Golveliius: OK, I'm not clear here--sorry. I'm just saying that when you cross-reference certain scriptures with others then the ones that seem out of place make sense--because certain verses in the Bible will be offensive without the cross-reference which explains the scenario.

Golvellius : I didn't really read through this conversation with tRIUNE, but there is something that I thought of when reading about your statement. I don't think anyone reads the Bible without interpreting its meaning in your head. We all have presuppositions when we read anything. It's important for us to address our presuppositions and not to force it onto the Bible. And read it according to it's context and connections, not based on what we feel that the Bible means, and most of the time, we do need to know the context to know what it means.

To add to that, everyone has their own central interpretive motif. That means that everyone has one big theme in their head that they emphasis more than other themes. It may be true, but it would be a half-truth, if you base the entire text on that one theme. This would interpret the Bible wrongly. For example, if my C.I.M for the Bible is God is love, and ignore the other attributes of God, which include just, holy, faithful, etc, then the person would interpret everything related to "God as a God of love." This would be problematic when the person encounters , and would miss the idea of salvation as well, forgetting about the forgiveness of sins.

That's why we need certain reading literature and reading skills to keep all of us in check. Context, historical setting, cultures, what relates and what doesn't. All of these that are emphasized to use when reading literature in an English class applies to the Bible. With them we can figure what the Bible is exactly saying.

I mean, what do you do if a verse in the new testament that was literally quoted from the old testament. Are you going to leave them separated and read them as they are themselves? Cross-referencing is the same thing. You cross reference because there is another verse that relates to this verse or the topic of the verse.

Golvellius : I'm talking about when we first read a text, we have our own presuppositions in our mind that may cause us to misunderstand the meaning of the verse.

The main thing I'm point out here is reading in CONTEXT. This is not rocket science. You don't know what a verse is talking about, you look at the surrounding verses to see what it means. If you still don't understand, go do a little research about it. People do this in anything we read, you do the same with the Bible.

This is an example of what might happen when you use your own presuppositions and not check the context of scripture to define the verse:

True story that I heard, a woman who was seeking counsel with a pastor of whether to divorce her husband came to the conclusion to leave him and go with another man. Pastor asks why, and the woman said that the Bible said so. What verse is that? (Colossians 3:10) for the verse tells us to "put on the new man." Except, obviously, that is not what the verse is talking about. The verse is talking about Christians to be sanctified and to become a new man. And if she looked at the context, which talks about the characters of the elect, or if she compared it with different Bible translations (this one is NKJV, which the language can be slightly older), she could tell that the word "man" is referred to "self" or "person."

So you see, a simple look contextual look can affect whether you got the verse meaning right or wrong. Most verses, it's a simple read word for word of the text, and you would know the meaning. Some verses though, need context or background to understand the fullness of what it means. If you are one of those people who don't just follow everything they read, then you use context and background to make sure that is what the verse means. I'll give you another example, this will show how historical audience play a huge role in understanding the meaning of the verse:

To the Church in Laodicea

14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. 21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Revelation 3:14-22)

Now look at 16. It says to Laodiceans that God wishes that they are either hot or cold and not lukewarm. Maybe we understand not to be lukewarm in our faith, but cold? I understand on fire for God, but cold? (if you are someone who just reads and follows, you wouldn't questions this, but if you do, read on) What is he saying here? Here is what you need to understand historically:

1. Laodicea was a rich city, which was due to their wool production with black wool and eye salve, and banking.
2. Laodicea was sitting in between two cities, Colossae and Hieropolis.
3. Laodicea has no good water, so they had to pump water from Colossae and Hieropolis.
4. Colossae had cold water while Hieropolis had hot water.
5. By the time it reaches Laodicea, both water sources become lukewarm.
6. Laodicea was known for their bad state of the church, while Colossae and Hieropolis had healthy churches.

Now, let's look at the verses again:
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.

Do you see it? This section is basically insulting Laodicea's church with what the city has. It's telling them to be more like Colossae and Hieropolis, who were "cold" and "hot." It insults them more by pointing that they are "poor, blind and naked" when their own city shows to differ. (DON'T TELL ME THIS IS NOT COOL )

So you see, sometimes we need to read what the verse is saying by looking at the CONTEXT of the verse. It was written to a specific audience, but we can get principles out from those verses to reflect on ourselves. From this verse, it tells me as a Christian to not be lukewarm in my faith, or else my faith has no meaning. Culture and times change a lot, so we need to first put it back to what the Bible is referencing to, then we go back and apply it to ourselves.

