Religion & Spirituality - 19 February 2007

i feel sometimes that i have psychic abilities but am unsure how to tell.

2007-02-19 23:04:32 · 13 answers · asked by KayTea 1

I was thinking about alcohol myself, but it seems an awfully long time........

2007-02-19 22:59:06 · 24 answers · asked by Hellbell73 2

I am Sasikanth, having immense faith in the almighty. I wanted to clarify some spritual doubts, which I could not get clarified by myself. So, I thought to get them clarified. Here are my doubts.

I have lost my niece Baby Mounika in July of 2006. She died at a tender age of 12. , in the month of June, she developed severe stomach pain with vomitings and has suffered a lot and then it was diagnosed that she was having heart problem and that she had severe dilated cardiomyopathy, which was irreversable and she died on July 02, 2006 after a month long suffering, which was just like a hell for her. At that time, just in one month all the major organs, heart, liver, and kidneys have been damaged severely. We were not able to see her in such pain and suffering and we could not do anything while she was going into the death trap. She also regularly used to do poojas at that tender age and she had immense beliefWhy she had all these sufferings?Who is to be blamed for her death?

2007-02-19 22:58:25 · 9 answers · asked by sasitolety 1

2007-02-19 22:58:25 · 15 answers · asked by ஐPardon Me while I burnஐ Incubus 1

After years of Bible study I have come to my own conclusion that if it weren't for Lucifer no one would go to Heaven.
Read it and weep, folks, it's all there.
This question is open to free thinkers but I'm sure you pushers will have your say.

2007-02-19 22:53:30 · 16 answers · asked by ? 3

so lonely, so depressed, it is all a boring life, no friends, no love, no identity, no peace, . i am living in a society where laughing is sin. can i get death if i desire. please tel me how to die. ...

i know i am not going to paradise, that's what i don't sort after as wel...why they make this world a hell.

2007-02-19 22:47:11 · 13 answers · asked by alone in 6billion 1

2007-02-19 22:46:45 · 16 answers · asked by k_sushma2006 1

and you still say my heart is broken and i love you from all my heart. I say heart is just a blood pump, how come feelings come out from a pump and you still say GOD doesn's exist. please explain it and show me how smart you are??????

2007-02-19 22:46:24 · 12 answers · asked by salamah2000 1

Some religious cult group? Jehovas witnesses?

they seem to spend their days just shopping.

2007-02-19 22:43:04 · 19 answers · asked by thunor 5

If that is the case Bush with all his sins will be in heaven and Gandhi with all his goodness still be in hell.

2007-02-19 22:42:55 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

somehow i don't understand how if a young girl get's raped she has to find it in herself to forgive him for it before she can be let into heaven while all he has to do is ask for forgiveness and he's forgiven. maybe it's because i'm young or i'm not sure what it is. but if someone could give me some reasonable answer's it would help. and please don't post anything rude.

2007-02-19 22:33:36 · 11 answers · asked by monogamyislove 2

Why can't we all live in peace.

2007-02-19 22:32:44 · 22 answers · asked by PaganByNature 2

2007-02-19 22:27:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-19 22:25:44 · 9 answers · asked by ana_ana 1

The Bible endorses homosexual behaviour and we shall provide one such example which is exemplified in the story of the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs.

The verse is:

"Vayiten ha-Elohim et-Daniyel leKHesed u'leraKHamim lifnei sar hasarisim" (Daniel 1:9)

[i.e., "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV).]

The Hebrew words, which describe the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the Eunuchs, are "KHesed" and "RaHamim".

The first of these indeed means "goodness, kindness, faithfulness". The word "RaHamim", however, derives from the Semitic root R-H-M, which refers to a womb.1 The KJV's rendering of "RaHamim" as "tender love" would therefore entail and indespensible element of physical love, or love which is manifested through physical contact.

Now, look at our two characters: The prince of the eunuchs is of course an eunuch. Daniel, in the opinion of the Jewish commentators, was also an eunuch.2 Hence an affair between them involving physical love would correctly be termed as a homosexual affair (i.e., between an eunuch and another eunuch).
Of course there is no "twisting" done to the sense or material of the verse, which are presented as they stand. Some may object that it is quite impossible for an eunuch to have any sexual contact. I would like to highlight this argument by pointing out an even more elementary matter: the deprivation of the testes or external genitals in a man or boy does not result in the change of sex of the same to a woman or girl. Hence the "tender love" between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs would nonetheless remain a homosexual affair.

