Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:18 AM
339 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11840
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 31 of 111 (388616)
03-06-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 5:15 PM


Re: Confused in California.
I don't think you can say that foolishness is necessarily false.

Let me try an analogy.

Your whole post conveyed a message that I'm assuming is the truth for this analogy. If I read it and offered my wisdom that "Your post was typed in English." We could consider that foolishness (when compared to the wisdom provided by the actual points it was making) but that doesn't make it false (which it wasn't).

So, the wisdom we have (which can be truthful) is negligible (foolishness) to the wisdom of god not that our wisdom is false.

Does that make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 5:15 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 111 (388618)
03-06-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Confused in California.
Does that make sense?

Whether it makes sense is not relevant. What is relevant is what was intended in the biblical passage. I think most believe that in this instance foolishness means false. I agree that in other contexts it can have other meanings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2007 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2007 10:44 AM AnswersInGenitals has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 33 of 111 (388622)
03-06-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 5:15 PM


Re: Confused in California.
AIG writes:

This passage confuses me greatly.

This passage, as far as it has been used throughout the thread, has never, as many times as I have read it, seemed confusing, ambiguous, contradictory, or controversial.

The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

All that we can ever possibly learn is as nothing compared to what God knows.

Am I reading this wrong, in taking the words 'wisdom' and 'foolishness' to mean quantities of knowledge rather than opposites?

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 5:15 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 8:03 PM anastasia has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 34 of 111 (388639)
03-06-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by anastasia
03-06-2007 2:01 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Inerrancy undoubtedly has to do with textual accuracy, but I do not believe that this means every word, or as they say, every jot and tittle, is perfectly preserved, BUT that all due care has been observed in preserving the authors' intentions and meanings, and thus, the texts which we use can be 'trusted' to the ultimate extent.

That works for me. The only real questionable piece of Scripture that has stumped me to this day is found in the Book of Acts. (I'm feeling lazy today, so please forgive for not fishing for the exact verses). Anyway, the subject is about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. In one portion of the book, it describes Luke talking about what happened to Paul. In a proceeding chapter, however, it gives a conflicting account as it reverses what was supposed to have happened. Its very minor and it doesn't change the tone of the story at all, but, if inerrancy was to mean that the Bible contains no textual errors, this one seems to clearly undermine that belief.

To this day, no one has been able to give me a reason for the disparity.

As you can see below, the 'human element' is noted, which involves discrepency in language and copying, presumably.

I know that the Bible is one of the most reliable series of documents in its accuracy of transcription over the millennia. Comparing the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Masoretic text, and the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that the Bible we have in our hands today is nearly identical to what they were using 2,500 years ago.

The big issue is translation, IMO.

Absolutely. The English language is not nearly as sophisticated or in depth as, say, Greek. And because their language was so much more expansive, this is why we need a good concordance to accurately translate the meaning of any given word.

The church absolutely holds to the entire Bible as inerrant, not, as I would have thought, only those aspects pertaining to faith and morals. Yes, even the science! But therein is the gaping gigantic loophole...how literally do we interpret the parts having to do with science?

I have a very basic way of interpreting scripture. In my opinion, Scripture must be read as literature. In other words, if we want to interpret the Bible the literally, we have to first interpret it as literature, while paying close attention to genre and figures of speech. Most scripture is particular to this because the Bible is a historical narrative that is interlaced with symbolism, often formatted in a poetic structure.

In contrast, if we were to reduce the Bible to a mere allegory that conveys only abstract ideas without any real correlation to history, then we would miss the other intent. The biblical narrative descirbes scripture in a way that it evidently speaks about actual events in human history, but there is usually an underlying message just below the surface. The significance of the story is not always found in the story itself. Even though it is factual the real treasure lies within the integrated message.

Much, if not most of the Bible, is homiletical. God is providing for us a sermon intended to edify the believer or to bring about repentance to the unbeliever. But, if we were to look at the story of Adam and Eve simply as the first human beings on earth, we would overlook the true intent of the story. The true message is one about habitual sin and the consequences for rebellion.

I think the Hebrews of old and even many contemporary Jews have a good system. As far as I can tell, they've always maintained a system of decoding, if you will, in the Midrash, which is a specific way of interpreting the Bible. It is divided into four examinations, to which they refer to as, "peshat, remez, derash, and sod. Peshat is the straight up way of reading the Bible for face value and trying to extract meaning there. Remez is hints or allusions that are waiting to be uncovered. Derash is the exegetical way of analyzing the scriptures. And sod seeks to uncover the mystical meaning behind the text. When all are combined, the reader, in my opinion, can best understand what exactly what the intent of the verse is trying to elucidate.

