exactly what I'm talking about...

[The Source]

I used the wrong word. Fixed now.

 

I maybe getting mixed up here. Within these forums, there are two identical threads. One comes off very ignorant, and the other is based upon trying to find an answer. There are too many of these similar religion threads around here. Usually, this type of thread would be in the Senate Chambers.

[Jae Onasi]

The Momerator says, "Everyone take a deep breath, collect your thoughts, do whatever you all have to do to calm down, and let's all pull back on the emotions for a bit, because I'd love to continue debating this in a pleasant context, and can't do that if the thread gets shut down for flaming."

Negative Sun, please keep in mind that no one knows what your complete religious background is, and that's OK--you don't have to share every single thing. I don't reveal every single thing (like my age--I'm 29 forever. ). However, when I don't know where someone is on the knowledge continuum, I tend to start with the basics and work my way up rather than assuming everyone knows the same set of facts I know on a given subject. That's also because I want to develop an argument (not just for us, but for others who might read later on), so I apologize if that comes across as patronizing and over-simplified.

For others--telling someone to shut up is really not an effective discussion technique.

One of the ways we can calm this all down is to write in a slightly more formal way, and to remember to not take a debate on a point as a personal attack. I know most of the people here, and I don't think any of us is trying to drive someone into the ground, bury them, and grin about it in satisfaction. We enjoy each other's company here.

We need to separate ourselves from the debated points. Saying 'this idea is bad' does not automatically mean that the person who holds that idea is bad. When we read a response, if it sounds offensive, take a deep breath, read it again as if it's one of your buddies just having a friendly discussion about a really tough subject rather than assuming 'someone's out to get me'.

 

Writing--the less 'personal' and accusatory we can make it the better. If we say 'you said this, you did that, I can't believe that you don't think Raniskrans are the greatest thing since sliced bread', it comes across as an attack a lot of the time. It is very easy for things to come across that way because we don't have the visual body language cues available to tell us that someone is just debating friendly and not out to bury an ax in someone's head. If we concentrate on the main ideas and not the person, we'll make more effective arguments.

 

If you think someone is mad at you, _ask_ them if they are and talk to them about it. It's OK to ask someone "when you said this, it came across like 'x' to me. Was that your intention?" 90% of the time they're not trying to be a-holes, they just were tired, busy, or distracted, and they just mis-worded something unintentionally. To be honest, I don't have time to sit around and wonder how I can make someone's day miserable--it takes too much energy to hate something or someone. But I do make plenty of mistakes and say things badly at times without meaning to, and it's not because I'm trying to be a pain, it's just because I'm worn out and my brain decided to take a right turn at Albuquerque when the rest of my body took a left turn.

 

I'm going to go work on answering some of the questions brought up, since they're quite good. And Emperor Devon, I'll address the moral question here, since it is a key issue in the debate on the existance of God.

[Jeff]

Catholics have two branches: One follows the pope's interpretation, and the other follows a Gothic King's translation of the Bible.

Never heard of that second one... you sure about that?

[The Source]

Never heard of that second one... you sure about that?

Yep. When I get the clear information, I will post you a link to it. I believe the king branched off from the Church, for he disagreed with the pope's policies.

[Totenkopf]

Since you're "officially" not talking to me anymore, Sun (you never really addressed anything I said in the first place), just keep in mind that you should read everything carefully before you jump to conclusions. I wasn't addressing the question of whether homosexuality was a weakness, I was specifically talking about "sins of the flesh", a term I put immediately in parantheses following the word weakness. I can only conclude from your response that you or people close to you are gay and thus you reacted as you did. Sins of the flesh plague heteros as well. If you're a betting man, it's safest to figure that Casanova probably went to hell.

[stingerhs]

actually, i think this thread is starting to spiral out of control. i realize that Negative_Sun's comments can be a bit provoking for Christians (myself included); however, that is not a direct invitation to start a flame war because your feelings got hurt. if you want to debunk someone's claims, then you need to learn that directly attacking the person instead of the issue will not solve the issue itself. any debate needs to be approached carefully and with backround on the subject matter either through research or experience.

