Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 286 of 329 (20188)
10-18-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Wordswordsman
10-18-2002 3:56 AM


[B][QUOTE]Try checkingthe figures against the data in http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/[/B][/QUOTE]
I used the UN figures, but I'll have a look at the CIAs.[B][QUOTE]Brazil is about 80% Roman Catholic. The USA is about 56% Protestant, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)[/B][/QUOTE]
How accurate do you think this yearbook is? It's amazing to see that the US's premier intelligence agency publishes information on the US population which is 23 years out of date!! Al-Qaida have little to worry about, I suspect.
[B][QUOTE]The US GDP is +.3% with per capita GDP of $36,300
Brazil's GDP is 1.9% with per capita GDP of $7,400[/B][/QUOTE]
And you give some figures for Mali / malawi that are different from mine. And I can go to the World Bank site http:\\World Bank Group - International Development, Poverty, & Sustainability and find the following:
GNI Mali=$210 Malawi=$170
But you have missed the point of the post entirely, which was simply to point out that there is no necessary correlation between Christianity and wealth - not now or at any time in the past. One could, for example, argue the following: the wealthiest nations in the world were previously the western european nations, especially those like Britain which had Christianity as an established state religion. The current wealth and power of the US demonstrates that the benefits of western classical liberalism, economic policy, democracy and, yes, Christianity, are the roots of this success, but the American experience shows that having a wider mix of religions and not having Christianity as a state or official religion is the path to even greater prosperity. As I say, one could argue it, but it would be a waste of time. To claim a correlation between wealth and Christianity is not only fallacious and futile, it is worse - a degradation and distortion of the Gospel message.[B][QUOTE]People get the form of government they deserve, and slavery is in effect a form of government.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm sure Nero would have agreed with you. Those early Christians had it coming!
But seriously, your comments on slavery are disgraceful. Are you really saying that slavery is or was a good thing?
Slavery continues in this world even today and it is an appalling institution that abuses millions. To defend it in Christian terms is a disgrace - to refuse to condemn it, little better. The Christian mandate includes the imperative to preach deliverance to the captives, not to tell them they are being preserved by the benevolence of others.[B][QUOTE]Bible prophesy is mostly if not all very directly stated prophecy in great detail accompanied by many fulfillments to the letter ofthose prophecies.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeh right. Examples? [B][QUOTE]Bahai is too late, coming along after almostall the Bible prophecies were literally fulfilled.[/B][/QUOTE]
Says you. They say otherwise. It will be interesting to see what distortions you introduce to support your "fulfilled prophecies" ... I am very much looking forward to them.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 10-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-18-2002 3:56 AM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-18-2002 4:46 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

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


Message 288 of 329 (20209)
10-18-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Wordswordsman
10-18-2002 4:46 PM


