|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2008 04:49:32 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
if you read the Declaration of Independence, and it says "All men are created equal", do you assume we are all of the same height, weight, skin and hair color? God doesn't tell us to abandon all intellect. |
The one thing humans weren't supposed to do is eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You could very well consider that an example of actively discouraging intellect. Don't think, just obey. Note that even the authors of the Declaration did not interpret "all men are created equal" as we do today. The stakes were a little lower than eternal damnation, and people readily acknowledged that their interpretation was their own rather than the obvious intent of God. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 04:51:55 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father. |
And you make my point, exactly. But like I said, have it your way. Your credibility is hurting just a little here, too. |
So, do you say Jesus the son of Joseph or the son of God? It's an either/or proposition.
Or were Joseph and Mary getting busy before the wedding and cooked up the whole story about the angel's visit to cover up their "oops"? |
Sweet. Really trying to discuss here, are we?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 04:53:39 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Shannon - if you read the Declaration of Independence, and it says "All men are created equal", do you assume we are all of the same hight, weight, skin and hair color? Of course not, so it can't be true. That is your reasoning.
You're reaching into absurdity I think, just a little bit, to try to make a point. God doesn't tell us to abandon all intellect. |
Just what does God tell you? To pick and choose which parts of his law to follow? To make a judgement call on which parts to obey? To selectively interpret what he says to suit your wants/needs/desires? To follow the interpretation of his word per that well-dressed guy on TV who wants you to call and pledge today so that your soul can be spared eternal damnation? |
And more sweet.
What does YOUR god tell YOU?
And anybody that sends money to a TV preacher in order to help save their souls deserves to get ripped off. Nuff said.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 17:04:19.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:03:39 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
if you read the Declaration of Independence, and it says "All men are created equal", do you assume we are all of the same height, weight, skin and hair color? God doesn't tell us to abandon all intellect. |
The one thing humans weren't supposed to do is eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You could very well consider that an example of actively discouraging intellect. Don't think, just obey. Note that even the authors of the Declaration did not interpret "all men are created equal" as we do today. The stakes were a little lower than eternal damnation, and people readily acknowledged that their interpretation was their own rather than the obvious intent of God. |
So you do interpret scripture? Praise the Lord! HaHaHa! Just kidding. You consider that not knowing good and evil is avoidance of ALL intellect? He put man in the garden to tend it, and to have dominion over all the earth. Suppose the completely unintelligent ought to be able to do all that?
And I used the phrase "All men are created equal" merely as an example, not as a new arguing point. Sorry.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 17:04:33.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:11:25 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
He put man in the garden to tend it, and to have dominion over all the earth. |
Just out of curiosity -- does this mean that you take the Eden story literally? While were at it, are you a fundamentalist? Is the bible literally true? |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:23:53 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father. |
And you make my point, exactly. But like I said, have it your way. Your credibility is hurting just a little here, too. |
So, do you say Jesus the son of Joseph or the son of God? It's an either/or proposition.
Or were Joseph and Mary getting busy before the wedding and cooked up the whole story about the angel's visit to cover up their "oops"? |
Sweet. Really trying to discuss here, are we? |
I note that you have no answer. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:23:58 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
He put man in the garden to tend it, and to have dominion over all the earth. Suppose the completely unintelligent ought to be able to do all that? |
Well, at least not intelligent enough to view a talking snake with suspicion or figure out that they're not wearing clothes... |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:27:21 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Shannon - if you read the Declaration of Independence, and it says "All men are created equal", do you assume we are all of the same hight, weight, skin and hair color? Of course not, so it can't be true. That is your reasoning.
You're reaching into absurdity I think, just a little bit, to try to make a point. God doesn't tell us to abandon all intellect. |
Just what does God tell you? To pick and choose which parts of his law to follow? To make a judgement call on which parts to obey? To selectively interpret what he says to suit your wants/needs/desires? To follow the interpretation of his word per that well-dressed guy on TV who wants you to call and pledge today so that your soul can be spared eternal damnation? |
And more sweet.
What does YOUR god tell YOU?
And anybody that sends money to a TV preacher in order to help save their souls deserves to get ripped off. Nuff said. |
I have no god.
I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago.
I notice that you avoid answering the question. How do you pick and choose which parts of God's law to follow? Whatever feels good that day? What your preacher tells you? The voices in your head? Evidently, you've elimnated the guy in the shiny suit on TV, but that still leaves a lot open.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 17:31:32. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:30:23 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father. |
And you make my point, exactly. But like I said, have it your way. Your credibility is hurting just a little here, too. |
What point have you made?
