Bible "Discussion" (split by Lothar)

[Kilarin]

BIBLE = Written by men using their own reasoning
I believe you stated this point for me.

Ha! Close, but it still needs the rest of the sentence...

The Bible: written by humans, still inspired.

it is hard here because we are now getting into semantics. Faith and Beleif, which means what to who?

I like C. S. Lewis' definition of faith. (If everyone hasn't figured it out yet I'm a big Lewis Fan)

But what does puzzle people-at least it used to puzzle me-is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue. I used to ask how on earth it can be a virtue - what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants to or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence that would not mean he was a bad man, but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.

Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then - and a good many people do not see still - was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anaesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anaesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.

To anyone that i have offended here, I am sorry

You certainly haven't offended me. To the contrary, you've been polite and intelligent in your posts and I've been enjoying the discussion. I am glad you brought it up.

I think all Lothar was saying was that your first comment was obviously likely to divert the conversation and should, therefore, have been started in another thread. This was a minor issue of forum Etiquette only, which he didn't even seem to think was important enough to comment on at the time, he simply corrected it.

Kilarin

[De Rigueur]

When you consider the crusades and the attrocities thereof, you have to look to the Bible and see the mirror of the descriptions therein. My problem is more in the fact that the modern church has 'exluded' that from their teachings, ...

I'm assuming by 'mirror' you're referring to the sections in the Old Testament involving wars, etc. I actually think it's appropriate for Christians to 'exclude' that from their teachings, although 'exclude' is not the right word. I think there is a fundamental distinction between the Old and New Testaments. God's covenant with the Jews, IMO, was specifically for them and not for the general population. As I pointed out before, the Jewish rituals and regulations do not apply to Christians. And the directives to engage in war and take over territory applied strictly to the Jews and no one else. IMO as a Christian, the primary value of the Old Testament is to give background to the New Testament -- in general, it has no authoritative status. Consequently, the fact that Christians often aren't well versed in it is no big deal.

So now we are to look to these scriptures and believe what we are currently taught, ignoring the bad stuff to find ourselve left with a fluffy God. That does not sit well with me.

Do you think Christians should be as disturbed as you are by the immorality (killings,conquests,etc.) in the Old Testament? IMO, a lot of it can be interpreted in light of the legal doctrine of eminent domain. IMO, since the Lord giveth, the Lord has the right to take away. And if any compensation is due to anyone, then the Lord has the means to supply (even posthumously).

I don't deny that people and institutions use the Bible for their own ends. The Bible contains so much that a justification can be found somewhere in it for practically any action. I take this state of affairs as an indication of how corrupt humans can be.

I think there is another reason why certain parts of the Bible are emphasized and others ignored. We live in a consumer-driven culture and churches water down their message to appeal to and attract converts.

[Kilarin]

I think there is a fundamental distinction between the Old and New Testaments. God's covenant with the Jews, IMO, was specifically for them and not for the general population.

Ah, there I will have to disagree with you. Some of the Mosaic rituals no longer need to be kept, simply because they were pointing forward to Christ's death and we are now past that point in history. But all of it, from my study, has application to the Christian life. How can you understand the point of Christ's sacrifice without studying the temple sacrificial system? Christ constantly used old testament sources in his ministry (It WAS all he had!) , and I feel we should as well. Throwing out the old testament because we have new light is like throwing away your Calc I book because you've moved on to Calc II. Calc II may be new and better, but it's all built on what you learned in Calc I, and you are going to need to refer back frequently.


Kilarin

[Bet51987]

You certainly haven't offended me. To the contrary, you've been polite and intelligent in your posts and I've been enjoying the discussion. I am glad you brought it up.

X2....It was a great post without any arrogance.

but now, I wonder if the points that fyrephlie posted will go unanswered and simply buried.

Bettina

[De Rigueur]

I think there is a fundamental distinction between the Old and New Testaments. God's covenant with the Jews, IMO, was specifically for them and not for the general population.

Ah, there I will have to disagree with you. Some of the Mosaic rituals no longer need to be kept, simply because they were pointing forward to Christ's death and we are now past that point in history. But all of it, from my study, has application to the Christian life. How can you understand the point of Christ's sacrifice without studying the temple sacrificial system? Christ constantly used old testament sources in his ministry (It WAS all he had!) , and I feel we should as well. Throwing out the old testament because we have new light is like throwing away your Calc I book because you've moved on to Calc II. Calc II may be new and better, but it's all built on what you learned in Calc I, and you are going to need to refer back frequently.

Hey, I did say, "IMO as a Christian, the primary value of the Old Testament is to give background to the New Testament".

@Bettina - specifically which points do you feel have not be adequately addressed?

[Lothar]

I have had this discussion so many times, and thought many others had as well.

Well... the way this conversation USUALLY goes on this board is Zuruck or Mobi or someone will come in and post about how the Bible has been rewritten so many times that we can't possibly know what it originally said, followed by me smacking them down hard-core with the facts, followed by them disappearing for a few days.

I think this is the first time anyone has actually been interested in having the discussion, rather than just stating their opinion and then hiding from the facts ;)

my concern in the previous thread was that people were falling on the Bible to make a very silly point about Christmas...

Consider:

1) We've pretty solidly established that we can, in fact, identify very accurately what the Biblical texts originally said. While different churches have selected different texts to be included in their form of the Bible at certain points in history, we have access to historically reliable copies of ALL of the texts from ALL of the branches of Christianity. And there are at least some translations out there that are good and open translations (meaning, the translators' biases are openly acknowledged.) See, for example, the NET Bible. I agree with you that the changes DO matter, but we have access to enough study tools that anybody who cares can see what the changes are, who made them, and what the originals said.

2) A number of us here consider the Bible to be an important part of our ideological heritage. So, to us, it makes sense to discuss what it has to say over a particular topic, in the same way as it might make sense to discuss what Thomas Jefferson said about a particular topic if we consider TJ part of our ideological heritage. Some people involved in the conversation couldn't care less -- many non-US citizens, for example, don't care a bit about what TJ said, and many non-Christians don't care a bit about what the Bible says. But for those of us who consider the writing to be a part of our ideological foundations, it makes sense to apply the principles within the writing to whatever argument we're having.

So, all that is to say, it's not silly for us to talk about Christmas from Biblical principles.

If you stick around for a bit, you should notice that one of the things I try to do is teach people general principles of textual interpretation (both for the Bible and for general reading.) IMO, the church as a whole does an awful job of teaching people how to read the Bible (trust me, I dislike the organization called "the church" as much as anybody.) How many Christians are even aware of the sort of things that are written in Judges, Song of Solomon, or Ezekiel? How many are even remotely capable of judging if their pastor's teaching is true to the text? It's far too few. Pretty much all the stuff you say about the church, as an organization, I totally agree with -- with the caveat that there are, in fact, some individual groups that actually teach the whole Bible and don't water it down or hide certain parts.

I wonder if the points that fyrephlie posted will go unanswered and simply buried.

As De Rigueur asked, what points do you feel have not been adequately addressed?

[Zuruck]

Smacking down with facts? You give me facts FROM the bible, and it doesn't work that way. There is no outside evidence that you can state that proves your case, if you could, well then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's weird, I saw Lothar at KCLan a long time ago, I thought he was a dork then, hasn't changed that much.

[Lothar]

Smacking down with facts? You give me facts FROM the bible

I think it's already been demonstrated (and admitted to) that you don't really read my posts. This is just further evidence.

When you post things like "the Bible has changed a gojillion times" I post, essentially, what fyrephlie did at the start of this post or near the end of this post. Did you even take the time to read his posts? His response, like mine many times before, didn't involve quoting "facts FROM the Bible" to you -- just telling you about the history surrounding it.

We know the history of the Biblical texts. We know not only THAT the texts have changed over time, but WHEN, WHERE, and HOW they changed. We can track down where the typos came from. This isn't something I'm trying to prove from inside the Bible -- it's something that can be demonstrated by looking at the manuscripts we have from different eras and locations (including manuscripts of letters where people quote early Bible texts) and comparing them. Follow the links fyrephlie provided -- that history is well-known, and any scholar (whether secular or Christian) will tell you exactly what fyrephlie did: "we know alot about the history of the Bible, who wrote it, where its been changed and 're-written', when decisions were made to suit the fancy of the church." That's a far cry from the "we can't ever know if it's been changed" argument you posted.

At this point, you can choose to willfully remain ignorant and continue pretending that we can't trace the history of the texts, or you can recognize the fact that it's well-established exactly when and where changes were made (follow fyrephlie's Wiki link and the external links from there.) I might very well be a dork, but you've so far chosen to be ignorant despite having direct access to the relevant information. I'll let the audience decide which is worse

[Zuruck]

Lothar, I don't think anybody on this board, except yourself and Drakona, read your entire text. You try to throw the most ineffective reasonings with mounds of your own kind of evidence and bury whoever is reading into believing. "Hell, if he wrote this much, he must know what's talking about"...on the contrary. You say I spout the same garbage, I have yet to see anything in your posts that actually means anything, I do read them, but if it's not worth talking about, I don't. Your posts are long and ineffective, mine are short and without substance, which one would you rather read? Let the audience decide...

On a side note, glad to see that the judge in that Dover ID case absolutely spanked the religious side.

[Lothar]

I try to provide reasoning and evidence. I try to interact with what people are saying, and try to present my case in such a way that they can interact with it as well. Quite a few people are willing to do so. The fact that you are not is a reflection on you, not on me.

