Mesquite writes
Quote:What that all boils down to is that some people will find what ever they want in the Bible to reinforce their own values and prejudices. As a moral guide it is less than useless and a net drag on modern civilizations.
Some of the most knowledgeable posters on biblical issues in this forum cannot even agree on the trinity or the existence of Hell to mention just two areas of not minor issues.
So if you see that, then why is it so difficult to see that different people 2000+ years ago did not always agree on every issue either? Yet people like you keep plucking this verse or that verse out of the whole and holding it up as evidence that Christians are stupid, disingenuous, fanatic, etc. etc. etc. etc. - you pick the adjective of choice for today. Hopefully, you can see how educated people would think you are being more than a bit manipulative or disingenuous in that tactic however.
I have no difficulty understanding that people now and long ago had disagreements. What makes you think I did? We are discussing the Bible, and no small number of people believe the Bible to be the word of God. You have often used the term God inspired. MA often uses the term God breathed and take most if not all of it quite literally.
Are you now saying that the inspired word of God is only as reliable as the varied understanding of the relatively unknowledgeable and superstitious ancient Hebrews? If so then we are closer to agreement than I had thought.
Quote:No need to lecture me on my ability to interpret biblical literature. I do not post trick passages out of context in an attempt to make something look bad that is not. There is far too much which is plainly crapola for that to be necessary. For example, the slaughter and rape of children in Numbers 31.
Oh sure you don't 'post trick passages out of context' even though you have done just that in several posts over the last few days including your post just referenced. And then when the explanation for the error in your interpretation is pointed out, you ignore it and go right on with your own prejudicial diatribes.
Diatribes now? do you have me mixed up with someone else. My posts are usually short and to the point because I am a very poor typist.
How do you figure I have shown passages out of context. To do so I would have to have shown them in a way that changed their intended meaning. Since we have been discussing 1 Cor14:34 let's check that. Going to The Blue Letter Bible and searching for correlating passages there is obviously no shortage of Paul's verses expressing similar sentiments.
BLB Correlating Passages[/u]
It's okay Mesquite. You're probably a very lovely man beloved by his wife, children, and grandchildren. But don't try to pretend that you're being objective in any way about this. You have demonstrated again and again that you hold religion and people of faith in disrespect, even contempt, and I respect your right to think whatever you want to think. I just don't intend to accept the erroneous characterizations that you assign to religion and/or people of faith.
You are correct that I have no respect for religion, any more than you have respect for atheism. That is not to say that I disrespect anyone with religious belief any more than you disrespect any atheist. It is the actions of some that causes my disrespect.
Quote:Would you like to attempt to put a positive spin on that one? Go ahead and read it through the eyes of those who wrote it, and then report back with the moral lessons we can extract from it to apply to the war we are engaged in today.
There is no positive spin to put on it. It is a recording of ancient history as the scribes understood it from their time and culture. I imagine you have people in your ancestry and/or heritage that once thought it honorable to burn witches at the stake or to own slaves or to lynch horse thieves on the spot. Can you put a positive spin on that? Is that how you think it should be done now?
Recorded history, give me a break! It is the Basis of a religion purported to be the word of God. Numbers 31 begins with
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
and goes on to say
17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
And there is nothing in between or after that would change the meaning one iota.
Now, if you wish to be honorable about this, how about citing a New Testament example where such would be the norm? Or anything from modern JudeoChristian teachings or history? If you want to condemn Christians for unsavory history in the distant past, you could at least admit that all groups/people/cultures have such unsavory history in the distant past. And to attempt to use them as proof of what people think now is to build a huge straw man.
If you wished to be honorable about it, you would cite anything in the New Testament that said that Numbers 31 is not the commands and wishes of God. Not much chance of that though is there?
Foxfyre wrote:Mesquite writes
Quote:What that all boils down to is that some people will find what ever they want in the Bible to reinforce their own values and prejudices. As a moral guide it is less than useless and a net drag on modern civilizations.
Some of the most knowledgeable posters on biblical issues in this forum cannot even agree on the trinity or the existence of Hell to mention just two areas of not minor issues.
So if you see that, then why is it so difficult to see that different people 2000+ years ago did not always agree on every issue either? Yet people like you keep plucking this verse or that verse out of the whole and holding it up as evidence that Christians are stupid, disingenuous, fanatic, etc. etc. etc. etc. - you pick the adjective of choice for today. Hopefully, you can see how educated people would think you are being more than a bit manipulative or disingenuous in that tactic however.
I have no difficulty understanding that people now and long ago had disagreements. What makes you think I did? We are discussing the Bible, and no small number of people believe the Bible to be the word of God. You have often used the term God inspired. MA often uses the term God breathed and take most if not all of it quite literally.
