Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 906 of 1484 (803725)
04-04-2017 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by Faith
04-04-2017 12:43 AM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
The Roman Empire faith you have is based on your view that the Roman Empire Councils are the source of your faith. You told me that salvation is on the line if one rejects the Roman Empire Councils starting in 325 AD.
You also have admitted that Paul isn't your source for your support for having the government outlaw same sex marriage.
Since the Roman Empire in the shadow of the Imperial Church outlawed gay marriage in 342 then I assume that you get your theology from the budding theocracy (soon it would become full blown theocratic hell though the once tolerant Roman Empire was getting really bad already before the middle fourth century and real Christians were about to become extinct ) on the marriage issue too.
But I'm still not sure what justification you have for opposition to secular government allowing gay marriage. You seem to have an ideological disposition for theocracy (the Roman Empire theocracy is your spiritual cradle ) and the idea of secular government is just not in your spiritual DNA. It is too repugnant for you to consider an ideal government unlike the Christian Roman Empire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Faith, posted 04-04-2017 12:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 929 by Faith, posted 04-04-2017 3:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 930 by Faith, posted 04-04-2017 4:13 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 961 of 1484 (803906)
04-05-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Faith
04-04-2017 4:13 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:
Your stuff is so confusing I often miss the obvious: There is no such thing as a "Roman Empire Council" let alone a "church" based on it. The early Councils were strictly a CHURCH MATTER, called to resolve problems within the Church, absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Roman Empire.
The Jerusalem council was called to resolve the problems that kept coming up between the strict Law-abiding Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians who were not under the Law because Christ had fulfilled it all. (The Jews weren't either of course but a lifetime of obedience to the Law couldn't be broken overnight, which is why the conflicts kept coming up).
Nicaea was called to deal with the heresy of Arius and it dealt with it and its decisions have come down to us as the Church's official resolution of the heresy for all to follow.
None of this has anything to do with the Roman Empire as such, it's all in-house decision-making. If you think Constantine's role in calling the council of Nicea and participating in it makes it a Roman Empire thing, it doesn't. He didn't influence the decision of the Council, the Christian leaders did all of that.
First the Jerusalem Council.
You say that the issue was to "resolve" the problems the Jews had with gentiles. That problem was circumcision - first and foremost. Read chapter 15 without your blinders on. Get the circumcision part in your head. They Jews were the ones that had to compromise. It didn't really hold up because James and Peter still were circumcising gentiles (see Galatians 2).
Read Acts 16.
quote:
Acts 16King James Version (KJV)
16 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
South Galatian setting. Paul circumcised the gentile Timothy just to avoid inflaming the Jewish Christians.
James sent emissaries to make sure gentiles were circumcised in Galatia. See Galatians.
You desperately want to avoid the implications that the kosher foods rules were a fundamental eternal law, so you have to keep inventing this issue that it was "just a rule to avoid offending Jews". Circumcision was that issue. (see Acts 21!)
And what does fornication have to do with any sort of Jewish Christian verses Gentile Christian dichotomy that you and Roman empire Christians dreamed up anyway?
NEXT ISSUE
As for the Arian issue, know that most bishops (even though Goths were excluded from participating in addition to Manicheans and Marcionites plus scores of others) in the 4th century were Arians.
I am short for time, but the Councils were pro-Arius after Nicea
quote:
Councils of Sirmium - Wikipedia
The Council of Sirmium generally refers to the third of the four episcopal councils held in Sirmium between 357 AD and 359 AD. Specifically one was held in 357, one in 358 and one in 359. The third council marked a temporary compromise between Arianism and the Western bishops of the Christian church. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. All of these councils were held under the rule of Constantius II, who was sympathetic to the Arians.
It was only after 380 that the Orthodox Trinity view was decided on and it was a power play by a biased Emperor.
First Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia
quote:
The First Council of Constantinople (Greek: commonly known as Greek: ’ , "Second Ecumenical"; Latin: Concilium Constantinopolitanum Primum or Latin: Concilium Constantinopolitanum A) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Constantinople in AD 381 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I.[1][2] This second ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[3] confirmed the Nicene Creed, expanding the doctrine thereof to produce the Niceno—Constantinopolitan Creed, and dealt with sundry other matters. It met from May to July 381 in the Church of Hagia Irene and was affirmed as ecumenical in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon.
