The Lost Shepherd

from123

The Name Jesus arrives on the scene in the 11th century. Previously the name Christos/Cristos from Gk. khristos "the anointed" which in Aramaic translated to the Messiah.
The name Crist - Cristians was first used in ANTIOCH!!!! Not Jerusalem,, Nazareth or Bethlehem. Act11-25-26 Christianity "the religion of Christ," is from c.1303.
The Name Jesus originates in the Gaul- Irish Name Esus or Hesus, Who was Esus- Hesus? Human sacrifices are suspended from trees and ritually wounded; unnamed priests read omens from which way the blood ran from wounds. Ancient scholiasts linked Esus to both Mercury and Mars, the latter implying he might be a patron of war. Depictions of Esus as a woodcutter have prompted much imaginative speculation, but the earlier suggestion of a link between Esus and Jesus.

The Christian religion of today, you subscribe to, is a finished product of the 15th century, by then, Cristos, the gnostic movement of the MidEast received a first name Jesus and the story of a dead "Jew" on stick turned god was written down in the KJV which you still repeat like a bad parrot who doesn't know what it rambles.

There is nothing Jewish about Christianity.
The SIgn of Constantine = IHS or Isis - Horus - Set : the Followers of the God's SUN.
The Cruxifiction is the personification of God's SUN descends below the Horizon for 3 days and 3 nights to Rise Again for the next seasonal solar year: i.o.w the personification of the Winter Solstice.

It is a disgrace you celebrate the Winter Solstice twice: your christmas and Easter are 2x the celebration of the Winter Solstice and ought to be a celebration of new life instead of a corrupted story between a Gaul - Irish war lord mixed up with Roman punishments.

Ask Haggard to tell you the real stories instead of make belief in a glorified horror story that never happened!

This story is so typical of the modern evangelical church. My father (an evangelical miniister himself) often refers to it as "a rest home for the saints" instead of being what it should be "a lighthouse for sinners". How many times in my own life have I seen entrie famiilies pushed away from the church because "their kids were a bad influence". In other words, at precisely the moment the fellowship and support of the community was needed the most, it was withdrawn. If Christ were alive today, I am pretty sure who he would think are the Pharissees. And I have littel doubt to whom it would take the whip to (as he did in the temple). I'm pretty sure it would not be the gay/liberal community, but instead those who use the pretense of Chiristianity to acquite, maintain, and abuse power Isn't it interesting that it took a Pelosi relative to show some real Christian concern --- the modern Good Samaritan?

Point of clarification. Purchasing Crystal-Meth is illegal. Hiring a prostitute is illegal. Being gay is not illegal. Why isn't the focus of all this discussion about his illegal activities? Those activities would be grounds for termination for most employers. Oh, except for elected officials. They can hire heterosexual prostitutes. Or smoke crack and still be elected to the position of mayor of Washington D.C. Isn't it interesting what sins the religious folks choose to ignore?

There is NO scientific basis for genetic homosexuality, or we wouldn't even be discussing/debating now! In fact, legitimate non-biased studies all point to the psycho/socio factors, including the major and conclusive twin studies. According to science, genes DO NOT determine complex human behavior or pathology, only simple traits and characteristics (eye color, and to a degree, along with modeling/learned behavior, mannerisms, and personality traits). Further, according to real and actual science, "MODELING" is the primary determinate of human behavior--not genes.

And how did all these heterosexuals pass this mysterious "gay gene" along, and how do gays have all their hetero children when they have or do procreate with a woman?

And NO ONE "CHOOSES" the psycho/socio factors or conditions that give rise to their homosexuality, only the behavior to act upon it, as with substance abuse, pedophilia, incest, beastiality, adultry, bravery, heterosexual marriage, celibacy, religion (including the spiritual or lack thereof element)--and I assume Haggard's statement about being born evangelical was a misstatement or misquote, since that's not possible or biblical, or we'd all be preprogrammed robots worshiping Christ, and which He would hardly want, only Free Will to love and worship--etc.

Further, the animal argument for homosexuality is a common fallaciously false "scientific" one. Otherwise, my two and all other male brother cats that "snuggle" together and clean each other all the time must be gay AND incestuous. Uh..........think not.

