Announcement: Support for Candidates Day

Aerosmitten · Post by **Aerosmitten** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:52 pm

*Lifesonite wrote:
Oh yeah, Myghin, he is a messiah. A messiah can simply be someone who claims to be a liberator

Claims

Sir Myghin · Post by **Sir Myghin** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:48 am

*Lifesonite wrote:
Oh yeah, Myghin, he is a messiah. A messiah can simply be someone who claims to be a liberator It doesn't mean he's the best thing since sliced bread or that he's going to turn water into wine.

you best mind your tongue for these words work against you not me for only He is the teacher, the Messiah.

*Lifesonite · Post by *Lifesonite » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:13 am

Just what we need, more prejudice. It's bigoted to claim a word with multiple meanings as sanctified.

You are completely intolerant, intolerant people are not meant for discussion. You compared him to Jesus, he did not compare himself to Jesus.

Do you think the word Messiah was invented when He came about?

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:47 am

*Lifesonite wrote:
Do you think the word Messiah was invented when He came about?

Well... let's see what the ol' dictionary has to say...

Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew mAshIah & Aramaic meshIhA, literally, anointed
1 capitalized a : the expected king and deliverer of the Jews b : JESUS 1
2 : a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause

I would venture that Sir M is referring to the primary definition while he who first brought up the word is talking about himself in the secondary definition.

And as we know, a genuine Messiah can be judged by his fruits. Whether or not anyone on this board making such a claim about themselves fits the bill remains to be seen.

However, in answer to your question, with the etymology being the Hebrew and Aramaic, meaning "annointed", and referring to the king of the Jews, it's a pretty safe assumption that the word only meant one thing until after the crucifixion, and the word was "invented" long before He came about, and the word was strictly about Him. But with the passage of time others could be referred to metaphorically as a messiah.

To the faithful, the word still holds a lot of significance and they may bristle at what they see as its improper use. To the unfaithful, it's just a word.

Now I'm curious... do we have any members of this board who are of Jewish persuasion? I'd like to learn if a Jewish person, who still awaits the Messiah, thinks it's okay to bandy the word about, or if they hold it more sacred, to be used uniquely for the king whom they faithfully await...

awip2062 · Post by **awip2062** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:08 am

Augie, as I have thought about your posts this is what I ged:

You believe that Conservative Christians are in violation of the constitution because we oppose a national healthcare system, and you believe that denying you such healthcare prevents you from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" because you are stuck in poverty. Is that it?

Okay, well, here is my response.

a) the constitution does not gaurantee that you will not experience poverty

b) you are alive

c) you are not imprisoned

d) you can still pursue happiness.

See, happiness has nothing to do with economic status. Happiness and indeed true riches do not come from external things like money or stuff. True happipness and true riches are something that only come from within. John Denver said something in a song once that exemplifies true riches, which I will paraphrase here: I know I would be a poorer woman if I never saw an eagle fly.

If that is not what you meant, please try explaining it again, cuz I am not understanding you.

Slaine mac Roth · Post by **Slaine mac Roth** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:29 am

Panacea asked about the UK health service.

I don't know if the situation in Scotland and Wales has changed since the introduction of their assemblies, but the situation in England is pretty poor.

OK, we do have a national Health Service which is free to an resident in this country. However, if you need anything other than a life-saving operation, you need to be prepared to wait months for it, sometimes over a year (unless you're Tony Blair then you get the operation to correct a heart murmur within weeks of diagnosis - Labour Party, the party of the people, hmmmmmmm? But that's a different issue).

Our hospitals are under staffed with medical personnel and over staffed with managers. There are quite often nopt enough beds and, on occasion, patients have been left in hospital corridors for hours.

According to studies, the general hygeine in ours hospitals is disgraceful.

Our junior doctors work ridiculously long shifts as do our nurses.

Prescription charges are high unless (like myself) you are eligible for an exemption certificate. (I qualify by having two young children). In addition, the prices the NHS pays for medication is well above the development and production costs. Hence, in many instances, GPs are unable to prescribe them to patients who need them because they have used their budgeted amount.

Aerosmitten · Post by **Aerosmitten** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:35 am

*Lifesonite wrote:Just what we need, more prejudice. It's bigoted to claim a word with multiple meanings as sanctified.

You are completely intolerant, intolerant people are not meant for discussion. You compared him to Jesus, he did not compare himself to Jesus.

Do you think the word Messiah was invented when He came about?

Watch it.

Slaine mac Roth · Post by **Slaine mac Roth** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:08 am

I'm going to walk on very thin ice here and, hopefully, not offend anyone too much.

The subject of intolerence in religion came up and, sadly, intolerence seems to be a major part of the make up of most religions - at least those with an evangelical bent. That is a fact of life.

Due to their very nature, evangelists must believe their world view is superior to all others. If they didn't, how could they preach their message and gain converts? It would be the height of hypocrasy to persuade to people to subscribe to a viewpoint that you felt was inferior to that they already held.

Another way in which religion shows intolerence is by their adoption of a moral highground. One thing I have noticed about christians, especially evangelical ones whichever denomination they follow, is that they are keen to dennounce anything they don't agree with as being sinful. This is a form of intolerence as it, again, suggests that you think your viewpoint is valid while that of others is not.

