How about a new Council of Nicea?

Now that we have removed the rhetoric about "bashing" and "in front of" we can discuss the issue.

So denial is your only response? Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses despoiled, and their wives ravished."

Are you really saying that the quote is NOT in the Bible?
 
Werbung:
You love of seeing the worst in God really gets the better of you.

You just can't get it right, can you? It's not God, it's the Bible. It's not God predicting either, read Isaiah 13:11 and 13:13. The Bible attributes these actions to God's "fierce" anger.
 
Then why is the endorsement by God for slavery still in the Bible?

Because there is no such endorsement.

Because modern political dynamics is simply different from that occuring 3000 years ago.

Because explaining the bible via hermeneutics is much more sensible than editing it.

Take your pick.

And if you still don't get it, why not blame the jews for a change. After all, they're the ones serious about mosaic law.

Is the Bible still the infallible Word of God? If so, then see question #1.

If the bible were the 'infallible' word of god, then there would be no need for tradition -- the other half from which divine inspiration is supposed to be coming from.

The thing is, salvation HISTORY simply doesn't make sense if god's self-revelation abruptly stopped with the acts of the apostles 2000 yrs ago, does it? Nor would it make any sense if it were presented independent of the millieu in which it happened, would it?

In fact, god's self-revelation, from the same dogma you are so averse to, is an on-going process. Heck, even science is a venue fo god's self-revelation.

I'm sorry this is so complex for you though I'm not sure why removing blasphemy from the Bible should be so daunting to you.

Yes, it is so complex and you are arguing from a position of ignorance.
 
Because there is no such endorsement.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Because modern political dynamics is simply different from that occuring 3000 years ago.
But we aren't talking about political dynamics, are we? We are discussing the Word of God, or are you trying to say that the laws of God change in accordance with the political dynamics of the day here on Earth? Thus slavery was a Christian activity--including the beating slaves to death--but now it's NOT a Christian activity? And you accuse me of arguing from a position of ignorance?

Because explaining the bible via hermeneutics is much more sensible than editing it.
Well, if by "more sensible" you mean changing the words and their meanings so as to gain the meaning you wish to have, then yes, I guess that's a good process. But look at what it has accomplished: people have justified going to war, killing, torturing, genocide, slavery, rape, and every other bad thing you can think of that way. Why do you think your religion has splintered into more than 4000 sects? Hermeneutics or interpretation is what has done it. That's why Nazis can call themselves Christians and prove it with the Bible. Hell, the Ratzipper Pope colluded with the Nazis during the Second World War and I bet he can justify that with the Bible too.

Take your pick.
Having nothing to say you put up a few odd thoughts and tell me to pick one.

And if you still don't get it, why not blame the jews for a change. After all, they're the ones serious about mosaic law.
According to Jesus Christians should be serious about the law too.
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19

If the bible were the 'infallible' word of god, then there would be no need for tradition -- the other half from which divine inspiration is supposed to be coming from.
Yet, when Galileo had a divine inspiration the church nearly killed him and held him under house arrest.

In 1600, the former Dominican monk and philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt alive in the streets of Rome. To humiliate him, the Church first hung him upside down and stripped him naked. What made the teachings of Bruno so dangerous? He had asked a simple question: is there life in outer space? Rather than entertain the possibility of billions of saints, popes, churches, and Jesus Christs in outer space, it was more convenient for the Church simply to burn him.

When scientists discovered that transsexaulism was a birth defect through the divine revelation of scientific research, the Church condemned us anyway. You yourself, right here on this site have given me no end of crap about it. The Church is still ignoring all the research showing that homosexuality is a normal variation in the human population and is using their Word of God to persecute homosexual people.

The thing is, salvation HISTORY simply doesn't make sense if god's self-revelation abruptly stopped with the acts of the apostles 2000 yrs ago, does it? Nor would it make any sense if it were presented independent of the millieu in which it happened, would it?
It doesn't make sense anyway, but nothing I'm suggesting be left out of the Bible would change the basic history.

In fact, god's self-revelation, from the same dogma you are so averse to, is an on-going process. Heck, even science is a venue fo god's self-revelation.
Then why do you so adamantly reject scientific discoveries?

Yes, it is so complex and you are arguing from a position of ignorance.
Do you realize how silly these personal attacks make you look when I keep logically answering your objections? When I keep quoting the scriptures that you think are not even in the Bible? When I keep using your arguments to make my points? Why can't you just discuss this without the personal attacks?
 
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


But we aren't talking about political dynamics, are we? We are discussing the Word of God, or are you trying to say that the laws of God change in accordance with the political dynamics of the day here on Earth? Thus slavery was a Christian activity--including the beating slaves to death--but now it's NOT a Christian activity? And you accuse me of arguing from a position of ignorance?


Well, if by "more sensible" you mean changing the words and their meanings so as to gain the meaning you wish to have, then yes, I guess that's a good process. But look at what it has accomplished: people have justified going to war, killing, torturing, genocide, slavery, rape, and every other bad thing you can think of that way. Why do you think your religion has splintered into more than 4000 sects? Hermeneutics or interpretation is what has done it. That's why Nazis can call themselves Christians and prove it with the Bible. Hell, the Ratzipper Pope colluded with the Nazis during the Second World War and I bet he can justify that with the Bible too.


