Abigail

Gee Zix, thanks for condesending to answer my pendantic questions. (Ever notice how when some are faced with a question they either cannot answer or cannot answer without changing an opinion, they must stoop to nastiness?) Ok, let me see then, if I am able to understand your answers (we know how dense I am, so patience will certainly be required on the part of the reader). . . Questions 1 - 4 "Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered?" Answers 1 - 4 "1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. 4) No." In other words, prayer does work consistently for all within the religion and there is a proper forumula one must use when they pray. However, those outside of Christianity or those who do not use the proper formula will not consistenly have their prayers answered. Anyone care to bite on this? I am curious 1) what is the proper formula? 2) Have any Christians ever used the proper formula and NOT had their prayer answered? 3) Has anyone of a religion outside of Christianity ever consistently had their prayers answered? Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian? Next Group: "How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example?" Answers: "5) How were the electron, air, and the far side of the Sun modelled without ever being seen? 6) No. 7) Irrelevant, since accurate examples abound." Honestly, I have no idea, never studied it. I imagine the effects of electrons and air are seen. Likewise one can see the "near side of the sun". So, we model after the effects? If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard? Could you give me a couple of accurate examples? I know, it will be another of many dense questions I am asking you, but we all have different perspectives so I am asking for your unique perspective. Next group: ""Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint." Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine?" Answers: "8) No. 9) The descendants still had free will. " I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity. And again I disagree with number 9. Free will? Did the Jews who were thrown out of Spain leave of free will? Did the children of those who converted have a free will opportunity to chose Judaism as their religion? How could they have if they were never taught about it? It was choose Christianity or die. I'm sure those parents who stayed, even the majority of those who converted in order to stay but never really believed did not teach their children very much about Judaism. What about the Native American children who were removed from their families and forced to learn Christianity instead of being taught about the gods by their parents? Did they have free will? How can one believe in something one has never heard of?

"You're kidding, right? Religion is fundamentally an attempt to explain and interact with the supernatural. Unfortunately, it's usually skewed in its presentation to benefit its priests more than its flock." Religion is many things to many people, Zix. It is a way to offer comfort to the grieving, a way to set up an ethical structure for a society, etc. "What has worked and how? God answers prayer." Consistently? For all within the religion? Is there then a formula under which it consistently works? Do those outside the religion or formula also have prayers answered? "That the Bible could be written over such a long period of time by so many authors and have so few internal disagreements makes it stand out. The Quran was supposedly written by just one man, and he contradicts himself frequently in it." There are those who would say the Bible has a lot of internal disagreements. Again even within Christianity there is much debate over what particular verses mean and how they fit with other verses "how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling? Are you being purposefully dense? It's modelling the behavior of a supernatural entity with the natural universe." Testy testy, it was an honest question. How does one model what one has never seen? Trial and error? How does when know when one has erred if one has ever seen the accurate example? "Wherever Christianity gained a true foothold, it usually supplanted the local beliefs, and that cannot be dismissed with exaggerated blanket claims of Christian atrocities. No one was ever convinced to truly believe at swordpoint." Can't it? No, perhaps the parents weren't convined to believe at swordpoint, but what about the children and grandchildren who then grew up without the option of knowing any other doctrine? "If they've 'changed names and rituals' they're hardly still around. But if you truly believe that, I'll sell you George Washington's hatchet. It's had six new handles and three new heads, but it's still "George Washington's Hatchet!" Concrete, black and white. And you are getting quite nasty. Rituals are very different from ethics and principles. In fact the rituals often matter very little except for how they influence the mind of the one performing it. You can change the name of the theory of relativity without changing the theory, it means little.

