Notices
Results 1 to 84 of 84

Thread: Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it.

  1. #1 Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it.

    In ancient times it was normal for kings to be the first with anotherĎs new bride.
    Scripture says that God did the same.

    Is He emulating man or did man decide to follow Godís example?

    If you were an all powerful creator, would it not make more sense to create a woman as high on the pecking order as yourself or is it somehow better to use a lower species like humans to produce a son .

    One of Godís main themes for morality is to not take anotherís wife.
    Is God breaking one of His own rules by practicing bestiality?

    Regards
    DL


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    when did god do this?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    when did god do this?
    When He chose Mary.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    God also killed thousands upon thousands of people. Does that make it ok?
    God isn't the best role model, unless following Bundy or Gacy is morally obliged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God also killed thousands upon thousands of people. Does that make it ok?
    God isn't the best role model, unless following Bundy or Gacy is morally obliged.
    Many see God as interfering with man.

    I believe that God is a hands off type and does not.

    It does make good drama though to give God something to do even if it means making Him look like a genocidal maniac. The Bibles are better reading that way but untrue.

    Have faith that we are on our own.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baltimore MD
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    when did god do this?
    When He chose Mary.

    Regards
    DL
    Mary was not the bride of Joseph at the time of conception. Your reasoning is flawed they were however engaged and I don't think God would stoop so low as to physically consummate a relationship with Mary, and by the way she was a virgin even after birth. Therefore never once engaguged in the practice of prima nocta.
    I think therefore I am, I think
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Do you know what they do to people who arn't married and have children back then? They get stoned to death.
    Mary got pregnant and was afraid of being killed. So she made up a lie stating that she was a virgin and that the son of god was within her womb. No one will kill someone if they knew the son of god was in her womb.

    Gullibility... gotta love it.


    Centuries later, one small lie to save herself ended up killing millions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baltimore MD
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Do you know what they do to people who arn't married and have children back then? They get stoned to death.
    Mary got pregnant and was afraid of being killed. So she made up a lie stating that she was a virgin and that the son of god was within her womb. No one will kill someone if they knew the son of god was in her womb.

    Gullibility... gotta love it.


    Centuries later, one small lie to save herself ended up killing millions.
    ROFL wow, and I though Christians were closed minded.
    I think therefore I am, I think
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You really suck at arguing your point. I'm not closed minded, but I do look at the facts. If the facts of a situation deem to be closed minded, what can you do? With that logic, evolution is a closed minded theory since it's true....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baltimore MD
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    You really suck at arguing your point. I'm not closed minded, but I do look at the facts. If the facts of a situation deem to be closed minded, what can you do? With that logic, evolution is a closed minded theory since it's true....
    Lol first obviously something hits an emotional nail with you about this, I wonder why you are so angry. Second if you are going to argue a point at least do your research. Your logic is flawed, you are literally trying to argue against a supernatural event one that you were NOT there to have witnessed using logic and reason. If their is a God and if Christ is his son, for you to say it is impossible for a virgin birth to occur is limiting God. But if you want to play hard ball lets do it. Under the Jewish marital law, Joseph was under NO obligation to accept Mary "de-flowered" in fact he would have been looked down upon by the community for doing so. It would have also been unlikely (not impossible) for a woman of that era (somethings haven't changed in the modern middle east unfortunately even today) to become pregnant outside of wedlock. Literally a woman had no freedom they primarily stayed at the family home and only associated with members of her immediate family. Until the day of her marriage should would only have saw her husband to be twice and these visits were closely chaperoned. It is pretty implausible that she would have been able to sneak away and get knocked without anyone ever knowing. And It would have taken ALOT for him to have accepted her, say a dream perhaps. Also, there 647 messianic prophecy's in the old testament some of which dating back 1000 years before the birth of Christ one of which concerning the virgin birth of the messiah ( I would like to point out there are 7 others out there as well ) In order for Christ to have been the messiah he would have had to have fulfilled all 647 of these. He did, to the letter.

    ISH 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    I would like to point out this was written 700 years before the supposed event not to mention 646 other ones. Literally it would have been impossible for ANYONE to have been such an expert to be able to catalog all of these and write a gospel not to mention the fact that Josephus (a secular Jewish historian) records the virgin birth and, the fact that some of the gospels date back to the time of Christ and were distributed among the Jews, Greeks and Romans. Quite literally these would have come under intense scrutiny and would have seen contradictory reports or re-telling of the actual events. i.e. "I knew Jesus, that never happened...ect" No such thing exists. You are basically calling to question the truthfulness of not only 3 billion people alive now and there sanity I might add but also everyone who existed in that part of the world at that time. How presumptuous. What justify your arrogance?
    I think therefore I am, I think
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Mattandstuff
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    when did god do this?
    When He chose Mary.

    Regards
    DL
    Mary was not the bride of Joseph at the time of conception. Your reasoning is flawed they were however engaged and I don't think God would stoop so low as to physically consummate a relationship with Mary, and by the way she was a virgin even after birth. Therefore never once engaguged in the practice of prima nocta.
    Biologically speaking, virgins do not give birth.
    Trinity speaking, how can Jesus be at the beginning when His mother had yet to be?
    Let us not tarnis the name Jesus by a label of chimera. That is to insult a fine man.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said:

    God also killed thousands upon thousands of people.
    Hmm. If you are so down on God for that, consider that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions upon millions of people. Why aren't you more down on them and their atheism as you are on God and religion?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    when did god do this?
    When He chose Mary.

    Regards
    DL
    lol, you're hilarious.

    But, Marry probably did it with Joseph end of the story and got Jesus. He was black some people say. Or the other guy she was serving, can't remember his name, and than Joseph was backing her.
    What ever. It takes a male and female to have a baby. End of the story.

    Bible goes by the window it's not a valuable argue. It's an argue based on a story tale not facts.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    ó Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by timel
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    when did god do this?
    When He chose Mary.

    Regards
    DL
    lol, you're hilarious.

    But, Marry probably did it with Joseph end of the story and got Jesus. He was black some people say. Or the other guy she was serving, can't remember his name, and than Joseph was backing her.
    What ever. It takes a male and female to have a baby. End of the story.

    Bible goes by the window it's not a valuable argue. It's an argue based on a story tale not facts.
    That is what we are showing.

