|
Post by Stephen on Sept 17, 2008 11:47:37 GMT -5
Genesis 20:17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could have children again, Genesis 21:10 and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." You may need to adjust the premise of your argument Stephen. In Matthew 27:5, it clearly says that "he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Is the bible supporting suicide and recommending that everyone commit it? Or is the bible merely observing an occurrence in the course of its text? If the mere observation of slavery equates to an active support of slavery, then you support it as well because you have mentioned it in your previous posts. Ezekiel 22:29 says, "The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice." Does the bible therefore support extortion, robbery and injustice? Or is the author merely observing that extortion, robbery and injustice were being practiced at this time? Obviously, this is ludicrous. The bible does not support slavery any more than you do. However, it does talk about it many times... as you have as well. To whom was this written and under what circumstances? The Salem persecutors weren't really interested in finding out, were they? The Salem witch trials - like Jimmy Swaggart - used anything in the bible they could find to support what they had already decided to do. Textual criticism demands that we first figure out what is being said, why it being said, and who it is being said to before we can figure out what it means to us. A little common sense goes a long way. Textual criticism is the act of comparing one text to another to determine which was original, which is a derivative of the other, and which is more accurate from the known facts within each text. The apocrypha fail textual criticism on many levels, and this information is widely available from numerous sources. But I think your personal issues go far beyond genuine research into the validity of the apocrypha, so do what you like with that. If someone were to invade the middle east in the name of Dawn Patrol (while wearing an Indy Squadron t-shirt!!), would you give up Dawn Patrol and blame Mike Carr for the crusades and resulting death, and completely give up board games? Of course not. You would stop, rationally contemplate the situation, and come to the sensible conclusion that Dawn Patrol's rule book does not actually support invasion or killing in any way, and that those who kill in its name actually do not represent Dawn Patrol in any sense. The only reason you do not come to the same conclusion when some nutcase invades Muslim lands to kill people is because of your personal biases and pre-determined position against the bible. You know very well that the bible does not instruct anyone to kill others in order to "free the resting place of Christ." In fact, it teaches us to live in peace with each other. And you know very well that those who killed in the name of Christ were doing it against Christ's will and intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 17, 2008 12:46:25 GMT -5
a. You concede the point that the bible is not the literal word of God. b. If you want to continue to believe that it is , go ahead and do so. I do not 'vehemently' oppose your belief. c. If you want to believe the earth is flat, even though it is not, you can do that too. d. my work is done here. Your "work is done here?" What work? You weren't able to articulate why your point mattered, why you made it in the first place, what practical effect it has on anyone's life, or why your faith is acceptable while the faith of others is not... and now you duck out of the conversation faster than John McCain at a constitutional convention? Other than scoring a Feel Good Victory Point over the despised institution of organized religion, whatever work you were trying to accomplish was, by your own admission, without cause, point, purpose or effect.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Sept 18, 2008 13:02:49 GMT -5
I disagree the old testament does support slavery as that was an accepted way of life during those times. And my point in context was that I refuse to grant the literal word of the bible as an acceptable way to live.A little common sense is never something I would attribute to any organized religion. Mormon's claim there are 12 angels on earth and they can prove god exists. Catholics believe the pope speaks for god. And of course we can sin as much as we wish as long as we repent before death. Common sense is not a high priority in this context. Hmmm no actual argument here just a dismissal of my argument... And yet the religious leaders of the times felt that god so instructed them. Glad they used that common sense stuff. I find alot of truth in the bible, Hailey's comet led the wise men, The reed sea which attaches to the red sea still parts today if the winds blow right, and the seven plagues god used to free moses follow a volcanic eruption. It always seems to me and this is just my observation, that only those who interpret the bible literally and word for word are the ones that misuse it.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Sept 19, 2008 9:12:29 GMT -5
AUG 26 I asked how God got 2 bible verses wrong AUG 30 You wrote..."The bible is flawed, wrong,incorrect,hypocritical,full of lies,myths,and fabrications...Matthew,Paul,Moses,Timothy,luke,John Isaiah,James,peter,mark,and the rest of those jokers are all wrong." I didn't say that, you did.
SEPT 1 I again ask simply , How did God get it wrong? Nothing more or less. Sept 2 You wrote " God got it wrong, the bible ,therefore, is not the word of God." You did not say the 'literal' word of God, which is what I am discussing.
