Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 15 of 329 (6905)
03-15-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by AARD
03-15-2002 3:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by AARD:
I didnt see an attribution for this letter. I think it is from Thomas Paine. I can't find my reference, but it bears a striking similarity to something I read a couple of years ago by Thomas Paine
It is commonly attributed to Paine and is dated Paris, May 12, 1797. It didn't appear in print unitl 1804. Although similar in content to some letters known to be written by Paine to friends (such as those to Samule Adams and Andrew Dean) it is different in many ways: in particular it contains few personal references and its tone is extremely formal and detached. It is probably by Paine, but in all likelihopod was not a genuine letter but a pamphlet in epistolatory form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AARD, posted 03-15-2002 3:32 AM AARD has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 54 of 329 (7297)
03-19-2002 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by doctrbill
03-17-2002 7:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
Several times in one paragraph you refer to a singular subject by means of a plural pronoun. Example:
et:
"I must wonder if the author of this site ever bothered to read an actual Bible, and if so, where did they get the wierd translation ... and what level of education does this person have that they are unable to grasp even the most basic understanding of English grammatical text."
Here's a first - I'm going to defend Jet! I guess this won't happen again, so make the best of it!
Several times I have seen people criticised for this construction - using "they" to refer to a third person singular. This is perfectly acceptable in English, at least on the east side fo the Atlantic. It is found in Chaucer ("And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, They wol come up." from the Prologue to the Pardoner's Tale) and in Shakespeare ("There's not a man I meet but doth salute me,
As if I were their well-acquainted friend." Comedy of Errors.)
I use this a lot, and I do sometimes receive comments on it. But, really, it is a common, venerable usage of considerable utility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by doctrbill, posted 03-17-2002 7:54 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 2:07 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 56 of 329 (7402)
03-20-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by doctrbill
03-20-2002 2:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
How noble of you! Hope you understand why I had to do that.
Have you any idea what he was ranting about? Was your keen sense of appropriate English offended by the writing on that site?

You can guess, I'm sure, that I agreed with all your points except the one about Jet's grammar. I guess I was just sounding off - having only been in the US for a few months I am still painfully adapting to this new language I have to learn!
I thought it was hilarious that Jet didn't recognize the KJV - and I would love to see some evidence of even basic knowledge of Hebrew or Chaldean. Sadly(?) I think Jet has departed this forum to spread their bile elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 2:07 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 11:35 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 65 of 329 (8115)
04-02-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Before Moses set the law down against incest, there was no problem within its practice. I guess this is immoral but homosexuality is completely fine...

Are you saying that Mosaic law defines what is right and wrong as opposed to just what is legal and illegal?
On a more practical note, the taboo against close family incest is the most widely practised of all taboos; with good reason, as the offspring are often calamitously disabled. Perhaps you feel that human genetics changed on the day Moses came down from the mountain - or at least on the day the law was formulated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 5:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 8:58 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 68 of 329 (8132)
04-03-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by TrueCreation
04-02-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Are you saying that Mosaic law defines what is right and wrong as opposed to just what is legal and illegal?"
--Within the confines of the belief system, yes this is a right and wrong prospect, and seemingly analogous is a legal and illeagle activity.
"Perhaps you feel that human genetics changed on the day Moses came down from the mountain - or at least on the day the law was formulated?"
--See above, in all technicallity it played a major role, if the law were not formulated, there would have been an emense increase in speciatory degeneration in functionality and corruption of the human genome.