Animal same-sex "pairing" cannot be equated to human sexuality, nor do they have anal or other forms of homosexual sex and emotional relationships as with humans and this has not been observed; the closest those observations come to are in dominance behavior such as in mounting and otherwise, and simple cleaning/comforting behaviors. Animals are guided by instinct and adaptation to environment, and to impose or project the intellectual, moral, emotional, psychological, and social impetuses of humans onto animals is arrogantly human-centric and against nature and science, and only intended to justify specific human agendas, lifestyle, and behavior. By this reasoning then we should be able to justify and willing to eat our young or defecation, lick ourselves clean, hunt and kill our food with our hands, fingernails and teeth, bury our food, and so on!!!--why is implied sexual behavior the only thing used?

Also, the vast majority if not all of the animal studies on homosexuality are done by homosexuals or their organizations or sponsored and paid for by the same. For them, there is everything to gain and lose. And, it wouldn't matter if it was genetic, because imaginary genetics don't "justify" any harmful or unnatural complex behavior anyway.

THEGARDENER:

' The Christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly, has made the world evil and ugly.':

First, since evil can't exist ontologically on its own, how do you or Nietzsche define "EVIL" OR "UGLY" without an ultimate objective standard of measurement, i.e., God?--you can't, and it would all be subjective. How does "evil" exist in a vacuum as its own ontological reality by itself, and how can you believe in it or spirituality out of your own subjective perception and imagination? Did evolution create "evil," "ugliness," or "spirituality,"--what or who did? And exactly how is "spirituality an intuition," and how do you even know the concept, and do you own that definition?

The greatest "brains" and sharpest minds in society and culture, historically and contemporary and at all levels, have been theist and/or Christian. And it is primarily Christianity that is responsible for the greatest reforms in human history of itself and the secular world, and based upon Christianity's own moral standards.

Christians PRESCRIBED human evil? No, Christianity most accurately DESCRIBES it. The greatest human evil and atrocities in history have been committed by atheist regimes, and in the 20th century alone, as Nietzsche
correctly predicted in the late 1800's. Nietzsche, along with Darwin, were Hitler's proclaimed philosophic inspirations in his "final solution." In all, in the 20th cent alone, 100 to 200 million deaths are attributed to Nazism, communism, imperialism, and other despotic regimes. The relatively tiny amount of historical Christian abuse and oppression--Catholic church and the crusades, inquistions, etc.--is just that, abuse, in violation of biblical teaching, and inexcusable. Atrocities and injustice have also historically been committed over non-religious greed, power, and even so-called equality and justice, as in the French revolution. Religion ain't the problem, human nature is, along with a LACK of knowing and following the one true and only God.

Your overly emotional and slick blogbites, parroting, and cliches reveal your common faith in nothing--and you are truly a man of pure faith, more than me as a Christian--and refusal to know anything else.

By what standards to you hypocritically/self-righteously judge Christians, Muslims, the Bible, or general theists?

I think one of the benchmarks of how utterly corrupt our society has become is that we ridicule people who struggle to overcome their failings and celebrate people who openly give in to their worst urges.

Men like Haggard or Senator Craig devoted their lives to their communities and their families. They struggled with temptation but for the most part they lived decent and godly lives. Like all of us, they sinned. Because of our society's fixation on shameless displays of disgrace and perversion Haggard and Craig will be remembered, not for all the good they did, but for those few sins.

People justify their harsh treatment of Haggard by calling him a hypocrite for speaking out against the sin that tempted him. Don't you realize that it is hollow to speak out against a sin UNLESS it tempts you? Anyone can make an intellectual argument against a temptation that is easy for him to overcome. But great preaching that really touches the heart can only come from someone who has wrestled with those demons in his own soul.

Our society's cynical treatment of men who struggle to overcome their weakness is something we should all be ashamed of.

Sexuality should never be a "struggle." We are who we are -- it's really that simple, and it's no one's business but yours. Imagine how much better off we'd all be if we stopped trying to tell each other how to live and labeling everyone & everything. Imagine if we redirected that energy into making our communities, schools and society better... instead of rushing to judge everyone.