 

and in these forums, everyone has to remember that we encourage friendly debates. this applies to every person reguardless of how charismatic you might feel about any particular subject. this warning is being applied to everyone in this thread. if things get any more out of control, this thread will be closed.

[The Source]

I just received a PM warning from a moderator. In reality, this thread should have been closed a while back. In its nature, it was designed to get people upset. To be honest, I shouldn't have received the warning, the moderators should have received the warning. They knew this type of thread was created to provoke anger, and they stood by and did nothing about it. I am not in the wrong, the moderators that left this thread open are.

 

When you talk about religion in this manner, you proke heavy emotions by the visitors. I responded to this thread, for I found offense to what has been said and its intent. Yeah. I should not have 'flammed' at him, but his comments did trigger a heavy emotion. Hense, the nature of this thread had worked.

 

I blame the moderators for not taking action, and I ask them to close this thread down.

 

This thread should have been closed when it first started. Someone should close it now.

 

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

 

I just sent one of the higher guns a PM.

[Jae Onasi]

I respectfully disagree about shutting it down, Mac. I think we can have a civil discussion about this subject as long as everyone remembers to concentrate on the issues instead of making it personal.

 

My short list of reasons why I believe there's God:

 

1. Creating the universe out of nothing doesn't make sense to me without Someone deciding to make it happen. At some point, we all come down to the question of how the universe began. Did it come from absolutely nothing, or did Someone bring it into being? Which takes more faith--that it just 'happened' one day from nothing, or that there was an initial Cause?

 

2. Creating life from non-life does not make sense to me without a Designer. The chemicals and organelles required to create even the simplest bacteria are complex enough to defy chance. Here's a mathematical proof. If you have any questions on the biochemistry or math, let me know and I'll explain further, since I've had enough biology to sink the Queen Mary.

One mathematician described the probability of life occuring by chance to be one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. That's more than the number of atoms supposedly in the universe--it would be like taking all the atoms in the universe, shaking them up, and then picking out the right one. Even if you adjust for millions of combinations and billions of years, the number might decrease to one chance in 10 to the 39,990, essentially zero chance. It takes a lot of faith to believe that life formed purely by a few chemicals finding each other in a world-wide chemical soup. I find the idea of an Intelligent designer to require less of a leap of faith than belief in pure chance.

3. A moral framework cannot exist without an absolute standard. There is no moral absolute in atheism, because there is no absolute standard that one can turn to. If there is no God, the person who determines what's right and wrong is the individual, creating moral relativism. Without any frame of reference to determine right and wrong, things like (for extreme examples) pedophilia and infanticide are no more right or wrong than any other activity, because someone will say 'well, it's right for _me_'.

The concept of altruism is impossible in a purely 'survival of the fittest' environment. There is no reason for someone to sacrifice himself.

 

Emperor Devon--children may _sometimes_ know 'instinctively' what's right and wrong, but my children, and every other child I know, also threw things at each other, bit each other, and screamed 'Mine!' when they wanted someone else's toy. My children had to be trained to do the right things. If I did not train them, they'd be spoiled, obnoxious, self-centered brats. Children don't do the right things all the time. It also does not address the fact that they are emotionally, intellectually, and physically immature and unable to reason in the way adults reason. How do you explain the development of a moral framework in adults? I don't believe that morality could 'evolve', because history repeatedly shows that we're more than willing to do all sorts of evil things to each other. I do not see any evidence of us becoming more 'moral' with time.

 

More stuff for discussion.

[igyman]

I can't believe you people. I really can't. Although I didn't participate much in the discussion here, I did read very carefully to what everyone had to say and even said a couple of things myself. Like some of the mods said, you all need to chill out, but seeing how it's not really working I've decided to play mod and remind you all of the original topic of this thread:

The question I have about religion is this.