If this is the way you yield the sword, ws, you're more danger to yourself than others.
I like your rant about the UN, though I fail to see how it has any relevance to the issues in hand - either the statistics or the topics. I thought the line "I see you think highly of an organization etc" a particularly fine example of your approach to issues. How do you deduce my support for the UN from my use of its statistics? After all, I quoted some figures from the WorldBank - an organization I can assure you I despise.
I like your idea of America "taking care of business" in Iraq - by "business" I assume you are referring to the years in which the US poured military, technological and financial aid into Saddam's open hands. Perhaps you even support Saddam? I am sure he has very similar views on human freedom and human rights to you, and Christians are prominent in his cabinet.[B][QUOTE]Now you publish figures that damage the picture you were trying to present. The GNP (=GNI) of the Christian nation is, according to your data, twice that of the Muslim nation.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't follow you. The figures in my last post showed a GNI for Mali 1.24 time higher than in Malawi. And you should note that the picture I am trying to present is not one of statistical perfection, which is why I am happy to share your figures, but simply that there is "no necessary correlation between Christianity and wealth."[B][QUOTE] .... typical right wing rant here ... [/B][/QUOTE]
It's a wonderful life ws, and its a shame to see you wasting yours on this unsubstantiated drivel. Let's face it, you cannot possibly cancel out all the variants from all the possible scenarios of history and say "it is only Christianity that makes the difference." However, if it gives you comfort, take comfort from it.[B][QUOTE]As far as the gospel and prosperity is concerned docrinally, there is no contradiction.[/B][/QUOTE]
That is, of course, exactly what one would expect to hear from a soi disant Christian from one of the richest nations on earth. [B][QUOTE]should a person make an idol out of money, loving it, personifying money and its power (termed "Mammon").[/B][/QUOTE]
You're a bit confused here, but its a common mistake. The text in Luke personifies Mammon, but the sin is not in personifying wealth. Let me explain the difference ... If I were to say to someone who went dancing every Sabbath instead of going to Church, "You cannot serve God and Terpsichore" I need not mean that he actually worshipped dance, or regarded dance as in any way personified, merely that he cannot indulge himself in dance and serve God at the same time. The usage is called a "figure of speech" and I realize they are often difficult for fundamentalists to deal with, but there you have it.[B][QUOTE]The rich hoard the wealth, building castles and waging terrorism, oppressing their own, and their neighbors.[/B][/QUOTE]
Gee, they sound just like the Christians who ruled Europe for 1900 years.[B][QUOTE]The government of the Christians was and is upon the shoulders of Christ. Those were TRUE Christians, made aliens in their own land, commanded to submit to the laws of men, rulers. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ah they were TRUE Christians were they? How silly of me not to realize. And of course, you have some special knowledge of who TRUE Christians are? Let me guess - are you one? And the others who think like you? And those other ones - the ones who believe in evolution, for example, or are Foreign Ministers of Iraq - they are not? And the ones who waged genocidal war against the Native Americans and the ones who enslaved countless Africans, and those who ruled South Africa through the years of Apartheid - they were what kind exactly?[B][QUOTE]I believe what God instructed in the Bible. In it there is no condemnation of slavery. God allows Satan to employ slavery as a tool to ultimately deal with people to suit God's plan for them. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well that's very tolerant of him. I hope Satan never finds out or he might ban slavery! Obviously those Christians who fought and died, and still fight and die to end slavery aren't TRUE Christians.
[B][QUOTE]In ealry American history the Dutch traders discovered how African tribes often warred against each other, taking captives as slaves.[/B][/QUOTE]
That was very enterprising of them - I wonder why they didn't just ask the Portuguese who had been trading slaves for centuries through North Africa? The first shipment of slaves direct from the African coast to Portugal was in 1411. I do hope (but don't expect) that your biblical scholarship is slightly better than your history.[B][QUOTE]It was the tribal chieftans who offered those slaves for sale to the Dutchmen. I think that was ultimately better for those slaves than becoming meals for theie enemies, or suffering untold miseries the balance of their lives in some distant African village, shamed and abused.[/B][/QUOTE]
I love the cannibalism bit! But of course, it must have been better for them to suffer untold miseries in a far distant country where they had no hope whatsoever of return to their native land and peoples. I'm sure a Caribbean plantation or an American cotton field was much preferable to them.
[B][QUOTE]At least in America they had monetary value, and usually were treated well, never cannibalized, rarely tortured for the sake of vengeful hatred.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well damn their ungrateful hides, those that tried to escape! Makes you wonder why they ever risked life and limb to free doesn't it? They were so ungrateful! If only they had known valuable they were, they might have found some comfort in that.
Can you, just for one moment, summon up the slightest shred of human sympathy and try to put yourself in their position. Probably not. But of course, this has nothing to do with human feeling or dignity or freedom - it's God's great plan for TRUE Christians.
Really, I love this stuff. It's one of the best things about these boards. Scratch a creationist and all this bile and hatred just spills out. Dembski and Behe and the others spend so long trying to make the whole movement respectable - you do us such a favour by undermining that work. This sort of thing reveals the "wedge of truth" as just one side of the splitting maul of right-wing conservatism writhing in its own self-disgust. You are a star, ws!
[B][QUOTE]Prophesied: Isaiah 44:28
"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."
Fulfilled: 2 Chron. 36:23
"Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up."
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thus saith Pamboli , I will be involved in a fender bender on the I-405 in July of 2001.
Thus saith Pamboli sometime later: it happened. Gee, I'm a prophet.
You don't fancy finding an unambiguous prophecy, whose fulfillment is unambiguously verified by different sources do you? Presumably you have hundreds to choose from one. Just one probably wouldn't be enough though: after all, there are thousands of completing claims from Spey-wives and fortune tellers all over the globe. Come on - give us a good one and let's see, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-18-2002 4:46 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 3:40 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