I'm confused. Was incest morally right or morally wrong before the Mosaic law was formulated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 04-02-2002 8:58 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by bretheweb, posted 04-03-2002 6:50 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 75 of 329 (8164)
04-03-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by techristian
04-03-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Have you heard that cloning will produce an offspring that will age rapidly.
No I haven't. I have heard that many, but not all, clones have shown some symptoms of premature aging and I have also read that some of these have shortened telomeres. But then I have read that this is possibly the result of damage during the microinjection or electrofusion cloning methods. I have read nothing to suggest that these problems are insurmountable.[b] [QUOTE]It is believed that the clone will already have the age of the donor and tries to rapidly catch up to the age of the donor.[/b][/QUOTE]
Who believes this? I haven't read this except here.[b] [QUOTE]All experiments including those recently done in Japan prove that cloning produced offspring with age.[/b][/QUOTE]
All experiments? Perhaps you should read of the work of Advanced Cell Technologies who have shown the very opposite. In their case they cloned cow cells which were near the end of their capcacity to divide and were able to demonstrate that the cloning process restored the telomeres (the chromosonal "cap" which degrades with each cell division) to relative youth. In November 2001 (in the journal Science) they published research showing successful healthy clones. See http://www.nature.com/nsu/011129/011129-1.html for a quick newsy account of their latest work.[b] [QUOTE]What is age, but a basic ENTROPY or BREAKING down of the DNA structure?[/b][/QUOTE]
"Age" covers a huge variety of conditions, many of which have nothing to do with DNA.[b] [QUOTE]I believe that God , in His infinite wisdom , knowing that we would attempt unethical cloning for body parts has already made it that our genetic material will age.[/b][/QUOTE]
Why didn't he just design a life form without either means, motive or opportunity to attempt cloning? But whatever - your beliefs are, of course, your concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by techristian, posted 04-03-2002 11:13 PM techristian has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 94 of 329 (8832)
04-23-2002 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by w_fortenberry
04-23-2002 3:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
The King James Version of the Bible is the primary English translation of the Textus Receptus, the Greek text which has been accepted by Christians since the New Testament era. Most of the other translations are from the Critical Text, a Greek text formulated by Westcott and Hort in 1881.
Many arguments have been presented for acceptance of the Critical Text and its translations, however the final test for any book that claims to be holy is that which reveals the presence or absence of error within that book. In Mark 1:2, the TR, as translated in the KJV, states, "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." This is a quote of Malachi 3:1, however the Critical Text changes this verse in Mark to state, "As it is written by the prophet Isaiah..." This certainly qualifies as error, and the Critical Text cannot truthfully claim to be the Word of God.

An interesting post which calls for a couple of small clarifications, and raises a more substantial issue.
Firstly, Mark 1:2 has been taken out of context. Here is the KJV of Mark 1:1-3
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Now compare to Isaiah 40:3
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
A reader without this background may think you were suggesting in your post that the Isaiah reference in Westcott and Hort's text was totally wrong. As you can see, it only introduces a minor problem, which is resolved by those manuscripts which have "prophets" in place of "Isaiah". Westcott and Hort were quite clear that their intention was to base their critical text on the oldest surviving version, something they make clear in their handling of what they quaintly term "primitive errors."
However, resolving theological problems for fundamentalists who can admit of no flaw in the Holy Word is not necessarily what a critical text is about - of which, more later.
Westcott and Hort produced "a critical text" not "the Critical Text." The Textus Receptus is itself a critical text, that is to say, it is an attempt to reconcile the differences between many different manuscripts into a single text: in the case of the original form of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus, he used 6 manuscripts. The Textus Receptus has "evolved" considerably since then, which is just as well, as the original was frankly a rush job by Erasmus and Froben the printer. They produced what would nowadays be called a "spoiler" in the publishing trade: a version hurried into print to hit the market before a rival edition, in this case the wonderfully named "Complutensian Polyglot" of Cardinal Ximenes.
Most of the other English translations do not use Westcott and Hort alone: one of the first and most demanding steps in creating a new biblical translation is to establish your critical text. There are many such critical texts which translators use as a starting point - WH is just one of them and happens to have a strong bias towards Alexandrian manuscripts which some translators mistrust.
This brings us to the more substantial problem with your original post: critical texts are compiled with a variety of motivations and standards, only one of which you appear to regard as relevant.
If one believes that there is a particular form of words which perfectly represents the text God wishes us to read, then one motivation could certainly be to resolve all the differences between the thousands of manuscripts to get to that form of words. If one further believes that this form of words must be free from literal errors, howsoever picayune they may be, then resolving these errors becomes part of the process of deciding which version to include in your critical text.
But these are not the purposes of many critical texts. There are manuscripts which read unambiguously, for example "As it is written by the prophet Isaiah..." and some of these manuscripts are unambiguously earlier than some which read "written in the prophets." If your critical edition intends to present the historical text, then including the earliest known version is perfectly legitimate.
It appears that you hold a particular view of how Biblical texts should be approached, and within that view your analysis was possibly justified.
There are, of course, many different approaches to the Bible as a text and as a holy book. Why are there so many different translations? It is partly because there are so many different approaches to biblical scholarship, and some translations favour one approach over another. It is partly because there are so very many manuscript readings, and translations differently resolve these variant readings. It is also, of course, because English itself is a vibrant living language in which meanings and nuances change over time. And finally, there is the motivation you mention - Bibles sell well, and a best selling edition is frankly, quite a money-spinner.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by w_fortenberry, posted 04-23-2002 3:40 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Philip, posted 04-23-2002 11:40 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 96 of 329 (8852)
04-24-2002 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Philip
04-23-2002 11:40 PM