There are also other parts, even possibly including Genesis, which, when not interpreted so literally, do not directly contradict scientific discovery.

This is the way Josephus describes Moses' motivations in Genesis. Extrapolate what you will from it. After he describes the first portion of Genesis quite literally, he says about Moses:

"Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living." -Flavius Josephus

Josephus seems to agree that much of the Bible, even portions of Genesis, is figurative or allegorical.

When all is said and done, if it comes down to belief in the Bible or doubt of it, it IS the matters of faith and morals which save, (not the history or the science) and these are confirmed in their usefullness by daily life.

I agree.


"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:26 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 47 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2007 12:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 111 (388641)
03-06-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
03-06-2007 6:14 PM


Re: Confused in California.
Am I reading this wrong, in taking the words 'wisdom' and 'foolishness' to mean quantities of knowledge rather than opposites?

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: fool·ish
Pronunciation: 'fü-lish
Function: adjective
1 : lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion
2 a : ABSURD, RIDICULOUS b : marked by a loss of composure : NONPLUSSED
3 : INSIGNIFICANT, TRIFLING

The first definition applies to a person who is foolish, not to the foolishness of wisdom. The second definition seems to be pertinent here and says that something that is foolish is not just wrong, but is absurdly wrong. The third definition seems to agree with your interpretation. So it appears that we're both right, both wrong, both wise, and both foolish. Anyone know what the original language text said and its possible interpretations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 6:14 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 8:28 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 36 of 111 (388644)
03-06-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 8:03 PM


Re: Confused in California.
AIG writes:

Anyone know what the original language text said and its possible interpretations?

The original word used in the Greek of Corinthians, is moria; folly, absurdity, imbecility, foolishness.

It still works for me...compared to what God knows and His wisdom, I am sure that ours is foolish.

Or, you may take it another route, and ask what was really meant; it may be a simple notice of the duality of man. One part God talking, one part man. Try it the other way...the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world...and I think you will catch what I mean. :)

But if you remember, Ringo and others said that the wisdom of the world is all we have. That is the response which seems logical, but Paul was a religious man. In religion, there is not only one force at work in men, even though both speak through men. So we could say that all wisdom is of God, and without Him would be foolishness.

Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 8:03 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 37 of 111 (388652)
03-06-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
03-06-2007 5:11 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
So, based on what you said, would you agree that it was the right thing for christians to have captured non-christians from africa and civilize or "free the captives" by enslaving them and teaching them the word of god?

When the Bible talks about "setting the captives free," it is an allegory hinting to the Egyptian and Babylonian captivity of the Jews to be a representation for sin. So if said that Jesus came to free the captives, it means to set us free from sin.

I'm sorry, I'm not a poetic person at all. I tend to read things directly rather than try to drown the other person in obscurity.

Not a problem.

I'm an atheist and I haven't raped or murdered anyone.

I think you would agree that immoral behavior extends beyond rape and murder.

[qs]But history have clearly shown us that these so-called clear guidlines also changes over time. It was the christian thing to burn witches at the stake. It was the christian thing to hang witches a salem. You are conflating a fringe community in a small city to speak on behalf of all Christendom. That would be as unfair for me saying that because you are an atheist, and so was Stalin, that you must somehow agree that the mass murder of millions of people was perfectly fine behavior.

It was the christian thing to consider non-christian subhuman.

When was it okay to consider non-christians as subhumans?

It was the christian thing to bring about the white man's burden.

The white man's burden? I'm not familiar with this terminology. Can you expound for me please?

What you state as "clear guidelines" are exactly like any other form of moral guideline. Every moral guideline that's ever existed either changes over time or simply disappear.

Not really, because the moral guideline is established as absolute in the Bible. People's severe audacious misinterpretation of scripture is something totally different.

Was it a christian thing for the crusaders to kill every man, woman, and child who inhabited Jerusalem before the first crusade?

The reasons and history behind the Crusades is seriously in question as to what actually happened and what the motivations were. The Crusades were every bit political as it was a religious endeavor. There is too much to cover concerning the Crusades, so I'm going to defer to an article that I read fairly recently that attempts to rescue fact from fiction.

