New Book By Deepak Chopra

[phee]

More

Luke: 23

55 As the body was token away, the women from Galilee followed and saw it carried into the tomb. (living bible)

55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and `how his body was laid. (KJV)

AND

Daniel 8:14 (KJV)

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Daniel 8:14 (LB)

The other replied, "Twenty-three hundred days must first go by."

[Steven]

As promised... from

This thread

and

ok - your first quote (quote 1) - explain to me what you are trygin to tell me here because I'm at a bit of a loss.

I will concede the confusion over the apocrypha - which has been looked at with division for a very long time as to whether or not it was inteded as an original portion of cannonized scripture.

scripture in and of itslef - is simply that: a gathering of ancient m,anuscripts of all sorts bound togthoer to create a cohesive whole,its made of poetyr, history, prophesy, narratives, and personal letters and songs. thats all that scripture is. I personally b eelive however - that the writings and teh collection - has been God ordained as a muse.

as for the mass amounts of translations - again i can only look toward (as best i can) teh original cannonized texts and then look at actual "translations" as opposed to mutations designed by organizations with their own twists, such as The Watchtower Bioble and tract Society or the Book of Morman. Those are indeed "other" gosples - but they have arguably (i would even say proven) deliberatly twisted, ormitted, and added to text to create their own specific and seperatist groups of followers that in actuality create a different Gospel, a different jesus, and even a different Jehovah. A common thread between them is the short depth of age in comparison to th e original cannonized sources - they are in essence modern era creations.

now: quote 2 - I need you to explain this to me because ai dont remember what it is - are you saying these are my words or yours or??? it looks like a past conversation but tie me back in please so I can look at it and understand your point that yoru making so we can talk about it.

[phee]

First quote is an example of how many different versions there are just in English, to say they are all the same "essence" is not very likely

Quote 2 are my words

[Steven]

And more

Romans 1:5.

• “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received

grace and apostleship to call people from among all the

Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (NIV).

• “Jesus was kind to me and chose me to be an apostle,

so that people of all nations would obey and have

faith” (CEV).

• “Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and

authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has

done for them, so that they will believe and obey him,

bringing glory to his name” (NLT).

• “. . . through whom we have received grace and apostleship

to bring about the obedience of faith for the

sake of his name among all the nations” (ESV).

OK, I'm going to first let you explain each passaage here and what is beign represented as per translational difference.

I will have to ask you to place these passages in context, and tell me who is being addressed, and by whom, and then give me some history on the text you are quoting.

for example you re quoting different translations of the book of Romans.

so first - tell me about the book of Romans.

is it history?

is it a personal letter?

why was it written and for what purpose - who are in fact "the romans" this passage is named after?

these kinds of things Phee are VERY important in understanding and being able to truly pick apart apparent differences in MEANING or MESSAGE between translations.

Im not being an asshole.

Im just asking you to do some homework here first, and then we'll unpack it a bit with alot miore effectivenss because we'll be on the same page - I dont want to compete with you, i want to understand alongside of you.

im doing this - because it is my beleif that these passages of scripture you presented - "appear" to the uninitiated (thats not meant to sound sarcastic or derogatory) as being different. But to me - they are all virtually the same - saying virtually the same thing - and I will back that up following your pre-commentary.

and this will always be my method Phee - its no different thany any student or professor of literature who is studying author intentiosn in a created peice. Any researcher will backtrack into the times, events, players, and surrounding environment to determine wehter or not htere are any consistencies or missed ideas.

so tell me about The Book of Romans, and then we'll go back thur those passages togethor.

we'll do that with the other scriptures you cited as well. Like the timeline and events surroundign Christ and how thsoe events took place. I am willing to go over every one of them.

[phee]

as for the mass amounts of translations - again i can only look toward (as best i can) teh original cannonized texts and then look at actual "translations" as opposed to mutations designed by organizations with their own twists, such as The Watchtower Bioble and tract Society or the Book of Morman. Those are indeed "other" gosples - but they have arguably (i would even say proven) deliberatly twisted, ormitted, and added to text to create their own specific and seperatist groups of followers that in actuality create a different Gospel, a different jesus, and even a different Jehovah. A common thread between them is the short depth of age in comparison to th e original cannonized sources - they are in essence modern era creations.

I am not sure what you mean here... the "originals" were spoken in Aremaic.... and then not written down for about 200 years into Greek/Hebrew... then later Latin....

[phee]

I will do as you ask for arguments sake....

