JoeyPuddle In reply to bananaprincess [2006-07-24 20:14:02 +0000 UTC]

Yeah yeah. Trying to churn out some half decent poetry but lacking in inspiration. During the whole exam period I pretty much went into hiding, I don't even think my parents saw that much of me, but it's all over now, so I'm settling back to normality.

Thanks for checking in. Hope you enjoyed your trip to the UK.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JoeyPuddle In reply to JesustheSavior [2006-02-01 15:11:27 +0000 UTC]

I do appreciate the compliment. It's nice to hear that you're enjoying my stuff.

One little thing, please don't post on my page if you need to quote the bible. I find it a highly offensive text and would appreciate hearing as little about it as possible.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JesustheSavior In reply to JoeyPuddle [2006-02-02 17:08:41 +0000 UTC]

No problem. However, the Bible like many other ancient books is one of the most quoted in the world. The Koran quotes the Bible, the Bible on the other hand does not quote the Koran.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JoeyPuddle In reply to JesustheSavior [2006-02-02 18:17:08 +0000 UTC]

It really is strange just how little I care about how much the bible is quoted. It is a terrible book that has promoted hatred for thousands of years. I would also ask that you refrain from divulging pointless trivia regarding the bloody awful thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JesustheSavior In reply to JoeyPuddle [2006-02-02 18:44:17 +0000 UTC]

Well, there are a number of negative things in the Bible (in particular the Old Testament), I hardly think such things as found in the New Testament, focusing on Forgiving others, Turning the other cheek, etc could be interpreted as preaching hatred. And as for divulging trivia, let's not forget you came to MY journal first and made comments. If you don't want to interact, then that's fine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JoeyPuddle In reply to JesustheSavior [2006-02-02 18:55:03 +0000 UTC]

I am glad to hear that no interaction is necesary. However, it seems strange to me that you disregard the hateful comments of one of your holy books and praise the piety of the other. That to me seems wrong, you can't just deny all the hatred which your religion has preached because one of the texts is less hateful and unjust.

And just to clear it up. I was brought to YOUR journal page due to a horribly insulting text that explicitly implied that Muslims died in the Asian tsunami disaster because they weern't Christians. I wouldn't take pride in such an attraction mate.

May your intolerant god bless you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JesustheSavior In reply to JoeyPuddle [2006-02-02 19:06:49 +0000 UTC]

They didn't die because God killed them. They died because their collective governments were not willing to spend the money from their enormous importation capital to safeguard their shores. It sounds like to me you've got a persecution complex. You intiate battles, and then cry foul when someone stands up to you especially when you lack the ability to read between the lines and interpret facts. That's okay though, you'll figure it out someday. Until then, have a blessed day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JoeyPuddle In reply to JesustheSavior [2006-02-02 20:51:19 +0000 UTC]

If I wanted to continue the discussion further I could question you on several things. Firstly, where on earth in your post does it mention anything about government funding.

Secondly, a large chunk of the money that the sometimes already corrupt governments have in the effected countries is spent on unmanagable debt which is owed to the west.

Thirdly, you didn't stand up to me. That sounded extremely self righteous of you. Instead you advertised you're religion to me, a religion which calls me an abomination, and responded in a very weak way to any argument I put up. You seem to think that you can disregard the hateful comments in your bible because there are also forgiving ones. That's just silly, these things don't just cancel eachother out so easily.

Fourthly, no I do not have a persecution complex. I ws responding to a post which clearly expressed that Christians in Aceh were saved because of their religion and that any other denomination was not saved because they didn't beleive in your god.

Fifthly, I don't have to read between the lines of the article you posted. The disrespect and disregard for the dignity of the victims of the Tsunami disaster are clearly apparent.

Sixthly, your condescention at the end of your last comment really does ring true with the self righteous, holier-than-thou attitude which the faithful of your religion have expressed across the ages. Perhaps when you people realise you might be wrong there can be equality and justice in the world.

Lastly, no I will not have a blessed day. According to your religion I will burn forever in the fires of hell because of the person I am. You keep the blessings of your unjust god to yourself thankyou.

Have a splendid day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JesustheSavior In reply to JoeyPuddle [2006-02-02 22:47:19 +0000 UTC]

Well, I will pray that you find the peace you need and that you will not burn in Hell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JoeyPuddle In reply to JesustheSavior [2006-02-02 23:27:42 +0000 UTC]

Please save your prayers. Your bible tells me that I am going to hell. You praying can't change what the bible says now can it? Thankfully I don't buy into that fire and brimstone crap. And I have peace thankyou, I merely feel a need to challenge people who advocate a religion which promotes hatred, like you do, however implicitly.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JesustheSavior In reply to JoeyPuddle [2006-02-03 12:51:29 +0000 UTC]

The Bible says many things including this...

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for their's is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for their's the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you."

