Key

I wasn't trying to blanket all Atheist under my explanation, but merely suggested some. Also, to other people, like Dan, they are all lumped together simply because they don't believe in his God. I also offered an example. Don't assume it was meant to cover all, either. There are, to be sure, very many branches of atheism, with the trunk being no belief in "God" without evidence. Belief systems can very well be made intact as such, just as my example showed. There are many factions, or varying belief systems of other religions with little to connect them, too. So, perhaps your definition of a "shared" theory or belief should have to suffice?

Good point

Atheism to some may be considered a "religion", as many define that word as a belief system. Therefore, Atheism is a belief that does not necessarily include a deity without proof of existence. There are many that find power exists in nature alone, without need in belief of any gods, for example.

As much as I'd like to have our men and women out of harm's way in the Middle East, it is wrong to betray those who have aided us in our efforts to achieve our goals against our enemies. To withdraw would enact the same carnage upon the Kurds as was occurred upon the Iraqi's who opposed Hussein in the first Gulf War when Bush Sr. withdrew instead of finishing the mission, and failed in his promise of aid to them.

That is one view. Another view that many factions hold, is that Christianity is about what we must do in this life to receive the spiritual afterlife we desire. Indeed, much like some Muslim factions, it can lead to efforts of cleansing society of sinners and non-believers. Example: Spanish Inquisition. Either view, in my mind, is a kind of distortion of what Christ was teaching. I also think that Satan, if he does exist, would use the truth if it accomplishes what he wants. This is where discernment is greatly tested, no? So many factions, so many truths, but so few are right in the way the truth is used.

You do know they had little understanding of mental illness back then, right? And why the heck are you bringing in Dr. Spock? His thinking wasn't entirely original, either. Then, you go and make the broad assumption of "liberals" again. Why? How do you understand it's "most"? Show me the study that says it. This feels insulting to me. I'm fairly liberal minded, and my kids did get a proper spank when they needed it. Thankfully for me, it didn't happen often. Oh, and I wouldn't have a bear or a dog maul them, either, if they mocked me.

Hmm...to my recollection He did say He wouldn't do it. But said nothing of either man, or nature doing so. So, it's true, He won't let it happen, but apparently "we", that is mankind, will, unless action is taken expediently.

Your "pastor"? As RevBogovac asked, "why"? If you intend to share your degrees with a leader of another church, they are under no obligation to recognize them unless issued by that church. Practically the only degrees universally accepted by groups and individuals as having validity are those obtained by accredited traditional learning institutions, even though court challenges have deemed honorary degrees to be just as valid with the understanding they can not be used except as intended. Meaning a true medical degree can allow practice of medicine. You wouldn't want an honorary doctor performing surgery on you, would you? At the same token, churches often accept honorary degrees for duties within their ranks as they were bestowed per faith and/or accomplishments within the organization. Other churches may not know the reasons or how obtained, so question for themselves.

Doesn't it, though? Kinda like tabloids. Can't believe half the stuff written in them, yet one just has to turn the page just one more time to see what else is in there. In my view, informative as entertaining much of the time. But, that's me.

Debating morality, or ethical conduct towards humanity? Either way, if something irritates me, I need to scratch it for some relief. If it's something stuck in my craw, I need to spit it out, or suffer indigestion because of it. Makes sense? It is more for my purview, than for trying to flip another's viewpoint.

Yes, they did. They also understood when to appease a mob to quell a potential riot without risking resources. Romans were shrewd as well as ruthless.

Now he's a "crazed son"? Are you intentionally changing the description to justify your scenario? Even so, a "crazed" son might still come to an end as you suggest, or he might change because of his situation. That is on him, not on any parent that might have turned him in as called for.

The words of Pilate do not highlight a flaw in worldly wisdom, as you claim. Rather it highlights his awareness that even as he found no fault and couldn't himself justify crucifixion, he knew they would do so anyway.

The first quote you presented, as you presented, did. This one fares little better to me. Death for disobedience? I'd rather have turned the son out into the world to learn how good he really had it at home, making him return begging for forgiveness, or remaining outside without being a thorn in my side any longer.

I can't imagine killing any of my children for mocking me, regardless of what the Bible directs. Any parent that truly loves their offspring could forgive most anything, and would not wish death upon them. It would have to be extraordinary circumstances to be otherwise, or they never loved them to begin with.

Whether for kicks, giggles, or genuine desire to minister to others, we are all ordained, regardless of faith, sex, persuasion, ethnicity, or even nationality. If you feel you were chosen by Christ, then you are free to believe that. Not everyone here does. We are non-denominational. We are international. I am grateful for people like you to assist when a crisis arises when people are greatly needed. I applaud your willingness and your faith to drive you further in service. We need such people for the people of the world.

Pray tell then, if "English words don't always capture the meaning of what Hebrew expresses", what good would really come from one having to "look up a word", when one is deriving "English words" to define a Hebrew expression? Circular logic, at best, isn't it? Your last sentence provides proof as to why there are so many factions. It states an opinion regarding how a phrase may more accurately be expressed, whereas others may view that distinction differently. So, it isn't so much about jumping to inaccurate conclusions, as it is interpreting them. What you view as inaccurate, someone else may not. Both may feel justified in their own mind and belief.

Sorry, Dan, but as much as I'd like to believe, I can not accept to call it the "inerrant Word" when clearly if the word was left to translator interpretations rather than God ensuring it's correctness. If the meaning can not be as it was intended, then it would not be followed as it was intended. Regardless if God gave us intellect to understand, men are flawed and corruptible. So, what we have, though God inspired, is written by flawed, corruptible men, and thus could be deduced by men to be so, as well. And just as you had pointed out, much could not be translated as it was meant, to try to judge what would best describe to come closest to it would be possibly "jumping to inaccurate conclusions". Another possible reason for so many "Christian" factions.

"But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it." Look at my quote again. Now, do so with the understanding that Christ had often said we are the children of God, and that He is our Father. Kids, young or older, makes no difference, at all. Then, also remember a little commandment He had given for us to "honor thy mother and father". To mock them then, would also be a form of blasphemy, yet punishment is not expected to be as severe. Why? Because it would be wrong. I would think any God would not suffer words to hurt them, for they should be greater than us mere mortals.

Your interpretation, not mine. Tap could be euphemism for a beating. People often say one thing when they mean another, but use a less menacing tag. I understand the need for a fair spanking when needed, but also understand the need for measure of force to given situation. As it was for me growing up. But also understand, if I ever had mocked one of my parents, or even so much of a sitter they may have hired, my dad (or mom) would not have sicked the dog upon me for it.

I think he's like so many other people. Grew up one way, but didn't feel it was for him, but never really sought out what it was he felt was missing, which is why nothing "felt right" for him. But, in a way, his view is either broadened, or narrowed (depending on how one might interpret it), based on the fact he didn't believe in a God. He didn't seem comfortable with the label of "spiritual", either.

As with all things written by men, some definitions may be subjective per the author, I think. As may be the case of this offering you present.

Of course, someone with an extremely conservative view would make such an assumption to ask this question? Shame on you. I imagine that depends on the "tap" being given, wouldn't you? Remember the "taking care in disciplining"? There is care, then there is abuse. The line is where the amount of force lies. No?

Further query, what if any deity that could be proven to exist, doesn't care to be proven to exist? Or even, would rather not be proven to exist?

Clever.