The dumbest arguments some atheists have is how we are not to cross dress, and that we have jeans nowadays. Pants are gender neutral clothing in our culture, so we don't violate anything. It was referring to the pagan practices of dressing as a different gender and live by it. So if you are to look at the context now, you would point more on those who had a sex change.

For the last response you had, that is a good argument about us people. Just because we do good things in life doesn't make us a good person, if we sin even once (and obviously we sin wayy to many times) we are guilty of breaking God's laws, and all of us deserve hell.

But back on topic, I didn't read what you and tRIUNE were talking about, maybe remind me what are you two talking about?

tRIUNE : Yes, I would be bothered if I knew I was going to die in 5 minutes, anyone in their right mind would be bothered. I personally cannot speak for all Pagans, because there are many variations of belief, but the one I follow is thus: each life is a lesson, each lesson brings you closer to enlightenment, when you reach enlightenment you cease to be reincarnated and spend the rest of eternity in the afterlife... some people call it the Summerlands, others Heaven, I don't give it a name. If you kill yourself, you don't learn the lesson of this life, therefore you repeat it.

As for the salvation thing. Yes, everyone does bad things in life that they need to pay for. It's called karma, and that will follow you. I have seen it.

You have seen prayer work and been spared hardship. I have made invocations, cast spells, and prayed to my gods and had them work in the same way. Magick is but the assertion of our will on our environment to achieve a goal, and in that way prayer and spellcraft are the same, but the ritual is different. As for the Mother Earth thing, it is a generalization of Pagan religions... like saying that all Christians pray to the Saints, which I know is not true. Also, who says that Mother Earth does not have personality? It is not literally the planet, it is a supernatural being. Most Pagans believe in the Pagan gods (big shock there, right?), and most do so in the form of the Goddess and the God (unless you are Dianic Wiccans, then you are a fem-nazi and it's Goddess only). In most beliefs, the Goddess is the spirit of the Earth, as seen in myths about goddesses/beings like Gaia (Greek), Danu (Irish Celt), or Pele (Hawaiian).

I think you would gain much understanding from reading the belief section on the Neopaganism Wiki

Elara : Oh--I understand now, that's informative--thanks! That enlightenment deal explains the reincarnation, also, I wasn't aware of Pagan gods--I was thinking that was strictly Greek mythology (shows my ignorance of them). As for karma, absolutely--I believe in it, though I believe it pertains more to this life than the afterlife.

Well, concerning the comparison of prayer to magick, I'd say they sound similar--though are different. When I pray, I want my will to be lined up with God's will; so it's more like asking for his will to be done, not mine. Or, rather than asserting my will, I seek to assert his will--because I trust him with my life and the aspects which encompass it.

You know--I used to think Christians were loony until I became one, my point here is that not only have I entrusted my spirit to God, but I'm at peace if I were to die today because I've experienced his reality so much that I wouldn't worry about it if it came to it--because I know I'll be with him. Pagan belief doesn't do this for you?

Glad I could help you understand a bit more. For prayer and magick... I would say it is a varying method to the same end. In essence, I pray to the deity I feel appropriate for the situation (big favorites are Aesculapius, Artemis/Diana, and Eris) to aid me in focusing my will on something I want done... rituals are more involved, you can see parallels with Catholic Mass, especially on holy days.

Paganism does bring me my own inner peace... however I suppose that I am more of a realist. I know that no matter how strongly I believe what will happen to me, if someone is pointing a gun at me and I know I will die, I will panic. And honestly, you probably would too because natural instinct towards self-preservation will override anything else.

Truth be told, I was a Lutheran growing up. Not a particularly devout one... I think the only time that I was in a Lutheran church was the day I was baptized. But I did go to other churches... Roman Catholic, Latin Catholic (my best friend is Mexican, so her was a big deal), and a Protestant church that I can only describe as "born again". Around age 12 or so, I prayed, I experimented with different Christian beliefs and nothing clicked, nothing felt right. My brother's girlfriend had checked out a book on Wicca, and let me borrow it when I asked. When I read about it, it clicked. I called myself Wiccan for over a decade, though I have had much influence from other Pagan paths as well as philosophical schools, to the point that I really just consider myself more of a general Pagan than a Wiccan anymore... though I still follow the tenants of the faith. I have researched Judism, Hinduism (which still baffles me), Islam, Buddhism, Satanism (for a paper), as well as Christianity and the only path that feels right to me is the one that I am already on. I am sure that you can identify with that feeling.