I simply don't know why you would claim, or imply, that there is such a thing as a christian guideline that is unchangeble.

I mean that the gospel narrative is the guideline and that it is not subject to amendment and that it is as applicable today as it was when it was first penned.

We feel obligated to point out everytime one of you do something against what you preach is because christianity is currently a very powerful force in the richest and most powerful nation in the world and it continues to seek out new groups of people to oppress.

Seek out new people to "oppress?" Can you explain this to me, and please leave out the melodrama?

Rock 'n Roll used to be music of the devil, remember?

According to fringe Christians in America, during a very specific time. You are aware that Christians exist, and have always existed in other nations, right?

All homosexuals used to be pedophiles, remember?

No, I don't remember that.

God used to not want women to vote, remember?

No, I don't remember that. Show in the Bible where God doesn't want women to vote. You seem to misunderstand culture and custom with religious beliefs.

But the main reason why we point out everytime one of you do something counter to biblical claim is because on other issues "the bible says so" seem to be your only defense.

It doesn't really matter if the bible is not a source for inspiration to you.

Yes, and our own set of morals are very simple.

That they are set so low that breaking it is virtually impossible, or that it has special clauses and amendments for why something doesn't really go against their own morals?

Common human decency tells me that people of other races and cultures are people, too, and should be treated with respect... etc, etc

Then you are in agreement with Jesus' Golden Rule.

Now, let's look at all the above examples from a christian perspective. A christian would help another person to buy a ticket into heaven. Either that or they don't want to burn in hell.

Taz, its obvious that you don't have the faintest idea about the Christian perspective, otherwise, you wouldn't make these erroneous claims. You can't "buy" your way into heaven. The Bible is littered with things that clearly say otherwise. Before you knock the Bible, understand what it actually says. And if you still agree with your original sentiment, then at least you will be well-informed.

Just how many valuable artifacts and monuments have been destroyed so the local people could be converted to christianity?

You seem to know the answer since you are making the claim, which I can guess means that you have evidence of this destruction.

And let's not forget this very EvC debate that we have. Do you know how many times I've cringed my teeth because a christian have decided that a single google search would make him smarter and more knowledgable than the rest of us?

How many times? I should add that Google doesn't make anyone smarter, and that knowledge and intelligence shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

These christian guidelines you speak of have done nothing to protect the rest of us from the christian majority. If anything, minority groups have always had to struggle for their "godgiven rights" without the support of the major churches.

Since this country is unambiguously borne under the umbrella of the Christian ethos, I don't think you are in any position to say otherwise.

Sorry, I'm more left-brain person than right brain. Could you be kind enough to translate what you wrote there to something less... nonsensical? It's not you. It's me. I consider myself handicapped when it comes to all this poetic bullshit.

I would translate it for you if I didn't strongly suspect that it would make a difference. You seem bent on throwing a pity party. Blow out the candles and make a wish.


"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 5:11 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 38 of 111 (388654)
03-06-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

The link above is very, very good, but the typos are atrocious!

You said;

The only real questionable piece of Scripture that has stumped me to this day is found in the Book of Acts. (I'm feeling lazy today, so please forgive for not fishing for the exact verses). Anyway, the subject is about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

I know the story...I believe that you are conflating inspiration and textual inerrancy. If the Bible is inspired of God, why would there be disparate passages? To solve this, you need to determine what the church has to say about inspiration. Thus, the link above.

In brief, inspiration is the stirring of the author to write, and that, by the power of the Holy Spirit. This can be done via ecstacy, perhaps like Revelations, or through a normal human motive to write, whilst the author is not aware of the divine. At the very least, God guides the person into picking up the pen, and to writing faithfully what he or she recalls. As the link says, there is no ready-made document. We have in your question two different authors recalling the same event, Paul was at the scene, I forget if Luke was.

You may ascribe error to God, or to Luke, or to a copyist. Textually inerrancy, if I understand correctly, means that the book will be preserved in its original intentions and language as far as possible. Inspiration means that God 'caused' the person to write because He wished the story to be preserved. In either case, there is room for error.

For example, we can talk about copyist errors. Would God allow this? Sure. God allows people now to produce Bibles that are absolutely wrong in translation. There are countless purposeful and accidental mistakes in printing, etc.