EDIT: P.S. I can't help but notice you dodged the whole point of my last post, which by the way wasn't all that long. We know the history of the Bible texts. Fyrephlie provided both links and arguments, and I've done the same before. Yet you insist on disagreeing -- and when I call you on it, you come in and whine that my posts are too long. What a dork...

[Repo Man]

Smacking down with facts? You give me facts FROM the bible, and it doesn't work that way. There is no outside evidence that you can state that proves your case, if you could, well then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Lothar has patiently and accurately expounded many times in the past about the reliability of the Biblical texts insofar as the preservation of the original author?s words are concerned. For a good example of his work, just search the Descent BB for ?Masoretic Text.? Yet, it just seems to go in one ear and out the other?or perhaps more accurately, in one eye and out the other. Furthermore, since this thread is titled ?Bible rewritten?? it seems to me the Bible itself would be the best starting place.

This 'discussion,' like so many I have seen on the Internet, reminds me of this passage from the New Testament...

"To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."

In other words, Lothar is damned if he does and damned if he don't.

I wonder if the points that fyrephlie posted will go unanswered and simply buried.

Answers to most of fyrephlie's points can be quickly located on the Internet via Google. Assuming that you actually want answers to any of them, is there a specific one or two you would like to see addressed here?

[Repo Man]

On a side note, glad to see that the judge in that Dover ID case absolutely spanked the religious side.

Yep, the same way Galileo Galilei got "spanked" by Rome.

[Kilarin]

Lothar, I don't think anybody on this board, except yourself and Drakona, read your entire text.

I don't always agree with Lothar, but I read his entire posts. He usually has thought out his position and well and posts a rational argument for it that is worth listening to. Not always worth AGREEING with, but almost always worth listening to.

If I'm going to participate in a discussion, I read all the posts involved, otherwise I would risk looking like an idiot. (well, more so than usual)

The point here is that fyrephlie was actually participating in a DISCUSSION. He stated his position, some agreed, some disagreed, and some of us agreed with some points and not with others. People posted opinions and facts on all sides. Note that no one was MAD or flaming. Differences of opinion do not HAVE to make for hostile interchange. But when an argument breaks down to personal insults, no one benefits.

Kilarin

[Zuruck]

What are we even talking about here? The bible or posts? sorry for the hijack I guess.

lothar, you obviously did not read my post. I said I respond if there is something worth responding to. Repo Man, I have no problem talking about the bible, what I have a problem with is people using the bible as evidence for itself or religion in general. Isn't the first rule of defining something NOT to use that very thing in the definition? Was Jonah swallowed by a whale and later burped up? Is that one of those stories that isn't literal?

[Bet51987]

I wonder if the points that fyrephlie posted will go unanswered and simply buried.

Answers to most of fyrephlie's points can be quickly located on the Internet via Google. Assuming that you actually want answers to any of them, is there a specific one or two you would like to see addressed here?

I am in want of nothing, I found my answers so I retract all my questions. Biblical inconsistencies, edits, and rewrites, are very evident, profound, and plentiful on the internet, but I know that no matter where I go to extract the data, it will be disputed by the hard core theists here. But that doesn't bother me.

This does. Go back in this thread, and look at fyre's posts. Then look at the replys and see how he was treated by Lothar. This kind of trait makes me dislike the bible even more than I already do. Another example is Zurick. Even when he makes a post he doesn't use arrogant tones, but he receives it. Those were personal insults Kilarin, and I won't let that happen to me.

I try to provide reasoning and evidence.

Evidence? Of what? Something with real meaning?

I did find this somewhat related item that I liked a lot.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise people as false, and by the theists as useful."

Zurick...I'm glad they threw that out too. Religion (ID in its other form) in school is a waste of education. It belongs in church only.

Bettina

[Pandora]

I don't always agree with Lothar, but I read his entire posts. He usually has thought out his position and well and posts a rational argument for it that is worth listening to. Not always worth AGREEING with, but almost always worth listening to.

Same here. Although i almost never agree with Lothar I have learned a lot from his posts...

[Kilarin]

I know that no matter where I go to extract the data, it will be disputed by the hard core theists here

Several of the "hard core theist" were in agreement on that point.

Go back in this thread, and look at fyre's posts. Then look at the replys and see how he was treated by Lothar.

Did so, and I'm sorry, I see dissagrement, one demand for sources, but no mistreatment. It is possible to disagree agreably.

[quote=""Bet51987"]Another example is Zurick. Even when he makes a post he doesn't use arrogant tones, but he receives it.[/quote]

ok, allow me to quote:

fyre, you made a crucial mistake. You questioned Lothar, do you not know that he is the world's foremost authority on the Bible and its teachings? Scholars maintain that the wealth of knowledge that both he and his wife, Drakona, share, equals that of roughly 23% of Ft. Hays, Kansas.

I saw Lothar at KCLan a long time ago, I thought he was a dork then, hasn't changed that much

Those were personal insults Kilarin, and I won't let that happen to me.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. No one was attacking fyrephlie, disagreeing, yes, but then, thats what we are here for, to discuss things. It's kind of boring to discuss issues if everyone agrees. Zurich dropped in (twice) and posts the above. He got some hostile responses back, and I don't see how he could have been surprised by that. I mean, come on, Drakona hadn't even participated in the discussion and she gets insulted seemingly just as a way to strike at Lothar.

I don't think I would qualify as a Lothar sycophant. Lothar and I have different views on ID, and I'm probably MUCH closer to Zurich when it comes to G. W. Bush and his regime. I think that I've disagreed with Lothar at least as much as I have agreed with him on this forum. And I've argued fervently for Zurich's point of view in several politcal debates.

So it's not about point of view, it's about having a discussion instead of shouting insults at each other. I certainly do not mind if Zurich (or you) disagree with Lothar. Frequently I'll be on your side. But let's try to disagree without the insults. It will greatly improve the chances of someone listening.

Kilarin

[Birdseye]

Lothar, I don't think anybody on this board, except yourself and Drakona, read your entire text. You try to throw the most ineffective reasonings with mounds of your own kind of evidence and bury whoever is reading into believing. "Hell, if he wrote this much, he must know what's talking about"...on the contrary. You say I spout the same garbage, I have yet to see anything in your posts that actually means anything, I do read them, but if it's not worth talking about, I don't. Your posts are long and ineffective, mine are short and without substance, which one would you rather read? Let the audience decide...

although i disagree with lothar more and agree with you more zuruck, I read all of most of lothar and drakona's posts and prefer their postings to yours. Not that I don't like you, I just seems like their posts are more well thought out and polished. This is not to say you could not out do them or post the most intelligent thing on the board. It justs seems like you are lazy... I know arguing with religious people can feel psychotic at times because they believe in things that to me are quite obviously made up by humans, but when you take this abrasive view you aren't discussing, you are shouting your viewpoint. You don't bring any credit to your viewpoint in a public forum. It may be fun to do what you do, but consider the effect you get. It's up to you.

I also get the impression from your posts that you are angry. Angry that everybody is not seeing it your way. Arguing with an angry or accusatory tone will never win anyone over. Politeness and treating others with respect will.

[fyrephlie]

Furthermore, since this thread is titled ?Bible rewritten??

actually it's:

"Bible rewritten? (split from Tis the Season by Lothar)"

the title of this thread was picked and settled on by Lothar when he split it from the original thread. he (unfortunately) chose it (i believe) because it was his major point of contention in what i had written previously. after some discussion, my intent in the phrase was made obvious to those that have read this. and the title of the topic does not 'truely' reflect the contents thereof. (have you read it by the way?)

Answers to most of fyrephlie's points can be quickly located on the Internet via Google. Assuming that you actually want answers to any of them, is there a specific one or two you would like to see addressed here?

i think google is not entirely necessary since i, lothar, and kilarin have provided numerous resources on the points i was making, and substantial discussion on the topics. and of course i think it important to note that she doesnt need to seek answers, as i don't seek them. the points were made, not questions posed. (again, i wonder if you read this thread?).

i beleive (and Bet, please correct me if i am wrong) that Bettina was asking about points that i made and things i said that were (i feel) somewhat side stepped and hurried along. much of this comes from my dis-interest in pushing on some of these things, stemming from lack of payment for this. since it has already taken up a great deal of my time (time i could have spent playing descent... or ++'ing my way around the dbb), and lack spirit to 'fight' on topics which i 'know' will not get us anywhere. since i think much of the original topic was well discussed and played through to our satisfaction, it seemed time to let the sleeping dog lie. it's almost like 'sizing up an opponent' where you know for certain how a 'battle' will play out, sometimes it not worth battling at all. (now i wonder if you will even read this post)

birdseye: i think you said, in a very straight forward manner, what i think people have been trying to get at with Zuruck: he's a lazy poster.

this was the mistake that i made which lead to this damned thread in the first place.

Zuruck: blah, that is all i have to say to you. blah!

well, no, in response to 'noone reading Lothar's posts', i read and sometimes re-read Lothar's posts just to (at least try to) understand what he is saying, so that i can make an informed respose. i would prefer to do this than flying off half-cocked.........

[Repo Man]

Bettina,

I ask you for a specific example and you repond with generalities. My objective here is not to win an argument, but to provide reasoned answers if you wanted them. If you ever change your mind, then let me know.

[Repo Man]

i think google is not entirely necessary since i, lothar, and kilarin have provided numerous resources on the points i was making, and substantial discussion on the topics. and of course i think it important to note that she doesnt need to seek answers, as i don't seek them. the points were made, not questions posed. (again, i wonder if you read this thread?).