"With God, it's hard to design a repeatable experiment, though that's what every religion tries to be" Why? Why does religion feel such a strong need to design repeatable experiments? So we can promise a guaranteed effect from a specific cause? Why the need to be able to "KNOW" the outcome? "save that it has seemed to work as advertised for the better part of 2,000+ years" What has worked and how? "it does have the benefit of being internally consistent enough to act as a reasonable model for an invisible God, and that's why it has outlived most of the various mythologies. " How is it internally consistent? Seems there are many inconsistencies and disagreements within Christianity. how does it act as a reasonable model for God? What is it modelling? What mythologies has it outlived? There are many "religions" which are alive and well today that pre-date Christianity. "If there were no perceived results at all, Christianity would have faded into mythology like Zeus and Apollo have" Have Apollo and Zeus faded? Or have they simply changed names and rituals?

Hiya Anamchara, I guess I don't qualify as one who view the Bible as completely God breathed, though I do think there are many Godly truths to be found there. Does this mean I don't qualify to answer your question? These days I am reading all sorts of stuff. I accept those things which sit peacefully with me. The rest I either outright reject or I sit on until I have more information. BTW, you can find the books of Enoch on the internet. I have started reading some and it is very interesting.

Hi again Zix, "What's an 'anamchara'? Dictionary.com doesn't list it." Anamchara is a friend who listens without passing judgement on the other person. "I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't see the harm in it." Its okay. I'm not going to make a big issue out of it, it really isn't a big issue, just thought I'd mention it. "I think you're being a bit too idealistic in your assessment of the legal profession, but you're entitled to your opinion." Perhaps that is a rare and precious thing, which I hope to hang onto. Working in the legal profession and remaining idealistic about it, that is.

"Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction. Now was that so hard? " No, what was difficult was getting to a definition of the terms and conditions. People have different understandings/definitions of what it means to be Christian and what it means to "reject" Christ. Before I could "perform your test" I needed to understand your terms and conditions. "Despite many doctrinal differences, Christianity under TWI isn't radically different than it is under Catholicism or any other Protestant sect." Which is probably why I don't consider myself Christian according to the general understanding of the term and why I have never found a Christian church where I was comfortable. "If you didn't believe, then did believe, then didn't again, that's a kind of return to a former religion, isn't it? " As a child, I didn't know what to believe, I had no religion, only a general belief that there was a God. I "didn't believe" because I knew I was Jewish and "Jewish people don't believe. . .". It wasn't really based on any of my own thoughts or opinions, simply on the word of others. Additionally, as a Jewish child growing up in a very small Christian town, I didn't feel as if I was rejecting, I felt as if I was rejected. I didn't understand what I could have done at 7 or 8 years of age, that was so horrible that God didn't want me. I didn't understand why I wasn't allowed to go to church like the other kids did. Likewise I didn't understand what was "dirty" about being Jewish, just knew people saw me that way. So, it is very different than "returning to a former religion". I am no longer a child and while there is still much for me to learn, I certainly know a lot more than I did then. "All right, you don't have to divulge that, but are you sure it isn't a case of what Def59 was talking about? Throwing away Christianity because of bad experiences with poor examples(TWI)? " It really isn't an issue of being unwilling to divulge. I have divulged in a number of posts and threads including one in the "my story" forum. The short version was I was married to someone who was in, I had children, I knew what would happen if I left. I was right. I just didn't want to get too far off topic. Anyway, no it isn't simply based on a bad experience with TWI. In fact, after leaving TWI I still considered myself Christian for quite some time and attended a couple of different Christian churches for a time. It is based on "doctrinal" differences, for lack of a better word.

"As for the negative connotation of "lawyering", that was Oakspear's characterization of the term. Lawyers are supposed to bend the letter of the law as far as they can to perform a requested function. Describing similar tactics outside of the legal profession as "lawyering" is descriptive, but not necessarily derogatory. " Then the same goes to my anamchara :)-->. Regardless of who said it first, I still find the term offensive. Additionally, lawyers are not supposed to "bend the letter of the law" (though I know there are those who do). Lawyers are suppose to present their case according to the letter and spirit to the best of their ability so that the judge or jury can make the best decision possible with the ultimate goal of fairness and justice prevailing. I am thankful I have not had to work for any attorneys thus far which have left me feeling over all jaded towards the legal system.

