steveorino 7 #801 March 13, 2007 QuoteGiven that you dont defend the genocide in the OT, I presume you agree that genocide is immoral. Given there is genocide in the bible (not just described but glorified) isnt it reasonable to conclude the bible is immoral? My history book speaks of genocide and the book is not immoral. The Bible is not immoral. I believe many acts of the Hebrews were immoral. EDITED to ADD: Can the Bible be a moral guide when parts may not be accurately attributed to God? Truth is truth regardless of who says it. QuoteBut we also have the acts carried out by god himslef. One obvious example is the massacre of the Egyptian first born. The judgment of God is not an immoral act. IMHO any more than the death penalty for a child abuser steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #802 March 13, 2007 thomas jefferson said it best: the christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone on man the early christian writers dont prove anything,we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #803 March 13, 2007 Quotethe early christian writers dont prove anything, The early Christian fathers writing about the trinity in 100 AD to 250 AD obviously proved the doctrine of the trinity was not added after 325 CE!! My argument is not whether the doctrine of the trinity is true; I believe it is, but none the less, my argument is your assertion that it was added after 325 CE is 100% completely bogus and 100% verifiable as false. The fact you will not admit that makes it easier to see how ridiculous your claims about JC not existing are. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #804 March 13, 2007 QuoteAre you still claiming the bible is clear in its message? No, not to all. Luke 8:8b-10 When he said this, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #805 March 13, 2007 Quote I think JC corrected some common misunderstandings of Mose's teachings and Levitical law. I'm not aware of him correcting himself in the NT. For example, JC first said it's ok let children who curse their parents to die. Then he said "do not kill". Does it include children who cursed their parents, or not? And the funniest one, regarding divorce: Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (so if a man divorces and gets married again, he commits an adultery) Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (so if a man divorces and gets married again, he does not commit an adultery if it was the "cause of fornication") So which one is correct? Just as a reminder, the Bible penalty for adultery is death for both participants (Lev 20:10), so right choice is important.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #806 March 13, 2007 Quote But in a quick answer ... no. There are incidents of the preincarnate Christ in the OT, but JC is not God the Father. So in your opinion we have two separate gods (the Father and the Son)?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #807 March 13, 2007 Quote You are correct. They do not believe JC was divine. In fact jews believe he was a heretic. But ask a Hebrew scholar why they used the plural form of God (Elohim) in the Genesis account rather that the singular form (El) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Elohim Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God is grammatically singular, and takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #808 March 13, 2007 QuoteQuote But in a quick answer ... no. There are incidents of the preincarnate Christ in the OT, but JC is not God the Father. So in your opinion we have two separate gods (the Father and the Son)? You have no clue about the doctrine of the trinity do you? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #809 March 13, 2007 QuoteQuote You are correct. They do not believe JC was divine. In fact jews believe he was a heretic. But ask a Hebrew scholar why they used the plural form of God (Elohim) in the Genesis account rather that the singular form (El) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Elohim Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God is grammatically singular, and takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible. That is because the triune God is one. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #810 March 13, 2007 Quote My history book speaks of genocide and the book is not immoral. The Bible is not immoral. This is correct. The book itself cannot be immoral, because the whole concept of morality belongs to society, not to the book. And the concept changes while the book stays intact. However someone actually following or asking other to follow the immoral writings does commit immoral acts. Therefore if you do all the things Bible says it is good to do, you will not only commit immoral, but also illegal acts. But if you start choosing what to do and what not to do, you are not following the Bible anymore - you're following your own understanding of what to do. Quote EDITED to ADD: Can the Bible be a moral guide when parts may not be accurately attributed to God? Truth is truth regardless of who says it. This is correct when talking about something which is known to be true. However it does not work when we cannot know and prove whether it is true, and therefore it is subject to belief, and it is based on person knowledge and reliability. Sure, if someone says 2+2=4, his level of knowledge does not matter. However if someone says 2+2=5, it really depends whether it is said by full professor of mathematics (who is likely to know something you do not know), or by a 2nd grade student (who probably didn't do his homework). Quote The judgment of God is not an immoral act. The definition of phrase "immoral act" itself is subjective, and depends on person. This means that it not "immoral act" itself, it is just you do not treat it as an immoral act. Which means nothing to anyone else though.