The New Testament is really my area of interest in textual criticism, but I have no problems with your first two possibilities. Firstly, if this error is simply a transcription error, then the literalism of fundamentalists fails - not just partially to my mind, but completely, because inerrancy cannot be partial, and if it requires human judgement to make sense of it, then it follows that human judgement is appropriately applied to other obscurities.
Secondly, even if the original texts were perfect, errors of transcription and translation are inevitable and obscure any literally true meaning that may have existed.
Theologically, I see no basis whatsoever for any form of literalism, so the latter is of lesser interest to me.
I had the great good fortune to be raised in a community whose churches were of largely bilingual worshippers, and whose clergy were thoroughly trained in biblical langauges. Many were indeed fundamentalists, but not what I would call literalists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Philip, posted 04-23-2002 11:40 PM Philip has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 106 of 329 (9330)
05-07-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jet
05-07-2002 4:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
***I personally use several translations in my studies. If I had to state a preference, it would be a toss-up between Rotherhams' Literal Emphasised Translation and the Messianic Authorized Version.***
Cool - are people still using Rotherham's? I never saw the point of it as a translation myself except as a crib when studying Hebrew. It's English seemed to be so stilted as to be virtually unreadable on its own and often gave the wrong impression. It reminded me of my friend who lectured at the Scots College in Rome and who insisted on using Scottish idioms literally translated into Italian - "this takes the biscuit" would become "cio prende il biscotto" which confused people no end and many thought he was just tirare il loro piedino.
The Messianic Authorized Version is new(ish) to me - is this the one published by the Messianic Bible Society? As I remember they are quite into Gematria. Does their translation / edition actually point out the (alleged) Torah codes in some way or does it just do some name replacement - YHWH Mashiach etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jet, posted 05-07-2002 4:16 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 3:07 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 128 of 329 (9605)
05-13-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Percy
05-13-2002 4:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Jet writes:

O.K. You lost me on that one. Unless, of course, Percy could possibly be guilty of actually using a strawman tactic.
I'm referring to your "Adolf Hitler...Darwinian Evolutionist" signature. How would you feel if evolutionists closed with quotes signed with "Timothy McVeigh...Creationist"?

