Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Actually I included both 1 John 2:1-2 and 1 John 4:10, so you start off lying about what I did.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.

1 John 2:1-2 wasn't written by Paul, another lie.

1 John 4:10 wasn't written by Paul, another lie.

And you still haven't figured out what Jesus was taking about. Perhaps if you listened to what Paul had to say you would understand it.

You continue to fail to realize that with your dismissal of Paul, you also dismiss what you have to say.

If we are to dismiss what the Holy Spirit taught Paul then we should should also dismiss what you say the "holy spirit" teaches you and if we accept what Paul says then is is easy to see that what you are being taught disagrees with Paul and thus you are not being taught by the same Spirit that taught Paul.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about so I looked it up.

The Wendigo (also known as Windigo, Weendigo, Windago, Waindigo, Windiga, Witiko, Wihtikow, "Wanka", and numerous other variants) is a mythical creature appearing in the mythology of the Algonquian people. It is a malevolent cannibalistic spirit into which humans could transform, or which could possess humans. Those who indulged in cannibalism were at particular risk, and the legend appears to have reinforced this practice as a taboo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendigo

And quite frankly with this definition, I still have no clue what in the world you are taking about.

First, I believe that there is only one almighty God.

I do not believe that God makes a different truth for each individual because of the confusion and disorder that would cause and just looking at the natural world around us we can see that Almighty God is a God of order and not confusion.

A message for all of mankind would be available to all of mankind and only the Bible truly fits that description.

For example:
John 3:16 (Mohawk)
Iken ne Yehovah egh ne s'hakonoronghkwa n'ongwe, nene rodewendeghton nene raonháon rodewedon rohháwak, nene onghka kiok teyakaweghdaghkon raonhage yaghten a-onghtonde, ok denghnon aontehodiyendane ne eterna adonhéta.
or
Aseken ne Niio tsini sakohnoronk8ahon nonk8e, iah tatesakohnonhianiheki n'enskat ok ro8iraien, asakaon tosa aiahiheie tsini iakon tiaka8etakon raonhake, ok eken tanon neh aiakoientake ne raonhake aietsenri atsennonniat.

John 3:16 (Inuit)
God-im piviuttaġivaiłługich nunam iñuŋi aitchuutigiŋagaa Iġñitualuni, kiñaliqaa ukpiqtuaq iġñiŋanun tammaquŋił̣ł̣ugu aglaan iñnuggutiqaquvlugu isuitchuamik.
or
Imâk Gûdib sillaкsoarmiut nagligivait, Ernetuane tunnilugo, illûnatik okpertut tâpsomunga assioкonnagit, nungusuitomigle inôguteкarкovlugit.
or
Silamiúme Gûtip ima asatigai ernitue túniutdlugo kinalunît tàussumúnga ugpertoк tàmarкunago, nâgssàungitsumigdle inũssuteкarкuvdlugo.
or
Guutimmi silarsuaq ima asatigaa ernituani tunniussimallugu taassumunnga uppertoq kinaluunniit tammaqqunagu naassaanngitsumilli inooqqullugu.
or
Agaayutim nunam iñui piqpagivagitḷugich, Iġñitualuni aatchuutiginiġaa. Kisupayaaq ukpiqsrił̣ikun turviñiktuaq ilaanik tuquyumiñaitchuq, aglaan isruitchuamik iñuugisiruq.

The Bible is available in over 2500 languages and thus is available to all mankind.

The Bible is also a book of prophecy, like no other book.

Whereas most prophecies are general and could be made to fit almost any circumstances, Bible prophecies are noted for their accuracy and clarity.

A case in point is the prophecy regarding the fall of Babylon, which is recorded in the Bible book of Isaiah. Some 200 years before this event took place, the prophet Isaiah predicted in a detailed and accurate way the overthrow of Babylon by Medo-Persia. The prophecy disclosed that the conqueror would bear the name Cyrus, and it revealed the very strategy of drying up a moatlike river defense and entering a fortified city through open gates. All of this was accurately fulfilled. (Isaiah 44:27–45:2) It was also correctly prophesied that Babylon would eventually be totally uninhabited. (Isaiah 13:17-22.)

