PDA

View Full Version : Rel: Moral discussion offshoot.



MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 02:59 PM
If it wasn't for religion, we would not be fighting two wars right now.[/COLOR]

That's probably true...because we'd have killed each other off long ago without the civilizing influence of religion.


{Not trying to mess up the thread, AA, but beliefs are one thing, rewriting history is another.}

Articulate_Ape
02-20-2010, 03:06 PM
That's probably true...because we'd have killed each other off long ago without the civilizing influence of religion.


{Not trying to mess up the thread, AA, but beliefs are one thing, rewriting history is another.}

Discussion is fine, Mrs. Smith. I think your assertion is a little hard to prove since we will probably never know. However, I would say the case hampshirebrit makes regarding the negative impact the big 3 religions have had materially throughout there respective histories is pretty well known.

hampshirebrit
02-20-2010, 03:08 PM
That's probably true...because we'd have killed each other off long ago without the civilizing influence of religion.

It's only that apocalyptic weaponry has not yet fallen into messianic hands that humanity has not yet self terminated. It looks like that will soon change, very soon.

Take religion out of the equation and most of the current wars would become territorial disputes, i.e. soluble by locking the protagonists in a room with only some chairs, a table, a map and some crayons to keep them company until they come to terms.

Add religion to conflict and you have war without end. Add nukes to religious conflict and the war will end, and humanity will end the same day.

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 03:20 PM
It's only that apocalyptic weaponry has not yet fallen into messianic hands that humanity has not yet self terminated. It looks like that will soon change, very soon.

Take religion out of the equation and most of the current wars would become territorial disputes, i.e. soluble by locking the protagonists in a room with only some chairs, a table, a map and some crayons to keep them company until they come to terms.

Add religion to conflict and you have war without end. Add nukes to religious conflict and the war will end, and humanity will end the same day.

One of the best posts ever!

nightflight
02-20-2010, 04:02 PM
It's only that apocalyptic weaponry has not yet fallen into messianic hands that humanity has not yet self terminated. It looks like that will soon change, very soon.

Take religion out of the equation and most of the current wars would become territorial disputes, i.e. soluble by locking the protagonists in a room with only some chairs, a table, a map and some crayons to keep them company until they come to terms.

Add religion to conflict and you have war without end. Add nukes to religious conflict and the war will end, and humanity will end the same day.

This is true. Does anyone think that Osama bin Ladin would hesitate to nuke cities if he had the capability? Would his theism hold him back?

djones520
02-20-2010, 04:05 PM
This is true. Does anyone think that Osama bin Ladin would hesitate to nuke cities if he had the capability? Would his theism hold him back?

It hasn't held him back from killing tens of thousands of fellow Muslims.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 04:08 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Because I've pointed out all the multitude of good done by Christians historically quite a few times already, and have also repeatedly pointed out the current support of everything from food pantries to pregnancy centers to disaster kitchens to missions that build homes, orphanages, schools and hospitals...seriously, you've all heard it over and over and over. So this time, I'm just copy/pasting, because this guy said it quite well in this book review. (TNO - "The Non-learning One" and Hamp...I know I've recommended getting an education before. I'm recommending it again. You both are too smart to keep sounding so stupid.)


By William Muehlenberg (Melbourne Australia) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
In this well-documented volume of over 400 pages, Schmidt marshals the evidence for the transforming power of the Christian faith. He shows how Jesus has the power to transform men, who in turn are able to transform society. And on every level, that is exactly what has happened. Several specific examples can be mentioned.

In spite the claims of some today that Christianity oppresses women, the historical record shows just the opposite. Women were oppressed in almost every culture prior to the coming of Christianity. By elevating sexual morality, and by conferring upon women a much higher status, the Christian religion revolutionised the place and prestige of women.

The way Jesus treated women was in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. In Roman law a man's wife and children were little more than slaves, often treated like animals. Women had no property rights and faced severe social restrictions. Jesus of course changed all that. The way he treated the Samaritan woman was one remarkable example. And this was not lost on the early disciples. We know from the New Testament documents that many women exercised various leadership roles in the early church. Indeed, during this period Christian women actually outnumbered Christian men.

Admittedly there were some anomalies later in the church's history, when chauvinistic and anti-feminine views were allowed to re-enter parts of the church. But such aberrations must not detract from the truly revolutionary elevation of the status of women achieved by Christianity.

Consider also the issue of health care. Prior to Christianity, the Greeks and Romans had little or no interest in the poor, the sick and the dying. But the early Christians, following the example of their master, ministered to the needs of the whole person. During the first three centuries of the church they could only care for the sick where they found them, as believers were then a persecuted people. Once the persecutions subsided, however, the institutonalisation of health care began in earnest.

For example, the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 directed bishops to establish hospices in every city that had a cathedral. The first hospital was built by St Basil in Caesarea in 369. By the Middle Ages hospitals covered all of Europe and even beyond. In fact, "Christian hospitals were the world's first voluntary charitable institutions".

Care for the mentally ill was also a Christian initiative. Nursing also sprang from Christian concerns for the sick, and many Christians have given their lives to such tasks. One thinks of Florence Nightingale, for example, and the formation of the Red Cross.

Education, while important in Greek and Roman culture, really took off institutionally under the influence of Christianity. The early Greeks and Romans had no public libraries or educational institutions - it was Christianity that established these. As discipleship was important for the first believers (and those to follow), early formal education arose from Christian catechetical schools. Unique to Christian education was the teaching of both sexes.

Also a Christian distinctive, individuals from all social and ethnic groups were included. There was no bias based on ethnicity or class. And the concept of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers. Moreover, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian educational endeavours.

As another example of the Christian influence, consider the issue of work and economic life. The Greeks and Romans had a very low view of manual labour, and so it was mainly the slaves and lower classes that were forced to toil with their hands. The non-slave population lived chiefly for personal pleasure. In these early cultures slaves usually greatly outnumbered freemen.

Thus there was no such thing as the dignity of labour in these cultures, and economic freedom was only for a select few. The early church changed all this. Jesus of course was a carpenter's son. Paul was a tentmaker. And the early admonition, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" was taken seriously by the early believers. Thus work was seen as an honorable and God-given calling. Laziness and idleness were seen as sinful.

The idea of labor as a calling, and the idea spoken by Jesus that the laborer is worthy of his wages, revolutionised the workplace. The dignity of labor, the value of hard work, and the sense of vocation, soon changed the surrounding society; the development of a middle class being one of the outcomes. The development of unions is another result. Indeed, the works of Weber and Tawney, among others, records the profound effect the Protestant Reformation has had on work and modern capitalism.

Other impacts can be noted. The commandment against stealing of course redefined the concept of private property and property rights. And the protection of workers and workers' rights also flows directly from the biblical worldview. The early unionists were Christians, and concerns for social justice in the workplace and beyond derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Other great achievements might be mentioned. The Western political experience, including genuine democracy at all levels of society, equality, human rights and various freedoms, all stem from the Christian religion, along with its Hebrew forebear. The rise of modern science has been directly linked with the biblical understanding of the world. The many great achievements in art, literature and music also deserve mention. For example, how much poorer would the world be without the Christian artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Brahms, Dante, Milton, Bunyan, and countless others?

The bottom line, as Schmidt notes, is that if Jesus Christ had never been born, to speak of Western civilisation would be incomprehensible. Indeed, there may never have been such a civilisation. The freedoms and benefits we enjoy in many modern cultures are directly due to the influence of this one man. Schmidt deserves an enormous amount of gratitude for this sterling collection of information and inspiration. Christians have made many mistakes. But they have also achieved many great things, all because of the one whom they follow.

Articulate_Ape
02-20-2010, 04:16 PM
I think you need to look a little further back in history.

nightflight
02-20-2010, 04:22 PM
Because I've pointed out all the multitude of good done by Christians historically quite a few times already, and have also repeatedly pointed out the current support of everything from food pantries to pregnancy centers to disaster kitchens to missions that build homes, orphanages, schools and hospitals...seriously, you've all heard it over and over and over. So this time, I'm just copy/pasting, because this guy said it quite well in this book review. (TNO - "The Non-learning One" and Hamp...I know I've recommended getting an education before. I'm recommending it again. You both are too smart to keep sounding so stupid.)

So are you defending religion in general or just Christianity? In your OP you simply said religion.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 04:27 PM
So are you defending religion in general or just Christianity? In your OP you simply said religion.

I only defend Christianity. No other religion has done any comparable amount of good.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 04:27 PM
I think you need to look a little further back in history.

Further back than what? The time of Christ was addressed, and all times after. Before, there was no Christianity.