But that is really not the point... the point being that when people believe "THE BIBLE" as the "word of God" they are not looking into the context at all... you yourself have stated that the "over all essence" is the same... I think I have proven that that is very much a matter of opinion... and by no means is a universal.

We could go over each verse and talk theology yes... but what exactly would that prove? That you can justify your own beliefs perhaps... but by no means would that prove that the statements are "the word of God" in any way...

The point being is.... we don't have the originals... we don't have the copies of the originals... or copies of copies of copies of the originals. Ever play the game "telephone" as a kid? Take that and add at least 5 different languages, 2000 years of human error, 2000 years of political insertion from those who controlled the scripture... But that is why it is called "faith" as opposed to "fact"

[Steven]

I am not sure what you mean here... the "originals" were spoken in Aremaic.... and then not written down for about 200 years into Greek/Hebrew... then later Latin....

we'll work with what we've got Phee - thats teh ebst that either of us can do.

[phee]

In answer to your question BTW these were letters written by Paul.... after both the Jews and Christians were expelled from Rome for the "infighting" over Jesus's divinity.... (is that what you meant?)

[Steven]

I will do as you ask for arguments sake....

But that is really not the point... the point being that when people believe "THE BIBLE" as the "word of God" they are not looking into the context at all... you yourself have stated that the "over all essence" is the same... I think I have proven that that is very much a matter of opinion... and by no means is a universal.

We could go over each verse and talk theology yes... but what exactly would that prove? That you can justify your own beliefs perhaps... but by no means would that prove that the statements are "the word of God" in any way...

The point being is.... we don't have the originals... we don't have the copies of the originals... or copies of copies of copies of the originals. Ever play the game "telephone" as a kid? Take that and add at least 5 different languages, 2000 years of human error, 2000 years of political insertion from those who controlled the scripture... But that is why it is called "faith" as opposed to "fact"

Im doing this Bro, because your asking me to adapt to your logic as opposed to using my own.

your logic says :these passages of scripture differ based on criteria A B and C.

my logic says: this is all identical scripture, based on criteria A B and C.

we DO have remnants of scripture from various ancient times - in the thousands. We do Phee.

We also have archeological evidences that lilewise align themselves iwth these biblical accounts that you think cnnot be accurate.

And in the case of the ancient Israelites (Eternal would be far suited than I am in this argument - maybe he'll correct me if Im wrong) you had a culture that required an incredible degree of (not imposssible - incredible) memory and oral tradition being passed down from father to son. To be even considered by a religeous figure of the times you would have to be ablet o display that commitment to memory in precise and accurate verbal oratories of ancient scripture. As a culture -they took this extrememly seriously, as a culture - they were instructed by YHWH in even the times of Moses to memorize these events and pass them from son to son to son.....in some cases to write passages of scripture down and wear them ontheir foreheads.

the point im making is that great pains were taken from the beginning - to ensure accuracy as a form of appropriate obedience and reverance for YHWH. We did not start off loose - we started off very intentional.

the telephone argument is popular - but it is dependent on a certain type of mindset that I do not beleive applies to the culture who wrote, transcribed, and protected these ancient texts. this was life and dead serious to them, their whole identiy after being a formally scattered people (and then scattered again) was wrapped up in this protection and nurtuing of that which was sacred.

that too is "factual" and therefore needs to be taken into account.

[Steven]

In answer to your question BTW these were letters written by Paul.... after both the Jews and Christians were expelled from Rome for the "infighting" over Jesus's divinity.... (is that what you meant?)

thats a good start. theres much more to it than that, but its a good start.

but its important in recognizing context - i will always argue context.

Im gettign ready to leave for a few hours but we'll pick back up when I get back and we'll get into those translational differences of Paul's letter to the the chruch at Rome and why I think its all the same message versus your argument that these tranlational differences changes the meaning of the cannonized scripture.

thanks Phee

Steven

[phee]

I think the underlying point is I have provided translations that DO differ in TEXT and MEANING...

Now I cannot perscribe what they mean to the individual... For example if someone is reading the ingrediants of a toothpaste label and they take it to mean that they have to move to South America and open a church made of Waffels... I cannot argue with that... That is belief, not fact.

And scriptures from various ancient times? Yes... I agree... but even the oldest ones are not originals or copies of the originals that they are referring too....

[freydis]

Over generations and languages, words change meaning. Not talking context here, where one can infer similar meanings, but a word actually changing *meaning* across time and culture and language. This causes mis-translation and confusion *all the time*, and can actually change meaning of text.