 

If you kill someone even with a true justified reason do you go to hell anyway? I ask this because I had talked to a friend of mine during class and I told him I wanted to get involved in some sort of SWAT/Special Forces type organization. Though he told me that if I or anyone slain someone that they would go to hell. Honestly this doesn't affect me that much for I am athiest. I am no goth or devil worshipper in any way or form. I just want to see what 'beleivers' feel about the question I have asked in this thread..If I offended someone, I mean no harm.

Now, what do you say we get back to this instead of continuing along the borders of flame war? As you can see, this thread was never intended to become the religious vs. atheists, or Christians vs. atheists battlefield, it was you who turned it into one (heck, maybe even me in some small part).

[Negative Sun]

actually, i think this thread is starting to spiral out of control. i realize that Negative_Sun's comments can be a bit provoking for Christians (myself included); however, that is not a direct invitation to start a flame war because your feelings got hurt. if you want to debunk someone's claims, then you need to learn that directly attacking the person instead of the issue will not solve the issue itself. any debate needs to be approached carefully and with backround on the subject matter either through research or experience.

I realise that what I say can be considered as provocative, but all I did was ask questions and stated my opinions, if that clashes with someone else's beliefs that's quite tough, but it's still my opinion and it is still valid...

I just want to have that nice friendly discussion, and I never meant to offend anyone.

[Totenkopf]

I think that basically we have two threads going on here, with the tangential one eclipsing the original one. I don't believe the the first post was unduly provacative in nature, but the discussion did devolve into a pi**ing match about the nature of God, belief systems and the universe. I don't believe that religion is per se an unsuitable topic of conversation, but it is one where people should walk carefully if they wish to avoid unnecessarily setting one another off. I was rough, too, this time around.

[The Source]

Since I see another potential for these forums, I will raise the white flag on my end. Religion is a tough subject to talk about, and if treated the wrong way it does stir up emotions. Several of us may have over-reacted to some of the comments, self included, so I apologize on my behalf.

 

I do not apologize for being a Christian, and having a heavy opinion about my faith. You wanted to see what belivers think about your question, and I gave you an answer.

 

by Negative_Sun - Post #20:

But the "rules" written down in the Bible are either common sense or total nonsense...

 

by Negative_Sun- Post #5:

Christians should keep their big fat mouths shut cause they're all a bunch of hypocrits...

 

by Negative_Sun - Post #23:

That's YOUR opinion, it doesn't make it so, and if that's what Christianity stands for, then I would say it's more hypocritical than I thought...

 

How you ask your question is important. I could venture through all of your posts, and I can still find more indication of your intent. You were told to stop provoking flamming, and then it happend. You were warned by two moderators.

 

My problem is that I fell right into your trap. If you had any real questions, you would have phrased them in a polite manner. Instead, you kept calling Christian hypocrates. The intention of this thread was 'not' to provoke flamming. You have masterfully done so, and I paid the price.

 

Inorder to prevent others from falling into his trap, I suggest we close this thread quickly. Or - We remove his comments from the thread, so we can answer RaV's questions.

 

(I didn't realize that the original poster 'was not' Negative_Sun, and for that I am also sorry for intruding.)

[Jae Onasi]

I see no traps here, and interpreting RaV's initial question as an attempt to provoke flaming is incorrect. I do see some people getting highly emotional, and I understand that completely--it's a challenge for me to stay objective like everyone else, but it's not impossible. Each of us may need individually to take a break from this discussion from time to time to refresh and get some perspective in order to prevent over-emotional responses.

 

I just see legitimate questions. Some of them are framed better than others, to be sure, but if we cannot respectfully defend the reasons why we believe in Christianity, why should others choose to believe it, then? There are some really tough questions atheists raise (like, how do you explain pain and suffering from a loving God?) that we need to answer instead of sweeping them under the rug out of discomfort. I don't want to ignore those questions, I want to address them, and closing off the discussion is counterproductive.

Disagreement with someone on a topic is not the same as disliking someone. I may not agree with atheism as a subject, but it doesn't mean I'm going to quit liking the atheists I've gotten to know here, who I'm honored to have some delightful conversations with on a regular basis. I think we're all mature enough to work and play well with others and have a decent discussion on this.