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #811 March 13, 2007 Why do you say genocide is wrong? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #812 March 13, 2007 QuoteYou have no clue about the doctrine of the trinity do you? Seems like you haven't read this for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity The trinity concept itself is "separated and united" :P Quote Please change your statement that Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine after 325 CE The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data, thrashed out in debate and treatises, eventually formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD in a way they believe is consistent with the biblical witness, and further refined in later councils and writings. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #813 March 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou have no clue about the doctrine of the trinity do you? Seems like you haven't read this for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity The trinity concept itself is "separated and united" :P Quote Please change your statement that Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine after 325 CE Find me ONE academic professor who would allow Wikipedia as a vaild source. I do not consider [Wikipedia] to be an appropriate source for use in academic work. — Robert Rubin, Wright State University Relying on the Wikipedia for academic research seems a sloppy and negligent way to work. — Wayne Bivens-Tatum, Princeton University I would advise teachers not to accept any student essays that use Wikipedia as a source. — Paul Axelrod, Dean of York University Wikipedia is not getting better. It is getting worse. ... Wikipedia is unacceptable as a research tool. — Ken Friedman, Norwegian School of Management The important point that we wish to communicate to all students taking courses and submitting work in our department in the future is that they cite Wikipedia at their peril. — Don Wyatt, History Chair, Middlebury "Q" earliest gospel circulated 40 AD Epistles of Paul 50-65 AD Gospel writers (1st century) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180 AD Tertullian 200 AD All of them write about the trinity as doctrinal fact. The Council Nicaea only put all theories and doctrines together as one. It was a doctrine of the church from the beginning. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #814 March 13, 2007 Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud. The online reference work was dealt a serious blow last week as it emerged that EssJay, a Wikipedia editor understood by the site and its users to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, was in fact a 24-year-old from Kentucky called Ryan Jordan with no higher educational qualifications to speak of. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #815 March 13, 2007 as always, a christtian denies everything when presented with the fact that the church fabricated the jesus story to keep an ignorant population under control. jesus was the nickname fabricated by the priesthood for Jmmanuel you can read ALL about in the Talmud of Jmmanuel isbn 1-893157-12-1 better yet, read Gen 6:4, then read the twelfth planet isbn 0-380-39362-xwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #816 March 13, 2007 Quote That is because the triune God is one. No, that's because their God is not triune.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #817 March 13, 2007 Quote Find me ONE academic professor who would allow Wikipedia as a vaild source. If you actually READ the article, you would see that it just quotes the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible. So what was your point? Are you saying that no professor would accept Oxford Dictionary of the Bible as a valid source? Why did you waste your time blaming Wikipedia (and missing the whole point this way) instead of just showing your arguments? You are saying the quote from Oxford Dictionary is wrong; could you show any counter-arguments? Obviously please choose those a non-religious academic professor would allow as valid. Quote "Q" earliest gospel circulated 40 AD Epistles of Paul 50-65 AD Gospel writers (1st century) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180 AD Tertullian 200 AD All of them write about the trinity as doctrinal fact. NEITHER of them contains any direct proof regarding trinity doctrine. Some passages in the Bible could be interpreted this way. But they could be interpreted different way as well. Ask any Unitarian, and he'll prove you this. So the facts are: - there is nothing in the Bible talking about Trinity doctrine directly. The doctrine itself is based on the interpretations of the Bible; - there are no facts that Trinity doctrine existed before 325, but there are facts that it was created at this time. If you have different facts, which are academically acceptable - please show us it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #818 March 13, 2007 QuoteWhy do you say genocide is wrong? Because - unlike gay marriage or abortion - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is considered unacceptable in the society I live. If I lived in Nazi Germany in 1939, I might not say that. After all, the God did it several times, and Jesus said nothing about it being wrong.