-Matthew 5:3-12

The quotes you selected are from the old testament. Jesus himself said that the old testament had been fulfilled, and was never meant to be used as a weapon against another person. Anyway, come by again someday. Even though we disagree on some things, I do agree with you on other things.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JoeyPuddle In reply to JesustheSavior [2006-02-03 19:45:19 +0000 UTC]

I am aware of the slightly more positive aspects of the new testament, those quotes are nothing new to me. What I've never been introduced to, however, is this idea that Jesus himself said that the old testament had been fulfilled. Do you know what part of scripture that comes from? Do you have a quote for it that would assure me of it's truth?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JesustheSavior In reply to JoeyPuddle [2006-02-04 04:26:44 +0000 UTC]

Do I have a quote or two. By now, surely if you have learned anything about me is that I have a quote for everything. Of course scholars and believers/non-believers debate its meaning....

"What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?"
[link]

Answer: In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “Sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points...

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term “kataluo,” literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

___________________________

What Would Jesus Say About Gay Marriage?
Divorce, not homosexuality, was the deviation that preoccupied him.
[link]

Were Jesus to return to Earth, he might be excused for guessing that the "Defense of Marriage Act" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 had something to do with the prohibition of divorce.

Back in Galilee, Jesus had been fierce in his condemnation of divorce. "What God has joined together," he said, "let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). And he allowed for no exceptions to his rule. A man could divorce his wife if she committed adultery, but he could not remarry without committing adultery himself, nor could his ex-wife remarry without repeating her sin. His disciples objected, "If that's the way it is, then it's better not to marry at all" (Matt. 19:10), but Jesus would not back down.

How disappointed, then, Jesus would be to discover that the "Defense of Marriage Act" has nothing at all to do with the prohibition of divorce but is, instead, a law that prevents the creation of new marriages--namely, gay marriages. The Savior, who never spoke a word about homosexuality, would need to have a young conservative activist explain to him that though this law does not prevent civil unions between gays, it has succeeded rather well, until just recently, in barring the path to gay marriage.

What has now happened, though, the earnest young fellow would explain, is that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that only marriage, called by that name, can guarantee gay couples their civil rights under that state's constitution. Though Massachusetts may still block gay marriage by constitutional amendment, the amendment process could take years. In the interim, the Massachusetts decision has given new momentum to the "Federal Marriage Amendment Act," a House bill with more than one hundred sponsors that aims, in effect, to enshrine the earlier "Defense of Marriage Act" in the federal constitution.

A Christian conservative group wrote the "Federal Marriage Amendment," but other Christian conservatives now oppose it. Why?

The young activist would patiently explain to the Lord that merely banning gay marriage is not enough for some of the largest and wealthiest Christian conservative groups. They want a more sweeping amendment that would block not just gay marriage, but also all forms of legally recognized sexual partnership other than heterosexual marriage. The Constitutional language they propose is: "Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of non-marital sexual relationships."

Anxious to impress the Master, the young man might conclude by gravely quoting the biblical verse that may soon be enshrined in American law: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; this is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

What would Jesus say to all this? On the ethics of homosexuality, we must assume that he would maintain his silence. Had he wanted to take a position about that matter, he would have done so back in Galilee. Deference to biblical inerrancy was never his way, Leviticus 18:22 notwithstanding. On the contrary, his zero-tolerance prohibition of divorce was a bold and deliberate revision of the biblically grounded but (in his view) unacceptable Jewish practice of his day.

As for "the defense of marriage," he would refer his conservative disciple to what he did say. Divorce, not homosexuality, was the deviation that preoccupied him.

"If your people are determined to bring your country into accord with my teaching," he would say, "then let them dissolve all second marriages and write my prohibition of divorce into their Constitution. But if they insist on overruling that prohibition, then let them look to their other prohibitions and consider revising them as well. For how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the mote out of your eye,' when there is a beam in your own?" (Matthew 7:4).

And then Jesus would take his leave, saying to his young friend in his steely and unflinching way, "He who can take this, let him take it" (Matt. 19:18).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JoeyPuddle In reply to Ethelind [2005-10-14 22:46:13 +0000 UTC]

No problem

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JoeyPuddle In reply to squeakersqueakin [2005-10-14 22:47:08 +0000 UTC]

I had to fave it. It has more attitude than any other piece on DA. Great work there. too cute for words

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

squeakersqueakin In reply to JoeyPuddle [2005-10-15 19:04:03 +0000 UTC]

thank you

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JoeyPuddle In reply to Yaanon [2005-08-29 20:29:56 +0000 UTC]

Why thankyou kindly.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JoeyPuddle In reply to bogac [2005-07-02 21:16:21 +0000 UTC]

Awww thanks for the hello. I will keep an eye out for a developing addiction and be sure to maintain a satisfactory level of sanity while using DA. ALthough I am already struggling for inspiration so that I can update my gallery. I am sure it will come in time.

Thanks again.

:floaing:

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

bogac In reply to JoeyPuddle [2005-07-02 21:18:23 +0000 UTC]

Inspiration will come to you soon. Just watch the other deviants and you will have it. That was what happened to me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JoeyPuddle In reply to bogac [2005-07-02 21:23:36 +0000 UTC]

I guess I'll just be patient then. I will parouse the art about this place and try to find my creativity again.



P.S I hope my angel works this time. *glances up*

👍: 0 ⏩: 0