[Steven]

First quote is an example of how many different versions there are just in English, to say they are all the same "essence" is not very likely

Quote 2 are my words

ok.

I do beelive however that they are indeed of the same essence - and that it is extremely likely.

the challange will have to be for you to show me the foundational differences, ie - show me q new or alternative gospel and or message between cannonized translations.

[Steven]

I think the underlying point is I have provided translations that DO differ in TEXT and MEANING...

Now I cannot perscribe what they mean to the individual... For example if someone is reading the ingrediants of a toothpaste label and they take it to mean that they have to move to South America and open a church made of Waffels... I cannot argue with that... That is belief, not fact.

And scriptures from various ancient times? Yes... I agree... but even the oldest ones are not originals or copies of the originals that they are referring too....

well then flesh this out for me a bit Phee.

honestly - show me the proof of "translations that DO differ in TEXT and MEANING..."

all you have done so far is make me an exhaustive list.

I know theres a zillion translations of scripture, im sure most of us know that.

your use of toothpaste ingredients transposing to waffles in south america - thats a pretty extreme example - but because you use it I'm wiloling to go there.

at this point Im only asking you to elaborate obvious differences based on these translations.

I have argued generically with this one suggestion: same God, same need for Man to God Mediation, same Messiah, same pathway to salvation, same charges to the church and individual beleiver.

you can start there if you'd like in terms of differences in meaning.

I know you say that you "cannot perscribe what they mean to the individual"..... but we can get quite close with obvious generalizations....after all, waht i beleive is probably very similar to what Joe Schmoe in Nebraska beleives and Ive never met joe Schmoe.....so there must be some form of foundational "obviousness".....

[Steven]

Over generations and languages, words change meaning. Not talking context here, where one can infer similar meanings, but a word actually changing *meaning* across time and culture and language. This causes mis-translation and confusion *all the time*, and can actually change meaning of text.

lets work this argumetn a while.

first - i will agree with you to a certain extent.

for example - I have several times in DGN used a suggestion that a translation error in the story of Noah accounts for his being "pure" in Gids eyes as a form of righteousness. Whereas I beelvie that in truth when studying the origonal language and the dynamics of what has been written leading up to the Noha account - that the purity within Noah actually speaks of a pure bloodline - one without any Nephilim DNA in it - and that this is why Noah's family was chosen to re-populate the earth.

but given that argument - what has changed in the gospel account?

Both my beleif and the more "traditional" beleif speak of the same foundational things:

1) Earth had been corrupted beyond beleif

2) Violence ruled the earths tribes, and the Nephilim were a huge influence in that regard

3) YHWH felt remorse over ever having created man in the first place

4) YHWH decides to wipe the slate clean and start over

5) a supernatural series of events allows for the process to take place

6) YHWH is still in control

So - by way of example - given the same biblical account in a zillion tranlsations, and given my persoanl alternative beleifs on the choosing of Noha versus that which has often been traditionally taught - what changes in my beleif that Noah had a pure bloodline versus the beleif that Noah was a righteous man?

do you understand the point im making here?

different perspectives on biblical accounts based on translational errors or misunderstandings or omissions - and yet the meat and details of the account in text remains.

[phee]

well then flesh this out for me a bit Phee.

honestly - show me the proof of "translations that DO differ in TEXT and MEANING..."

Steven...

Are you serious? After reading the examples I gave you... you cannot see the difference in the text or the meaning?

If you can't... this conversation serves no purpose anymore, I don't think you are capable of understanding another viewpoint.

[Steven]

to exemplify further - lets work this example you cited Phee:

[

Romans 1:5.

• “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received

grace and apostleship to call people from among all the

Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (NIV).

Very basic and clear Translation: because of the provision of this Jesus, we have been ordained to make converts of not only jews but gentiles.

Your next example:

• “Jesus was kind to me and chose me to be an apostle,

so that people of all nations would obey and have

faith” (CEV).

And again, the very basic and clear Translation: because of the provision of this Jesus, we have been ordained to make converts of not only jews but gentiles.

and your next "different" meaning:

• “Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and

authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has

done for them, so that they will believe and obey him,

bringing glory to his name” (NLT).

And again once more, teh very basic and clear Translation: because of the provision of this Jesus, we have been ordained to make converts of not only jews but gentiles.

and once more on your part Phee:

• “. . . through whom we have received grace and apostleship

to bring about the obedience of faith for the

sake of his name among all the nations” (ESV).

[phee]

As I said, I don't think you are capable of understanding another viewpoint.

Talking to you about this serves no purpose, the cliche comes to mind about minds being like parachutes....