Which would seem to say that there is more to Bible prophecy than mankind's wisdom or ability to predict the future.

I could go on but for the sake of brevity, I will stop here.

 

If you do not know of who Wendigo is. Then maybe perhaps you have blood of amerindien but you have not live as amerindien. I have been to pow wows and met and speaked to Wahpekutes and Navajos and they as also have knowledge of Wendigo. Maybe perhaps they call him differently ?

For this thing you call a bible I respond this.

I was taught by the Angakkuit of my mother's community (inuit) that we talk of a great bird that carry our spirits to the sky. We have have history and lessons wroten on wood of this spirit that have more than 7,000 years of age. These things speak of our meetings of when white man would have happened and of great wars. They also speak of when white man will kill most of the nanook with pervese constructions that search for the dead earth. Plus they speak of when Inuit will drink of poison that kills slowly.

If you see problems of alcholoiques and the great machines that make massive holes in the earth looking for mineral and oil and how this haved killed thousands of animals. It is also prophecy is it not ?

So if you're bible is truth because it said of fall of Babylon "200 years before this event took place". Why is ours not truth when it speak of white man's coming 7,000 years before they came ?

Should it be translated into more languages to make it true ?

I have also read much of your book.

I think the song of songs is agreeable to read. But this man called Job is an idiot because to urine is natural but to invite a dog that urines in your tipi is dumb. I think the christian's god urined muchly in the home of the man your book calls Job.

 

I just saw the story of Job on the Rifleman.. Im kickass like that..
Air Date: October 7, 1958 (Season 1, Episode 2). Lucas McCain (aka The Rifleman) tells his son Mark about Job and how he stayed faithful to God even when things wheren't going his way.

See what happened was, there was these cattle dudes and they set fire to other dudes house. So the rifle dude and his son. Cause he always has his son, they go looking for the other dudes. While they was out of food and water, the rifle dude told his son the story of Job. Then the rifle dude left his son in on the trail while he looked for the other dude, then his son was tripping cause he aint eat in a while.. but then the rifle dude finds them and gets them to pay for his house lumber. He used a gun btw... But he didnt kill anyone. If he did I looked away cause those is scary parts.

 

Okay, where does jesus make the comparison? You are extrapolating meaning where there is none. The passover lamb is not the same image as the scape goat.

Customary to sacrifice.
What did jesus do during the passover meal? He called for service. If you do not allow me to do this for you, you have no part of me, (that is wash the feet). He called for concentration on god, remember me.

The whole connection by paul to passover imagery was a politic to make things acceptable to himself as well as disparate groups, jews and pagans. The "sacrifice" of jesus "fulfills" jewish tradition to the extent that tradition is no longer required, i.e., no more dietary restrictions, no more requirement for circumcision, etc..

There is no good reason to believe opposite of christ teaching. There is good reason to believe that no greater love has a man than to give his life for a friend. There is no reason to believe in the necessity of sacrifice when jesus taught that sacrifice is not what god desires. Not of "his son", or of anyone else.

Consider the definition of sacrifice. To give up something you prefer to keep for the sake of receiving some thing of greater value. That is striking a bargain or making payment expecting something in return, Mammon.

Jesus gives his life freely for the sake of gods great love. No one takes my life from me he says. Certainly not his father.

Paul. In this chapter paul speaks of avoiding gods wrath.

Is wrath love, or is love wrath?

Words are symbols that access the contents of the mind. You need consider these things with a grain of salt. Have salt in yourself.

Men say many things but only what you accept as true can be considered learned by you and therefore taught to you. How have I gone against what jesus said? If you hope for me to understand, you need to be very specific.