Yes, I have read the thread. Besides what was discussed earlier, I was also refering to all the claptrap about the allegded contradictions you mentioned, the flat earth, 144,000, blah, blah, blah.

I am always amused how often so-called skeptics love to use the old shotgun approach on discussion boards like this, but they never really like being pinned down on specifics. Another favorite tactic is the posting of links to some web page somewhere without even attempting to articulate their own position. And if you disagree with whatever was on the linked webpage, then you must not be as smart as the person who posted the link. Sorry, fyrephlie, you have a lot of bluster, but very little real substance.

[Edited to correct a few errors.]

[Lothar]

Biblical inconsistencies, edits, and rewrites, are very evident, profound, and plentiful on the internet

I'm not certain you understood fyrephlie's posts, or mine.

Biblical inconsistancies (Joseph's father), points that are hard to reconcile (faith/works in Romans vs James), and questionable content (violent, sexual, or both) are very evident and easy to find. Nobody with a clue will dispute that. If you have one you want to talk about, let's talk about it.

Removal of some books or addition of others is also well-known. We can point to the times in history when it happened -- who was involved, what books they chose or didn't choose to include in their form of the Bible, and what reasoning they gave. The 2 key periods here are the early church's original formation of the Bible, and the Reformation. Again, follow fyrephlie's Wikipedia link for more info. (And you originally joked about how I was going to ignore the Wiki link. HEH!)

Edits and rewrites of the original texts simply don't exist, though. The texts are very well preserved, to the point where we can determine what country and what timeframe typos appeared in. We can tell when people left out lines and what lines were left out. And pretty much every modern translation of the Bible will make note of what modifications exist and how much evidence there is for which version being the original. The number of modifications is very small -- again, read what fyrephlie has said about the preservation of the text.

You ask me what "reasoning and evidence" I'm providing. The reasoning is the above 3 paragraphs. The evidence for the first paragraph, you already know. The evidence for the second is fyrephlie's Wiki link. Any decent history book (secular or Christian) that deals with Bible manuscripts will tell you exactly what I said in the third paragraph, and you can read something like the Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism to see the sorts of textual errors that actually exist and what's known about them.

look at fyre's posts. Then look at the replys and see how he was treated by Lothar.

Funny... fyre and I seem to be getting along just fine. I was aggressive in pushing him to say exactly what he meant and provide evidence for his points, and when he did, you'll notice there was little if any disagreement or argument from there on out. I haven't seen him complain he was mistreated; I've only seen you complain that you think he was mistreated. (Between this and your constant worries that you've offended someone... perhaps it just hasn't sunk in yet that most of us here are adults who can handle criticism without feeling offended.)

[Zuruck]

Ouch birdseye, that hurt coming from you. You brought up some interesting points but I'm not going to waste my time trying to counter each little thing that you said. I am suprised that you would think I'm an angry person, I'm not angry, but speaking to Lothar reminds me of speaking to my republican representative uncle to the House. It's utterly hopeless, I cannot, for the life begin to understand how a seemingly rational person can be so idiotic. It doesn't matter anyways, I can say what I want just as anyone else can.

[Birdseye]

Ouch birdseye, that hurt coming from you. You brought up some interesting points but I'm not going to waste my time trying to counter each little thing that you said. I am suprised that you would think I'm an angry person, I'm not angry, but speaking to Lothar reminds me of speaking to my republican representative uncle to the House. It's utterly hopeless, I cannot, for the life begin to understand how a seemingly rational person can be so idiotic. It doesn't matter anyways, I can say what I want just as anyone else can.

Please read this whole thing. I guarantee it will be worth it. Originally I began writing this as a response to you, but it slowly evolved in time to a greater response where I am explaining some of my own viewpoints. I mean this in no way as an egotistical lecture, but rather as a friendly discussion starter with you, feel free to respond in kind with your own well thought-out post that perhaps counters what I've said.

If it hurt I think you took what I said the wrong way, or perhaps I could have said things better. What I'm saying is you are very bright and intelligent, but you sell yourself and everyone short by being a bit lazy with your posts. You're even doing it now with me... I really posted something honest there, and I want to help you because it seems like you are frustrated. Perhaps it was not my place to do so. So I apologize for that, and maybe I should be sending you private emails. I'm not sure what would be right in this situation. I certainly don't mean to hurt you or do you wrong as a person.


What I'm giving you is my vote of confidnece of you as a person to be able to post extremely intelligent viewpoints. I feel like often you have come to a viewpoint through unemotional, rational thought, but then you have trouble translating your ideas on to words in a form that everyone can understand. I don't think you are an angry person in *General* (I don't profess to know what your daily life is like in any way, shape, or form) but you sometimes seem upset when people don't see it your way very fast. You will not grow as a person until you surpass your impatience. I struggle very badly with this on a daily basis. I feel compassion for you because of how similar you seem to me. I, like you, am intelligent person but I have almost no patience. This has lead me to hurt other people's feelings all the time, something I don't feel proud of.

Trust me, I know what it's like to feel like something is so rediculously obvious that you should not have to continue the argument. There shouldn't even have to be an argument, some of these situations are so clear to me. I used to get (and sometimes still do, but less so now) very very frustrated with people that didn't see it my way. There was a time where I was actually banned here (it was only for a day, most people wouldn't remember that). So I've kind of been in your shoes, only I was frequently much nastier with my words than you have been.

When I say I prefer Lothar's posts, I only say that because I feel like he has respected not only himself but everyone on the board by taking the time and effort to attempt to clearly describe his viewpoints. Lothar & Drakona are definitely not the only people that do this, of course. You could easily become the person I admire most on the board, but it's really all up to how much effort you choose to put into this. While I find most of Lothar's points to be wrong from my view (and he feels the same way about me) at least at the end of the day we can, in a friendly way, agree to disagree.

But by telling him (or anyone) that you don't even read his whole post, you've essentially removed yourself from the argument, officially. Why would I want to enter into a discussion with someone that didn't read what I wrote? The world is not black and white, so *usually* the more time spent on a post and the longer it is, that poster is closer to encapsulating that particular idea.

So I've gone from fearing reading a long post to actually enjoying it. When someone responds to one of your posts in long form, consider it a sign of respect, that you are worth of discussion. You should respect them back in kind by either replying with an equally well thought out post, or explaining that you don't have time to enter this discussion (or somewhere in between, like disclosing an apology that you are responding, but in minimal form due to time constraints, and perhaps focus on only one or two points rather than the whole argument).

If you don't read what someone wrote, you aren't part of the discussion. Everyone here would like you to be a part of the discussion, because you are clearly a bright and cool guy. We'd like the intelligent, patient Zuruck to post every day and have long intelligent discussions. But it's really up to you. If you don't feel like reading long posts or putting a lot of effort into a discussion, it's probably best not to enter it. That's what I've tried to do lately, if I really am not up to the task it's better not to waste everyone's time. Of course I am human and I don't always practice what I preach (nobody can), but I strive for excellence.

Many people have solidified their beliefs like stone. Their mind is closed. It is very hard to argue with these people. They see black and white, not a gradient or dynamic world. Honestly I think most viewpoints(this includes me), no matter how intelligent they are, are originally rooted originally in emotion and then later rationalized by the thinking, portion of the brain. The thinking portion (what most people would consider 'themself') never sees or understands that what they are thinking about is simply a response to an emotion or instinct they have. An easy analogy to this for me is Racism, where perhaps biologically we are pitted against things dissimilar to us. There is, in many people, an in-built fear of things different from them. So to start they have this emotional/instinctual reaction, and then their rational mind attempts to tidy the world up to fit the strong emotion they are currently feeling. The trick to arguing with these people who are not yet open to this concept (I am able to to call emotional argument with certain friends who understand this, and they will not get mad at me for accusing them of an emotionally rooted argument, rather they will attempt to objectively reflect on what I have said) is not realize that:

1) Their argument is partly rooted in emotion

2) Your argument (This includes Me) is ALSO partly rooted in emotion, do not think for a second that your own view is perfect. It is not. I believe Quantum Physics and even meditation can show us that the world is not wholly accurately described via labels and seperate things such that all argumentation is inherently flawed. Think of it like an asymptote, where the line is approaching, approaching, approaching, but never quite getting there.

3) You should have compassion for people who do not understand this, as the world can be a very confusing place when this is not understood.

4) Even if they react to a calm, rational, fact based argument you present with an emotional response, still your compassion should remain. Imagine if you always approached life in that closed-stone manner like your uncle. How hard would it be! He probably struggles with life more than you realize. While he may act smug at dinners, he may have relationship problems and other difficulties if his views truly are almost wholly emotional and ego defensive. That is not to say all republicans do this and by definition what we say is right, just that in particualr your uncle, who happens to be a republican, may be doing these things.

5) Even when you give it your best shot, you are nice, calm, and rational, some people are impenitrible, as you said. It's up to them to come to their own understandings and change internally.