[Steven]

As I said, I don't think you are capable of understanding another viewpoint.

Talking to you about this serves no purpose, the cliche comes to mind about minds being like parachutes....

you know Phee - we had agreed (or so I thought) to unpack this a bit.

I suggested startign another thread - you reposted your stuff, i began to address it like I said I would - exactly in the manner that I said I would do it in.

i've offerred up some halfway decent examples, history, and possible modes of thinking.

I've explained WHY I disagree with you thus far with points of reference, not with emotion or sarcasm.

i presented some alternative logic to the equasion.

I even conceded confusion over the apocrypha.

but this last post of yours dude - should I feel respected by it while you tell me what i am and am not capapble of?

Better question: should I feel like you are TRULY willing to engage in a detailed discussion in order to support your points of view, perspectives that I have not attacked, when you tell me that I'm incapable of something? Should that lead me to beleive that you stand on your convictions with a deep sense of commitment?

right now Im giving you much more respect than your giving me Phee.

If you dont want to discuss this anymore then we dont have to. I think some purpose has definately been served here - if anythign the prupsoe of showing that not all things biblical or christian are trite and without forethought or exploration. You know earlier Mikea sked the question to Gaf if he beleived that scripture was in essence whole enough from its inception to trust. And I said (for me) YES. and you've seen a small part jsut a wee bit) as to why.

Why do you guys ask these questions, and then attempt to dismiss the person willing to come forward with answers?

I have to tell you man, I'm dissapointed in your exit style and willingess to so quickly walk away. It makes me doubt the true level of conviction you seem to profess.

I may tell you that I think yoru worng and wy, or better yet I may tell you that i dont ahve a good answer for you.

But Im not going to tell you what you are and are not capapble of Phee.

and I do not accept what your trying to do here with me here.....just because you say so, thats not the way to get me to think something thru, your smarter than that.

[phee]

dude, i seriously think you're intentionally trying to miss my point, now...

the "copout" comment was related to being involved in a discussion/debate, and saying, "well, i dismiss your points, and stick with mine, because that's what i believe.( i've actually proven out to someone (if a=b and b=c, then a=c) using their own words that they were contradicting themselves and proving themselves wrong, and had that person say, "well, that's what i believe, so i don't care what you say"!) (i'm only using this as an example - not saying anyone here is doing that, at this point...)

Steven... its not about respect at this point... see the point that Torn is making above...

I realize at this point it is not a discussion.... I stated what you asked me for, and the content itself is meaningless, it's what you have faith in Steven.... Even with all of the examples I gave you, this is not about the facts.... you believe what you believe, no matter what I present to you, no matter how clear it is, you will believe what you believe...

You asked me to present what I did... NOTHING that I could show/say/or do will result in you actually thinking about what is being said... so there is no point.

I have been engaging with you here... I like when it's a discussion. But it is not a discussion when it turns into "that's a big list, but I am not going to engage because I have already made up my mind"

But if you do wish for me to continue this I will.... I will continue to site examples of contradictions as far as meaning and text... and you can continue to state your opinion regardless... The issue was:

I have asked for evidence of actual gospel structural ideals that have been changed over the years from many people in DGN. They never come. I have asked how parchmants dug up - thousands of remnants - dont deviate from the cannonized collection - and I havent received an answer

.

I think I have done this, very comprehensively and completely, you bring up the context... that is another discussion as to why they changed in the first place. But I think I have made my point.

I could state essays, papers, books, about the nature of language and how it changes... About the process in which the church chose which things to canonize and which ones they chose to ignore... again, the politics of the church and it's goals is yet another very interesting discussion...(It's amazing how things are selected to be placed into the bible and what they chose to omit... having nothing to do with context but with agenda). But I get the impression that this would become very moot when discussing this with one who has already submitted to belief over evidence. It is not my place to make this about belief Steven, I don't wish to change yours.

[Steven]

thats the poijnt of a discussion isint it Phee? to flesh out ideas, consider other reasons and motivations, understand the root of opposing points of view?

"that's a big list, but I am not going to engage because I have already made up my mind"

thats not what I said Phee. You just spoke for me.

your mind is likewise made up - Im not trying to convince you otherwise - im trying to simply present another school of thought - as you and I are not the only ones reading this thread.

I dont at think that you've unpacked this opinion of yours much at all - what I do think you did is copy and paste a bunch of documentation. I gave you MY insight and why - there is a distinct difference in apporaches there.

and since you quote Mike - dont forget his original question.

