Didn't think I'd see this from Chavez. I guess facing the potential end does that to some people, putting them heavily into tune with death bed repentence.
I don't think yourparents had the baggage he's going to have to answer for. I don't think I'd have cared to. Meet Jesus either in some of the more unsavory times in my life.
You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
It sounds like an interesting story, with the dead man. I had an uncle that died on the operating table and came back to life.
He remembered what he saw. This could be a topic for a new thread.
Relapse wrote:I guess facing the potential end does that to some people, putting them heavily into tune with death bed repentence.
What is is he repenting for? As far as I know he's not an atheist, and its highly unlikely he's anything except a Christian. Yeah, he's a socialist and there were a couple attempts to overthrow him, but the coup is long respected tradition of Latin American politics; especially against socialists. The only reason Chavez has held power is due to his ties to the military, most socialist politicians in Latin America were/are disaffected members of the middle class.
Is it the elimination of term limits that is odious?
Frazzled wrote:Stragnely enough neither my mom nor my dad said anything stupid like that. Of course they had something called character.
My missus family is pretty Religious (obviously shes American!) not hugely, but far more than anything Ive seen with mine. Anyway, they are Catholic, and her Moms brother told me that he went to see their sick like, 102 year old grandmother and he she was being blase about death as many people that age are and said something like "Ah, Ive lived too long already, It will be a relief to finally go" and he said to her "Oh you will get to go see Grandpa soon huh?" and she went "Pah! I don't believe in any of that stupid gak!"
Made me laugh anyway.. I think its the way he (a relatively devout Catholic) told it!
Orlanth wrote:You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
No you havent. And Major healings have nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus and god dont heal anyone because they ask for it or pray a lot. What kind of unjust world or god would that be?
Orlanth wrote:You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
No you havent. And Major healings have nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus and god dont heal anyone because they ask for it or pray a lot. What kind of unjust world or god would that be?
What gets me is that the vast, vast majority don't get healed yet we're supposed to take someone coming out ahead once in a blue moon like some sort of sign.
Orlanth wrote:You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
No you havent. And Major healings have nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus and god dont heal anyone because they ask for it or pray a lot. What kind of unjust world or god would that be?
What gets me is that the vast, vast majority don't get healed yet we're supposed to take someone coming out ahead once in a blue moon like some sort of sign.
Orlanth wrote:You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
No you havent. And Major healings have nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus and god dont heal anyone because they ask for it or pray a lot. What kind of unjust world or god would that be?
What gets me is that the vast, vast majority don't get healed yet we're supposed to take someone coming out ahead once in a blue moon like some sort of sign.
How much harder must amputees pray?
Last I checked God is not a vending machine in any faith. A prayer is a request, not a dollar to get a soda. Some will be healed, some will not be. For some their time is up and its time to go home, for others there is time left or are granted extra time. For some the suffering will help them grow in mind and spirit. I may not necessarily be a fan of what I've gone through personally with clinical depression, but I cannot deny that it has certainly caused me to grow. I suppose this is difficult to understand if you believe solely in the flesh and not in the spirit.
Orlanth wrote:You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
Raised from the dead?
How long was he "technically dead for"
who was their to confirm he was dead?
I've met many people who claim they were dead, near dead or ill and have all be cured or saved by modern medicine but say it was God that saved them.
I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
What gods did he believe in? Was he Hindu?
No he wasnt a Hindu, oddly enough he wasn't a professing Christian either.
In any event if you look at near-death experiences most dovetail with Christian theology, even if the witness is not a Christian. One figure I remember was 98% correlation, though this includeds hell expereiences. Though I cannot remember where I read this it might have been from Visions Beyond the Veil.
Piston Honda wrote:
Raised from the dead?
How long was he "technically dead for"
who was their to confirm he was dead?
I met Ian at the beginning of his ministry not long after his fateful holiday in Mauritius.
http://www.near-death.com/mccormack.html There were plenty of witnesses to the event and he was stung several times by a box jellyfish/sea wasp and normally once is enough.
Piston Honda wrote:
I've met many people who claim they were dead, near dead or ill and have all be cured or saved by modern medicine but say it was God that saved them.
Once someone is dead it may not just be up to the doctors if he can come back. Many witnesses say they were sent back, this begs the question of what happens if they are claimed, we wont know because we dont get those ones coming back. This by default suggests some might have been revivable but God says, 'No. times up'.
George Spiggott wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Dark Scipio wrote:
Orlanth wrote:You may be surprised what reality can deal you if you have a little faith. Major healings are rare but not unknown, I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
It took balls, or raw desperation, to make that appeal openly as a politician. I have to give Chavez some credit for that.
No you havent. And Major healings have nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus and god dont heal anyone because they ask for it or pray a lot. What kind of unjust world or god would that be?
What gets me is that the vast, vast majority don't get healed yet we're supposed to take someone coming out ahead once in a blue moon like some sort of sign.
How much harder must amputees pray?
Its not a matter of praying harder, one prayer might be enough for any intervention, or a thousand might go unanswered. What it requires is more faith, in such cases too much faith for most.
I only know of one case of an amputee regrowing a limb, that miracle was performed through Smith Wigglesworth in the late 19th century and was reported at the time. Wigglesworth was a most unusual man. He raised several people from the dead (IIRC fourteen) including his wife, who asked him to let her die again as she felt her time was come.
I have only witnessed one miracles, unless you count cross referenced prophesy or tongues, which happen all the time.
Piston Honda wrote:I've met many people who claim they were dead, near dead or ill and have all be cured or saved by modern medicine but say it was God that saved them.
Orlanth wrote:I only know of one case of an amputee regrowing a limb, that miracle was performed through Smith Wigglesworth in the late 19th century and was reported at the time. Wigglesworth was a most unusual man. He raised several people from the dead (IIRC fourteen) including his wife, who asked him to let her die again as she felt her time was come.
other than another "I was dead people saw me die and I was an atheist until I saw God now send me money and buy this"
the healing and miracles of god seem to be bound by logic and reasoning. This makes god seem a bit prosaic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Piston Honda wrote:I've met many people who claim they were dead, near dead or ill and have all be cured or saved by modern medicine but say it was God that saved them.
The answer is obvious.
Science is God.
Ha!
after I had surgery in my left eye, my surgeon told me I was the first person in the 20 some years of his entire practice to thank him and not god.
While on the first view Christians and Socialist might share a lot on the first view in fact they are nearly opposites.
Christian religion focus on the individual to be a better person, not political but ethical. A Christ should try to become good, no matter how bad the others are.
Socialist Ideology focus on the society to be better, not ethical but political. A Socialist should try to make the soicety good, no matter how.
Thats why Christian religion is good for society when its performed as Jesus intended it and Socialism is bad for the society because it always leads to oppression.
I think you're confusing communism with socialism.
Every modern first world government contains a lot of socialism. We have socialized fire departments, police, roads and highways, militaries, and in most countries socialized medicine.
Early Christians were more communist, though, weren't they? Dismissive of personal possessions, practicing communal ownership. As for Jesus, he focused a lot on the importance of helping the poor, which is a message generally more in line with socialist or communist ideas than with fascist or capitalist.
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
Let's not draw too close comparisons between people living two thousand years ago and modern political parties. The Republicans weren't around then. And even a hundred years ago they were very, very different from the party they are today.
The thing to remember is that God's house is a house of order. The comment that God is not a soft drink machine, providing goods orservices on request at all times is totaly on the mark.
If everybody got everything they asked for, whatever the request would lead to chaos and a planet of spoiled child types.
We weren't put on this planet to become pampered pets. We were put here to prove to God and ourselves the type of people we are and to become strong and worthy heirs to his kingdom.
A lot of times this growth comes from being willing to help others or be helped ourselves rather than sitting back waiting for God to step in and take care of something we could have ourselves.
Relapse wrote:The thing to remember is that God's house is a house of order.
Anything but this, given the Christian god's actions in the bible-- said deity goes around upsetting the natural order, creating chaos and destruction, constantly and consistently.
Relapse wrote:The thing to remember is that God's house is a house of order.
Anything but this, given the Christian god's actions in the bible-- said deity goes around upsetting the natural order, creating chaos, constantly and consistently.
I disagree. It's always people that take something God gave them and screw it up, requiring him to take charge either himself or through the actions of inspired mortals.
Turning water in to wine.
Frogs falling from the sky.
Walking on water.
A rain of fire.
Parting an ocean.
Creating a horde of locusts out of nothing.
Yep, that's violating the natural world right there. Certainly no "house of order" here
How do you give someone a warning, do you whisper or make some kind of display or noise to catch their attention? T o tell the truth, there are historical precedents for some of those things you mentioned.
The Siberian meteor/astroid that flattened trees for miles around andkilledherds of animals must have seemed like fire from the sky.
Frogs, fish, and other thigs have fallen from the sky courtesty of water spouts in different parts of the world.
Who is to say the locusts were created out of nothing? Locusts can be a common thing in many regions of the world.
I've heard it speculated that a localized earthquake might have caused the Red Sea to part.
As for the other things, I strongly think our current level of science hasn't caught up with yet, unless you're suggesting we know all there is to know about nature and pysics, but I don't really believe you are.
Was it mass murder or divine justice on what could possibly have been that ages equivalent of the Manson Family? Remember the Jewish children that were put to death along with the abuses the Jews were going through.
I'd dare say if your friends or family were going through the things they did you'd be in a froth.
What would you think if an order went out to put the oldest male child of all gay parents to death because of the risk a single cild of that generation posed to the established order?
Melisia, Do you really think these people were commanded by God to kill someone?
You're in an area now where there has to be a consideration of circumstances and the people involved to differentiate between genuine revelation and psycosis or even Satanic influence.
Relapse wrote:Melisia, Do you really think these people were commanded by God to kill someone?
Do you really believe it matters?
If someone tells you to kill, that doesn't make it right.
Once again, it depends on circumstance. I leave to your knowledge of history and crimes commited to realize the justifications for killing someone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm really enjoying this discussion with you, but duty calls and I have to go. If you'd like, we can pick this up later.
I like talking to you, because you really make me think through positions I hold that I otherwise take for granted.
Relapse wrote:Once again, it depends on circumstance. I leave to your knowledge of history and crimes commited to realize the justifications for killing someone.
If someone were to go in to a prison and kill everyone there, they'd still be a mass murderer.
But even that is arguably better than killing all of the innocent children and infants of Sodom with a rain of fire.
While on the first view Christians and Socialist might share a lot on the first view in fact they are nearly opposites.
Christian religion focus on the individual to be a better person, not political but ethical. A Christ should try to become good, no matter how bad the others are.
Socialist Ideology focus on the society to be better, not ethical but political. A Socialist should try to make the soicety good, no matter how.
Thats why Christian religion is good for society when its performed as Jesus intended it and Socialism is bad for the society because it always leads to oppression.
psst, Jesus was a jew.
From my own experiences ymmv: if anything he was a volunteer socialist. He would give everything he had to those who needed it. Yet most christians today have a very bad attitude towards those who need government assistance, they don't even like their tax dollars to be used to help people, go figure.
Melissia wrote:I'm speaking hypothetically as if it were.
But the answer is yes.
You know that there is a significant portion of Christians who believe that it's just a story?
No non-Christian should believe that anything before 1st Kings is anything but a story and there's not really solid evidence to support most of the Bible.