Background[edit]
When Theodosius ascended to the imperial throne in 380, he began on a campaign to bring the Eastern Church back to Nicene Christianity. Theodosius wanted to further unify the entire empire behind the orthodox position and decided to convene a church council to resolve matters of faith and discipline.[4]:45 Gregory Nazianzus was of similar mind, wishing to unify Christianity. In the spring of 381 they convened the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.
Theological context[edit]
The Council of Nicaea in 325 had not ended the Arian controversy which it had been called to clarify. Arius and his sympathizers, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia were admitted back into the church after ostensibly accepting the Nicene creed. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the most vocal opponent of Arianism, was ultimately exiled through the machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of Constantine I in 337 and the accession of his Arian-leaning son Constantius II, open discussion of replacing Nicene creed itself began. Up until about 360, theological debates mainly dealt with the divinity of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. However, because the Council of Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, it became a topic of debate. The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was also known as Pneumatomachianism.
Nicene Christianity also had its defenders: apart from Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers' Trinitarian discourse was influential in the council at Constantinople. Apollinaris of Laodicea, another pro-Nicene theologian, proved controversial. Possibly in an over-reaction to Arianism and its teaching that Christ was not God, he taught that Christ consisted of a human body and a divine mind, rejecting Christ having a human mind.[5] He was charged with confounding the persons of the Godhead, and with giving into the heretical ways of Sabellius. Basil of Caesarea accused him of abandoning the literal sense of the scripture, and taking up wholly with the allegorical sense. His views were condemned in a Synod at Alexandria, under Athanasius of Alexandria, in 362, and later subdivided into several different heresies, the main ones of which were the Polemians and the Antidicomarianites.
Geopolitical context[edit]
Theodosius' strong commitment to Nicene Christianity involved a calculated risk because Constantinople, the imperial capital of the Eastern Empire, was solidly Arian. To complicate matters, the two leading factions of Nicene Christianity in the East, the Alexandrians and the supporters of Meletius in Antioch, were "bitterly divided ... almost to the point of complete animosity".[6]
The bishops of Alexandria and Rome had worked over a number of years to keep the see of Constantinople from stabilizing. Thus, when Gregory was selected as a candidate for the bishopric of Constantinople, both Alexandria and Rome opposed him because of his Antiochene background.
See of Constantinople[edit]
The incumbent bishop of Constantinople was Demophilus, a Homoian Arian. On his accession to the imperial throne, Theodosius offered to confirm Demophilus as bishop of the imperial city on the condition of accepting the Nicene Creed; however, Demophilus refused to abandon his Arian beliefs, and was immediately ordered to give up his churches and leave Constantinople.[7][8] After forty years under the control of Arian bishops, the churches of Constantinople were now restored to those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed; Arians were also ejected from the churches of other cities in the Eastern Roman Empire thus re-establishing Christian orthodoxy in the East.[9]
There ensued a contest to control the newly recovered see. A group led by Maximus the Cynic gained the support of Patriarch Peter of Alexandria by playing on his jealousy of the newly created see of Constantinople. They conceived a plan to install a cleric subservient to Peter as bishop of Constantinople so that Alexandria would retain the leadership of the Eastern Churches.[10] Many commentators characterize Maximus as having been proud, arrogant and ambitious. However, it is not clear the extent to which Maximus sought this position due to his own ambition or if he was merely a pawn in the power struggle.[citation needed] In any event, the plot was set into motion when, on a night when Gregory was confined by illness, the conspirators burst into the cathedral and commenced the consecration of Maximus as bishop of Constantinople. They had seated Maximus on the archiepiscopal throne and had just begun shearing away his long curls when the day dawned. The news of what was transpiring quickly spread and everybody rushed to the church. The magistrates appeared with their officers; Maximus and his consecrators were driven from the cathedral, and ultimately completed the tonsure in the tenement of a flute-player.[11]
The news of the brazen attempt to usurp the episcopal throne aroused the anger of the local populace among whom Gregory was popular. Maximus withdrew to Thessalonica to lay his cause before the emperor but met with a cold reception there. Theodosius committed the matter to Ascholius, the much respected bishop of Thessalonica, charging him to seek the counsel of Pope Damasus I.[12]
Damasus' response repudiated Maximus summarily and advised Theodosius to summon a Council of Bishops for the purpose of settling various Church issues such as the schism in Antioch and the consecration of a proper bishop for the see of Constantinople.[13] Damasus condemned the translation of bishops from one see to another and urged Theodosius to "take care that a bishop who is above reproach is chosen for that see."[14]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Faith, posted 04-04-2017 4:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 8:45 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 971 of 1484 (804047)
04-06-2017 3:47 PM


Exodus 22:21-25 is the only scripture relevant to abortion.