Again, as I have repeatedly stated, it is not my way to have. I am addressing the original question and response: Ehrman states there are inconsistencies in the bible - what are they?
Why would my credibility be at question? Because I don't agree with you?
I gave one of Ehrman's inconsistencies. You countered that he was wrong. I backed him up. I have points that back me up. How is the lineage traced in Matthew? Through Joseph, who was not Jesus's true father. There is no way for you to refute that. How was the lineage traced in Luke? Through Jesus's maternal grandfather. Why? Because it is the father's lineage that shows the relation to the Son of David. Mary's father is a Son of David. Mary is not. Since Mary is not a Son of David, none of Mary's children are Sons of David.
My position is as logical as yours. My reading of the bible is as logical as yours. But, I come up with an answer that directly refutes yours, so I must be wrong and my credibility in question.
Originally posted by farfel53:
Can't relate all the exact details, but there are two different geneologies of Jesus becasue he has two different claims to the throne of David. One, through the physical lineage of David, but avoiding the lineage of Jeconiah (the one told by Luke). The other through the kingly lineage, including Jeconiah(that of Matthew). He could not be a physical descendant of Jeconiah, as his sin was so severe God cursed his lineage. He could only be a legal heir through that line.
The other, as a physical descendant, through Mary, adopted, again, by Joseph, he has all the rights, as a "Son of David". Again, not sure of the details, but it made sense to me when I read it.
It's not as absurd as it appears.
Even you stated that your thoughts on the matter are hazy and that you can't remember the details. Why is not your credibility in question? because you believe it? Above, you state that the lineage told by Luke (Mary's) was to be avoided due to God cursing the lineage. So that leaves Joseph's, whom Jesus is not even related to. Am I supposed to accept this as credible?
You can't boldly proclaim someone is wrong without something to back it up. At this point, you have nothing. Try again. |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:47:45 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by farfel53:
He put man in the garden to tend it, and to have dominion over all the earth. |
Just out of curiosity -- does this mean that you take the Eden story literally? While were at it, are you a fundamentalist? Is the bible literally true? |
As you are fond of saying, "already answered".
I don't take Eden literally, but I take the lessons seriously. I do think there is more truth than you guys will agree to, and I do think modern science makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be so.
I've been subjected to fundamentalist doctrine and thought, but have rejected it as too rigid, and too lacking in good old-fashioned "think for yourself" attitude. There is way too much "just obey" in the church in general. I do think there is room for interpretation. But I also firmly believe that submission of a humble spirit before God will generally make clear what He means. I do believe there is ONE God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, and the same God in different dispensation, different dealings with the believing, Jew or Gentile. Other "gods" generally don't offer grace, undeserved or unearned. If you know of one, fill me in and I'll check it out.
Is the Bible literally true? Lots of it is. The tribal histories of Israel are largely based in fact. The gospels are accounts of events, as nearly as the "church fathers" could determine. Yes, there has been a lot of manipulation by power-mongers, eager to bring the masses into submission. They're most likely paying their bills as we write, IMO. Don't know how, don't know where, not my concern.
Should a Christian build his lifestyle around scripture? Largely. There are doubtful doctrines all over the place. Which is why I maintain we need to know God's heart as much as possible. Like a currency expert can spot a fake that the rest of us can't, we need to know as much about God, and his desires and guidance for us as possible, in order to spot the baloney some of these religion-peddlers...um...peddle! It's to be found in HUGE amounts in the Bible. I don't think every doctrine of today's church is correct, nor do I think that all of our copies or versions of the scripture are completely accurate. But I do think that any man who wants to know what God has to say to us can find a bunch of it in the Bible. But not if he doesn't look. And not if he doesn't believe. And not if his intent is to prove it inaccurate or fallible or bad juju.
Peace...really.
Mike
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 06:35:28.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 05:56:43 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father. |
And you make my point, exactly. But like I said, have it your way. Your credibility is hurting just a little here, too. |
What point have you made?
Again, as I have repeatedly stated, it is not my way to have. I am addressing the original question and response: Ehrman states there are inconsistencies in the bible - what are they?
Why would my credibility be at question? Because I don't agree with you?
