|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Indoctrination of Children | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5265 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:Oh, that's possible. I'm just telling people what the Bible says. I wish it wasn't necessary to tell people what my posts say!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ochaye responds to me:
quote: Oh really? The Bible says a lot of things. You're being quite selective.
quote: It would help if you would say what you mean rather than leaving it to people to guess. If you don't really mean the point you are trying to make but simply are presenting it as the ideas of another group, then why don't you say that? Do you not believe it? Do you reject this interpretation of the Bible? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1967 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
cavediver writes: Christianity is the easiest get-out card in the world for excusing oneself from living up to one's responsibilities. Having spent over two decades of my life as a 'born-again' Christian, I have seen it again and again and again... pathetic How on earth do you conclude Christianity as issuing any kind of 'get out' card - given that we (Christians) must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ? Perhaps you mean that 'knowing you won't be damned' is misconstrued by some (probably all, at times) as a 'freedom not to live up to ones responsibilities'. But any 'get out' card connected with such behaviour is purely illusionary - the product of a sorely mistaken Christians thinking - something I'm sure you'll agree Christianity as stating? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to cavediver:
quote: Because if only you believe and accept Jesus into your heart, you will achieve salvation. Sounds like a get-out-of-jail card to me.
quote: Not at all, for a significant number of Christians believe it and can point you to the textual justification for it. It sounds like your response is merely that you don't like their interpretation, and we start descending into a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1967 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Because if only you believe and accept Jesus into your heart, you will achieve salvation. Sounds like a get-out-of-jail card to me. I suppose it depends on what you call jail. The born again Christian isn't involved in a race for his salvation so deprivation for 'not living up to his responsibilities' won't involve his salvation. Which is not to say that no consequences attach to his behaviour. Or that these can't be extremely unpleasant.
Not at all, for a significant number of Christians believe it and can point you to the textual justification for it. It sounds like your response is merely that you don't like their interpretation, and we start descending into a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. I was addressing a person who described themselves as a (once) born again Christian and am supposing an answer from that perspective. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: You mean hell isn't as bad as jail?
quote: But the point is that you can have this "born again moment" at any time. How convenient.
quote: If you're talking about a Catholic-like concept of purgatory before ascension to heaven, you're still talking about a get-out-of-jail card. The fact that you can get out of eternal punishment simply by having a moment of clarity is awfully convenient.
quote: That doesn't solve the problem. You're still looking at a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Is this story from Steve Palmer how it starts for most evangelicals? i find asking this question on a secular scientific board quite humorous. for some evangelists, using hell is appropriate because they want to save souls from the torment that is coming BUT most seek to show that an unsaved person is in need of a savior and if hell is mentioned it is because it is part of the facts and you do not hide the facts from those you are trying to convert. you do not lie or hide information and Jesus did not thus the christian cannot do less than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Hello arch - hope things are well with you ..
for some evangelists, using hell is appropriate because they want to save souls from the torment .. you do not lie or hide information and Jesus did not thus the christian cannot do less than that.
How can anyone be 'lying' or 'hiding information' when they aren't informed - none of our popular concepts of hell can be found in Joshua's teachings. Our most influential concepts of hell come from the same place that purgatory did, which is the Roman Universal Church, Dante Alighieri and John Milton1. The first step I might suggest in understanding Joshua's teaching's is to eliminate the stumbling block that the reactionaries who edited the common bible introduced by indiscriminately translating three different words in those various manuscripts as 'hell': sheol, hades, and Gehinnom or Gehenna. Matter of factly, the Anointed One and his brother James are the only souls within the entirety of the greek manuscripts to employ the word Gehinnom. Gehinnom is an actual location in the TaNaKh, being derived from a valley near Yerusalem which originally belonged to a man named Hinnom. Scholarship suggests the word's a transliteration of the 'Valley of the Sons of Hinnom' and that valley had a long history - with all of it ending badly, which included being the location of various child sacrifices to Moloch back in the good ol' days of Ahaz and Manasseh, in the original manuscripts the Yuhdeans possessed. So, being that Gehinnom is a proper name like 'Rio Grande Valley', the redactor had no business translating the word as 'hell'. Perhaps every 'christian' could study