6) Knowing all this, you are now presented with a choice as a human being, a choice that will come up daily, every second: Do you create positive, or negative ripple effects? If you finish a discussion disagreeing with someone, you can still score points for your viewpoint if they come away thinking "wow someone that believes that IS actually intelligent and friendly" and THAT in of itself can be progress. Because so much of this terrible Democrat-Republican false dilemma debate that goes on is spurred back and forth in emotional argument spirals, where people modify their arguments based on an emotional view, or if they have already sunk their view, they prefer to continue to ego-defend their viewpoint despite rational evidence otherwise. I've done it, everyone has done it. It's only being mindful of yourself that you can attempt to curb this behavior; you will never be able to wholly eradicate it, I think it's just human nature. So you can either extend the olive branch to the other side, creating a positive ripple effect despite your disagreements, or you can end the argument in a negative fashion and create a negative ripple effect, which will only serve to re-inforce their original argument that not only are they right, but people that believe otherwise are clearly clouded by anger. If you end with this negative-ripple, you have done your argument, the people who hold it and the people who do not, a disservice.

7) So if you've read and understood the above, I have presented you a way where you can actually acheive progress with people that have opposing viewpoints. It's not futile, there is value to your efforts. But only if you approach things the right way, never insulting the other person. You can actually, in a way, win every argument by taking this 'high road-positive ripple effect' approach. (Remember, it may be easy to attack me right now and say well Birdseye, you don't do this all the time, and I say you are right, I am weak just like everyone, but I am trying to modify my behavior to benefit not only myself, but everyone around me). You may not have changed their viewpoint as a 180 (almost no human has the power to do this anyway, to completely let go of their attatchments to previous viewpoints -- this is especially problematic as we age and attatchments grow stronger) but you can create an entrance to their stone fortress, a conduit for which in the future your viewpoint (whether it is you arguing it or someone else) can travel through. That's the biggest progress of all -- getting that entrance open.


So if you have actually read this far in a nutshell we like you and want you to post more, but you have to respect everyone by reading their posts in their entirety before responding. I look forward to being a part of a good discussion with you, or lurking in your discussions. I am being as honest as I can be when I say this: Think of this situation right now as if you are slipping off a cliff -- a group of friends is right there to help you and enjoy time with you, and all you have to do is grasp our hand.

- Bird-zai!

[Bet51987]

... perhaps it just hasn't sunk in yet that most of us here are adults who can handle criticism without feeling offended.)

I know you said "most", but maybe you should tell that to the ones who were offended in my "Joke" post the other day. I won't be doing that again......ever.

*WARNING* This is off topic, strawman, or other words you would use, so don't read any further if you want to stay on track.

I am going to give you the win on this biblical argument. I am just not smart enough or dedicated enough to debate you about written bible text, because my heart knows that "text" is all it is. I have already fully rejected the trinity, heart and soul, so whats the point of arguing who is right or wrong about what, or how, words have been written in a book.

I struggle emotionally every day...my weakness...and for every night of Christmas week, I will be up on that alter, tears in my eyes, singing Oh holy night to all those people, knowing that there is nobody up there answering their rosarys. They think my eyes well up because I'm a believer.....if they only knew its just the music. I torture myself because of my priest who, no offense, is the only theist I truly respect. He comforted me big time a few years back.

His strength is his faith. He has no fiery "long" sermons, foot poundings, or sharp retorts, which is much different than the religious intructor I see each week. He is a decent person, and though I love him, he can't back up his **** (as is the words used here) any more than you can. He can't prove to me there is a god who loves me then allows pain, murder, and rapes of children...you get the point, and he can't prove he had anything to do with todays bible. Its all just words...written text by darwins humans. All we argue about here is interpretation of the bible or bible text. You can do the same thing with the farmers almanac, calling it a bible because certain parts have come true.

The only part I believe is the part of Jesus dying on the cross thinking he was doing it for me, but he was not the son of god, or any other god. He was just a typical prophet of the times who really thought he was gods son. There have been other crazy people who thought the same way, but somehow I got attached to him. I sing those holy songs partly for him, and the tears coming down the side of my face are for the god who should have been....the one who little kids pray to every night.

Unfortunately, all their wishes won't make it come true and unless you can back up your text with proof, then all you have left is faith. Other than that, your just smooth talking with long drawn out posts. Even if everyone finally agrees that your version or interpretation of the bible is correct, what does it prove. The simplest statement is and always will be "show me the money"...and you can't.

Thats the irony of it all...I wish you could.

Bettina

[Birdseye]

I am going to give you the win on this biblical argument. I am just not smart enough or dedicated enough to debate you about written bible text, because my heart knows that "text" is all it is. I have already fully rejected the trinity, heart and soul, so whats the point of arguing who is right or wrong about what, or how, words have been written in a book.

Actually, how intelligent of you. You recognized that you have a firm emotional belief right now that won't change, albeit based on rational experience with Christianity. You said honestly what most people would hide in an argument.

I struggle emotionally every day...my weakness...and for every night of Christmas week, I will be up on that alter, tears in my eyes, singing Oh holy night to all those people, knowing that there is nobody up there answering their rosarys. They think my eyes well up because I'm a believer.....if they only knew its just the music. I torture myself because of my priest who, no offense, is the only theist I truly respect. He comforted me big time a few years back.

What you should remember is that every human is just like you, struggling. Do as your preacher does and have compassion. All this religion is to these people is a way to wrap up the emotional difficulties of their lives. Faith is letting go of a rational belief system and letting emotion override. I respect the viewpoint in which people admit that they believe in god based on faith, a gut feeling, an emotion. I do not respect the viewpoint that a belief in god can be rationally proven, because it cannot be. If it could be, we'd all be the same religion by now.

His strength is his faith. He has no fiery "long" sermons, foot poundings, or sharp retorts, which is much different than the religious intructor I see each week. He is a decent person, and though I love him, he can't back up his **** (as is the words used here) any more than you can. He can't prove to me there is a god who loves me then allows pain, murder, and rapes of children...you get the point, and he can't prove he had anything to do with todays bible. Its all just words...written text by darwins humans. All we argue about here is interpretation of the bible or bible text. You can do the same thing with the farmers almanac, calling it a bible because certain parts have come true.

Faith is tricky. It is the complete embracement of attatchment, the natural human inkling. It is quite deceptive. At first, you may see many benefits to this faith. Friends at the congretion; believers just like you. A feeling of being special, a feeling of being let in on a unique view; Heck a unique relationship with god. As you analyze popular religions, you will see that they are simply responses to human's scared-animal quality, or unsettled emotions, how scared we are. They explain away all our problems, and we want to believe because if we do our problems are solved. For the people that are able to nearly wholly embrace faith, pure attatchment to the concept of God, their life may emotionally overall benefit from faith. That's why sometimes I am reluctant to argue with religious people who do seem truly happy. I am less worried with what is right or wrong and more worried with people being happy. But for those of us that can't buy into the leap of faith and let go of being rational and embrace pure emotion, we're left somehow feeling incomplete. The religion just doesn't do it for us. It doesn't make us happy, and I think this is actually how most people involved in religion feel, though few would ever admit this. They instead focus on the happier portions their faith is involved in, and ignore times when they question or have a bad day, or when something doesn't match their world-view. There are these parts of religion that can do so much good for us -- friends, traditions, the possibility of all fears being alleviated. But if you can't buy in all the way, it doesn't work. So good for you and letting go of that, and I wish you good luck in your search beyond that.

The only part I believe is the part of Jesus dying on the cross thinking he was doing it for me, but he was not the son of god, or any other god. He was just a typical prophet of the times who really thought he was gods son. There have been other crazy people who thought the same way, but somehow I got attached to him. I sing those holy songs partly for him, and the tears coming down the side of my face are for the god who should have been....the one who little kids pray to every night.

The problem with what you have just said is you are still buying into the biblical and historical lie. Nobody here even knows for 100% certainty (or even 99%) if Jesus actually thought he himself was the son of god, or if all the stories in the bible are about jesus himself. It's even possible that Jesus said some VERY, VERY insightful things, but down the road humans changed things to fit their own world view better, as humans tend to do.

Unfortunately, all their wishes won't make it come true and unless you can back up your text with proof, then all you have left is faith. Other than that, your just smooth talking with long drawn out posts. Even if everyone finally agrees that your version or interpretation of the bible is correct, what does it prove. The simplest statement is and always will be "show me the money"...and you can't.

Thats the irony of it all...I wish you could.

Bettina

An honest and well thought out post. I have been there too. I was brought up Catholic. There are other beneficial philosophical viewpoints you can read and learn about that are not dogmatic and faith based.

Try as Lothar might, he will never be able to prove the existance of god or jesus as the son of god, or that the bible is all correct. This is not possible. We were not actually there. If you have ever had a story written about you in the news, you know what I mean! Even though it is 'written down' and 'documented' it could still be totally wrong! How do you know Christian followers didn't totally mis-interpet Jesus? It wouldn't be the first time an intelligent person was mis-understood. There is an illussion that perhaps if we can get closer to proving that the bible is consistent that it means it is all correct. The problem here is that even if there is a way to prove that the bible hasn't changed, there is NO way to prove all the words are straight from God or Jesus's mouth.

[Lothar]

Birds, thanks for your comments to Zuruck.

... perhaps it just hasn't sunk in yet that most of us here are adults who can handle criticism without feeling offended.)

maybe you should tell that to the ones who were offended in my "Joke" post the other day.

I didn't see anyone offended in that thread.

I saw some people who thought it was a lame attempt at a joke. I saw some people who wondered what you were thinking when you posted it, and are honestly worried that you might have an unhealthy level of anger or cynicism or something. And I even saw some people who thought Tricord's response was offensive (probably because he meant for it to be.) But I didn't see anyone steaming mad or offended by you, and I haven't gotten any complaints about it or requests to close the thread from anyone but you. Again... you're very quick to assume people are offended.