[The Source]

I fixed my post above. I found error in some of my statement.

[Emperor Devon]

Emperor Devon--children may _sometimes_ know 'instinctively' what's right and wrong, but my children, and every other child I know, also threw things at each other, bit each other, and screamed 'Mine!' when they wanted someone else's toy. {snip}

 

That was an example. I still fail to see how believing good behavior in life is rewarded in the afterlife, and bad behavior is punished. If someone's being good only so they can go to heaven, should they be allowed to?

 

I don't believe that morality could 'evolve', because history repeatedly shows that we're more than willing to do all sorts of evil things to each other. I do not see any evidence of us becoming more 'moral' with time.

 

Here's a point I made in one of our PMs:

 

A testament to that would be some Popes in the Middle Ages. Innocent III comes to mind, as he sentenced quite a few people to being burned at the stake just because they weren't Christians. Being Pope is a very religious position, and impossible to reach if you aren't. He clearly was unethical, despite his faith.

 

Evil acts have been done by Christians, faith aside. Crusaders sacked Constantinople. Supposed witches were burned at the stake. Whole libraries of books in South America were burned in the name of Christianity. Even now, many pro-Christians are seeking to ban abortion. I'm not trying to bash your faith, but I have yet to see that it can make someone a more moral person simply because it promises a reward or a punishment in the afterlife. That's just plain materialistic.

 

There are some really tough questions atheists raise (like, how do you explain pain and suffering from a loving God?) that we need to answer instead of sweeping them under the rug out of discomfort.

 

Then answer them.

 

On the subject of flaming, I've debated the subject of religion quite a few times with Jae (a subject I'm very opinionated on), yet we stay civil to each other. Others in the Senate Chambers do the same, so there's no reason the people here can't either.

 

Oh Jae, you've ignored the point I made about God affecting every single biological thing.

[JediKnight707]

I believe that N_S said something about pain and suffering a while back. I heard somewhere, it may have been on a TV show, I honestly can't remember, that in order for compassion, there must be pain and suffering. Remember the old tale of Pandora's Box? How, when the human opened it, all horrible things spilled out, yet one good thing came, Hope?

 

You can't question God wtih such things as "why is there pain and suffering" because you'll never get a complete answer. God Himself probably won't respond to you, so what's the point in asking the never-going-to-be answered question?

 

You also said N_S awhile back about how do you know about your existance, what has He done to prove to you that He's there, or something along those lines. The simple fact is, He has done nothing. God sure as hell hasn't said, "Hey (my name here) it's me, God! Yeah, I'm just chillin' up here, enjoying the show! Keep up the good work!" It all spirals down to one word: FAITH. Unless there is irrefutable evidence of God (or no God for that matter), it all comes down to faith.

 

As for the original question of the thread, no I don't believe that you will go to Hell for a "justified" murder (though who's to say it's justified?).

[The Source]

^^^^

Amen.

[Negative Sun]

3. A moral framework cannot exist without an absolute standard. There is no moral absolute in atheism, because there is no absolute standard that one can turn to. If there is no God, the person who determines what's right and wrong is the individual, creating moral relativism. Without any frame of reference to determine right and wrong, things like (for extreme examples) pedophilia and infanticide are no more right or wrong than any other activity, because someone will say 'well, it's right for _me_'.

The concept of altruism is impossible in a purely 'survival of the fittest' environment. There is no reason for someone to sacrifice himself.

I think people have worked together over the last centuries to make laws and morals the pillars of any civil society, it still has nothing to do with God IMO...

How do you know for sure what the word of God is Jae? Because it's written down in the Bible? What makes that source so reliable?

 

I disagree with you saying there is no moral absolute in atheism, because you're referring to a sick and twisted individual, most people have a good sense of right and wrong, and working together in a society we can make those into laws, I don't think every politician is Christian, but still we're doing a good job of coming up with decent rules and regulations aren't we?

 

Disagreement with someone on a topic is not the same as disliking someone. I may not agree with atheism as a subject, but it doesn't mean I'm going to quit liking the atheists I've gotten to know here, who I'm honored to have some delightful conversations with on a regular basis. I think we're all mature enough to work and play well with others and have a decent discussion on this.

