God answers Knee Mail: Slogans to bring you (back) to Church

Post Reply
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

God answers Knee Mail: Slogans to bring you (back) to Church

Post by admin » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:28 am


Free Trip to Heaven. Details Inside!

The Best Vitamin for a Christian is B1.

Try our Sundays. They are better than Baskin-Robbins.

Searching for a new look? Have your faith lifted here!

Have trouble sleeping? We have sermons - come hear one!

Come in and pray today. Beat the Christmas rush!

How will you spend eternity - Smoking or Non-smoking?

Come work for the Lord. The work is hard, the hours are long and the pay is low. But the retirement benefits are out of this world.[/col
or]

Looking at the way some people live, they ought to obtain fire insurance soon.

This is a CH_ _ CH. What is missing?

In the dark? Follow the Son.

Don't wait for 6 strong men to take you to church.

Exercise daily. Walk with the Lord!

Give God what's right, not what's left!

God is not satisfied with shares; He wants controlling interest!

Having truth decay? Brush up on your Bible!

If God is your Co-pilot - Swap seats!

Most people want to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity.

[
color=blue]Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.

Read The Bible...It Will Scare The Hell Out Of You!

WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning!

FOR MEMBERS ONLY, TRESPASSERS WILL BE BAPTIZED!

No God - No Peace? Know God - Know Peace.

Try Jesus. If you don't like Him, the devil will gladly take you back.

Aspire to inspire before you expire.

God prefers fruits of the spirit over religious nuts
(Religious nuts hate "Windows on Haiti" for its irreverence, but fruits of the spirit give to it generously.) !

[ How did God learn to be God? Did He create us just for prac
tice? Has He finished practicing yet or is He still experimenting? Oh oh, you know YOURS TRULY is in BIG TROUBLE. I had better go back to reading this note, once again, from the beginning. Come along with me, it's funny but parts of it make me nervous. God has a strange sense of humor. I mean, I mean, God has a great sense of humor! In fact, I KNOW IT: I am the living proof of his boundless humor!

I just hope that... He never stops laughing! ]

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:26 am

GOD IS IN US!
EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN GOD!
DON'T RELY ON THE MAN-MADE GOD!
leonel

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:22 am

OK, leonel, yours is not funny. You're going to make the man upstairs stop laughing!

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:01 am

[quote]GOD IS IN US![/quote]
I could agree with that to some extent.

[quote]EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN GOD![/quote]
Certainly true. Some worship their possessions for example.

[quote]DON'T RELY ON THE MAN-MADE GOD![/quote]
There are many versions or ideas about God. Each one can be seen as man-made. But the question is Does God exist outside of us and independently? If yes, then do we have to worship/serve God or is that even possible?

Leonel JB

Post by Leonel JB » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:33 pm

You guys know what I mean by man made God?
God took six days to create the Earth. Then, He rested the seventh day??? He his omnipotent! He does not need to rest.
He created Man (Adam) then, did not know that Man would need Woman. Therefore, after witnessing his loneliness, He took a couple of his ribs and " Created Woman ".
This does not look like the knowing the Present , Past and Future...
Another one, why is God a Man?
leonel

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm

Who said God was a Man?

"The man upstairs" is just an expression. I sleep with God every day, or the closest representation of Her Divinity.

In the Old Testament, God was most definitely Male, but in the New Testament, God switched genders on us. Mary, mother of God, not having been touched by a man, could not possibly have conceived a male. Where would the Y chromosomes have come from??? There are plenty other examples in Nature where female individuals produce other female individuals without the help of any males. We are sort of expandable, you know.

In every sense of the word.

God recognized that too. That's why She switched genders, but She does not mind if we still occasionally refer to Her as "HE". After all, She knows how feeble-minded and chauvinistic we are.

If you are not convinced, answer this: Who is more important, the male or the female? When someone truly wants to get to you, does he say
"your father!" or "your mother!" ? Case closed.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:24 pm

[quote]...In the Old Testament, God was most definitely Male, but in the New Testament, God switched genders on us. Mary, mother of God, not having been touched by a man, could not possibly have conceived a male. Where would the Y chromosomes have come from??? There are plenty other examples in Nature where female individuals produce other female individuals without the help of any males...[/quote]
The OT God was protrayed mostly as the almight spirit. That spirit became a man in the NT. On the scientific aspect of what we call the incarnation you raised a very deep and important point. Things can get complicated...

[quote]Usually, a woman has two X chromosomes (XX) and a man one X and one Y (XY). However, both male and female characteristics can sometimes be found in one individual, and it is possible to have XY women and XX men.</B> Analysis of such individuals has revealed some of the
molecules involved in sex determination, including one called SRY, which is important for testis formation.