What is vital, is that at some point, someone wrote the texts that are still with us, and under some inspiration of God. God wished them written. and God wished them preserved. There is one minor discrepancy between Luke and Paul, which could easily be a copy error, or a faulty memory on the part of one or the other. There is no teaching that says God dictated every word, or that He guided every copyist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:49 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2007 12:10 PM anastasia has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 904 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 39 of 111 (388661)
03-06-2007 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 9:46 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
nemesis writes:

You are conflating a fringe community in a small city to speak on behalf of all Christendom. That would be as unfair for me saying that because you are an atheist, and so was Stalin, that you must somehow agree that the mass murder of millions of people was perfectly fine behavior.


Well, you were the one that claimed there are specific christian guidelines and that you implied these guidelines are perfect. Salem is an example of a christian community following your christian guidelines and killed innocent people. Also, I'd hardly call Europe a small town during the inquisition.

Your Stalin example would make more sense if I make a claim that there is an "atheist" guideline to morality that is perfect. But as you can see, people like me make no such claim.

When was it okay to consider non-christians as subhumans?

You should look up Sicut Dudum, Dum Diversas, and Sublimis Deus. Read them (or read about them) and tell me what you think.

The white man's burden? I'm not familiar with this terminology. Can you expound for me please?

Sure. It was the idea that the white man has the burden to "educate" the rest of the world our superior way of life, speicifically our religion (christianity) by enslaving other races and telling them that if they obey their white masters they will be rewarded in heaven.

Not really, because the moral guideline is established as absolute in the Bible. People's severe audacious misinterpretation of scripture is something totally different.

Oh, so we still can't eat shellfish? What about wearing clothing made of different types of fabrics? The shirt I am wearing now is made of cotton and polyester. Am I going to hell for it?

The reasons and history behind the Crusades is seriously in question as to what actually happened and what the motivations were. The Crusades were every bit political as it was a religious endeavor. There is too much to cover concerning the Crusades, so I'm going to defer to an article that I read fairly recently that attempts to rescue fact from fiction.

I'm not talking about the reason(s) behind the crusades. Do you or do you not agree that every man, woman, and child inhabiting the city of Jerusalem were slain by the christian crusaders during the first crusade? If so, then you've admitted that the christian guidelines you've referred to didn't seem to stop the crusaders from killing tens of thousands of innocents. What make you think these guidelines are going to make people good these days?

I mean that the gospel narrative is the guideline and that it is not subject to amendment and that it is as applicable today as it was when it was first penned.

Ok... so, am I going to hell for wearing clothing made of different types of fabric?

Seek out new people to "oppress?" Can you explain this to me, and please leave out the melodrama?

Oh, sure. First, it was the heathens. Then the jews. After Oliver Cromwell took over, the irish catholics were oppressed. Then the wise women were burned at the stake for witch craft. Then the muslims.

Fast forward in time.

Africans were regarded as subhuman (read the 3 I cited above) and enslaved. Then they were emancipated but they were still segregated. Then god didn't want them to be equal. Then god didn't want women to vote. Then Rock 'n Roll became the music of the devil.

Now, the gays are targeted by christians. Please don't even try to deny this. I've read enough church signs about how evil the gays are.

According to fringe Christians in America, during a very specific time. You are aware that Christians exist, and have always existed in other nations, right?

Again, it was an example, out of many, that this so-called christian moral guideline thingy is far from perfect.

Would you, then, call yourself a fringe christian for opposing evilution while advocating a world wide flood that left behind absolutely no evidence?

Look, we don't have to look far to see what I've been saying. Remember Rob? Your christian guidelines didn't seem to stop him from talking about things he knew nothing about. If anything, there should be a passage in the bible that forbids people from talking out of their asses to save the rest of us some dentist money... people like me cringe everytime we see something like this.

No, I don't remember that. Show in the Bible where God doesn't want women to vote. You seem to misunderstand culture and custom with religious beliefs.

You really want me to start citing the same bible passages people used back in the old days to justify their unwillingness to see women as equal?

That they are set so low that breaking it is virtually impossible, or that it has special clauses and amendments for why something doesn't really go against their own morals?

Oh? Such as...?

Then you are in agreement with Jesus' Golden Rule.

Um... jesus didn't come up with the golden rule. It existed long before jesus was ever born. And no, jesus did not invent the internet either.