    All Bibles have value but none are to be read literally.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Mattandstuff
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    You really suck at arguing your point. I'm not closed minded, but I do look at the facts. If the facts of a situation deem to be closed minded, what can you do? With that logic, evolution is a closed minded theory since it's true....
    Lol first obviously something hits an emotional nail with you about this, I wonder why you are so angry. Second if you are going to argue a point at least do your research. Your logic is flawed, you are literally trying to argue against a supernatural event one that you were NOT there to have witnessed using logic and reason. If their is a God and if Christ is his son, for you to say it is impossible for a virgin birth to occur is limiting God. But if you want to play hard ball lets do it. Under the Jewish marital law, Joseph was under NO obligation to accept Mary "de-flowered" in fact he would have been looked down upon by the community for doing so. It would have also been unlikely (not impossible) for a woman of that era (somethings haven't changed in the modern middle east unfortunately even today) to become pregnant outside of wedlock. Literally a woman had no freedom they primarily stayed at the family home and only associated with members of her immediate family. Until the day of her marriage should would only have saw her husband to be twice and these visits were closely chaperoned. It is pretty implausible that she would have been able to sneak away and get knocked without anyone ever knowing. And It would have taken ALOT for him to have accepted her, say a dream perhaps. Also, there 647 messianic prophecy's in the old testament some of which dating back 1000 years before the birth of Christ one of which concerning the virgin birth of the messiah ( I would like to point out there are 7 others out there as well ) In order for Christ to have been the messiah he would have had to have fulfilled all 647 of these. He did, to the letter.

    ISH 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    I would like to point out this was written 700 years before the supposed event not to mention 646 other ones. Literally it would have been impossible for ANYONE to have been such an expert to be able to catalog all of these and write a gospel not to mention the fact that Josephus (a secular Jewish historian) records the virgin birth and, the fact that some of the gospels date back to the time of Christ and were distributed among the Jews, Greeks and Romans. Quite literally these would have come under intense scrutiny and would have seen contradictory reports or re-telling of the actual events. i.e. "I knew Jesus, that never happened...ect" No such thing exists. You are basically calling to question the truthfulness of not only 3 billion people alive now and there sanity I might add but also everyone who existed in that part of the world at that time. How presumptuous. What justify your arrogance?
    Yah.. A women miracelously conciving a child without intercourse AND from GOD,
    is more likely than her horny senses taking over and going wild on some farmer buy... riiiihgt.....

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Hmm. If you are so down on God for that, consider that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions upon millions of people. Why aren't you more down on them and their atheism as you are on God and religion?
    I'd assume that Hitler, Stalin, etc. etc.. are already closed chronicles.
    God will always(well... not ALWAYS) be a topic of debate.
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Mattandstuff
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    You really suck at arguing your point. I'm not closed minded, but I do look at the facts. If the facts of a situation deem to be closed minded, what can you do? With that logic, evolution is a closed minded theory since it's true....
    Lol first obviously something hits an emotional nail with you about this, I wonder why you are so angry. Second if you are going to argue a point at least do your research. Your logic is flawed, you are literally trying to argue against a supernatural event one that you were NOT there to have witnessed using logic and reason.
    You weren't there either. How do you know it happend how it was writen? Maybe the guy was tired and got wrong on a few word or was having ear problems and didn't transcript well the "STORY"

    Have you ever passed a sentence one by one between 20 people?
    Like do you believe Noah separated the sea in two pieces and people walked on a hard ground?

    Bible is said to be mouth to ears. Plus religious groups choosed what they wanted to add in and remove other stuffs all throughout history. The things you quote so fervently are just the results of translation, mouth to ears and pure confusion, adding to the fact that when people tell a story they tend to make it greater than what it is.
    It human nature.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    ó Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    timel said:

    You weren't there either. How do you know it happend how it was writen? Maybe the guy was tired and got wrong on a few word or was having ear problems and didn't transcript well the "STORY"

    Have you ever passed a sentence one by one between 20 people?
    Like do you believe Noah separated the sea in two pieces and people walked on a hard ground?

    Bible is said to be mouth to ears. Plus religious groups choosed what they wanted to add in and remove other stuffs all throughout history. The things you quote so fervently are just the results of translation, mouth to ears and pure confusion, adding to the fact that when people tell a story they tend to make it greater than what it is.

    Boy! Now here is a classic example of the ignorance spread and repeated by many an atheist who attempt to disparage the Bible.

    I wasn't there for the American Revolution or the Civil War. The only records we have of those events are what was written at the time or recounted by people who went through it. Up until the last 100 years or so, we must rely on what observers wrote or told to others who recorded their reports. How do we know those reports are true and accurate? We do know those events took place and we know there was a person who walked the Earth who has been identified as Jesus of Nazareth. I was not there for Caesar's conquest of Gaul or the Peloponnesian Wars, but I accept what was written about those things as being reasonably accurate, even though they were likely embellished to please the victors.

    The Bible is not like having passed a sentence around one to one to one, etc. We are all reading the exact same Bible, taken from the exact same sources. In so far as the New Testament is concerned, all of it was written within 100 years of the death of Jesus. This is because all the people who wrote books in the New Testament were alive at the same time Jesus was alive.

    Their writings as the appear today are about 99 percent exactly as they wrote them. We know this because we have copies of texts which are carbon dated to within a one or two hundred years of when the original texts were written. If there had been changes, the the more recent texts would disagree with the earlier texts and it would be obvious. However, the most recent texts are almost carbon copies of the earliest texts.

    The people who wrote texts that are included in the Bible were not writing at the end of 20 repeats of the stories. Only five books of the New Testament would be of a historical or narrative nature. Mathew and John were both desciples who traveled much of the time in Jesus' ministry. Mark (John Mark) was not a desciple, but was a relative of Peter who was a desciple, and Mark's gospel is basically his recording of the stories Peter related. Luke's gospel is a second hand account that resulted from gathering stories and reading already existing stories. Luke also wrote Acts and was an eyewitness of most of the events recorded there. Most of the accounts are at worst, second hand. That is exactly what you get in the newspaper and on TV, unless they are interviewing a person directly involved.

    It is not even as though we are now reading translations of translations of translations. Almost all current translations and paraphrases of the Bible are from the earliest possible texts. The King James version does make extensive use of the Latin Vulgate which was a translation from the Greek. However, when compared to translations from the original Greek versions, it has no substantial differences.