Are you now saying that the inspired word of God is only as reliable as the varied understanding of the relatively unknowledgeable and superstitious ancient Hebrews? If so then we are closer to agreement than I had thought.
The history, the significance of events, the cause of events, as recorded in both the Old and New Testament are indeed only as good as the understanding of those who witnessed and recorded them. There is also the issue of prophecy which is a different thing and must be viewed through a different prism. Sometimes prophecy is indeed a foretelling of things to come; sometimes it is a forthtelling of events as they happen; and sometimes it is a recording of what the ancients believed God to have said or intended. To them, they were corrupt if they decided things on their own; therefore, anything they saw as good or necessary or positive or important had to be from the word of God. I think sometimes they got it right. Sometimes I think they got it wrong. It helps to put it all into proper chronology and you can see all this happen; but it takes a very dedicated effort to do that.
In my opinion, those who say every word and every line of the Bible must be understood exactly as written in its English translation and as it would be understood today are only kidding themselves. And in my opinion those who say none of it is reliable and none of it is true are kidding themselves even more.
The inspired Word of God as revealed in the scriptures has been life changing for many. I do believe, however, that one must experience God in order to understand that.
Quote:No need to lecture me on my ability to interpret biblical literature. I do not post trick passages out of context in an attempt to make something look bad that is not. There is far too much which is plainly crapola for that to be necessary. For example, the slaughter and rape of children in Numbers 31.
Oh sure you don't 'post trick passages out of context' even though you have done just that in several posts over the last few days including your post just referenced. And then when the explanation for the error in your interpretation is pointed out, you ignore it and go right on with your own prejudicial diatribes.
Diatribes now? do you have me mixed up with someone else. My posts are usually short and to the point because I am a very poor typist.
How do you figure I have shown passages out of context. To do so I would have to have shown them in a way that changed their intended meaning. Since we have been discussing 1 Cor14:34 let's check that. Going to The Blue Letter Bible and searching for correlating passages there is obviously no shortage of Paul's verses expressing similar sentiments.
BLB Correlating Passages[/u]
Twice now I have referred you to a detailed explanation of I Cor 14:34, and so far you have chosen to ignore such explanation. But even if the passage was as you seem to interpret it, why is this such a terrible thing when it would reflect a 2000+ year old culture? In the church I attend now I on occasion lead prayers, preach, serve as worship leader, and as I stated, I teach a coed class at the Church. That is hardly 'keeping silent' in Church. However, under the system and structure of the First Century Church, I would probably have felt it my duty to keep silent for the reasons I have already explained.
I think we all must take care with attempting to read 21st Century morality, ethics, and understandings into much earlier times.
It's okay Mesquite. You're probably a very lovely man beloved by his wife, children, and grandchildren. But don't try to pretend that you're being objective in any way about this. You have demonstrated again and again that you hold religion and people of faith in disrespect, even contempt, and I respect your right to think whatever you want to think. I just don't intend to accept the erroneous characterizations that you assign to religion and/or people of faith.
You are correct that I have no respect for religion, any more than you have respect for atheism. That is not to say that I disrespect anyone with religious belief any more than you disrespect any atheist. It is the actions of some that causes my disrespect.
But for all practical purposes, it would appear that you throw all people of faith into the same barrel with those whom you disrespect. If I am wrong about that, then I am wrong. But you have certainly left that impression with me.
Quote:Would you like to attempt to put a positive spin on that one? Go ahead and read it through the eyes of those who wrote it, and then report back with the moral lessons we can extract from it to apply to the war we are engaged in today.
There is no positive spin to put on it. It is a recording of ancient history as the scribes understood it from their time and culture. I imagine you have people in your ancestry and/or heritage that once thought it honorable to burn witches at the stake or to own slaves or to lynch horse thieves on the spot. Can you put a positive spin on that? Is that how you think it should be done now?
Recorded history, give me a break! It is the Basis of a religion purported to be the word of God. Numbers 31 begins with
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
and goes on to say
17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
And there is nothing in between or after that would change the meaning one iota.
No there isn't but there is much elsewhere in the Old Testament that would better place it into its proper context. This is a recording of a historical event and it was probably written down long after the event happened. Moses didn't do it of course and that was the explanation for the difficulties he later experienced. Did God tell Moses to do that? I don't think so based on the loving God that has been revealed to us. Did the people back then think God told them to do that? Yes they did. They had to write the history and this was their justification for it. And there is MUCH written elsewhere in the Old Testament that would cast a much different light on all this. Neither the history nor the other writings in the Old Testament are placed in any kind of chronological order. The very first chapter of Genesis for instance is one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament. A dedicated Bible Study helps put it all into better perspective.