Secondly, the terms "eunuch" and "castration" are invariably spoken of male subjects; the correct corresponding term for females is "spaying".

Thirdly, why should one entertain the possibility that the eunuch (as in Daniel's "prince of the eunuchs"), would have to be the active sexual partner, when the common sense assigns to him the passive role?

Fourthly, it is also abundantly clear that this is not the only homosexual affair from the Bible. It is also believed that Jonathon and David too (according to the Biblical account) were more than just the "closest of friends"; they were passionate homosexual lovers.3

Hence from this brief exposition, it is inconceivable that the "word of God" would condone such a horrible and unnatural sexual act, as the Bible obviously does.

2007-02-19 22:21:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-19 22:19:21 · 10 answers · asked by tinadurham@btinternet.com 1

2007-02-19 22:19:09 · 21 answers · asked by General Vic 2

2007-02-19 22:18:55 · 7 answers · asked by ninnu 2

The Bible endorses homosexual behaviour and we shall provide one such example which is exemplified in the story of the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs.

The verse is:

"Vayiten ha-Elohim et-Daniyel leKHesed u'leraKHamim lifnei sar hasarisim" (Daniel 1:9)

[i.e., "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV).]

The Hebrew words, which describe the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the Eunuchs, are "KHesed" and "RaHamim".

The first of these indeed means "goodness, kindness, faithfulness". The word "RaHamim", however, derives from the Semitic root R-H-M, which refers to a womb.1 The KJV's rendering of "RaHamim" as "tender love" would therefore entail and indespensible element of physical love, or love which is manifested through physical contact.

Now, look at our two characters: The prince of the eunuchs is of course an eunuch. Daniel, in the opinion of the Jewish commentators, was also an eunuch.2 Hence an affair between them involving physical love would correctly be termed as a homosexual affair (i.e., between an eunuch and another eunuch).
Of course there is no "twisting" done to the sense or material of the verse, which are presented as they stand. Some may object that it is quite impossible for an eunuch to have any sexual contact. I would like to highlight this argument by pointing out an even more elementary matter: the deprivation of the testes or external genitals in a man or boy does not result in the change of sex of the same to a woman or girl. Hence the "tender love" between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs would nonetheless remain a homosexual affair.

Secondly, the terms "eunuch" and "castration" are invariably spoken of male subjects; the correct corresponding term for females is "spaying".

Thirdly, why should one entertain the possibility that the eunuch (as in Daniel's "prince of the eunuchs"), would have to be the active sexual partner, when the common sense assigns to him the passive role?

Fourthly, it is also abundantly clear that this is not the only homosexual affair from the Bible. It is also believed that Jonathon and David too (according to the Biblical account) were more than just the "closest of friends"; they were passionate homosexual lovers.3

Hence from this brief exposition, it is inconceivable that the "word of God" would condone such a horrible and unnatural sexual act, as the Bible obviously does.

2007-02-19 22:18:43 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-19 22:17:27 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-19 22:14:15 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

ROY G BIV

2007-02-19 22:11:09 · 23 answers · asked by Zhukov 1

2007-02-19 22:10:30 · 16 answers · asked by SACHIN S 1

The Bible endorses homosexual behaviour and we shall provide one such example which is exemplified in the story of the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs.

The verse is:

"Vayiten ha-Elohim et-Daniyel leKHesed u'leraKHamim lifnei sar hasarisim" (Daniel 1:9)

[i.e., "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV).]

The Hebrew words, which describe the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the Eunuchs, are "KHesed" and "RaHamim".

The first of these indeed means "goodness, kindness, faithfulness". The word "RaHamim", however, derives from the Semitic root R-H-M, which refers to a womb.1 The KJV's rendering of "RaHamim" as "tender love" would therefore entail and indespensible element of physical love, or love which is manifested through physical contact.