I, personally, am an agnostic. I also consider myself a humanitarian. I am a pacifist who, sadly, recognises that force of arms is the only way to proceed but as a last resort. Let me put it this way: I would never declare war on someone, but I would fight passionately to defend my familly, my home and my country.

In addition, I hope I am, on the whole, tolerant of other people's views. I do not posess any faith of my own (except a, perhaps, misguided faith that the majority of humanity is worthy of continued existence as a species) but I do not condemn those who do have faith. However, I am against blind faith. Nothing is above questioning for that is how we learn.

My view on religion is this. I have no problem with religion (this small letter r is deliberate) as a person's faith in whichever deity they choose. I am of the opinion that a person's faith is their own business and,, above all, their own choice. However, I do have a problem with Religion as an organised enity. To me, this organising is an infringement on people's freedom of choice. Many children are forced to go to worship by their parents. Many have a particular religion forced upon them by their teachers at school. Organised Religion has caused more wars and bloodshed than any other cause. (Look at Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc).

I think what I am trying to say is believe what ever you want and let me do the same. I won't try to force my beliefs on you if you don't try to force yours on me. Express them by all means, but try to keep in mind that there is chance, however slim, that someone else's may have validity.

Aerosmitten · Post by **Aerosmitten** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:01 pm

It's hypocritical for a "Christian" person to force their "Religion" (I don't like using the word "religion" as I don't think it should be a religion, but a relationship...ahh but that is another discussion) on another person if they truely believe that one should do unto another as they would have the other do unto them. A Christian wouldn't what a Muslim/Athiest/Taoist/etc... to force their beliefs on them, so they should not do the same. It's difficult to draw the line and to know where to keep going and when to stop. But the Scriptures say, "To him who knows what is right and does not do it, to him it is sin." So if you or I truely believe we are doing right, we cannot be true to what we claim we are if we don't act accordingly.

Slaine mac Roth · Post by **Slaine mac Roth** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:18 pm

Aerosmitten wrote:It's hypocritical for a "Christian" person to force their "Religion" (I don't like using the word "religion" as I don't think it should be a religion, but a relationship...ahh but that is another discussion) on another person if they truely believe that one should do unto another as they would have the other do unto them. A Christian wouldn't what a Muslim/Athiest/Taoist/etc... to force their beliefs on them, so they should not do the same. It's difficult to draw the line and to know where to keep going and when to stop. But the Scriptures say, "To him who knows what is right and does not do it, to him it is sin." So if you or I truely believe we are doing right, we cannot be true to what we claim we are if we don't act accordingly.

This is another way in which I have a problem with the established 'faiths'. They are so full of inconsistancies that many of their 'faithful' won't even examine. This is what I mean about blind faith. Any one who truly has faith in what they believe should be able to ask questions about it. Doing so, in my opinion, should lead them to a stronger belief in the faith of their choice.

However, too many lack the courage of their convictions to do this and, to my mind, only pay lip service to their faith. Surely through questioning they will come to a deeper understanding.

I commend you for advancing this point.

*Lifesonite · Post by *Lifesonite » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:34 pm

Hey, I said a messiah can simply be a deliverer. There's no question on who delivered us from our sins. I am not a devoted believer and I can see his position on the matter. The fact of the matter is that a priest would not take offense at the word as it was used as long as it was clear (and it was) that he was not calling himself 'the messiah'.

I hardly blasphemed, the word is not sanctified and I will not take a slap on the face for that.

As far as drawing the line goes, that is a question of tolerance. Tolerant people can share ideas and still retain their individuality and beliefs. It's also a question about tact, what we believe is something that should be used often. It's about sharing, convert through kindness and an open heart, not you are wrong and I will show you why.

I wanted to say something because personal attacks don't have to be venemous to be personal attacks.

Sir Myghin · Post by **Sir Myghin** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:35 pm

*Lifesonite wrote:Just what we need, more prejudice. It's bigoted to claim a word with multiple meanings as sanctified.

You are completely intolerant, intolerant people are not meant for discussion. You compared him to Jesus, he did not compare himself to Jesus.

Do you think the word Messiah was invented when He came about?

there is a difference between Messiah and messiah!, he explicitely wrote Messiah , with a capital M thats is significantly different from a lower case m...

ElfDude · Post by **ElfDude** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:45 pm

Sir Myghin wrote:
there is a difference between Messiah and messiah!, he explicitely wrote Messiah , with a capital M thats is significantly different from a lower case m...

Oops.

I should probably go back and edit my dictionary post...

Sir Myghin · Post by **Sir Myghin** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:38 pm

its alriht elfman, i missed your post complete in my fleetness to be myself,

as for the use of religion, its not the right word religion tends to refer more closely to mans rules opposed to God's, this is a faith or relationship. I co-exist in the international house with peopel of all religions muslim, agnostic philsophers, and the like, we talk religion, and enquire. its not a force thing. as for blind faith, it takes more courage to beleive in what you cannot see, than to see and beleive

Slaine mac Roth · Post by **Slaine mac Roth** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:37 am

Sir Myghin wrote: as for blind faith, it takes more courage to beleive in what you cannot see, than to see and beleive

If you are referring to my comments on blind here, I think you may have misunderstood me. By 'blind faith' I am talking about accepting any doctrine associated with your faith without the remotest idea of questioning these doctrines - even when two aspects contradict each other. (See Aero's post for what I mean).