    In the case of the Old Testament, the most recent copies, some from before the birth of Jesus, are more distantly removed from the original writings, but there are still ways to establish their accuracy. Those writing were copied by hand and from many different copies. If someone changed any of the texts, it would disagree with the other texts. It is not as if someone could rewrite the Bible and put it on a printing press, mass produce it and distribute it all over the place while destroying all the disagreeing already existing copies. Remember, Gutenberg did not even invent the printing press until about 1450. So, what you are suggesting was physically impossible and shows your ignorance concerning how the Bible was transmitted from olden times to today.

    Also, it was not Noah who supposedly parted the sea, but Moses. Many Christians believe the sea receded due to natural phenomena and the miracle of the story is that the Children of Israel were in the right place at the right time.

    "The Bible is said to be mouth to ears" only by people who have no idea what they are talking about which, it would seem, characterizes timel. It is not a good idea to go around repeating what you have heard others say without checking it out.

    My bet, timel, is that you never ever, not once, at any time, read anything prepared by someone attempting to defend the Bible. If you had, you would realize that what you have posted is pure, unadulterated ignorance. If you are actually interested in the reliability of the Bible, I suggest you read something by either Josh McDowell or Greg Koukl relating to the Bible reliability. Of course, if you just want to ignornantly comment on something you know very little about, keep up the good work.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    daytonturner

    It is all that and fiction, thanks to the talking snake and fish that spit out men after three dayy the same way virgins spit out little chimeras.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Dayton, religion started because the strong ruled the weak. It's been used as a form of control for centuries. Priests controlled entire villages, tribes, or empires such as the Aztecs. It's been noted that the bible HAS been changed by priests for centuries. The bible now is not the bible when Jesus was born.

    At least with history books, when something is noted in a history book, unless we have substantial evidence for otherwise, it stays the way it is. The bible? Not many people memorize the bible word for word and are unlikely to see the changes. They take it as is and follow it blindly.
    Religion equates to controlling the blind. Dayton, you are one of those blind.

    You can say the same thing if you take a blind person and tell them the light is green. If you do that at each light, they will eventually be hit by a car. Are you really on your way to being hit by a metaphorical car dayton?

    ps: im not saying the aztecs had the bible, but had their own religious theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    verzen said:

    God also killed thousands upon thousands of people.
    Hmm. If you are so down on God for that, consider that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed millions upon millions of people. Why aren't you more down on them and their atheism as you are on God and religion?
    Sorry Dayton, I missed this comment.
    It takes real ignorance to not separate religious intent with non-religious intent. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot may have not believed in god, but they didn't kill people because they believed in god. They may have outlawed religion in their country, but they didn't do it BECAUSE they didn't believe in god. They knew that if they grouped up, the religious individuals could form an army. They did it to prevent a rebellion. They knew how powerful religion was. However, i'm pretty sure god killed people for a religious reason.. I mean, god is religious, right?

    Edit: Plus, if we are all god's children, it's on par with a mother killing her kids. Isn't that emotional connection while killing their children considered more hideous then ordering soldiers to kill innocent individuals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Among verzens many errors was this statement:

    Not many people memorize the bible word for word and are unlikely to see the changes.
    You could go into virtually any medium to large church in America and reproduce most of the Bible from verses people in that church have memorized. If every Bible in the world were destroyed, it could be reproduced in its entirety and perfectly as it is today in several versions only from memorized verses and sections.

    Religion started for various reasons, but mostly in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. The degree to which various religions have been used to control people is as variable as are the religions themselves.

    verzen also claimed:

    It's been noted that the bible HAS been changed by priests for centuries. The bible now is not the bible when Jesus was born.
    I'm not exactly sure what you are claiming here. The New Testament did not exist when Jesus was born, so to that extent, I suppose there is some tangent, but unintended, truth to your statement.

    I have seen this claim made here many times. But not once has anyone documented any change or when such a change was allegedly made. If you cannot produce a documented change, you are just blowing hot air out of your mouth that was intended for exit at the other end.

    You folks claiming this just seem not to understand that what you claim is a physical impossible. You seem be unable to comprehend that the only way such changes could be made without our discernment today is through mass publication of the changed texts accompanied by mass destruction of the previous texts. Mass printing was not available until after the invention of the printing press in 1450, long after the events you claim took place. And, even had it been attempted post 1450, we have copies of Bibles from prior to that time for comparison.

    It is rediculous to discuss this with someone who is so ignorant on the matter. It would be like someone suggesting Caesar traveled from Northern Gaul back to Rome in six hours. It would have been physically impossible for him to do so.

    If the earliest extant copies of the scriptures were dated back to say 1500, then what you claim might have been possible. But there are thousands of copies and fragments of texts dating back even before the birth of Jesus. If those scriptures had been changed, we would easily see the difference between the oldest copies and the more recent copies. It would be impossible to back date changes. The very process by which science relies on dating relics, carbon dating, is equally applicable to texts.

    Of other ancient literature, the oldest extant copy of Caesar's Gallic Wars is dated back to 900 A.D. Some scriptures are dated at least 1,000 years prior to that. The oldest extant copy of anything Aristotle wrote is dated at 1,100 A.D., some 1,400 years after he wrote it.

    In the final analysis, it is hilarious to compare what we believe that you call a myth to what you believe which is physically and tactically and totally impossible. You talk about believing in myths!!! Where people get this idea about the Bible is more of a mystery than why people believe in God.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Do you know what ignorance means? Let me link you the definition.
    ig⋅no⋅rant
       /ˈɪgnərənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation
    Ėadjective
    1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
    2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
    3. uninformed; unaware.
    4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
    Do you know what this means? It means that since your belief in god is only an opinion and not a stated fact, such as gravity, then I must not be ignorant. If you are unaware of what words mean that you are using, then how can anyone take you seriously? Obviously, you have a very limited vocabulary to know what certain words actually mean or don't mean.

    If Tim said, "I like cheese cake"
    I can't say, "Tim, you ignorant bastard, cheese cake is disgusting!"

    That just wouldn't make sense and thats basically what you are doing

    If Verzen said, "I discount religion as propaganda"
    You can't say, "Verzen, you're ignorant! Religion is real I tell you! I can't give any proof as to the existence of god... but I have faith in him!"

    And we all know that all faith means is your opinion of a given subject.