I gave one of Ehrman's inconsistencies. You countered that he was wrong. I backed him up. I have points that back me up. How is the lineage traced in Matthew? Through Joseph, who was not Jesus's true father. There is no way for you to refute that. How was the lineage traced in Luke? Through Jesus's maternal grandfather. Why? Because it is the father's lineage that shows the relation to the Son of David. Mary's father is a Son of David. Mary is not. Since Mary is not a Son of David, none of Mary's children are Sons of David.
My position is as logical as yours. My reading of the bible is as logical as yours. But, I come up with an answer that directly refutes yours, so I must be wrong and my credibility in question.
Originally posted by farfel53:
Can't relate all the exact details, but there are two different geneologies of Jesus becasue he has two different claims to the throne of David. One, through the physical lineage of David, but avoiding the lineage of Jeconiah (the one told by Luke). The other through the kingly lineage, including Jeconiah(that of Matthew). He could not be a physical descendant of Jeconiah, as his sin was so severe God cursed his lineage. He could only be a legal heir through that line.
The other, as a physical descendant, through Mary, adopted, again, by Joseph, he has all the rights, as a "Son of David". Again, not sure of the details, but it made sense to me when I read it.
It's not as absurd as it appears.
Even you stated that your thoughts on the matter are hazy and that you can't remember the details. Why is not your credibility in question? because you believe it? Above, you state that the lineage told by Luke (Mary's) was to be avoided due to God cursing the lineage. So that leaves Joseph's, whom Jesus is not even related to. Am I supposed to accept this as credible?
You can't boldly proclaim someone is wrong without something to back it up. At this point, you have nothing. Try again. |
Your credibility was only in doubt becasue you said exactly the same thing as I did, but then told me I was wrong. I don't question your credibility or intelligence just becasue you have a differing opinion. That's generally reserved for you guys to do to Christians.
I said that one lineage was traced physically through Mary, the Jewish mother. To which you assent. The other through the adoptive father, Joseph, the legal aspect. To which you assent. Then you tell me I'm wrong. I only said there are perfectly good explanations out there to find if you wish. If you don't wish to know, whatever. No skin off my nose. I didn't intend to raise your ire or self-righteous indignation. "Heaven Forbid" you should go see about another point of view for yourself.
Emily Litella would say, "Oh. Never mind."
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 06:42:50 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
I do think modern science makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be so. |
Absolutely, and scientists will tell you exactly which parts they don't know and strive to prove. They will give specific, current physical evidence as the basis for any assumptions, and readily discard any idea that doesn't fit that evidence. In stark contrast, imagine Galileo or Einstein using these arguments:
Originally posted by phil:
If I felt that you were truly concerned about learning or understanding and not just getting your ammunition to tell others how they are pretty much silly for believing what they do then you might hear more. |
Originally posted by farfel53:
I do think that any man who wants to know [the answers] can find a bunch of it in the [ancient writings]. But not if he doesn't look. And not if he doesn't believe. And not if his intent is to prove it inaccurate or fallible or bad juju. |
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 06:46:53 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
I said that one lineage was traced physically through Mary, the Jewish mother. To which you assent. |
No I did not. If you read what I wrote, you would see that I stated the lineage cannot be traced through Mary.
Originally posted by farfel53:
The other through the adoptive father, Joseph, the legal aspect. To which you assent. |
No I did not. If you read what I wrote, you would see that I stated legal status means nothing.
Originally posted by farfel53:
Then you tell me I'm wrong. |
Only in that you discount opposing viewpoints as equally valid to your own.
Originally posted by farfel53:
I only said there are perfectly good explanations out there to find if you wish. If you don't wish to know, whatever. No skin off my nose. I didn't intend to raise your ire or self-righteous indignation. "Heaven Forbid" you should go see about another point of view for yourself.
Emily Litella would say, "Oh. Never mind." |
Yes. Please.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 06:59:33 PM · #414 |
There is one context within which to read the bible so that every single sentence makes total sense - no need for selective interpretation or reconciliation between apparently opposing texts, and no debate over which religion has supreme authority.
That context really is amazingly persuasive.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 09:00:17 PM · #415 |
Dahkota wrote "BTW - while being a Jew might be inherited through the mother, lineage was traced, at that time, through the father."
GeneralE wrote "Actually, Jewish lineage is matriarchal -- to be a Jew your mother must be Jewish, regardless of whether the father is a Jewish, Gentile, or God. The child of a Jewish father and Gentile mother is not Jewish (except by subsequent conversion). "
Sorry, dahkota didn't say both. One says the lineage is through the mother. The other says it's through the father. A reasonable explanation is that it is both in the cases of the genealogies of Jesus. As I said, one physical, through the young Jewish woman Mary, the other legal, through the adoptive father, Joseph.