Per Webster;
fact n. Anything actually true;that which has actually happened
faith n. Belief,especially in a revealed religion, a system of religious doctrines believed in
believe v. to regard as true, to have faith in
Sept 5 You wrote"...if someone believes that the bible is the word of God...you vehemently oppose their position..."
vehemence n. impetuosity,fury,violence,fervor
I can't find any posts where I 'vehemently' oppose a position.
SEPT 12 You wrote (again) "...you vehemently oppose their postion..." (See response to Sept 5's post )
SEPT 17 You wrote"... or why your faith is acceptable while the faith of othes is not..." Where did I post that? You wrote"...the despised institution of organized religion...by your own admission..." Where did I write that I despised religion and where did I admit it?
You have written more falsehoods than a Republican candidate running for office. You put word in my mouth and then expect me to "discuss" them with you.
John 19:14 It was the Preperation Day for Passover, and the hour was about noon. He (Pilate) said to the Jews, " Look at your king."
Mark 14:12 "Where do you want us to go to prepare the Passover supper?" Mark 14:22 "Take this, " he said," this is my body" Mark 15:25 " It was about nine in the morning when they crucified him (Jesus)"
Here is my proof. Either the bible is flawed or God is imperfect. Where is your proof that the bible is the literal word of God?
If you cannot provide factual evidence , then we have nothing further to discuss with the words you keep putting in my mouth.
I was wrong about the Book of Leviticus. However...
Deueronomy 20:10-12 When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your termsof peace and opens its gates to you, all people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses...lay siege to it and when the Lord, your God, delivers it into your hand, put every male to the sword.
Joshua 9: 23 For this you are accursed; every one of you shall always be a slave( hewer of wood and drawers of water)for the house of my God.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 19, 2008 19:30:49 GMT -5
I disagree the old testament does support slavery as that was an accepted way of life during those times. Of course you disagree. You have to, because you know that there is not a passage that actually recommends or promotes the institution of slavery. So you must either change your position on the topic, or claim that the mere observation of the existence of slavery actually equates to a direct approval. Since you won't do the former, you must do the latter. Hmmm. No actual argument here, just a dismissal of mine. Let's just skip straight to the heart of the matter, okay? You have an ax to grind. Your wrath is directed primarily against western, bible-based religions and those who practice it. Muslims, Buddhists, and non-western non-biblical religions generally get a free pass. You are bitter toward anything biblical or Christian and you're not going to be talked out of it. And that's okay. I entered this discussion with a personal bias just like you. Nothing wrong with that. Just remember that your position is subjective and emotional, and no more balanced, reasoned or logical than that of any Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 19, 2008 19:48:41 GMT -5
You did not say the 'literal' word of God, which is what I am discussing. Okay, let's say that the bible is not the "literal" word of God. Okay, let's say that there is not the slightest hint of fervor in anything you've said. This edited quote indicates a conclusion that I did not draw.... but for the sake of argument, okay, I was completely wrong in that statement. Okay, I'm a liar, too. And Abraham, of course, was told to go kill his son as an act of faith. Do you then assume that you must also kill your son? Or would it perhaps be wiser to consider to whom were these words written, why were they written, and under what circumstances were they written, and only then decide what they mean to you? No? Okay then, let's concede that one, too... The bible is directly instructing Dan to march to a city (let's say Detroit), offer terms of peace, then capture slaves for forced labor (kill all the males... no guns, either... you must use "the sword"). You can use everyone else to hew wood and draw water. From your bathroom sink. By biblical command. Okay? We good now? Okay, let's see if we can move forward. If the bible is not the literal/no kidding/for real/insert-favorite-descriptive-term-here word of God, what difference does this make in our lives? How do we live differently because of this knowledge? What impact does it have on my belief system or yours? Your starkly non-vehement agenda must surely have some sort of point.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Sept 20, 2008 13:02:31 GMT -5
I disagree the old testament does support slavery as that was an accepted way of life during those times. Of course you disagree. You have to, because you know that there is not a passage that actually recommends or promotes the institution of slavery. You mean other than the passages I and Dan have posted? They seem pretty clear to me each endorsing slavery. Saying something loudly does not make it true. Hmmm I'd return that Psych degree Stephen, I am a practicing Christian, albeit in your eyes not a very good one. We've had some very good points on both sides of this. Though it seems we've come as far as we can go. I will leave you with this thought though. I've heard it discussed that Hitler was a jew and sought to evoke the second coming of Christ. I would like to think I am more balanced that.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Sept 21, 2008 11:28:58 GMT -5
No proof Stephen? Can't find it? Where is it? So far God has not told me to kill my son. He told Abraham. And stopped Abraham. If you had lived during the Middle ages would you be running around saying 'But what practical reason is there for knowing that the earth is round and not flat? " Or..." Why did you prove to me that the earth circles the sun and not the other way around and what practical effect does it have on my life?" And every time I quote the bible and you pooh-pooh it in a smarmy retort( like the Detroit comment) you prove my point . You believe the bible is the literal word of God when it's convenient ( "Only through me (Jesus) can you (or anyone of the other 6 billion people living on earth that God created) see the Father" ie get to heaven. But when the bible tells me to kill your response is ..." Hey, c'mon , would God really tell you to do that or would God really tell you to kill your son?" You can't have it both ways.