these things, considering - as is evident, the two words have nothing in common and, fortunately, there are only a dozen Gehinnom passages. Forced theological assumptions pertaining to the fiery eternal damnation of us wicked heathens has done more than its fair share of unfathomable damage in the realm of religious traditions. Indeed, while untold millions of people have made great attempts to obey what they have been told is God - out of the pure terrorism of an abstract concept of Gehinnon, other untold millions have turned their backs on the Father because of this same false sense of 'hell', as described by sources provided by the Roman Universal Church and its proselytes, as well as, later Protest movements that sustain its perverse theology. In all fairness, the initial use of the term Gehinnom - attributed to Joshua, was actually it's first time being employed within the context of an inspired writing. It seems rather significant that the word did not even occur once in the greek Septuagint, allegedly quoted by Joshua and his brothers. Yochanan the Immerser - who's depicted preaching a baptism of repentance to even the most wicked of Yuhdeans, is not alleged to have spoken it even once. What's more, Uncle Paul does not mention Gehinnom even once in any of the fourteen documents attributed to him and we have no witness to suggest that the authors of Peter's or Jude's booklets employed it. Finally, the author of John, who's alleged to have penned the manuscript taking that name - plus three epistles and the Unveiling, never employs it in even one single bingle instance. Now if Gehinnom or 'hell' truly reveals the horrific and terrible fact of an endless woe that so many are destined for, how does one then account for this bizarre silence? How is it possible, if those who learned from Joshua indeed knew the meaning of Gehinnom equated to the latter Roman invention of 'hell' - and believed it a part of the Anointed One's teaching, that they should not have used it a hundred or a thousand times, instead of never using it at all?
{crickets, crickets} When Joshua spoke of unquenchable fire in the booklet attributed to Mark in chapter 9 verse 43, he used language that his Yuhdean listeners would associate with the national judgments the Father was depicted as casting upon various nations within the original testaments that the Yuhdeans were in possession of. In fact, they had never heard such language used any other way and if you have, I contend it is not from any teaching in a common bible. So, when we read the word 'hell' and all kinds of sermon outlines and preconcieved dogma enter our minds, we may be wise to take note that none of these illustrations exsisted within the minds of Joshua's listeners, being that they had never before heard the word in inspired speech and all. Also, in order to better understand Joshua's first use of Gehinnom within the Sermon on the Mount, you may do well to consider the pronouncement attributed to Yochanan the Immerser at Matis 3:11,12 where it is written, "I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am — of whom I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.". Now consider - was this 'fire' the same fire that Malachi earlier spoke of in his booklet, as well as, the fire later referenced by Joshua ? May peace come upon you .. One Love
1 ~ All of which borrowed from Greek mythology. Edited by Bailey, : additional comments .. Edited by Bailey, : modified subtitle relevancy I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
none of our popular concepts of hell can be found in Joshua's teachings. that i snot true and using the hebrew word for Jesus does not lend itself to communication or you any credivbility. Jesus talked about hell in Mt. 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 23:33, Mk. 9:43, 45,47; Lk 12:5, 16:23 plus it is discussed in James, 2 peter and Revelation so hell is firmly talked about and gives an exact description of what it will be like. plus other words are used as well, like 'lake of fire, etc.,)
the redactor this is a weak attempt by you and other secular scholars to make the Bible a human book. if the dead sea scroll sdid anything, it showed that many copyists were listening to the Holy Spirit and they did not change one word in the Bible. yes we have those that altered the Bible but they were not believers of followers of God.
Roman Universal Church there is and was no suchthing as the Roman universal church.if you are referring to the RCC then say RCC but do not falsely imply that the RCC was the only church in exitence, it was not. {crickets, crickets} this almost stoppe dme from responding to you. if ou cannot be realistic then i won't respond in the future. in reading your post i see you are not a true christian and do not have the understanding of the Bible thatthe Holy Spirit provides. God is very clear thatunbelievers do not grasp biblical teachings. you may be jewish but it stillapplies because they reject Jesus as the messiah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Also, in order to better understand Joshua's first use of Gehinnom within the Sermon on the Mount, you may do well to consider the pronouncement attributed to Yochanan the Immerser at Matis 3:11,12 where it is written, "I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am — of whom I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.". Now consider - was this 'fire' the same fire that Malachi earlier spoke of in his booklet, as well as, the fire later referenced by Joshua ? exact references are required for both references or links to same. oh an di am not impressed because you chose to write the hebrew versions of their names. you do not grasp biblical teaching as the fire mentioned by john the baptist is not the same as hellfire.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024