Dan L

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B][i](Science doesn't account for everything)[/i] Yet.[/B][/QUOTE] Don't be so foolish and arrogant to believe that human understanding will ever account for everything. Science has been wrong before, is wrong now, and will be wrong in the future. The only thing in question is [i]what[/i] is wrong, and that is something you can not know at the time- While we are in false understanding we do not know it, but only when it is revealed to us to be false. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]I'm really sorry you believe in an old fairytale and think that if you suck up the a god who might or might not exist but in each case doesn't care that you will get into a place that you believe you will love but cannot define, and cannot be a place you'll like because liking some thing can be defined and explained.[/B][/QUOTE] Lots of words in a little space doesn't always make a good point. Nothing can be defined until it is experienced. Nothing can be adequately explained until it is experienced by the one you are explaining it to. Therefore if we can't like something that is undefined to us now, then why is it that we enjoy new experiences that were never defined to us before? And how are we to explain to you why we believe this "fairy tale" when you have not experienced the belief yourself? We can go on and on about what we believe, but if you haven't experienced it, all we say is but words to you. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]By selectively choosing what fits and what doesn't in much the same way a fundamentalist Christian will despise fags yet wear glasses. People who believe in the faith yet try and prove it are going against the bible by questioning god's probability, and they normally fail with it when you add a touch of logic.[/B][/QUOTE] [i]EVERYTHING[/i] fits, cloricus. The question is, what does it fit into. A fundamentalist Christian will not despise gays because if they do, they have their fundamentals wrong. Number 1: Love God Number 2: Love your neighbour: ie. everyone. The Bible may have a few things to say about the act of practicing homosexuality, but they are no more sinners than Shinji and I. "Fundamentalist" Christians may stick to the words of the Bible, but at the end of the day they prioritise their fundamentals wrong. Some things may be sin, but we are sinners. Some people may seem to sin more, but we are called not to judge. Some acts are described as abhorrent to God, but we are told that he loves all and to do the same. At the end of the day, one of [i]the[/i] fundamentals is that love takes priority over judgement, therefore any Christian believing otherwise is not a true fundamentalist. And the same is true with many Christian scientists: it's not a matter of "oh, I'll take this law cos it works with the bible, but leave that one cos it's not". It's a matter of priority: God and truth (scientific or otherwise) should be put first. Using lies to prove God is to dishonour his name, but to openly say "we don't understand how this fits in with the Bible yet" is to honour him through acknowledging our lack of real understanding, of both the Bible and science. And cloricus, if I were you I really wouldn't bother ranting back about the value (or rather lack of it) of putting the Bible first alongside science rather than beneath it. I understand that's not how you'd even dream of doing things- but that's because we each have different experiences. I can't explain mine without you experiencing it. On the other hand, I can fully understand your point of view because I've been there. Thus I know that whatever I say you won't budge on the issue- I'm merely pointing out that there's more to it than you seem to think. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Let me guess, Noah made his wife sleep with the scorpions? [/B][/QUOTE] Sarcasm rarely ever proves or even makes a decent point..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]Wisdom is truth, and it hurts. You talked of depression boards, but maybe some of them see the truth? The world is full of gray, wisdom one of the few colors, but a color that can open a whole new world of gray. If there is a such thing as wisdom, I don't want any. I'm just trying to live. Truth is hard to see, but once wisdom opens yours eyes, you'd rather go blind. [/B][/QUOTE] You misunderstand- I said "Just here on OB you can see them discussing intellectually deep topics (amid depression and "I'm new" threads)" ie. I was saying that people discuss [i]intellectual[/i] topics, amid the others. I wasn't actually talking about wisdom in that little point ;)

My main point in this thread is this: Look around you, and you see a world with much knowledge, much intellect but little wisdom. Even children these days have huge amounts of intellect- Just here on OB you can see them discussing intellectually deep topics (amid depression and "I'm new" threads). However, where the world has much knowledge, logic, and intellect, it lacks the most valuable quality of all. You can get far with knowledge- you can learn a lot about the world around you. You can learn a lot about making your own website, at quite a young age. You can debate the finer points of existence with your intellect and scientific or poetic reasoning. And yet you can know all there is to know about everything around you- you can debate any point and win every time, yet you are not necessarily wise. Intellect is what we use in order to know what to say; wisdom tells us when to speak and when to shut up. Intellect allows Bible scholars to determine the exact meaning of scripture when it was written; wisdom tells us how to apply it to our lives. Intellect tells us what is; Wisdom tells us what is important. My question is- what do you see wisdom as, do you distinguish it from intellect, and do you consider the world to be lacking it?

I hear there's a new way some people at the church I'm at now, decide to do it. At the end of the day, marriage is based on the original concept of covenant. For a better view of what covenant's all about, look for a thread called "covenant", probably a page or two back. One of the processes in a covenant is that the two identities switch names- ie. each one taken on a part of the other's name within their own. So, some of the guys here have decided not to simply make their wives take their own surname, but they've made up a new surname out of the two, and gone with that instead. Because quite rightly, the woman shouldn't always have to be the one to change name, but I'd have thought that marriage is something important and life changing enough to change your name-- on [i]both[/i] sides.