Ted, however, deserves this scrutiny because he made so much money as a pastor who demonized gays. Even he knows that the Bible says pride comes before a fall, and be sure that your sins will find you out. Ted's sin is not homosexuality; he was a proud liar and hypocrite. I don't feel sorry for him, but I do feel sorry for his blameless family.

If you have a burning desire to sleep with a member of the same sex, maybe you should see it as a sign from God -- and take full ownership of your life and actions before you hurt anyone else. Blind faith won't save you from yourself.

Posted By: cpipkins @ 01/10/2009 3:02:05 PM

DUKE613

In the beginning God created man, male and female created He them ......................... sounds pretty cut and dry to me.



Does it really? Seems when he instructed the writing of the events of creation, the "order" changed dramatically from Genesis 1 to 2 -- in the 1st man and woman were created in God's image as the last thing created, in the 2nd God created man first, then the animals, then woman last of all.

Did Big Daddy make the mistake; or did the ones that wrote it down for Big Daddy write it down wrong?

I don't know whether Ted Haggard has really repented, miss his old salary with all the power and prestige that came with or simply selling his new movie which I'm afraid he will benefit financially. If he is really bisexual or gay chances are that He might do it again when he meets another man he likes.
The sexual abuse charge is something I refuse to believe anymore unless I am made to believe that more than half of the children in the United States have been sexually abused. I think that is the excuse everyone uses these days when they are caught in a scandal (think Mark Forley). What does he says about using meth?
I think Ted Haggard is a smart man and a better saleman (from selling the bible to Insurance quite a strech!!). He knows he has a better life as a pastor ($140,000 a year! how many of his flock "blessed are the poor for they shall herit..."earn that in Colorado?) than a insurance salesman and the documentary is to promote that idea!

THEGARDENER:

Of course you wouldn't know that the Bible brilliantly and purposely describes the rotation of the earth in the heavens from a human-centric point of view for a culture that didn't have the benefit of science and technology. The Bible also beautifully describes the heavens and other scientific facts thousands of years before science actually discovered those facts.

And, the Christians, Galileo and Copernicus, were persecuted/oppressed for their discoveries--which they both credited to biblical inspiration, along with Da Vinci, Pascal, Pastuer, Lord Kelvin, Bacon, Newton, et al!--by a corrupt Middle-Ages Catholic church that violated biblical and especially NT teachings, along with so much of the church's unbiblical doctrine that eventually Luther exposed and reformed.

Oh, and if the Bible was originally "conspiratorily contrived," wouldn't they have left out all the supposed contradictions and lies--which don't actually exist and the claims of which can all be easily addressed--and clearly unflattering facts and details, such as the potentially embarrassing eyewitness testimony of women--which was unprecedented in that culture--the ignorance, denial (specifically, by Peter, the "first pope"?) and failure of Christ's apostles/disciples; the rejection of Christ by his family and their sudden conversion after his resurrection; the ignominious deaths of all the original 12, subsequent Christian martyrs for centuries, and their object of worship's same torture and death? and I could go on and on.

Don't believe me; do your own research. I can recommend the work of so many legitimate scholars. And, as a former agnostic, I've studied and still do study atheism and comparative religions, which only supports my faith in Christ.

Christianity is not a "religion," it is a "relationship."

TRUTHTELLER(?):

We are not "who we are" based upon simple sexual and emotional desires, just as I'm not "Griff, the heterosexual"--by the way, "from" stands for "faith, reason, open mind," which is all I can strive for and isn't easy in the process. "Blind faith won't save you from yourself," as applies to morallity, history, and science, in your case

Maybe it's a sign from God when an adult has a "burning desire" for your child, or a brother for his sister--same logic, eh?--and they both claim "consensuality," so why shouldn't they both be legal? How about that "genetic" and Darwinistic evolutionary-justified, supported, and justified urge to rape?--and please ignore the fact that the majority of all rape victims are made up of the elderly and children.

Please, clearly think out and study what you profess. Check out anything by Joe Dallas--look 'im up.