I am just not smart enough or dedicated enough to debate you about written bible text, because my heart knows that "text" is all it is.

I respect the position that says "I reject the text because of what it says." That's what fyrephlie said, too, and I totally understand. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that a lot of people dislike, and I respect the decision to say "that sounds like a bad God to me if He allows all those bad things to happen, so I reject that God." I don't agree with it, but I respect it.

The position I don't respect is the one that says "I don't believe the Bible, so therefore, I'm going to claim it's been rewritten a bajillion times over the years." The evidence for the preservation of the text throughout history is, simply put, solid. Fyrephlie has clearly studied it and made the same point, and we've both pointed out resources for further study. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of history that's accessible to anyone of any religion -- we have very old manuscripts from a wide geographic area, and the disagreements in the manuscripts have been catalogued and studied quite extensively. Of course, if it doesn't matter to you, don't bother with the research -- but don't senselessly hold to the "it must have been rewritten" view. "I don't know, and it's not important enough to me to find out" is a perfectly valid response.

I torture myself because of my priest who, no offense, is the only theist I truly respect.

Do you think your priest is better served by your torturing yourself to make him feel good, or by your honesty?

Faith is letting go of a rational belief system and letting emotion override.

That might be the pop-culture definition, but it's not what I (or, probably, Bettina's priest) mean by "faith". When I speak of faith in my wife, what I mean is that, based on past experience and all available evidence, I trust her to do things in a certain way in the future. That's not "letting go of a rational belief system"; it's making a rational conclusion based on observation. That's not "letting emotion override"; it's letting reason override my emotional insecurities.

The same is true when I speak of faith in God, and I think you'll find many others who say the same. It's not "I have faith in God because it feels good", it's "I have faith in God because of what He's done in my life in the past, and how He's changed me and others around me." That's the way it's used in the Bible, too -- as the opposite of forgetfulness. Faith is used to describe those who, having seen that God kept His promises short-term, were willing to act on promises God made long-term. The people called unfaithful are those who witnessed miracles or saw God working and yet later acted as if it never happened. Nobody in the Bible is ever called "faithful" for thinking God is a fluffy happy-machine or "unfaithful" for having incorrect doctrinal views; the faithful are always those who believe based on past evidence and the unfaithful are those who disbelieve in spite of the past. I have faith in God because of things He's done to me and to others I know (and one thing He said to me that seemed completely irrational at the time but turned out to be exactly right), not because the idea of God makes me all warm-fuzzy inside or makes me happy.

Honestly... if someone's idea of God makes them feel warm-fuzzy or explains away all of their problems, they're not talking about the same God as I am. The God I'm talking about isn't safe, He doesn't make your problems go away, He doesn't make you happy all the time... in fact, He says many times that His followers will suffer. (I always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy. Where does that come from? Does the rest of the church really teach that crap?)

Now, of course, there are a lot of people who use "faith" to mean exactly what you did. But don't make the mistake of thinking that's what "faith" is for everybody.

I do not respect the viewpoint that a belief in god can be rationally proven....

Try as Lothar might, he will never be able to prove the existance of god or jesus as the son of god, or that the bible is all correct...

I don't see why you expect me to try to prove the existance of God or Jesus as the son of God or the Bible being all correct. I hope you didn't extrapolate that from the fact that I think people should have sensible *historical* views.

I think belief in God can be rational, and I think there's some evidence for it that should at least make people wonder, but I don't think it can be proven by anyone but God Himself. It certainly can't be proven from the fact that the Biblical text is well-preserved. The biblical text being well-preserved is useful for other reasons (mostly, it would be irrational to even try to study it if it wasn't well-preserved), but belief or disbelief in God comes from whether or not you've seen God at work, either directly in your life or in some other way. If you haven't, nothing I can say will convince you, and that's OK. You should believe what the evidence leads you to. It's not my job to convince you; it's my job to be faithful (that is, to remember and act on God's past assurances and activities) and to live for Him.

[fyrephlie]

Sorry, fyrephlie, you have a lot of bluster, but very little real substance.

i have a lot of substance, but again, this a forum, not an international religous summit. i point to other people who have done leg work, and back up what i was saying. the links i made were in regards to the texts, and as lothar has even said: they were accurate and backed up what i was saying.

you have not made a lot of sense, and seemed to be speaking directly from your ass on this. so, i am going to ignore you now, unless you say something, that isn't already contradicted many times earlier in the thread. (the one you claim to have read). to you i say: STFU

now back to the on topic off topic:

bet: congratulations, you are human! WEEEE. i don't mean to deamean at all, what you are saying is exactly what many people feel, and it sounds like you are stuck without suitable support.

this time of the year is great for me. (read: extremely hard!)

let me explain a little about why.

to begin with, when i was young i began to reject the religion i was born into. i have already explained a little about why. (i might even say i am a bit offended by Lothar's generalized statement about rejecting the text which means i reject the religion, there is SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TOO IT, but i digress). I have always had a deeply logical mind, i do not going around accepting because everyone else has accepted it too. This was why, at the age of six, i was no longer allowed to attend Sunday school due to the questions and discussions I was asking. (which lead to our moving into another congregation because the church actually began to turn its back on my mother, as it was apparently her fault that i was beginning to question my faith, again i digress). as time went on i studied other religions, made notes, kept journals, compared, balanced, read, consumed. i came to some startling conclusions at a fairly young age that almost every culture has religion, and that those religions dictate our creation, moral values and guidelines, and explain the questions of where we came from and where we are going. this lead to my decision: man created god, so that god could create us. because we are inherently social, and are forced to live in society, we seek answers, and some how those answers all come from similar places. i could lay out examples, and explain similarities, but i think most people already understand what i am getting at, and may have even grappled it before setting their ways along the path they chose. the bottom line is that i decided that, there is no TRUE explanation, the reason that all religions make sense is that they are culturally and humanistically derived. the only 'answer' i can come up with is taht there most likely is a higher power, and that it is just as likely we were all created by God as we were all created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

congratulations, fyrephlie, you are an athiest. however, my family is not. my mother is devout (however foolish, she gets upset that she doesn't understad her own religion well enough to debate it with me), my grandmother would cry if she understood what i beleive, and i spend much of my time tip toeing around my own beleifs and opinions so as not to cause problems. BRING ON THE BIRTH OF CHRIST, A HOLIDAY BASED ON PAGAN PRACTICES, CAROLS, AND PRESENTS!!! WEEE this time of year is great.

while it is a side note, i would also like to mention that it was about 1 week ago today that i ex-wife called me (while i was working a 14 hour day) to tell me that she had slept with my best friend of 15 years and that i should probably end our marriage. (this lead to several months of trying to get us into counseling, and working out the situation, especially when i learned that she only did it TO end the marriage, deciding that she did not want to be a wife or a mom anymore since she felt we were married too young (further side note, she got knocked up and is living with some guy who is still married and now has an ugly baby and is playing wife and mom again, and clearly doesnt like it anymore now than she did with me..... more digressing). this lead to the eventual divorce and my physical custody of the kids. boom, more reason to dislike this time of year. but wait, i allow my mom to take my children to church on sundays (do i need to explain why? ...) which leads to questions of why daddy doesnt go, this time of year i get to explain the holiday, whithout explaining too much, which hurts. a lot.

now, you know me a little better.

faith: clearly, as already stated, this is a tough one. because many people see faith differently. i see faith as having several meanings. again, i think it has much to do with semantics, too. i would point out taht faith cannot be without emotion, belief and faith are also intertwined. sometimes it is hard to seperate one's faith from their emotional attachment.

i'm getting too tired for this right now, so i think i will stop here. i have some things that i want to say, but have been typing and back spacing now for the last fifteen minutes, and need to step back for a little while.

i'll be back.

[Repo Man]

[Edit: I have deleted my original post and put a new response in this thread. Please see below.]

[dissent]

always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy.

God is not a fluffy care bear?

[Bet51987]

Do you think your priest is better served by your torturing yourself to make him feel good, or by your honesty?

I would never, ever, tell him what I really think. I like him too much so I can't answer your question.

I always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy. Where does that come from? Does the rest of the church really teach that crap?)

Yes, and my father taught me the same thing when I was little. The god who loved me.
So, tell me in your own words, what kind of god was Jessica Lunsford praying to when she went to bed that night.
What kind of god do all little kids pray to?

Bettina

[dissent]

Hey Bettina, sounds like you haven't gotten around to reading any of the books relating to evil and free will that were recommended to you in another thread a few months back? I could be wrong. You seem to be dwelling on the issue of how a god could allow evil to exist. Stumps me too. However, I also understand how humans have a free will to make their own choices. The alternative is to have a god who is a puppet master and manipulates every choice in every moment of time. I agree with you that this does not sound like a reasonable description of God to me. Doesn't necessarily tell me who God is, but does tell me a bit about who God isn't.

[Repo Man]

you have not made a lot of sense, and seemed to be speaking directly from your *** on this. so, i am going to ignore you now, unless you say something, that isn't already contradicted many times earlier in the thread. (the one you claim to have read). to you i say: STFU

Fyrephlie,

Originally, I was just going to let this go, but since telling me to STFU, you have inspired me to do just the opposite. If I am not making sense to you, then I will spell things out in detail so you can understand?

Your original posts which, I assume, initiated the moderator?s decision to make this a separate thread contained the following:

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

but remember, according to the Bible, the earth is flat, seeds need to be dead to germinate, slaves are ok, menstruation is proof of woman's uncleaness [sic], and just before the second coming, 144,000 Jews will be sealed, the rest of us are off to hell.

FLAMES AWAY!!!

This is what I was referring to earlier as the ?shotgun approach.? You blast us all at once with a torrent of alleged problems in the Bible, each of which could become a thread in and of itself, in an attempt to either impress us with how much you think you have studied or to present a daunting task for anyone wanting to respond. Golly gee whiz, the Bible just chalk full o? soooooooooooo many problems, how can you stoooopid little Christians be so gullible?

Let us examine your comments from the last paragraph.

The 144,000 Jews

Your assertion that only 144,000 Jews will be saved and ?the rest of us are off to hell,? is absurd. Yes, these are Jews and they are sealed for a special purpose, which is explained elsewhere in Revelation (but that?s another subject). To prop up your contention, you quote Revelation 7:4-8 later on in this thread. However, you conveniently ignored verses 9 through 17 of the same chapter. Here is the entire section of Chapter 7, in context, with the part you left out in italics and the most interesting part in bold.

4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:

5 the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand {were} sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand,

6 the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand,

7 the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, from the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, from the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand,

8 the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, from the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, from the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand {were} sealed.

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and {all} tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches {were} in their hands;

10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."

11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and {around} the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

12 saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, {be} to our God forever and ever. Amen."

13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"

14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

15 "For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.

16 "They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat;

17 for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes."

It is obvious that ?a great multitude which no one could count? is a lot more than 144,000 and that this great multitude has also been saved. Furthermore, the great multitude described here are only ?the ones who c[a]me out of the great tribulation,? so there will be even more than that in the end! Your selective quotation of Revelation 7 is at best amateurish and at worst disingenuous.

As an aside, I do find your selection of the 144,000 rather curious. Were you raised a Jehovah?s Witnesses by any chance?


Slavery

The focus of the Bible is God?s plan of salvation for all who would accept it. It is not to deliverer polemics against every contemporary social ill. However, there two types of slavery: kidnapping (or man-stealing) and indentured servitude. Man-stealing is condemned in the Bible and punishable by death.

If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.

During slavery, the United States and the Europeans were aiding man-stealing in Africa by purchasing those who were kidnapped either by fellow Africans or by Muslims. Muslims were then, and are still now, the biggest man stealers in the world.

The other type of slavery, indentured servitude, is not condemned in the Bible. The Bible tolerates slavery of this type and the New Testament has guidelines for relations between slaves and their masters, but toleration cannot be logically equated with acceptance.

In his epistle to Philemon, Paul, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, cleverly undermines the foundations of indentured-servitude slavery. Onesimus was a slave who had became a Christian while absconded from his master, Philemon, who was also a Christian. Paul has Onesimus return to his master presumably accompanied by this letter. He explains that in Christ there is a completely new frame of reference that transforms all earthly relationships: brotherhood is the focus on which all other relationships must be evaluated. Paul reminds us that these relationships are not to be realized by ?compulsion, but by your own free will? (Philemon v.14). In the course of passing centuries, the Christian faith has come to view the practice of slavery as incompatible with the principles expressed in this epistle. And if memory serves me correctly, Philemon and Deuteronomy 24 were used by the abolition movement here in the United States.


Menstruation

I am assuming you are referring to Leviticus Chapter 15. Concerning God?s laws, Israel was promised that,

If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.

Leviticus Chapter 15 contains detailed sterilization procedures that mirror what are used in today?s hospitals to prevent the spread of contagions from disease-born discharges of the human body. The practices described here and in other sections of Leviticus protected the Jews from plagues that devastated the pagan societies surrounding them. There is also ceremonial uncleanliness associated with the physical uncleanliness described in this chapter. Uncleanliness from menses and seminal discharges are merely ceremonial and last only until sunset anyway. Getting into the reasons for this ceremonial uncleanliness is beyond the scope of this discussion. It suffices to say though that claiming menstruation has some sort of permanent biblical uncleanliness associated with it is ridiculous.

[EDIT-- Actually, what I meant to say here was: claiming that menstruation places some sort of permanent biblical uncleanliness upon women is ridiculous. The statemnt I was answering was "menstruation is proof of woman's uncleaness" Duh. 12/26/05].


Seeds Needing To Be Dead To Germinate

I assume you are referring to John Chapter 12 where Jesus is discussing his forthcoming death and resurrection.

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
25 "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.
26 "If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
27 "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour.

The mistake skeptics make here is taking the modern scientific definition for life and death and assuming it is the same as the biblical definition--they are not the same. In science, life is defined in a particular way, but according to Scripture, plants are not alive. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word nephesh chayyah (the breath of life) is applied to living souls, but it is not applied to plants. Plants may be thought of as biological machines. They are not alive in a biblical sense, but animals and human beings are. If you look up references to plants in the Old Testament you will see that they wither, they burn, they fade and they are cut, but, in general, they are not referred to as being killed or dying. In the few instances where plants are said to die, it is abundantly clear that it is not applied in the modern biological sense. Take Job Chapter 14, for example.

7 "For there is hope for a tree, When it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And its shoots will not fail.
8 "Though its roots grow old in the ground And its stump dies in the dry soil,
9 At the scent of water it will flourish And put forth sprigs like a plant.
10 "But man dies and lies prostrate. Man expires, and where is he?
11 "{As} water evaporates from the sea, And a river becomes parched and dried up,
12 So man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.

The plant?s ?death? here is only temporary while the man?s is permanent?until the resurrection, of course.

With this background knowledge in mind, any imagined difficulties seen in John 12:23 evaporate.


The Flat Earth

According to Jeffery Burton Russell, Professor of History, Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara, ?[W]ith extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.? Dr. Russell authored a book called Inventing The Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians where he explores the origins and dissemination of the flat earth myth in modern times. Russell argues that the flat earth was fabricated in the 1830?s by two authors: the Frenchman, Antoine-Jean Letronne in his book On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers and the American, Washington Irving in his book History of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The myth was then used as propaganda by nineteenth century Darwinists to further their agenda. Russell writes in a summary of his book,

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library.

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"

But that is not the truth.

The spherical shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by the observation of eclipse shadows. Comparing the circular shadow on the face of the moon where light ends and darkness begins to night and day on the earth was one the proofs used by the Greeks for a spherical earth. Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 192 B.C.) calculated the circumference of the earth to within 50 miles of the present estimate. We can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. The debate Columbus had with his contemporaries was not the shape of the earth, but, fully aware of the earth?s circumference calculated 1700 years earlier, whether or not a ship could make such a long journey to the orient.

Let us now return to the Bible and see what it says about the earth.

He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

The Bible states that the earth is suspended in space?the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.

The Bible states that the boundary between light and darkness on the earth is circular. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe as can be easily observed from the phases of the moon.

?When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.? Proverbs 8:27.

?Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.? Isaiah 40:21-22.

Insisting that the word ?circle? in the above verses is indicative of a flat, pancake-like earth is tenuous at best, since ?circle? also fits perfectly with the description of the circumference of a sphere. Furthermore, Gesenius? Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to The Old Testament defines the Hebrew word translated ?circle? as ?To describe a circle, to draw a circle, as with compasses, a circle, a sphere.? In ancient Hebrew, there was no varying word for a "sphere" (a three-dimensional circle). It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity but that they simply did not create a second word for it. Anyone looking at a pomegranate (a fruit mentioned many times in the Bible) would be familiar with the notion of a sphere.

Finally, Luke Chapter 17 depicts Christ?s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field?an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time. In the flat earth cosmology it is impossible to have simultaneous day and night.

30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.
31 "On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back.
32 "Remember Lot's wife.
33 "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses {his life} will preserve it.
34 "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
35 "There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
36 ["Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
37 And answering they *said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body {is,} there also the vultures will be gathered."

It never ceases to amaze me how skeptics automatically become functional illiterates whenever they go fishing for ?errors? in biblical cosmology. It is as if they abandon all awareness of poetry, metaphors and the phenomenological language used in everyday life. If you are tempted to throw other alleged biblical ?errors? my way (e.g. ?geocentricity,? the ?four-corners of the earth? and the ?domed sky?), I strongly suggest that you do your homework first before popping off.

***********************************

Looking at your other posts in this thread, I find your knowledge about the reliability of the biblical texts and its cannon to be just as misinformed as your knowledge about everything I have covered so far. However, that will have to wait for another time and perhaps another thread. In any event, I have serious doubts it would be even worth the trouble.

I do not enjoy being so harsh, but at the same time I am tired of seeing the same pack of lies propagated over and over again.

I have made the mistake in the past of spending many hours arguing with skeptics on other message boards. The skeptic would blurt out an allegation using one or two sentences that I would then have to spend three or four paragraphs answering. I don?t play that game anymore; too much effort on my part without a reciprocal effort from the other side.

I stand by my original statement: ?a lot of bluster, but very little real substance.?

?oh yeah, and Merry Christmas anyway.

[Shoku]

Originally, I was just going to let this go, but since telling me to STFU, you have inspired me to do just the opposite.

Very good post Repo Man. Well done.

I would just like to add that one of the biggest mistakes people tend to make when referring to the ancient world is viewing it through our modern perceptions, which can tend to distort the reality that existed back then, because it was in many respects quite different than our modern world. A good example is the issue of slavery. Everyone today who is employed by someone would have been condsidered a slave in the ancient world. Slavery did not always imply chains and brutal treatment. Many slaves were actually quite wealthy and had slaves of their own. Every Christian is referred to as a slave of Christ, because as Paul said, they were bought for a price, and that price was Christ's blood.