Reading through a few (not the majority) replies, I can see why the media makes such a big deal out of things like this: Becuase a fair number of people are suckers for scandalous goings on. Do you guys (talking specifically to those people here) have any idea how much the media distorts these things? A local paper in Stoke once picked up on the fact that a doctor at the hospital had child porn tracked to his PC. Bear in mind, that nothing was known about where it came from- the amount of dodgy pop-ups that you see on the web these days (on some websites you actually get pop ups advertising "illegal child porn"- and the websites they pop up on aren't anything of the sort). As soon as the local paper caught onto it, the headline was: "Doctor in Child Sex Scandal" Which is a HUGE distortion on the truth. This is just a [i]local[/i] paper, with only a small number of over-judgemental readers to actually cater for, and still they distorted the headline to create more interest. How much more so do you think the international media will distort the truth in order to fit what the people want to hear. It's never a complete lie, but they put un-neccesary emphasis on some of the things you can believe to be implied.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wiccansamurai [/i] [B]This is where religon screws everything up. People argue over it, people start wars over it. I don't see what the big deal is, like in the movie Dogma, it's better to have an idea of faith than an actual religon, because when you set rules on how to worship, things in religon start to get screwed up. But don't listen to me, I have gotten no sleep this week and I'm just typing whatever comes to mind. [/B][/QUOTE] That's the thing. My faith isn't a set of rules and dogmas and theologies. Sure, they come in a lot. And when it comes to describing my religion, that's how I need to describe it. Why? Because I can't possibly go about describing what it's actually like to live in Christ. The main distinction between Christianity as a religion and as a faith is this: as a faith, Christianity is a way of life from which the principles by which you live come out. However all these principles are applied in love. as a religion, Christianity is a set of rules by which people form their way of life. As a result, different denominations argue about their own doctrines because they lose focus on the way of life. The post I've already posted goes into more detail in some of the ways I apply my faith into my life, but ultimately it all comes down to what I just said.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B][COLOR=purple]Maybe someone can do a post on what sarcasm is? Honestly!:rolleyes: Yes, but those who mock Christianity usually get the lovely word Heathen added to their name. Anthing can be mocked somethings that are foreign to mainstream beliefs are just made fun of more and twisted into things that cause trouble. Like say a Baptist preacher encouraging his congregation to interupt rituals. FYI this has actually happened. There was also an incidence where a middle school girl hung herself since she was tormented for her beliefs. You want to hear more? Do a yahoo search looking for Ft.Hood Open Circle. You can read interesting articles about 'good' Christian's who decided to interupt other people's worship. Sorry, but I needed to vent that. [/COLOR] [COLOR=deeppink]On a lighter note. Last month in Copperas Cove ( a small town on the other end of Ft.Hood) There was a Church meeting about Witchcraft. This was rather interesting.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] I realise that essentially what you're trying to get at is that Christianity is a much more mainstream belief, and thus it is much less seen as something which is acceptable to be mocked in society. But the point I'm trying to make is that the mainstream ideal in America today is [i]not[/i] Christianity in it's true form. Here in England, 72% of people claim to be "Christian", but this is more a general label than an actual belief. Christianity is mocked all over, and no-one would look particularly scornfully upon it, other than some of the "Christians" themselves, which make up a surprising minority (about 7%) for such a "Christian" nation, to the point that their views are not valued very much and they don't have the power to enforce them. Most of the Christians who look scornfully upon oppression (the majority of which are of a superficial faith) of any form, including being mocked, simply haven't read their Bibles. Mockery is something we are supposed to recieve and forgive, and we're meant to just let it happen, because the world doesn't understand the revelation we have, and we should even pray for those who mock our faith. In America the church is very much a mainstream religion. However even in America true Christianity is not the mainstream. You only need to look at some of the things which go on all around the place which are clearly against the Bible's teachings on life, to realise that even the super-Christian, "God-Blessed" Nation of America is spiritually deprived of Godliness. In such a nation where belief is mainstream but [b]FAITH[/b] is looked down upon, where acknowledgement of God is everywhere but somehow when you apply Christ's teachings to your whole life, you are branded a "radical" or "extremist"- in a bad way, you have to ask- is Christianity really mainstream? In one form it is, but in another it is not. Christianity as a practice of going to church every week and believing in God but not talking to him in between, in order to go and sit back in clouds when we die- is very much alive. However this is a clear misconception of what Christianity is really about. "Love the Lord your God with ALL your heart". This leaves no room for anything else in that first-best place in your heart. This leaves no room for mere rituals. Who, when married, sees their spouse for two hours a week, and then willingly (rather than forcibly) departs for the remaining 166, and then is described by people as "loving their partner with all their heart". Similarly, a Christian who simply goes to church does not truly love God with all their heart. "I am the way, the truth, and the life... no one comes to the father but through me". Few "Christians" actually believe this, and rather believe that whatever belief you choose to hold to, if it works for you, then it surely brings you closer to God. Such lukewarm faith cannot be held by one who truly believes that Jesus is [i]the[/i] way, [i]the[/i] truth,. and [i]the[/i] life. [i]He is the way[/i]: the only road that leads to the "narrow gate" (which is harder to get through) symbolic of a life of sacrifice for him, which leads to eternal life in the Father. [i]He is the truth[/i]: for every word he speaks is infallible and authoritative, and useful for teaching others how to live. And even in a world such as this, in which God is viewed as whoever you want him to be, his truth is the only truth which holds firm. [i]He is the life[/i]: because without him there is only death. Our carnal desires are all well and good, but in the end they lead to nothing. We come from nothing, we go to nothing. On our own we can expect no less, but in him we are given the eternal life we were created for and long for as a species. All this does not mean you can not hold your beliefs. God gave us free will because if he dictated everything and forced us to do it, it wouldn't really be much of an interesting world, and obedience would not exist. Obedience can only exist when the option to do otherwise is there, and you choose to obey. I'm not here to prove my religion- but to prove my point about my beliefs. They are far from mainstream. You see, it's all good and well to follow what I've already said, but the second great commandment was "Love your neighbour", and our neighbours are everyone. Other religions are our neighbours- we aren't called to inerrupt their practices or to mock them but to love them and to love our own God even in their presence. Though I don't agree with your beliefs, I don't bash them. I don't go saying "Wicca is a dumb religion, only fools practice it". Why- because I know that I am a fool myself, and am not fit to call another man or woman a fool. "Do not judge others, or you will be judged yourself" I am far from worthy to judge anyone, because I am as imperfect as anyone on these messageboards, or in this world. And in light of that, I repent of my earlier statement "Your laughs are of ignorance" (look way back)- regardless of whether I was right or wrong to say that, I was judging others, something I clearly am told not to do. I may seem to have sidetracked off from the original point here, but all this was necessary to make my overall point. By "Christianity", do you mean those who go to church a day a week and comment on the unholiness of everyone who doesn't in the meantime? Or do you mean those who actually follow the teachings and live them out. If you mean the first, I assure you that they are not followers of Christ but pagans themselves for they worship themselves 6 days a week. If however, you mean those who actually follow the teaching, I assure you that they are just as mocked by the "holier than thou" church attenders and also modern culture because they go against the grain of both. The Bible doesn't encourage interrupting rituals of other religions- it only states that believers in God/ Christ should not participate in them. It doesn't encourage mockery. It encourages love towards even our those who oppress us or hold different beliefs. Mocking mainstream Christianity may leave you called a heathen by "Christians", but the Christianity I was referring to can be, and often is, mocked freely with the encouragement of those in more traditional or one-day-a-week beliefs.