In context, the Old Testament is simply a history of ancient Hebrews and the actions of their God. It is really no different than many ancient histories in that it is based on the belief that a deity or deities has significant involvement in historical events. There are many stories in the OT that exist simply to show God's power, Sodom and Gomorrah being one of them.
It was written in a time when life was cheap and not exactly valued very highly. In particular Hebrews lacked respect for Gentiles and did not value them highly at all. It's only natural that in the cultural context oral traditions would emerge in which their enemies were destroyed entirely without any form of modern remorse or compassion.
Assuming it did happen, well then Yahweh is a jerk.
Assuming it's just a story than all it shows lack of compassion for foreigners, punishment for the wicked, God's willingness to forgive those who ask it, and God's power.
In all likelihood it's probably just an explanation for a natural disaster. I think the prevailing theory is that a landslide wiped out those 'cities' and that they were located in a valley, perhaps in the Jordan River valley.
I donate to my church (and special cases that I verify myself) which handles what causes get the money. We get it to the people that actually NEED it. Not people that just have the hand-out budgeted into their spending so their money goes to other things.
Surely you don't believe there aren't people that work the welfare system?
In all likelihood it's probably just an explanation for a natural disaster. I think the prevailing theory is that a landslide wiped out those 'cities' and that they were located in a valley, perhaps in the Jordan River valley.
Please. I watch the history channel. I know what happened!
Melissia wrote:I'm speaking hypothetically as if it were.
But the answer is yes.
You know that there is a significant portion of Christians who believe that it's just a story?
No non-Christian should believe that anything before 1st Kings is anything but a story and there's not really solid evidence to support most of the Bible.
In context, the Old Testament is simply a history of ancient Hebrews and the actions of their God. It is really no different than many ancient histories in that it is based on the belief that a deity or deities has significant involvement in historical events. There are many stories in the OT that exist simply to show God's power, Sodom and Gomorrah being one of them.
It was written in a time when life was cheap and not exactly valued very highly. In particular Hebrews lacked respect for Gentiles and did not value them highly at all. It's only natural that in the cultural context oral traditions would emerge in which their enemies were destroyed entirely without any form of modern remorse or compassion.
Assuming it did happen, well then Yahweh is a jerk.
Assuming it's just a story than all it shows lack of compassion for foreigners, punishment for the wicked, God's willingness to forgive those who ask it, and God's power.
In all likelihood it's probably just an explanation for a natural disaster. I think the prevailing theory is that a landslide wiped out those 'cities' and that they were located in a valley, perhaps in the Jordan River valley.
Amaya what you are stating about the old testament is highly assumptional, and quite frankly very opinionated. There are many historical places, peoples in the Bible that were assumed to be "myths&legends" but due to archeology have turned out to be true. Archeology is one field of science that has been very beneficial to providing evidence for the historicity of the Bible.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:nice try, Troll. That's not what I said.
I donate to my church (and special cases that I verify myself) which handles what causes get the money. We get it to the people that actually NEED it. Not people that just have the hand-out budgeted into their spending so their money goes to other things.
Surely you don't believe there aren't people that work the welfare system?
so what? because a very small portion abuse the system, everyone should be denied the help they need?
Melissia wrote:I'm speaking hypothetically as if it were.
But the answer is yes.
You know that there is a significant portion of Christians who believe that it's just a story?
No non-Christian should believe that anything before 1st Kings is anything but a story and there's not really solid evidence to support most of the Bible.
In context, the Old Testament is simply a history of ancient Hebrews and the actions of their God. It is really no different than many ancient histories in that it is based on the belief that a deity or deities has significant involvement in historical events. There are many stories in the OT that exist simply to show God's power, Sodom and Gomorrah being one of them.
It was written in a time when life was cheap and not exactly valued very highly. In particular Hebrews lacked respect for Gentiles and did not value them highly at all. It's only natural that in the cultural context oral traditions would emerge in which their enemies were destroyed entirely without any form of modern remorse or compassion.
Assuming it did happen, well then Yahweh is a jerk.
Assuming it's just a story than all it shows lack of compassion for foreigners, punishment for the wicked, God's willingness to forgive those who ask it, and God's power.
In all likelihood it's probably just an explanation for a natural disaster. I think the prevailing theory is that a landslide wiped out those 'cities' and that they were located in a valley, perhaps in the Jordan River valley.
Amaya what you are stating about the old testament is highly assumptional, and quite frankly very opinionated. There are many historical places, peoples in the Bible that were assumed to be "myths&legends" but due to archeology have turned out to be true. Archeology is one field of science that has been very beneficial to providing evidence for the historicity of the Bible.
GG
And the train to Hogwarts leaves out of London, there is a London, so there must be a hogwarts. right?
just because they used names of real places does not prove anything in the bible.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:nice try, Troll. That's not what I said.
I donate to my church (and special cases that I verify myself) which handles what causes get the money. We get it to the people that actually NEED it. Not people that just have the hand-out budgeted into their spending so their money goes to other things.
Surely you don't believe there aren't people that work the welfare system?
If those "welfare queens" can manipulate the US government, they can sure as hell trick some Church into handing them a few bucks.
Amaya wrote:People actually think the destruction of Sodom happened?
Why couldn't it have happened? Cities have been destroyed throughout history in various ways, volcanoes, earthquakes, flooding, invasion, etc. why not fire from the sky?
Earth has been hit by meteors many times, sometimes, as in Siberia at the turn of the last century, with spectacular scales of devastation. If that meteor had hit a city instead of in the wilderness, there wouldn't have been a city there anymore.
Relapse wrote:Was it mass murder or divine justice on what could possibly have been that ages equivalent of the Manson Family? Remember the Jewish children that were put to death along with the abuses the Jews were going through.
I'd dare say if your friends or family were going through the things they did you'd be in a froth.
What would you think if an order went out to put the oldest male child of all gay parents to death because of the risk a single cild of that generation posed to the established order?
By this logic the entire nation of Germany should have been put to the sword for the abuse the Jewish people suffered. Men, women and children, regardless of political affiliation, rather than the ones actually responsible. Or at least the firstborn son of every German family. The divine god's idea of justice is strangely brutal one.
Also, the statement by Chavez doesn't seem out of place for anyone in his line of faith at all. I honestly don't see what the fuss is.
Relapse wrote:Was it mass murder or divine justice on what could possibly have been that ages equivalent of the Manson Family? Remember the Jewish children that were put to death along with the abuses the Jews were going through.
I'd dare say if your friends or family were going through the things they did you'd be in a froth.
What would you think if an order went out to put the oldest male child of all gay parents to death because of the risk a single cild of that generation posed to the established order?
By this logic the entire nation of Germany should have been put to the sword for the abuse the Jewish people suffered. Men, women and children, regardless of political affiliation, rather than the ones actually responsible. Or at least the firstborn son of every German family. The divine god's idea of justice is strangely brutal one.
Also, the statement by Chavez doesn't seem out of place for anyone in his line of faith at all. I honestly don't see what the fuss is.
There were plenty of good people in Germany. I would hardly call the entirety of the German population simular to the Manson family. As far as the ancient peoples go, I put that forward as hypothosis.
sirlynchmob, read your biased little article. It means nothing without data showing percentages that Churches spend on overhead, which is the basis of their whole argument. Without that it's one long "Nu UHHH!" unless you're predispositioned to believe it. Which is a funny thing for an Atheist to do.
Lonelictor, at least the Church can tell by their Cadillac they're not "in need". Although they will probably get some sort of help.
Relapse, because the Bible said it did. That's all some people need to say it's a lie.
Orlanth wrote:...I once even met a man who was raised from the dead.
Given that you have in all other regards come across as a very reasonable human being, I would, with infinite politeness, suggest that the above statement requires some empirical proof - proof the medical profession would be most interested to assess.
Mannahnin wrote:Let's not draw too close comparisons between people living two thousand years ago and modern political parties. The Republicans weren't around then. And even a hundred years ago they were very, very different from the party they are today.
Technically in Rome there were Republicans two millennia ago, they were the ones who killed Tarquinius. I actually have some common ground with them...
Amaya wrote:People actually think the destruction of Sodom happened?
Why couldn't it have happened? Cities have been destroyed throughout history in various ways, volcanoes, earthquakes, flooding, invasion, etc. why not fire from the sky?
Earth has been hit by meteors many times, sometimes, as in Siberia at the turn of the last century, with spectacular scales of devastation. If that meteor had hit a city instead of in the wilderness, there wouldn't have been a city there anymore.
How exactly would this would have been proof of 'divine justice'? It is highly likely that a settlement called Sodom existed and it was probably destroyed by some natural disaster but I am willing to be one of my arms that there isn't a salty statue of Lot's wife lying outside some brimstone scorched ruins somewhere in the Levant. Given that the 'sins' of Sodom are mostly common place and socially accepted today perhaps the whole world is due for some 'divine justice'?
I wonder how secular, rather than atheist, charities fair when compared overtly christian ones? I wasn't aware that there even was such a thing as an atheist charity, what would be the point given that atheists as a whole are a lot less evangelical?
Melissia, your hatred and disgust of Christianity has been made apparent multiple times on these boards. We get it, you were raised around a bunch of hard ass fundamentalist pseudo Christians with minimal Biblical knowledge who use their 'religion' as an excuse to be bigots.
Get over it.
GG, perhaps you should actually study the historicity of the Bible, particular the Old Testament before attempting to argue its schematics. Archaeological can not possibly prove that any thing in the Bible happened the way it is recorded. A significant portion of ancient records are extremely biased towards certain viewpoints. Simple reporting of the facts becomes more and more uncommon the farther you go back in history.
There is no evidence that towns named Sodom and Gomorrah existed. Multiple possible candidates exist for where they could have potentially existed, but everything points toward it being a natural disaster that was interpreted by Hebrews as an act of Yahweh because nearly every culture back then interpreted natural disasters as an act of a deity/deities.
Unless there is something more concrete than its inclusion in a 2,000 year old book that has been extensively rewritten over the centuries then its going to have to stay a myth.
I would be careful of that persecution complex that you seem to have developed.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Which is a pretty word for a lie. Atheists don't use too many pretty words for Christians.
No, but we academics are apt to use that word to describe the beliefs established among historical cultures; amusingly, Euhemerus of Pella had begun to do the same thing in the 3rd century BC.
Palindrome wrote:Unless there is something more concrete than its inclusion in a 2,000 year old book that has been extensively rewritten over the centuries then its going to have to stay a myth.
I would be careful of that persecution complex that you seem to have developed.
That's an incorrect and common assumption. The message has remained unchanged, the only differences are minor translation issues.
The Torah and tradition are extremely important to the Jewish people, they would not easily let it be changed. It is enough to point out that nearly every book in the Bible was recorded decades to centuries after the fact, which alone should cause doubt to its credibility.
Palindrome wrote:Unless there is something more concrete than its inclusion in a 2,000 year old book that has been extensively rewritten over the centuries then its going to have to stay a myth.
I would be careful of that persecution complex that you seem to have developed.
That's an incorrect and common assumption. The message has remained unchanged, the only differences are minor translation issues.
The Torah and tradition are extremely important to the Jewish people, they would not easily let it be changed. It is enough to point out that nearly every book in the Bible was recorded decades to centuries after the fact, which alone should cause doubt to its credibility.
Minor translational issues may become highly significant, especially after multiple translations. Either way I would be very hesitant to take the bible as gospel (heh).