Taz, its obvious that you don't have the faintest idea about the Christian perspective, otherwise, you wouldn't make these erroneous claims. You can't "buy" your way into heaven. The Bible is littered with things that clearly say otherwise. Before you knock the Bible, understand what it actually says. And if you still agree with your original sentiment, then at least you will be well-informed.

Hey, I used to be one of you. But don't take my word for it. Check out the following link.

I know what you are saying, but clearly christians aren't really doing what the bible says, like love thy neighbor and fucking leave the gays alone.

You seem to know the answer since you are making the claim, which I can guess means that you have evidence of this destruction.

Hmmm, I wonder what happened to all those mesoamericans after the spanish came...

How many times? I should add that Google doesn't make anyone smarter, and that knowledge and intelligence shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

Your friend buzsaw doesn't seem to agree with you on this.

Since this country is unambiguously borne under the umbrella of the Christian ethos, I don't think you are in any position to say otherwise.

Unfortunately... what happened to the first amendment?

I would translate it for you if I didn't strongly suspect that it would make a difference.

No problem. I have a feeling that that paragraph was just more evangelical stuff anyway.

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 9:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 11:08 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2007 3:08 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 03-07-2007 5:11 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11840
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 40 of 111 (388697)
03-07-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AnswersInGenitals
03-06-2007 5:57 PM


Re: Confused in California.
Whether it makes sense is not relevant. What is relevant is what was intended in the biblical passage.

Yup.

I don't think that even the original passage equates foolishness with falsehood, although, admittedly, I haven't read the original.

I think most believe that in this instance foolishness means false.

What people believe is as irrelevant as if it makes sense. Still, I don't think your correct that MOST believe that foolishness is necessarily falsehood.

I agree that in other contexts it can have other meanings.

Why are you so stuck on your idea that foolishness must equal false? Its like you're TRYING to make the passage more confusing than it actually is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-06-2007 5:57 PM AnswersInGenitals has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-08-2007 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 41 of 111 (388703)
03-07-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
03-06-2007 10:51 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Taz writes:

Well, you were the one that claimed there are specific christian guidelines and that you implied these guidelines are perfect.

You know that there are Christian guidelines, and just because people don't follow them, doesn't mean they don't exist. What Jesus said is what He said as far as we know, and what He said had nothing to do with any of the crimes that people have committed in His name when they were in reality concerned with their own fame and fortune.

There were definitely christians who came and stole land from the Natives, and their were also missionaries who never got involved in trading or trapping or politics or land-grubbing. I personally am not all about destroying a culture, and culture is largely due to the religion of the people, but I am not against preaching if the method is good.

You should look up Sicut Dudum, Dum Diversas, and Sublimis Deus. Read them (or read about them) and tell me what you think.

You do know that two of these are against enslavement of any nations?

Oh, so we still can't eat shellfish? What about wearing clothing made of different types of fabrics? The shirt I am wearing now is made of cotton and polyester. Am I going to hell for it?

And you do know that Jewish Law does not constitute Christian morality, and that much of it is legal and ritual, rather than moral?

Africans were regarded as subhuman (read the 3 I cited above) and enslaved.

That is false, and you are looking falsely at the documents. No one was thought of as sub-human, and only one document talks about moralizing slavery at all.

Sicut Dudum and Sublimis Deus are condemning slavery and calling for immediate and perpetual freedom of all who had been enslaved. I am sorry that some christians were not behaving properly, but I am not sure why you would cite two documents which were written in opposition to this behaviour.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 42 of 111 (388712)
03-07-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by anastasia
03-06-2007 10:26 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
I believe that you are conflating inspiration and textual inerrancy. If the Bible is inspired of God, why would there be disparate passages? To solve this, you need to determine what the church has to say about inspiration.

I stumbled across this clip last night, ironically enough. It was a Q&A seminar held at Oxford and the first question dealt with inerrancy. His explanation of how the meaning became obscured and what it actually means means is very similar to the link you provided and what you have written. The portion of the clip about inerrancy is right in the beginning.


"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:26 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 1:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3565 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 43 of 111 (388741)
03-07-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
03-07-2007 12:10 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
nemesis writes:

The portion of the clip about inerrancy is right in the beginning.

Yes. I have noticed when it comes to the RCC at least, that many of the terminologies which have been used to describe very specific things are applied in a more universal and confusing way.