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B][COLOR=purple]Maybe we should all call Christianity a trend as well and wait for that witch hunt breeder to die out ne? But you don't see people doing that. No, Christianity can't be mocked, but [b]EVERYONE[/b] and their senial grandmother can bash Paganism.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] Two points to make here: 1- Maybe you [i]should[/i] call Christianity a trend. Christians that are true to what they call themselves make up a tiny minority. Like the difference between trendy Wicca and true Wicca, there's a difference between Christianity and actually following Jesus. 2- Christianity? Can't be mocked? Have you read some of the scandalous headlines to do with the church recently, and have you listened to some people's opinions on it? If Christianity is one of those things which can't be mocked in society, heaven help those things which can.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#707875]It's important to note that while there are religions that believe in and worship Satan..."Satanism" isn't one of them. Satanism is a specific religion, which actually seems much closer to athiesm than anything else.[/color][/B][/QUOTE] Sorry James, should have been a bit more clear on what I mean. By "Satanic" I don't necessarily mean "Satanic" in relation to the religion of Satanism, but rather I mean anything that involves Satan in some way. I understand that the religion known as "Satanism" doesn't actually worship Satan, but when I describe a religion as "Satanic", what I generally mean is that the religion treats Satan as an object of worship. Literally Satanic, as in, of Satan. I have no idea why what is known as "Satanism" was ever given that name, given it's lack of Satanic worship

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B][COLOR=purple]I think I'm going to laugh at that :laugh: There, I did it. Now I'm ging to ask what the hell gave you the idea that satanism=Wicca?[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] Your laughs are of ignorance: Read everything I said, including the part which says "nor is it in dispute with your general point". The general point I was responding to was the fact that Wicca is not Satanic. Hence if my argument was not in dispute with the general point, then surely I can't hold the view that Wicca is Satanism (thus if you [i]actually read[/i] what I was talking about you wouldn't be laughing at something which I didn't say). What I said was NOT a means of saying that Wicca is Satanic, but it was in response to the SPECIFIC point that "when you belive in something evil you give it power". Where "believing in" something, is not the same as putting your faith in it. I believe in the Devil- but I don't put my faith in him, because he's a deceitful being. Think of it this way: there's an evil gang lord in your city. He's pretty much the cause of everything bad, but no-one actually knows about it. He has far more power over the people than one in another city where everyone knows who he is, because he is completely hidden from retaliation. People have no idea where these attacks come from. Knowing about his existence, though it doesn't alter his strength, it alters the invisible power he has to control people, and it's the same with the Devil. So, under the assumption that the Devil exists, believing in him (ie in his existence) gives him less power. Particularly because of my next point. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Yes Dan; let's all fear the devil because some guy had a nightmare and wrote it down. :devil:[/B][/QUOTE] Again someone putting words in my mouth I never did say. Quote the point where I actually said "fear the Devil" in any way. The Devil is weak- he is a fool. Compared to God he comes to nothing. Compared to us he is powerful, but then we who believe in the gospel of Christ know that he has no power over our eternal lives. We have [i]nothing[/i] to fear from him. The main problem with the world today is that there are two predominant views on the Devil- one that he doesn't exist, the other that he is something to be feared.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaganshi [/i] [B]when you belive in something evil you give it power.[/B][/QUOTE] What gives Satan more power, that he is acknowledged or that he is not? Think about it in in terms of if he really did exist. If you knew about it then he wouldn't be able to do evil in the world anywhere near as effectively as he does today because everyone would know his game. However, if no-one knew he existed, and those that did were put off as looneys, then he would be far more effective in doing evil because everyone would claim his work as either good, or human nature. This is by no means proof that Satan is real, nor is it in dispute with your general point, but rather I disgaree on the statement that believing in something evil is the way in which you give it power.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Artemis [/i] [B]Dan L, The books in the Catholic Bible have [I]always[/I] been there. [/B][/QUOTE] However there was always some dispute at whether or not they were completely inspired.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Epid3mic [/i] [B]On biblical support of Purgatory, there is in the Catholic bible. Not in most Protestant translations. Namely because Martin Luther got rid of certain books of the Bible that he believed were apocrypha. The most obvious text that supports Purgatory would be in the second book of Maccabees. I'm not sure of the exact lines, but it tells of Judas Maccabees, how he prays for his fallen soldiers so that they could have forgiveness in a world to come. It's a short book if I recall, you could find it if you looked.[/B][/QUOTE] The "Apocrypha" are also known as the "Deuterocanonical" books. The reason for that is that it literally means "after the canon". The reason for this is that after the canon of scripture was determined, the Catholics then added other books which they deemed canonical. neither Martin Luther nor John Wesley nor Calvin deleted any books of scripture, but the Catholic church later added what is now known as the "apocrypha". However do not take that as a condemnation of your own faith. We are justified by God alone. In my view, as long as you have faith in the grace and power of God, rather than in your own strength, I consider you saved. [i]If[/i] you have any wrong ideas, I believe God will work in you to change your whole being towards his truth, as he has changed me in the year and a half I've had my own faith so far. To the matter of purgatory: [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Artemis [/i] [B]Okay, this question is more for those of the Christian faith. All Souls' Day was last Sunday (Nov 2). As a Catholic, I spent particular time on that day praying for "the souls of the faithful departed" or all those who have died and are not yet in purgatory. I know that my Protestant faiths do not believe in purgatory (the place ppl go before Heaven...not limbo...). I was wondering if someone could explain why you don't believe in it and if you pray at all for your loved ones after death. Speaking of which, my B**** sister is about to have my head on a platter... :rolleyes: ~art~ [/B][/QUOTE] I see no issue in praying for those of our families or friends who have passed away without us knowing whether or not they are Christians. However, I don't believe in Purgatory. I believe in the Jewish concept of Hades, a place where dead souls stay until the resurrection, and I believe in the New HEaven and the New Earth, which is going to be far different than most Christians realise. We won't just sit around in clouds and have lazy bliss for all eternity- after all, laziness in extremes is clearly a sin, if you have ever read the