I totally agree with you there, and thank you for taking the time to answer all of those questions instead of ignoring them like some people do when you question their faith, I have more respect for someone who backs up and thinks about his/her belief than someone who just blindly follows it without really knowing why...

 

 

 

Back to the original topic:

I think killing is justified only in very few occasions, but whatever you do, keep an open and critical mind, don't follow orders blindly, you might be a good soldier or policeman that way, but also a good slave in the end...

We live in a free world, take that right, if something doesn't feel right do you or clashes with what you believe in, then stand up for it!

Only if you are honest with yourself can you live a happy life IMO...

 

That's it class dismissed Padawans!

[The Source]

I think people have worked together over the last centuries to make laws and morals the pillars of any civil society, it still has nothing to do with God IMO...

How do you know for sure what the word of God is Jae? Because it's written down in the Bible? What makes that source so reliable?

 

I disagree with you saying there is no moral absolute in atheism, because you're referring to a sick and twisted individual, most people have a good sense of right and wrong, and working together in a society we can make those into laws, I don't think every politician is Christian, but still we're doing a good job of coming up with decent rules and regulations aren't we?

 

How do you know for sure what the word of God is Jae? Because it's written down in the Bible? What makes that source so reliable?

I know this was addressed to Jae, but here goes:

This comes from faith. If you were to read the Bible, you would find several moralistic issues that the authors have faced. What is even more compelling about the Bible is that it was written by sinners. They realized the darkness of their morality, and found a certain truth in God's teachings. Most of the sins they have comitted ranged from harsh to simple, but God ended up giving them a chance to put the wrong thing right. All of the twelve disciples were sinners. (Salvation)

 

The Bible is the only source know in the world, which carries the word of the Christian and Jewish God. Everything else in the world is tested up against it, for it has been recognized by both Jewish and Christianity. Does this mean that Christianity is for everyone? Not necessary. Following God's laws is hard, and followers are tested every day of their lives. This type of life is not for everyone. It all comes down to: Faith.

 

You know that your actions are right and wrong, but are you willing to take the consequences for following God? When I finally turned to God, I went through all these cognitions. Even though I am a follower now, I am still going through harsh cognitions. I still test what is written in the Bble.

 

What is great about God is that: If you are sincerly interested in him, he will walk the path of life with you. he will be a companion when you are tested by others, and he will not leave your side. At the end of the day, it all comes down to choices. Do I turn left or right?

 

Example of Mercy: (Loosly Quoted)

Pilot was confronted by a mob, and they brought forth a prostitute. According to the mob, she commited adultary. They asked Pilot what to do with the prostitute, for they wanted to stone her to death. She commited a state offense.

 

Pilot said, "Bring her to the Christ, and see what he would do."

His intent was to trap Jesus, and try to make him faulter

 

When the mob arrived to where Jesus was, Jesus was writting in the sand.

The mob asked, "Jesus, this protitute has commiting adultary. What should we do?'

 

Jesus confronted the prostitute, and asked if she had commited adultary. She confessed that she had. Jesus then turned to the mob, and said, "Let the first person who has not lived without sin throw the first stone."

 

The mob ended up walking away, for they noticed what Jesus was writting in the sand. He wrote a list of all their sins. After they left, Jesus told her to go forth and to not sin again. The prostitute agreed.

 

Before she left, Jesus asked her, "Would you like to come with me?" Even though she refused to follow him at that moment, Jesus still left the door open to her.

 

(In another story later, she ended up cathing up with him, and he welcomed her with open arms.)

 

Why did I write that?

This shows that Jesus knew mercy, and it also shows that God is not one to force people into anything. Before the existance of the Bible, the Gods that were written about delivered harsh judgements. They rearly ever used mercy, and they delivered unextrodinary punishment.

 

Another thing to think about is, what other God has sent their son forth, and allowed him to be sacrificed for the sins of his followers? Today, the other religions out there, not all of them, rely on their people to sacrifice themselves for their god.