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 04:41 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Because I've pointed out all the multitude of good done by Christians historically quite a few times already, and have also repeatedly pointed out the current support of everything from food pantries to pregnancy centers to disaster kitchens to missions that build homes, orphanages, schools and hospitals...seriously, you've all heard it over and over and over. So this time, I'm just copy/pasting, because this guy said it quite well in this book review. (TNO - "The Non-learning One" and Hamp...I know I've recommended getting an education before. I'm recommending it again. You both are too smart to keep sounding so stupid.)

One need not believe in a deity to do good things. One must believe in a deity to believe that some places are holy and assigned to certain people.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 05:02 PM
The difference between the actions you describe and the actions Hampshire Brit describes is that the actions you describe require no belief in a deity and the actions Hampshire Brit describes require belief in a deity.

And yet, the actions I describe were all done specifically by those that believed in Christ. And those that believe still are the largest contributors to all charities. The fact that many have only heard 1% of the history of Christianity does not change the 99% you don't know...or refuse to believe.

The Night Owl
02-20-2010, 05:07 PM
And yet, the actions I describe were all done specifically by those that believed in Christ. And those that believe still are the largest contributors to all charities. The fact that many have only heard 1% of the history of Christianity does not change the 99% you don't know...or refuse to believe.

If most of the contributions to charities come from believers it's because atheists are still a very small minority.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 05:19 PM
If most of the contributions to charities come from believers it's because atheists are still a very small minority.

Believers give a larger percentage of their time AND their money than any other group...even to secular charities. Being a minority has nothing to do with the percentage of income and time donated.

Articulate_Ape
02-20-2010, 06:03 PM
Further back than what? The time of Christ was addressed, and all times after. Before, there was no Christianity.

Branks for the memories (http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/torture/devices.htm).

There is litle doubt that organized religion (e.g. Christianity) has played a positive role throughout history in a number of ways, it has also presided over some of the worst atrocities in history. The facts are the facts.

Articulate_Ape
02-20-2010, 06:10 PM
Believers give a larger percentage of their time AND their money than any other group...even to secular charities. Being a minority has nothing to do with the percentage of income and time donated.

While I am inclined to agree with you, in the absence of the actual statistics, I am not sure that such a session of dueling handouts is in keeping with the spirit of charitable giving a la Matthew 6:3, if you know what I mean.

FlaGator
02-20-2010, 06:20 PM
It's only that apocalyptic weaponry has not yet fallen into messianic hands that humanity has not yet self terminated. It looks like that will soon change, very soon.

Take religion out of the equation and most of the current wars would become territorial disputes, i.e. soluble by locking the protagonists in a room with only some chairs, a table, a map and some crayons to keep them company until they come to terms.

Add religion to conflict and you have war without end. Add nukes to religious conflict and the war will end, and humanity will end the same day.

You completely underestimate man's desire and capacity to make war. Religion is just one of the convenient excuses that man uses to kill his fellow man. The wars of the 20th century had nothing to do with religion and yet they probably took more human lives than all the lives taken by all the religious wars of the last 2000 years.

Ranger Rick
02-20-2010, 08:00 PM
And yet it is not wars that have killed the most, in the 20th Century, or religion. But declared atheist and an ideology. Communists, Russia, Mao - China, Pol Pot. The deaths in WWII pale in comparison.

nightflight
02-20-2010, 08:15 PM
And yet it is not wars that have killed the most, in the 20th Century, or religion. But declared atheist and an ideology. Communists, Russia, Mao - China, Pol Pot. The deaths in WWII pale in comparison.

Its was non-belief in which god that led to those atrocities? Was Stalin's non-belief in Thor a factor? Was it Mao's non-belief in Ra? Was the Khmer Rouge holocaust due to their not believing in Quetzelcoatal?

FlaGator
02-20-2010, 08:19 PM
And yet it is not wars that have killed the most, in the 20th Century, or religion. But declared atheist and an ideology. Communists, Russia, Mao - China, Pol Pot. The deaths in WWII pale in comparison.

I thought about pointing that out but since the comments where about religion being responsible for wars I figured I'd limit my reply to the wars of the 20th century. Religion is an easy target for atheists while ignoring their own ideology's contribution to the total number of those who have died for the sake of someone else's beliefs. Other than Ireland I the last war fought by Christians over Christianity was hundreds of years ago.

djones520
02-20-2010, 08:21 PM
I thought about pointing that out but since the comments where about religion being responsible for wars I figured I'd limit my reply to the wars of the 20th century. Religion is an easy target for atheists while ignoring their own ideology's contribution to the total number of those who have died for the sake of someone else's beliefs. Other than Ireland I the last war fought by Christians over Christianity was hundreds of years ago.

In large part because of secularism being forced apon governments of the Western World.

Articulate_Ape
02-20-2010, 08:44 PM
Borders and nationalism separate peoples and can lead to war.
Tribalism separates peoples and can lead to war.
An imbalance in natural resources separates peoples and can lead to war.
Organized religion separates peoples and can lead to war.



I ask you; do you think God would put his blessing on the members of this list?

Ranger Rick
02-20-2010, 09:20 PM
In large part because of secularism being forced apon governments of the Western World.

Who could force secularism upon a government? Christians- religious people are realist, what you see as secularism, are just people going about their business.

djones520
02-20-2010, 09:28 PM
Who could force secularism upon a government? Christians- religious people are realist, what you see as secularism, are just people going about their business.

I'll just point to the one that affects us.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Most Western Countries do not have "state religions" and are supposed to operate as secular entities. Now, the citizens may practice whatever religion they wish, but the government itself, that which wages wars and things like that may not make those decisions based apon any religious doctrine.

djones520
02-20-2010, 09:45 PM
Look, as an Atheist, I view religions impacts on war like this. The "Big 3" are not the cause, just the tools. Whether it was during the Crusades, Inquisitions, Jihads, or todays issues with Islamic Extremism, it was all about a small few using the tool to convince the ignorant and unstable to commit untold atrocities.

We all know that Christ did not teach that killing "infidels" was the way to Heaven, yet somehow hundreds of thousands, to millions were convinced of this by the church during the Crusades. They were even talked into killing fellow Christians of differant denominations.

The same can be said of Islam today. You don't see Bin Laden strapping a bomb to himself and running into a market. It wasn't Saddams generals he was offering huge rewards to for bombing Israeli restaurants. Most of the people being convinced of doing this are those who are 1. indoctrinated into this belief from a young age by these nut bags, or 2. so desperate and downtrodden that they'll take these outs if it means a better future for their families and such.

And for the reference of the Atheist murderous regimes of the 20th century. Show me one Atheist here in America that would support such a policy. Those actions were not commited in the "name of Atheism". They were committed my power mad nutbags. As an Atheist, I'd be the first person to plant a 7.62mm piece of lead into their brain stem.

Ranger Rick
02-20-2010, 09:55 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Hardly force, more agreed upon.


And for the reference of the Atheist murderous regimes of the 20th century. Show me one Atheist here in America that would support such a policy. Those actions were not commited in the "name of Atheism". They were committed my power mad nutbags. As an Atheist, I'd be the first person to plant a 7.62mm piece of lead into their brain stem.

The American Communist Party.



They were even talked into killing fellow atheist of different denominations.

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:11 PM
While I am inclined to agree with you, in the absence of the actual statistics, I am not sure that such a session of dueling handouts is in keeping with the spirit of charitable giving a la Matthew 6:3, if you know what I mean.

It is quite within the point that Christianity does immense good on this Earth. The 1% of history in which harmful things were done in it's name does in no way lessen the good done then, and now. It is foolish for anyone to blind themselves to the truth in order to support a hatred for "religion."

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:12 PM
Its was non-belief in which god that led to those atrocities? Was Stalin's non-belief in Thor a factor? Was it Mao's non-belief in Ra? Was the Khmer Rouge holocaust due to their not believing in Quetzelcoatal?

Only non-belief (or true belief) in a real God can do anything.

djones520
02-20-2010, 11:17 PM
Only non-belief (or true belief) in a real God can do anything.

What is a real god? Why is Christianity's God more "real" then any of those listed by Nightflight? Will your God be any less "real" in 3000 years if a whole new completely unrelated religion makes it fade into obscurity?

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:19 PM
Even during the Crusades, the Muslims were the aggressors. Those 130,000 or so that fought under the Christian banner (and please note, this in no way means they were all Christians), fought for the purpose of defending the lands that the Muslims were attacking and defeating. They did, obviously, screw things up in the process...but the origin of the Crusades was to repulse the attackers, not to rush around "converting by the sword."

MrsSmith
02-20-2010, 11:21 PM
What is a real god? Why is Christianity's God more "real" then any of those listed by Nightflight? Will your God be any less "real" in 3000 years if a whole new completely unrelated religion makes it fade into obscurity?