    Such as, "I have faith my baseball team will win" This does not mean his baseball team WILL win, he just believes they will win.

    Many people have faith in various gods and goddesses. However, since they have faith, it doesn't mean they are all real. Faith does not equate to truth, it does equate to opinion.

    If you research the subject a bit more, you will understand that Jesus and the stories about him were a myth. You said the printing press wasn't made till 1450. I'm not familiar with history based on the industrial age (more into medieval history), but let's go with it. Have you ever heard of the telephone game? If a story passes by so many people, that story is eventually changed. Plus, someone could say he walked on water to buff up his pristine, does that make it true? If all that is written automatically makes it a true statement, I could write in a book of my marvelous life using characters such as, "Adam Monroe, Hiro Nakamura, Peter Petrelli," etc and hide it for 1000 years. Do you think, when that book is found, people will start a religion based on humans with super imposing powers? People themselves are ignorant of cognitive thought. Unfortunately Daytonturner, you are one of those who has been cursed with not having the ability to think, since according to the church, "Thinking is a sin."
    I feel sorry for you.
    So, now that my little lesson is over, who is the ignorant one now? I said my opinion about religion. You called it ignorant. I told you facts, are you ignorant? Because it does state, "2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    daytonturner;
    as a matter of fact, your bible is human made, so mistakes can't be avoided, it created I don't know how many different religous groups and divided in more than 1000 of faith groups, like in the states, who all interpret your bible in all different ways and saying this is the truth.(all kind of denomination)

    I have even met priest telling me their bible was better than the other one or more accurate than the other one.

    If your book was as accurate as you declare why don't you guys can't stop getting on each other faces. You know why? Because you all have your versions and you stick to it or choose to give more importance to one part than an other?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle574768.ece
    Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

    The bishops say: ďSuch symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come
    Now admitting you guys have an accurate bible. I've read about it and was never convinced about it. Don't tell me you have proof of accurate scripture for the whole Jesus life. Adding to it appostle who were hanging around Jesus where interpretating what was happening for the whole of them, differently, because we all see things differently (Paul and Petter for example).

    Than religion choses who they think is more accurate and than make interpretation of what the beliebe to be true.

    Coming back to the fact that you have 1000 of ramification of the church all around the planet and not speaking of the whole loads of different church living uppon this book. Like Israelites Orthodox who still believe they are the chosen people or hold on... yes those churches in the US who have churches with opening roofes in waiting that Jesus will come down on a cloud on a Sunday morning...
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    ó Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    hehe

    I'd like to also add that in Jesus's time there was a "battle" for the rulling religion,
    if I reacall right there were major leaders: A jewish one(can't remember his name),
    a Hungarian one which worshipped the moon if I recall correctly(also can't
    remember his name)(and ain't sure he was Hungarian xP) and Jaysus.

    One could assume that people that were supporting Jesus were prone to make up
    stories of his healing powers and him walking on water to beef up his holyness..

    ~Just me 0.02$ xP
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    adding on ignorance:

    If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
    Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)


    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.
    Will Durant (1885 - 1981)


    Yes I'm ignorant, thanks God!
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    ó Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said:

    Do you know what ignorance means? Let me link you the definition.
    Quote:

    ig⋅no⋅rant
       /ˈɪgnərənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation
    Ėadjective
    1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
    2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
    3. uninformed; unaware.
    4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

    Do you know what this means? It means that since your belief in god is only an opinion and not a stated fact, such as gravity, then I must not be ignorant. If you are unaware of what words mean that you are using, then how can anyone take you seriously? Obviously, you have a very limited vocabulary to know what certain words actually mean or don't mean.
    You really ought to read your own definition there. Ignorance has nothing to do with beliefs or opinions. Ignorance has to do with the lack of knowledge and training in a particular area of study or expertise. Ignorance is an excusable state if one has not had the opportunity to gain the knowledge or training. It is a pajoritive term only if one is expounding or attempting to claim expertise in an area where they lack it. (When did I make any erroneous statement concerning gravity?)

    I am ignorant in the area, say, of internal medicine but I do not show my ignorance by attempting to diagnose and treat matters of internal medicine. One's ignorance may be the result of it being an area in which the person has not studied or practiced, but again, one shows his ignorance by attempting to expound or practice in that area.

    All I can tell you is that you (nor timel) are knowledgeable in the area of criticism of ancient literature. It is obvious from the things you say. What you have said so far, either of you, you have not substatiated by any study or report from anyone who has knowledge and expertise in the area of criticism of ancient literature. You are merely repeating something you think you heard someone else say, and because you like it, you repeat it without any understanding or knowledge of what you speak. What you have been saying is without basis and completely inaccurate.

    Now then, when you have something like a complete definition of the word ignorance and still misapply it, that goes beyond excusable ignorance into stupidity.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You are merely repeating something you think you heard someone else say, and because you like it, you repeat it without any understanding or knowledge of what you speak. What you have been saying is without basis and completely inaccurate.
    Kettle... black... what?

    And no, I didn't misinterpret it. You just ignored my ENTIRE POST on the subject. I mentioned that one can not say someone is ignorant based on not sharing the same opinion as you. Gravity is fact. It is truth. Religion is opinion. It is biased.
    I know what ignorance means. It means not having the appropriate knowledge in a subect. Since you are lead, like a sheep, by these lies. It obviously means that you are ignorant on the subject since you are UNAWARE or UNKNOWLEDGABLE about what the church did and how easy it was to start a religion.
    Insanity is defying the majority. What I mean by that is that if anyone defies a group of people who make up the majority of the world, such as christianity, then those people are automatically proclaimed to be insane or ignorant to the "truth."
    Since the truth is a lie in the first place.... *sigh*
    Daytonturner - The sheep that mystified all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    And Daytonturner, thanks you for showing me how great you know about scripture.
    It remaines that I have brought a few other points and I wish you would answer to this points.

    I need to add that what ever point you will take on this things such as Bible and Religion, you'll get a counter to desagree. In the end you listen who you want to.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    ó Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, verzen (or anyone else), step up to the plate and show where the Bible is different today than it was in the 300 A.Ds. when the Canon was adopted? Show what scriptures in the Old Testament have been changed from, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or other recent discoveries of scriptures.

    This is not even a question among those who work in this area of study. Because of it's unique nature, no literature from ancient days has been scrutinized and subjected to more study than has been the Bible.