Zix, "Believing what Jesus taught is nice, but it doesn't bear directly on the question of his lordship" So, if I understand you correctly according to your definition of Christianity, one must believe Jesus is Lord (and then we could argue as to the various definitions of the term Lord, but I'm assuming based on the rest of your post you understand it to mean at least something very similar to what we were taught in TWI) in order to be considered a Christian? And if one does not believe Jesus is lord one has rejected him? Under those terms and conditions, I flat out deny being a Christian and reject Jesus as lord and do so with no hestitaion but great conviction. "You know what Christianity entails, or should at least have a good idea since you were once in TWI (even with all its flaws). " Well, I was holding out hope that at least SOME who consider themselves Christian, understand Christianity as being something very different from what we were taught in TWI. (I still am, despite your own apparent opinions to the contrary). "Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any record in the New Testament in which it was okay to quit believing and return to a former religion?" Correct me if Iam wrong, but even within the scope of Christianity, there are a number of different interpretations of what the NT means and how it is to be applied in ones life. And I am NOT returning to a former relgion. I come from a Jewish family but was never raised to be a religious Jew. I am simply exploring, growing, learning, continuing in the quest I have been on since I was a child. Additionally, I don't read the Bible literally or entirely as THE WORD OF GOD, nor do I limit myself simply to what the Bible says or what other men claim it all means. THAT was one of my HUGE mistakes in TWI, a lesson I have learned and do not wish to repeat. "you were convinced at one point, and then you said "no more". " At the point in my life when I was "convinced" I had a very different understanding of it all, via a TWI which ceased to exist some five years before I actually left them. I stayed the additional five years for reasons which are far to lengthy and off topic to go into here.

Originally I wasn't going to post this here at all. Then I considered posting it on Roy's thread regarding the return. Now I think it deserves a thread of its own. This is my interpretation and understanding of an article I read very early this morning. Perhaps nothing has been as detrimental to the people as the idea of religion. If we are a religion, then some more holy, others less holy and many not holy at all. It's a lie. We are all one. If one transgresses we all transgress along with him. When the same one stretches out his hand to give to a needy soul, all of us stretch out our arms together. We are not a religion. We are a soul. A single soul radiating into many bodies, each ray shining forth on its unique mission, each body receiving the light according to its capacity, each embodiment playing its crucial role. Together, we compose a symphony with no redundant parts, no instrument more vital than another. And our path back towards that original source of light is through every other ray that extends from it. A healthy body is one where every part works in harmony. A healthy people is one big, caring family where each individual is concerned for the other as for his own self. Where one faces rough times and the others hold his hands. Where one meets good fortune and all of us celebrate. Where no one is labeled or alienated for his or her beliefs, or background. Where each runs to do an act of kindness for the other and shuts his eyes and ears to the other's shame. Roy was speaking of the timing of Christ's return. Perhaps the return is a sort of allegory. We all have spirit/soul within us and the "return" we are all looking for will occur when we apply/live/learn/understand what is written above. Perhaps. . .

"Christianity is an exclusive faith" This is one of my major issues with Christianity and why I do not call myself Christian. It excludes too many wonderful and Godly people.

"Look, genius, if you WERE once a Christian, and now AREN'T, no amount of self-delusion will alter the fact that you REJECTED it." There is a difference between rejecting it and questioning/doubting/revamping/reconsidering. I was once a Christian, I no longer consider myself to be one - at least not in the common understanding and sense of the word as I understand its definition in our society and per mainstream Christianity. Have I out and out rejected Christ? I don't think so. I have and continue to question and reconsider what I was once taught and believed about Christ. I no longer pray to him or in his name. However, I do believe in much of what I understand to be what he taught. And I have a different perspective from mainstream Christianity regarding what I think some of what he taught means. I also continue to reconsider and revamp what I believe about God, our purpose in this life, and many other matters as well. This does not mean I have rejected God or believe we have no purpose. Zix and Def, when you left TWI did you reconsider, revamp or reject any of what you were taught by TWI? If so, did you ever, after again reconsidering and revamping decide some of what you had rejected from TWI might have some nugget of truth to it afterall? Perhaps saw it in a different light? Does that mean you rejected it or simply came to a different understanding of what it means? Or perhaps on some things, you are still in the process of considering and are simply not sure what it means? BTW Zix, I resent the negative connotation to "lawyering". Lawyers, although currently holding a bad rap, do serve a very needful purpose in this society. Ever been in need of one? It is good that lawyers can see many different perspectives and all sides of an argument, if they can't they won't be very good at their job.