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #819 March 13, 2007 QuoteWikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud. I'm the little Jew who wrote the Bible.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #820 March 13, 2007 "My history book speaks of genocide and the book is not immoral. " which book are you talking about? does this book mention/describe genoicde as a historical act or does it glorify it? The bible does the latter and that is why it is immoral. "I believe many acts of the Hebrews were immoral. Which acts?The genocide of many nations? let not forget god wanted to carry out terrible punishment for worshipping the godlen calf but he did nothing about genocide. The bible claims he ordered it. Now either the bible is wrong or its immoral, either way we should not consider it as some holy scripture. " Can the Bible be a moral guide when parts may not be accurately attributed to God? Truth is truth regardless of who says it. " The two statemtns here are unrelated. That Hitler ordered mass murder is true but does that make it a moral guide. I agree truth is truth but the bible is not a true story. 'The judgment of God is not an immoral act. IMHO any more than the death penalty for a child abuser " On that basis no act is an immoral act, perhaps all acts are judgments of god. The death penaly for a child abused is not at all comparale. In the death penalty cases this is a punishment for a crime. Answer me whhat crime a new born baby has committed that it deserves death for the actions of a Pharoh? what crime has a mother committed that she must have her child killed because of the actions of a pharoh? To compare the two is absurd in the extreme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #821 March 13, 2007 Quotethomas jefferson said it best: the christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone on man He was unfamiliar with Islam in the 21st century. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #822 March 13, 2007 here is a good laugh www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjsaEK4vnw AND MORE UNDENIABLE TRUTH ABOUT CHURCHwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #823 March 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy do you say genocide is wrong? Because - unlike gay marriage or abortion - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is considered unacceptable in the society I live. So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was morally okay, you be okay with it too? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #824 March 13, 2007 Quote So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was morally okay, you be okay with it too? Maybe. When Christians during crusades were doing "deliberate and systematic destruction of a cultural group", the Christian church was not only okay with that, but actively supported it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #825 March 13, 2007 Quote Why did you waste your time blaming Wikipedia (and missing the whole point this way) instead of just showing your arguments? You are saying the quote from Oxford Dictionary is wrong; could you show any counter-arguments? Obviously please choose those a non-religious academic professor would allow as valid. - there are no facts that Trinity doctrine existed before 325, but there are facts that it was created at this time. If you have different facts, which are academically acceptable - please show us it. the writings of the early Christian fathers are facts (unless yoiu are a HairyJuan who believes they didn't exist either) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180AD Tertullian 200 AD they all wrote about the trinity. No scholar I know of denies what they wrote. the Council of Nicea was a meeting that united orthodox teachings and ruled out uncanonical writings. So their decison to include the trinity as part of the orthodox christian doctrines, was not a "new" idea, but simply a recognition, or in other words, approval of previous teachings that were very old. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next Page 33 of 62 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
steveorino 7 #814 March 13, 2007 Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud. The online reference work was dealt a serious blow last week as it emerged that EssJay, a Wikipedia editor understood by the site and its users to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, was in fact a 24-year-old from Kentucky called Ryan Jordan with no higher educational qualifications to speak of. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #815 March 13, 2007 as always, a christtian denies everything when presented with the fact that the church fabricated the jesus story to keep an ignorant population under control. jesus was the nickname fabricated by the priesthood for Jmmanuel you can read ALL about in the Talmud of Jmmanuel isbn 1-893157-12-1 better yet, read Gen 6:4, then read the twelfth planet isbn 0-380-39362-xwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #816 March 13, 2007 Quote That is because the triune God is one. No, that's because their God is not triune.