Google
Women are treated as a man's property.
He gets the "choice" to consider the fetus for whatever it is.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 973 of 1484 (804053)
04-06-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by Faith
04-05-2017 8:45 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:
Circumcision was the inciting cause. When the Jewish Council in Jerusalem understood that God was doing mighty acts among the Gentiles they realized they shouldn't put unnecessary burdens on the Gentiles, but nevertheless chose some observances to ask them to follow for the sake of fellowship. Yes they gave up circumcision. They COULD have given up all of it because none of it was required of believers in Christ, so the only reason they made it necessary was for the sake of fellowship. They are under grace, there is no more requirement to obey the Law, so the only reason they asked even a few things was to avoid offending the Jews. You can stop arguing and berating me about this. We disagree, leave it at that.
The earliest Acts manuscripts have "blood" as representing murder of humans and these 200 A.D. texts are seen as "moral" by all scholars (it removed "strangulation" or "what is strangled" all together to take food out of it, then added in a negative version of the Golden Rule "do not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you").
You keep ignoring "fornication".
Your argument would work (perhaps?) if circumcision was included part of the commands for gentiles and if it was clearly stated to be about not offending people instead of being presented as Post-Easter commands to follow.
And you still have the fornication problem.
quote:
Yes Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of not offending the Jews, but remember, Timothy had a Jewish mother so circumcision would have been appropriate in his case.
He was an uncircumcised gentile who was never in any way Jewish.
Scripture said that his Gentile father was the issue, and Jewish Christians would have asked to see his penis to make sure he was really part of The Way.
quote:
I suspect you are misreading Galatians 2 where you claim Peter and James were circumcising Gentiles because no such thing is going on. They are sent as apostles to "the circumcision," which means to the Jews, while Paul was sent to "the uncircumcision" which means to the Gentiles. I suspect you are misreading this.
See what it says. Pay attention to 2:12,2:14, and all of 3.
quote:
Galatians 2
King James Version (KJV)
....
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
....
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
....
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Chapter 3
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
....
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
....
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
....
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
....
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
....
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
See Genesis 15 for the covenant promise (Palestine and Syrian land) and the 400 year prediction. Genesis 17 is the circumcision "covenant". Exodus 12 says a stranger (Gentile!) must be circumcised to partake of the Passover meal.
quote:
The Jewish food laws were clearly shown to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 to no longer be in force, after which he was sent to take the gospel to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. I don't personally have any desire in the matter one way or another, all that matters is what the Bible says and God clearly lifted the dietary laws when the gospel went out to the Gentiles.
Nope.
Acts 10:28 said it was about uncircumcised gentiles NOT FOOD!
Your claim of "clearly lifting the dietary laws" is absurd since Peter was confused about the vision from the get go until he met the Italian. Then it was about calling uncircumcised gentiles common or profane. Ceremonially unclean for the feasts.
You yourself said the feasts were ceremonies that are no longer required.
The Acts 15 decision stated that the covenant applied to all mankind (see 15:15-19) and not just Israel and it had NOTHING to do with the land of Palestine and circumcision.
The Lords Supper is a parallel to the Passover though.
Romans 12
quote:
12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
See 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-26.
You yourself said ceremonial clean ness was no longer an issue.
Gentiles are no longer "dogs" or "pigs".
they are not profane or ceremonially unclean.
They are sacred and worthy of ritual slaughter.
Peter!
Slaughter and eat!
Acts 10:28 says it is about gentiles.
quote:
I'm simply not up to reading all the stuff you wrote after that. Please cease your bullying.
Because "all the stuff ...after that" showed that the "Church" that brought us the Councils, the decisions of which you hold to be the very fabric of (your) "Christianity", were made up of nothing more(or less) than Bishops appointed by the Roman Emperor.
We (now!)know what you mean by a STRICTLY CHURCH MATTER end quote.
The Roman Empire Christianity that you hold dear is strictly between you and the Roman Empire.
That is where you get your views that demand a government to outlaw same-sex marriage.
Your (churchish) Empire did it in 342.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 8:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 974 of 1484 (804054)
04-06-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by Faith
04-05-2017 8:45 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:
The Jewish food laws were clearly shown to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 to no longer be in force, after which he was sent to take the gospel to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. I don't personally have any desire in the matter one way or another, all that matters is what the Bible says and God clearly lifted the dietary laws when the gospel went out to the Gentiles.