Ive been answering it.

your not really answering mine.

[phee]

thats the poijnt of a discussion isint it Phee? to flesh out ideas, consider other reasons and motivations, understand the root of opposing points of view?

"that's a big list, but I am not going to engage because I have already made up my mind"

thats not what I said Phee. You just spoke for me.

your mind is likewise made up - Im not trying to convince you otherwise - im trying to simply present another school of thought - as you and I are not the only ones reading this thread.

I dont at think that you've unpacked this opinion of yours much at all - what I do think you did is copy and paste a bunch of documentation. I gave you MY insight and why - there is a distinct difference in apporaches there.

and since you quote Mike - dont forget his original question.

Ive been answering it.

your not really answering mine.

You asked me to provide examples... that's what I did.

[Steven]

ok Ive been gone all day and just got back online....

Yes Phee I am confused over your quick willingness to exit this "discussion", i really am.

and Yes I think that you deftly avoided inserting your own perspectives on what I asked you to do - which was to describe to me in your own Phee words these differences that you cited. I wanted your Phee interpretation of those scriptures, I did. And I wanted a Phee intrepretation of all of those "differences" you asked me to acknowledge. I was willing to do it.

the difference between our approach, is that had you said: "thats not enough Steven, I need you to give me more to better understand your position", I'd have done it.

Somehow that's wrong for me to ask this of you.

It confuses me that you go on to say that this is not your place to make this about beleif - when in reality it is EXACTLY your "beleif" - that you have not only provided an exhaustive explanation but it is also your "beleif" that your position is seemingly the only one based on facts - Phee facts. Steven facts are null and void. or at least -so it seems. All of that is "beleif". theres nothing wrong with it. You beleive I am wrong, i get that, its ok with me.

So, exit Phee stage left. its sort of what you do in these circumstances.

In fairness, I'll tell you why I do what I do - for whatever its worth or aint:

In this thread, we moved toward the idea that scripture is without consistency and that actual "Meanings" vary with translations. That was the premise.

Once we got into a serious discussion - I went with it. I stopped messin around and got serious with it, because I thought it was an interesting and worthy discussion, not only for you and i but for others to watch and or join in as well.

Here is why I thought that: because this is not just OUR thread.

Others read it.

In the process of having discussions like this one, especially ones that dont get out of hand, Its common for me to get PM's or private emails at my yahoo email address. maybe you get them too, i dont know. But I do.

Sometimes its comments on the thread and how it went down.

Sometimes its questions - somebody wants to understand why I think what i do. O the topic has led to a scondary topic that leads to questions, and so they ask me.

Sometimes its even a Kudos.

But its a connection nonetheless - and thats what counts to me.

a few days ago troy asked us all why we enjoy DGN.

well, now you know one of the reasons why.

What i like is that that every once in awhile, somebody allows their natural curiosity about these divisive faith based subjects to lead them into at least a consideration of an alternative point of view. Not because they want to jump ship and join my team, but because they recognize some form of consistency and foundation to what I do. I do not fit into the category that is easily shelved. I get accused of that sometimes, but it never really sticks all that well, because its not really true, even though Im a card carrying christian.

I never go into a discussion of this nature expecting to bring you over to my side, not once have I thought that.

What I do intend to do - is be willing to extend myself for the sake of the convictions that I've built a lifestyle on.

If I say I beleive in scripture - I'm willing to dig in and give you reasons why. You call that incapable. I call that commitment. Thats sort of like telling a republican hes a republican because hes simply incapable of grasping the lofty idealism of being a democrat. When in truth - that republican made a choice that you simply dont agree with. But its hardly small minded. its just an opposing choice.

and although you seem to desire to paint those convictions that I have as just a pure faith based only approach - again we both know that that is just not true.

If and when I ever expand on cannonized text - I always give you more than the traditional surface level explanation. I give you way more than what you heard in church as a kid, or what aunt ethel told you, or what you read in a magazine, or what is a popular sub-cultural notion of beleif. I pick something apart - to test the waters, to test the boundries of my own faith, to stretch the perception that is so easily categorized with sure negativity. When i explain a position to you Phee - it is indeed MY position - my perspective, but its always based on my own ditch digging for truth. A great deal of hard work has led me to the convictions that I have Phee, but you make it seem as if its something less than what it is.

In the end I dont beleive there is anyone in DGN that can honestly say I beleive what i beleive - because Im just scared to go to hell, or because somebody told me to beleive it, or because Im incapable of thinking for myself, or that im ignorant of the "factual" oppositions that you are in grasp of.