    You (and others) keep making these wild claims about "changes" in the Bible. They should be as easy to find and expose since we have extant copies from before when such changes were allegedly made.

    The main reason I ignored the rest of your post is because it was equally nonsensical.

    But just to look back momentarily at a piece of the quoted part of your post, you said:

    It means that since your belief in god is only an opinion and not a stated fact, such as gravity, then I must not be ignorant.
    This makes no logical sense. Because I have a belief in God and you have some knowledge of gravity, it proves you are not ignorant concerning ancient literature?
    What the hell kind of logic is that?

    How does my belief in God impact the studies other people have done relating to literary criticism of the Bible. My beliefs have no impact on what they have determined. Are you saying your understanding of gravity influenced the work of Sir Isaac Newton?

    I do note that this claim is advance by Richard Dawkins on page 237 where he attributes changes, revisions and improvements to unknown authors. They are unknown, because they do not exist and did not make changes, revision or improvements. It is impossible to counter such claims because they are baseless
    timel said:

    And Daytonturner, thanks you for showing me how great you know about scripture.
    It remaines that I have brought a few other points and I wish you would answer to this points.
    I am not great in my knowledge of scriptural criticism but rely on my reading of others who have synopsized the 1000s of studies conducted by experts in that field. I am not aware of what points you think you made that are in need of comment.

    You, at some point, suggest that because the Bible is "human made" it must have mistakes in it, from which I deduce you are suggesting that it cannot, therefore, be the word of God.

    What you are suggesting is a situation in which the boss dictates a letter to his secretary who then goes and types it. Because the letter is secretary made, it must necessarily contain mistakes and cannot actually be the words of his/her boss. If you start from the assumption that there is no boss, such a conclusion is inevitable. If the boss does exist and did dictate the letter, there is no reason to believe he was incapable of dictating that which he wanted to say in the letter or that the secretary was incapable of accurately recording it.

    In the same way, if God does not exist, then the Bible is most certainly the results of human (only) efforts. If God does exist, there is no reason to question whether He was capable of using the writers of the Bible to communicate exactly what He wanted to communicate in His letter to humanity.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, verzen (or anyone else), step up to the plate and show where the Bible is different today than it was in the 300 A.Ds. when the Canon was adopted? Show what scriptures in the Old Testament have been changed from, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or other recent discoveries of scriptures. All you need to do is find an old copy and compare it to a recent copy -- substantial and meaningful discrepancies would be obvious.

    This is not even a major bone of contention among those who work in this area of study. Because of it's unique nature, no literature from ancient days has been scrutinized and subjected to more study than has been the Bible.

    To be fair, there are a few minor areas in which it is obvious that earlier texts do not contain a sentence or two that are found in later texts. However, the added verses are minimal in number and inconsequential in content. Plus, most Bibles now footnote such verses and note they are not found in early texts. It is not like someone is attempting to hide these things. Nor are the changes tantamount to altering some Einsteinian formula.

    You (and others) keep making these wild claims about "changes" in the Bible as though they are substantial and message altering. They should be easy to find and expose since we have extant copies from before when such changes were allegedly made.

    The main reason I ignored the rest of your post is because it was equally nonsensical.

    But just to look back momentarily at a piece of the quoted part of your post, you said:

    It means that since your belief in god is only an opinion and not a stated fact, such as gravity, then I must not be ignorant.
    This makes no logical sense. Because I have a belief in God and you have some knowledge of gravity, it proves you are not ignorant concerning ancient literature?
    What the hell kind of logic is that?

    How does my belief in God impact the studies other people have done relating to literary criticism of the Bible. My beliefs have no impact on what they have determined. Are you saying your understanding of gravity influenced the work of Sir Isaac Newton?

    I do note that this claim is advance by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion on page 237 where he attributes changes, revisions and improvements to unknown author, again as though they are major changes which alter the entire meaning of the Bible. They are unknown because no one made substantial changes, revision or improvements. He attributes his information to Lane Fox and J. Berlinerbrau but, again, as here, no examples are cited. It is impossible to counter such claims because they are insignificant. (There are, in truth, more discrepancies in a modern version of a 400-year-old Shakespeare play when compared to the earliest folios than there are in modern versions of a 2,000-year-old Bible.)


    timel said:

    And Daytonturner, thanks you for showing me how great you know about scripture.
    It remaines that I have brought a few other points and I wish you would answer to this points.
    I am not great in my knowledge of scriptural criticism but rely on my reading of others who have synopsized the 1,000s of studies and research conducted by experts in that field. I am not aware of what points you think you made that are in need of comment.

    You, at some point, suggest that because the Bible is "human made" it must have mistakes in it, from which I deduce you are suggesting that it cannot, therefore, be the word of God.

    What you are suggesting is a situation in which the boss dictates a letter to his secretary who then goes and types it. Because the letter is secretary made, it must necessarily contain mistakes and cannot actually be the words of his/her boss. If you start from the assumption that there is no boss, such a conclusion is inevitable. If the boss does exist and did dictate the letter, there is no reason to believe he was incapable of dictating that which he wanted to say in the letter or that the secretary was incapable of accurately recording it.

    In the same way, if God does not exist, then the Bible is most certainly the result of human (only) efforts. If God does exist, there is no reason to question whether He was capable of using the writers of the Bible to communicate exactly what He wanted to communicate in His letter to humanity. The Bible does not provide your basic starting point as to whether God does or does not exist.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You are daft.
    Gravity was only stated as a mere metaphor for truth.

    Your belief in god is an OPINION. If I do not share your opinion with you, does that make me ignorant? NO.

    If I stated the laws of GRAVITY and you say GRAVITY does not exist and that god holds everything down based on SIN, (Seriously, I read this on the internet by some religious baffoon) then that is directly against one of our founding laws. The founding law is then PROOF of ignorance since you believe some outrageous BS instead of what has been PROVEN. But GOD has not been proven. JESUS has not been proven to turn water into wine. THUS, the BELIEF in such things is stated as an opinion of what is going on and NOT what actually happened. An OPINION can not have a biased nature and it makes NO SENSE to tell someone they are ignorant based on an OPINION.

    God I hate morons. It's like talking to a chimpanzee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said:

    God I hate morons. It's like talking to a chimpanzee.
    Which you obviously consider your cousin while I don't. Interesting you would invoke the name a spirit being you don't even believe exists.