I do not suggest what paul says has no weight. Paul was the perfect instrument for spreading the word. A cosmopolitan who traveled the breadth of the land, already for the sake of his convictions. Paul is also the perfect instrument to provoke deep consideration on these issues being controversial from the very beginning . His controversial stances are documented as controversial. He has an argument with peter but does not say that he won the argument.

Paul was a person. It is a mistake to consider a person to be infallible in their vision. What you produce in doing this is a pantheon of privileged individuals, saints and priests who you endow with godlike persona.

It is also a mistake to consider letters from paul as edicts from god.

Again where?

I am. The only thing jesus said about sacrifice is that he did not desire it.

I'm waiting for your evidence. I didn't say only paul spoke of it. Obviously you speak of it as paul does. What I said is that jesus did not teach as paul teaches.

Which way does jesus see it? I point out that he says I desire mercy, not sacrifice. He does not then go on to say except in the case of myself.



Everyone can make their own choice but there is only one true interpretation.



This is true.

Jesus makes one statement regarding sacrifice. I asked you if you knew what it meant. You declined to witness on the subject.
I would still like to know what you had learned.

John 3;16 says not one thing about sacrifice.

Is Isaiah christ? Did not christ bring a new commandment? That ye love one another. I desire mercy not sacrifice.

As I said above, I have already shared what I have learned of that statement, however you have not. Unless it is to say that you must kill things in the right spirit?

It testifies to your confusion as to what is merciful or loving. You think it loving that god would send his son to sacrifice himself for your sins. Jesus was a teacher of god. That he provides "ransom" for many is the antecedent to the "wages" of sin. Again it matters not how many jesus are crucified but that you by your own words, have the right spirit.

Giving is not the same as sacrifice. To give something is to give it because you want someone to have it. To sacrifice is to give up something you prefer to keep. God does not ask you to give up something you prefer to keep but rather to accept something you really want. As you conceive now you will find yourself in a position of feeling as though you are called upon to sacrifice something of your life. Sacrifice is self denial. If jesus was reluctant, what does that say about the quality of his love?

There is a disconnect with the idea of "sacrificial giving". To give freely and to sacrifice are not the same. It is not that the idea of sacrifice is evil, it is that it is not effective. There are no proxies to be had for your devotion, only your devotion counts.

The belief that jesus sacrifice is required for your salvation means that the innocent are required to suffer for the sake of the guilty. Would you consider it by any means loving to kill your son because the guy down the street stole your car?

It is this twisted belief that makes the crusades appear loving and just to those who participated and still participate in demanding that their view is the one ordained by god.

Only god is good. It is not up to us to reform others. If we keep the sayings of christ then god works through us without hindrance. The measure we give is the measure we receive. If we love god with everything we have, then we have god in everything we do. To have all, give all to all. You withhold your blessing from me for the sake of your beliefs. In order to be accepted by you, the payment is that I believe as you do.

The only effect of this is that you simply may miss the sign of god when it appears because you had been looking for some kind of conformance to your principles. Only god is good.

If you know the truth, then why suggest that I may be trying to subvert it? My claim is that I am teaching as the holy spirit leads me to teach and that this teaching is consistent in every way to the sayings attributed to christ. I claim no "special" function. I have opinions and experiences. I am not estranged to your beliefs as I have entertained them myself earlier in life, as I have said before, until I matured enough in spiritual presence to know better. As above, so below. God's is the only just verdict.

You claim, because of your beliefs, that I do not teach with the holy spirit and in so doing, deny of me, gods blessing. In your conviction, you convict me. This is the natural and predictable effect of your premises. Christs teaching about you and I though, is that we don't know what we are doing.