Now, if you wish to be honorable about this, how about citing a New Testament example where such would be the norm? Or anything from modern JudeoChristian teachings or history? If you want to condemn Christians for unsavory history in the distant past, you could at least admit that all groups/people/cultures have such unsavory history in the distant past. And to attempt to use them as proof of what people think now is to build a huge straw man.
If you wished to be honorable about it, you would cite anything in the New Testament that said that Numbers 31 is not the commands and wishes of God. Not much chance of that though is there?
Mesquite,
I am afraid I have to agree with Foxfyre on much of this. You have even stated to me in a post that you were indeed 'tricking' me.
Mesquite, we don't mind answering your questions. We really don't. Just please understand that we only have so many cheeks to turn.
Time and time again, we have tried to get you and others to discuss the New Testament and the New Covenant with God, but you have refused. I honestly would like to know the reason for this.
I am trying so hard to understand how you and others feel and think about these things. We don't want to attack you for anything. We are just trying to understand.
1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Comment:
Maybe if every part of fundamental Christianity was not under attack by the pedophile loving witches of the ACLU the fundamental Christians would be more reasonable about what was appropriately kept in the US courthouses?
1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Comment:
Maybe if every part of fundamental Christianity was not under attack by the pedophile loving witches of the ACLU the fundamental Christians would be more reasonable about what was appropriately kept in the US courthouses?
RexRed wrote:1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Comment:
Maybe if every part of fundamental Christianity was not under attack by the pedophile loving witches of the ACLU the fundamental Christians would be more reasonable about what was appropriately kept in the US courthouses?
We've seen what happens when fundamental Christianity is not held in check by logic. See Crusades
Questioner wrote:RexRed wrote:1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Comment:
Maybe if every part of fundamental Christianity was not under attack by the pedophile loving witches of the ACLU the fundamental Christians would be more reasonable about what was appropriately kept in the US courthouses?
We've seen what happens when fundamental Christianity is not held in check by logic. See Crusades
You could also call up the history of Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and numerous other events of history to show that Christianity has had its dark side. Point of clarification, however: the Crusades were not initiated in the name of fundamentalist Christianity, but were initiated by imperialistic ambitions of an allied monarchy and papacy. The motives were mostly less than noble, but there was nothing illogical about them. If you're going to cite medieval history as somehow relevant to the present, at least cite it accurately.
During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.
There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.
It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.
You can also use the whole history of the Crusades to show what can happen when fundamental Islam is not held in check by force.
And now please cite where the Inquisition is in force today, or where Crusades are still being implemented? And if you agree that they are no longer occurring, they are relevant to the present emphasis of Christianity how?
Creation. Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view.
RexRed wrote:1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Comment:
Maybe if every part of fundamental Christianity was not under attack by the pedophile loving witches of the ACLU the fundamental Christians would be more reasonable about what was appropriately kept in the US courthouses?
We've seen what happens when fundamental Christianity is not held in check by logic. See Crusades
This is why I am a moderate...
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
Maybe the corrrect term to be used for my previous post is "Crusade."
Foxfyre wrote:Questioner wrote:RexRed wrote:1Co 14:32
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Comment:
Maybe if every part of fundamental Christianity was not under attack by the pedophile loving witches of the ACLU the fundamental Christians would be more reasonable about what was appropriately kept in the US courthouses?
We've seen what happens when fundamental Christianity is not held in check by logic. See Crusades
You could also call up the history of Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and numerous other events of history to show that Christianity has had its dark side. Point of clarification, however: the Crusades were not initiated in the name of fundamentalist Christianity, but were initiated by imperialistic ambitions of an allied monarchy and papacy. The motives were mostly less than noble, but there was nothing illogical about them. If you're going to cite medieval history as somehow relevant to the present, at least cite it accurately.
IMO the salient point here is that the texts that authorized or encouraged the events you mentioned remain unchanged and revered as the word of God.
Mark Twain said it best.
Mark Twain wrote:During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.
There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.
It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.
Bible Teaching and Religious Practice.
Foxfyre wrote:You can also use the whole history of the Crusades to show what can happen when fundamental Islam is not held in check by force.
I hope you are not suggesting that our invasion in Iraq has had an effect even close to holding fundamental Islam in check, but this is not the place for that debate.
Foxfyre wrote:And now please cite where the Inquisition is in force today, or where Crusades are still being implemented? And if you agree that they are no longer occurring, they are relevant to the present emphasis of Christianity how?
c.i. has already answered that one well enough, except that he omitted the the religious right is just warming up and consolidating power. As to their fundamentalist nature, one needs only look at the policy of their colleges.
Quote:Creation. Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view.
Patrick Henry College/about
Sorry foxfyre, but I just do not see any "reading through the eyes of those who wrote it" enlightenment coming from these radical nutcases bent on taking over the US government.
Quote:This is why I am a moderate...
interesting, Hitler saidQuote:"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
So, I suppose, Hitler was also a moderate.