    Personally, I find it frustrating to talk to someone on a subject about which he knows nothing which is your status in relation to ancient literature criticism.

    You have still not listed one think in the Bible which has been changed or in what way it may have distorted what was originally there. It is only a moron who will make claims that he cannot back up with documentation or examples.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You want to know what has been changed? The entire thing. The entire thing isn't how it really went down.

    The fact that you don't believe in evolution is proof enough how religious doctrine causes ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Do you know what they do to people who arn't married and have children back then? They get stoned to death.
    Mary got pregnant and was afraid of being killed. So she made up a lie stating that she was a virgin and that the son of god was within her womb. No one will kill someone if they knew the son of god was in her womb.

    Gullibility... gotta love it.


    Centuries later, one small lie to save herself ended up killing millions.
    Yes you are very gulluble if you believe the rubbish you have just said.

    Do you not think that people would have stoned her if she had gone about saying she was carrying God's son??? What a blasphemy it would have been had it been false!

    Do you not think the priests would have seen through her lies???

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Because we all know that god gives priests psychic capabilities... especially Jewish priests who don't believe Jesus was the son of god!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Because we all know that god gives priests psychic capabilities... especially Jewish priests who don't believe Jesus was the son of god!
    Why is it that you are capeable of deciding that she got pregnant normally and blamed it on God, but the priests of the time could not have held the same opinion???

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Because we all know that god gives priests psychic capabilities... especially Jewish priests who don't believe Jesus was the son of god!
    Verzen, you are now allowed to start your own religion with your own version and interpretation. Maybe a little check out, there might be one of the 1000 christian institution that already say that lol!
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    ó Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Do you not think the priests would have seen through her lies???
    Priests are people too, who as the moral leaders of the people, care what those people think. Further, how many people knew about the alleged status of Mary's child? As I have it, his status was only revealed to all after his emergence from the dark as an adult. There was a rumour that a new king would be born, the king of kings I think, which is why they had to flee, but like I said, I think his status was only revealed to all by himself as an adult. I am talking under correction here.


    Just as a matter of interest: I am open to the idea that a person named Jesus (or the original equivalent) walked around proclaiming his godhood, but his miracles and such could very easily have been a combination of hearsay, misinterpretation, illusionist tricks and even outright embellishments. The people back then were even more superstitious and gullible than many of us are today IMO. Just think of all the nonsense people come up with today that many people take at face value and similarly all the non-Abrahamic gods of the Romans and many others, as well as the constant presence of nonsensical folklore throughout human history and suddenly the account of Jesus loses it’s mystery to me.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    KALSTER - have you read "A Case for Christ" bye Lee Strobel? It's quite a good read. Well I thought it was. I might re-read it again though.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Because we all know that god gives priests psychic capabilities... especially Jewish priests who don't believe Jesus was the son of god!
    Why is it that you are capeable of deciding that she got pregnant normally and blamed it on God, but the priests of the time could not have held the same opinion???
    You believe god impregnated a normal woman more than that joseph got her pregnant? Wow... Christians are just as ridiculous as scientologists!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Because we all know that god gives priests psychic capabilities... especially Jewish priests who don't believe Jesus was the son of god!
    Why is it that you are capeable of deciding that she got pregnant normally and blamed it on God, but the priests of the time could not have held the same opinion???
    You believe god impregnated a normal woman more than that joseph got her pregnant? Wow... Christians are just as ridiculous as scientologists!
    I'm not a christian. I am still waiting for an answer to my question though.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Because christian priests at that time didn't exist. As far as I know, I exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Because christian priests at that time didn't exist. As far as I know, I exist.
    No, but jewish priests did. Are you infact realising that what you said a few lines up was daft?? lol

    Im nto saying you arent right, or wrong, but your argument is appalling there.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    KALSTER - have you read "A Case for Christ" bye Lee Strobel? It's quite a good read. Well I thought it was. I might re-read it again though.
    Have you read "Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"" by Earl Doherty? I haven't read either one, just interested in whether you’ve read counter arguments at all?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Jewish priests knew he was not the son of god. It isnt a belief "I" just hold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    KALSTER - have you read "A Case for Christ" bye Lee Strobel? It's quite a good read. Well I thought it was. I might re-read it again though.
    Have you read "Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"" by Earl Doherty? I haven't read either one, just interested in whether youíve read counter arguments at all?
    Actually I havent. I was gifted the Lee Strobel book and so wasn't aware of the refutal till a few months after I ahd read it. I prefer to buy both sides to an argument, but i've recently splashed out on books surrounding the religion debate. I shall have to wait a while, though it is on my shopping list.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Jewish priests knew he was not the son of god. It isnt a belief "I" just hold.
    Now your changing the topic. Whetehr the Jewish pristes accepted him as god or nto was nto in question.

    The question was how is it you can see mary as a liar but the ancient jewish priests of the time would not have felt the same??

    Tbh I'm nto expecting much of a response based on your last few posts...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I just told you. I never once said that the jews thought that jesus was GOD.

    Stop acting like a moron and pay attention

    If the jews did not think that Jesus was the son of god, then how do you think Jesus was born? Do you think the Jews still thought she got pregnant without sex? No, they did not. They thought she got pregnant normally. Obviously mary was a liar if she states that Jesus was the son of god, which he is not.

    Use your brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I just told you. I never once said that the jews thought that jesus was GOD.

    Stop acting like a moron and pay attention

    If the jews did not think that Jesus was the son of god, then how do you think Jesus was born? Do you think the Jews still thought she got pregnant without sex? No, they did not. They thought she got pregnant normally.

    Use your brain.
    Read Kalsters response... :wink:

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    No, they did not. They thought she got pregnant normally.

    Use your brain.
    If that is so, then using what you said earlier, why was she not stoned???

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Just because you're jewish, doesnt mean you can't be converted to believing.
    Jesus was Jewish, but if people BELIEVED he was the son of god or BELIEVED mary, they wont stone mary for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Just because you're jewish, doesnt mean you can't be converted to believing.
    Jesus was Jewish, but if people BELIEVED he was the son of god or BELIEVED mary, they wont stone mary for it.
    You are infact correct.

    However, I think it's more likely that people would not have believed Mary had she said such a thing; based on ancient Jewish society that is, and what later happened in the bible.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    For if as you say that people believed mary when she said that she was carrying the son of god, they would have known Jesus was the son of god before he was born. If they knew he was the son of God, then why would the try and execute him as a liar etc?