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


Message 295 of 329 (20279)
10-19-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Wordswordsman
10-19-2002 3:40 PM


[B][QUOTE]You pointed out your source as authoritative, using those figures to support your own theory that Christianity didn't "necessarily" mean prosperity.[/B][/QUOTE]
As I remember it I didn't source the figures, never mind claim them as authoritative. In fact I regard international economic statistics as fundamentally flawed because they are based almost entirely on western european economic values which do not apply easily in third world countires, so I could regard no such figures as authoritative. I was merely illustrating that no direct correlation exists between Christianity and propsperity.
[B][QUOTE]I think the facts actually prove you wrong nation by nation, regardless the other factors that really should be factored in.[/B][/QUOTE]
You may think it, but you would need to demonstrate it. I was faced with a glib assertion and demonstrated that, in fact, the situation was considerably more complex. You are confirming this.
[B][QUOTE]My data was claimed by you to be outdated. I proved that incorrect. The CIA data is based on the latest Census.[/B][/QUOTE]
You proved beyond doubt that the data is out of date - you did explain why it had not been updated, but it remains the fact the CIA is quoting figures that have not been updated for over 20 years. The fact that they see no reason to update is neither here nor there - the data is old data.
[B][QUOTE]So you believe Saddam has Christians on his cabinet? He kills Christians. He is Muslim.[/B][/QUOTE]
He kills Muslims too. Most Muslims I know despise him and regard his Islamic stance as a mere pose - they consider him an atheist. Tariq Aziz, the Foreign Minister and close confidant of Saddam is a Roman Catholic and Abdul Munim Ahmed Saleh, another senior cabinet member is a Chaldean christian. Christians form about 5% of the Iraqi population but are over-represented at government level.[B][QUOTE]You apparently have no idea what even opposing administrations and each Congress majority continued to support, that of regulating events in Asia through taking sides of least aggressive governments to prevent wars from getting out of control.[/B][/QUOTE]
SO you regard the Iraqi invasion of Iran, Iraq's first use of chemical weapons and ballistic weapons as the actions of the "least aggresive" government? I guess it suits your point of view.
[B][QUOTE]Virtually every Bible commentary disagrees with your concept. I have yet to find any that supports that explanation ... [/B][/QUOTE]
It took me less than 30 seconds to find this ...
In Luke, xvi, 9 and 11 Mammon is personified, hence the prevalent notion, emphasized by Milton, that Mammon was a deity. Nothing definite can be adduced from the Fathers in support of this; most of their expressions which seem to favour it may be easily explained by the personification in Luke; e.g. "Didascalia", "Do solo Mammona cogitant, quorum Deus est sacculus"; similarly St. Augustine, "Lucrum Punice Mammon dicitur" (Serm. on Mt., ii); St. Jerome in one place goes near to such an identification when (Dial. cum Lucif., 5) he quotes the words: "No man can serve two masters", and then adds, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" But in his "Commentary on Matt," and in Ep. xxii, 31, he lends no countenance to it: "'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.' Riches, that is; for in the heathen tongue of the Syrians riches are called Mammon." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mammon
[B][QUOTE]There is no general condemnation of having wealth.[/B][/QUOTE]
Indeed there is not, but there is recognition that what it takes to be wealthy is compatible with the immediacy of Christ's imperative. If we must not give thought to the morrow, must not even pause to bury our dead, must give all we ahve to the poor - how can we acquire and retain material wealth while still fully living in accord with Christ's imperative.
[B][QUOTE]A Jewish proverb commonly used to express great difficulty or impossibility. In the large gates in the city walls were small narrow ones, each called the needle's eye, through which a camel might enter kneeling down if he were unloaded.[/B][/QUOTE]
This is a medieval fiction.
[B][QUOTE]Note that the people travelling across the wild West were met with arrows, not tolerance. The native Indians resisted the pioneers, requiring warfare to protect the setlers moving West. Also keep in mind that problem began even in earlier and later times, when the enemies of America enlisted the help of native Americans otherwise at peace.
Odd you would cite Apartheid as negative now, seeing the chaos in its absence. The S. Africans have destroyed the reaources built from that relationship, now requiring international help to keep them alive. Under Apartheid there were no such shortages. Of course the natives disliked Apartheid, but obviously that was the system that worked there. Self rule is resulting in anarchy and starvation. THAT is another reason why slavery or at least indentured slavery is beneficial. It preserves people alive until they can improve themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]
I will keep this as a treasure of the kind of socio-political thought that is indivisible from creationism. I can only thank you for it - had I tried to explain this to others, they almost certainly would have thought I lied or exaggerated.
[B][QUOTE]The slaves really had no idea where they were being taken, but found themselves beneficiary of a far more advanced civilization, even though only on plantations in the middle of it. Maybe there is some truth in what you say, but the test has always been in how many of them returned to Africa when given the chance. Many have found the wealth requird to travel there. Why do you suppose they stay here? Some Americans have offered to ship them over the years, but few if any took them up on it. They CHOOSE to come HERE, not GO to Africa. I saw a Newsweek (or simnilar mag) article not long ago that was about a poll that asked blacks that very question. The percentage who indicated willingness to return was less than 1%. The article also dealt with the historical attitude. Former slaves and their offspring have consistently chosen to remain Americans, never wanting to return. Return to what? Chaos? Want? Rampant disease and starvation? What they have always wanted is MORE of the American dream. That comes from education and effort with opportunity seized. [/B][/QUOTE]
In the name of God, have you no concept of human suffering or human need? Are you totally divorced from any sense of fellow-feeling or sympathy for the suffering of others, or totally lacking in any concept of what might cause them suffering. You think after generations people would still want to return - to a land that is entirely foreign to them after generations in this land?
[B][QUOTE]Speaking of bile and hatred! Hoy! I think most discerning readers have us sorted out by now. Don't be too quick to boast of your self-righteousness by denigrating another.[/B][/QUOTE]
You are right of course - I hate your views with a intensity I find distasteful even to myself. But here is the difference - what I hate is your callousness, your utter disregard for human misery and your apparent high regard for those who oppress, torture, imprison and harm so long as they do so while misusing the name of Christ.
You will find few people on this board more unworthy than me to stand up for what is right, but sometimes one just has to. The undiluted evil of your distortion of Christianity demands to be confronted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 3:40 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