Jesus was a "new age" guru. Much of what he is quoted as saying in the Bible comes not from Jewish Law but Jewish Mysticism. It is probably why those overly steeped in the law, without an understanding of the spirit, feared him so greatly.

Wow, I can see I'm going to have my reading cut out for me this week! I'm looking forward to it. I have never really done an indepth study on angels, just run into bits and pieces as I've studied other subjects. Sir, "My belief is that the 7 spirits of God = the 7 chakras = the 7 days of Genesis = the first 7 manifestations = Christ, which is the shape of the universe. In other words, the entire universe is the same basic organic/living shape, which shape (logos) is called Christ, which each of us manifests as a being in the form of 7 "churches." Our relationship with the very essence of light itself can be a full-spectrum experience, not white and black." EXACTLY! I've never "seen" it laid out quite the way you put it, particularly with the angels, but I have often thought this about Jesus. I see his story as an allegory and have often thought the entire Bible is an allegory, (if that is the right word) though I've never been able to piece it all together. One of the principles I've come across in studying Judaism and Kabala is that the tree in Kabal is just that, an allegory. It is not an image to be worshipped and even the allegory itself is not perfect. If one takes the allegory literally, one falls into idolotry. All of these terms, like the human terms applied to God in the Bible, are just ways to communicate ideas, the ideas are sparks of the light. We hinder the light when we try to see the ideas in a literal way.

Cynic, "I prefer a "teeny tiny heart" Ya know, I bet in your own unique way your heart is as big as anyone elses is in their own unique way. I apologize for the insult, because it was the mental image (which could have been of anyone) in connection with Sirs statement which struck me so funny as I was drinking that first cup of coffee. " openly accosting its various particular and general classes of opponents " Who are your opponents? Why are they your opponents? Vert, "Love your enemies...." A very wise statement. What does it mean to love thy enemy? And can we love them, or anyone, if we don't first love ourselves? Can we know what it means? Can we see ourselves in them or them in us?

Also, in some of the reading I have done - Jewish folklore says that in Genesis when God says "let us make man" it is literally plural. God was consulting with the angels to get their opinions. The angels under Michael and Gabrial disagreed with God and did not want Him to create man, so God destroyed them. In other versions God cast them down to earth. Additionally, Jewish folklore has between seven and twelve archangels, depending on if one studies Kabala or not.