    Again, I don't think you've thought this through...

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The entire story is a myth, but if they really knew joseph knocked her up when they wern't married, she would have been stoned. Remember, this is the middle east we are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Finally we get a reasonable response from you! I wondered how long it would take for you to say the whole thing was all a load of rubbish.

    That argument is fair enough. If you believed that though, why did you even bother with the above argument??? It was really daft lol

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Trying to logically explain it if it WAS true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said:
    The entire story is a myth, but if they really knew joseph knocked her up when they wern't married, she would have been stoned.
    Myth or no, this is not exactly an accurate picture of their culture. It was not unusual for betrothed couples to live together prior to the wedding as the bride's family was happy to get rid of the daughter as soon as possible. Apparently, there was no rule as to whether the bethrothed couple could sleep together or not. So it would not have been all that surprising for the happy bride to have been somewhat preggers at the wedding.

    It the case of Mary and Joseph and based on the story, it would appear they had not been sleeping together during their betrothal which is why Mary wondered how she could be pregnant and why Joseph considered calling off the wedding. It seems unlikely that neither of them would have understood the cause of pregnancy.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Trying to logically explain it if it WAS true.
    dont lie!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it.

    In ancient times it was normal for kings to be the first with anotherĎs new bride.
    Scripture says that God did the same.

    Is He emulating man or did man decide to follow Godís example?

    If you were an all powerful creator, would it not make more sense to create a woman as high on the pecking order as yourself or is it somehow better to use a lower species like humans to produce a son .

    One of Godís main themes for morality is to not take anotherís wife.
    Is God breaking one of His own rules by practicing bestiality?

    Regards
    DL
    In short, we cannot expect to apply morality that is pertinent to ourselves to god, simply because both god and the living entity are in completely different categories

    (BTW I think your understanding of god taking another woman is slightly out to lunch)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Is it moral to take anotherís wife? God did it.

    In ancient times it was normal for kings to be the first with anotherĎs new bride.
    Scripture says that God did the same.

    Is He emulating man or did man decide to follow Godís example?

    If you were an all powerful creator, would it not make more sense to create a woman as high on the pecking order as yourself or is it somehow better to use a lower species like humans to produce a son .

    One of Godís main themes for morality is to not take anotherís wife.
    Is God breaking one of His own rules by practicing bestiality?

    Regards
    DL
    In short, we cannot expect to apply morality that is pertinent to ourselves to god, simply because both god and the living entity are in completely different categories

    (BTW I think your understanding of god taking another woman is slightly out to lunch)
    Jush showing the absurdity of the whole myth.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    No actually you arent. This might raise some hackles, but almost all your threads seem to be about very childish ideas.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I agree, sox, but it is not the childishness of the topics that bothers me. It is that Greatest Never Was joins a number of other youthful posters here who post from a position of basic ignorance.

    What happens is they think religion is foolish so they pick up a book like The God Delusion and adopt someone like Richard Dawkins as their non-religious guru. Then they post crap from the book without ever researching the topic to see if the author they have adopted is really providing accurate, generally accepted information.

    Their childishness is not found so much in the topics they bring up, but in their thinking that they have just found something new and different because it is new and different to them based on their infancy in looking at the topic. They are merely repeating and passing on errors, disinformation, misinformation and silliness which others have disseminated before.

    When placed under the scrutiny of logic and actual verifiable facts, their errors are easily exposed.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Correct.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    No actually you arent. This might raise some hackles, but almost all your threads seem to be about very childish ideas.
    When speaking to children it is better to keep concepts simple. Especially while trying to reason with fundamentals. must be the belief in talking snakes screwing up reception.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I agree, sox, but it is not the childishness of the topics that bothers me. It is that Greatest Never Was joins a number of other youthful posters here who post from a position of basic ignorance.

    What happens is they think religion is foolish so they pick up a book like The God Delusion and adopt someone like Richard Dawkins as their non-religious guru. Then they post crap from the book without ever researching the topic to see if the author they have adopted is really providing accurate, generally accepted information.

    Their childishness is not found so much in the topics they bring up, but in their thinking that they have just found something new and different because it is new and different to them based on their infancy in looking at the topic. They are merely repeating and passing on errors, disinformation, misinformation and silliness which others have disseminated before.

    When placed under the scrutiny of logic and actual verifiable facts, their errors are easily exposed.
    I have to ask. What is the one verifiable fact that you know about religion or God.

    Tell me how to verify as well please.

    I will pay good money for this proof of God . they will beat a path to my door, as they say. I will cut you in.

    Regards
    DL

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Greatest I Am asked:
    What is the one verifiable fact that you know about religion or God
    I don't recall saying anything about religion or God. And seldom do I. Most of my posts are in refuting errors of logic and errors of fact posted by uninformed atheists.

    Should you find a post in which I say something about religion or God that you think needs verification, that would be your opportunity to ask.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    No actually you arent. This might raise some hackles, but almost all your threads seem to be about very childish ideas.
    When speaking to children it is better to keep concepts simple. Especially while trying to reason with fundamentals. must be the belief in talking snakes screwing up reception.

    Regards
    DL
    Sorry when I said childish, I meant stupid.

    As for "reasoning" with fundamentalists, do you really think quoting their scripture grossly out of context gives you much chance of getting a reasonable response? You will probably retort "but scripture can be interpreted in so many ways!" Well let me tell you, thats not true. There are points in the bible that are open to debate ofcourse, but as a coherent picture? Theres no question. What you do is the same as arguing over the colour of a handful of pixels in a large graphic.

    You pose stupid, pointless threads concerning points like "is it right to steal another mans woman? - God did!" when that is blatantly a deliberate corruption of what is said in the bible. An intelligent person would focus on something that really is controversial such as the topic of election that can be found in the new testament, or how the new covenant relates to the old covenant.

    So please, untill you have really thought something through, stop posting such ignorant topics.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    No actually you arent. This might raise some hackles, but almost all your threads seem to be about very childish ideas.
    When speaking to children it is better to keep concepts simple. Especially while trying to reason with fundamentals. must be the belief in talking snakes screwing up reception.

    Regards
    DL
    Sorry when I said childish, I meant stupid.