God was here before time, and will be here in 3000 years...and after there is no longer any time. He is eternal, no beginning and no ending. He has always influenced mankind, and no pretend god can ever cause Him to fade into obscurity.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2010, 01:45 AM
It is quite within the point that Christianity does immense good on this Earth. The 1% of history in which harmful things were done in it's name does in no way lessen the good done then, and now. It is foolish for anyone to blind themselves to the truth in order to support a hatred for "religion."

1%? Ok, now I am going t have to ask for some documentation, with all due respect.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2010, 01:47 AM
Even during the Crusades, the Muslims were the aggressors. Those 130,000 or so that fought under the Christian banner (and please note, this in no way means they were all Christians), fought for the purpose of defending the lands that the Muslims were attacking and defeating. They did, obviously, screw things up in the process...but the origin of the Crusades was to repulse the attackers, not to rush around "converting by the sword."

Um..huh? What?

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 01:48 AM
Um..huh? What?

Saladin.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2010, 01:57 AM
Saladin.


Saladin? Just when did he attack the Christians unprovoked?

wilbur
02-21-2010, 02:49 AM
It is quite within the point that Christianity does immense good on this Earth. The 1% of history in which harmful things were done in it's name does in no way lessen the good done then, and now. It is foolish for anyone to blind themselves to the truth in order to support a hatred for "religion."

On the contrary, it takes little more to "hate" religion, than to have respect and admiration for the truth.

That aside - can we rightly say, that without the "civilizing influence of religion", we would have never survived? Who the heck knows? What would it have meant for small bands of ancients to be without their religion - did it provide some essential utility, or was it simply a not all-together un-advantageous by-product of the evolution of certain other cognitive faculties? We do not yet know. Religion very well might have played some essential role in the survival of our species. Or it might not have.

Now, more specifically - could we have survived without Christianity? Almost certainly. In fact, recorded history has us surviving without it, for far longer than it has existed (quite well in some cases). What empirical data can one bring to bear that would conclusively show or even mildly suggest that we would be extinct without it? None, I imagine.

FlaGator
02-21-2010, 07:48 AM
In large part because of secularism being forced apon governments of the Western World.

Which is a good thing. Christianity has no business being in charge of a government in the world as it is and always has been.

FlaGator
02-21-2010, 07:56 AM
Even during the Crusades, the Muslims were the aggressors. Those 130,000 or so that fought under the Christian banner (and please note, this in no way means they were all Christians), fought for the purpose of defending the lands that the Muslims were attacking and defeating. They did, obviously, screw things up in the process...but the origin of the Crusades was to repulse the attackers, not to rush around "converting by the sword."

The Crusades where started by the European Christian kingdoms in order to take the Holy Land away from the Muslims who were living there. The Muslim aggression against Christian Europe had pretty much ended when Charles "the Hammer" Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, defeated the Muslims invading France from Spain. I would also point out that when the first crusaded ended the Christian army put to death every non Christian (Jews and Muslims) that lived in Jerusalem. When the Muslims took back Jerusalem they allowed the defeated Christian defenders to lay down their weapons and leave. I ask you, who behaved in a more Christ like fashion?

NJCardFan
02-21-2010, 11:39 AM
It amazes me reading here that people are blaming a religion for the doings of man. Man if fallible, no? Man doing something in the name of something doesn't mean that that something is wholly to blame. If I went on a murder spree and said I did it in the name of my dogs, does that mean you can kill my dogs? Nowhere in Christs teachings does it mention any conquering or any violence at all. There isn't anyone in history who can do the things they did in the name of Christ that can point out to me in the New Testament where Christ said that this is how it shall be. No, these tactics were done by men who were already fucked in the had and only used religion as a crutch. Sort of the reverse of "the devil made me do it". I'd like nothing more than to look Charlemagne and ask him to point out the passage where Christ says to take back the Holy Land by force. These are acts of men, people, not Christ or his teachings. Thankfully Christianity, fringe groups aside, matured and drew away from the wants of warlords. And, a was said, to simply dismiss something based on the actions of so few is irresponsible. I'd be willing to bet that Christianity as been responsible for more good in the world than any bad that has been done in it's name a thousand fold. As for matching Christianity against the others, I don't know the Torah enough to give an intelligent answer but as for Islam, there are whole passages dedicated to "smiting the infidel" with violence, something the New Testament doesn't have 1 iota of.

The Night Owl
02-21-2010, 11:58 AM
Nowhere in Christs teachings does it mention any conquering or any violence at all. There isn't anyone in history who can do the things they did in the name of Christ that can point out to me in the New Testament where Christ said that this is how it shall be.

Considering that the Bible describes infidels as evil, is it a surprise that believers have taken up arms against them? I don't think so. It's true that Jesus never explicitly called for violence but if the Bible is to be believed then he was the incarnation of a god who was very much in favor of using violence.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 11:59 AM
Considering that the Bible describes infidels as evil, is it a surprise that believers have taken up arms against them? I don't think so. It's true that Jesus never explicitly called for violence but if the Bible is to be believed then he was the incarnation of a god who was very much in favor of using violence.

Go the hell back to CC! I'm sure they miss you over there!

djones520
02-21-2010, 12:39 PM
Go the hell back to CC! I'm sure they miss you over there!

He's not allowed back there. :p

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 12:41 PM
He's not allowed back there. :p

That's what he told Wilbur but it doesn't say banned next to his name over there?

djones520
02-21-2010, 12:48 PM
That's what he told Wilbur but it doesn't say banned next to his name over there?

Sorry, he is still banned from there. There's been a formatting error regarding that. We'll have to put up with him here until SR or SLW gets tired of him. :p

FlaGator
02-21-2010, 02:23 PM
Considering that the Bible describes infidels as evil, is it a surprise that believers have taken up arms against them? I don't think so. It's true that Jesus never explicitly called for violence but if the Bible is to be believed then he was the incarnation of a god who was very much in favor of using violence.

Wrong again.... don't you get tired of misunderstanding things and taking things out of context? Show me were Christ advocate violence. In fact speaks to not taking up arms even to defend oneself. Please reconcile your assumption with Christ's words.

The Night Owl
02-21-2010, 06:07 PM
Wrong again.... don't you get tired of misunderstanding things and taking things out of context? Show me were Christ advocate violence. In fact speaks to not taking up arms even to defend oneself. Please reconcile your assumption with Christ's words.

If the Bible is to be believed then Jesus is the incarnation of the Old Testament God, is he not? If Jesus is the incarnation of the Old Testament God then Jesus not only advocated violence but perpetrated it as well.

djones520
02-21-2010, 06:08 PM
If the Bible is to be believed then Jesus is the incarnation of the Old Testament God, is he not? If Jesus is the incarnation of the Old Testament God then Jesus not only advocated violence but perpetrated it as well.

Dude... seriously, thats doing some major straw grasping.

The Night Owl
02-21-2010, 06:11 PM
That's what he told Wilbur but it doesn't say banned next to his name over there?

And they entered in, and found not the body of the Night Owl.

Kay
02-21-2010, 06:13 PM
*snicker* now that was funny

The Night Owl
02-21-2010, 06:19 PM
Dude... seriously, thats doing some major straw grasping.

Hey, I'm not the one who believes that Jesus is one with the Father.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 06:21 PM
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Night Owl.

And they flipped us the bird!

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 08:24 PM
The Crusades where started by the European Christian kingdoms in order to take the Holy Land away from the Muslims who were living there. The Muslim aggression against Christian Europe had pretty much ended when Charles "the Hammer" Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, defeated the Muslims invading France from Spain. I would also point out that when the first crusaded ended the Christian army put to death every non Christian (Jews and Muslims) that lived in Jerusalem. When the Muslims took back Jerusalem they allowed the defeated Christian defenders to lay down their weapons and leave. I ask you, who behaved in a more Christ like fashion?


ORIGINS OF THE CRUSADES
After the death of Charlemagne, king of the Franks, in 814 and the subsequent collapse of his empire, Christian Europe was under attack and on the defensive. Magyars, nomadic people from Asia, pillaged eastern and central Europe until the 10th century. Beginning about 800, several centuries of Viking raids disrupted life in northern Europe and even threatened Mediterranean cities. But the greatest threat came from the forces of Islam, militant and victorious in the centuries following the death of their leader, Muhammad, in 632. By the 8th century, Islamic forces had conquered North Africa, the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and most of Spain. Islamic armies established bases in Italy, greatly reduced the size and power of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire) and besieged its capital, Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire, which had preserved much of the classical civilization of the Greeks and had defended the eastern Mediterranean from assaults from all sides, was barely able to hold off the enemy. Islam posed the threat of a rival culture and religion, which neither the Vikings nor the Magyars had done.