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


Message 310 of 329 (20414)
10-21-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 7:09 PM


[B][QUOTE]The concept of dual authorship or the version you post concerning the handing down of Isaiah didn't emerge until very recently compared to the citing of Josephus and Hebrew scholars on the subject. [/B][/QUOTE]
Doh! Your scholarship is very patchy, ws. Moses ben Samuel Ibn Gekatilla held the latter chapters to have been written in the era of the second temple. Ibn Gekatilla lived ca 110 AD - only a few years after Josephus and possibly contemporary with his later years. Ibn Ezra followed and amplified Ibn Gekatilla’s atguments in the 12th century AD. Interstingly, Ibn Ezra’s reasoning is remarkably similar to that raised by Doderlein, the first modern theorist of multiple authorship in the 18th century.
[B][QUOTE]I won't listen to you about such things again.[/B][/QUOTE]
To avoid hearing uncomfortable truths, perhaps? Or to continue undisturbed in your ignorance?[B][QUOTE]All Henrew, RCC, Church Father, and other Christian sources I know of support one Isaiah, all written at one time before the Babylonian captivity.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yet again, ws, you are merely demonstrating how little you know. Here is a Hebrew site which recognizes multiple authorship of Isaiah quite straightforwardly: Web Site Not Found
On VirtualJerusalem.com, the popular Ask the Rabbi feature, specifically intended to answer Jews' questions about their own faith, included an answer in the following terms Somewhere in Babylonia, sometime in the fifth century BCE, lived an unnamed prophet whose words are included in Isaiah 40-55. For lack of better information, scholars refer to him as Deutero Isaiah to distinguish his writings from those of Isaiah ben Amots who lived in Jerusalem in the eighth century BCE. http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/judaism/asktherabbi/?disp...
You would do well to listen to such things. You might learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Wordswordsman 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