 

Within human history, leaders have sent men into war, so they can be sacrificed for their meaning of what is the greater good. God doesn't send people into war, but mankind uses him to wage wars. They either rage war against God's people, or they fight in the name of God.

 

...there is no moral absolute in atheism...

I believe that athiests hold themselves responsible for moral guidelines. I don't believe that atheism has a moral external piller to keep them morally straight. However, they do know the difference of what is logically right and wrong.

 

...is there a moment where justice (killing someone) is permitted by God?

Yes. God has left this open. As long as the death is justified, God has permitted a moral standing on the issue.

 

Is the Christian and Jewish God for everyone?

No. As you have done here, I would get more information about the subject. God's door is allways open if you choose to follow. This is a touchy question for yourself to answer, and it is a pretty weighted one.

 

God allways welcomes testing. How many other Gods would punish their followers if they were tested? Most of them.

[Jeff]

The mob ended up walking away, for they noticed what Jesus was writting in the sand. He wrote a list of all their sins.

Actually, nobody knows what he was writing. Perhaps that list is speculation but I'm almost positive that it just says he was writing in the sand and nothing more.

 

But that doesn't matter, it's the message you're trying to get across, which I agree with.

[Rogue Nine]

Example of Mercy: (Loosly Quoted)

Pilot was confronted by a mob, and they brought forth a prostitute. According to the mob, she commited adultary. They asked Pilot what to do with the prostitute, for they wanted to stone her to death. She commited a state offense.

 

Pilot said, "Bring her to the Christ, and see what he would do."

His intent was to trap Jesus, and try to make him faulter

 

When the mob arrived to where Jesus was, Jesus was writting in the sand.

The mob asked, "Jesus, this protitute has commiting adultary. What should we do?'

 

Jesus confronted the prostitute, and asked if she had commited adultary. She confessed that she had. Jesus then turned to the mob, and said, "Let the first person who has not lived without sin throw the first stone."

 

The mob ended up walking away, for they noticed what Jesus was writting in the sand. He wrote a list of all their sins. After they left, Jesus told her to go forth and to not sin again. The prostitute agreed.

 

Before she left, Jesus asked her, "Would you like to come with me?" Even though she refused to follow him at that moment, Jesus still left the door open to her.

 

(In another story later, she ended up cathing up with him, and he welcomed her with open arms.)

For someone who insists on arguing based on Scripture, you sure don't paraphrase it correctly. The passage you are talking about comes from John, Chapter 8, and it has some very significant differences from your version. Look for yourself. Now, if you're to insist on Scripture-based arguments, perhaps you should get your story straight first. Like Moel said, no one knows what Jesus was writing in the sand, as it is not explicitly stated. Jesus also does not ask her to come with him. And I haven't yet found the passage that states they reunited. Maybe you could find that for me somewhere?

 

Oh, and as for suggesting this thread be closed/edited: Thanks, but no thanks. We'll make our own decisions, so please don't play mini-mod. That makes us cranky.

[The Source]

For someone who insists on arguing based on Scripture, you sure don't paraphrase it correctly. The passage you are talking about comes from John, Chapter 8, and it has some very significant differences from your version. Look for yourself. Now, if you're to insist on Scripture-based arguments, perhaps you should get your story straight first. Like Moel said, no one knows what Jesus was writing in the sand, as it is not explicitly stated. Jesus also does not ask her to come with him. And I haven't yet found the passage that states they reunited. Maybe you could find that for me somewhere?

 

Oh, and as for suggesting this thread be closed/edited: Thanks, but no thanks. We'll make our own decisions, so please don't play mini-mod. That makes us cranky.

I said loosely. In the Bible I have, I must have read from the notes on the bottom. I have scripture and notations. Not a big-big deal.

 

If you are crancky, why don't you go to sleep or something?

 

Their reunion (Drawing from memory, so don't shoot me. At least I am attempting to do so.):

Look for the passage where Jesus gets his feet washed with the tears and hair of a sinner.