[fyrephlie]

you have not made a lot of sense, and seemed to be speaking directly from your *** on this. so, i am going to ignore you now, unless you say something, that isn't already contradicted many times earlier in the thread. (the one you claim to have read). to you i say: STFU

Fyrephlie,

Originally, I was just going to let this go, but since telling me to STFU, you have inspired me to do just the opposite. If I am not making sense to you, then I will spell things out in detail so you can understand?

Your original posts which, I assume, initiated the moderator?s decision to make this a separate thread contained the following:

it certainly is an extremely well maintained text. but history is written by the victors, and certain texts have been changed and omitted over the many years. this is fact, not fiction. of course i know where this is going, so in the interest of not starting a war i am prepared to deal with, i will back off.

but remember, according to the Bible, the earth is flat, seeds need to be dead to germinate, slaves are ok, menstruation is proof of woman's uncleaness [sic], and just before the second coming, 144,000 Jews will be sealed, the rest of us are off to hell.

FLAMES AWAY!!!

This is what I was referring to earlier as the ?shotgun approach.? You blast us all at once with a torrent of alleged problems in the Bible, each of which could become a thread in and of itself, in an attempt to either impress us with how much you think you have studied or to present a daunting task for anyone wanting to respond. Golly gee whiz, the Bible just chalk full o? soooooooooooo many problems, how can you stoooopid little Christians be so gullible?

wow, you really have not read this thread at all have you? i have already apologized for the initial post, having been made quickly and with some flame intent. i was tired, and that is what came out.

Let us examine your comments from the last paragraph.

The 144,000 Jews

Your assertion that only 144,000 Jews will be saved and ?the rest of us are off to hell,? is absurd. Yes, these are Jews and they are sealed for a special purpose, which is explained elsewhere in Revelation (but that?s another subject). To prop up your contention, you quote Revelation 7:4-8 later on in this thread. However, you conveniently ignored verses 9 through 17 of the same chapter. Here is the entire section of Chapter 7, in context, with the part you left out in italics and the most interesting part in bold.

hmm, since i ignored the rest of revelation 7, maybe you skipped 7:1 conveniently, which again points out that there are four corners on this flat flat world of ours. i'm going to thin this out a bit, but the point i was making was to the 'inerracy' of the bible.

It is obvious that ?a great multitude which no one could count? is a lot more than 144,000 and that this great multitude has also been saved. Furthermore, the great multitude described here are only ?the ones who c[a]me out of the great tribulation,? so there will be even more than that in the end! Your selective quotation of Revelation 7 is at best amateurish and at worst disingenuous.

As an aside, I do find your selection of the 144,000 rather curious. Were you raised a Jehovah?s Witnesses by any chance?

read the thread have you? hmm... i already mentioned who i was raised by.

yes Jehovah's are funny. they make the same assertions. the WatchTower's 'great crowd' which stick around... but whatever. Try reading the Book of Mormon too, it makes some great comments about the second (well, 2.35rd ...) coming.

again, what i said was meant to be somewhat immflamatory, and i have already apologized for it. thanks. can you tell i really don't feel like going back to the beginning of this discussion?

Slavery

The focus of the Bible is God?s plan of salvation for all who would accept it. It is not to deliverer polemics against every contemporary social ill. However, there two types of slavery: kidnapping (or man-stealing) and indentured servitude. Man-stealing is condemned in the Bible and punishable by death.

If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.

During slavery, the United States and the Europeans were aiding man-stealing in Africa by purchasing those who were kidnapped either by fellow Africans or by Muslims. Muslims were then, and are still now, the biggest man stealers in the world.

The other type of slavery, indentured servitude, is not condemned in the Bible. The Bible tolerates slavery of this type and the New Testament has guidelines for relations between slaves and their masters, but toleration cannot be logically equated with acceptance.

In his epistle to Philemon, Paul, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, cleverly undermines the foundations of indentured-servitude slavery. Onesimus was a slave who had became a Christian while absconded from his master, Philemon, who was also a Christian. Paul has Onesimus return to his master presumably accompanied by this letter. He explains that in Christ there is a completely new frame of reference that transforms all earthly relationships: brotherhood is the focus on which all other relationships must be evaluated. Paul reminds us that these relationships are not to be realized by ?compulsion, but by your own free will? (Philemon v.14). In the course of passing centuries, the Christian faith has come to view the practice of slavery as incompatible with the principles expressed in this epistle. And if memory serves me correctly, Philemon and Deuteronomy 24 were used by the abolition movement here in the United States.

Exodus

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Leviticus

22:11 But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Buy some heathen neighbors for slaves. They are to be your possessions forever. 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

Ephesians

6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Colossians

3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

1 Timothy

6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus

2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

1 Peter

2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward

there are actually more passages in the bible that are pro slavery, than against it.= (very much indicitive of the time when they were written).

in all honesty, the bible is really all over the place with this subject (as it is with many subjects).

Menstruation

I am assuming you are referring to Leviticus Chapter 15. Concerning God?s laws, Israel was promised that,

If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.

Leviticus Chapter 15 contains detailed sterilization procedures that mirror what are used in today?s hospitals to prevent the spread of contagions from disease-born discharges of the human body. The practices described here and in other sections of Leviticus protected the Jews from plagues that devastated the pagan societies surrounding them. There is also ceremonial uncleanliness associated with the physical uncleanliness described in this chapter. Uncleanliness from menses and seminal discharges are merely ceremonial and last only until sunset anyway. Getting into the reasons for this ceremonial uncleanliness is beyond the scope of this discussion. It suffices to say though that claiming menstruation has some sort of permanent biblical uncleanliness associated with it is ridiculous.

Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel

18:5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 18:6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,18:7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 18:8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, 18:9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.

Seeds Needing To Be Dead To Germinate

I assume you are referring to John Chapter 12 where Jesus is discussing his forthcoming death and resurrection.

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
25 "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.
26 "If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
27 "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour.

The mistake skeptics make here is taking the modern scientific definition for life and death and assuming it is the same as the biblical definition--they are not the same. In science, life is defined in a particular way, but according to Scripture, plants are not alive. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word nephesh chayyah (the breath of life) is applied to living souls, but it is not applied to plants. Plants may be thought of as biological machines. They are not alive in a biblical sense, but animals and human beings are. If you look up references to plants in the Old Testament you will see that they wither, they burn, they fade and they are cut, but, in general, they are not referred to as being killed or dying. In the few instances where plants are said to die, it is abundantly clear that it is not applied in the modern biological sense. Take Job Chapter 14, for example.

7 "For there is hope for a tree, When it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And its shoots will not fail.
8 "Though its roots grow old in the ground And its stump dies in the dry soil,
9 At the scent of water it will flourish And put forth sprigs like a plant.
10 "But man dies and lies prostrate. Man expires, and where is he?
11 "{As} water evaporates from the sea, And a river becomes parched and dried up,
12 So man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.

The plant?s ?death? here is only temporary while the man?s is permanent?until the resurrection, of course.

With this background knowledge in mind, any imagined difficulties seen in John 12:23 evaporate.

read the previous posts, we talked about it. talked about all of this already.

The Flat Earth

According to Jeffery Burton Russell, Professor of History, Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara, ?[W]ith extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.? Dr. Russell authored a book called Inventing The Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians where he explores the origins and dissemination of the flat earth myth in modern times. Russell argues that the flat earth was fabricated in the 1830?s by two authors: the Frenchman, Antoine-Jean Letronne in his book On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers and the American, Washington Irving in his book History of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The myth was then used as propaganda by nineteenth century Darwinists to further their agenda. Russell writes in a summary of his book,

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library.

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"

But that is not the truth.

The spherical shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by the observation of eclipse shadows. Comparing the circular shadow on the face of the moon where light ends and darkness begins to night and day on the earth was one the proofs used by the Greeks for a spherical earth. Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 192 B.C.) calculated the circumference of the earth to within 50 miles of the present estimate. We can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. The debate Columbus had with his contemporaries was not the shape of the earth, but, fully aware of the earth?s circumference calculated 1700 years earlier, whether or not a ship could make such a long journey to the orient.

Let us now return to the Bible and see what it says about the earth.

He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

The Bible states that the earth is suspended in space?the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.

The Bible states that the boundary between light and darkness on the earth is circular. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe as can be easily observed from the phases of the moon.

?When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.? Proverbs 8:27.

?Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.? Isaiah 40:21-22.

Insisting that the word ?circle? in the above verses is indicative of a flat, pancake-like earth is tenuous at best, since ?circle? also fits perfectly with the description of the circumference of a sphere. Furthermore, Gesenius? Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to The Old Testament defines the Hebrew word translated ?circle? as ?To describe a circle, to draw a circle, as with compasses, a circle, a sphere.? In ancient Hebrew, there was no varying word for a "sphere" (a three-dimensional circle). It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity but that they simply did not create a second word for it. Anyone looking at a pomegranate (a fruit mentioned many times in the Bible) would be familiar with the notion of a sphere.

Finally, Luke Chapter 17 depicts Christ?s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field?an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time. In the flat earth cosmology it is impossible to have simultaneous day and night.

30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.
31 "On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back.
32 "Remember Lot's wife.
33 "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses {his life} will preserve it.
34 "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
35 "There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
36 ["Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
37 And answering they *said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body {is,} there also the vultures will be gathered."

actually i was amazed that this discussion didn't take off more with lothar, but it wasn't needed giving that when i explained my motives, and discussed where i was coming from. the conversation eased back. of course i think it's so cute of you to make such a long winded point of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how skeptics automatically become functional illiterates whenever they go fishing for ?errors? in biblical cosmology. It is as if they abandon all awareness of poetry, metaphors and the phenomenological language used in everyday life. If you are tempted to throw other alleged biblical ?errors? my way (e.g. ?geocentricity,? the ?four-corners of the earth? and the ?domed sky?), I strongly suggest that you do your homework first before popping off.

i have and continue to do a great deal of homework on the subject, thanks.

***********************************

Looking at your other posts in this thread, I find your knowledge about the reliability of the biblical texts and its cannon to be just as misinformed as your knowledge about everything I have covered so far. However, that will have to wait for another time and perhaps another thread. In any event, I have serious doubts it would be even worth the trouble.

in other words you are too lazy to try and prove this point, and in hoping someone (like Shoku) will read the long post at the end of the thread, will think you know what you are talking about. kudos.

I do not enjoy being so harsh, but at the same time I am tired of seeing the same pack of lies propagated over and over again.

good, you haven't been harsh... you've been cute. and angry... oooooh oh so angry, grrrr.



keep pounding them keys!

I have made the mistake in the past of spending many hours arguing with skeptics on other message boards. The skeptic would blurt out an allegation using one or two sentences that I would then have to spend three or four paragraphs answering. I don?t play that game anymore; too much effort on my part without a reciprocal effort from the other side.

I stand by my original statement: ?a lot of bluster, but very little real substance.?

keep standing by it. it suits you. i will say this. i really wish you would have READ this thread, and joined the discussion while i still cared to have it. would have been nice to actually discuss this with you. but since you skimmed through, and popped up when it was well over, you get kudos for the 'troll'. since you have not bothered to read all of my post, i have not really read yours. just threw some stuff in there, cause i can. so whatever. you go on being so right about everything you think you are right about. have fun. (it is fun isn't it... getting all flustered cause someone told you to STFU?) so anyway... stfu.

?oh yeah, and Merry Christmas anyway.

and merry christmas to you too.

i'm gonna go play dance dance revolution: mario mix with my kids on their gamecube i got em for christmas... cause it sounds like more fun than this.

p.s. what a quote nightmare.

p.p.s. in case you couldn't tell repo... i am and was trying to piss you off now. the more upset you get, the funnier you will be to me. your utterly disrepectful tone so far is what really has caused me to take such a disinterest in actually discussing this with you, and since i doubted you could leave well enough alone, i wanted to see your reaction. good times. hope you feel good knowing i hardly read anything... but what i skimmed over made me snicker a bit. i wouldn't mind discussing something with you sometime though. when you aren't being such a condescending a$$.

I would just like to add that one of the biggest mistakes people tend to make when referring to the ancient world is viewing it through our modern perceptions, which can tend to distort the reality that existed back then, because it was in many respects quite different than our modern world.

that was actually a point i was making in regards to human perception and reasoning in the writing of the bible...

[snoopy]

I always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy. Where does that come from? Does the rest of the church really teach that crap?)

Yes, and my father taught me the same thing when I was little. The god who loved me.
So, tell me in your own words, what kind of god was Jessica Lunsford praying to when she went to bed that night.
What kind of god do all little kids pray to?

Bettina

God loving you and God wanting you to be happy are not equitable. Sometimes the most loving thing a person can do is let another person be very miserable for a time. (For example, parents letting an adult child sink into the mire of debt and learn how to control their spending the hard way rather than always bailing them out.) Your dad was 100% correct in teaching you that God loves you. Somehow along the way you where incorrectly taught that loving someone is the same thing as keeping them always happy.

Another thing to think about- "Justice" isn't always the same thing as "Fairness."

[Bet51987]

I always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy. Where does that come from? Does the rest of the church really teach that crap?)

Yes, and my father taught me the same thing when I was little. The god who loved me.
So, tell me in your own words, what kind of god was Jessica Lunsford praying to when she went to bed that night.
What kind of god do all little kids pray to?

Bettina

God loving you and God wanting you to be happy are not equitable. Sometimes the most loving thing a person can do is let another person be very miserable for a time. (For example, parents letting an adult child sink into the mire of debt and learn how to control their spending the hard way rather than always bailing them out.) Your dad was 100% correct in teaching you that God loves you. Somehow along the way you where incorrectly taught that loving someone is the same thing as keeping them always happy.

Another thing to think about- "Justice" isn't always the same thing as "Fairness."

Let me ask again...

What kind of god was Jessica Lunsford praying to that night. What kind of god do all little kids pray to every night.

Bettina

[Duper]

I always think it's funny when someone studies Christianity and somehow comes away with the idea that God is a fluffy care-bear who just wants you to be happy. Where does that come from? Does the rest of the church really teach that crap?)

Yes, and my father taught me the same thing when I was little. The god who loved me.
So, tell me in your own words, what kind of god was Jessica Lunsford praying to when she went to bed that night.
What kind of god do all little kids pray to?

Bettina

God loving you and God wanting you to be happy are not equitable. Sometimes the most loving thing a person can do is let another person be very miserable for a time. (For example, parents letting an adult child sink into the mire of debt and learn how to control their spending the hard way rather than always bailing them out.) Your dad was 100% correct in teaching you that God loves you. Somehow along the way you where incorrectly taught that loving someone is the same thing as keeping them always happy.

Another thing to think about- "Justice" isn't always the same thing as "Fairness."

Let me ask again...

What kind of god was Jessica Lunsford praying to that night. What kind of god do all little kids pray to every night.

Bettina

Lothar, yea.. a lot of it does. .. saddly.


Bettina.
I'm not sure of the context/reference of your question, but the way it's put is emotionally charged that does, infact, come across as a retorical question. That is to say is "sounds" like: "I dare you to find a good enough answer to satify me cuase you won't"

Now, both Lothar and Snoop tried to answer the question with truth, but you can't see it. Good and Bad happens to the good and bad... NO MATTER HOW good or HOW bad a person is. Period! end of story. deal with it. Read through Job with a study bible sometime , as this book exeplifies this issue very well. Bluntly, apin, death Life, happyness are not "what it's about" to God. It's not what matters in life. It's how we react to these circumstances that DOES matter. Lunsford is doing something about what happened to her kid (from what I gathered from a quick google) Her daughter doesn't care about it for sure now and you can be sure that it hasn't escaped God's notice. God still loves this individual. I know that seems weird but it's true. He no more wants to see this person removed from eternity than he does Saint Paul or you. If this person is unrepentant, then judgment will come.

What Kinda God? a God that is Merciful to ALL His creation. A God that allows free will. Hey, if we don't want to spend the rest of eternity with Him, that's up to us, he won't make us if we don't want to. That's free will.

Don't blame God for the evil in the world and all that goes "wrong", it's hypocritical.

[fyrephlie]

God loving you and God wanting you to be happy are not equitable.

the age old debate of how 'there' is god, and why would god just sit back and let this happen. answered by the eternal struggle of good over evil.

in bet's defense, it can be tough to grasp. it is hard because i still hold a lot of christian ideals myself and believe deeply that there MUST be some sort of higher power. i have to let go of the idea of 'divine intervention', because to me it seems like a random, LOOK WHAT GOD DID!!! that is there oh so conviently when something goes right.

it is easy to say he was there when.... but so easy for someone else to say, where was he when... so the question remains, where the hell is he?

justice and fairness are tough as well, because if god were ALWAYS there, there wouldn't be a need for justice, would there? of course this a debate that is older than christianity, and has, at some point been posed and beat to death over and over again. but i know where you are coming from on it, by the same token, i am sure you have questioned from time to time, where was he when i needed him. (even if for a flash of emotion)...

Good and Bad happens to the good and bad... NO MATTER HOW good or HOW bad a person is. Period! end of story. deal with it.

this is exactly the problem, she can't 'deal with it', many of us 'anti-christian' folks can't just 'deal with it'.

much like if you were to call the cops one day because you walked out and found your car had been stolen, and they just said "deal with it." (of course these days, they almost do...) i know we are certainly not talking about the same thing, but for someone who relies on the police as a power to fix such problems, and discovering that they aren't really there to do anything at all...

another way of putting it is, if you have faith in god, and he is real to you, you place it in his hands and trust he is going to take care of you, and the world, according to his plan, and that what happens, happens because he has willed it so, or because he is not here to affect the outcome of the short term, but has predetermined the ending. then the question of free will comes in, but we won't get into that right now.

again, going to bat for bet, if you read the bible, if you listen in church, if you do the best you can, and you are still left with the conclusion (whether you think it's right or not) that there is no god what-so-ever, there isn't a 'deal with it.' anymore, because while you can use your faith to 'deal with it' she cannot.

does that make sense.

bet:

asking rhetorical questions will not get you the answer you want to hear. keep in mind that because you don't believe, doesn't mean that 'they' won't believe either. i think i understand where you are coming from in trying to ask, but the answers you need will not come out of their mouths (well... finges i guess lol)

for both sides of said debate, understand that the other is not coming from your point of view, and that expounding religous, or anti-religous, sentiment will not help.

p.s. i am really hoping that this thing hits 3 pages soon... so i don't have to wait so long for it to load, lol... 6 mbps connection and it still takes forever for the whole page to reach the bottom.

[SilverFJ]

I've said it once and I'll say it again the picture of the pounding keyboard guy is a sick joke.