Or you could close with the following quotes from Mein Kampf - by Adolf Hitler, Creationist ...
What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
But that would be a bit sick wouldn't it? Quite as bad as Jet's distasteful little tactic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 05-13-2002 4:17 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Jeff, posted 05-13-2002 7:47 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 146 of 329 (10043)
05-20-2002 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jet
05-20-2002 12:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
***Answer this question, if you are able. Why do earths societies differ on the number of days in a month as well as differ in the number of months in a year but all are in agreement of a seven day week? Could it possibly have something to do with the six days of creation plus a day of rest that God ordained in Genesis?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
***Jet

Joe has pointed out the exceptions ot the rule, but I suppose you wonder why there may be a rule in the first place?
Firstly you should note that simply because we in the west have chosen to subdivide the calendar at this particular granularity it does not follow that other civilisations would necessarily do so. In the past even western societies had a variety of week lengths from 4 to 10 days.
The Babylonians divided the phases of the moon into 4 major subdivisions of 7 days - a lunar cycle of 28 days starting with the first visible crescent and ending with the last visible cresecent. The remaining 1.53 days of the cycle regarded as quite separate, with some admirable logic: how could discuss the state fo the moon when it was invisible - it might not even exist at that time, and its reappearance could be cancelled by an angry God?
Aulus Gellius points out another feature of the 7 day cycle that would have been of enormous importance to the numerologically-fascinated early civilisations: 4 seven day cycles make 28 days, and the factorial (as we would now call) of 7 is 28. SO for the ancients there was a mystical relationship between these two issues - the moon travelled its visible course in 28 days and the main phases of this course contained within themselves a reflection of the overall unity of the cycle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jet, posted 05-20-2002 12:31 PM Jet has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 262 of 329 (11979)
06-23-2002 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by jennacreationist
06-23-2002 2:12 AM


Just back from a enforced vacation (illness not gaol) and good to see lively debate still going on. Also, it is quite nice, in its way, to see some of the dafter forms of christian fundamentalism still paddling in the shallows of logic.
quote:
Originally posted by jennacreationist:
God doesn't change he still punishes(wether we like it or not) those nations who choose other God's above Him.
Cehck out Genesis 6:6 - God changes. "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth." He regrets - one cannot regret if one is unchanging.
quote:
Look at all the third world countries in dire poverty and are they Christian nations? Unfortunately for them no.
Perhaps you were thinking of third world countries on a different planet? You certainly can't be thinking of Ethiopia (a Christian tradition stretching back to the very first generations of Christians), or South America (overwhelmingly Roman) or sub-Saharan Africa (nearly all countries have a majority Christian population covering a wide mix of christian denominations including Roman and Anglican, and of course much presbyterianism.) Really Jenna, that was a terrible thing to say.[b] [QUOTE] He is a Father who forgives and yet He is just and swift in His actions who are against Him.[/b][/QUOTE]
So why did Jeremiah have to ask of Him "Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?"
[b] [QUOTE]Slavery wasn't the same as we think of today[/b][/QUOTE]
No you're right - it was much worse. Think of Exodus 21:20 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished." Now I don't know what you think of as slavery today, but as a member of Anti-Slavery International I can tell you it is alive and well, in the Biblical forms of bond-servitude and the enslavement of captives. And it is a disgusting and horrifying institution. When you write such a thing, think of your own family, and think if you would wish them to live under such laws. Do you or yours have a mortgage, a car loan, a student loan? Do you or would you consider yourself the property, the physical and sexual chattel of the banker or law agent until the debt was paid?
Take care Jenna. The Bible is a wonderful scripture, but remember "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." I didn't feel much love in your empty knee-jerk reactions to poverty and slavery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jennacreationist, posted 06-23-2002 2:12 AM jennacreationist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by mark24, posted 06-23-2002 5:52 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 265 of 329 (12038)
06-24-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by jennacreationist
06-24-2002 12:55 AM