SlaveToDorkness wrote:sirlynchmob, read your biased little article. It means nothing without data showing percentages that Churches spend on overhead, which is the basis of their whole argument. Without that it's one long "Nu UHHH!" unless you're predispositioned to believe it. Which is a funny thing for an Atheist to do.
the overhead really depends on the church. so are you really saying churches don't spend money for maintaining their building? Its not like you can just google how much does it cost to run a church. churches seem to be more secretive about their accounts than our government. so its hard to find real numbers.
but after all of this:
- Church repairs.
- Church maintenance: electricity, gas, cost of light bulbs, cost of cleaning services (janitor), cleaning materials, routine painting, etc., new roof about every 15 years or so., routine plumbing, carpet cleaning/replacement.
- Lawn and gardening services.
- Fire insurance, legal insurance, health insurance for staff.
- Snow removal services.
- Parking lot maintenance and repair; rental of land on which lot is located if not owned.
- Mortgage of building, or rent if applicable.
- Construction, new additions or building, if congregation grows too large for existing struction.
- Staff salaries: pastor, secretary, asst pastors, choir/music director, counselors.
- Materials for study classes: Bibles, books on theology, etc. for class
- Choir robes, music, organs, pianos, etc.
- Costs of celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, Communion, Confirmations
- Office supplies/mailing: office space and furniture, paper supplies, etc. and mailings to the congregation
- Renewals of yearly licensing as a church and other legal costs of maintaining a non-profit religious institution.
- Transportation and lodging and fees for pastors/asst's attending educational conventions to further their professional abilities or standing.
- Many churches own, maintain and repair a parsonage (house where pastor lives as part of his salary).
But the real issue here, is you seem to believe you are a better person, than atheists because you belong to a church. don't you find that a bit bigoted?
Relapse wrote:
There were plenty of good people in Germany. I would hardly call the entirety of the German population simular to the Manson family. As far as the ancient peoples go, I put that forward as hypothosis.
Are you actually trying to compare every single member of Ancient Egypt to the Manson family?
Are you actually trying to argue that every single first born child in Egypt, regardless of their age or personal feelings on the jewish people, deserved 'divine justice'?
They haven't. Passages from recovered manuscripts, parchments, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc, are nearly identical to current passages.
The differences in translation amount to things along the line of "they cried out" instead of "they wept aloud."
As I said before the fact all of it is based on oral tradition, secondhand knowledge, and written decades to centuries after the events is enough question the historicity of the Bible. You don't need to crutch on the "Bible has been rewritten" myth in order to have massive doubts about it.
Amaya wrote:They haven't. Passages from recovered manuscripts, parchments, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc, are nearly identical to current passages.
The differences in translation amount to things along the line of "they cried out" instead of "they wept aloud."
As I said before the fact all of it is based on oral tradition, secondhand knowledge, and written decades to centuries after the events is enough question the historicity of the Bible. You don't need to crutch on the "Bible has been rewritten" myth in order to have massive doubts about it.
please, you've obviously never read the translations, here's a fun one from the dead sea scrolls:
When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons;
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
[Deuteronomy 32:8-9]
hey look at that, yahwheh's dad gave him the jews, and to yahweh's brothers (other gods), other nations.
to this:
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel
I don't know if I'd called translation issues minor... Not for the Old Testament. Take for example Lucifer. There's an ongoing dispute stemmed from the translation of a single word and its meaning that could suggest there is no antithesis to god. That's not minor.
@sirlynchmob, not only are you reading the verse incorrectly, but you'd debating a basic concept that's already known. It's called Henotheism. It's the basic template for religion in ancient Mesopotamia. And issues with the writings of various books are also well documented based on exactly who the authors were. In the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls the authors were the Essenes,basically monks and their views were radically different from those of the Pharasees and the Sadducees (from whom most modern translations stem).
EDIT: i'll also point out its been argued that Yahweh, or yhwh take your pick, is itself a massive self-propoggating translation error.
Amaya wrote:Melissia, your hatred and disgust of Christianity has been made apparent multiple times on these boards. We get it, you were raised around a bunch of hard ass fundamentalist pseudo Christians with minimal Biblical knowledge who use their 'religion' as an excuse to be bigots.
Get over it.
GG, perhaps you should actually study the historicity of the Bible, particular the Old Testament before attempting to argue its schematics. Archaeological can not possibly prove that any thing in the Bible happened the way it is recorded. A significant portion of ancient records are extremely biased towards certain viewpoints. Simple reporting of the facts becomes more and more uncommon the farther you go back in history.
There is no evidence that towns named Sodom and Gomorrah existed. Multiple possible candidates exist for where they could have potentially existed, but everything points toward it being a natural disaster that was interpreted by Hebrews as an act of Yahweh because nearly every culture back then interpreted natural disasters as an act of a deity/deities.
From Christian research journal...
Biblical Archaeology: Factual Evidence to Support the Historicity of the Bible
DA111
Paul L. Maier
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 2 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Archaeological finds that contradict the contentions of biblical minimalists and other revisionists have been listed above. There are many more, however, that corroborate biblical evidence, and the following list provides only the most significant discoveries:
A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”) builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind them that sprang into human beings.
The Code of Hammurabi. This seven-foot black diorite stele, discovered at Susa and presently located in the Louvre museum, contains 282 engraved laws of Babylonian King Hammurabi (fl. 1750 BC). The common basis for this law code is the lex talionis (“the law of the tooth”), showing that there was a common Semitic law of retribution in the ancient Near East, which is clearly reflected in the Pentateuch. Exodus 21:23–25, for example, reads: “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…” (niv).
The Nuzi Tablets. The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River and datable to c. 1500 BC, reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like.
The Existence of Hittites. Genesis 23 reports that Abraham buried Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy, as well as its vast collection of Hittite historical records, which showed an empire flourishing in the mid-second millennium BC. This critical challenge, among many others, was immediately proved worthless — a pattern that would often be repeated in the decades to come.
The Merneptah Stele. A seven-foot slab engraved with hieroglyphics, also called the Israel Stele, boasts of the Egyptian pharaoh’s conquest of Libyans and peoples in Palestine, including the Israelites: “Israel — his seed is not.” This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources and demonstrates that, as of c. 1230 BC, the Hebrews were already living in the Promised Land.
Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.
Israel’s enemies in the Hebrew Bible likewise are not contrived but solidly historical. Among the most dangerous of these were the Philistines, the people after whom Palestine itself would be named. Their earliest depiction is on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC, as “peoples of the sea” who invaded the Delta area and later the coastal plain of Canaan. The Pentapolis (five cities) they established — namely Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron — have all been excavated, at least in part, and some remain cities to this day. Such precise urban evidence measures favorably when compared with the geographical sites claimed in the holy books of other religious systems, which often have no basis whatever in reality.10
There is very little doubt in anyone's mind about the reality of so many of the Old and New Testament cities mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, it is hardly necessary to document their existence. Nevertheless, following is a partial list of some of the cities mentioned in the Bible that have been found and excavated by archaeologists. This is simply more evidence for the Bible, because it describes actual locations that can be verified. This means that at the very least, the Bible accurately reflects the locations and cities of ancient times.
Remember, this is only a partial list. There are hundreds of biblical cities that have been verified in archaeological digs.
Arad
Num. 21:1, "When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive."
Num. 33:40, "Now the Canaanite, the king of Arad who lived in the Negev in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the sons of Israel."
"Arad 30 km NE of Beersheba, excavated from 1962 to 1974 by Y. Aharoni and R. B. K. Amiran." (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.)
"The site consists of an upper mound or acropolis, where excavation has revealed an Iron Age (post thirteenth century b.c." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.
The remains of a Hebrew temple were uncovered at Arad, (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p.45-46.)
Bethel
Amos 7:12-13, "Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Go, you seer, flee away to the land of Judah, and there eat bread and there do your prophesying! 13 "But no longer prophesy at Bethel, for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence."
"W. F. Albright made a trial excavation at Bethel in 1927. Albright then mounted a full excavation in 1934. His assistant that year, J. L. Kelso, continued the excavation in 1954, 1957, and 1960." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Capernaum
Matt. 17:24, "And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter, and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?"
"Identified since 1856 with Tell Hum, Capernaum has been sporadically excavated for the past 130 years." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Chorazin
Matt. 11:21, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."
"Excavations of the now deserted town indicate that it once covered an area of twelve acres and was built on a series of terraces with the basalt stone local to this mountainous region." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Dan
Judges 18:29, "And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father who was born in Israel; however, the name of the city formerly was Laish."
"The excavation of Dan began in 1966 under the direction of Avraham Biran." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 42)
"Formerly called Laish, it is mentioned in the execration texts, the eighteenth-century B.C. Mari tablets, and the records of the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III. It is identified with Tel Dan (modern Tell el-Qadi) covering about 50 acres in the center of a fertile valley near one of the principal springs feeding the Jordan River... Tel Dan has been excavated by A. Biran since 1966. The earliest occupation, probably the full extent of the tell, goes back to about the middle of the third millennium B.C." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Ephesus
Eph. 1:1, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus."
"Austrian archaeologists in this century [20th] have excavated the 24,000-seat theater and the commercial agora, as well as many other public buildings and streets of the first and second centuries A.D., so that the modern visitor can gain some impression of the city as known by Paul. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Gaza
Acts 8:26, "But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza."
Gaza was excavated by W. J. Phythian-Adams in 1922. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Gezer
Joshua 16:10, "But they did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer..."
R.A.S. MacAlister "directed the Palestine Exploration Fund for many years and conducted extensive excavations at Gezer (1902-1909). (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.)
Hazor
Joshua 11:1, "Then it came about, when Jabin king of Hazor heard of it, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon and to the king of Shimron and to the king of Achshaph."
Jer. 49:28, "Concerning Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated. Thus says the Lord, "Arise, go up to Kedar and devastate the men of the east."
"This large Canaanite and Israelite city in upper Galilee was excavated under Yigael Yadin's direction from 1955 to 1958 and from 1968 to 1970." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40.)
Hesbon
Josh. 12:2, "Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon..."
Excavations were undertaken by Andrews University from 1968 to 1976. (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Jericho
Num. 22:1, "Then the sons of Israel journeyed, and camped in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan opposite Jericho."
"Jericho was the oldest inhabited and fortified city ever excavated." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 37)
"The city of OT times is represented today by a mound 70 feet high and 10 acres in area... The ancient city was excavated by C. Warren (1867), E. Sellin and C. Watzinger (1907-09), J. Garstang (1930-36), and K. Kenyon (1952-58)." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
"The first scientific excavation there (1907-9) was by Sellin and Watzinger (Jericho, 1913)." (The New Bible Dictionary; Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.).
Joppa
Acts 9:38,"And since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him, entreating him, "Do not delay to come to us."
"During excavations of the site of ancient Joppa a thirteenth-century B.C. citadel gate was uncovered..." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper's Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985.)
Nineveh
2 Kings 19:36, "So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home, and lived at Nineveh."
Jonah 1:1-2, "The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, "Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me."
Excavated in from 1845 to 1857 by Austen H. Layard. (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.)
Shechem
Gen. 12:6, "And Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land."
Gen. 33:18, "Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram, and camped before the city."