Here is the word definition for Soma or body.
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 4983 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
soma from (4982)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Soma
Definition
1. the body both of men or animals a. a dead body or corpse
b. the living body 1. of animals
2. the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies)
3. is used of a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body a. so in the NT of the church
4. that which casts a shadow as distinguished from the shadow itself
Soma Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard
Romans 12:1 again
quote:
12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:23-26, and Colossians cover this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 8:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 982 of 1484 (804197)
04-07-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 976 by Dredge
04-07-2017 6:16 PM


Whose morality is more moral than whose (and what)?
I have recently grabbed some books (I often look for good deals but I try to grab books with diverse but serious subject matters ) and one is the highly regarded The Moral Animal by Robert Wright which is about the scientific evidence behind the evolution of morality.
Another book I have recently become the owner of (copy of one that is ) is the outstanding book Polio An American Story by a top notch historian Oshinsky.
I was literally pained to see that the Polio story was not the 100% uplifting tale of Americans coming together to find a cure to conquer this horrible illness that killed so many children.
You would find out that FDR made it a mission to raise funds for a Polio clinical camp in a town in Georgia that was meant to be a great salvation for all children that needed care.
It was open from (if I am remembering correctly ) 1930 to 1955.
So far so good?
The problem is that the people of Georgia felt that black children didn't deserve a chance to survive the terrifying disease and the sad truth is that not one single black child ever got treatment in the world renowned facility in Georgia.
The problem with Christian morality (untainted by evolution as it wasn't taught in public schools in those days ) is that there just never really was a cultural firewall, in Christian dominated places, that ensured the type of 'morality' that was centered around defending the human rights of all, but instead it seems that it was essentially a bulwark against line crossings that we now all recognize as NOT moral at all today but simply an expression of a cultural heritage that you and I would rather soon forget.
For all the complaints from fundamentalist Christians about cultural liberalism and relativism, the simple fact is that the much maligned evolutionists seem to get attacked for supporting the types of rights that are based on a fundamental moral expression of a desire to ensure a minimal level (at most) of suffering as opposed to flip flopping all over the place from one time and place by having one set of morals at one point and various others at another. The old so-called traditional morality was more of a judgmental thing than anything else, but it was never anything truely timeless and venerable in any genuine sense.
There is too much artificial selection in the memories of those who see the good old days as some great and moral Golden Age.
I see (often imposed ) poverty and death when I see the exact same 'Christian' culture that many want to see as morally outstanding. We agree that the (coincidentally? ) pre-Evolution-in-Classrooms days were different and - sure enough - did stand out. We even will agree that the racial culture was not only hateful but murderous.
We will disagree on what an ideal world is going to mean when we call it 'moral'.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 6:16 PM Dredge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 990 of 1484 (804227)
04-08-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 983 by Faith
04-07-2017 10:05 PM


The previous Western American civilization before Evolution brought changes.
quote:
evolution... has promoted a morality... the destruction of the moral framework of western civilization.
Evolution has taught us... Human life is devalued
....
What''s now to tell us that murder is wrong?
We can look into the historic clues to help to answer the question.
From Polio An American Story, which was after the 1896 beginnings of government enforced segregation, in the solid (fundamentalist Christian ) south, and just before the Federal government forced changes.
FDR looks at land in Georgia to purchase to help his Polio.
quote:
Pages
Seeking a cure for Polio he arrived at the tiny Bullochsville (soon to be renamed Warm Springs ) train station in October of 1924..."Really beautiful country, " he said.
Eleanor though otherwise. There was little about Warm Springs that appealed to her beyond Franklin's optimistic dream of recovery.... Rural southern life seemed "hard and poor and ugly. " The racism was appalling... "I can remember driving one day... to buy some chickens, " she wrote in her autobiography, " and my perfect horror when I learned I had to take them home alive... In Warm Springs they ran around our yard, until the cook wrung their necks amid much squawking and put them in the pot.... "
....
Page 39
For FDR, however, there was no turning back. He signed the real estate contract in April 1926. "I had a nice visit from [the Peabodys]," he told his mother, "and it looks as if I bought Warm Springs. " He had -- the inn, the cottages, the springs, and the surrounding acres -- at a cost of $200,000, about two-thirds of his personal fortune... Eleanor did not interfere ...one biographer noted: "For the first time in his life, Franklin had become fully engaged in something that promised to benefit others as well as himself. "
....