If you speak about the Bible as the Word of God, i.e., inspired in some way, it is logical to assume for the various books a certain infallible and inerrant quality. It is not logical to take this to the extent of assuming infallibility for all copyists. There could well be intentional or accidental mishaps in the scripts we have.

Assuming infallibility and inerrancy leads to great care in copying, as it had for the Hebrews, but the story of the early church is a bit different. There were no 'set' sacred manuscripts, no copyists appointed by a tradition. There was no 'set' Christianity, as in, different theologies could well have been promoted here and there as they sprang up from one manuscript. People may have been 'fixing' things which disagreed with what they had heard. And the mistakes, which are fairly small, involving geneology, or two tales where the details are reversed like the Road to Damascus story, are the types of things which a person can easily get switched in one's mind.

What you see is that even the mistakes, which have certainly been noticed not once or twice but countless times, are preserved in the books BECAUSE we do believe in inerrancy and infallibility, and we must therefore keep intact the best possible record of what was written. There is no claim to having the originals, but only of preserving the closest thing which we do have. In other words, it is The Word of God which is inerrant and infallible, and not such and such a piece of paper by such and such an unknown 100th copier, or your Bible, or my Bible. The Infallible Word of God is recorded, copied, interpreted, by very fallible men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2007 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 44 of 111 (388761)
03-07-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
03-06-2007 10:51 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Well, you were the one that claimed there are specific christian guidelines and that you implied these guidelines are perfect.

The guidelines I'm referring to are Biblical precepts. You may hear people saying, "it's the Christian thing to do." And it may be, and it may not be. The the actual meaning of "Christian," is to be Christ-like. How do we know what that means? By reading the Bible and understanding the nature of Christ.

Salem is an example of a christian community following your christian guidelines and killed innocent people. Also, I'd hardly call Europe a small town during the inquisition.

Taz, you are taking instances where people went away from their own doctrines and forged their own paths in order to indict all of Christendom. The inhabitants of Salem felt justified because they read the Mosaic law, "though shalt not suffer a witch to live." This was a Judaic commandment for those under the Law. Christians are not under the Law, and never were. It was their fundamental misunderstanding that caused such a horrible thing.

Your Stalin example would make more sense if I make a claim that there is an "atheist" guideline to morality that is perfect. But as you can see, people like me make no such claim.

Your Salem analogy would have made more sense had the Salem inhabitants actually followed the guidelines set forth for them.

When was it okay to consider non-christians as subhumans?

You should look up Sicut Dudum, Dum Diversas, and Sublimis Deus. Read them (or read about them) and tell me what you think.

Sicut Dudum is a plea to stop the slavery of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands.

"We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money."

As for Dum Diversas, I can't find anything significant on the subject. The most I found was a blurb on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas]Wiki[/qs][/qs]Wiki[/qs][/qs]Wiki[/qs] that was an attempt to reduce the slave trade.

As for Sublimis Deus, this also is an edict that spares indigenous peoples from the slave trade.

"Sublimis Deus is a papal bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on May 29, 1537, which forbids the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The pope uses in the bull almost the same language as in his letter, Veritas ipsa to Cardinal Juan de Tavera, Archbishop of Toledo, sent less than a month earlier on May 2, 1537. Paul III unequivocally declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be rational beings with souls, denouncing any idea to the contrary as directly inspired by the "enemy of the human race" (Satan). He goes on to condemn their reduction to slavery in the strongest terms, declaring it null and void for as well as for any people known or that could be discovered in the future, entitles their right to liberty and property, and concludes with a call for their evangelization."

Each of these are denunciations of slavery.

It was the idea that the white man has the burden to "educate" the rest of the world our superior way of life, speicifically our religion (christianity) by enslaving other races and telling them that if they obey their white masters they will be rewarded in heaven.

This has nothing to do with being "white." It had to do with a misguided form of evangelism. They were trying to "save" their souls, even if it was completely counter-productive.

Oh, so we still can't eat shellfish?

I'm not Jewish. I can eat shellfish.

What about wearing clothing made of different types of fabrics?

I wear clothes from various fabrics.

The shirt I am wearing now is made of cotton and polyester. Am I going to hell for it?

Certainly not. What ever gave you that idea?

I'm not talking about the reason(s) behind the crusades. Do you or do you not agree that every man, woman, and child inhabiting the city of Jerusalem were slain by the christian crusaders during the first crusade?