Thanks for the kind words, Mark. It was nothing too serious, but it did keep me out of action for a while and then I went up to the mountains to recuperate. But it is nice to be back.
quote:
Originally posted by jennacreationist:
Ok Mr Pambolli, point taken. I certainly didn't mean to sound so cold and condescending. After all I'm almost certain those are some of the reasons Christians today are not taken seriously.
I think you're right - there is a nasty streak of materialist triumphalism in US creationism that I find quite disturbing. I wasn't so aware of it before I relocated here, but it is certainly unpleasant. I doubt very much that you are a cold and condescending person - I do hope not - but it is so easy, especially in the US, to forget that Christ teaches humility. "He who would save his soul, shall lose it."[b] [QUOTE]However, I still hold my position as far as Nations as a whole go. The Us. by far is the largest Christian Nation and the most prosperous.[/b][/QUOTE]
Really? Do you think there is a relationship? The US population is 1.65 times the size of the Brazilian population, but the gross national product per capita is 7.33 times greater. Yet strangely the proportion of Christians in Brazil is greater than in the US.
Perhaps, like some I know (I grew up in a rigid presbyterian community in Scotland) you do not regard Brazil as truly Christian because it is predominantly Roman Catholic.
Let's look at Malawi - a strongly presbyterian, almost entirely Christian nation. Let's compare to, say, a Muslim nation of similar size? Now perhaps you would think I was cheating if I chose one of those oil-rich Muslim nations. So I'll choose Mali - another African nation, with 11 million people, overwhelmingly Muslim.
Strange to say, Mali's GNP per capita is 1.3 times that of Malawi.
So, I don't know what you were trying to say, but if it was that their is some correlation between Christianity and the wealth of a nation, think again.[b] [QUOTE]As far as being a fundamentalist those are harsh words. I am not a "Bible thumper" that judges people or threatens people with hell. I actually do prefer a loving approach to "win people over". I think my life is a ernest teastament to that.[/b][/QUOTE]
I'm gald if that is true and of course apologise if you thought my words were harsh. You can perhaps see why I used them?[b] [QUOTE]I do not nor have I ever condoned slavery and I apologize profoundly if I came across that I do. Yes you are right I acted rather crassly especially considerring Mosses himself declared to let His people go.[/b][/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right about Moses! A good point well made, and I am glad indeed if you oppose slavery. It is worth visting the site http://www.antislavery.org to find out more about this appalling practice in the world today.[b] [QUOTE] The point I was trying to make is that the Bible is not fallible. Obviously the people that read it are, but what about all of the little nook and cranny cryptic prophesies that have already come to pass and the ones that are occurring right in front of our eyes such as Jerusalem's fight over land?[/b][/QUOTE]
Well, the trouble with a cryptic prophecy is that it is just that - cryptic. Give me a nice straightforward unassailable prediction anyday!
It is interesting, for example, that the Baha'i feel they can very effectively demonstrate that their religion fulfills Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Jewish prophecies. Fulfilling cryptic prophecies lies so much in the interpretation that it really is of little use. I would, quite literally, put no faith in such things.
Have fu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 12:55 AM jennacreationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 10:22 PM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 285 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-18-2002 3:56 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 270 of 329 (12157)
06-25-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by jennacreationist
06-24-2002 10:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by jennacreationist:
Ok so let me ask you this...
What do you believe and why?

