Under God With Liberty

thunder_runner32 wrote:

If the God of the bible was written by man, wouldn't he more than likely fit our thoughts,desires, etc.? Possibly a God who says something like....do whatever the heck you want!

Not if one of the reasons they invented the fairytale...and the god...was to keep people in line.

In fact, to suggest that they would have their god say, "Do whatever the heck youl want"...would be absurd in that case.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Well that is certainly progress. You quoted 70 AD as the earliest date you could imagine, and now you place it near the latest dates possible based on your quoted sources.

There are indications from portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that may push the date of Mark's gospel to 50 AD or before.

I try not to distort your words and I would appreciate it if you did the same fo mine. I did not quote 70 AD as the earliest date I could imagine. I do not claim to be an expert on the dating of ancient texts. What I said was "If I were to guess based upon what I have read it would be somewhere between 70 A.D. and 180 A.D.".

Even if there is some substantiation for the 50 AD date that you have hinted at, that in no way changes my point "In any even certainly long enough after the time when the events described took place for any accuracy of quoting to be lost and for tales to grow in stature."

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:
Well that is certainly progress. You quoted 70 AD as the earliest date you could imagine, and now you place it near the latest dates possible based on your quoted sources.

There are indications from portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that may push the date of Mark's gospel to 50 AD or before.

I try not to distort your words and I would appreciate it if you did the same fo mine. I did not quote 70 AD as the earliest date I could imagine. I do not claim to be an expert on the dating of ancient texts. What I said was "If I were to guess based upon what I have read it would be somewhere between 70 A.D. and 180 A.D.".

Even if there is some substantiation for the 50 AD date that you have hinted at, that in no way changes my point "In any even certainly long enough after the time when the events described took place for any accuracy of quoting to be lost and for tales to grow in stature."

He/she asked you for substantiation, Mesquite...you should ask him to substantiate what he now alleges. He won't repond to me. To his credit, he knows better than to bite off more than he can chew.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
Wouldn't God's word be protected by the holy spirit?

I agree with Thunder Runner. I believe God's word has been protected by the Holy Spirit.

I disagree MA. With the current confusion about who wrote what and when, with all of the contradictions, differing translations, differences in which books are included, not to mention the difference of thought as to what it all means, I can only conclude.... if that is protection, the protector is incompetent.

Momma Angel wrote:

If God's word had not been protected, I suspect the Bible would read much like a novel with a million sequels.

I think it does. I am sure you are familiar with the popularity of the current rash of rapture books. :wink:

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
Wouldn't God's word be protected by the holy spirit?

I agree with Thunder Runner. I believe God's word has been protected by the Holy Spirit.

I disagree MA. With the current confusion about who wrote what and when, with all of the contradictions, differing translations, differences in which books are included, not to mention the difference of thought as to what it all means, I can only conclude.... if that is protection, the protector is incompetent.

Momma Angel wrote:
If God's word had not been protected, I suspect the Bible would read much like a novel with a million sequels.

I think it does. I am sure you are familiar with the popularity of the current rash of rapture books. :wink:

Mesquite,

What was once scientifically proven, in many instances, has now been disproven by science. You say that because of different interpretations, different writers, etc., that the Bible is, let's just say unreliable for right now. So, what is the difference? The science of earlier years is wrong now but wasn't then? This is why I don't see how you or anyone can rely solely or so heavily on science. If science has proven that science was incorrect at times, how the heck does that make sense to believe in science? Now, to me, that's circular logic.

Would you be speaking of the "Left Behind" series? Yes, those are novels based on someone's interpretation of what may happen according to the Book of Revelation. Fascinating books.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

He/she asked you for substantiation, Mesquite...you should ask him to substantiate what he now alleges. He won't repond to me. To his credit, he knows better than to bite off more than he can chew.

I could directly ask for substantiation, but in reality that would just be more smoke to obscure my point. Moving forward another 20 years does little to change my point that it was still a long time after Jesus passing. Most certainly it was a long enough period of time for stories to gain a life of their own. Sort of like every time a fish story is told the fish gets a bit bigger, or perhaps in a golf story the shot gets a bit tougher. :wink:

Real was trying to make a big deal about the inclusion of one phrase that showed only in the Mark accounting, but was not in the Luke or Matthew accounts of the same event. That tells me that the phrase containing "trust in riches" had no significance to those recounting the event.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

What was once scientifically proven, in many instances, has now been disproven by science.

Did you have anything specific in mind or are you just blowing smoke?

Momma Angel wrote:

You say that because of different interpretations, different writers, etc., that the Bible is, let's just say unreliable for right now.

Unreliable for right now? Do you mean that updates are forthcoming?