"Excavations were carried out at Shechem, first by Austrian-German expeditions in 1913 and 1914, and again from 1926 to 1934, under several directors, and then by an American expedition from 1956 to 1972.... Excavation of the sacred area revealed a courtyard sanctuary and a later fortress temple dedicated to El-berith "the god of the covenant." This temple, which was destroyed by Abimelech, the son of the judge Gideon (Judges 9) has provided us with a date of the Judges period." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40)
Most recently a structure identified as an Israelite altar has been excavated on the northeastern slope of Mt. Ebal. Dating to the 13th to 12th centuries B.C., considered to be the time of Joshua, the altar suggest the possibility that it may be the altar built by Joshua and described in Deuteronomy 27, 28." (Horn, Siegfried H., Biblical Archaeology: a Generation of Discovery; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan; 1985. p. 40)
Susa
Neh. 1:1, "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah. Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capitol,
Esther 1:1-2, "Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, 2 in those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was in Susa the capital,
Excavations were conducted by Marcel Dieulafoy from 1884 to 1886 (Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.)
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
Minor translational issues may become highly significant, especially after multiple translations. Either way I would be very hesitant to take the bible as gospel (heh).
The Bible translation that you describe is some sort analogy to "the phone game". This is not how the Bible was copied. Yes textual variants crept in over the years but the vast..I repeat VAST majority of these errors were minor(I.E grammatical in nature) and do not effect major Christian orthodox doctrine.
Amaya wrote:The fact that there was a flood does not mean God sent a flood to destroy the world.
Amaya..I would agree with the logic in that statement..however I was responding to the assumptions in your statements regarding the pre book of Kings historicity of the Bible.
GG, this is why no one should read the Christian Research Journal. Of the three groups theologians can broadly fit into, those who work with the CRJ fall into the "Wants to prove Christianity right" catagory. That's all well and good, but they're so busy ax grinding and living in their little words that they produce almost nothing of value for scholars (and I'm a believer btw).
A Common Flood Story.
We know (everyone should anyway). Flood stories are a near universal cultural concept. The CRJ apparently left out the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Meso-Americans. Even the ancient peoples of the Andes mountains have one! Problem? Humans tended to settle river valleys (we still do). River valleys have a habit of flooding. Over the course of a thousand years, there will be major floods. Even in the middle of a desert region. It's not really shocking that everyone has a flood story. Especially since the Egyptians and the Jews are descended from the Mesopotamian civilization, that they all reference one is less surprising. It's not evidence.
The Code of Hammurabi + the Nuzi Tablets
The Jews came after Hammurabi. They're descended from the Mesopotamian cultural tradition. It's not evidence of the Bible's truth.
The Existence of Hittites. Genesis 23 reports that Abraham buried Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy, as well as its vast collection of Hittite historical records, which showed an empire flourishing in the mid-second millennium BC. This critical challenge, among many others, was immediately proved worthless — a pattern that would often be repeated in the decades to come.
This is outright wrong. While its true that for some time Historians considered the Hittites to be a myth (or a name for an already existent group) they are referenced outside the Bible. Ancient Greek, Egyptian, Phonecian, and Persian texts all reference the Hittites. The problem for the Bible is that they no longer existed by the time the Bible seemingly refers too. Most important is that the historical Hittites were no where near Palestine. They never made it much farther south than Turkey.
The Merneptah Stele.
Also false. There are several known sources for the ancient Israel, including Persian and Egyptian (they just aren't always called Israel, sometimes they're called the People of the Book).
Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.
Misleading. Many of these sites are just assumed. The sites certainly exist, but whether they're actually the sites mentioned in the Bible remains debated. Some of them certainly are known, but that's not really evidence that significant events described in the Bible actually happened there. Take Troy as a rough example. Everyone thought it was fake until someone found it. Everyone called it Troy. Then, everyone found out that it actually wasn't Troy. It's still called Troy, simply as a matter of habit. That, and it was never proven the site was Troy back when everyone thought it was. They just thought it was.
Israel’s enemies in the Hebrew Bible likewise are not contrived but solidly historical. Among the most dangerous of these were the Philistines, the people after whom Palestine itself would be named.
I don't know where the author heard that. Its the other way around. The Philistines were named after Philis, the region that roughly is now Palestine (Palestine itself is first used by the Greeks).
Amaya wrote:The fact that there was a flood does not mean God sent a flood to destroy the world.
Amaya..I would agree with the logic in that statement..however I was responding to the assumptions in your statements regarding the pre book of Kings historicity of the Bible.
GG
Your assumption remains incorrect. There is evidence that David and Solomon actually existed. There is no evidence that Noah existed or that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
There is evidence that David and Solomon actually existed.
While this is true, its probably important to recognize that the manner in which we know David's dynasty is the same manner in which we know many less civilization's lines of rulers. A lot of them have no concrete evidence for their lines of succession (not everyone built giant Pyramid tombs) and textual evidence is all that exists of them (or much less).
If we throw David and Solomon out simply on that notion, a lot of history has to be thrown out. It's much simpler and more effective to simply assume they are real for the time being baring evidence to the contrary. The only evidence to the contrary is mostly based in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and produced dubiously by people who oppose the existence of modern Israel.
Its actually a lot like the debate over the existence of the 1st Temple, which is really just asininely pointless.
Relapse wrote:
There were plenty of good people in Germany. I would hardly call the entirety of the German population simular to the Manson family. As far as the ancient peoples go, I put that forward as hypothosis.
Are you actually trying to compare every single member of Ancient Egypt to the Manson family?
Are you actually trying to argue that every single first born child in Egypt, regardless of their age or personal feelings on the jewish people, deserved 'divine justice'?
Like I said it is just a hypothosis, and I'll admit, pretty far from probability. The main thing is, children are basically innocent no matter what society they come from and God is not going to bar them from his presence, he recieved them as his own children.
A message far stronger than all the previous messages had to be sent to Pharoah and any others that would keep the Jews slaves.
God did not jump straight to taking the children, though. He sent all the other plagues first to try to convince the Egyptians to free the Jews.
Taking the children was the last measure that could not be ignored.
Relapse wrote:
Like I said it is just a hypothosis, and I'll admit, pretty far from probability. The main thing is, children are basically innocent no matter what society they come from and God is not going to bar them from his presence, he recieved them as his own children.
I admit I'm not well versed in most of the OT (really, I only know Leviticus), but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the view presented within, if only because religion was much more closely tied to something close to ethnicity. Those Egyptian babies were goyim. Now, some retconning may have gone on, but speaking just to the OT, I doubt they were considered to have been brought into God's presence (though, at that time, "god's" is the more appropriate term).
That said, the OT is a pretty cool read because you see the transformation of Judaism over time.
Relapse wrote:
Like I said it is just a hypothosis, and I'll admit, pretty far from probability. The main thing is, children are basically innocent no matter what society they come from and God is not going to bar them from his presence, he recieved them as his own children.
I admit I'm not well versed in most of the OT (really, I only know Leviticus), but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the view presented within, if only because religion was much more closely tied to something close to ethnicity. Those Egyptian babies were goyim. Now, some retconning may have gone on, but speaking just to the OT, I doubt they were considered to have been brought into God's presence (though, at that time, "god's" is the more appropriate term).
That said, the OT is a pretty cool read because you see the transformation of Judaism over time.
It really doesn't offer an opinion, it just says that the firstborn from Pharoah's child down to those of prisoners in the dungeon died.
( Exodus 12:29)
The way I have been taught is that any child is going straight to the top if they die young because of their innocence. The Jews at the time probably might have enjoyed thinking the Egyptian children didn't make it because of what happened to their own chidren.(very broad assumption of one possible viewpoint on my part.)
These were some pretty battered people by that time.
These threads fascinate me, I honestly don't understand how normally sensible and logical, well read and seemingly very intelligent people turn into mad fethers when it comes to Religion! People that are lucid and logical and that would be sceptical of any claim a peddler might make to them despite his apparent evidence seem to become gullible to a ridiculous extreme when matters of theology come into play.
Ill never understand it, but It doesn't fill me with the rage it once did. I'm just left scratching my head in perplexity.
In short, if God regrows some fethers leg on CNN ill start to believe, but most of the gak in this thread is outrageously simple to take with a fist full of salt.
Relapse wrote:
These were some pretty battered people by that time.
I mean, that was pretty much life back then. The Jews did their fair share of battering early on.
You might mean later on. Immediately after the plagues in Egypt there was the conquest of the promised land which, from the perspective of anyone but the jewish people themselves, came across as an earlier version of the Mongol invasions. Don't let that whole thing about being conquered by several different civilisations fool you, back in their day the Israelites were scary fethers to say the least.
sirlynchmob wrote:Plus as was pointed out in another thread, the Chinese are still proof there was no biblical flood.
If I'm not mistaken the Bible uses the term 'world' not 'planet'. World is subjective, especially in ancient times when it takes place. Things like this needs to be seen in the context of the society that witnessed it, not in modern terms.
sirlynchmob wrote:Plus as was pointed out in another thread, the Chinese are still proof there was no biblical flood.
If I'm not mistaken the Bible uses the term 'world' not 'planet'. World is subjective, especially in ancient times when it takes place. Things like this needs to be seen in the context of the society that witnessed it, not in modern terms.
Since the only people that survived the alledged flood would be Noah and whoever was fortunate enough to be on his Ark, you're kind of grasping at straws here.
Mannahnin wrote:I think you're confusing communism with socialism.
Every modern first world government contains a lot of socialism. We have socialized fire departments, police, roads and highways, militaries, and in most countries socialized medicine.
Early Christians were more communist, though, weren't they? Dismissive of personal possessions, practicing communal ownership. As for Jesus, he focused a lot on the importance of helping the poor, which is a message generally more in line with socialist or communist ideas than with fascist or capitalist.
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
I dont. Communism is just one form of Socialism, a extreme form. Of course every modern first world government contains a lot of socialism, but every succedfull first world goverment, has more Liberal and at least equal Conservative (the two other political ideologies) elements.
As I said the approach of Communism and Socialism and Christianity to achieve a better world are opposites.
Dark Scipio wrote:
As I said the approach of Communism and Socialism and Christianity to achieve a better world are opposites.
Whereas the approach of Capitalism is much more in sync?
I think you're going to have real trouble making any useful comparisons between a religion over 2000 years old and modern political views.
Not really,
Jesus is against war
Jesus was against public prayer
God is for abortions
Jesus is all about helping the poor, from feeding them, to selling off all your stuff to help them.
Jesus is against churches as we know them
Jesus is against using a church for profit.
Jesus is ok with prostitutes
I think that's most of the topics being raised by the election this year. If I missed any, just look at what todays christians are saying, and jesus probably had the opposite view.
No, he wasn't. He tolerated and wanted to help them see their sins for what they were (as he did with everyone) but that's a far cry from what you suggest. Like most of your silly oversimplifications of my religion.
No, he wasn't. He tolerated and wanted to help them see their sins for what they were (as he did with everyone) but that's a far cry from what you suggest. Like most of your silly oversimplifications of my religion.
All of the pro life versus they like to quote from the bible come from the old testament, except 1 from the new. The whole pro life movement is taking the bible out of context. Numbers 5:11-31 God running the first abortion clinic, ie the church.
I mention the prostitute to illustrate that jesus loved everyone, and even though he was without sin he never threw a stone. or was he, did he have some sins so he couldn't stone her either?
All the christians I have met are just following a silly oversimplification of your religion. They can mention a few bumper sticker verses they agree with, yet almost none of them have ever read the bible.
I was just trying to focus on the topics of the day that the republican candidates in america keep bringing up, and showing that their positions have nothing to do with jesus teachings.