I've not done much study in this area, but I have come across it a number of times as I was studying other subjects. Anyway, I thought this might interest some of you. . . . Archangels are generally taken to mean "chief or leading angels" (Jude 9; 1 Thes 4:16), they are the most frequently mentioned throughout the Bible. They may be of this and other hierarchies, such as the Archangel Michael, who is a princely Seraph, Gabriel among the seraphim, and Raphael among the ophanim (Cherubim), while all these three are sometimes named as the ruling princes of the Virtues. The Archangels have a unique role as important mediators between God and mankind; they are God's Messengers to the people at critical times in history and salvation (Tb 12:6, 15; Jn 5:4; Rv 12:7-9) as in The Annunciation and Apocalypse. A feast day celebrating the Archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael is celebrated throughout the Church Sep 29. A special part of the Byzantine Liturgy invokes the "Cherubic Hymn" which celebrates these archangels and the guardian angels particularly. The archangels are believed to command the heavenly army in an ongoing war with Satan and his legion of angels. They are the special emissaries of the Principalities, transmitting the good intentions that the Angel Virtues bring from the Powers to humanity. They have a protective and special love for all the persons of earth, intervening in crises and times of need to protect and guard nations, cities, airports, churches, houses, and families. They bring great goodness and much happiness to those they aid. One source says that an Archangel can travel from one end of the universe to the other in a second, and can be in many places at one time, even though these places may be millions of miles apart, like the light of the sun - appearing in several places at one time without it's power lessened in any of those spots. The word archangel has often been misapplied, used as a generic term that refers to all angels above the order of Angels. In most angelic hierarchies, they are one step above the Angels (the second order of the third division). The Koran of Islam (Arabic: al-Qur'an) mentions four archangels, naming only Jibraiil (Gabriel, who is said to have revealed the Koran to Muhammad) and Mika'il (Michael) - the other two being Azrael (another form of Raphael, Angel of Death), and Israfel, Angel of Music who plays the flute at the end of the day and will sound the trumpet that wakes the dead on the Day of Judgment. These angels were not created at the same time. Israfel was first, Mika'il was created 5000 years later, Jibra'il after another 500 years and and perhaps Azrael later still. Judaism and Christianity recognize seven archangels: Raphael, Gabriel, Michael, Uriel and three others whose names are uncertain - a source of debate by theologians for centuries. They are thought of to be three from the following list of possible candidates: Raziel, Remiel, Sariel, Metatron, Anael, Raguil, Barakiel, Barbiel, Chamael, Jophiel, Zadkiel, Jeduhiel, Simael, Zaphiel, and Aniel. One post-Talmudic source increases the number to twelve, linking them with the signs of the zodiac, while kabbalists name, with Metatron named first and then repeated as a tenth. Some new age angelologists also believe there to be twelve archangels instead of the traditional seven: Anthriel, Aquariel, Chamuel, Gabriel, Jophiel, Michael, Omniel, Perpetiel, Raphael, Uriel, Valeoel, and Zadkiel. The Book of Enoch (or Henoch) names seven archangels: Uriel, who rules the world and Tartarus; Raguel, who takes vengeance on the world of the luminaries; Michael, who is set over the most part of mankind and over chaos; Saraquael, who is set over the spirits; Gabriel, ruler of paradise, the serpents and the cherubim; Ramiel, whom God set over those who rise; and Raphael, who rules the spirits of men. Enoch places only four around God's throne, backed up by their followers: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and one named Phanuel (possibly synonymous with Ramiel) who is responsible for overseeing the repentance of sinners. The seven angels which the Book of Revelation describes standing before God are also usually interpreted as archangels. Michael, Uriel, Gabriel and Ramiel have all been credited with defeating the 185,000-strong Assyrian army of Sennacherib in 701 B.C. The syllable 'el' or 'it' at the end of angel and of so many angel names means bright', 'shining' or 'shining being'. "Nine Choirs of Angels," Catholic Online (which includes sections on Seraphim, Cherubim, Principalities, and Archangels), plus individual articles on angels, St. Michael, St. Gabriel, and St. Raphael. The Archangels Themselves The Archangel Michael, whose name means 'who is as God', is generally considered to be the foremost of the seven archangels and the leader of the Host of Heaven. He derives originally from the Chaldeans by who he was worshiped as something of a god. He is the chief of the order of virtues, Prince of the presence, angel of repentance, righteousness, mercy and sanctification: also ruler of the 4th Heaven, tutelary sar (angelic prince). According to the Book of Daniel, Michael is one of the chief princes' and the one responsible for the defense of the nation of Israel which makes him at least of the higher order of principalities. He is also described as the leader of the forces of heaven in their triumph over Satan and his followers. According to the Book of Revelations, Michael and his angels' are described as fighting the dragon and his angels. Hence Michael is often shown fighting or overcoming a dragon armed with spear or sword as God's Warrior. St. Michael has been invoked as patron and protector by the Church