 

Pardon me. It was not my intent to misrepresent you. If you claim that john is the author of 1 john then you did not quote only paul, but in the same turn you did not quote all the bible has to say on it. I recognize the teaching about sacrifice to be sectarian. It was then, and it remains so. It is a way of interpreting events, but it is not central to the event, the event being christ teaching.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
And you say you care what the Bible says, another lie.
1 John 2:1-2 wasn't written by Paul, another lie.
1 John 4:10 wasn't written by Paul, another lie..[/QUOTE]
It is not my intent to mislead. I am not a bible expert. I recognize, as I say, the teaching on sacrifice to be sectarian. I equate that teaching predominantly with Paul although I recognize that their were those of Pauls contemporaries who believed as paul believed. Pauls writings make up the bulk of that teaching as it comes to us, by far. There were others who did not.

Again you are confusing my disagreements with your interpretations, with a level of my devotion. You are way off the mark.

I do not dismiss paul but put his teaching in context. His belief makes it what it is to him. My belief makes it what it is to me. What it is to me does not cause me to condemn you as being with out the holy spirit. Your belief predictably does exactly that to me.

Again, I do not dismiss what paul taught. I put it in a perspective that allows anyone to remove the barriers we have erected against the perception of love. To sin is to miss the sign of god. You look at me and because of your belief, all you see is sin. If the light in you be darkness, then how great the darkness.

 

I find meaning in unlikely places as well.

 

Your people must be a stupid people for only stupid people do not share what they have with others.

 

So you insult when you have not answer ?

The inuit share everything this includes children and lovers. But the white man did not come to north america to share with us or to learn from us. He came to look for riches.

If you give consideration to the white man's bible. The stories and people wrote in it are not about white people. For to be clear there are no white people in the bible because they all came from origin of the middle east. If your jesus had existance he was not white because european jews did not exist then at this time.

If you think of the riches and power your bible has given the white nations. It is obvious that the bible is an another example white man's exploitation of the non-white people for money and power and mass production.

OK for the translation of the bible in Inuit.
It is not comprehensible because the Inuit do not use latin alphabet.

 

What goat? It talks of the passover and the sacrificial lamb.

What did he do at the stake?

The connection is to show Jesus' persecution and death was a sacrifice.

When a firefighter dies for someone he hardly knows, you would not call that a sacrifice.

He preferred to keep his life and he lost it. He preferred not to suffer but he did.

If a firefighter loses a limb and gets compensation for that loss does not in any way reduce the value of the sacrifice.

Yes, Jesus gave his life freely.

And how is one to avoid it in that verse? By not being mislead into learning of a different gospel.

Some things deserve punishment.

Of course they are, when all the words and symbols are learned and read from the Bible the actual content can become clear.

Are you paraphrasing a verse?

I have tried to be very specific but then you tell me that what Jesus says isn't true.

I know about the argument you mention. Basically, as I understand it, Peter was getting too swept up in Judaism or in teaching another gospel. In the end, Peter accepted Paul's rebuke and turned away from what he was doing, so you can say that Paul did win the argument.

(Galatians 2:11-21; Ch 3 & 4, here's an interesting link)

Sure he was, but we were talking about accepting Jesus' gospel, but if you accept what Jesus had said then you should accept what Paul said.

Of course you only say that because you don't believe in God. I do.

It's been posted.

Like it's been said, you simply take Jesus out of context either purposely or not.

My evidence is what the holy spirit has sent down to Jesus, Paul and the other apostles.

No he does not say "except in the case of myself" because there is not much need to.

Basically since some Pharisee's and Sadducee were wicked their sacrifices meant nothing, but since Jesus was holy his sacrifice meant a lot, and the subsequent Christians who sacrifices themselves are also important.

It's not an explicit quote on the sacrifice. I quoted that to show that Jesus' sacrifice has the power to save many.

Jesus didn't bring anything new; he simply fulfilled the law. He also quotes Isaiah.

Psalm 51:19 "Then you will be pleased with sacrifices offered in the right spirit--with burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings. Then bulls will again be sacrificed on your altar."

It is very loving for someone to suffer for the guilty so that they might be healed. I find it odd that you wouldn't think so. Some would say the greatest quality of human nature is their potential for self-sacrifice. Why in the world would you downplay that loving kindness?