On the advice of Basil O'Connor, Roosevelt turned the property into a nonprofit institution, the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation...
....
Page 65
While O'Connor was fond of saying that "no victim of infantile paralysis, regardless of age,race , creed, or color, shall go without care for lack of money, "the fact remained that race did, indeed, play a role. In the era of Jim Crow, the National Foundation did not dare challenge the prevailing color line of the South. When Eleanor Roosevelt suggested that a cabin be built for "Negro polio victims " on the grounds at Warm Springs, she was told that "such a thing would not be desirable in Georgia. "
This is before evolution was allowed to be taught in Georgia. The "undesirable" lives of blacks being saved ran against the Christian culture in the Bible Belt.
This was just before the 1954 school desegregation ruling from the Federal government. In 1960, JFK risked loosing the entire south when he pushed for and got a strong civil rights platform for his party. In the midst of the presidential election, Dr. King was arrested in Georgia and sentenced to 4 months hard labor for simply taking part in a civil rights demonstration.
James Meredith had to get a federal court order to get admitted to the University of Mississippi and as he went to the University, the governor sent state troopers. Bobby Kennedy sent United States marshals to enforce court orders, protect Meredith, and ensure he could register.
A mob attacked the marshals and they begged permission to use gun fire on the mob.
Bobby knew that soldiers were required and JFK sent in thousands of soldiers!
Rights didn't come from the Bible Belt!
They were imposed from the larger body of Americans - that being the non-southern majority that determined the pro rights federal government policymakers. The more anti - creationism, pro-evolution part of the population decided to ensure that rights existed and were enforced.
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
We dare defend our rights.
This is the state motto of Alabama.
A state that was almost 50% black during slavery but didn't have rights according to the Bible Belt morality.
The rights for all lives came 100 years after slavery ended.
Blacks were 55% of the population in South Carolina during the Civil War but the unanimous creationism believing culture didn't even think that they had lives that counted anything like their proportion of the population.
Blacks were 57% of the population in Mississippi in the later 1800s and during the Civil War but they weren't counted as worthy of humanity.
We already saw in this thread that the 1967 Loving v Virginia marriage case was based around assaulting the "morality " that 72% of Virginians held - the morality being that God created the races to be separated and unequal in the value of their lives.
Creationism brought "rights" that devalued lives.
One must hope that a moral majority will fight hard for equal rights for ALL.
All men means "all men"
Gays included.
A court had to step in and throw out a 1998 Colorado vote when 54% voted in a referendum to make homosexual acts illegal.
Alabama will claim its rights are being trampled with legal gay marriage but they should have so-called "rights" and "morals" fought against and slayed as these morals have caused lives to end prematurely. Blacks in Alabama only lived to 30 on average all the way to the end of the 1800s. Ditto for Mississippi, where blacks were the majority but didn't count as full human beings.
Faith raised the issue of where the rights and values of what constitutes a "life" come from.
Study history and see if it was the Creationist culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1000 of 1484 (804355)
04-08-2017 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 983 by Faith
04-07-2017 10:05 PM


Faith attacks jar for ignoring her post 983 but ignores my earlier response. Take 2!
quote:
Based on the elimination of the Christianity-based morality of the west, that has made divorce easy, promoted sexual freedom without restriction, adultery, devalues marriage and the nuclear family, and now treats gay marriage as a "right."
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
We dare defend our rights.
This is the state motto of Alabama.
(or was a few decades ago and still might be)
Is there freedom from the restrictive secular (?) laws as Paul said or are "rights" essentially the right to oppress others?
If you disagree with my literal reading of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:12 then still respond please.
You have said repeatedly that your rights are being trampled.
You also said it is a sin to compare those whose rights you want the right to deny. post 367
quote:
There is no such thing as sexual orientation, homosexual acts are sin. Comparing it to race is in itself sin. WHICH DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE SINNER, BUT WE ALSO AREN"T TO TREAT THE SIN AS A MERE SEXUAL VARIATION, WHICH IS WHAT LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE ASKS OF US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1002 of 1484 (804359)
04-08-2017 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1001 by jar
04-08-2017 4:56 PM


Faith and her point (response to jar)
Her point about evolution being used to justify murder is annoying and misleading (I will get to that in a sec ) but it was used by various leaders in the relatively early decades (broadly speaking about a century or so ) to help justify murder and such.