from the time of the Apostles. The Eastern Rite and many others place him over all the angels, as Prince of the Seraphim. St. Michael is the patron of grocers, mariners, paratroopers, police and sickness. Source: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004), Catholic Online Saints The Archangel Gabriel, whose name means 'God is my strength', was an important figure in the Bible, and appears first in the Book of Daniel (chapters 8 and 9) as a messenger and revealer announced the prophecy of 70 weeks (Dn 9:21-27). Gabriel explained to Daniel his vision of a ram and a billy-goat foretelling Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia and a prophecy foretelling the freeing of the Israelites. In both these cases the archangel is mentioned by name but it has also been suggested that Gabriel is the angel who wrestles with Jacob in the form of a man and that he was involved in the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah. Enoch says that Gabriel was sent to destroy the giant children of the fallen "watchers" and did so by turning them against each other In 'Paradise Lost'. In the New Testament he appeared to Zechariah to announce the birth of St. John the Baptist (Lk 1:11). It was also Gabriel which proclaimed the Annunciation of Mary to be the mother of Jesus (Lk 1:26). In the Book of Enoch, part of the pseudepigrapha, he is one of the seven archangels who stand close to God. Later Christian tradition made him the trumpeter of the Last Judgment. A popular figure in art, Gabriel is often pictured appearing to Mary or with trumpet raised. In Islam he is Jibril, the principal of many tales, who revealed the Koran to Muhammad. St. Gabriel is the patron of communications workers. Sources: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004), Anthony J. Salsarini, Catholic Online The Archangel Raphael, In Hebrew this means 'God Heals'. The angel Raphael first appeared in the apocryphal Book of Tobit (Tobias) Tb 3:25, 5:5-28, 6-12. He appears as the companion and guide of young Tobiasto whom he eventually reveals himself saying: "I am the Angel Raphael, one of the seven who stand before the throne of God." (Tb 12:15). In the Book of Euoch he is the guide to Sheol, the Judaic underworld and it was he who was sent to bind the fallen "watcher" Azazel, burying him under rocks in a desert place on earth. Raphael is not named in the canonical books. Raphael's name means "God heals." This identity came about because of the biblical story which claims that he "healed" the earth when it was defiled by the sins of the fallen angels in the apocryphal book of Enoch. Raphael is also identified as the angel who moved the waters of the healing sheep pool. He is also the patron of the blind, of happy meetings, of nurses, of physicians and of travelers. Source: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004), Catholic Online. Camael (Camiel, Camael) One of the 7 Archangels who attend the throne of God, as stated in Enoch I. He is described as "one of the holy angels whom God has set over those who rise". He is the same angel who, in the apocalypse of Baruch, destroys the army of Sennacherib. Source: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004) Raguel (Raguil, Rasuil, Rufael, Suryan, Akrasiel -"Friend of God") One of the 7 Archangels listed in the Enoch writings. Raguel is an angel of earth, a guard of the 2nd (or 4th) Heaven. He 'takes vengeance on the world of luminaries," which is interpreted to mean that, for cause, he brings other angels to account. Source: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004) Saraqael (Sarakiel) The prince of ministering angels, officiating when these angels convene at judgment councils. Although Saraqael usually appears as a holy angel, he is sometimes mentioned as one who has fallen from grace. He has even been known as the angel of death. Source: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004) Uriel One of the leading angels in noncanonical lore, and ranked variously as a seraph, cherub, regent of the sun, flame of God, angel of the presence. Presided over Tartarus (Hades), archangel of salvation. In the latter work he acts as heavenly interpreter of Ezra's visions. In Enoch I, he is the angel who "watches over thunder and terror." In The Book of Adam and Eve he presides over repentance. Uriel "is supposed to be the spirit who stood at the gate of the lost Eden with the fiery sword." The Book of Adam and Eve designates him as this spirit. He is invoked in some of the ancient litanies. He has been identified as one of the angels who helped bury Adam and Abel in Paradise. He is known as the dark angel who wrestled with Jacob at Peniel; as the destroyer of the hosts of Sennacherib ; as the messenger sent by God to Noah to warn him of the impending deluge, all of which feats or missions have been credited to other angels, as elsewhere noted. In the view of Louis Ginzberg, the "prince of lights" in The Manual of Discipline refers to Uriel. In addition, Uriel is said to have disclosed the mysteries of the heavenly arcana to Ezra; interpreted prophecies, and led Abraham out of Ur. In later Judaism we find Uriel instead of Phanuel" as one of the 4 angels of the presence. Uriel is also the angel of the month of September and may be invoked ritually by those born in that month. The Magus claims that alchemy "which is of divine origin" was brought down to earth by Uriel, and that it was Uriel who gave the cabala to man, although this "key to the mystical interpretation of Scripture" is also said to have been the gift of Metatron. Milton describes Uriel as "Regent of the Sun" and the "sharpest sighted spirit of all in Heaven" Source: The Archangels Page (off-line as of August 2004)