Having nothing to say you put up a few odd thoughts and tell me to pick one.


According to Jesus Christians should be serious about the law too.
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19


Yet, when Galileo had a divine inspiration the church nearly killed him and held him under house arrest.

In 1600, the former Dominican monk and philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt alive in the streets of Rome. To humiliate him, the Church first hung him upside down and stripped him naked. What made the teachings of Bruno so dangerous? He had asked a simple question: is there life in outer space? Rather than entertain the possibility of billions of saints, popes, churches, and Jesus Christs in outer space, it was more convenient for the Church simply to burn him.

When scientists discovered that transsexaulism was a birth defect through the divine revelation of scientific research, the Church condemned us anyway. You yourself, right here on this site have given me no end of crap about it. The Church is still ignoring all the research showing that homosexuality is a normal variation in the human population and is using their Word of God to persecute homosexual people.


It doesn't make sense anyway, but nothing I'm suggesting be left out of the Bible would change the basic history.


Then why do you so adamantly reject scientific discoveries?


Do you realize how silly these personal attacks make you look when I keep logically answering your objections? When I keep quoting the scriptures that you think are not even in the Bible? When I keep using your arguments to make my points? Why can't you just discuss this without the personal attacks?

Mare I have a question for you.

Have you ever noticed that the Radical Religious Right that is so positive that to no extent due to time and modern advancement the Constitution should be a living and evolving document... but the Bible...

hell that puppy can be all over the place and it's totally in line!:)

Great logical & rational line of thought in your posts on this thread by the way.
 
Mare I have a question for you.

Have you ever noticed that the Radical Religious Right that is so positive that to no extent due to time and modern advancement the Constitution should be a living and evolving document... but the Bible...

hell that puppy can be all over the place and it's totally in line!:)

Great logical & rational line of thought in your posts on this thread by the way.

No, I never noticed that. Ever since having my lobotomy little things like that don't bother me anymore. :D
 
It is..."evolved" by 2/3 vote of the states, not by a currently politically correct interpretation.
Unless, of course, one can get 2/3 of the States to agree on the current "politically correct" concept that one is pushing. An example would be the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage--they haven't succeeded yet but they are working on it.
 
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

And if you have bothered to read civitas dei, you would know that the christian religion puts more stock on other-worldly, rather than worldly affairs.

Duh?

But we aren't talking about political dynamics, are we? We are discussing the Word of God, or are you trying to say that the laws of God change in accordance with the political dynamics of the day here on Earth? Thus slavery was a Christian activity--including the beating slaves to death--but now it's NOT a Christian activity? And you accuse me of arguing from a position of ignorance?

Again, if you had read civitas dei, you would know exactly the criticisms the catholic church have regarding the temporal affairs within which it must exist.

Duh?

Well, if by "more sensible" you mean changing the words and their meanings so as to gain the meaning you wish to have, then yes, I guess that's a good process.

Hermeneutics is a way by which the true meaning of ancient texts are discerned. Clearly, it goes much deeper than the literal interpretation you are aiming for.

Duh?

But look at what it has accomplished: people have justified going to war, killing, torturing, genocide, slavery, rape, and every other bad thing you can think of that way.

Yep. Even your own constitution and the ideas of freedom contained therein has been used to such ends.

It really is sad when morons get their way.

Why do you think your religion has splintered into more than 4000 sects?

Because the faith exists in different political dynamics, that's why?

Hermeneutics or interpretation is what has done it.

Nonsense. Hermeneutics was invented only recently. It certainly isn't the cause of schisms within the church.

That's why Nazis can call themselves Christians and prove it with the Bible.

I'm aware of that, along with the boers of south africa and whatever moronic mutation of the christian faith in history you choose to point at.

Personally, I'm just glad that rational thought prevails presently.

Hell, the Ratzipper Pope colluded with the Nazis during the Second World War and I bet he can justify that with the Bible too.

Nonsense.

If any of his actions is deemed criminal collusion, then he should be tried at the hague. After all, there is no statute of limitation for genocide, is there?

By all means, prove your case in court if that is what you really are interested in, and not simply maligning the reputation of another human being and the religion he represents.

Having nothing to say you put up a few odd thoughts and tell me to pick one.

What's odd, indeed???

Your baseless accusation that ratzinger was guilty of crimes against humanity for joining the nazi youth as a teenager? Please!

I don't actually prefer this current pope but that accusation is certainly way idiotic, even for you.

According to Jesus Christians should be serious about the law too.
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19

And did he not come to fulfill it? Isn't that the point of establishing a separate religion rather than reforming judaism?

Yet, when Galileo had a divine inspiration the church nearly killed him and held him under house arrest.

And now he is being honored for it by the same institution that wrought him injustice.

What's your point?