In the 11th century the balance of power began to swing toward the West. The church became more centralized and stronger from a reform movement to end the practice whereby kings installed important clergy, such as bishops, in office. Thus for the first time in many years, the popes were able to effectively unite European popular support behind them, a factor that contributed greatly to the popular appeal of the first Crusades.

Furthermore, Europe’s population was growing, its urban life was beginning to revive, and both long distance and local trade were gradually increasing. European human and economic resources could now support new enterprises on the scale of the Crusades. A growing population and more surplus wealth also meant greater demand for goods from elsewhere. European traders had always looked to the Mediterranean; now they sought greater control of the goods, routes, and profits. Thus worldly interests coincided with religious feelings about the Holy Land and the pope’s newfound ability to mobilize and focus a great enterprise.http://history-world.org/crusades.htm

Islam attacked. When it was possible to do so, the church counter-attacked. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, nor that they did well in their actions. I am saying that the basic cause had justification.

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 08:31 PM
Considering that the Bible describes infidels as evil, is it a surprise that believers have taken up arms against them? I don't think so. It's true that Jesus never explicitly called for violence but if the Bible is to be believed then he was the incarnation of a god who was very much in favor of using violence.

The New Testament reveals to us how God feels about all His children. His covenant with Abraham predates His covenant with the Children of Israel, and He used that promise upon which to build the New Testament church...which was considered a mystery by the Jewish scholars like Paul because the entire Age of the Church is not revealed in the Old Testament.

Jesus not only never called for violence, He actively taught against it. It is not surprising that people like you, those with no true understanding of Christianity, were able to warp the Word and use it for evil. This was one of the strongest reasons for the Reformation...to put the Scriptures, in common language, back into the hands of the people so that they could study for themselves, and recognize the false teachers and leaders by their lies.

If you were to do as has been recommended...get an actual education in basic Theology...you wouldn't have so much trouble with misunderstanding and confusion.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 08:37 PM
Hey, I'm not the one who believes that Jesus is one with the Father.
The Night Owl.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/992631184_db9df2f955.jpg?t=1266802541
Just sayin'

wilbur
02-21-2010, 09:53 PM
Dude... seriously, thats doing some major straw grasping.

Technically he's right, even if theologians have devised themselves fantastical just-so stories to attempt to cohere the disjointed combination of the NT and the OT. Hell, they'll even try to say with a straight face, that the combination is so absurd and unexplainable, that it actually becomes evidence that it is true - because no rational human would try to pull it off as plausible. No joke, that passes for a solid defense of Christianity in theological circles.

Given the doctrine of the Trinity, a conclusion that any reasonable person will be required to submit too, is that Jesus did command war, genocide, rape, and other horrible atrocities in complete contradiction to his message in the NT. Of course, he also laid down the law as to how we should properly dispose of homosexuals, and disobedient children, and how to properly punish one's slaves. Jesus was a moral and cultural relativist through and through.

One of the interesting things the combination of the NT and OT creates, is a tension between the obvious cultural and moral relativism of the God of the Bible (Jesus included by way of doctrine of the trinity), and the cultural and moral absolutism of modern Christians. Its kind of a mutually exclusive combination, but most don't seem to notice.

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 10:18 PM
Technically he's right, even if theologians have devised themselves fantastical just-so stories to attempt to cohere the disjointed combination of the NT and the OT. Hell, they'll even try to say with a straight face, that the combination is so absurd and unexplainable, that it actually becomes evidence that it is true - because no rational human would try to pull it off as plausible. No joke, that passes for a solid defense of Christianity in theological circles.

Given the doctrine of the Trinity, a conclusion that any reasonable person will be required to submit too, is that Jesus did command war, genocide, rape, and other horrible atrocities in complete contradiction to his message in the NT. Of course, he also laid down the law as to how we should properly dispose of homosexuals, and disobedient children, and how to properly punish one's slaves. Jesus was a moral and cultural relativist through and through.

One of the interesting things the combination of the NT and OT creates, is a tension between the obvious cultural and moral relativism of the God of the Bible (Jesus included by way of doctrine of the trinity), and the cultural and moral absolutism of modern Christians. Its kind of a mutually exclusive combination, but most don't seem to notice.


Translation for those that don't speak "wilbur": I know nothing about Theology or Christianity, but if I put down enough words, I can BS those that also know nothing.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 10:48 PM
Technically he's right, even if theologians have devised themselves fantastical just-so stories to attempt to cohere the disjointed combination of the NT and the OT. Hell, they'll even try to say with a straight face, that the combination is so absurd and unexplainable, that it actually becomes evidence that it is true - because no rational human would try to pull it off as plausible. No joke, that passes for a solid defense of Christianity in theological circles.

Given the doctrine of the Trinity, a conclusion that any reasonable person will be required to submit too, is that Jesus did command war, genocide, rape, and other horrible atrocities in complete contradiction to his message in the NT. Of course, he also laid down the law as to how we should properly dispose of homosexuals, and disobedient children, and how to properly punish one's slaves. Jesus was a moral and cultural relativist through and through.

One of the interesting things the combination of the NT and OT creates, is a tension between the obvious cultural and moral relativism of the God of the Bible (Jesus included by way of doctrine of the trinity), and the cultural and moral absolutism of modern Christians. Its kind of a mutually exclusive combination, but most don't seem to notice.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/sleep.jpg?t=1266810443

wilbur
02-21-2010, 10:52 PM
Translation for those that don't speak "wilbur": I know nothing about Theology or Christianity, but if I put down enough words, I can BS those that also know nothing.

See? This is one of those mistakes on your part that I talked about - you mistake disagreement with ignorance. Since I don't accept that the OT and NT make a coherent, sensible story with continuity - you jump to the conclusion that I must just be ignorant of the theology involved - No - I'm not. I disagree with it, because its implausible and ad-hoc.

The Jooooos understand that all too well.

RobJohnson
02-21-2010, 11:09 PM
Without religion there would not of been any Pilgrims, Thanksgiving or turkey!

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 11:17 PM
See? This is one of those mistakes on your part that I talked about - you mistake disagreement with ignorance. Since I don't accept that the OT and NT make a coherent, sensible story with continuity - you jump to the conclusion that I must just be ignorant of the theology involved - No - I'm not. I disagree with it, because its implausible and ad-hoc.

The Jooooos understand that all too well.

If you knew enough about it to make a judgment, then you would know that they make one coherent, sensible, historical account. Because you claim otherwise, you obviously don't know enough. This is not any mistake I am making.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 11:21 PM
Without religion there would not of been any Pilgrims, Thanksgiving or turkey!
And I do like my turkey, pilgrim!

wilbur
02-21-2010, 11:30 PM
If you knew enough about it to make a judgment, then you would know that they make one coherent, sensible, historical account. Because you claim otherwise, you obviously don't know enough. This is not any mistake I am making.


No - they don't, and quite obvious that they don't. One can try to stitch them together with theology, but as I said, I believe the explanations are ad hoc and implausible.

But this post confirms my point, because what it says basically amounts too, "If you don't agree with me, you are ignorant". And I'm the one who usually gets called the elitist... MrsSmith puts me to shame.

The Night Owl
02-21-2010, 11:33 PM
Jesus not only never called for violence, He actively taught against it. It is not surprising that people like you, those with no true understanding of Christianity, were able to warp the Word and use it for evil. This was one of the strongest reasons for the Reformation...to put the Scriptures, in common language, back into the hands of the people so that they could study for themselves, and recognize the false teachers and leaders by their lies.

The irony here is that you're right-- Jesus never called for violence... and this is because he was not the Christ. He was just Jesus of Nazareth... and that should be enough for everyone but no... he has to be a god-man too.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 11:35 PM
No - they don't, and quite obvious that they don't. One can try to stitch them together with theology, but as I said, I believe the explanations are ad hoc and implausible.

But this post confirms my point, because what it says basically amounts too, "If you don't agree with me, you are ignorant". And I'm the one who usually gets called the elitist... MrsSmith puts me to shame.

It may not be your fault Wilbur. It could be genetic.

RobJohnson
02-21-2010, 11:35 PM
The irony here is that you're right-- Jesus never called for violence... and this is because he was not the Christ. He was just Jesus of Nazareth... and that should be enough for everyone but no... he has to be a god-man too.

So that is your belief, non-believer?

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 11:39 PM
The irony here is that you're right-- Jesus never called for violence... and this is because he was not the Christ. He was just Jesus of Nazareth... and that should be enough for everyone but no... he has to be a god-man too.
Is Wilbur your dad?

RobJohnson
02-21-2010, 11:48 PM
Is Wilbur your dad?

:eek::D

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 11:57 PM
No - they don't, and quite obvious that they don't. One can try to stitch them together with theology, but as I said, I believe the explanations are ad hoc and implausible.