"I just wish Christianity would change for the better and do some atoning and explore its roots a bit deeper" I think people would be very suprised at what they learned if they simply did this one thing. In a sense it is exactly what I have been doing, though it wasn't what I set out to do, and it has been very enlightening. Gives one a very different perspective on Jesus, Paul, and the writings of the N.T.

Well said, Vert!

I know this in no way contributes to this thread in a productive manner, but I'm still drinking my first cup of coffee for the day and I just don't have the will power to resist. . . . "Cold hard cynicism (not the poster) is the antithesis of compassion. Odd thing is, both come from the same place - the heart. One is full, the other is empty. " When I first read this line I almost fell off the chair laughing cause I had this mental image of Cynic as the Grinch. You know the scene where they show his teeny tiny heart. . . . :D-->

Excerpts from here which I thought were really inspiring . . . "There comes a point in the life of all faithful Jews when we face the fact that what the Torah says, just isn't so. . . . The Torah is not a science text book, but uses the knowledge of its time to illustrate the various ways in which God, the Creator, interacts with creation. Nor does it happen when we first note the differences between the Torah's use of history and modern academic historical work and journalistic reporting. The Torah's concern is not objective reporting but rather is interested in using historical events to describe the evolving relationship between God and God's people. . . The rabbis of old used the occasion of the tragic death of a young boy who had fallen from a tree while collecting eggs in accordance with the Torah's directive to chase the mother bird away before taking the eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6-7) as the critical event in Elisha ben Abuyah's, one of their colleague's, rejection of traditional faith. After witnessing the accidental death of the child, Elisha ben Abuyah uttered the powerful cry of despair - "There is no justice, there is no Judge." Despite the Torah's promise of length of days to all who follow this commandment, the child came to an early death (Kiddushin 39b). There is no answer to the question of theodicy but there are responses How we respond, gives meaning and purpose to our faith. We may respond like Elisha ben Abuyah and deny purpose and direction in this world and, out of despair, embrace the apparent chaos of existence? We may also choose to respond like Job's 'friends' and deny our experiences and reject the reality of what we know in favor of a mistaken piety? We can also respond like Job and submit before the vastness of the God of All Creation? But as faithful Jews we have another choice besides apostasy, blindness and submission. It is action -- the deeds of love and kindness we perform when we read the words of Torah as a prophetic vision of what the world might be tomorrow rather than a description what the world is today. In a perilous, unfair world, we can hear the Torah directing us to make the world safer, fairer, kinder and more just? We need to ask ourselves, "How can we ensure that the Torah's promises are true?" We respond to promises of the Torah by binding Job's wounds, by consoling the child's bereaved family - by standing with those who suffer and by learning to give and to accept comfort. We are to turn theory into reality (Bold added by me)

Sky, "The first house my wife and I rented after we got married was an unusual brick house which included (at the end of the doorway hall) a stone Buddha statue Invisible Dans comment, (thanks Dan) I told yah I told yah I told yah" Yeah, and many of the Christian churches have huge Crosses, statues of Jesus, etc. Does that mean the Christians are also worshipping statues? Or do they perhaps simply use them as reminders of something?

"In that it's the same God. In a sense, it's asking God to be treated according to the Law instead of the New Covenant. I don't see why He wouldn't accede, but I haven't given it extensive thought." By your definition - those who in some way stem from OT promises, the Muslim's too would be in the same boat. They stem from Hagar's son who was also promised to bring forth a great people. And who knows what was promised to people of other religions which were not recorded in our modern version of the Bible. Zix, if you ever studied Judaism in depth as opposed to limiting yourself to the OT, you would find that there are many writings and oral traditions which have been passed down that were not cannonized into the Bible but are very much believed by the Jewish people. You will also find that the interpretation and application of those laws in the Pentatuche will vary quite a bit. There is much writing on the various arguments of what it all means.