In 1600, the former Dominican monk and philosopher Giordano Bruno was burnt alive in the streets of Rome. To humiliate him, the Church first hung him upside down and stripped him naked. What made the teachings of Bruno so dangerous? He had asked a simple question: is there life in outer space? Rather than entertain the possibility of billions of saints, popes, churches, and Jesus Christs in outer space, it was more convenient for the Church simply to burn him.

Hence the millenium apology.

What's your point?

When scientists discovered that transsexaulism was a birth defect through the divine revelation of scientific research, the Church condemned us anyway.

Nonsense.

The church condemns sins, not sinners.

Btw, what scientific research did you imagine proves homosexuality as a birth defect, hmmm?

You yourself, right here on this site have given me no end of crap about it. The Church is still ignoring all the research showing that homosexuality is a normal variation in the human population and is using their Word of God to persecute homosexual people.

What persecution did you have in mind, hmmm?

It doesn't make sense anyway, but nothing I'm suggesting be left out of the Bible would change the basic history.

It doesn't make sense to you simply because you have never approached it with a sense of understanding. You would rather lift passages out of their context, examine them using your own rigid biases, and conclude whatever nonsense your mind concocts.

Then why do you so adamantly reject scientific discoveries?

Is there anything I said that made you believe I reject scientific discoveries?

Do you realize how silly these personal attacks make you look when I keep logically answering your objections? When I keep quoting the scriptures that you think are not even in the Bible? When I keep using your arguments to make my points? Why can't you just discuss this without the personal attacks?

Just the facts, ma'm. Just the facts.
 
Mare I have a question for you.

Have you ever noticed that the Radical Religious Right that is so positive that to no extent due to time and modern advancement the Constitution should be a living and evolving document... but the Bible...

hell that puppy can be all over the place and it's totally in line!:)

Great logical & rational line of thought in your posts on this thread by the way.

And you probably think your constitution can evolve by simply spewing nonsense, eh?
 
Unless, of course, one can get 2/3 of the States to agree on the current "politically correct" concept that one is pushing. An example would be the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage--they haven't succeeded yet but they are working on it.

They haven't succeeded because they simply cannot fashion a logical argument for it. And in lieu of logic, they would rather ram nonsense in everyone else's consciousness.
 
So denial is your only response? Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses despoiled, and their wives ravished."

Are you really saying that the quote is NOT in the Bible?

I guess I was not clear enough for you.

Yes those words are in the bible. They are an example of God telling a people what is going to happen in the future. We don't blame the newspaper for what is reported in it. What they are not is an example of God saying that he was going to cause evil.

The passage describes a situation in which Babylon is deserving of destruction so He allows an army to come against it. The actions of the individual soldiers are known to God but not His. God gives all free will to do what they will.
 
You just can't get it right, can you? It's not God, it's the Bible. It's not God predicting either, read Isaiah 13:11 and 13:13. The Bible attributes these actions to God's "fierce" anger.

The passage clearly begins by saying it is an oracle that was seen by Isaih. I don't know if it was a vision or a dream or what. But it was clearly a prediction.

As I just said in the last post; God has said that Babylon is deserving of destruction and He will allow it to happen. He may even instigate some aspect of it (stirring up the Medes). But what has not been shown is that He is the cause of the evil that may occur along with the destruction. The Medes will be the instrument of destruction but each soldier will shoot his own arrows and weild his own sword.
 
I guess I was not clear enough for you.

Yes those words are in the bible. They are an example of God telling a people what is going to happen in the future. We don't blame the newspaper for what is reported in it. What they are not is an example of God saying that he was going to cause evil.

The passage describes a situation in which Babylon is deserving of destruction so He allows an army to come against it. The actions of the individual soldiers are known to God but not His. God gives all free will to do what they will.

That isn't what it says in the Bible and you know it, Who.
 
Werbung:
I guess I was not clear enough for you.

Yes those words are in the bible. They are an example of God telling a people what is going to happen in the future. We don't blame the newspaper for what is reported in it. What they are not is an example of God saying that he was going to cause evil.

The passage describes a situation in which Babylon is deserving of destruction so He allows an army to come against it. The actions of the individual soldiers are known to God but not His. God gives all free will to do what they will.

That isn't what it says in the Bible and you know it, Who.

I said that it was God telling people what would happen and the bible says:
"An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw" Isaiah 13:1

I said the Babylonians were deserving of destruction and the bible says:

"and destroy the sinners within it."
Isaiah 13:9


I said that God will allow an army to come against Babylon and might even stir it up and the bible says:
"See, I will stir up against them the Medes" Isaiah 13:17
"I have summoned my warriors to carry out my wrath— " Isaiah 13:3

But if anyone here reads the passage God clearly is stated as being responsible for summoning the army or stirring it up but as soon as the atrocities are described the language changes dramatically; many of the statements clearly use words like "I will" or "I have" but as soon as the atrocities begin the language changes dramatically to wording that DOES NOT include any directive from God:

"15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. "

Then the bible even indicates who is responsible:

Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants
nor will they look with compassion on children.
 
Back
Top