Momma Angel wrote:

So, what is the difference? The science of earlier years is wrong now but wasn't then?

If I had some idea of what you thought was wrong, I would attempt to address it. I cannot and will not address a non-descript strawman.

Momma Angel wrote:

This is why I don't see how you or anyone can rely solely or so heavily on science. If science has proven that science was incorrect at times, how the heck does that make sense to believe in science? Now, to me, that's circular logic.

I have no idea what you are trying to say there. Science is about knowledge, discovery, and understanding. Gaining an understanding of one thing leads to discovery of another. It is a continual self correcting process. It is not some evil concocted to bring disrepute upon the Bible. Any discovers such as the age of the earth, size of the universe, or evolution, that are in conflict with a literal reading of the Bible are purely incidental.

The Bible on the other hand is frozen in time, a relatively unknowledgeable and superstitious time at that. It was a time when illiteracy was the norm. What more can you expect than simple tales such as creation and Noah's ark from that era?

0 Replies

1Ti 6:10
For the "love" of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through [needle eye] with many sorrows.

Col 2:2
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Comment:
Knitting is very hard to rip apart... the wealth of the world is an illusion.

The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God.... the difference has to do with "love" of earthly riches vs the love of God and the relationship with the family of God... PEACE also factors in.

I have asked all of my scholars and they have not answered... so God gave me the answer directly...

Sin is a twisted twine of many threads that need to one by one be untangled... sin is like DNA.

Frank you were close...

You have insight.

0 Replies

Most people do not fully read but overlook words and they trust their speed over comprehension...

Mt 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mt 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Moving forward another 20 years does little to change my point that it was still a long time after Jesus passing. Most certainly it was a long enough period of time for stories to gain a life of their own. Sort of like every time a fish story is told the fish gets a bit bigger, or perhaps in a golf story the shot gets a bit tougher. :wink:

It really does everything to change your point. If the book was written less than 20 years after the event (as opposed to possibly over 100-150 years as you were trying to allow for previously) there would be many folks alive at that point who would still remember the events as they happened.

Do you think someone could show up today and start telling ficticious stories about someone who supposedly taught and gathered a large following back in 1988 and have them accepted as true if there was nobody around who remembered such a thing or was part of it?

Also do you really think that those who spread the gospel message after the Day of Pentecost would be willing to die for something that they knew and those around them knew had never really happened? Think about your fish story or golf story analogy. Seems pretty far fetched that someone would be tortured or die rather than recant a golf story, doesn't it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Moving forward another 20 years does little to change my point that it was still a long time after Jesus passing. Most certainly it was a long enough period of time for stories to gain a life of their own. Sort of like every time a fish story is told the fish gets a bit bigger, or perhaps in a golf story the shot gets a bit tougher. :wink:

It really does everything to change your point. If the book was written less than 20 years after the event (as opposed to possibly over 100-150 years as you were trying to allow for previously) there would be many folks alive at that point who would still remember the events as they happened.

Do you think someone could show up today and start telling ficticious stories about someone who supposedly taught and gathered a large following back in 1988 and have them accepted as true if there was nobody around who remembered such a thing or was part of it?

Also do you really think that those who spread the gospel message after the Day of Pentecost would be willing to die for something that they knew and those around them knew had never really happened? Think about your fish story or golf story analogy. Seems pretty far fetched that someone would be tortured or die rather than recant a golf story, doesn't it?

Acts 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:20
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Moving forward another 20 years does little to change my point that it was still a long time after Jesus passing. Most certainly it was a long enough period of time for stories to gain a life of their own. Sort of like every time a fish story is told the fish gets a bit bigger, or perhaps in a golf story the shot gets a bit tougher. :wink:

It really does everything to change your point. If the book was written less than 20 years after the event (as opposed to possibly over 100-150 years as you were trying to allow for previously) there would be many folks alive at that point who would still remember the events as they happened.

IMO anything that is not recorded at the time it happens is subject to coloring by the re-counter each time it is retold. That is just human nature.

real life wrote:

Do you think someone could show up today and start telling ficticious stories about someone who supposedly taught and gathered a large following back in 1988 and have them accepted as true if there was nobody around who remembered such a thing or was part of it?

That was not my point. Do you think that a recounting twenty years after the fact can be relied upon to be word for word perfect?

real life wrote:

Also do you really think that those who spread the gospel message after the Day of Pentecost would be willing to die for something that they knew and those around them knew had never really happened? Think about your fish story or golf story analogy. Seems pretty far fetched that someone would be tortured or die rather than recant a golf story, doesn't it?