Millions if not billions have testified to the power of that sacrifice as being highly effective. Murderer's becoming follower's of God such as Paul for one.

I don't believe the crusaders were in anyway loving or in anyway Christian or in anyway following Jesus' commands.

What's the point in not caring for others? Jesus has said that if we only love those that love us then where is the reward? Christians have loved others for a long while and will continue to do so.

I am denying you no blessings. You only believe that I am. It's true that we can't truly be best of friends unless you accept the sacrifice but that doesn't mean I haven't cared about you.

On the same token, you judge me and won't accept me for my convictions so it works the other way around. Either you believe in judging or you don't, either you do or you don't.

Truth is your beliefs is what keeps others away from being saved, yet that's said about me. If you don't like to be accused so much then don't bother. As for me, I don't really care about being accused. I don't need to justify myself only express what I believe. and follow my convictions to the best of my ability.

So why not let that little light shine? Let it shine, let it shine?

 

The scape goat which is the animal of sacrifice. You are confusing metaphors. The paschal lamb is not a sacrificial animal, not a burnt offering to god but the blood of the spring lamb is spread on the lintel so that the plague passes over, a way of identifying the occupants. The lamb of god is the symbol of innocence.

Perhaps in this way paul conceives that we can only claim redemption if we are washed in christs blood. It is an allegorical metaphor, not a requirement from god that his son be sacrificed for the sake of your sin.

He forgave those who persecuted him and commended his spirit to the father.
What do you think he did, besides die?

Perhaps, then again you are speaking of pauls connection. If it is to show a connection to sacrifice it is to show a connection according to the jewish tradition of sacrifice. Again, it makes the whole narrative acceptable to paul and acceptable to the pagans because, the "fulfillment of the law", according to paul, relieves us of the law. Paul gets to the same place, no more sacrifice, but in a distorted manner in that he calls for yet more, (sacrifice) from you as he continues to try to enforce authoritarianism on the church.

It is a teaching of mixed premises and it is because of this imperfect quality that Paul was and remains to this day a controversial figure. Paul inserted his own desires into his writing, he even writes that this is so, in the bible.

I think that the firefighter himself would say that he died in the line of duty. Sacrifice can only be measured by the quality of personal investment. That is, you cannot express what I may consider to be a sacrifice because you may not regard things in the same way as I.

This is not an argument about the truth. This is an argument about terms, symbols. There is confusion about terms because terms have been used that do not express real things.

For example; "righteous indignation". Righteousness and indignity are not the same. They are ideas with two different heads. There is no indignity in righteousness. If you feel indignant, you are not righteous, the two things do not meet in truth but it appears that they must because of the way the symbols are used in combination with each other. They are used incorrectly in this way and in this way, the cause of righteousness becomes an excuse for violence. We feel just in condemning our brother because we feel "right is on our side".

In the same way, ideas have become distorted around the term "sacrificial giving". This is another example of mixing symbols that are not alike. As I have demonstrated, to sacrifice is to give up something you prefer to keep for the sake of gaining something of greater value. Giving is giving because you want someone to have what you have to give, without strings. The measure you give is the measure you receive. Christ does not ask us to make a bargain, but to invest ourselves fully in god and in our brothers.

This tit for tat payment for your sins description describes unequal exchange rates, the very thing that jesus drove the money changers out of the temple for. The money changers changed common currencies for temple money, the point being that your offering was of no value unless ordained by the priests.
The priests were the robbers and thieves interposing themselves between god and the people, jesus saying that his fathers house was meant as a place of prayer for all nations, (natures).

So christ is dead then? He preferred to give up his suffering and so he did.

Do you really feel that a firefighter can be compensated, for the loss of a limb? How much is your limb worth? There is no value in sacrifice. the natural effect of the illusory, "sacrificial giving", is resentment, doubt, an inability to have what you seek.

The gospel is the first four books of the new testament in which paul does not appear, nor does his teaching emerge from jesus.