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #817 March 13, 2007 Quote Find me ONE academic professor who would allow Wikipedia as a vaild source. If you actually READ the article, you would see that it just quotes the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible. So what was your point? Are you saying that no professor would accept Oxford Dictionary of the Bible as a valid source? Why did you waste your time blaming Wikipedia (and missing the whole point this way) instead of just showing your arguments? You are saying the quote from Oxford Dictionary is wrong; could you show any counter-arguments? Obviously please choose those a non-religious academic professor would allow as valid. Quote "Q" earliest gospel circulated 40 AD Epistles of Paul 50-65 AD Gospel writers (1st century) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180 AD Tertullian 200 AD All of them write about the trinity as doctrinal fact. NEITHER of them contains any direct proof regarding trinity doctrine. Some passages in the Bible could be interpreted this way. But they could be interpreted different way as well. Ask any Unitarian, and he'll prove you this. So the facts are: - there is nothing in the Bible talking about Trinity doctrine directly. The doctrine itself is based on the interpretations of the Bible; - there are no facts that Trinity doctrine existed before 325, but there are facts that it was created at this time. If you have different facts, which are academically acceptable - please show us it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #818 March 13, 2007 QuoteWhy do you say genocide is wrong? Because - unlike gay marriage or abortion - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is considered unacceptable in the society I live. If I lived in Nazi Germany in 1939, I might not say that. After all, the God did it several times, and Jesus said nothing about it being wrong.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #819 March 13, 2007 QuoteWikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud. I'm the little Jew who wrote the Bible.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #820 March 13, 2007 "My history book speaks of genocide and the book is not immoral. " which book are you talking about? does this book mention/describe genoicde as a historical act or does it glorify it? The bible does the latter and that is why it is immoral. "I believe many acts of the Hebrews were immoral. Which acts?The genocide of many nations? let not forget god wanted to carry out terrible punishment for worshipping the godlen calf but he did nothing about genocide. The bible claims he ordered it. Now either the bible is wrong or its immoral, either way we should not consider it as some holy scripture. " Can the Bible be a moral guide when parts may not be accurately attributed to God? Truth is truth regardless of who says it. " The two statemtns here are unrelated. That Hitler ordered mass murder is true but does that make it a moral guide. I agree truth is truth but the bible is not a true story. 'The judgment of God is not an immoral act. IMHO any more than the death penalty for a child abuser " On that basis no act is an immoral act, perhaps all acts are judgments of god. The death penaly for a child abused is not at all comparale. In the death penalty cases this is a punishment for a crime. Answer me whhat crime a new born baby has committed that it deserves death for the actions of a Pharoh? what crime has a mother committed that she must have her child killed because of the actions of a pharoh? To compare the two is absurd in the extreme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #821 March 13, 2007 Quotethomas jefferson said it best: the christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone on man He was unfamiliar with Islam in the 21st century. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #822 March 13, 2007 here is a good laugh www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjsaEK4vnw AND MORE UNDENIABLE TRUTH ABOUT CHURCHwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #823 March 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy do you say genocide is wrong? Because - unlike gay marriage or abortion - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is considered unacceptable in the society I live. So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was morally okay, you be okay with it too? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #824 March 13, 2007 Quote So if you lived in one of those societies that thought genocide was morally okay, you be okay with it too? Maybe. When Christians during crusades were doing "deliberate and systematic destruction of a cultural group", the Christian church was not only okay with that, but actively supported it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #825 March 13, 2007 Quote Why did you waste your time blaming Wikipedia (and missing the whole point this way) instead of just showing your arguments? You are saying the quote from Oxford Dictionary is wrong; could you show any counter-arguments? Obviously please choose those a non-religious academic professor would allow as valid. - there are no facts that Trinity doctrine existed before 325, but there are facts that it was created at this time. If you have different facts, which are academically acceptable - please show us it. the writings of the early Christian fathers are facts (unless yoiu are a HairyJuan who believes they didn't exist either) Justin Martyr 150 AD Irenaeus 180AD Tertullian 200 AD they all wrote about the trinity. No scholar I know of denies what they wrote. the Council of Nicea was a meeting that united orthodox teachings and ruled out uncanonical writings. So their decison to include the trinity as part of the orthodox christian doctrines, was not a "new" idea, but simply a recognition, or in other words, approval of previous teachings that were very old. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