book of Proverbs. Rather, we will serve the Lord. "The throne of God and the Lamb (Jesus) will be in the city, and his servants will serve him" (Rev. 22:3) God made creation with a pattern of rest. Six days he worked, one day he rested. He made things that way so that we would do the same, and when the final judgement has come, he will restore things to the way he wanted them to be. The whole point of Jesus' death is this: God created with a purpose. That humans would live with him and serve him, and rest in him. It all went horribly wrong because on of his angels went astray. As a result of this, for all of history things ahve been getting gradually worse. Jesus came not just to save us, but to fulfil God's purpose for the world. What happens when things go wrong, is that you correct them. Jesus came to remove the chains of our sins so that when the last day comes, we can all be pure and we can be part of the new earth- in which God will restore creation to the perfect way it was meant to be. This doesn't mean that we'll be floating around in clouds, generally having a blissful time, or having eternal rest. We will have eternal fellowship with God, and we will both work and rest. But the curse of the fall will be removed, and work will be joyful rather than arduous and hard. When we die, the Bible has references (somewhere) to the fact that we will be "with God". The Jews believed in a place where the dead will stay until the day of resurrection comes. Catholics, there may be a few verses which can be interpreted as support of this place "purgatory", but do not overlook the verses which are in clear contradiction to this concept. Luke 16:19-23 [i]"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side."[/i] The rich man was undoubtedly directed at the Pharisees. Despite the fact that they were very strict about their religious duties, their sin was that they had little faith and did nothing for the poor. If the state of purgatory does exist, then why would this man find himself in hell, rather than in purgatory amending for his sins? Matthew 25:31-36 [i]"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'[/i] Clearly the point here is that Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats in accordance to their deeds. However, this does not defy the teaching that people will enter heaven by grace, because we are all saved by grace. We do not deserve our salvation but we recieve it anyway. In the same way, by Grace, God works through us to do god things. Through us [i]he[/i] does the things described in the passage, thus despite the fact that we are evil we do good things because we are saved. This is probably why the true saints sound so surprised in the passages to follow, despite the fact that Jesus has already told us it will happen. However, it is said of the goats, the ones who did not do good things "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life". It does not say, "Some of them will go to atone for their sins, others will go straight to hell". There are a few other verses in direct contradiction to the concept of Purgatory, but I'll not list them all here. In reference to the story Epid3mic stated in 2 Maccabees- I've not read it, but the fact that Judas Maccabees prays for his fallen soldiers so that they could have forgiveness in a world to come, can be accounted for in two ways and I still don't have to believe in Purgatory: 1- The Deuterocanonical books were added after the canon, thus aren't always regarded as scripture. This comes from two reasonings- a- If God can speak his word through the writings of men, then he can bind his word with the seals of men. The canon of scripture, though it was decided by men, was inspired by God in the same way that the words we read were. And if God decided that a certain set of texts were completely his word (and contained no untruth) then he wouldn't later add to them because he was, and is, and is to come. If there were to be later additions, he would already know it and delay the canon. b- Since they were added after the canon was formed, they clearly aren't complete, pure Word of God, as all the books that were so were sealed at this time. NOTE: This does not mean that God does not speak today- it only means that all he needs to say [i]in scripture[/i] has already been said. 2- As I probably said earlier, I see no reason not to pray for the deceased. This does not mean however that there is such a place as purgatory. One reason to pray for the deceased is that they might be saved while they are still alive. God is the one "who was, and is, and is to come". Not just in the fact that he was, 5 minutes ago, he is, now, and he is to come, in 5 mins time, but at this very moment he is present at all three, and in fact every imaginable point across all of time both past, present and future. This is in the same way that he is omnipresent with regards to space. Now, if we pray to a God who is omnipresent in time, then our prayers for a person's salvation can be asked after they die, and answered before they die, correct? Because at that point before their death, God can already hear our prayer for them and can save them if they are willing to be saved. However, let this not be a source from which you can draw justification for your own lack of evangelism. If you plant no seed, you will see no flower. If you don't bring the gospel to your friends, your prayers for their salvation while they are in this life or the next will most likely be futile, for prayer without action is like empty words. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] To live one must die, to die one must live.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] There's a bible passage of something to that effect. But I forget which one it is..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B]By your last statement, you just proved me right. Yes, Jesus' bride was the church, therefore, he did not marry Mary. Since He is married to His church, He would not marry another. Thus commiting(sp?) Adultery, thus causing the proclamation to be God a Lie. [/B][/QUOTE] My point in argument was the fact that sexual purity is not simply from abstainance. That is primarily a greek philosophy, not a Jewish one, which was taken up by some of the church in it's early days (ie. 2nd-3rd Century-ish). Sexual Purity in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, ie. the Old Testament, is not to do with abstainance but commitment. Sex is not prohibited, but designed for use within the context of marriage. However- God's will for some is not to marry, and thus sexual purity for these people is only in the form of complete celebacy because otherwise they are going against God's will. God's will for Jesus was not to marry while he was here 2000 years ago, because as we read in the NT, his bride is the church. While this means that for Jesus, he had to be celebate to be sexually pure, this doesn't mean that sexual purity comes uniquely from celebacy. Paul in his letters commends those who do not marry and remain single, but he says that those of us who are not called to such a life, and in particular also because there is so much lust in the world, should marry. He wouldn't have suggested that if it wasn't a pure thing to do. He never said "because there is so much anger in the world pick one man and only release your anger on him"- because that is sinful regardless of who you do it to. The fact that God commends marriage, and permits sex within it's context, clearly indicates that sex is not an impure act which will defile anyone, as long as it is within the right context. Thus, what I'm basically getting at is this: My argument wasn't against Jesus being pure by never having sex, but it was against the implication that Jesus remained sexually pure by not marrying. Jesus didn't marry because he would have a bride in heaven- not to remain pure.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B]1) The life of Jesus was documented in the Bible. Nowhere in the New Testament did it say that Jesus was Married. If Jesus had been married, then the Bible would have stated this fact. 2) In order to be the sacrifice for humanity, he must be pure. This includes sexually pure. [/B][/QUOTE] In response to point 2: Sexual purity has less to do with not having sex at all in your lifetime, and more to do with not doing it with people you aren't married to. Jesus [i]could[/i] have married in his lifetime, and have still been sexually pure. However your first point is correct in that it was never mentioned that Jesus was married. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Jesus' bride is the Church, made up of all his followers. It's a concept I think none of us can really fully come to grips with, but the point is that Jesus didn't have a bride while he was here on Earth.