Anybody who watches me in these threads, whether they like me or not, knows that I do my homework and that i live out the ideals that I profess. I never - conveniently exit stage left. Nor do I become dismissive and freduce a topic by making statements about what you are or are not capapble of understanding.

You should think about that - not because I called it disrespectful (and it is - and you get a freebie), but because i am willing to be vulnerable enough to go the long haul.

I'm not going to bug you on this anymore Phee because you obviously see no point in it.

But if we ever cross these issues again in another thread - let's try to do it right. fair enough?

Steven

[torn asunder]

Yes Phee I am confused over your quick willingness to exit this "discussion", i really am.

quick? seriously? he's gone out of his way to provide data to your satisfaction, and all you've done is say, "well, sure they all have different words, but i think they all mean the same". and while it's true that you may, the only reason you do is because you have a rpeconceived notion about what they mean, and then you fit it to your own personal viewpoint. (to quote seinfeld - "not that there's anything wrong with that!") however, the problem lies in the fact that you do not speak for the other millions of x-tian believers who interpret said passages, both differently than you, and differently between each correlating passage.

you're doing to phee exactly that of which i was complaing - you're saying "i see that, but i believe this, and that's how i interpret this, and nothing you say will change my mind." it's readily apparent that, in phee's lists, the wording of the quotes in posts 49 & 50 are quite seriously different, thus leaving much more open to misinterpretation, as is evidenced by your (and my) varying interpretations here alone.

it's also obvious to me that you're intentionally being difficult, by way of making phee dance through hoops for you. so much so, in fact, that i have no idea how i can possibly continue in this thread myself, and i'm surprised phee did, to this extent...

as one of my friends used to say, "the best part about beating your head against a brick wall, is when you stop!"

i'm stopping...

[Steven]

quick? seriously? he's gone out of his way to provide data to your satisfaction, and all you've done is say, "well, sure they all have different words, but i think they all mean the same". and while it's true that you may, the only reason you do is because you have a rpeconceived notion about what they mean, and then you fit it to your own personal viewpoint. (to quote seinfeld - "not that there's anything wrong with that!") however, the problem lies in the fact that you do not speak for the other millions of x-tian believers who interpret said passages, both differently than you, and differently between each correlating passage.

you're doing to phee exactly that of which i was complaing - you're saying "i see that, but i believe this, and that's how i interpret this, and nothing you say will change my mind." it's readily apparent that, in phee's lists, the wording of the quotes in posts 49 & 50 are quite seriously different, thus leaving much more open to misinterpretation, as is evidenced by your (and my) varying interpretations here alone.

it's also obvious to me that you're intentionally being difficult, by way of making phee dance through hoops for you. so much so, in fact, that i have no idea how i can possibly continue in this thread myself, and i'm surprised phee did, to this extent...

as one of my friends used to say, "the best part about beating your head against a brick wall, is when you stop!"

i'm stopping...

well I suppose you and I have different versions of hoops, and we different dance steps too.

here's what i did to Phee - I asked him to satisfy me.

oh yes - i totally did. I asked for his personal interpetation fo those scriptures he introduced. i know thats just torrid stuff there.

your right Mike - I have not spoken to millions of other christians - I dont have access to the resources to do so.

heres what I have done:

spoken to hundreds, over a period of a good 15 years.

taken classes.

taught classes.

classes on biblical truths and interpretation - and not at my church, and Ive had these discussions at seminars where thousands were present - I have done that - MANY times dude.

i have taken my beleifs and discussed them in 3rd world countries with other beleivers - also not from my chruch, of different denomiantions, working side by side with me for the same goals.

i have taken my beleifs to the streets of hollywood, compton, and lynwood, and discussed them with beleivers who are strung out, lost in the bar life, homeless. I have taken my beleifs to gang territory when that territory was hot. I have taken my beleifs to a public medium. I have taken my beleifs to the studio and have had my song played on the Los Angels airwaves - straight up christian perspective set to music. i have interacted with other faiths on thier turf - such as Lutherans during their conversion en masse to support of the gay agenda. I have stood across the lines of christian hate mongorers at abortion clinics and openly opposed them.

I have taken my beleifs and interpetations to various pastors who have allowed me to teach biblical marriage classes - even though some of the ideas I profess to come from scripture they do not agree with.

and I have taken my beleifs to DGN.

only so many hours in a day Mike.

my being difficult is a convenient opinion you have expressed in the past.

But my being willing to put it out there remains unchanged. If that makes me difficult so be it.