"Abigail: Interesting point if you're Jewish. Hadn't really considered that one before." Interesting how? "They want God to be "all-caring" and "all-loving", but they want him to toss being "all-just" when they screw up. Pretty "conveeeenient", as the Church Lady would say." Well that is sort of the God TWI promised us isn't it? At least when we first signed that little green card? I don't think agnostics want god to be a wish-fulfilling Genie anymore so than the rest of us do. They are just looking at things from a different place than those who are convinced there is a God are looking from.

"Suppose that due to an accident, you were exposed to a lethal dose of radiation and despite the doctors' best efforts, you have less than 24 hours to live. (like George Mason in the second season of "24".) Would you turn back to Christ on your deathbed in case you might have been wrong in your earlier rejection?" I'm not an athiest so maybe I don't qualify for your hypothetical - but I'm not Christian either, so perhaps I do? Would I call on Christ? No. Would I call on God? Yes. "Oh, so it would be ok if God were someone who made a bunch of rules and then didn't really care whether any of them were followed or not?" There is a difference between "caring if your rules are followed" and having forgiveness and understanding for when your rules are broken. As a parent, I have rules my children are expected to follow. As children, my kids break the rules. As a LOVING parent, I forgive them even though I am upset that they broke the rules. In addition, when handling a situation of broken rules, I take into consideration their reasons for having broken them - which are on occasion valid. As an imperfect human, if I can do this for my children, how much more so can God for His?

Zix, How do you define "renounce Jesus Christ"? What would have to do/say to meet that requirement in your mind? Do I believe Jesus Christ once lived? Yes, I believe in all likelihood he did. Do I believe he taught some fantastic stuff? Yup. Do I believe he was the son of God? Sure, in the same sense we all are. Do I believe God raised him from the dead? Depends on how you define that - I believe we all rise again after death. Do I believe I need salvation and Jesus is that salvation? nope. Sky, "With respect to TWI, take a personal inventory and ask yourself what was it in you that motivated you to join. I aint saying it was all your fault. It just it always was my view that doctrinally they kinda wanted to appeal to the flesh by saying a lot of stuff was ok when it really wasnt." I joined TWI because I wanted to learn more about God. I was raised by non-practicing Jewish parents in a predominantly Christian, very small town. So when I wanted answers about God, naturally I turned to Christianity. TWI specifically, because at the time, the PFAL class made a lot of sense to me. Also, because at the time, I didn't feel pressured to accept that which did not make sense to me. Over time, as I contemplated what I had learned, what once made sense stopped making sense. And there was more and more pressure to blindly accept and apply what was taught, etc. etc. you know the drill. "The other thing is bitterness. Are you folks sure your not just angry at God because he wouldnt do what you thought he oughta? Personally, I kinda think you are. " No, not particularly angry at God, though there certainly are moments when I am. I think that is okay, many of the OT prophets argued with God. Bitter? Again, not particularly, but wiser for sure. I harbor no ill will against Christianity or Christians in general, though there are some I don't like, just as there are those in every "group" I wouldn't like. I simply found another path, which for the time seems to be where I belong. I will probably never stop questing and searching, even if it means "changing religions" over and over again. Def, "What are the flaws in the Christology or theology?" Well, to begin with - I simply have not found a Christian group I have been comfortable with since leaving TWI. But even greater than that, I reject the notion that I was born in sin. I reject the notion that I need a savior. I reject the notion that a loving father would set up a system which required his son to be so brutally murdered. I believe we are all pretty much where we are supposed to be. We are here to learn and we all have different paths and choices which lead us to that which we need to learn. Not quite predestination - we certainly have free will. I suspect when we reach a fork in the road, ultimately both paths are right and will lead us to learn something new.