SRY (which stands for sex-determining region Y gene) is found on the Y chromosome. In the cell, it binds to other DNA and in doing so distorts it dramatically out of shape. This alters the properties of the DNA and likely alters the expression of a number of genes, leading to testis formation. Most XX men who lack a Y chromosome <U>do still have a copy of the SRY region on one of their X chromosomes. This copy accounts for their maleness.</U> However, because the remainder of the Y chromosome is missing they frequently do not develop secondary sexual characteristics in the usual way.</B>

More: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc ... ection.156
[/quote]

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:34 pm

Gelin, are you suggesting that Jesus was a mutant? Or some kind of genetic oddity?

I think that I humanize "J" more than than you do with that creepy SRY over XX stuff.

And until you provide me some solid DNA evidence to the contrary, I will have to believe that "J" was a woman, disguised as a man for greater effectiveness in a sexist society.

Take it from me, Jesus was not a XX man (and I don't think I want to meet any XX man or XY woman... though I may have already!)

But seriously, if Jesus was 100% human (and many believe, 100% God at the same time), s/he would have to share the same genetic material as the rest of us, humans. Unless it was some sort of holographic trick from the almighty.

I like the idea of Jesus as 100% human, however. It gives him/her some kind of credibility, when it comes to a real and fair appreciation of our lot as mere human beings, and what we go through every day. If Jesus
were a man, then he'd know only half of the story. But as a woman, pretending to be a man, she'd get to experience it all (even today, most single mothers do).

Also, if I were Jesus and male, I would probably have picked 12 women disciples (reverse sexism?), because I work/feel better in the company of women. Of course, a female Jesus would have felt the opposite. Having been sheltered by omnipotence for an eternity (when celestial rebels could not even touch her), I can understand the feeling of insecurity she'd experience when ALL OF A SUDDEN she'd have to confront something really new to her, that is mankind's deep and serious vulnerability. In that state of mind, one can understand why she would prefer to have 12 male bodyguards whose egos she easily flattered by calling them "disciples" or better yet, "apostles".

So Jesus surrounded himself with 12 men. Unless Jesus was sexist, God forbid, is there any better proof of her femininity? As a male, I'll tell you right now, I would
have done the exact opposite.

Well, the point of all of this is to show that, if Jesus was 100% human, then s/he must have inherited the genetic material from his parents. I don't think that Jesus was of the SRY over XX variety. Call it a hunch. If you are right, and Jesus was a man, then I would be curious about his Y chromosome and would love to compare its "footprint" to that of a man named Joseph... hey, you never know!

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:25 pm

[quote]Gelin, are you suggesting that Jesus was a mutant? Or some kind of genetic oddity?[/quote]
No! I was simply pointing out the fact that from a purely genetic standpoint, research proves that the 'maleness' gene can lie dormant in a female genotype (that would be Mary, in this case). It was an attempt to address your question as to where the Y chromosome in Jesus would come from - since Mary was a virgin. Yeah, Jesus was a man. Actually he was Mary's first born son, according to the records.

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:36 pm

Gelin, the records you speak of are probably all based on scriptural and literary (interpretative, mythological) evidence since DNA testing was not available at the time, and not even the Shroud of Turin is universally accepted as a "photographic" record of J's earthly looks.

Anyway, I am so glad to see you get deeper into the (new?) field of bio-theology. I remember our previous discussions on Creationism and Evolution Theory. Those were exciting (well, at least to me and Jean-Marie!). Even though I am not a scientist (like you!), I just love to talk science. That's probably a recessed genetic trait that's fighting to come out?

I also have to confess that I love to see a man of faith (and science) get deeper and deeper in trouble, when trying to reconcile his faith to the scientific laws of Nature. I just love it! That's why I like to exchange with you so much on those topics that lend to that sort of faith to science rel
ationship.

So, it's with pleasure that I invite you to get into deeper trouble.

So let's go back to your last statement.

[quote]Yeah, Jesus was a man. Actually he was Mary's first born son, according to the records.[/quote]
As I said before, there's not much room to agree/disagree over this, because that is fundamentally a statement based on faith.

[quote]I was simply pointing out the fact that from a purely genetic standpoint, research proves that the 'maleness' gene can lie dormant in a female genotype (that would be Mary, in this case). It was an attempt to address your question as to where the Y chromosome in Jesus would come from - since Mary was a virgin.[/quote]
Dormant? Hmm... Are you suggesting that Mary might have been a XY-woman, yet with ovaries and uterus, and the ability to have several children, unlike the prototypically barren biologically intersexed individual? Be that as it may (I know that our human divers
ity is astounding!), considering that she supposedly was a virgin when she conceived "J", wouldn't you then accept that J's genetic stock would essentially be the same as Mary's, still leading to a cloning exercise? Or did the operation of the Holy Spirit consist of painstakingly realigning Mary's genes to wake up the "dormant" Y-factor and produce a man out of a biologically intersexed woman?