While its true most Christian's don't have a clue what they're talking about half the time, you're not really performing much better in the understanding department lynch.
Numbers 5:11-31 is about abortion (surprise) but its a very different situation from the one commonly seen in modern society, and its certainly not an abortion clinic. The abortion debate is dumb as crap, but saying that God is for abortion outright is misrepresenting what is actually said. That verse is about maintaining the integrity of marriage, not women aborting children they don't want/can't care for (which is how the current debate is framed).
LordofHats wrote:While its true most Christian's don't have a clue what they're talking about half the time, you're not really performing much better in the understanding department lynch.
Numbers 5:11-31 is about abortion (surprise) but its a very different situation from the one commonly seen in modern society, and its certainly not an abortion clinic. The abortion debate is dumb as crap, but saying that God is for abortion outright is misrepresenting what is actually said. That verse is about maintaining the integrity of marriage, not women aborting children they don't want/can't care for (which is how the current debate is framed).
What do you call a place a women goes to get an abortion?
Thats not how the debate is framed though, they want all abortions to be illegal. Including pregnancies from rape, incest, infidelity, and pregnancies that endanger the womans life. The only difference from the numbers is it's the man who chooses to take his wife to get an abortion for suspected infidelity. If the wife had been unfaithful, god would abort the baby and cause horrible pain to the woman. Its really no difference than a woman taking the morning after pill and saying "let gods will be done" Ergo god is OK with abortions in cases of infidelity, and from there we could conclude he would be for abortions in all cases I listed.
Ok so I can add a bit for theatrics to highlight the absurdities found in the bible, but that does not mean I'm not understanding what is in your bible.
sirlynchmob wrote:What do you call a place a women goes to get an abortion?
The woman is sent to the temple for a religious/legal purpose to perform a ritual that results in an abortion. It doesn't make the temple an abortion clinic. It's unlikely the ritual was performed all that often anyway. Most men would rather take the kid than have everyone know their wife cheated on them. EDIT: Irony being that in small ancient communities everyone probably knew anyway.
Thats not how the debate is framed though, they want all abortions to be illegal. Including pregnancies from rape, incest, infidelity, and pregnancies that endanger the womans life.
When dealing with rhetoric you have to cut through the crap that spews from the mouth to get at what people are really against. Hard core prolifers are against abortion in all cases, but the typical Christian is not. The abortion debate has been framed on an image of promiscuous women having relations out of wedlock and then 'murdering' their child to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's what most Christians (EDIT: I really shouldn't say most, because most don't care anymore) are against and why they become involved in the debate. Few people actively oppose aborting a fetus to save the mother's life. There's more opposition to rape but it too tends to have wide support. What people say is rarely what they mean, especially when they have to boil their talking points don't to one liners that they think the typical American voter can grasp.
Ergo god is OK with abortions in cases of infidelity, and from there we could conclude he would be for abortions in all cases I listed.
That's about as faulty as logic can get.
Example: I'm okay with gene-therapy to wipe out down syndrome, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with gene-therapy so that someone's baby can have blue eyes instead of brown.
Ok so I can add a bit for theatrics to highlight the absurdities found in the bible, but that does not mean I'm not understanding what is in your bible.
Your theatrics are just theatrical and while they certainly can demonstrate an absurdity in the way Christian's act, they misrepresent what is actually in the text. But I doubt we need that to see the absurdity in the abortion debate. It's as big a waste of time as the gay-marriage debate.
sirlynchmob wrote:Plus as was pointed out in another thread, the Chinese are still proof there was no biblical flood.
If I'm not mistaken the Bible uses the term 'world' not 'planet'. World is subjective, especially in ancient times when it takes place. Things like this needs to be seen in the context of the society that witnessed it, not in modern terms.
Since the only people that survived the alledged flood would be Noah and whoever was fortunate enough to be on his Ark, you're kind of grasping at straws here.
eh, reread it, may be a different translation or my faulty memory. either way ignore me for the moment.
sirlynchmob wrote:What do you call a place a women goes to get an abortion?
The woman is sent to the temple for a religious/legal purpose to perform a ritual that results in an abortion. It doesn't make the temple an abortion clinic. It's unlikely the ritual was performed all that often anyway. Most men would rather take the kid than have everyone know their wife cheated on them. EDIT: Irony being that in small ancient communities everyone probably knew anyway.
Thats not how the debate is framed though, they want all abortions to be illegal. Including pregnancies from rape, incest, infidelity, and pregnancies that endanger the womans life.
When dealing with rhetoric you have to cut through the crap that spews from the mouth to get at what people are really against. Hard core prolifers are against abortion in all cases, but the typical Christian is not. The abortion debate has been framed on an image of promiscuous women having relations out of wedlock and then 'murdering' their child to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's what most Christians (EDIT: I really shouldn't say most, because most don't care anymore) are against and why they become involved in the debate. Few people actively oppose aborting a fetus to save the mother's life. There's more opposition to rape but it too tends to have wide support. What people say is rarely what they mean, especially when they have to boil their talking points don't to one liners that they think the typical American voter can grasp.
Ergo god is OK with abortions in cases of infidelity, and from there we could conclude he would be for abortions in all cases I listed.
That's about as faulty as logic can get.
Example: I'm okay with gene-therapy to wipe out down syndrome, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with gene-therapy so that someone's baby can have blue eyes instead of brown.
Ok so I can add a bit for theatrics to highlight the absurdities found in the bible, but that does not mean I'm not understanding what is in your bible.
Your theatrics are just theatrical and while they certainly can demonstrate an absurdity in the way Christian's act, they misrepresent what is actually in the text. But I doubt we need that to see the absurdity in the abortion debate. It's as big a waste of time as the gay-marriage debate.
But who's logic is really faulty here, who's really misrepresenting the bible? the pro lifers won't even mention Numbers 5, but cite many other verses that still don't say anything about abortions. God no where condemns abortions, neither does jesus, and apparently its fine to have them as long as you have them in a church and god gets to murder the baby. What I think the real issue here is that the church is just opposed to women having a choice in anything. If you take the whole bible into consideration, you can easily show how god is not only for abortions, but he's ok with killing any kids. you know, take them to the river and stone them, sacrifice them, feed them to bears, etc.
Its not by any means a waste of time though, those hard core pro lifers are trying to have their morals passed into laws to affect everyone, weather they believe in god or not. If its immoral to you, don't do it. When they try to push it into laws, they need to be reminded their morals have no place in our laws, and your religion should have no affect on anyone who's not a part of your religion.
Gay marriage shouldn't even be a debatable issue. If you are for personal freedom and the government staying out of your personal life, then why should anyone have to ask permission to marry another consenting adult?
sirlynchmob wrote:But who's logic is really faulty here, who's really misrepresenting the bible? the pro lifers won't even mention Numbers 5, but cite many other verses that still don't say anything about abortions.
"They misrepresented it first." Isn't that a little childish? Most pro-lifers have probably never read Genesis... Well maybe the first two or three chapters. I doubt they made it to Numbers. And from experience, Deuteronomy and Numbers are boring to read.
God no where condemns abortions, neither does jesus, and apparently its fine to have them as long as you have them in a church and god gets to murder the baby.
No but they both sanctify human life, which is apparently enough for a lot of people. This stems from the advance of the times. While abortion is an ancient concept (contrary to what Pro-lifers seem to think) it's wasn't common back then. We're talking about an age where infant mortality was enough to drop average human life expectancy to 40. No one aborted children back then and the morality of it didn't really need addressing. So here we stand, fumbling about the figure it out.
What I think the real issue here is that the church is just opposed to women having a choice in anything.
Or they have an honest belief that there is a moral wrong in abortion, and there are arguments to that effect. Calling everyone who is against abortion a sexist is ignorant of what they're really arguing against.
If you take the whole bible into consideration, you can easily show how god is not only for abortions, but he's ok with killing any kids. you know, take them to the river and stone them, sacrifice them, feed them to bears, etc.
Theatrical misrepresentation. But it's okay, other people did it first.
Its not by any means a waste of time though, those hard core pro lifers are trying to have their morals passed into laws to affect everyone, weather they believe in god or not.
And pro-choicers aren't trying to get their morals passed into law (or rather, to remain in law)? People try to get things they agree with passed into law. It happens. Everyone does it. My problem is that its not changing, so the debate really only exists as a talking point.
Gay marriage shouldn't even be a debatable issue. If you are for personal freedom and the government staying out of your personal life, then why should anyone have to ask permission to marry another consenting adult?
Welcome to the silliness of the right wing of US politics and its self-destroying tendencies There's a reason I'm tempted to not even bother voting.
Either side using the Bible (especially the OT) to condone or condemn current actions is really a bit silly.
There is a massive difference between the current American culture and the ancient Hebraic culture. Taking messages out of cultural context renders them meaningless. Outside of the Golden Rule and the concept of forgiveness there is very little in the Bible that can be applied universally.
sirlynchmob wrote:But who's logic is really faulty here, who's really misrepresenting the bible? the pro lifers won't even mention Numbers 5, but cite many other verses that still don't say anything about abortions.
"They misrepresented it first." Isn't that a little childish? Most pro-lifers have probably never read Genesis... Well maybe the first two or three chapters. I doubt they made it to Numbers. And from experience, Deuteronomy and Numbers are boring to read.
I'm not misrepresenting it though, if you want to see what the bible says about abortions, you read numbers 5. Numbers 5 clearly described the procedure for getting an abortion. Here you have the LORD saying to Moses, if you think your wife is unfaithful, send her to a church for the priests to give her a curse which will cause her to miscarry if she was unfaithful. Then when we add in:
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."
biblically speaking, you could even start to make a case its ok to abort a baby before it reaches 1 month of age.
Now its hard to track down actual facts on how often or if ever this was done, what they were made to drink, or if it ever not resulted in a aborted pregnancy. If the church kept records on it, they never made it to the internet to be googled.
Seeing as how our population just topped 7 billion, even with the Chinese trying to control pregnancy rates, and all the women in america getting abortions, we are no where near extinction. But if we don't get our populations under control we can over populate the planet and cause our own extinction.
LordofHats wrote:No but they both sanctify human life, which is apparently enough for a lot of people. This stems from the advance of the times. While abortion is an ancient concept (contrary to what Pro-lifers seem to think) it's wasn't common back then. We're talking about an age where infant mortality was enough to drop average human life expectancy to 40. No one aborted children back then and the morality of it didn't really need addressing. So here we stand, fumbling about the figure it out.
yes here we stand at over 7 billion people with life expectancies into the 100's, and we still have no need to force someone to have children the don't want.
sirlynchmob wrote:I'm not misrepresenting it though, if you want to see what the bible says about abortions, you read numbers 5. Numbers 5 clearly described the procedure for getting an abortion. Here you have the LORD saying to Moses, if you think your wife is unfaithful, send her to a church for the priests to give her a curse which will cause her to miscarry if she was unfaithful. Then when we add in:
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."
You are misrepresenting. You've got a quote here full of it. Numbers 5 is not describing the procedure for an abortion, its describing what to do if you believe your wife has been unfaithful and is lying about it. Its a punishment for the wife that includes an abortion. Its done, not because the woman doesn't want the child but to preserve the sanctity of the marriage and the family. Boiling all of Numbers 5 to "God says abortion is okay" is such a huge misrepresentation it's nearly a lie.