Faith ignores the fact that the population was the first and foremost constituency of the leaders though. The population was part of a largely creation believing culture. The population was still old line creationist and the use of additional evolutionary arguments to supplement nationalism and murder was simply a case of overlap in a transforming world situation.
Her comment about the pro-democracy views of creationism really needs to be responded to rather fanatically however. The fact that our nation has been hurt so badly by the anti-democratic south (for some 200 years) demands a concentrated 24/7 endless response that should include loud shouting. ENDLESS RANTS about how southerners and J Edgar Hoover said that Dr Martin Luther King Jr was a liar who wanted voting rights for blacks just for the benefit of promoting socialism in the South. A "Negro Soviet republic " as Robert Welch said.
The rights of Alabama and Mississippians were audacious (the 1st person plural verb in the Alabama motto is the Latin word for audacity in English ) but the real audacity is when Faith invokes democratic tendency as a feature of creationism.
EDIT I should have said that the "rights" of the white minorities in states like Mississippi and South Carolina to oppose democracy ( just like Alabama ) were audacious enough. I failed to point out that most (57% being black! ) Mississippi folk weren't represented by that states policies during and after the Civil War.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1001 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 4:56 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 04-08-2017 7:39 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1005 of 1484 (804370)
04-08-2017 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Faith
04-08-2017 7:39 PM


Alabama state motto and "rights" !
You always say that ( "I can't follow you ") but you ended up confirming me when I kept saying that you explain away post-Easter commands as "ceremonial" like you did with the commands in Acts 15. You even acknowledged that "fornication" might have been a "ceremonial" issue once you looked into fundamentalist commentary that was desperately attempting to explain away the Acts 15 commands as "ceremonial".
All of that was after you dismissed out of hand my suggestion that Paul was talking about idol ceremonial practice in his denunciation of certain sexual activity in I Corinthians 6
You still ignore his ALL THINGS... LAWFUL comment while criticizing the sins in the same breath.
But what about Alabama claiming that it has been fighting for "rights" (civil war, Selma, segregation, etc. ) ?
You should know that the Alabama state motto is right along the lines of your "they oppose our rights " cry.
You have to know EXACTLY what I am asking you and why. (you put on a good "I don't understand " one too many times Faith)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 04-08-2017 7:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1006 by Faith, posted 04-08-2017 9:02 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 1008 of 1484 (804376)
04-08-2017 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1006 by Faith
04-08-2017 9:02 PM


Re: Alabama state motto and "rights" !
Alabama claims that "rights" were being DEFENDED by Governor Wallace in the 60s.
In the same exact way you talk about your "rights" coming under assault.
Think gay marriage.
Just think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by Faith, posted 04-08-2017 9:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 9:03 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1012 of 1484 (804427)
04-09-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1009 by Faith
04-09-2017 9:03 AM


Re: Alabama state motto and "rights" !
"I didn't read all you wrote earlier about Alabama "
You ignored my question about the (rarely mentioned ) very anti democratic nature about the "Christian civilization" that you feel the south superbly represents. In 1964 few blacks could even vote in the tyranny that was the deep south. Lyndon Johnson got 12% of the state vote ( I heard ) even though blacks were over 30% of the population and all supported Johnson.
It is the idea that the ONLY places that claim to be "defending Christian rights" by opposing gay rights were the same ones who denied blacks the right to vote. (among other basic rights )
The Alabama state motto seems to be your manifesto.
We Dare To Defend Our Rights
Sounds like you lifted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1009 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 9:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1013 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 2:13 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 1014 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 2:14 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1016 of 1484 (804441)
04-09-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1014 by Faith
04-09-2017 2:14 PM


Re: Oh blithering blathering nonsense about rights
I asked a question.
I didn't say you were a segregationist.
You keep talking about how bad California is compared to the red states.
You brought up the issue of anti-democracy ideologies.
You keep saying how brave you are to dare to defend your "rights"
You keep making your arguments. I keep asking questions but my questions don't assume your loaded premises. I ask questions that have integrity because they are consistent with reality. I don't accept your prerequisites. You have lots of loaded premises that are innacurate IMO and my questions don't assume that you are morally superior nor do they assume you represent any of the founders of Christianity. That seems to be your beef. I never attacked you though. You attacked me multiple times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by Faith, posted 04-09-2017 2:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1286 of 1484 (838282)
08-18-2018 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Faith
08-16-2018 11:22 AM


Sorting out animal food taboos based on symbols of idolatry.
quote:
just as the food laws only applied to Israel as symbolic of the idolatries they were to avoid
Explain what on earth you mean by this.
If you can't explain a thing (I suspect this is just some sound bite from you based on some European Roman Christian claim), then try to apply it in some way.
What would the cows in Hinduism have to do with Israelite food taboos?
(I kept this short and the questions are very plain and easy to undertsnad)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Faith, posted 08-16-2018 11:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1287 by Faith, posted 08-19-2018 12:01 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1288 of 1484 (838338)
08-19-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1287 by Faith
08-19-2018 12:01 PM


Re: Israel's food laws
quote:
Your mention of Hinduism's sacred cow is utterly incomprehensible in this context.
The food laws of ancient Israel had various purposes but keeping the nation separate from the heathen nations was a big part of them:
I will quote from Pere De Vaux later, and he will tell us the sources of Canaanite religion.
This is odd considering that bulls were about the favorite thing to worship and sacrifice. Baal and El were bulls. (This is just the start of oddities in your logic) (much more later)
Here is a quote from the book, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Gibson), p. 84-87
The Ugaritic "Ba'al and Yam" text.
quote:
Go up on to the tower and mount the shoulder of the wall;
lift up your hands (to) heaven
(and) sacrifice to the bull El your father,
make Baal to come down with your sacrifice,
the son of Dagon with your game.
Calf worship was popular in the whole region.
quote:
Ancient Calf Worship. The origin of animal worship is hidden in obscurity, but reverence for the bull and cow is found widespread among the most ancient historic cults. Even in the prehistoric age the influence of the bull symbol was so powerful that it gave its name to one of the most important signs of the Zodiac, and from early historic times the horns of the bull were the familiar emblem of the rays of the sun, and solar gods were very commonly represented as bull-gods (Jensen, Kosmologie, 62-90; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, 1901-5, passim; Jeremias, Das Alter der bah. Astronomie, 1909, passim). The Egyptians, close neighbors of the Hebrews, in all eras from that of the Exodus onward, worshipped living bulls at Memphis (not Mendes, as EB) and Hellopolls as incarnations of Ptah and Ra, while one of the most elaborate rituals was connected with the life-size image of the Hathor-cow (Naville, Deir el Bahari, Part I (1907), 163-67), while the sun was revered as the "valiant bull" and the reigning Pharaoh as "Bull of Bulls." But far more important in this connection is the fact that "calf" worship was almost if not quite universal among all the ancient Semitic peoples. If the immediate ancestors of Abraham did not revere this deity, they were certainly quite unlike their relatives, the Babylonians, among whom, according to all tradition, they lived before they migrated to Israel (Gen 11:28,30; Josephus, Ant, I, vi, 5), for the Babylonians revered the bull as the symbol of their greatest gods, Ann and Sin and Marduk--the ideograph of a young bullock forming a part of the latter's name--while Hadadrimmon, an important Amorite deity, whose attributes remarkably resemble those of Yahweh (see Ward, AJSL, XXV, 175-85; Clay, Amurru (1909), 87-89), is pictured standing on the back of a bull. In Phoenicia also the bull was a sacred animal, as well as in northern Syria where it ranked as one of the chief Hittite deities its images receiving devout worship (see further, Sayce, Encyclopedia of Rel. and Ethics, under the word "Bull"). Among all these peoples the cow goddess was given at least equal honor. In Babylonia the goddess Ishtar has the cow for her symbol on very ancient seal cylinders, and when this nude or half-nude goddess appears in Israel she often stands on a bull or cow (see William Hayes Ward, Cylinders and Other Ancient Oriental Seals), and under slightly different forms this same goddess is revered in Arabia, Moab, Phoenicia, Syria and elsewhere, while among the Semitic Canaanites the bull was the symbol of Baal, and the cow of Astarte (see particularly Barton, Hebraica, IX, 133-63; X, 1-74, and Semitic Origins, chapter vii; Driver, "Astarte" in DB). Recent excavations in Israel have shown that during all eras no heathen worship was as popular as that of Astarte in her various forms (see S. A. Cook, Rel. of Ancient Israel, 1909). That she once is found wearing ram's horns (PEFS (1903), 227) only reveals her nature more clearly as the goddess of fertility.
Ancient Bull Worship - Background Bible Study (Bible History Online) - Bible History
Father De Vaux mentions three primary sources for Canaanite religion, but he leaves out Herodotus.