But this post confirms my point, because what it says basically amounts too, "If you don't agree with me, you are ignorant". And I'm the one who usually gets called the elitist... MrsSmith puts me to shame.

Not exactly, I said that you don't know enough about the subject to avoid sounding ignorant. I say that because you keep saying things like "stitch them together with theology," making your absolute lack of knowledge the center of your argument. You can believe the explanations are ad hoc and implausible because you've never bothered to gain enough knowledge to understand even the clearest explanation. There isn't much I can do about your refusal to gain basic knowledge...except keep pointing out to you that you still don't know anything about the subject. If you really don't like it, go learn something. :D

MrsSmith
02-21-2010, 11:58 PM
The irony here is that you're right-- Jesus never called for violence... and this is because he was not the Christ. He was just Jesus of Nazareth... and that should be enough for everyone but no... he has to be a god-man too.

Well, yes and no. He is fully a man, but He is also fully God. And yes, that should be good enough for everyone.

wilbur
02-21-2010, 11:58 PM
Not exactly, I said that you don't know enough about the subject to avoid sounding ignorant. I say that because you keep saying things like "stitch them together with theology," making your absolute lack of knowledge the center of your argument. You can believe the explanations are ad hoc and implausible because you've never bothered to gain enough knowledge to understand even the clearest explanation.

And I have to point out, that again - you are making the same elitist claim. "If you don't agree with me, you must therefore be ignorant".



There isn't much I can do about your refusal to gain basic knowledge...except keep pointing out to you that you still don't know anything about the subject. If you really don't like it, go learn something. :D

Says the woman who quotes Genesis in evolution discussions.

Rockntractor
02-21-2010, 11:59 PM
I'm glad Wilbur keeps reminding us of how smart he is or I would have forgotten a long time ago!

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 12:00 AM
Says the woman who quotes Genesis in evolution discussions...

Well, of course. It makes no sense to ignore our written history from the only Being to be there when the Earth and Universe were created. :)

wilbur
02-22-2010, 12:07 AM
I'm glad Wilbur keeps reminding us of how smart he is or I would have forgotten a long time ago!

Trust me, everyone one of your posts also reminds us of how "smart" you are... or should I say "special"...

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 12:07 AM
Well, yes and no. He is fully a man, but He is also fully God. And yes, that should be good enough for everyone.

So, there you have it. Jesus is God-- the same violent God of the Old Testament.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 12:13 AM
Trust me, everyone one of your posts also reminds us of how "smart" you are... or should I say "special"...

Thanks Wilbur! Your swell, now I feel all warm and fuzzy all over.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 12:16 AM
Well, of course. It makes no sense to ignore our written history from the only Being to be there when the Earth and Universe were created. :)

Wasnt I just saying something about mistaking subjective belief with empirical fact?

djones520
02-22-2010, 12:40 AM
Well, of course. It makes no sense to ignore our written history from the only Being to be there when the Earth and Universe were created. :)

I'd like to direct you to this.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=19015

I was kinda hoping you would have responded to it then, but now would be just as good.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 12:47 AM
I'd like to direct you to this.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=19015

I was kinda hoping you would have responded to it then, but now would be just as good.

Perhaps they were just articulate apes!

FlaGator
02-22-2010, 07:04 AM
I'd like to direct you to this.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=19015

I was kinda hoping you would have responded to it then, but now would be just as good.

I would like to draw your attention to this graph and all the interesting gaps in the human evolutionary tree that are being filled in with a lot of assumptions. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong, I am merely pointing out that there are plenty of gaping holes in it that must be accounted for before the picture could be understood.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/evol.gif

hampshirebrit
02-22-2010, 03:47 PM
Well, of course. It makes no sense to ignore our written history from the only Being to be there when the Earth and Universe were created. :)

So do you believe in Genesis word-for-word, Adam, Eve, the snake, the six-day build window and such like, as well as the inferences of how old the earth is that some people make (max 7,000 years, I've heard)?

djones520
02-22-2010, 03:49 PM
I would like to draw your attention to this graph and all the interesting gaps in the human evolutionary tree that are being filled in with a lot of assumptions. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong, I am merely pointing out that there are plenty of gaping holes in it that must be accounted for before the picture could be understood.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/flagator/evol.gif

Can't see Photobucket. Comm Nazi's say it's a bad site.

But lucky for your question, Paleoanthropologists are not done digging and are still looking to fill in those gaps.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 05:37 PM
So do you believe in Genesis word-for-word, Adam, Eve, the snake, the six-day build window and such like, as well as the inferences of how old the earth is that some people make (max 7,000 years, I've heard)?I believe Genesis word for word. I have no clue how old the world is...we're never told. What we are told is that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for some time while there was no death in the world. Whether that time was a few days, a few years, a few million years...not one word. The only reference is Adam's age, and I kinda doubt that an immortal man with no concept of death would be counting his years BEFORE he was tossed out of the Garden and realized that he would actually die someday.

Given that we have no idea, for sure, how long the Garden lasted...or what was going on outside it, I see absolutely no way to track down the beginning of the world. I also have no problem seeing how the world filled with fossils...once things could die.

I have no doubt that someday, if mankind lasts long enough, our science will get to the point of proving Genesis. We just don't know enough, yet.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 05:39 PM
And I have to point out, that again - you are making the same elitist claim. "If you don't agree with me, you must therefore be ignorant".



Says the woman who quotes Genesis in evolution discussions.
I am not claiming that you must agree with me in any way. I am merely basing my argument on the fact that those who study the Bible long enough to really know it will also see that it is one cohesive document. Since you don't see that, you have obviously not learned enough.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 05:41 PM
So, there you have it. Jesus is God-- the same violent God of the Old Testament.

Yep, Jesus is God. Wasn't it great that He was willing to come live upon the Earth and give His own life for us?

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 06:13 PM
Yep, Jesus is God. Wasn't it great that He was willing to come live upon the Earth and give His own life for us?

I'll answer your question when you admit that you believe Jesus was the incarnation of a violent God.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 06:14 PM
I'll answer your question when you admit that Jesus is the incarnation of a violent God.

Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one singular entity.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 06:37 PM
Yep, Jesus is God. Wasn't it great that He was willing to come live upon the Earth and give His own life for us?

Except he didnt "give up" any life, according the story. And its not like planet earth was an upgrade to his existence. That makes it pretty hard to see why giving 'His life' would be any kind of noteworthy sacrifice in first place. But even so, He came back to life. He got it back. Then went to heaven. Its not really a sacrifice to trade in your Gremlin for a Hummer - especially when you manage to get your Gremlin back in the process too.

He sacrificed nothing but a little blood and a few spare moments in some agonizing pain - but that pain, while I'm sure gruesome, was nothing exceptional when compared with death as experienced by untold numbers of people, including the multitudes of others who suffered the same fate as he - all without the benefits of a flesh and blood resurrection. So one can't even say the level of his suffering set his death apart from any other gruesome human death in any exceptional way. Everyone who died on the cross lost more, but suffered just as much as he did.

So, where's the sacrifice supposed to be?

wilbur
02-22-2010, 06:38 PM
Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one singular entity.

Which is why its correct to say, that Jesus is the same warlord God of the OT.

asdf2231
02-22-2010, 06:55 PM
You Idiots DO realize that the Old Testament and the New Testament are two DIFFERENT books and that if he can create the entire world he can frigging well change his mind about how he administers it, right?

It's one of the benifits of being, I don't know, FREAKING GOD. Geez. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:00 PM
You Idiots DO realize that the Old Testament and the New Testament are two DIFFERENT books and that if he can create the entire world he can frigging well change his mind about how he administers it, right?

It's one of the benifits of being, I don't know, FREAKING GOD. Geez. :rolleyes:

Sure - but if you're a perfect being, as the Christian God is alleged to be, then you are a changeless being. So no, he cannot change his mind, because his mind is already supposed to be perfect. Changing one's mind would suggest that it is capable of being in an imperfect state, either before or after. And if its imperfect, it aint the Christian God.

FlaGator
02-22-2010, 07:06 PM
Which is why its correct to say, that Jesus is the same warlord God of the OT.


Bwhahahahahahahah!

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:09 PM
Bwhahahahahahahah!

It is pretty funny isnt it?

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 07:15 PM
I have no doubt that someday, if mankind lasts long enough, our science will get to the point of proving Genesis. We just don't know enough, yet.

You do realize that if science were to prove Genesis then God would have to be indicted for mass murder, right?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:15 PM
Except he didnt "give up" any life, according the story. And its not like planet earth was an upgrade to his existence. That makes it pretty hard to see why giving 'His life' would be any kind of noteworthy sacrifice in first place. But even so, He came back to life. He got it back. Then went to heaven. Its not really a sacrifice to trade in your Gremlin for a Hummer - especially when you manage to get your Gremlin back in the process too.