A monetary value is placed on a child for two reason: appropriate sacrifice for the temple and legal reparations. A family when making sacrifices at the temple needed their sacrifice to match a certain value (this was likely done so that a baseline existed for religious purposes). This value would be based on each person in the family and their supposed value which was laid out in Leviticus. If the child is killed then the punishment often included reparations to the family. In an agrarian society, children were important sources of labor. Losing a child was not only an emotional loss but a monetary loss. At the same time, younger children had a tendency to die of natural causes anyway, decreasing the value. You'll find this was a common Mesopotamian concept as well. It's not even an absurd concept. There are numerous ways to monotized the value of a person. We do it all the time.
There's a blatantly obvious reason a census would ignore children under a month. Its called infant mortality. A family could have dozen's of children in Ancient times, and more than half of them would die, often while being born or immediately after. It's quite practical.
All you've demonstrated is that you can fish for versus but are incapable of analyzing their meaning.
Palindrome wrote:Unless there is something more concrete than its inclusion in a 2,000 year old book that has been extensively rewritten over the centuries then its going to have to stay a myth.
I would be careful of that persecution complex that you seem to have developed.
That's an incorrect and common assumption. The message has remained unchanged, the only differences are minor translation issues.
The Torah and tradition are extremely important to the Jewish people, they would not easily let it be changed. It is enough to point out that nearly every book in the Bible was recorded decades to centuries after the fact, which alone should cause doubt to its credibility.
Minor translational issues may become highly significant, especially after multiple translations. Either way I would be very hesitant to take the bible as gospel (heh).
No they wont because we can go back to earlier texts, which are widely propogated. Most translations today are taken directly from copies in the traditional Hebrew and Greek and not from third party languages. The King James version for example is a very good translation, it was translated by several groups of monks and language scholars who were not allowed gto confirm a translation of any verse without unanimous agreement. It made thre translation a mammoth task, but it resulted in a very good translation, which is why it is still used today in either modern of archaic language.
Do not dismiss thre extent to which Christians Moslems and Jews will go to ensure an uncorrupted translation/copy. I will say this for Islam, you can see an ancient Koran over a thousand years old and a modern copy and it will be the same. The book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea scrolls was ideticle to the modern version also.
... The KJV of the Bible is one of the most translation error covered versions of the Bible. The problem was that they went for something that sounded nice in their native language which meant a lot of original meaning got lost. Plus, its NT isn't even accurate being based on the Textus Receptus, a 14th century Byzantine translation that is so littered with errors its almost laughable. How a Greek speaking culture failed to translate their own language is baffling. The KJV isn't very common beyond the UK, US, and Canada and for good reason.
Translation is less an issue for the NT than the OT. Its been said that there is no decent translation of the OT by a lot of Jewish scholars, simply because the nuance of Aramaic is lost in translation even when the translation is roughly accurate. While almost any Biblical text is probably going to be about 75-80% the same to any other, that 25-20% has resulted in numerous problems. Fortunately most of them are of no consequence to the typical believer.
Which is why anyone who cares about getting an extremely accurate Bible gets a study Bible (or two) and has access to the original phrases and text on their perceived meaning.
The biggest problem with 'Christians' is that most do not study the Bible. They simply go to church and believe what they are told or sleep through the service.
sirlynchmob wrote:I'm not misrepresenting it though, if you want to see what the bible says about abortions, you read numbers 5. Numbers 5 clearly described the procedure for getting an abortion. Here you have the LORD saying to Moses, if you think your wife is unfaithful, send her to a church for the priests to give her a curse which will cause her to miscarry if she was unfaithful. Then when we add in:
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person."
You are misrepresenting. You've got a quote here full of it. Numbers 5 is not describing the procedure for an abortion, its describing what to do if you believe your wife has been unfaithful and is lying about it. Its a punishment for the wife that includes an abortion. Its done, not because the woman doesn't want the child but to preserve the sanctity of the marriage and the family. Boiling all of Numbers 5 to "God says abortion is okay" is such a huge misrepresentation it's nearly a lie.
.
It really comes down to what the priests where giving the girls. The Egyptians knew ways to make drinks that cause women to miscarry. So any woman could get any man to walk her into the church, drink the morning after pill, and miscarry.
Its the implications this passage creates. The priests knew how to cause miscarriages ie abortions. So depending on what was being used, anyone suspicious of his wife could walk into the church, she drinks the stuff and miscarries, therefore she was unfaithful. Even if she was faithful.
So we get back to today, and from what you are saying, if I think my wife was unfaithful, I can give her the morning after pill, if the pregnancy is aborted she was unfaithful right? or would that only work in a church? Its for the sanctity of my marriage right? But in any case what you're reading is god saying its ok for the priests to test women (probably against their will) based on the word of their husband, and if she was "unfaithful" its ok for an abortion to occur, or as you put it earlier to murder the baby.
Amaya wrote:
Either side using the Bible (especially the OT) to condone or condemn current actions is really a bit silly.
There is a massive difference between the current American culture and the ancient Hebraic culture. Taking messages out of cultural context renders them meaningless. Outside of the Golden Rule and the concept of forgiveness there is very little in the Bible that can be applied universally.
I agree, the problem with the OT is some christians quote it, but when anyone else points to a different quote they get the dismissal "that's just the OT" then when pressed does that mean anything in the OT is still applicable or not, they tend to get quiet and turn away. For the pro life argument though, most of their quotes are from the OT so it opens up everything in it to refute them. Then you have this growing movement where its basically the bible is just a bunch of metaphors. so if its just a book of metaphors, than there is no more reason to read it than Grimms fairy tales.
If you're super-serial, you get a Study Bible + A Biblical Commentary Now that's some good reading. I miss my old Baptist college sometimes, simply because the library there had a half-dozen multi-volume commentary sets and it was awesome. I would get one of them if they didn't cost in excess of $300. Someday I'm going to get my own damned library just so I can sit down with these things.
I'd become a Theologian if I thought there was any money in it XD That and I really would rather not learn ancient Hebrew + three different kinds of Greek.
So we get back to today, and from what you are saying, if I think my wife was unfaithful, I can give her the morning after pill, if the pregnancy is aborted she was unfaithful right? or would that only work in a church? Its for the sanctity of my marriage right? But in any case what you're reading is god saying its ok for the priests to test women (probably against their will) based on the word of their husband, and if she was "unfaithful" its ok for an abortion to occur, or as you put it earlier to murder the baby.
Who said that? I'm talking about what the text says. To the ancient Hebrews, and most ancient cultures for that matter, religion was the source of the law. Even modern Jews tend not to put a lot of these ancient laws into practice, because they aren't applicable anymore (some of them can be made applicable, but it takes some imagination).
LordofHats wrote:If you're super-serial, you get a Study Bible + A Biblical Commentary Now that's some good reading. I miss my old Baptist college sometimes, simply because the library there had a half-dozen multi-volume commentary sets and it was awesome. I would get one of them if they didn't cost in excess of $300. Someday I'm going to get my own damned library just so I can sit down with these things.
I'd become a Theologian if I thought there was any money in it XD That and I really would rather not learn ancient Hebrew + three different kinds of Greek.
So we get back to today, and from what you are saying, if I think my wife was unfaithful, I can give her the morning after pill, if the pregnancy is aborted she was unfaithful right? or would that only work in a church? Its for the sanctity of my marriage right? But in any case what you're reading is god saying its ok for the priests to test women (probably against their will) based on the word of their husband, and if she was "unfaithful" its ok for an abortion to occur, or as you put it earlier to murder the baby.
Who said that? I'm talking about what the text says. To the ancient Hebrews, and most ancient cultures for that matter, religion was the source of the law. Even modern Jews tend not to put a lot of these ancient laws into practice, because they aren't applicable anymore (some of them can be made applicable, but it takes some imagination).
we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what numbers 5 means.
But then again I guess that's why there are 42,000 different types of christians, not even the faithful can agree on what the bible says. Its also a good reason not to base any laws limiting anyones freedom from it.
What Numbers 5 means is fairly apparent and straight forward. The problem is that I see no reason to embrace a slippery slope and declare God is okay with all abortions simply because his law has an instance of it happening under very specific circumstances.
to quote Bill Cosby repeating something his father said to he and his brother.
"I brought you into this world and I can take you back out, and then make another one who will look just like you...."
I think a lot of people just project what they want or hope for onto this concept they have of God / Divinity.
Where as what God is and they way he does things is something else entirely.
LordofHats wrote:What Numbers 5 means is fairly apparent and straight forward. The problem is that I see no reason to embrace a slippery slope and declare God is okay with all abortions simply because his law has an instance of it happening under very specific circumstances.
I'd agree with that in that one instance god is ok with abortions.
Hazardous Harry wrote:
You might mean later on. Immediately after the plagues in Egypt there was the conquest of the promised land which, from the perspective of anyone but the jewish people themselves, came across as an earlier version of the Mongol invasions. Don't let that whole thing about being conquered by several different civilisations fool you, back in their day the Israelites were scary fethers to say the least.
By "early on" I meant with respect to the history of Judaism.
Relapse wrote:
These were some pretty battered people by that time.
I mean, that was pretty much life back then. The Jews did their fair share of battering early on.
You might mean later on. Immediately after the plagues in Egypt there was the conquest of the promised land which, from the perspective of anyone but the jewish people themselves, came across as an earlier version of the Mongol invasions. Don't let that whole thing about being conquered by several different civilisations fool you, back in their day the Israelites were scary fethers to say the least.
The Jews had endured about 300 plus years of slavery in Egypt by the time Moses came on the scene and had the first born male babies of Moses generation killed in an effort to kill him.
Yes, they were quite battered before the Exodus.
Relapse wrote:
The Jews had endured about 300 plus years of slavery in Egypt by the time Moses came on the scene and had the first born male babies of Moses generation killed in an effort to kill him.
Not at all, there was no particular search for Moses himself, it was simply a move to cull the growing slave population (and I believe the 300 years is not the period of slavery, but the time between Joseph and Moses).
I'd add that the Aramaic word for 'Slavery' is somewhat unclear. It was likely more akin to some form of long term indentured servitude than chattel slavery.
Honestly, argument about Ancient Egypt aside, I am shocked at the level of deliberate misinterpretation and wheedling by certain posters. The bible can be interpreted in different ways, that much is true, but this is getting ridiculous.
Jewish scholars lament the addition of Jehova, a word that doesn't not exist in the OT, to the New World Version of the Bible (Produced by the Latter Day Saints), declared to otherwise be one of the most accurate and well done English translations, baring certain radical alterations.
There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.
LordofHats wrote:Jewish scholars lament the addition of Jehova, a word that doesn't not exist in the OT, to the New World Version of the Bible (Produced by the Latter Day Saints), declared to otherwise be one of the most accurate and well done English translations, baring certain radical alterations.
There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.
Yeah, they are undoubtedly an Abrahamic religion, but the whole recent "Mormons are Christians' deal is just a PR thing to gain mainstream acceptance. It really doesn't make sense to me, why can't you be proud of your beliefs? Why do you feel the need to piggyback onto Christianity and go from being a separate religion to just being another denomination?
Well I think they do it because in their beliefs they are a restoration of what Christianity should be. Being 'Christian' is central to their belief system, even if they're beliefs have about as much in common with Christianity as Islam... Meh, that's an exaggeration. The key issue is that many Mormon beliefs are mutual exclusive with basic Christian tenets, which to me makes it impossible for them to be 'Christian' in the same sense that other Christians are 'Christian.'
Its a word game of sorts. Someone's view on this probably varies on whether they considered Mormon groups to be cults too.
Amaya wrote:
"Hell, the Mormons interpret Psalms 82:6 to mean that we are gods while ignoring translation issues and the surrounding verses. "
And then there is this as well.
No, Muslims don’t think that Jesus was the messiah.
Think of it like a movie. The Torrah was the first one, and the New Testament was the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out and it retcons the second one like it never happened. There is still Jesus but he isn’t the main character anymore and the messiah hasn’t come yet.
Jews like the first one but ignore the sequels. Christians like the first two but feel the third one doesn’t count. Muslims think that the third one was the best. And Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fan fiction that doesn’t fit ANY of the series canon.
Think of it like a movie. The Torrah was the first one, and the New Testament was the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out and it retcons the second one like it never happened. There is still Jesus but he isn’t the main character anymore and the messiah hasn’t come yet.
Jews like the first one but ignore the sequels. Christians like the first two but feel the third one doesn’t count. Muslims think that the third one was the best. And Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fan fiction that doesn’t fit ANY of the series canon.
That may well be the greatest Abrahamic religions metaphor of all time
LordofHats wrote:
There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.
LordofHats wrote:Jewish scholars lament the addition of Jehova, a word that doesn't not exist in the OT, to the New World Version of the Bible (Produced by the Latter Day Saints), declared to otherwise be one of the most accurate and well done English translations, baring certain radical alterations.
There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.
Yeah, they are undoubtedly an Abrahamic religion, but the whole recent "Mormons are Christians' deal is just a PR thing to gain mainstream acceptance. It really doesn't make sense to me, why can't you be proud of your beliefs? Why do you feel the need to piggyback onto Christianity and go from being a separate religion to just being another denomination?
We've always considered ourselves as Chistians. I don't get what you mean by the whole "recent Mormons are Christians deal". The actual name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
LordofHats wrote:
There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.
My nine Christian wives say that's poppycock.
Are your nine Christian wives aware of each other?
Is the partner being Christian a mandatory requirement for a Christian to get married?
I imagine it would definitely be an issue if the Christian was devout, there's enough trouble between Catholics and Protestants in my family, but I don't remember if it was impossible for non-Christians to be sacramentally married.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Is the partner being Christian a mandatory requirement for a Christian to get married?
I imagine it would definitely be an issue if the Christian was devout, there's enough trouble between Catholics and Protestants in my family, but I don't remember if it was impossible for non-Christians to be sacramentally married.
As with all things religious, it depends on the believer.
LordofHats wrote:Jewish scholars lament the addition of Jehova, a word that doesn't not exist in the OT, to the New World Version of the Bible (Produced by the Latter Day Saints), declared to otherwise be one of the most accurate and well done English translations, baring certain radical alterations.
There's a reason I've argued that Mormon's are not Christians and it has nothing to do with bigotry. They're theological beliefs have some seriously radical differences with other Christian denominations that I think Mormonism needs to be reclassified as a Abrahamic branch rather than a Christian denomination.
Yeah, they are undoubtedly an Abrahamic religion, but the whole recent "Mormons are Christians' deal is just a PR thing to gain mainstream acceptance. It really doesn't make sense to me, why can't you be proud of your beliefs? Why do you feel the need to piggyback onto Christianity and go from being a separate religion to just being another denomination?
We've always considered ourselves as Chistians. I don't get what you mean by the whole "recent Mormons are Christians deal". The actual name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
From the time the church originated, all ordinences have been done in the name of Jesus Christ. Prayers are always closed wit "in the name of Jesus Christ."
Just because Jesus Christ features heavily in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not mean that you could accurately label Mormons to be Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism This was considered deviant, and dangerously so, so I don't know if Mormons would even be considered Christian.
Then again, there are so many 'Christian' groups in existence that would have normally been considered deviant, radical or outright heretical that it's hard to define what a Christian really is. That used to generally lay within the auspices of the Catholic Church, for the most part, which is clearly not the case now.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Is the partner being Christian a mandatory requirement for a Christian to get married?
I imagine it would definitely be an issue if the Christian was devout, there's enough trouble between Catholics and Protestants in my family, but I don't remember if it was impossible for non-Christians to be sacramentally married.
As with all things religious, it depends on the believer.
Which would likely be the same thing regarding the definition of 'Christian'.
Who knows dogma, your wives might accurately label you as a Christian, regardless of your personal feelings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Harry, what makes LDS members non christian in your opinion, not Wiki's?
I honestly can't say LDS members are or are not Christian. At most you could argue that they would not be considered Christian 1000 or even 500 years ago, but nowadays there's no clear definition on what being a Christian is, and therefore no way to decide whether or not the Latter Day Saints are a Christian sect.
I wouldn't compare Mormonism to Arianism. Arianism was a different view but had plenty in common with the Orthodox views of the time (among others). Arianism spawned from a debate over the nature of Jesus and his relation to God, but otherwise wasn't that different.
The big thing for Mormonism is radically different cosmology and eschatology, as well as a much more colorful(?) view of salvation and redemption than is found in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant circles.
Yeah, the absence of a belief in the Trinity isn't the real issue when considering whether or not Mormons are Christian. Its part of the overall issues, but its only one part.
Mormonism is actually kind of a throw back to old school Gnosticism when you look at its cosmology, what with the ascension of human souls into god like beings (exaltation), which is actually pretty cool if one finds theology a fascinating subject.
sirlynchmob wrote:yes the mormons are christians. As the only requirement to be a christian is "do you accept jesus" if yes you're a christian.
According to you maybe.
And even with your definition, that's pretty shaky. Who exactly does that (extraordinarily large) definition encompass? Really, as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
sirlynchmob wrote:yes the mormons are christians. As the only requirement to be a christian is "do you accept jesus" if yes you're a christian.
According to you maybe.
And even with your definition, that's pretty shaky. Who exactly does that (extraordinarily large) definition encompass? Really, as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
.
well than, what is the exact definition for a christian? which of the 42,000 different churches is the right one?
dictionary: " A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."
Mormons are baptized, and they like baptizing everyone by proxy.
they believe in jesus and his teachings
ergo mormons are christians.
ergo you are wrong again
Believing is Jesus makes a fairly decent mission statement but religion is a little more than answering yes to a critical question. Mormonism has a lot of big breaks from orthodox Christianity. Jews and Muslims both believe in a single undivided god. Are they the same religion? They have more in common with one another than either has with Christianity.
This of course boils down to how one wants to break down a religion. I prefer being as strict as possible but I've seen scholars argue that Mormonism is so intrinsically tied to being Christian that while their beliefs are solidly outside the umbrella of Christianity its impractical to separate them from it. Which I found a reasonable position to hold.
sirlynchmob wrote:yes the mormons are christians. As the only requirement to be a christian is "do you accept jesus" if yes you're a christian.
According to you maybe.
And even with your definition, that's pretty shaky. Who exactly does that (extraordinarily large) definition encompass? Really, as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
.
well than, what is the exact definition for a christian? which of the 42,000 different churches is the right one?
dictionary: " A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings." Mormons are baptized, and they like baptizing everyone by proxy. they believe in jesus and his teachings
ergo mormons are christians. ergo you are wrong again
I am not an expert but its my understanding a big difference is 1) they don't believe in the holy trinity; 2) they have additional testaments. Thats a no no. but if they want to call themselves Christians I'm cool. My only requirement is that you stay the hell off my lawn.
At the same time I have no problem with Mormons. They're great survivalists and we plan to hit them first when Doomsday comes. "Our experts find your plans to raid all the nearby mormons, coupon savers, and wiener dog pet stores to be innovative, but can't recommend that as a sound strategy."
LordofHats wrote:Believing is Jesus makes a fairly decent mission statement but religion is a little more than answering yes to a critical question. Mormonism has a lot of big breaks from orthodox Christianity. Jews and Muslims both believe in a single undivided god. Are they the same religion? They have more in common with one another than either has with Christianity.
This of course boils down to how one wants to break down a religion. I prefer being as strict as possible but I've seen scholars argue that Mormonism is so intrinsically tied to being Christian that while their beliefs are solidly outside the umbrella of Christianity its impractical to separate them from it. Which I found a reasonable position to hold.
in a sense, yes they all worship the same god. Which when speaking of the right religion, why isn't everyone switching to islam? why wouldn't everyone want to be following gods latest messenger?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:yes the mormons are christians. As the only requirement to be a christian is "do you accept jesus" if yes you're a christian.
According to you maybe.
And even with your definition, that's pretty shaky. Who exactly does that (extraordinarily large) definition encompass? Really, as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
.
well than, what is the exact definition for a christian? which of the 42,000 different churches is the right one?
dictionary: " A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."
Mormons are baptized, and they like baptizing everyone by proxy.
they believe in jesus and his teachings
ergo mormons are christians.
ergo you are wrong again
I am not an expert but its my understanding a big difference is 1) they don't believe in the holy trinity; 2) they have additional testaments. Thats a no no. but if they want to call themselves Christians I'm cool. My only requirement is that you stay the hell off my lawn.
At the same time I have no problem with Mormons. They're great survivalists and we plan to hit them first when Doomsday comes.
"Our experts find your plans to raid all the nearby mormons, coupon savers, and wiener dog pet stores to be innovative, but can't recommend that as a sound strategy."
but those new testaments came from god delivered to jon smith. so shouldn't you accept those testaments as well?
sirlynchmob wrote:yes the mormons are christians. As the only requirement to be a christian is "do you accept jesus" if yes you're a christian.
According to you maybe.
And even with your definition, that's pretty shaky. Who exactly does that (extraordinarily large) definition encompass? Really, as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
.
well than, what is the exact definition for a christian? which of the 42,000 different churches is the right one?
dictionary: " A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."
Mormons are baptized, and they like baptizing everyone by proxy.
they believe in jesus and his teachings
ergo mormons are christians.
...and his teachings.
Yeah, it's not like what this might consist of is up for debate at all or anything.
ergo you are wrong again
You have consistently demonstrated either a complete lack of knowledge or an intention to annoy religious Dakka users through deliberate misinterpretations of the bible.
sirlynchmob wrote:yes the mormons are christians. As the only requirement to be a christian is "do you accept jesus" if yes you're a christian.
According to you maybe.
And even with your definition, that's pretty shaky. Who exactly does that (extraordinarily large) definition encompass? Really, as usual you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
.
well than, what is the exact definition for a christian? which of the 42,000 different churches is the right one?
dictionary: " A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings."
Mormons are baptized, and they like baptizing everyone by proxy.
they believe in jesus and his teachings
ergo mormons are christians.
...and his teachings.
Yeah, it's not like what this might consist of is up for debate at all or anything.
ergo you are wrong again
You have consistently demonstrated either a complete lack of knowledge or an intention to annoy religious Dakka users through deliberate misinterpretations of the bible.
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct. And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct. And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
You keep stating you're right, when the only sources you have are two people you may or may not know.
sirlynchmob wrote:
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct.
Proof? What are you talking about? I've said that people will interpret the bible to mean different things. Do you really need proof for that?
And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
Not being a Christian myself, I might be a little biased there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:
So how black is the kettle, anyway?
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct. And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
You keep stating you're right, when the only sources you have are two people you may or may not know.
So how black is the kettle, anyway?
ducking the question again eh? I win by default and you fail at reading, more proof I am right.