I'm from stoke On Trent, England. But now I'm living in Sheffield (also in England). But right at this moment I'm back home in Stoke, for the weekend. Stoke's a pretty decent place, but I guess if you're from one of the more prosperous areas of England it can probably seem a dump (heh. it is apparently the worst city to live in). Sheffield isn't a great deal different, so I had quite an easy time settling in.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Artemis [/i] [B]Sorry, to clarify the marriage thing, I'm assuming, "til death do us part." (conservative Catholic here) [/B][/QUOTE] I doubt it's [i]just[/i] a conservative Catholic thing ;-). I believe very strongly on the matter of marriage. More so than on the matter of sex. I still believe that sex should be reserved for marriage, and I personally still hold to that belief, but I'd rather see people doing otherwise without moral reasons not to, than see people say "til death do us part" and then go back on that. On the Christian side of things, sex is clearly not seen as a bad thing (read a short way through the song of songs..- ok, it may be symbolic [i]as well[/i], but it's also meant to be taken at face value), however it is seen as something which can only be undertaken with someone who is your own. Someone isn't really yours until you are unified- and unity of a romantic form is in the ceremony of marriage. And Jesus' teachings were very clear that once you're married to one person, you're not to just decide you don't want them anymore and go for another. If you don't believe in all that, then that's fine by me, but if you profess to follow Christ and don't believe in that, then I'm not quite sure what part of Christ you're following, but it's not the whole thing. I don't say that in a condemnational way- Jesus didn't teach this to nail us down, but to show us love. What kind of love professes to be with someone until death, and then a little further down the line go back on it?. You could argue that you didn't know them as well as you do now, you could argue that they just went too far- well that's too bad, but people will always let you down. Not everybody, and not all the time, but it will always happen. Live with it, learn, and love.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Dan L I accept that explanation thanks. :D Though I am a bit unsure about - Are you saying that people with the above defects have to ask god for forgiveness for them? That would seem rather stupid because "God created us" so why would he want us to say sorry for being what we are? Also although I accept the above statement but as a [i]very[/i] liberal Christian I still do not believe in the Covenant or that it applies to any one apart from the Jews. (We all have to have points that we don't move on...) [/B][/QUOTE] ... I just wrote a whole long post about that first question. Then pressed the escape button and observed in horror as it disappeared. Essentially it boiled down to this- Regardless of whether or not you believe that Adam ate an actual apple in an actual garden, the Bible is pretty clear that humanity was created perfect, but has fallen, and is falling. Because of that, the world as a whole is also falling. Defects crept in through the fact that we have fallen from the will of God, and the image of God, and thus we've fallen from both spiritual and physical perfection. Though we were created in God's image, and God's image is still in us, we are also still falling, which is why there are so many things in us, which aren't God's will for us. However, it's always God's intention to redeem us back into his will, whether that's in terms of things we do, or simply things he didn't intend for us. ....eh.. I don't have the energy or the memory to go into the same detail (and make the same points) as last time I typed this out. Hopefully that explains my point sufficiently.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Yes I know for example leviticus was around to give the levite tribe a way to keep them selves "pure" and was never meant to be used in every day life for others but of course this isn't true in the eyes of a fundamentalist Christian since it is "The LORDs word." Though things like this aren?t just in leviticus they are scattered all through the OT, sorry I don't have references.[/B][/QUOTE] One of the important things to consider is God's will. God's will is usually to redeem people. God may apparently have something against blind people- why do think Jesus went around healing the blind? The blind were seen as unclean- as demonstrated in the passage you gave- so people never went near them. One of the important things to note is that God is a redeemer, rather than just a condemner. His will is not for people to be unclean in the same way that most Christians I know around here don't believe it to be God's will for us to be in debt, or in illness. The question is- do we as followers of God have enough faith to ask for redemption from these things, and expect to recieve it? In the case of most traditional churches, the answer is no, so it rarely happens, but in the case of the more spirit-filled churches, people are learning more of the power they actually have, and are having more faith to ask for things and recieve them. In the passage you quoted, the blind, the lame, those with short limbs etc were seen as unclean. Jesus healed a number of people who were blind, lame, and a man with a shrivelled hand. Jesus isn't going against what God said, but he's redeeming people from the state which the Torah describes as "unclean" to the state it describes as "clean". The problem the Pharisees had was that they looked at people like this and saw their uncleanliness. Jesus looked at them and saw that they weren't the way God wanted them to be, and so healed them. God didn't want them to be that way, not out of hatred, but out of love for them and a wish for them to be the best that they could be. His will was to heal them- Jesus recognised that, the pharisees didn't.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Hey well it looks like I'm not part of this so called [i]covenant[/i], am I not good enough for you god? [i]Leviticus 21[/i] 16And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 17"Speak to Aaron, saying: "No man of your descendants in succeeding generations, who has any defect, may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18For any man who has a defect shall not approach: [b]a man blind[/b] or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, 19a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who [b]has a defect in his eye[/b], or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. 21No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the LORD. He has a defect. Up yours god; helping the weak my arse. [/B][/QUOTE] That's all very well but the covenant you quoted there is between God and the people of Israel. Last time I checked, I wasn't an Israeli. The important things about the [i]NEW[/i] covenant between Jesus and anyone who wants it is this: Jesus lived a perfect life in relation to the old covenant, We are in covenant with Jesus, and therefore share in all he has and all he has achieved, Therefore we are judged as perfect even though we're not. In the same way, to symbolise the trade of places, Jesus needed to bear the punishment for all our sins despite the fact that he was perfect. It's a whole thing about grace. We sure as hell don't deserve to be judged as perfect, but by [i]grace[/i] (ie. a gift not earned nor deserved) we are anyway.