Well, I'm not one to put forth my personal credo in public, but, in respect to the current discussion we are having, it seems only fair to say something about it. For me, the language in which we speak of God is necessarily symbolic. Human concepts cannot encompass or delineate God - to speak of God's emotions or actions is to put a human gloss on that which we cannot understand, it is to bring the reality of God down to our level so that we can prepare for communion with God. Language like "God is angry" or "God rewards" is like a cartoon or a caricature - it picks out the features which strike us most strongly and delineates them clearly in our terms. They are not the reality of God, this can only be comprehended by losing ourselves, by giving up our human baggage and concepts and concerns. Jesus confronts our human concerns - wealth is only a hindrance, even thinking of tomorrow and planning for your future is a hindrance, even burying your father is a hindrance, even our religious concepts such as marriage get in the way of our understanding God. We have to free ourselves completely these concerns - anything concept which is not in itself eternal can only stand between us and the reality of God.[b] [QUOTE]Yes look at some of those high dollar oil countries aren't very few of the actual people living there leadding any kind of a "wealthy" lifestyle.
Aren't most of the real inhabitors poorly treated, underfed, not politically represented etc. or am I gettting the wrong picture with the wrong info?[/b][/QUOTE]
Could you read my post again? I explicitly say that I will not use a hugely wealthy oil rich country as an example. I take two examples - Brazil, which is overwhelmingly Christian but much poorer than the USA; and Mali and Malawi, two poor African nations of roughly the same size, of which the Muslim country is the richer by about a third. How does this fit with your view, that the Christ who urged us to give all we have to the poor, the Christ who told us to have no thought for the morrow, how does this poverty of Christian nations fit with your idea of a God who rewards with wealth those nations who believe in him?
[b] [QUOTE]Do you not find it intriguing that God stated He would one day restore the Jewish people and their land right before the end times?[/b][/QUOTE]
No. Many tribal religions (remembering that the Israelites were a semitic tribe) have very similar prophecies. Restoration of land is a powerful human symbol.[b] [QUOTE]And isn't it intresting that most wars today do have a religious background to them?( not to mention that the Jewish people have a great prescence throughout history, most religions stem from them etc.)[/b][/QUOTE]
Of course wars have a religious background. Wars are between nations, nations are distinct groups of people, religion is a strong distinguishing feature. There was however no strong religious background to the two greatest wars of the last century, or to those of the century before. Or come to think of it of the century before that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jennacreationist, posted 06-24-2002 10:22 PM jennacreationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by jennacreationist, posted 06-26-2002 6:12 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 274 of 329 (12237)
06-26-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by jennacreationist
06-26-2002 6:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by jennacreationist:
... except for the one on marriage, because Christ is always using the bond of marriage likened to the bond and commitment He has with the church ...
I was thinking of when the Sadducees appraoched Christ and asked him that awkward question about marriage in heaven. His answer points out to them that their human concepts simply don't apply, the thooughts and principles are not capable of emcompassing what heaven and God are about.
So what I was trying to say, was that even the concepts and principles we feel most dearly about and understand are of little use to us in comprehending God.
(The analogy of marriage to the church is of course an image Christ uses to clarify a particular issue, and not really related to my example.)[b] [QUOTE]I definitely agree with letting go of our lives for personal gain to help others and I am a practicer of that.[/b][/QUOTE]
I'll tell you something that really put me off the creationists in the States. Remember that I did grow up in a very traditional, very Bible-centred community, so I wasn't too surprised by their conservatism. But anyway, I had been in the States for a few weeks, and discovered there was a church near my apartment that seemed to go in for creationism in quite a big way - they advertised lectures and meetings concerning it and their newsletter emphasised their commitment to following the Bible as literally as possible. So I went along to a service one Sunday and wow! the car park was full of Mercedes and Lexus and fancy SUVs. Sure there were quite a few battered pick ups and ancient Civics, but the overall impression was of a substantial display of wealth. And I listened to the sermon and came away thinking that they probably read the Bible every day, devoutly, but they just don't "get it." Creation in seven days and an ark full of animals - this they can accept literally. Give all you have to the poor and follow me, or the impossibility of a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven - well they clearly didn't take that quite so literally!
Anyway, don't think I'm putting down a whole nation. The quaker meetings here as wonderful and profound as any I have experienced and I found a lovely little Episcopalian church - reverent and intimate.[b] [QUOTE]Which wars are you refferring to that don't have a religious conotation ?[/b][/QUOTE]
World Wars - Britain certainly didn't fight Germany over any religious differences. Roman Catholic Austrians didn't fight Roman Catholic Poles over any religious differences, nor did the French and Italians, or the Lutheran Danes and the Lutheran Germans. Sure there was religious language on both sides, but such is always used in time of war. One feels closer to God when under threat death, I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by jennacreationist, posted 06-26-2002 6:12 PM jennacreationist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024