I think it highly likely that when recounting stories, followers of someone that is revered are likely to embellish, or take liberty with facts. Heck, followers on A2K do it all the time. :wink:

0 Replies

Always with the "Why don't atheists want us to cram our religion down their throats?" real innocent like.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Always with the "Why don't atheists want us to cram our religion down their throats?" real innocent like.

More like, why are liberals so hostile when those who are "religious" give their opinion?

0 Replies

RexRed:

This is not about the religious folk stating an opinion. This is about the religious folk injecting the words "one nation, under God" into our national pledge and imposing their beliefs onto every member of this diverse country.

The foundation of this country is not built upon majority rule--but rather individual rights. It is not the devine or national privilege of the religious majority to impose their religious or moral beliefs on others; but rather, it is their DUTY to respect the liberty of ALL.

0 Replies

Well stated, Debra!

0 Replies

I guess I just don't understand the big deal about two words. Everyone is free to either choose a God, worship a God, not choose one, not worship one. If the words mean nothing to you then they mean nothing to you.

If you don't want to practice religion, then don't. If you want to, then do. Our founding fathers put those words there. If someone were to pray in your presence, would you stop them? Wouldn't you just walk away or don't listen if you didn't want to hear it?

If you don't want to say those words, don't say them. But, is it right to take them out and only have your wants recognized? If someone could come up with a way for both sides to be happy that would be great. But, how do you satisfy both sides of this coin? You take it out and you take away the wants of one side. You leave it in and you feel your side is missing out.

Recently, someone said it is not freedom of religion they want, but freedom from religion. Is that also what you want?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I guess I just don't understand the big deal about two words. Everyone is free to either choose a God, worship a God, not choose one, not worship one. If the words mean nothing to you then they mean nothing to you.

If you don't want to practice religion, then don't. If you want to, then do. Our founding fathers put those words there. If someone were to pray in your presence, would you stop them? Wouldn't you just walk away or don't listen if you didn't want to hear it?

If you don't want to say those words, don't say them. But, is it right to take them out and only have your wants recognized? If someone could come up with a way for both sides to be happy that would be great. But, how do you satisfy both sides of this coin? You take it out and you take away the wants of one side. You leave it in and you feel your side is missing out.

Recently, someone said it is not freedom of religion they want, but freedom from religion. Is that also what you want?

We all understand that you do not understand why we have a problem with this issue, MA.

That is a significant part of the problem, as a matter of fact.

In any case...as you already know...I want freedom FROM religion.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I guess I just don't understand the big deal about two words. Everyone is free to either choose a God, worship a God, not choose one, not worship one. If the words mean nothing to you then they mean nothing to you.

If you don't want to practice religion, then don't. If you want to, then do. Our founding fathers put those words there. If someone were to pray in your presence, would you stop them? Wouldn't you just walk away or don't listen if you didn't want to hear it?

If you don't want to say those words, don't say them. But, is it right to take them out and only have your wants recognized? If someone could come up with a way for both sides to be happy that would be great. But, how do you satisfy both sides of this coin? You take it out and you take away the wants of one side. You leave it in and you feel your side is missing out.

Recently, someone said it is not freedom of religion they want, but freedom from religion. Is that also what you want?

We all understand that you do not understand why we have a problem with this issue, MA.

That is a significant part of the problem, as a matter of fact.

In any case...as you already know...I want freedom FROM religion.

No one is making you do anything. Have you always wanted Under God taken out of the pledge of allegiance? Has this always been such a big issue?

If you want freedom from religion then don't engage in it. But, if you get the freedom from religion you seem to want, then what about me and the ones that want religion? Our rights will be gone. Oh, I know, you wish us to give them up voluntarily. How would you feel if I wanted you to give up one of your rights voluntarily?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I guess I just don't understand the big deal about two words. Everyone is free to either choose a God, worship a God, not choose one, not worship one. If the words mean nothing to you then they mean nothing to you.

If you don't want to practice religion, then don't. If you want to, then do. Our founding fathers put those words there. If someone were to pray in your presence, would you stop them? Wouldn't you just walk away or don't listen if you didn't want to hear it?

If you don't want to say those words, don't say them. But, is it right to take them out and only have your wants recognized? If someone could come up with a way for both sides to be happy that would be great. But, how do you satisfy both sides of this coin? You take it out and you take away the wants of one side. You leave it in and you feel your side is missing out.

Recently, someone said it is not freedom of religion they want, but freedom from religion. Is that also what you want?

You don't understand the BIG DEAL about two little words INJECTED into our national pledge by the religious folks and IMPOSED on everyone else in the land of the free? Where's the LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL?

Oh, I see YOUR logic: liberty and justice for ALL is no big deal so long as YOU can officially have one nation UNDER GOD.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Under God With Liberty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know