You have a list you have compiled, things you have judged against?
The measure you give is the measure you receive.

This belief is, as I point out, the natural result of confused premises. Punishment is not love. God is love, god does not punish. Gods gift is everlasting life.

If you believe that some things deserve punishment then you must condemn in order to justify your unwillingness to forgive. Christ did not believe that those who put him to death deserved punishment, or do you believe that he condemned them from the cross?

Nothing you read can become clear without experiential connotation. the bible does not interpret itself.

You know that i am. Why, do you think?

You have tried to force associations that do not exist. Your claim is that jesus said of himself he was the paschal lamb based on the following verse;
"On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”" Mark 14:12-16 (NIV).

No such claim is made by him in this verse, so I am not saying that what jesus said isn't true. I say that is not what he said. How can you make him say that in this verse? You make the association in retrospect because of the teaching of paul.

You can say it. I do not. The reason for the impression is simply that there were no intervening authors, no rebuttal by peter. Paul is keen to have his be the authority. For all that paul desired for his own teaching, it did not happen. Today, as at it's inception, sectarianism in christianity is a fixture of the pursuit of christs meaning. It is as we play off of each other that we are instructed in life.

(Galatians 2:11-21; Ch 3 & 4, here's an interesting link)

There is no denying what paul has written. I do not interpret what he has written in the same way you do. I do not hold paul in a position above, you for example.

I accept jesus gospel because I have seen, not because I had believed. I once believed based on hearsay.

You are mistaken that you speak for my belief, you only speak for yours. I am the one who speaks for my beliefs.

Beg your pardon?

Say it all you want but without demonstration your speech is dead.

So your evidence is not your evidence at all. You make no claim that the holy spirit is in you?. You think you know the spirit only through proxy?
You do not offer evidence but only reiterate your belief.

Why?

All expressions of love are maximal. You are distorted in your thinking.

You are inserting the idea of sacrifice where it does not in fact exist.

 

waterbrother, I said I would find the scripture stating that gods command is eternal life for you when I was reunited with my bible. Here it is:
John 13; 49 and 50. For I have not spoken on my own authority: the father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. what I say therefore, I say as the father has bidden me.

 

May i suggest that you try an interpretation that does not cause you to call upon the wicked to make it meaningful? What is the quality missing from sacrifice?

Yes, he replaced an eye for an eye, with, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. As in, I desire mercy not sacrifice. I desire mercy for sinfully afflicted, not payment of them.

What bulls do you burn in sacrifice?

There is nothing loving about suffering. Suffering is the illness. I am surprised that this has not occurred to you.

I do not downplay loving kindness. You confuse suffering with joy and pain with healing.

The greatest human capacity is the will. That is why we are called upon to do gods will. It is not gods will that you should sacrifice yourself. It is gods will that you wholly invest yourself in yourself in loving god and your brother.

And how will your idea be effective toward me? I walk in the holy spirit, I need no symbols to convince me! As I said, if the concept causes substantial affection in you that is it's result. The problem is when belief in the concept puts you at odds with your brother to the extent that you cannot recognize the holy spirit in the living. You say that I do not believe in god because I do not believe in your take on what Paul or the bible 'says", but jesus states that it is in, that we love one another that we recognize christ in them.

They did, is my point. they did as a natural outcome of the premises they upheld. the premise you uphold has the inevitable result of conceiving your brother as without god. I offer myself as evidence.

You deny me the best. Is not the best a blessing. You are confused friend.
But confused is not guilty, it just means that you are not clear about what you see. If the eye be sound the whole body will be full of light. The "body", is the sonship.

I do not judge you. You are demonstrating the natural outcome of your premises. As I have stated, the purpose that the holy spirit puts me to is helping to remove the barriers we have erected against the perception of love. If you find me unworthy of your best friendship then that is a barrier don't you think?