He sacrificed nothing but a little blood and a few spare moments in some agonizing pain - but that pain, while I'm sure gruesome, was nothing exceptional when compared with death as experienced by untold numbers of people, including the multitudes of others who suffered the same fate as he - all without the benefits of a flesh and blood resurrection. So one can't even say the level of his suffering set his death apart from any other gruesome human death in any exceptional way. Everyone who died on the cross lost more, but suffered just as much as he did.

So, where's the sacrifice supposed to be?

You missed the "minor" point that now all those that accept His gift DO receive a flesh and blood resurrection. And the fact that as the only sinless human, He did not earn death as the rest of us do.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:17 PM
You Idiots DO realize that the Old Testament and the New Testament are two DIFFERENT books and that if he can create the entire world he can frigging well change his mind about how he administers it, right?

It's one of the benifits of being, I don't know, FREAKING GOD. Geez. :rolleyes:

They seriously think that God is like some old grandpa type dude, just another weird kind of human or something. The concept of "GOD" just goes right past them...like the Jeff Dunham's Peanut...WHOOSH!!

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:18 PM
You missed the "minor" point that now all those that accept His gift DO receive a flesh and blood resurrection. And the fact that as the only sinless human, He did not earn death as the rest of us do.

What death? He didnt die, not really. I thought we went over this. Hence, there was nothing that was "given up".

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 07:20 PM
Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one singular entity.

Your refusal to admit that you believe Jesus was the incarnation of a violent god demonstrates to me that your rational side is alive and well but in hiding.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:20 PM
Sure - but if you're a perfect being, as the Christian God is alleged to be, then you are a changeless being. So no, he cannot change his mind, because his mind is already supposed to be perfect. Changing one's mind would suggest that it is capable of being in an imperfect state, either before or after. And if its imperfect, it aint the Christian God.

This is true, He does not change. He does, however, reveal different things to humans as we change. When His people needed Him to lead them as a cloud or tongue of flame, He did. When His people needed something different, He gave something different.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 07:21 PM
They seriously think that God is like some old grandpa type dude, just another weird kind of human or something.

It seems that a great many believers think of God as a male though, yes?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:21 PM
You do realize that if science were to prove Genesis then God would have to be indicted for mass murder, right?

Only humans can commit murder. You do realize that God isn't human, right?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:22 PM
What death? He didnt die, not really. I thought we went over this. Hence, there was nothing that was "given up".

Then we don't really die either, as we'll all be resurrected.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Your refusal to admit that Jesus is the incarnation of a violent god demonstrates to me that your rational side is alive and well but in hiding.

Oh, but I have admitted that Jesus is God.

You know what they put on the death certificate when God takes a life? "Natural causes." :D

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:24 PM
This is true, He does not change. He does, however, reveal different things to humans as we change. When His people needed Him to lead them as a cloud or tongue of flame, He did. When His people needed something different, He gave something different.

Which brings us straight up to the cultural and moral relativism I brought up a few posts back - Modern Christians, the sworn enemies of such philosophy, actually endorse it in full when trying to justify the OT.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:26 PM
It seems that a great many believers think of God as a male though, yes?

It is simpler for the human mind to consider Him as a male. We're not "wired" to consider anything as sexless, after all. Take most languages, all objects are either male or female...English being one of the few that seldom makes that distinction. Though most old farmers call their tractor "she," I've noticed. :eek: :D

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Which brings us straight up to the cultural and moral relativism I brought up a few posts back - Modern Christians, the sworn enemies of such philosophy, actually endorse it in full when trying to justify the OT.

On edit, at first I didn't get what you meant. Then I realized that you somehow feel it is "relativistic" for God to change what He reveals as humans change. And yet, I bet you have no problem with a human father treating a 14 year old differently than a 2 year old.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Then we don't really die either, as we'll all be resurrected.

So then we must be left with the conclusion that your original phrasing was meaningless - that God gave up his life for us. He didnt actually give anything up.

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Oh, but I have admitted that Jesus is God.

Let's try this one question at a time...

Did the God of the Old Testament ordain and perpetrate acts of violence?

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 07:29 PM
It is simpler for the human mind to consider Him as a male. We're not "wired" to consider anything as sexless, after all. Take most languages, all objects are either male or female...English being one of the few that seldom makes that distinction. Though most old farmers call their tractor "she," I've noticed. :eek: :D

Heh, true enough; and their bass boats too. May I ask how you visualize or imagine God?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:31 PM
Heh, true enough; and their bass boats too. May I ask how you visualize or imagine God?

It would seem that He looks like Jesus. I presume Jesus looked like a Jew. Other than that, I'd have to say I don't really visualize God.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:32 PM
So then we must be left with the conclusion that your original phrasing was meaningless - that God gave up his life for us. He didnt actually give anything up.

And neither do we. Or else, He gave up exactly as much as every other human.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Let's try this one question at a time...

Did the God of the Old Testament ordain and perpetrate acts of violence?

I'm beginning to think you have some issue with God moving some humans into the next life sooner than others. Does it bother you more to have God move us...or to have some other human move us?

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 07:35 PM
It would seem that He looks like Jesus. I presume Jesus looked like a Jew. Other than that, I'd have to say I don't really visualize God.

Well, God can't very well look like Jesus now, right?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 07:37 PM
Well, God can't very well look like Jesus now, right?

God is Jesus, Jesus is God. What we are able to see of God must look like Jesus. Right?

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 07:39 PM
God is Jesus, Jesus is God. What we are able to see of God must look like Jesus. Right?

Well, not to me, but okay.

I reckon that this come pretty close to how I see God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:47 PM
And neither do we. Or else, He gave up exactly as much as every other human.

Right - so there was nothing remarkable or wonderful or great about his "sacrifice".

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 07:51 PM
Right - so there was nothing remarkable or wonderful or great about his "sacrifice".


To you. Why can't you discuss your own beliefs or lack thereof without feeling the necessity to convince those that do not share them; and in a rather callous and condescending way at that?

wilbur
02-22-2010, 07:58 PM
To you. Why can't you discuss your own beliefs or lack thereof without feeling the necessity to convince those that do not share them; and in a rather callous and condescending way at that?

Something I do quite easily other places - but an impossibility in this venue.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 08:14 PM
Well, not to me, but okay.

I reckon that this come pretty close to how I see God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

And God spoke that all into existence, shaped it with His hands. Set the stars on their courses...and the electrons on theirs. Started Time. "Wrote" the laws of nature. Awesome, huh?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 08:16 PM
Right - so there was nothing remarkable or wonderful or great about his "sacrifice".You're free to believe that. Just remember, when it comes your turn, there's nothing remarkable or great about yours...except that you won't be taking any sin except your own with you. Oh, and you earned your death. He didn't.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 08:21 PM
And God spoke that all into existence, shaped it with His hands. Set the stars on their courses...and the electrons on theirs. Started Time. "Wrote" the laws of nature. Awesome, huh?

If that is what you believe, then I reckon it is. Me? I have other ideas.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Something I do quite easily other places - but an impossibility in this venue.

Why?

wilbur
02-22-2010, 08:26 PM
On edit, at first I didn't get what you meant. Then I realized that you somehow feel it is "relativistic" for God to change what He reveals as humans change. And yet, I bet you have no problem with a human father treating a 14 year old differently than a 2 year old.

The analogy does not work. Humans havent changed since ancient times, the way a 14 year old changes as he or she grows into an adult. We don't even change the moral lessons we teach children (most of us anyways), in such drastic ways based on age. We tend to teach kids the same kinds of moral lessons when they are young, as they grow older, though they may deepen in complexity as their mind becomes capable of understanding more complex ideas. What we don't do, is tell a 12 year old that its OK to beat a slave a certain way, only to save a passionate sermon for him at the age of 21 that informs him that slavery was really evil all along. If you are teaching your child either explicitly or implicitly, that slavery is OK for him, only to tell him at some later point that it will become immoral, you are a moral relativist.

The only gulf between us and the ancient people is a whole pile of ignorance but they were just as cognitively capable as us, today - and God was allegedly in the business of revealing things that people needed to know. he could have easily given a sermon on the mount to his ancient buddies, but instead he sometimes told them to pillage neighboring kingdoms, rape the women and kill the children - because "it apparently that was the revelation that best served their needs"? Yea......

The OT God was quite relativistic. This also poses an additional problem for today's moral absolutist Christians. For all we know, these rules we follow now are not truly moral laws, but simply a selected revelation, relative to our culture.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 08:28 PM
We tend to teach kids the same kinds of moral lessons when they are young, as they grow older, though they may deepen in complexity as their mind becomes capable of understanding more complex ideas. Yea......Yea...

wilbur
02-22-2010, 08:37 PM
Yea...