I doubt that every man, woman, and child were slain by christian crusaders. Do you have evidence of slaying? But if they were slain, of course I would not agree with it.

quote:
I mean that the gospel narrative is the guideline and that it is not subject to amendment and that it is as applicable today as it was when it was first penned.

Ok... so, am I going to hell for wearing clothing made of different types of fabric?

No. Why do you think different types of fabrics was even a discussion, much less a command, in the gospels?

First, it was the heathens. Then the jews. After Oliver Cromwell took over, the irish catholics were oppressed. Then the wise women were burned at the stake for witch craft. Then the muslims.

None of this has to do with oppression because none of these descriptions are accurate. Heathens have killed Christians, and Christians have killed pagans. Look at Rome. First the Christians were martyred, then then Constantine martyred pagans. The Jews have been oppressed by every one from every walk of life. The strife in Ireland has less to actually do with protestantism and catholicism than it does with political agendas. The Salem witch trials were abominations by fringe lunatics. The Muslims and Christians who fought each other were over many different things. Neither was oppressing the other. They were warring.

Africans were regarded as subhuman (read the 3 I cited above) and enslaved. Then they were emancipated but they were still segregated.

This was the ugliest stain in American history. But perhaps you forget that an entire Civil War was fought over it. Christian against Christian, brother against brother. It had nothing to do with religion. You are simply trying to invent reasons why Christianity as a whole is bad, by trying conflate instances of people who referred to themselves as Christians but went against its most basic tenets.

Then god didn't want them to be equal.

"Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity." -Colossians 3:9-14

"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." -Acts 10:34

"This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message." -Galatians 2:4-6

Now, the gays are targeted by christians. Please don't even try to deny this. I've read enough church signs about how evil the gays are.

Its not gays are "evil," its that homosexuality is declared immoral by God. It does not mean that God loves them any less or that He isn't interested in their best interests. Whether it is deliberate or unintentional, you have a very warped sense of Christian theology.

Again, it was an example, out of many, that this so-called christian moral guideline thingy is far from perfect.

When people stray from the Word, yes, this, like anything else, is imperfect. This is why I say that you need to pay attention to what the Word is saying, not what some people are saying.

Would you, then, call yourself a fringe christian for opposing evilution while advocating a world wide flood that left behind absolutely no evidence?

I'm not a creationist Taz. I am an ID'ist. I disagree with evolution on scientific grounds. I believe in the Flood narrative not solely because it is a part of the Bible, but because of its historical documentation. I have no way of knowing whether the Bible was a global phenomenon or if it were localized to the Meditteranean and Asia Minor, which yields plenty of evidence.

Look, we don't have to look far to see what I've been saying. Remember Rob?

Rob is his own person. Should I blame you every time Crashfrog Dan Carroll, whoever says something stupid? Seriously, you are bigot and you don't even know it. Why don't you try to deal with people on an individual basis instead of grouping everyone into categories?

You really want me to start citing the same bible passages people used back in the old days to justify their unwillingness to see women as equal?

I asked, didn't I?

Um... jesus didn't come up with the golden rule. It existed long before jesus was ever born.

Whether Jesus invented the Golden Rule or not isn't the point. Can you find things about Jesus that you don't like? You said you're all about treating people with tolerance, (except for Christians). If Jesus taught the Golden Rule then is your beef with Jesus or is it with some avowed Christians?

I know what you are saying, but clearly christians aren't really doing what the bible says, like love thy neighbor and fucking leave the gays alone.

Some are doing what the Bible says. Loving your neighbor doesn't entail allowing people to do whatever the hell they want. Loving your neighbor means that you tell them the truth in a compassionate manner without yielding your position on the matter. I agree that these people that mercilessly hound homosexuals but deny their sexual immorality are a bunch of hypocrites. But that does not mean that you can blame all Christians.

Hmmm, I wonder what happened to all those mesoamericans after the spanish came.

They warred. What's your point?

What happened to the first amendment?

Its under attack.

No problem. I have a feeling that that paragraph was just more evangelical stuff anyway.

Its really not that difficult to understand. Its not really as much "poetic bullshit" as you make it out to be.


"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 45 of 111 (388783)
03-07-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
03-06-2007 10:51 PM


Re: Topic Synopsis
Taz writes:

.. jesus didn't come up with the golden rule. It existed long before jesus was ever born.

It is the belief of some that Jesus has eternally existed.

Thats another topic, however. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017