And again, an opposing viewpoint that can be explained by a reasonable argument is not intended to stir your ire, only to inform. If you don't want any opposing viewpoint, just say so, and I won't respond at all.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 21:01:50.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 09:05:18 PM · #416 |
Spaz - your tone is only goading, scoffing, taunting. Don't reckon I care to respond.
Like I said earlier, I'm trying very hard to only discuss, not to acuse or belittle or disrespect. But that's a gate that swings both ways, boys and girls. If you can't treat us with respect you shouldn't expect any in return. Just a handy thought.
Message edited by author 2008-08-05 21:06:43.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 11:39:06 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What you consider hypocrisies are no less a firm belief by the faithful... which seemingly is what Christians believe...why is one given more credence than the other.
|
I am truly supposed to explain to you why my faith in God is different than their faith in their God or Gods? Seriously? |
Best you read the question again... I do believe you missed the mark with your interpretation of what was asked.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/05/2008 11:41:44 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Spaz - your tone is only goading, scoffing, taunting. Don't reckon I care to respond.
Like I said earlier, I'm trying very hard to only discuss, not to acuse or belittle or disrespect. But that's a gate that swings both ways, boys and girls. If you can't treat us with respect you shouldn't expect any in return. Just a handy thought. |
Can't answer the questions, can you?
I'm just trying to grasp an understanding of your reasoning, which you have yet to provide. Evidently there is no rhyme or reason to what you believe. Trust me, I honestly have no idea how you decide which parts of the bible you take as fact and which you treat as parable and which you disregard as "obsolete". So far, nothing.
So, yes, I scoff and ridicule that which appears as nonsense. If you choose not to lay out your beliefs with reason, as far as I'm concerned, you're in the same category as those who believe in the "paranormal", orbs, space aliens, UFO's, ghosts, witchcraft, the zodiac, tarot etc. None of which are any more plausible than what you have proposed.
I'd love to see a framework for faith that was based in sound reasoning, but in all my years of looking, I have yet to see anything that makes anymore sense than any of the so-called fringe beliefs.
You're no better than all the others before you, you don't answer, not because you won't, but because you can't.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2008 11:58:34 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by togtog:
My favorite part of the Bible, I think from around the area of Numbers, maybe a little before or after, the command from God to stone any child to death for speaking against or disobeying their parents. That there is some proper parenting. |
They were commanded to stone adulterers, sabbath-breakers, and idolators, too. |
I'm not sure if this was made in support or contest with what I said. I will clarify my position by saying that I was being sarcastic and find such "laws" as asinine and exact opposite of what any loving "power" would enact. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 04:36:48 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Spaz - your tone is only goading, scoffing, taunting. Don't reckon I care to respond.
Like I said earlier, I'm trying very hard to only discuss, not to acuse or belittle or disrespect. But that's a gate that swings both ways, boys and girls. If you can't treat us with respect you shouldn't expect any in return. Just a handy thought. |
Can't answer the questions, can you?
I'm just trying to grasp an understanding of your reasoning, which you have yet to provide. Evidently there is no rhyme or reason to what you believe. Trust me, I honestly have no idea how you decide which parts of the bible you take as fact and which you treat as parable and which you disregard as "obsolete". So far, nothing.
So, yes, I scoff and ridicule that which appears as nonsense. If you choose not to lay out your beliefs with reason, as far as I'm concerned, you're in the same category as those who believe in the "paranormal", orbs, space aliens, UFO's, ghosts, witchcraft, the zodiac, tarot etc. None of which are any more plausible than what you have proposed.
I'd love to see a framework for faith that was based in sound reasoning, but in all my years of looking, I have yet to see anything that makes anymore sense than any of the so-called fringe beliefs.
You're no better than all the others before you, you don't answer, not because you won't, but because you can't. |
Read my response to Louis, above, from 5:47 pm.
Then don't expect any more response from me.