So by your curt reply, with selectively bolded snippets, are you suggesting that dictates about the stoning of disobedient children, slave handling, and orders to inflict merciless wanton slaughter upon neighboring kingdoms are simply less complex versions of the sermon on the mount? Please try and make the case... I'd like to see that :)

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 08:41 PM
So by your curt reply, with selectively bolded snippets, are you suggesting that dictates about the stoning of disobedient children, and orders to inflict merciless wanton slaughter upon neighboring kingdoms are simply less complex versions of the sermon on the mount? Please try and make the case... I'd like to see that :)

I don't know about anyone else, but I see that as being less about what God knew/knows about us, and more what we knew/know about God. God isn't changing. We are.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 08:47 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I see that as being less about what God knew/knows about us, and more what we knew/know about God. God isn't changing. We are.

The point is that God has allegedly revealed His moral law, and it is a law which changes based on culture. And it does not change through increasingly complex, but self-consistent iterations... but with completely contradictory iterations. Slavery is OK for the ancients, but not for us. Killing a child for disobedience is OK for them, but absolutely morally wrong for us. Raping the wives of conquered infidels was OK for the ancients, but is now a moral wrong. Textbook moral/cultural relativism. What was true for them, is not true for us.

And, I do not think there was anything about the ancient brain that would have rendered it incapable of understanding NT moral concepts, or even modern moral concepts.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 08:53 PM
The point is that God has allegedly revealed His moral law, and it is a law which changes based on culture. And it does not change through increasingly complex, but self-consistent iterations... but with completely contradictory iterations. Slavery is OK for the ancients, but not for us. Killing a child for disobedience is OK for them, but absolutely morally wrong for us. Raping the wives of conquered infidels was OK for the ancients, but is now a moral wrong. Textbook moral/cultural relativism. What was true for them, is not true for us.

And, I do not think there was anything about the ancient brain that would have rendered it incapable of understanding NT moral concepts, or even modern moral concepts.

You will have to show me in the bible where God said it was okay to rape the wives of conquered men.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 08:55 PM
So by your curt reply, with selectively bolded snippets, are you suggesting that dictates about the stoning of disobedient children, slave handling, and orders to inflict merciless wanton slaughter upon neighboring kingdoms are simply less complex versions of the sermon on the mount? Please try and make the case... I'd like to see that :)

My "case" is that God has changed the way He deals with His people - all His people - as humans and their society changes. Perhaps a bunch of whining, cowardly, forgetful people raised in slavery for generations...imprinted with the idea that their masters could slaughter them at will, having lived under the rather peculiar "morals" of the Pharoahs...needed an entirely different treatment from God than His children several thousand years later.

djones520
02-22-2010, 08:57 PM
You will have to show me in the bible where God said it was okay to rape the wives of conquered men.

I've never seen any referance for Rape, but Deuteronomy 2:30 through 2:34 is pretty disturbing.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 08:58 PM
And, I do not think there was anything about the ancient brain that would have rendered it incapable of understanding NT moral concepts, or even modern moral concepts.

That point is highly debatable.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 09:00 PM
My "case" is that God has changed the way He deals with His people - all His people - as humans and their society changes. Perhaps a bunch of whining, cowardly, forgetful people raised in slavery for generations...imprinted with the idea that their masters could slaughter them at will, having lived under the rather peculiar "morals" of the Pharoahs...needed an entirely different treatment from God than His children several thousand years later.

Which is assenting to cultural and moral relativism. Its rather like all those relativist liberals who talk about Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries - "Freedom and democracy can't work for them."

djones520
02-22-2010, 09:00 PM
That point is highly debatable.

How?

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:01 PM
You will have to show me in the bible where God said it was okay to rape the wives of conquered men.

Which is worse, rape or death. If scripture is to be trusted, God definitely commanded the killing of the women, children, and even livestock of conquered men. I'm just sayin'.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 09:02 PM
That point is highly debatable.

Not really - there was certainly no real physiological differences between them and us. But since God was in the business of doling out special revelation, supposedly to reveal ultimate truths - its pretty puzzling that he would tailor truth by culture

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Which is worse, rape or death. If scripture is to be trusted, God definitely commanded the killing of the women, children, and even livestock of conquered men. I'm just sayin'.
There was the war with the caananites that were demon possesed but rape was never authorized to my knowledge. By the way the caananites sacrificed their own children in rituals, but little is said about that.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:05 PM
How?


Two words: Cargo cult

djones520
02-22-2010, 09:10 PM
There was the war with the caananites that were demon possesed but rape was never authorized to my knowledge. By the way the caananites sacrificed their own children in rituals, but little is said about that.

Read the scripture I mentioned. It specifically says that God made the people to be conquered (Amorites) fight the Jews.


2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.


2:31 The LORD said to me, 'See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to occupy, that you may possess his land.'


2:34 "So we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.

Look, I view the Old Testament this way. Unlike Wilbur I don't think of it as an indictment on God. I view it as a history written by man to justify actions that they took to survive in a man eat man world. Countless other civilizations did the same thing.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:13 PM
Read the scripture I mentioned. It specifically says that God made the people to be conquered (Amorites) fight the Jews.







Look, I view the Old Testament this way. Unlike Wilbur I don't think of it as an indictment on God. I view it as a history written by man to justify actions that they took to survive in a man eat man world. Countless other civilizations did the same thing.

Still no mention of condoning rape.

djones520
02-22-2010, 09:13 PM
Still no mention of condoning rape.

And as I mentioned, I never saw anything in there mentioning rape. Just genocide. Again, and again, and again.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:17 PM
There was the war with the caananites that were demon possesed but rape was never authorized to my knowledge. By the way the caananites sacrificed their own children in rituals, but little is said about that.




Ezekiel ch 8 - KJV

4And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, according to the vision that I saw in the plain.

5Then said he unto me, Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north. So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry.

6He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations.

7And he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall.

8Then said he unto me, Son of man, dig now in the wall: and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door.

9And he said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.

10So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about.

11And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.

12Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, the LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.

13He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

14Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

15Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.

16And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

17Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.

18Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.


Ezekiel ch 9 - KJV

1He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand.

2And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.

3And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;

4And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

5And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

7And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

8And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?

9Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.

10And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.

11And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.


Again, I am not trying to pee in anyone's swimming pool, but it's in there, Rock. The above is just one example. Just sayin'.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:19 PM
Again, I am not trying to pee in anyone's swimming pool, but it's in there, Rock. The above is just one example. Just sayin'.
Sorry! Good said behold the wicked things you will do, He did not command them to rape!

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:21 PM
Sorry! Good said behold the wicked things you will do, He did not command them to rape!

You sound disappointed. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:21 PM
Which is assenting to cultural and moral relativism. Its rather like all those relativist liberals who talk about Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries - "Freedom and democracy can't work for them."

Really? It seems more like saying, "You are not allowed to be as cruel or unlawful as your former masters. You must treat your slaves this much better, your neighbors this much better, your wives this much better, your children this much better..."

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:22 PM
They wiped the wicked and their seed from the face of the earth at Gods command we don't know all the details why. Never did he command the woman to be raped for the enjoyment of the conquerers.

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 09:22 PM
And as I mentioned, I never saw anything in there mentioning rape. Just genocide. Again, and again, and again.

Numbers seems to imply that female virgins may be taken as prizes of war:


Numbers 31:15-18 (King James Version)

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:24 PM
You sound disappointed. :rolleyes:
Why would I find enjoyment in any woman being used against her will?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:25 PM
Numbers seems to imply that female virgins may be taken as spoils of war:



Numbers 31:15-18 (King James Version)

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So now keeping them alive is the same as rape? OK...

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:26 PM
Numbers seems to imply that female virgins may be taken as prizes of war:



Numbers 31:15-18 (King James Version)

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
The woman were of Israel and the tribe was being punished. Once again , where is there a rape command?

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:27 PM
Why would I find enjoyment in any woman being used against her will?

You tell me. :D

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 09:28 PM
So now keeping them alive is the same as rape? OK...

Numbers 31:18 doesn't say to merely keep the female virgins alive. It says to keep them "alive for yourselves." The implication is clear.

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 09:29 PM
The woman were of Israel and the tribe was being punished. Once again , where is there a rape command?

You tell me. Why do you think the female virgins are spared?

wilbur
02-22-2010, 09:31 PM
Really? It seems more like saying, "You are not allowed to be as cruel or unlawful as your former masters. You must treat your slaves this much better, your neighbors this much better, your wives this much better, your children this much better..."

But its also like saying, "You are allowed to be cruel, so go forth and be cruel (in a way that is, for another time and culture, morally unacceptable)."