|
|
joseki
Captain
Come to the dark side!
Posts: 274
|
Post by joseki on Sept 21, 2008 20:25:30 GMT -5
We good now? Okay, let's see if we can move forward. If the bible is not the literal/no kidding/for real/insert-favorite-descriptive-term-here word of God, what difference does this make in our lives? How do we live differently because of this knowledge? What impact does it have on my belief system or yours? Your starkly non-vehement agenda must surely have some sort of point. Ahh if I see what your after, your asking how does the bible not being the literal word influnce our lives? Well I can't answer for everyone but let me tell you what it means to me. It means that I accept there is more to learn. It means that I must develop a moral compass to live by rather than live by 644 rules It influences how I see other people and religions. It allows me to be more accepting of my faults and the faults in others. Which is really saying something as I find there is an ever decreasing percentage of humanity that I can tolerate much less like or even love.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 11, 2009 8:52:40 GMT -5
Look up the story of the Egyptian god ,Hora. It was written 1000 yrs before Jesus was born. Hmmm....seems like I've heard it before.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 11, 2009 9:22:35 GMT -5
Sorry...Google Horus, not Hora.
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Mar 11, 2009 15:47:41 GMT -5
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 12, 2009 8:39:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the links. The more I look for the truth of Jesus' life , it seems it has been buried and replaced with the hero's journey or altered to fit the hero's story. In the oldest greek scripture on record, God says" Youare my ADOPTED son in whom I am well pleased" at Jesus' baptism. Now the bible says 'begotten son' which fits the hero story. And only 2 of the gospels mention the virgin birth, an important point IMHO , that I would think should be in all 4 gospels if those gospels were indeed inspired my God. The data I am finding seems to support Ken's tagline more and more.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 12, 2009 8:40:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the links. The more I look for the truth of Jesus' life , it seems it has been buried and replaced with the hero's journey or altered to fit the hero's story. In the oldest greek scripture on record, God says" Youare my ADOPTED son in whom I am well pleased" at Jesus' baptism. Now the bible says 'begotten son' which fits the hero story. And only 2 of the gospels mention the virgin birth, an important point IMHO , that I would think should be in all 4 gospels if those gospels were indeed inspired my God. The data I am finding seems to support Ken's tagline more and more.
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Mar 12, 2009 9:19:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the links. The more I look for the truth of Jesus' life , it seems it has been buried and replaced with the hero's journey or altered to fit the hero's story. In the oldest greek scripture on record, God says" Youare my ADOPTED son in whom I am well pleased" at Jesus' baptism. Now the bible says 'begotten son' which fits the hero story. And only 2 of the gospels mention the virgin birth, an important point IMHO , that I would think should be in all 4 gospels if those gospels were indeed inspired my God. The data I am finding seems to support Ken's tagline more and more. The specific word used in the ancient texts regarding Mary did not translate as 'virgin' at the time, it actually meant 'young unmarried woman' or something like that. Now, having said that....the whole thrust of Ken's tag line is essentially to denigrate those that have faith, regardless of how such faith got there or what the person bases it on. By continuing this topic, are you tacitly agreeing with Ken that anyone who expresses faith is a fool, or are you more just pointing out that there is no rational basis for said faith but you are willing to allow people with faith to 'live and let live' as it were?
|
|