More on that later.
quote:
Ancient Israel: Its Life and Instructions
By Roland De Vaux
p.438
3. Canaanite Sacrifices
Our knowledge of Canaanite sacrifices comes from three different sources: th allusions in the Bible, or the condemnations which it utters against the cult of the Baals and the Astartes when the Israelites took part in them, inscriptions from the Phoenician homeland and from its colonies, and the texts of Ras Shamra.
Among the biblical references, we must first set aside all that is not strictly Canaanite, such as the late Assyrian cults, like the cult of starts (2 K 21:3b; 23:5b: Jr 44:15-25), and the syncretist or mystery-rites menyioned in the late texts (Ez. 8:7-13; Is 65:2-5; 66:3). If we set aside sacrifices of babies also..., then, according to the biblical evidence, Canaanite sacrifices do not seem to be materially different from those which were offered to Yahweh.
... The description of the sacrifice on Carmel (1 K 18) tells how the prophets of Baal and Elias himself propared their holocausts in the same way, and the point of the story is lost if this was not the normal way of offering sacrifice to Baal. Jehu is supposed to be following the Canaanite ritual in the story about the temple of Baal (2 K 10:18-27), and both zebah and 'olah are mentioned there.
zevach means sacrifice (the "h" in the quote had a dot under it)
'olah means whole or burnt offering
See 2 Kings 5
Naaman (the Syrian who lived right near the Canaanites) offered zevach ( or plural zevachim) and 'olah (plural 'oloth) to other Gods.
Naaman then said he would do the same thing for Yahweh!
The practices were the same.
The sacrificial animals were about the same.
Exodus mentions that ALL animals are to be sacrificed when the firstborn is conserned, so there were general sacrifices that included perhaps everything. There are animals that are to be used in SPECIFIC SACRIFICES mentioned in the Abraham story and throughout the Torah.
Faith, you then said.
quote:
Pork for instance:
...The Canaanites kept herds of swine and sacrificed them to idols. The connection between swine and pagan worship became so strong that the prophet Isaiah equated the sacrificial offering of pig’s blood with murderboth are called abominations (Isaiah 66:3).
This is a common fundamentalist lie. (Faith's source claim)
Isaiah 66:3 in no way is referring to anyone but Israelites (unless there was syncretic practices which mixed religions but it WAS NOT CANAANITE PRACTICES)
I can tell you that Herodotus wrote at just about the same time as 2 Isaiah and he very clearly said Canaanites did not eat pork ANYWHERE (unless my memory is failing me).
Also, the Canaanite's didn't eat pork in the 2OO A.D. period ANYWHERE. We know that from Porphyry of Tyre.
John Calvin himself made this comment, and the lie continues.
quote:
it is probable that the Prophet alludes to the sacrifices of the Gentiles
There has never been a demonstration that Canaanites offered swine (though some Canaanite areas had swine).
The Ugaritic Offering lists have lists of sacrificial animals, and swine/pigs are totally absent.
Egyptians probably never sacrificed swine until the Greeks brought Baachus. Highly doubtful it was earlier as the pig was taboo.
quote:
Mekal: The God of Beth-Shan
Henry O. Thompson
p.140
Though normally the Egyptians thought the pig was "unclean", once a year they sacrificed swine to the moon and to Baachus, of Osiris/Horus, and ate the pork. One view of the Set-animal is that it is a type of pig. Muller even suggested that this later association is the origin for the whole religious prejudice of Asia and Africa against pork.
....
Gray points out the lack of swine in the offering lists from Ras Shamra. He suggests that this may indicate it was taboo among the Canaanites, from whom the Hebrew borrowed it.
Though "normally" will always have lots of exceptions.
quote:
The Ugaritic texts give us firsthand information on the Baal cult, and the ideas and ideals of the people of Canaan at the time of the Biblical patriarchs.
Sacrifices mentioned in the Ugaritic texts bear names similar to those of the Biblical sacrificial system. The Ugaritic texts speak of burnt offerings, whole burnt offerings, trespass offerings, wave offerings, peace offerings, firstfruits offerings, new moon offerings and others. As in the Biblical sacrifices, it was necessary that animals offered be without blemish.
Ugarit - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
The Israelites got everything from the Canaanites.
The taboos against pork were common in the entire area and the sacrificial system was from the Canaanites.
This quote of yours (the source) in in the tradition of never ending lies.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1287 by Faith, posted 08-19-2018 12:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1289 by Phat, posted 08-19-2018 4:56 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 1290 by Faith, posted 08-19-2018 5:05 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024