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:34 PM
This is the crap that happens when one argues that the Bible is the uttered or inspired word of God rather than a chronicle of spiritual discovery first spoken, the eventually penned by men (no women allowed). It always boils down to the contradictions that define human existence.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:37 PM
You tell me. Why do you think the female virgins are spared?

It was not commanded by God to allow the woman to live. If you read the next chapter God punished them for this by making them wander in the desert for forty years. They were supposed to kill everyone. God will do this again someday. He will burn the face of the earth and ALL that don't believe will perish. You be sure to tell him before your turned to charcoal that it is not fair!

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:39 PM
Again, I am not trying to pee in anyone's swimming pool, but it's in there, Rock. The above is just one example. Just sayin'.

You did realize that this was a judgment on His own children, the children of Israel, right? For evil done within the House of God...

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:40 PM
Numbers 31:18 doesn't say to merely keep the female virgins alive. It says to keep them "alive for yourselves." The implication is clear.

Because, of course, a man would never allow a girl child to survive for any other reason, right?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:41 PM
But its also like saying, "You are allowed to be cruel, so go forth and be cruel (in a way that is, for another time and culture, morally unacceptable)."

And as people began to accept the lessened cruelties and more complex expectations, He reduced the cruelties further and raised the expectations higher.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:41 PM
You did realize that this was a judgment on His own children, the children of Israel, right? For evil done within the House of God...
Israel had combined themselves with these people and were worshiping Baal, this is what led to the forty year wondering.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 09:42 PM
It was not commanded by God to allow the woman to live. If you read the next chapter God punished them for this by making them wander in the desert for forty years. They were supposed to kill everyone. God will do this again someday. He will burn the face of the earth and ALL that don't believe will perish. You be sure to tell him before your turned to charcoal that it is not fair!

Are you telling us God believes in global warming?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:43 PM
Are you telling us God believes in global warming?

If global warming happens, it would be because God allowed it. Have today's humans done anything worthy of His judgment, do you suppose?

wilbur
02-22-2010, 09:44 PM
And as people began to accept the lessened cruelties and more complex expectations, He reduced the cruelties further and raised the expectations higher.

Which again, MrsSmith, is cultural relativism - no matter how one tries to dress it up, it remains the same.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:45 PM
Israel had combined themselves with these people and were worshiping Baal, this is what led to the forty year wondering.

Yeah, but God was at least as hard on His Chosen Children as He was on the pagans that burned their own children for worship and used their churches as brothels. It was a long, hard road to get humans to understand what He wants from us...and, look around our country, we still keep messing up even with all this evidence telling us to obey.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 09:47 PM
Which again, MrsSmith, is cultural relativism - no matter how one tries to dress it up, it remains the same.

Yep. Because we all know how quickly humans learn to behave differently, right? That's why YOU are so careful to obey God's will, right? After centuries of progress, surely all humans have learned enough to carefully study His will and live within it.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:51 PM
You did realize that this was a judgment on His own children, the children of Israel, right? For evil done within the House of God...


What a guy.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 09:53 PM
Yep. Because we all know how quickly humans learn to behave differently, right? That's why YOU are so careful to obey God's will, right? After centuries of progress, surely all humans have learned enough to carefully study His will and live within it.

Once again, (and please read this carefully, this is key): How well or poorly humans assimilate themselves to changes in lifestyle and law has nothing to do with what moral truth is.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 09:56 PM
Mrs. Smith, you are clearly well-versed in both scripture and Bible history it seems to me. I'd like to know why it is that you adhere so literally to Biblical scripture as opposed to simply deriving from it a message from the texts that might be just as valuable and supportive to your faith?

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:04 PM
What a guy.

Um, not a "guy." When a "guy" can speak mass and energy into existence, form it into the earth, sun, planets, and cause mud to come alive...then he can look at God as "just a guy." :D

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:06 PM
Once again, (and please read this carefully, this is key): How well or poorly humans assimilate themselves to changes in lifestyle and law has nothing to do with what moral truth is.

Once again, God's purpose with humans is to teach us to live within His will...and to take those that choose into His eternal home. He's made it clear that He will do whatever it takes to get through to us. It's just too bad that so many are so dense.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 10:07 PM
Um, not a "guy." When a "guy" can speak mass and energy into existence, form it into the earth, sun, planets, and cause mud to come alive...then he can look at God as "just a guy." :D

Bless ya, Mrs. Smith, but I ain't convinced by that argument.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:10 PM
Mrs. Smith, you are clearly well-versed in both scripture and Bible history it seems to me. I'd like to know why it is that you adhere so literally to Biblical scripture as opposed to simply deriving from it a message from the texts that might be just as valuable and supportive to your faith?

God made sure that we had some specific information about Him, His Son, and His Spirit. He has given me my life back, literally and spiritually. He has blessed me beyond anything I could have ever deserved. The least I can do in return is believe His Word, study it to divine His will for my life, talk to Him, praise Him, give what I can to His children...

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:10 PM
Bless ya, Mrs. Smith, but I ain't convinced by that argument.

OK. It's a free country. :)

wilbur
02-22-2010, 10:19 PM
Once again, God's purpose with humans is to teach us to live within His will...and to take those that choose into His eternal home. He's made it clear that He will do whatever it takes to get through to us. It's just too bad that so many are so dense.

A typical evasion, when faced with a fatal contradiction.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:21 PM
A typical evasion, when faced with a fatal contradiction.

And yet, here we are, centuries later...and so many still haven't learned simple obedience. :D

djones520
02-22-2010, 10:22 PM
And yet, here we are, centuries later...and so many still haven't learned simple obedience. :D

Damn that free will we aren't supposed to use.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:24 PM
Damn that free will we aren't supposed to use.

Obedience must be through free will. Without being able to freely choose to obey, or disobey, we have learned nothing...and are not on His path.

In point of fact, without His help, we are all currently enslaved to sin.

MrsSmith
02-22-2010, 10:28 PM
Well, hey, it's been fun, but my PC is glitching out. I'm going to shut it down and make my kid go to bed. Bye!

wilbur
02-22-2010, 10:44 PM
If only free-will, in the libertarian sense that most Christians assent too, actually existed. It doesnt, and is incoherent to boot.

asdf2231
02-22-2010, 11:14 PM
Lets try this then Wilbur...

NOBODY (including God) gives a crap what you think about religion. Or much of anything else.
Or you wouldn't spend so fricking much of your half ass pathetic life attacking strangers over something on the internet and behaving like some dumb-ass freshman with his first Philosophy 101 text.

wilbur
02-22-2010, 11:39 PM
Lets try this then Wilbur...

NOBODY (including God) gives a crap what you think about religion. Or much of anything else.

Or you wouldn't spend so fricking much of your half ass pathetic life attacking strangers over something on the internet and behaving like some dumb-ass freshman with his first Philosophy 101 text.

Lol - attacks upon strangers is almost entirely the sole content of this forum (whether one is bashing another poster, or liberals or somebody else) and its the only thing you do asdf.. please. That old Ron Paul insurgency that you love to scream about so much was the greatest thing that ever happened to you - it gave you strangers to yell at non-stop for months - and you still try and re-live those glory days.

Go Ron Paul!

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 11:42 PM
Irony: the fuel that drives the web.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 11:45 PM
Irony: the fuel that drives the web.

Iron won't burn. Ask DU!:D

The Night Owl
02-22-2010, 11:56 PM
Because, of course, a man would never allow a girl child to survive for any other reason, right?

Right. How silly of me to think that a conquering army which accepts a commission to slaughter men, women, and children might have less than wholesome plans for the female children they have been ordered to keep for themselves. No, nothing ominous there at all. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 11:58 PM
Right. How silly of me to think that a conquering army which accepts a commission to slaughter men, women, and children might have less than wholesome plans for the female children they have been ordered to keep for themselves. No, nothing ominous there at all. :rolleyes:
Go back to eating carrion or whatever you live on, she went to bed.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2010, 11:59 PM
Says the swine. :D

asdf2231
02-23-2010, 01:17 AM
Lol - attacks upon strangers is almost entirely the sole content of this forum (whether one is bashing another poster, or liberals or somebody else) and its the only thing you do asdf.. please. That old Ron Paul insurgency that you love to scream about so much was the greatest thing that ever happened to you - it gave you strangers to yell at non-stop for months - and you still try and re-live those glory days.

Go Ron Paul!


wtf are you babbling about?

People dont hate you because of Ron Paul... People hate you because you are fundamentally an unlikable prick.

That you hang in here being an annoying ass weavel is because you got your johnson bent out of shape during the retard invasion about how you were recieved, oh, EVERYWHERE when spreading the gospel of Paul. Whatever dude. Truth to tell since Dr Earmark went back to whatever obscurity hole he crawled out of most of us havent given him much thought.