Of course, biological re-engineering is an easy feat for a spirit that is capable of creating mud, just by thinking it, then making man out of mud by blowing on it, then creating woman from one of the ribs of man... :? I know that nothing is impossible to the Christian God (except maybe creating a better man from the get go, rather than revising his mistakes through floods, locusts, pillars of salt, etc). But the question remains: what is a reasonable "bio-theological" basis for Jesus? Would "his" DNA completely baffle today's biologists? Did "he" acquire only Mary's genes and still develop as a man? O
r was he some kind of "superman, only looks like a man" whose body completely defies any medical or scientific inquiry?

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:36 am

[quote]...I also have to confess that I love to see a man of faith (and science) get deeper and deeper in trouble, when trying to reconcile his faith to the scientific laws of Nature...[/quote]
I am not in trouble at all, man. I could easily respond that since God is omnipotent, he found a way to mold a male physical body inside Mary's. And that could be the end of it, at least for me - and based on my faith (you call yours "a hunch"...:-). After all, hasn't God created everything out of nothing? And that's the basis for religion (at least the christian faith).

I wanted to look specifically at the possibility of the maleness gene to be present but non functional inside a female's genome. Science seems to indicate that's a possibility. As such, that would answer your specific question about the Y chromosome.

As science provides us with more and more details about our existence, those details
seem to offer us some explanation on some issues that were discarded as fables earlier. Before we knew about parthenogenesis (virgin birth), critics felt very comfortable rejecting the incarnation story on that basis. Before we knew about computer science, critics of the Bible forcefully rejected that prophecy of Revelation 13 that talks about people being unable to trade unless they had a mark on their hand. Now, we know that's a possibility simply because the technology is there.

[quote][quote]Yeah, Jesus was a man. Actually he was Mary's first born son, according to the records.[/quote]
As I said before, there's not much room to agree/disagree over this, because that is fundamentally a statement based on faith.[/quote]
Jesus was a religious leader and his followers/disciples wrote the accounts we have in the gospels. The other aspect of it is that the same records mention Jesus' siblings, a point the catholics don't like since they want to ke
ep Mary as the eternal virgin...

Enough (trouble...:-) for today...

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:58 am

Well, I think that the problem there for the Catholic clergy is that they would have to conceive of the possibility of the Mother of Jesus, having sex and, God forbid, enjoying it? They probably cannot conceive of that with their own mothers.

As far as your reconciliation of faith and science is concerned, I take a bow, man. You cover all bases: you'll take science as far as it will support your beliefs; when it does not, it's back to creationism and other biblical fables. I have to say, I admire your balancing skills.

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:06 am

[quote]...As far as your reconciliation of faith and science is concerned, I take a bow, man. You cover all bases: you'll take science as far as it will support your beliefs; when it does not, it's back to creationism and other biblical fables. I have to say, I admire your balancing skills.[/quote]
I never said anything like that. Science itself does not go against my faith in the original creation. I can disagree with the position of some scientists as much as I can disagree with the position of some religious leaders or christian theologians.

As you know, Guy, when some scientists are faced with a situation, problem, event, or discovery that seems to go against their personal beleifs, they frequently lean back towards their traditional "hunch", and it generally brings them some comfort pretty much the same way some theologians do.

It's a very looooong debate...maybe we'll have to start <
I>twoke kòn nou</I> again, just for the fun of it....:-)

gelin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2153
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm

Post by admin » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:30 pm

[quote]I never said anything like that.[/quote]
I did not say that you said that. I was simply expressing my own conclusion about your writings on this forum about 1) the Bible's inerrancy and 2) your embrace of a scientific version of Creation, that would not challenge radically the Genesis version (which you probably see as a literary style, representative of the times in which it was written, but nevertheless accurate... and it is a given that all of its contradictions can be resolved through further study of literary styles and cultural norms of "those times" and... prodigious leaps of the imagination or "lakilbit" as Jaf calls them).

So you did not say... I said. To be fair, before we resume our discussion about Darwin's Theory of Evolution (http://www.haitiforever.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2920), Stephen Jay Gould's (http://www.haitiforever.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1939),
and other recent attempts at explaining the evolution of life on earth under the label of "intelligent design", I should just give Gelin the opportunity to tell us, with his own words, how he reconciles the Genesis story of creation with his own well-qualified scientific outlook (leaving aside for the moment the Darwins and the Goulds).

Yes, you did not say, but now tell us: What do you make of Genesis... please?

Gelin_

Post by Gelin_ » Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:13 am

[quote]...Yes, you did not say, but now tell us: What do you make of Genesis... please?[/quote]
The book of Genesis is the book of origin(s) - of the universe, of mankind, of the "races_ (if I can use that term)...There are many questions (some valid) that can be raised against this account. As you bring them, I'll give you <U>my own</U> idea if possible.

For one, there is the question of the meaning of the word "day" used in the account. Some say it's 24 hr, others say it merely means 'period of time' or 'era'. I have not yet formed a definite opinion on this one since there seems to be solid arguments for both possibilities.

To be short, yes I believe in the original account but I may disagree with some interpretations. I believe that <I>in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.</I> (Genesis 1:1).

gelin

Post Reply