Adahn, you have some proper decent ideas there- I'm just going to take a post to expand on them, in the way I see things: [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]I've recently begun thinking on such topics, and a few thoughts have come to my mind. The first pertains to communicating with God. I think it's a misconception that communicating with God is a situation where we talk, and he listens. I've come to think that God talks more than we think he does, and we are the ones who aren't listening.[/B][/QUOTE] So right!! God is ALWAYS talking to us. What we hear is not based on how much god's saying, but on our capacity to listen. In order to hear God more, you need to be able to listen more, to focus more on his voice. For ages I was told about "focussing on God" and "seeking His face", but I was never told how to do it so it resulted in a lot of frustration. Probably the best way to focus on God is through Spiritual Disciplines. I think there are 12 Spiritual Disciplines in total, each of which helps us grow in our faith in different areas. They include: Study- simply put, this is reading the bible. Most Christians do this in some form but there is also a knack to doing this effectively. As you read you need to ask certain questions like "When this was written, what was it meant to be saying, ie. what is the context?" Sometimes you need to look into commentaries and other theological resources to actually find this out. It's not "unspiritual", it usually adds a lot of depth to what you're reading. For example, if Mike Breen didn't study the nature of covenant by looking up these sorts of things, he would never have given the mind-blowing talk he did the other day. Other questions to ask are "How is this text speaking to me at this point in my life?". One of God's main methods of communicating is through the Bible- but because of the sheer age of the book, some of the cultural references are lost on us, so we usually need to look into the first question in order to have a decent answer to the second. And finally, always ask "How can I apply this", because no-one who hears from God should be exactly the same afterwards. Fasting- This can take many forms. Essentially it is abstaining from something for a period of time. Usually it is in the form of fasting from food (and sometimes water) for a time. To start off you may want to fast a meal, maybe once a week, then go up to a day, once every two weeks, and keep building up until you feel confident to take a step up. Most people I know who fast, do so for two days a week, but it takes a while to get to that level, and you do NOT want to be doing it out of legalism ("I [i]have[/i] to do this") but out of a desire to deny yourself and further your own faith. Once you become confident with 1 day fasting you can occasionally take steps up to 2 day, 3 day, or 1 week fasts, but these are generally for more specific purposes, or on a less regular basis. As I said earlier, you can also fast from various other things. I know someone who's fasting from caffiene at the moment- it doesn't have to be food, but food is probably the most effective when you feel ready to try it. The long-term benefits of fasting are that it helps you to control your own appetite. A lot of the time, we are controlled by whether we feel hungry or not, and that defines when we eat. By fasting, and gradually becoming able to control your appetite for food, it also helps you gain control over problems such as lust, and general sinful "appetites". Thus at the same time it also helps you to focus on God by gaining self-control over a lot of the things that get in the way. By no means does it makes us any more [i]worthy[/i] to hear from God, but it clears away a lot of the stuff which gets between us and God. There are about another 10 Disciplines, including Worship, Solitude, Silence, Prayer. By no means do you need to do them all, but they all help in some way or another to further your faith as a continuous process, and to focus more on God. I won't go into the others partly because I need to crack on with the rest of what you said, but mainly because I haven't had any real teaching on them, so I'd just be waffling about what I thought they were about. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]The Bible is a great way to see how God communicates, but those words are old and unchanging, and we should listen to what he is saying to us now.[/B][/QUOTE] You're half-right and maybe half-wrong there. Yes, the Bible is words of old. But if by that you're meaning that it's not as important for us as what God's saying today, then that's a bit of a misconception. The Bible is very clear that God never changes, or that he is eternally the same. The Bible was written in a certain context, which no longer exists today in the Western world, but at the same time, the message behind it stays the same. The Ten Commandments were written specifically for the Israelite people, and were specifically written to correct behavioural issues which were less than God intended. The actual context is far different from today, but the message behind them, and the lifestyle that God promotes in still the same today. Jesus' teaching took place 2,000 years ago. Various images he referred to would have been understood far more by people of the day, who all knew about the way vines grew (referred to when he said "I am the vine, you are the branches"). The culture has changed significatly, so the actual words which God speaks to us have changed also, but the message is the same, so the Bible, when in relation to modern-day guidance, serves well not only as a way of hearing from God, but as an acid-test for words of prophecy (where prophecy is words from God spoken to people, not just words for the future). If the prophecy of new matches, in terms of the underlying message, the words of old, then you can be fairly sure that it's of God, because he doesn't change his ways. If, however, it's in direct opposition to a verse of scripture, then it clearly isn't from God. This is also another reason why it's good to familiarise yourself with as much of the Bible as possible- it increases your discerning ability w.r.t. what God may be saying to you, and to others. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]I could be wrong, seeing as I have limited knowledge in areas of Christianity, but I think God lives within us all, within our conscience. Whether people realize it or not, everyone knows right from wrong. Those cartoons with an angel over one shoulder and a devil over the other. Almost all situations in which we have a choice have a good decision, and a bad one.[/B][/QUOTE] That's right- Mick Woodhead, the vicar of the St. Thomas' Parish Church here in Sheffield (the church has two parts- the Crookes Parish Church and the Philadelphia Campus) taught us on Genesis the other week. One of the things he said was that God when he created us, put into us a "conscience", which would essentially let us know when we are considering something that is wrong. Eve wrestled with her conscience when the Snake in the garden told her to eat the fruit. Ultimately, it's one of the products of our being made in God's image- a little niggling feeling about when we're straying further away from his will. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]My greatest wish for myself is that I listen whenever God speaks, and also that I close my ears when Satan does.[/B][/QUOTE] I always found/still find it hard at times to decide whether something's of God or the Devil. As you read the Bible more and get more into the Spiritual Disciplines it doesn't necessarily become easier, but your ability to discern grows. As you spend more time seeking God and listening to his voice, you learn what it sounds like to the point that you can tell just from what is said, whether it's of God or the Devil. I have by no means reached that point yet, but there was an excellent talk about that point at New Wine this year, from a guy called Mark Bailey, who leads a church in Cheltenham, here in the UK. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i] [B]My second thought is less clear, but it is a thought, nonetheless. I wonder if we realize how much power God truly has given us. Jesus' disciples were given much power to heal, and I wonder if we have the same power. Three miracles are required nowadays for sainthood, and these miracles must be widely known for such a thing to happen. When Jesus performed miracles, he asked that they be kept a secret, so that fame would not spread, because too much fame for a miracle gives rise to doubt. Having said that, I wonder what miracles are performed that are not given fame, I wonder how many saints there would be if all miracles were known. Those that think this same thing would keep them a secret with God, because perhaps that is his will. Who's to say we cannot ask God for such things to happen, if our heart is pure, our faith unlimited, and our purpose just.[/B][/QUOTE] I often think about this. The sheer power we've been given is amazing- we have been given the full power of God, and yet as time has passed since the day of Pentecost, over 2,000 years we've seen it not grow but diminish. A few figures stand out extraordinarily, such as John Wesley, Smith Wigglesworth, and in the case of the present day, Brother Yun (who fasted from food [i]and water[/i] for 76 days- something I doubt most will even believe possible). I think one of the main problems is culture: There are so many cultural influences which affect the way we think these days. Most of which seemingly aren't adressed in the Bible, so we carry on with them despite the fact that many of them prevent us from leaving areas of our life to faith, and submitting them to God's will. In addition, many Christians tend to focus [i]way[/i] too much on the "God loves you as you are" aspect of the gospel, and completely missing out the "God wants to help you improve" aspect, so a lot of the time, the preacher will be there every week to forgive people of their sins, and tell them that they're loved, but there will be no means for people to learn to "go and sin no more", which is just as biblical a concept. Although it's all well and good being loved, faith to do great things usually grows through removing the things which consistently get between us and God. This often means going against the general trends of the culture of the day, something which I don't see many Christians doing, or willing to try. Most of the well known figures behind revivals through the ages got did incredible things. They were normal men nonetheless, but they went through years of increasing their grasp on the spiritual disciplines and such- John Wesley got up at 3 am every morning to pray for a few hours before he did anything. If any of us tried that, we'd be falling asleep while trying to pray at that time, and grouchy from not getting enough sleep. John Wesley demonstrated incredibly the power which God can give to us, but at the same time he made huge sacrifices for the Lord- not least of which focussing more on God, and what God is saying to him, than what the culture of the day dictated for him to do. That doesn't mean you don't use that culture to reach people, but you need to understand the way it affects your thinking, and if it affects your thinking, to be further away from God's will, then you need to change yourself away from it, ie. to be "in the world but not of the world". And yet at the same time you need to be respectful of those that haven't grown as much in the same areas as you- not to look down on them as "unholy", which can be an easy thing to slip into. In short, if you want to know more of the full power God has given to you, you need to do it gradually. There are so many things to consider, especially in days when we live in a culture such as this. One of the most important things is patience- We tend to live far too much in a culture of instant gratification- becoming more confident in the power of God needs to be a process, not an instant thing. The best way to get started is to focus on a spiritual discipline and to work it slowly into your life until you feel confident about it, and then work on another one. It sounds legalistic, but as long as in your heart, you're doing it to further your faith rather than out of a legalistic need to do it, it's really not like that. Lastly, if you do want to get into the disciplines, I recommend looking at these sites: [url]http://www.spirithome.com/spirdisc.html[/url] -- a good introduction, particularly to why Christians practice the spiritual disciplines. [url]http://www.watersedge.tv/disciplines_prayerstudy.htm[/url] -- An excellent online guide to the spiritual disciplines, including how to get into them starting small and growing from there.

I attach a warning to this thread- It is VERY Christianity related. This isn't a "Christianity versus the world" thread, but it's a topic aimed at those within the faith, to see whether they have ever been told this. So in the same way that most of us would go into a thread of any other subject we weren't interested in, ranting about how stupid it is, I ask the same respect here. It's not so much a question to everyone to do with "why can't you just BELIEVE this?". It's actually a question to the Christians on the boards- I'm about to write one of THE most important things I've ever heard in my life, both Christian and in the 19 years before that part of my life. However, I've NEVER heard it before yesterday. A brief background- I'm doing a course called Tribal Training, at a church in Sheffield, a city I moved into about a month and a half ago. I haven't been on OB for a while partly because of various things I had going on in the summer, and partly because afterwards when I mover to Sheffield, it's taken until now and we STILL haven't got broadband sorted at the place where I live. So I'm currently on OB at a job-centre. Yesterday, Mike Breen, the head of the church, talked to us about covenant. It goes something like this: In ancient times, there was a practice called "cutting a covenant" which happened between two parties, and then the two entered into a covenant relationship. A covenant relationship was one where the two people involved would essentially become one. Both of their names would change, in order to incorporate a part of the other party's name into one's own, and each of them had full access to each other's resources. A covenant relationship was generally between a weaker member and a stronger member. Practically everyone was in covenant with somebody, and not to be in such a relationship would leave you vulnerable to attack from many people. The sign of someone in a covenant was a scar on their hand- they would cut their hands and then rub ash or dye into it so that it would permanently show. Whenever they walked into a public place and greeted someone they would raise their hand and people would see they were in covenant, so no-one would attack them since when either member of the covenant relationship was attacked, you effectively attacked the other aswell, and you never knew [i]who[/i] else you were attacking. As you can imagine, it was always the stronger (or more prosperous) person which actually invited the weaker one into covenant, rather than the other way around. Then the process of entering a covenant involved a corridor of blood made by killing some animals and halving them completely (it was such a big deal that blood- seen as the source of life- was the only thing that could seal it), and the two people exchanged places as a sign of their new identities. In some cases they exchanged clothing so that when someone saw one of them from a distance, you saw that person as the one which they are in covenant with. This is why Abraham pushed for God to make a covenant with him, and why he didn't doubt what God said afterwards. (I'd go into more detail on that little point but I don't have much time- about 10 mins) That's the background- here's the good bit: God made a covenant with you- He invited you into an [i]EQUALITY[/i] relationship, believe it or not. You may have heard a lot of times the concept of Jesus dying for our sins, but it makes no sense whatsoever without this fundamental information: Jesus died, and spilt his blood to seal the COVENANT that God decided to invite you into. God already made the corridor of blood for you by allowing Jesus to die. his blood was perfect, so it was the only blood that could seal such a huge deal. When you said yes to God and invited him into your life, you did spiritually the same thing that the Abraham's contemporaries did when the two parties exchanged places in the corridor of blood. You gained access to the full resources of heaven. If you doubt that, bear in mind that the bible says that we have full access to heaven in the name of Jesus- "in the name of Jesus" being a reference to the changing of names in ancient covenants. The Armour of God in Eph. 6 is the same as the exchange of clothing- when the devil sees you, he sees God, and every time he does see you, he fears that maybe you will realise this fundamental fact and use the power you have against him. There's so much more but I honestly don't have time right now- Just wanted to give what I've heard to those in the faith who haven't, because it's such a fundamental thing which so few of us are told. -Dan