I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
Frazzled wrote:1) they don't believe in the holy trinity
They believe in the Trinity, though they do break from the Nicene version. It works like this:
Orthodox Christians: God = Son = Father = Holy Spirit, all one being who exists in three forms (aka soft monotheism)
Mormonism: God = Son, Father, and Holy Spirit, individual members of a single god head with united purpose/will (aka super soft monotheism)
Its a difference with big implications but at the end of the day its not really that different.
sirlynchmob wrote:in a sense, yes they all worship the same god. Which when speaking of the right religion, why isn't everyone switching to islam? why wouldn't everyone want to be following gods latest messenger?
Not sure what that has to do with anything... My point was that saying I believe in Jesus may at first glance scream 'Christian' but if I have some wonky faith where I believe Jesus is a cyborg ninja from the future who came back in time to save us from our sins when we destroy the world in 2012 by teaching us the break dance, can I really be called 'Christian.' The point being that believing in Jesus Christ is to broad a standard by which to classify religion as 'Christian' on its own, especially since the beliefs of Christianity while varied are generally uniform across the major division. Mostly the difference between Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism isn't one of theology but of practice and Church organization.
but those new testaments came from god delivered to jon smith. so shouldn't you accept those testaments as well?
Not if one thinks John Smith is a liar who wanted to use restoration religion to get in the sack with more than one woman at a time.
mattyrm wrote: I heard a professor say that Muslims think that the Torah was Windows 95, The Bible was Windows 98 and the Quran was Windows 7.
I'm guessing Ba'Hai was Windows Vista and Zorastrianism is MS-DOS?
sirlynchmob wrote:
I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
sirlynchmob wrote:
I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
You don't personally know 60 Christians.
And you are wrong again. Are you sure you're a christian?
sirlynchmob wrote: so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct. And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
You keep stating you're right, when the only sources you have are two people you may or may not know.
So how black is the kettle, anyway?
ducking the question again eh? I win by default and you fail at reading, more proof I am right. I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
Dude, I agree with you! I believe that Mormons are Christians. However, this is more of a gut feeling than anything else, as I have no proof to back up my statements.
You, on the other hand, say you have proof, and when you're proof is rejected, you go ahead and attack us. And now you say you have more proof! So post it. Post your proof from a silly book written by a bunch of crazy old men over thousands of years in which there are many contradictions and impossibilities.
sirlynchmob wrote:
I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
You don't personally know 60 Christians.
And you are wrong again. Are you sure you're a christian?
Hazardous Harry wrote:
Not being a Christian myself, I might be a little biased there.
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct. And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
You keep stating you're right, when the only sources you have are two people you may or may not know.
So how black is the kettle, anyway?
ducking the question again eh? I win by default and you fail at reading, more proof I am right.
I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
Dude, I agree with you! I believe that Mormons are Christians. However, this is more of a gut feeling than anything else, as I have no proof to back up my statements.
You, on the other hand, say you have proof, and when you're proof is rejected, you go ahead and attack us. And now you say you have more proof! So post it. Post your proof from a silly book written by a bunch of crazy old men over thousands of years in which there are many contradictions and impossibilities.
Read before you post, mate.
sorry, I didn't notice you jump in there.
But thats not quite what is happening. I state what I read the bible to mean, people like harry just say, no your wrong and throw in some personal insult to me. so after being attacked myself, I see no reason to not attack back.
You did not state an opinion, you argued definitively that Mormons are definitely Christians, and that to be Christian you only have to "accept jesus".
Don't try to pass yourself off as the victim here, you've posited ridiculous stances (such a God being pro-choice) before and it's clear you don't read other people's posts.
sirlynchmob wrote: so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Strawman, and a poor one at that. I never claimed to have the undisputed definition of what it means to be Christian. I've only claimed that you certainly don't. And, coming from an Irish family, the fact that you have 2 Christian friends means less than nothing.
well you keep asserting I'm wrong, while offering no proof for why I'm supposed to be wrong. Nor even offering up any proof for why you think you are correct. And you still didn't answer the question, is the bible just a book of metaphors, or literally true?
You keep stating you're right, when the only sources you have are two people you may or may not know.
So how black is the kettle, anyway?
ducking the question again eh? I win by default and you fail at reading, more proof I am right. I said for any anything you think you are right about, I can find 2 others to say you are wrong. so if you are sure about 30 things in the bible, I can find 60 to say you are wrong.
Dude, I agree with you! I believe that Mormons are Christians. However, this is more of a gut feeling than anything else, as I have no proof to back up my statements.
You, on the other hand, say you have proof, and when you're proof is rejected, you go ahead and attack us. And now you say you have more proof! So post it. Post your proof from a silly book written by a bunch of crazy old men over thousands of years in which there are many contradictions and impossibilities.
Read before you post, mate.
sorry, I didn't notice you jump in there.
But thats not quite what is happening. I state what I read the bible to mean, people like harry just say, no your wrong and throw in some personal insult to me. so after being attacked myself, I see no reason to not attack back.
I think the issue is more that you appear to be stating it more like it's a fact, rather than an opinion.
If you phrased it differently and didn't be so aggressive, I think Harry wouldn't be on your ass.
Hazardous Harry wrote:You did not state an opinion, you argued definitively that Mormons are definitely Christians, and that to be Christian you only have to "accept jesus".
Don't try to pass yourself off as the victim here, you've posited ridiculous stances (such a God being pro-choice) before and it's clear you don't read other people's posts.
god is pro choice (in some situations), that's already been agreed to between LordofHats and I.
I post the dictionary definition for christians which indicates to me that christians include mormons. you say 'debatable' and accuse me of
Hazardous Harry wrote:
"You have consistently demonstrated either a complete lack of knowledge or an intention to annoy religious Dakka users through deliberate misinterpretations of the bible. "
and again you say my stances are ridiculous, yet offer no proof for my position being invalid in any way. so if the dictionary is wrong about the definition of christian, what is the correct definition?
god is pro choice (in some situations), that's already been agreed to between LordofHats and I.
Not really. Being okay with abortion isn't the same thing as being pro-choice. The woman isn't exactly getting a choice in Numbers 5. The man of the house walks up to her and says 'this is how its going to be' which is pretty anti-pro-choice. Now, maybe this ritual was abused by women of the time to get abortions, but I find that unlikely, and abusing it probably isn't cool with the G-man.
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
Mormons have a religion based off of the Teachings of Jesus (And Joseph Smith, to a lesser extent).
You could have just used that SirLynchMob, instead of using a strawman argument.
What strawman?
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
Mormons have a religion based off of the Teachings of Jesus (And Joseph Smith, to a lesser extent).
You could have just used that SirLynchMob, instead of using a strawman argument.
What strawman?
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Thats not a strawman. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
I never misrepresented his position, I asked him to clarify it.
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
Mormons have a religion based off of the Teachings of Jesus (And Joseph Smith, to a lesser extent).
You could have just used that SirLynchMob, instead of using a strawman argument.
What strawman?
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you speak for god then? you have the undisputed bible? your interpretation is the only one that is valid? For everything you think you are right about, I can find 2 other christians who will gladly tell you your wrong. so help me understand then, is the bible a book of metaphors or the literal historical works of god, divinely inspired and 100% true?
Thats not a strawman. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
I never misrepresented his position, I asked him to clarify it.
Look, buddy, I don't know what a Strawman actually is. I'm a 16 year old English Major hopeful.
Harry called it one, so I assumed he was right. I'm just trying to calm the two of you down, to stop you from doing something really stupid as well as giving a bit of input.
@Lordofhats, actually they don't believe in the Trinity. Christian belief in the Trinity is centered around the belief that they are a single entity. Mormons believe that they are separate entities.
The LDS church teaches some really unorthodox doctrine. Things like.. man can become gods, God the father had sexual intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus, good mormons will gain a planet after after they die and have perpetual spirit babies after they themselves become gods.
Those are just a few of their teachings and those teachings are not what was taught by the apostles.
Amaya wrote:@Lordofhats, actually they don't believe in the Trinity. Christian belief in the Trinity is centered around the belief that they are a single entity. Mormons believe that they are separate entities.
Hence (one reason) why I don't consider them Christians. They believe in the Trinity, but their Trinity is not the one that is pretty much universal to all modern Christians who aren't Mormons. It's a complicated and confusing dynamic, but Mormon's are not polytheists (but then all Christians have been accused of Polytheism by Mulsims and Jews). They believe in a singular god in three forms, but the dynamic of the three is very different in Mormonism than in mainstream Christianity.
Mainstream Christianity: God has three forms. A single undivided entity that takes three forms.
Mormonism: God is three persons. Think of this one as a sort of hivemind god (that's how I think of it). The three are useless on their own. They're godhead only exists as a unit.
The Mormon one actually makes a lot more logical sense than the mainstream one, to the extent that an all powerful ever present creator entity can make logical sense. Mainstream Christian doctrine preaches a god who is undivided and yet is divided which is why I encourage those here not to think about it too much because it will hurt your brain on the inside.
Imagine you had never heard of either christians or mormons, now your walking down a street and on one corner is a christian trying to gain followers, on the opposite corner a mormon. which side would you listen to? according to that video chrstianity is an abomination as decreed by god and the mormon points that while on his corner. They both believe in jesus and the bible.
now when it comes to an afterlife, christians get to hang out with god and praise him or burn in hell for eternity, if mormons are right (based on the video) you'll be castrated, while they get to have lots of sex.
Can either side prove their claims? nope
can either side prove the other wrong? nope
could either side be right? maybe (but my money is on their both wrong)
If Mitt Romney wasn't running would this have even of been a topic worth discussing? probably not
They both claim to be christians and by the broad definition in the dictionary, they both are.
If you want to get into what tenets to follow, then you could also say that 1/2 of the christian churches are not christian either. Then you just left with the "no true christian (I mean Scotsman) fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
now imagine if there were also people representing hinduism, islam, judaism, shinto, sikhism, jainism, bahai, cao dai, cheondoism, tenrikyo, wicca, and anyone I forgot How could you rationally choose one religion over another?
No True Scotsmen is a fallacy of rhetoric. If one can put up a reasoned argument that Mormons are not Christians, and many people have in the last 100 years, then it's not a NTS. If anything your arguing from a position of reverse NTS which I think has an actual name but I can't remember it.
sirlynchmob wrote:If Mitt Romney wasn't running would this have even of been a topic worth discussing? probably not
Except all those books and discussions that happened long before Mitt Romney seem to say that people would still talk about it.
sirlynchmob wrote:now imagine if there were also people representing hinduism, islam, judaism, shinto, sikhism, jainism, bahai, cao dai, cheondoism, tenrikyo, wicca, and anyone I forgot How could you rationally choose one religion over another?
There are people that represent those religions, in as much as there are people that practice them. You choose a religion the same way you choose Atheism. As an individual something about the system, or lack of system, makes sense to you.
I'll start by saying that I do believe Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet. If he was in the game for an easy life, he picked the wrong profession, since during his life he was tarred and feathered, beaten, had his children die due to mob violence, jailed numerous times, and finally martyred by a mob while in prison.
Ahtman wrote:You choose a religion the same way you choose Atheism. As an individual something about the system, or lack of system, makes sense to you.
Now that's some good reading. I miss my old Baptist college sometimes, simply because the library there had a half-dozen multi-volume commentary sets and it was awesome. I would get one of them if they didn't cost in excess of $300. Someday I'm going to get my own damned library just so I can sit down with these things.