As you have agreed, if your belief leads you toward affection for god then it is godly affection. If it leads you to convict your brother of infidelity then it does not serve god.

Would you care to restate? My beliefs do not substitute for your beliefs. This statement is patently not true.

My concern for accusation is that it happens at all. Your convictions have caused you to accuse me of not believing in god. You couldn't be more personally condemning, considering my affection for god.

Where is the darkness?

 

old words of knowing help the nanook survive . should
the future which is now been absolutely hopeless , the
old words of knowing had no purpose to be created .

and perhaps it takes a 7000 yr advance notice to begin
forgiveness ? i am not to say i can understand the power
of nanook survival when suffering perversity .

 

A nanook is a bear.

 

Regardless what you call yourself, what is your traditions prophetic outlook? Is your people to remain drunk or the earth to remain torn up?

My prophetic outlook is that the truth will free us from suffering.

 

We do not call ourselfs bear.

What prophecy is someone in the past trying to exploit the misery and misfortune of someone in the future for profit and power.

The problem of prophecy is they are always ambigue and do not become exact until some personne in the present interprets the past so that they too can profit from misery and misfortune. Only this time of the people in the past.

For the Inuit prophecy we speak of the spiritless ghosts and how they will destroy themselfs in greed and perversions to their bodies. Only some that spiritless learned that all is spirit and to have gentle for this they will be given a spirit and allowed to with peace and the Inuit.

It is better to not participate in this white man world. If you do not become addict to the junk of this world. You find you live very comfortable and without worry.

 

And you haven't been insulting from the start? You use words that are not understand able and will not share their meaning and now you tell us that your people have a "religion, that's the truth" and have made little or no effort to share it. It would seem that what I said is not so much a insult as it is the truth.

And still you insult but where is the sharing.

Now you are confused. How is it the "white man's bible" if it is not even about "white men"? The simple truth is the Bible is everybody's and not just the "white man's".

If you had understood the Bible, you would know that the only riches the Bible provides are Spiritual riches.

You're welcome.

As for the Inuit not using a latin alphabet:

Inuktitut has a long, rich history as an oral language, but its writing systems are fairly new.

Even though there are some seven or so major dialect groupings of Inuktitut in Nunavut, Inuit from across their territory understand one another. In the western Kitikmeot Region, the dialect is known as Inuinnaqtun and is written in roman orthography, just as it is in Labrador, the Canadian western Arctic, Alaska, and in Greenland, where a tradition of literacy based on the roman alphabet goes back centuries.

In the rest of Nunavut, however, Inuktitut is written in syllabics, a phonetic form of writing that was developed by Rev. James Evans for the Cree, adapted for the Inuit in the latter part of the 1800s by the Anglican missionaries John Horden and E.A. Watkins, and brought to the Arctic by their colleague, Edmund Peck. A standardized dual orthography for both roman and syllabics was established in the late 1970s by the Inuit Cultural Institute. Time has revealed one or two minor problems with the system, but on the whole it is accurate, learnable and logical. It has gained acceptance in the east, but westerners have been much less receptive, preferring to use an older roman style of spelling.

So it would seem that whether the language is written in "Roman" or not depends on the dialect.

http://www.nunavut.com/nunavut99/english/our.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_languages

 

I am called many things but I am none in particular.

I find the value of prophecy as a predictor of future events to be very dubious indeed but as a picture of prevalent tendencies, it is reliable.

I am not clear as to what you are saying here. As you recall your peoples prophecy as you feel it could relate to current events, how is that profiting from your ancestors misery and misfortune?

If all is spirit how are there spiritless ghosts? Honesty is consistency.

Is that what you find, comfort and freedom from anxiety on the internet? The internet is not an inuit trick. If it is better not to participate, then why have you chosen what is not the best for yourself?

 

Waterbrother, I see nothing insulting about what hippie chick2 is writing. It is not in the nature of the children of god to be insulting but it is in the nature of the egotistical to find insult or take offense at the slightest imagined provocation.