Message edited by author 2008-08-06 06:35:54.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 08:56:31 AM · #421 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Should a Christian build his lifestyle around scripture? Largely. There are doubtful doctrines all over the place. Which is why I maintain we need to know God's heart as much as possible. Like a currency expert can spot a fake that the rest of us can't, we need to know as much about God, and his desires and guidance for us as possible, in order to spot the baloney some of these religion-peddlers...um...peddle! It's to be found in HUGE amounts in the Bible. I don't think every doctrine of today's church is correct, nor do I think that all of our copies or versions of the scripture are completely accurate. But I do think that any man who wants to know what God has to say to us can find a bunch of it in the Bible. But not if he doesn't look. And not if he doesn't believe. And not if his intent is to prove it inaccurate or fallible or bad juju. |
You say that in order to understand the Bible properly and to distinguish between accounts of history and fictitious stories, between passages that are meant literally and passages that have to be interpreted, one needs to know the heart of God. But how does one acquire this knowledge if not from the Bible?
You also say that a person needs to have belief before reading the Bible. But what would this belief be based on if not on the teachings of the Bible? |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 09:57:57 AM · #422 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Spaz - your tone is only goading, scoffing, taunting. Don't reckon I care to respond.
Like I said earlier, I'm trying very hard to only discuss, not to acuse or belittle or disrespect. But that's a gate that swings both ways, boys and girls. If you can't treat us with respect you shouldn't expect any in return. Just a handy thought. |
Can't answer the questions, can you?
I'm just trying to grasp an understanding of your reasoning, which you have yet to provide. Evidently there is no rhyme or reason to what you believe. Trust me, I honestly have no idea how you decide which parts of the bible you take as fact and which you treat as parable and which you disregard as "obsolete". So far, nothing.
So, yes, I scoff and ridicule that which appears as nonsense. If you choose not to lay out your beliefs with reason, as far as I'm concerned, you're in the same category as those who believe in the "paranormal", orbs, space aliens, UFO's, ghosts, witchcraft, the zodiac, tarot etc. None of which are any more plausible than what you have proposed.
I'd love to see a framework for faith that was based in sound reasoning, but in all my years of looking, I have yet to see anything that makes anymore sense than any of the so-called fringe beliefs.
You're no better than all the others before you, you don't answer, not because you won't, but because you can't. |
Read my response to Louis, above, from 5:47 pm.
Then don't expect any more response from me. |
That's it?
When you read a chapter or passage in the bible, how do you decide if it's literal, parable or to be disregarded as obsolete?
How do you know, for example, that the story of Eden is not literal?
How do you know that the fundamentalists aren't right and God really does expect his followers to conform to a rigid code?
How do you separate the wheat from the chaff when looking at the bible? or church doctrine?
I'm not that interested in what you believe, you've made that relatively clear. I'm more curious about how you know it to be so. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 10:12:42 AM · #423 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
There is one context within which to read the bible so that every single sentence makes total sense - no need for selective interpretation or reconciliation between apparently opposing texts, and no debate over which religion has supreme authority.
That context really is amazingly persuasive. |
If you read the bible as a document that has been written by humans, taking into account all their personal circumstances (time, place, situation), then it all makes a lot of sense. Rather than trying to understand god, it is only necessary to analyse human nature (far more practicable).
This methodology can helpfully be used to make sense of all religious texts and their subsequent translations.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2008 10:17:03 AM · #424 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Matthew:
There is one context within which to read the bible so that every single sentence makes total sense - no need for selective interpretation or reconciliation between apparently opposing texts, and no debate over which religion has supreme authority.
That context really is amazingly persuasive. |
If you read the bible as a document that has been written by humans, taking into account all their personal circumstances (time, place, situation), then it all makes a lot of sense. Rather than trying to understand god, it is only necessary to analyse human nature (far more practicable).
This methodology can helpfully be used to make sense of all religious texts and their subsequent translations. |
Well... yes... but that's a real buzzkill for those claiming it as the word of God. |
|
|
|
08/06/2008 10:22:46 AM · #425 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...I'm not that interested in what you believe, you've made that relatively clear. I'm more curious about how you know it to be so. |
Look, the whole point about being a Christian, in the end, is belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that He died on the Cross to atone for our sins, and that to believe in Him as your savior is to attain heaven, for He and God are one.
Jesus never said "There's gonna be a book about me, and they're gonna tack that book onto the other book, and you gotta do EVERYthing those books say to do, or you are doomed to hell."
I mean, c'mon, that's ridiculous. Stop trying so hard to set up this silly, repulsive world of yours where if someone's not 100% consistent, they're 100% wrong. You're smarter than that.
R.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 09:26:51 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 09:26:51 AM EDT.
|