    As for "reasoning" with fundamentalists, do you really think quoting their scripture grossly out of context gives you much chance of getting a reasonable response? You will probably retort "but scripture can be interpreted in so many ways!" Well let me tell you, thats bullshit. There are points in the bible that are open to debate ofcourse, but as a coherent picture? Theres no question. What you do is the same as arguing voer the colour of a handful of pixels in a large graphic.

    You pose stupid, pointless threads concerning points like "is it right to steal another mans woman? - God did!" when that is blatantly a deliberate corruption of what is said in the bible. An intelligent person would focus on something that really is controversial such as the topic of election that can be found in the new testament, or how the new covenant relates to the old covenant.

    So please, untill you have really thought something through, stop posting such ignorant crap.
    I guess that it would have been better said by saying that an alien God used a woman to produce a chimera that we are all to love. We do not get our own God we have to follow one the loves to genocide our ass.

    Is that more truthful for you and easier to digest. It is truth. Ask the snake. He will confirm it.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, sox, I think we better be careful here. We may be in danger of being charged with child abuse.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Yeah, it's only a matter of time before someone mentions "raising kids in a religious society is child abuse".

    I don't know about you people, but i've never actually met a small child who really cares about religion? Most kids dont give it a second thought till their late teens anyway, and then they are more likely to rebel against it and float around in confusion for a while.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Yeah, it's only a matter of time before someone mentions "raising kids in a religious society is child abuse".

    I don't know about you people, but i've never actually met a small child who really cares about religion? Most kids dont give it a second thought till their late teens anyway, and then they are more likely to rebel against it and float around in confusion for a while.
    Check out the Jesus school and you will get a different impression.

    Return and recant so we can check your judgements and determine your worth in debate.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Give me a link and I shall!

    I have a strong feeling that this is NOT going to be a true representation of christian beliefs in action.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Give me a link and I shall!

    I have a strong feeling that this is NOT going to be a true representation of christian beliefs in action.
    Being computer literate is a load I must suffer.

    If you just U tube Jesus camp you will get it. Please take the time.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Return and recant so we can check your judgements and determine your worth in debate.
    My worth in debate?

    Whenever you post it is to ask some nonsense-question. Start being more assertive and tenacious, stick your neck out and say exactly what you think, then defend your view to the hilt. If you do that, you have the authority to check my judgements.

    8)

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Return and recant so we can check your judgements and determine your worth in debate.
    My worth in debate?

    Whenever you post it is to ask some nonsense-question. Start being more assertive and tenacious, stick your neck out and say exactly what you think, then defend your view to the hilt. If you do that, you have the authority to check my judgements.

    8)
    Did not see a recant.

    Your reply was rather fundamental. Did not like what you would have had to reply so just criticized the player and not the play.

    By the way, my neck already looks like it belongs to Elastic man.
    Always happy to speak about my God. What is the question?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Actually I have searched both google and youtube and have not found what you were talking about.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Actually I have searched both google and youtube and have not found what you were talking about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD2Hyiitpys

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Ah Jesus Camp! I have seen this.

    The point I would make is that this religion is not abusive. Those people are abusive. You bet your bottom dollar that the bible does NOT encourage that type of teaching.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Ah Jesus Camp! I have seen this.

    The point I would make is that this religion is not abusive. Those people are abusive. You bet your bottom dollar that the bible does NOT encourage that type of teaching.
    All religion are abusive to the other religions.
    All have skeletons in their closets.
    All the Gods compete.

    All are exclusive programs not inclusive.

    All Gods have a hell for losers.

    All religions ask and or demand that their flock discriminate against those that the religion chooses.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Does christianity teach its followers to be abusive to other relgions??

    Please, back that up with some proof.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Does christianity teach its followers to be abusive to other relgions??

    Please, back that up with some proof.
    It is abusive to tell others that if they do not believe in their God then they are hell bound. Is it abuse to tell them their God is not God but just some loser.

    Many religions are in the church burning business. Are they being abusive.

    I think it is yes to all the above and then some.

    Scripture teaches, not how to abolish slavery but just how to treat slaves. is this a reverse abuse or just plain abuse.

    Most even attack their own Gay members. Is this abuse?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    If I told an atheist I disagree with his views on God am I being abusive?

    Telling someone that they are going to hell because they are a non-believer is not abuse. If two rational men sit down to converse on such matters it is almost certiantly not going to be abusive. Simply informative.

    Screaming at someone that they are worthless and deserve nothing better than hell, THAT is abusive.

    Again it seems for Christianity anyway, that you have not looked into this matter. Your information is based on what you have heard and not on what is in the new testament.

    Go and read the Good Samaritan passage. This contradicts your view on Christians being taught to be abusive rather swiftly.

    Your point on slavery - again you do not understand the historical or cultural context of slavery as it is stated in the bible.

    Your Gay comment - they "attack" their fellow members for carrying out gay practices. Not for being gay.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    If I told an atheist I disagree with his views on God am I being abusive?

    Telling someone that they are going to hell because they are a non-believer is not abuse. If two rational men sit down to converse on such matters it is almost certiantly not going to be abusive. Simply informative.

    Screaming at someone that they are worthless and deserve nothing better than hell, THAT is abusive.

    Again it seems for Christianity anyway, that you have not looked into this matter. Your information is based on what you have heard and not on what is in the new testament.

    Go and read the Good Samaritan passage. This contradicts your view on Christians being taught to be abusive rather swiftly.

    Your point on slavery - again you do not understand the historical or cultural context of slavery as it is stated in the bible.

    Your Gay comment - they "attack" their fellow members for carrying out gay practices. Not for being gay.
    I know enough of slavery and the Bible to know that the writers of scripture were paid by slave owners. Scripture does not even try to abolish slavery. They discriminate without just cause in the case of gays and place woman somewhere behind or beneath man. if this is not enought to doubt much that is writen then.........

    all other sinners go to hell.

    How fundamental are you. Is the talking snake real?
    Is genocide good because God used it?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Can you even keep track of your own line of thought?

    We were talking about religions being abusive to one another. Now you're talking about something completely different.

    And I shall say again, I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN.

    Scripture does not try to abolish slavery... well again as I said before, if you UNDERSTOOD the context of slavery in ancient israel, you would understand that it is NOT slavery as we today know slavery. Therefor it was not something that needed to be abolished!

    Please, go and read some essays on the history of the ancient middle east. Your ignorance is astounding.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •