Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Sure you do!!!!!~

Jesus said he was not here to change the law...which is the Old Testament.

Not one word; not one letter of one word; not one stroke of one letter.

And you want us to accept that you want to follow Jesus???

Give us a break.

Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

Prayer is supposed to come from the heart and not be used to "look good" in the eyes of man, which is what is being talked about here.

Why don't you Jesus people just make a new, new testament. What the hell? You'll have the old,new & newest Testament. You could frank proof it. Fix the whole thing in one shoot. Then 300 years from now everyone will think you guys were extra special jesus people. you'll get more followers cause you'll take all stupid s**t out.

Amigo,

Well, it's nice to know you are no longer sitting on the fence.

I was never on the fence Momma. I was just saving my gas watching you guys drive in circles.

Let me rephrase then, it's nice to know where you stand.

The preachers that preach the beatitudes are not the ones making all the noise that rile folks up. They are also not the ones that you apparently listen to. Otherwise you would not be lobbying for the return of prayer in school.

I wonder why that is? would you care to enlighten us with your methodology?



That is a gross oversimplification. There is so much for non believers to latch on to that your remark is almost comical. Do I have to remind you again of Frank's challenge and you and your compadres refusal to explore the scriptures?



If you respect the do unto others law so much, why would you be opposed to gay marriage?

Which Christians would this be? Certainly it is not the ones raising a big stinkapoo over the Ten Commandments being removed from the Alabama court house. By the way where is it written that the Old Testament no longer applies to Christians? You are not referring to Paul's self serving writings that gentiles need not have their penises whacked are you?

Momma, You're projecting like all the other christians participating on these forums. I never said you don't have a right to voice your religious beliefs. WHAT I SAID WAS, QUIT TRYING TO MAKE LAWS THAT IS RELIGIOUS BASED SUCH AS NO GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGE, PRAYER IN SCHOOLS, CHRISTIAN COMMANDMENTS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, INCLUDE I.D. IN OUR SCIENCE CLASSES, OVERTURNING ROE VS WADE, AND A WHOLE SLEW OF OTHER CHRISTIAN RELIGION BASED INITIATIVES. Please quit projecting your ideas about what I mean. I can speak for myself.

"The Old Testament is viewed more as a history book." LOL History of what? Do have evidence to prove that fact? I think not. When you do, please share it with all of us. I'm sure I'm not the only person curious about your claim that the OT is a history book.

You have a right to lobby for what laws you want and I have a right to lobby for what laws I want. It's called democracy.

If you don't like what I have to say then don't ask questions. If you want to discuss things great, let's discuss things. But, I will not engage in conversations where I am beling belittled or my beliefs are being belittled.

Exercising my right to voice my opinion is just as important as you exercising your right to voice your opinion.

That was because Christians were persecuted in those days just as they are today.

And always will be.

Crash Course in Jewish History Part 2: The Bible as History
by Rabbi Ken Spiro
An enormous amount of information in the Bible has been borne out by archeology. There is not much direct evidence, but there is a huge amount of indirect or circumstantial evidence.


We assume that people throughout human history always studied history, but that's not true. As a matter of fact, if you go back more than a couple of thousand years you'll find people had no interest in history. The first historian in the West is Herodotus, a Greek who lived in the 5th century BCE. And he's given the title: Father of History.

Columbia University historian, Joseph Yerushalmi, who wrote an excellent, highly-praised book called Zahor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, says that "If Herodotus was the father of history, the father of meaning in history was the Jews."

This is a profound idea.

First, not only were Jews recording history well before Herodotus, but while Herodotus might record the events, the Jews were looking at the deeper meaning, and that deeper meaning can be found most importantly and most significantly within the Bible itself.

The first of these stories that we will examine in the future installments of this series pre-dates Herodotus by about 1,300 years. It is the story of Abraham and it is takes place around the 18th century BCE, or 3,700 years ago.

Now don't make the mistake of thinking the Bible is a history book. For example, Abraham, when he appears in the Book of Genesis is already 75 years old. He's one of the most significant figures in Jewish history and the Torah doesn't tell us about him as a child or as a young adult -- we pick up his story when he is an old man already.

The Bible is not concerned with giving us all the details of Abraham's life. It is interested only in history as a means of teaching us the important lessons of life -- it's a book of theology in Jewish worldview first and foremost. Therefore, it focuses on the basic information that we need to know.

HOW ACCURATE IS THE BIBLE?

An article was published recently in the Israeli newspaper Ha'Aretz, smashing the Bible, and in the same week, an article was published in US News and World Report -- a cover story, no less -- supporting the accuracy of the Bible vis-a-vis archeology.

Why such diametrically opposed views? Because archeology is a very complicated field. So a few words of caution are in order.

The definition of archeology is "the discovery and interpretation of the physical remains of previous civilizations and peoples." Note that within the definition of archeology is the word "interpretation". How one archeologist interprets the meaning of a particular find can be very different from how another archeologist interprets the meaning of the same find.

Archeology is not a hard science. When an archeologist finds a piece of rock, a vessel, or a piece of a building, he tries to decide what it means. The find has no label on it, unless it's a written document, and even written documents are open to interpretation.

So when people make definitive statements about what archeology does or doesn't say, you have to be very careful, because the bias of the archeologist affects how he interprets the information.

As the early books of the Bible are concerned, there is little direct evidence for the characters in the Bible. There is, however, a huge amount of indirect or circumstantial evidence -- names, places, business contracts, marriage contracts, migratory patterns. An enormous amount of information in the Bible has been borne out by archeology.

That is as far as the early books of the Bible are concerned, but once we get to later books, like the Book of Kings, for example, there is excellent direct evidence, written records of other emperors, etc. But the early events exist more or less in a historical vacuum and, unfortunately also in an archeological vacuum.

Keep in mind that the same thing that applies in a court of law applies to archeology: Lack of evidence is no evidence of lack. The fact that I haven't found Abraham's camel saddle doesn't mean Abraham didn't have a camel or a saddle. And, indeed, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence supporting the basic historicity of the Bible.

Archeology doesn't definitively prove the Bible, and it certainly doesn't discredit it. In fact the more we find, the more we see that there's a tremendous amount of historicity in the text.

In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It's a book of teachings, and it's the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we're learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible.


source

It is remarkable how acceptable the levels of bile seem to be, as long as it is aimed at persons professing some kind of faith.
The uncomplicated bottom line is that faith can't be proved or disproved, so in a way it is extraneous to these discussions no matter what kind of sophistry comes attached. The "religious" people aren't the ones starting threads with those "last time you beat your wife" questions, baiting people, and trying to pass it off as some kind of intellectual discourse.
The religious people, although they are getting blamed for all the ills of the world here in the confines of this happy forum, aren't the ones here who are mounting attacks. They are parrying thrusts coming from these...what? Intelligent people, concerned that mankind is deceived by religion? Overaged adolescents who like to bully the weird old Christians? I don't really know how to characterize what I see here. But none of you big bad cybertough guys could talk to me the way you talk to certain ones here, if we were face-to-face. And that's not something I just "believe", or "guess". I know that. And if the truth were told, I think all you keyboard badasses know it, too.

"Now don't make the mistake of thinking the Bible is a history book."

What more needs to be said?

"...and I have a right to lobby for what laws I want. It's called democracy."

So it's your admission that you bible-thumpers do make every effort to impose your religious beliefs to all citizens irregardless of our own beliefs?

You call it "democracy." I call it religious imposition in a country that's supposed to protect us from tyrany of the majority on such matters in accordance with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

You don't understand anything about "democracy."

Was that clap in honor of Snood baring his fanny once more?

c.i., there was not one mention of Egypt in that article. Perhaps that is because there is zero archeological evidence of Hebrew slaves ever being in Egypt.