(Sorry in advance for bringing up an old topic) [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] Tell me then, where are the facts in nature telling us that there's some "higher power"? Can you give me cemented, true, FACTUAL meaning to this? Can you supply me with proofs, other than faith, that there is a higher power influencing and affluencing all of this? Obviously not. [/b][/quote] Well, somehow everything got here, didn't it? There's a general scientific principle- cause and effect. For there to be an effect, there needs to be a cause. In order for the big bang to start everything off, something needed to spark it off in the first place. In order for matter to be here, something needed to create it. Tell me this, can you even begin to comprehend the concept of matter? It doesn't necessarily [i]have[/i] to have been created in that it could have just always been here, but can you even begin to comprehend the thought of matter that's of infinite age? You essentially have two choices. Either all the matter in the universe is mind-bogglingly old (mind boggling in the way that we have to think "if it was always there, where did it come from?"), or you choose to have faith in a mind-bogglingly big God, despite the apparent contradictions. There's another general scinetific principle, which says that nothing simple can ever turn into something more complex by purely chemical reactions alone. Look around you, at all the complex things you can see. Computers are much more complex than the ores and materials from which their components came. Watches are more complicated than the natural materials they were made of. Even my Bible, with the written language in it, contains information in it that cannot be conveyed purely by it's chemical composition. All these things have a purpose, and all of them were created, they required an outside force to take them from the simple materials from which they came, to a working product. Some people say evolution is a lot like throwing components into a tornado and expecting to get a harrier jet out of it. In reality, it's not even that easy. The components themselves were created. In reality it's a lot more like watching a rock for a million years or so and waiting to see if the natural forces eventually turned it into a watch. That doesn't take you from microbe to man, that's just the level of improbability that a fully structured single celled micro-organism could evolve from a soup of minerals. It's not exactly concrete proof of God, but then, I haven't even gotten started on the other side of things. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B]That is what I mean: evolution is based upon factual observations, the taking of things which are very obviously true: such as fossils, and other things; all of this shows that over large amounts of time, things have been changed due to evolution. It doesn't point that some God is up there doing this all.[/b][/quote] Let me correct you on that: Evolution is [b]based[/b] on factual observations, but the theory of evolution itself is mostly extrapolations of those observations, in order to prove observations that weren't actually there based on the fact that they should theoretically be made in the future. Let me explain that: Evolutionary theory has one thing correct: All the species that are recorded as having existed due to fossil records, did exist. Assuming the accuracy of the dating methods, they existed at the times stated. However, the idea that the species, through countless generations of reproduction, formed new species, has not actually been proven. Sub species are a different matter. In the same way that various breeds of dogs are still dogs, and they can interbreed, such is the case for sub-species which evolve. However, it hasn't been proven that entirely new species can come from old ones (ie dogs and cats having a common ancestor), it is merely extrapolated from the fact that certain species existed before others. If species gradually changed into newer ones, then there [i]should[/i] be some intermediaries, ie. species which are neither one nor the other, but in between. However, none of these have actually been found, they are just assumed to be there on the assumption that they will be found at a later date. If something which is necessary to prove evolution of species to species hasn't been found yet, then surely it isn't proven yet, and evolution of this sort is neither cemented, known to be true, or factual. Hence, if neither argument is proven but both have supporting points then what is it other than faith that you go by to decide what to believe with? Faith doesn't necessarily have to be in God. Faith is why you sit in a chair without fearing that it will collapse on you, because you've done it so many times and it's never failed you yet. Faith is why you believe in everything you're told about evolution in the texbooks, and it's also why people have difficulty believing in God, because they have had bad experiences of believers, or they've been brought up in an unbelief to the point that they have faith in the fact that God doesn't exist. Faith is also what believers have, in that in the same way as the chair, we've often relied on God in difficult times (rather than dismissing him because of them) and he's never let us down yet. Most of your beliefs are a matter of faith, not of fact, it's just a matter of where you put your faith, whether you recognise it as such or not.

Sometimes bad mistakes are just one the burdens we have to carry in order to learn not to do them again. To be fair, there's never going to be an undo bnutton on life, and I think it's probably a bit silly to speculate about what you'd do with it if it was there. Essentially all you're doing is talking about what you regret, but with that added bit of fantasy that maybe you could just turn back time and undo it all. You can't undo the mistakes you've made- you can only make up for them, and if you believe in the Christian faith, you can be forgiven of them (correction: anyone can be forgiven of them, but not everyone believes it..) No-one ever does anything right all the time. Most people who seem to be perfect at everything are only that way now because they've made tons of mistakes in the past, learned from them, and applied what they've learned in times after that. In other words, if you live in the past and fantasize that you could undo what has happened, you won't learn a lot, but if you live in the present and live by what you've learned, you'll progressively grow from each mistake you make.

It all depends how you want to look at it. You could be completely free of any accountability for the things you do, in which case we live in a Godless universe and we're all doomed to an eternal nothingness in which case it really doesn't matter what the universe is like because once we die, we'll just cease to be and everything we've gained will be rendered pointless. You won't even be able to reminisce about good times. You couldn't even say "I've lived" because you wouldn't be able to say anything. And then the universe would gradually grow cold and entomb all our cold, dead bodies in an ever expanding, ever cooling, pit. Or you can be accountable for what you do and have some kind of hope for the future in that there is a transcendant God (whichever one you follow) who can actually give us life after death in some form. Of course there are other religions (ie. outside the main ones- [b]not[/b] just outside Christianity) that don't fit that rule, but I think I'm posting with mostly atheists/agnostics here. Only in the second scenario will it really do any good to know about the nature of the universe, and only in the second scenario are we likely to find out. Otherwise (in the first) you may as well come to the conclusion that the purpose of life is to eat, reproduce, sleep, and go wild while you still can cos you won't remember a thing.