Now, look at our two characters: The prince of the eunuchs is of course an eunuch. Daniel, in the opinion of the Jewish commentators, was also an eunuch.2 Hence an affair between them involving physical love would correctly be termed as a homosexual affair (i.e., between an eunuch and another eunuch).
Of course there is no "twisting" done to the sense or material of the verse, which are presented as they stand. Some may object that it is quite impossible for an eunuch to have any sexual contact. I would like to highlight this argument by pointing out an even more elementary matter: the deprivation of the testes or external genitals in a man or boy does not result in the change of sex of the same to a woman or girl. Hence the "tender love" between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs would nonetheless remain a homosexual affair.

Secondly, the terms "eunuch" and "castration" are invariably spoken of male subjects; the correct corresponding term for females is "spaying".

Thirdly, why should one entertain the possibility that the eunuch (as in Daniel's "prince of the eunuchs"), would have to be the active sexual partner, when the common sense assigns to him the passive role?

Fourthly, it is also abundantly clear that this is not the only homosexual affair from the Bible. It is also believed that Jonathon and David too (according to the Biblical account) were more than just the "closest of friends"; they were passionate homosexual lovers.3

Hence from this brief exposition, it is inconceivable that the "word of God" would condone such a horrible and unnatural sexual act, as the Bible obviously does.

2007-02-19 22:10:14 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

What exactly does it take to become a member of a church? For the majority of churches?

2007-02-19 22:04:34 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-19 22:00:35 · 29 answers · asked by Rocker Chic 1

its happenned a few times where i wake up and i feel like im still half asleep and half awake, almost like a dream-like state but i cant move at all. no matter how hard i try. i cant talk either. im not exactly sure if my eyes are open or not. ive heard things about witchcraft or evil spirits and things...im mexican and alot of mexican ppl believe in these type of things. is it this or is there a medical explanation???

2007-02-19 21:57:09 · 13 answers · asked by veedizzle 2

if you’re wondering if there are Biblical passages which condemn homosexuals and homosexual acts, the answer is NO.

Most people, even priests and scholars, are unaware that the passages about homosexuality have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah? That’s a warning against rape and inhospitality. The reason for Sodom’s destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned.

Leviticus? Those passages were part of the Holiness Code which has been done away with and is no longer binding to modern-day Christians.

1 Corinthians? Mistranslation - the word malakee in this passage is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender.

1 Timothy? Also a mistranslation. 1 Timothy was an admonishment against male prostitution, not committed, loving same sex relationships.

Romans? In the passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean “to go against the laws of nature”, but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that particular person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for a homosexual to live as a heterosexual and vice versa.

2007-02-19 21:56:30 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

if you’re wondering if there are Biblical passages which condemn homosexuals and homosexual acts, the answer is NO.

Most people, even priests and scholars, are unaware that the passages about homosexuality have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah? That’s a warning against rape and inhospitality. The reason for Sodom’s destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned.

Leviticus? Those passages were part of the Holiness Code which has been done away with and is no longer binding to modern-day Christians.

1 Corinthians? Mistranslation - the word malakee in this passage is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender.

1 Timothy? Also a mistranslation. 1 Timothy was an admonishment against male prostitution, not committed, loving same sex relationships.

Romans? In the passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean “to go against the laws of nature”, but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that particular person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for a homosexual to live as a heterosexual and vice versa.

2007-02-19 21:56:04 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

if you’re wondering if there are Biblical passages which condemn homosexuals and homosexual acts, the answer is NO.

Most people, even priests and scholars, are unaware that the passages about homosexuality have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah? That’s a warning against rape and inhospitality. The reason for Sodom’s destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned.

Leviticus? Those passages were part of the Holiness Code which has been done away with and is no longer binding to modern-day Christians.

1 Corinthians? Mistranslation - the word malakee in this passage is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender.

1 Timothy? Also a mistranslation. 1 Timothy was an admonishment against male prostitution, not committed, loving same sex relationships.

Romans? In the passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean “to go against the laws of nature”, but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that particular person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for a homosexual to live as a heterosexual and vice versa.

2007-02-19 21:54:54 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous