beowulf 1 #101 April 21, 2011 Considering that there has never been a consensus as to what the proper interpetation is there is no way pin down what the actual "Gods Laws" are! So with out knowing exactly what those laws are how can anyone say they haven't changed? "There are no believable gods." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #102 April 21, 2011 QuoteHow many during the Inquisition? So kind of your loving god to invent those exquisite tortures Bzzzzt! You already acknowledged that it was the priesthood, not God.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #103 April 21, 2011 No change. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. If you die in your sins wolfriverjoe, you will come face to face with the wrath filled God described in the OT and you will melt like a candle in front of a blast furnace. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." That is, unless you have Jesus Christ interceeding for you. That only comes through faith. That faith is demonstrated by repentance. Either you will be judged for what you have done in this life, found guilty, and justly punished....or....you can be seen as innocent...not based on anything you have done or could do...but based on the perfect substitute which was given for you (if you have been called by God to repent and believe the gospel). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #104 April 21, 2011 Quote Considering that there has never been a consensus as to what the proper interpetation is there is no way pin down what the actual "Gods Laws" are! So with out knowing exactly what those laws are how can anyone say they haven't changed? "There are no believable gods." Something like that. Considering that there isn't even consensus in any major religion, or even the individual sects of any religion, getting people of different religions to agree is impossible. Throw in the entirely different belief systems (monotheism, polytheism, atheism, et al) and you have a discussion like this: "I'm right!" "No. I'm Right!" (repeat ad infinitum) And anybody who questions the belief system simply doesn't understand God. And is going to Hell. If there is one: Time Magazine "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #105 April 21, 2011 I've really only found this to be a problem when the husband is a prick and does not give his life to his wife in love as Christ did. Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her Ephesians 5:28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. The problem with society today and why women feel they have to go out and fend for themselves is because men have failed in their responsiblity to love and provide. You'd be suprised at how many women would actually want to submit to a REAL man if he just knew wtf he was doing, but far too often in both society and in the church, men just don't know how to handle that power and they let it go st8 to thier big fat head and f**k it all up. (pardon my language...)Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #106 April 21, 2011 QuoteNo change. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. If you die in your sins wolfriverjoe, you will come face to face with the wrath filled God described in the OT and you will melt like a candle in front of a blast furnace. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." That is, unless you have Jesus Christ interceeding for you. That only comes through faith. That faith is demonstrated by repentance. Either you will be judged for what you have done in this life, found guilty, and justly punished....or....you can be seen as innocent...not based on anything you have done or could do...but based on the perfect substitute which was given for you (if you have been called by God to repent and believe the gospel). Ahh. But I have. Baptised in his name, Eaten of the body and drank of the blood. All that. So I'm good right?? (yes, I'm baiting you a little bit) I really don't have a problem with the beliefs. I do have a major problem with those that force their beliefs on others, or harm those who believe differently. Both of which were perfectly acceptable behaviors in Christianity until fairly recently. (Past few hundred years). And if I include "forcing their beliefs on others" to include deliberate lies to propogate the belief system (Like the Answersingenesis links you posted in the deleted thread), then the practice is going on today."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #107 April 21, 2011 To be fair atheism really isn't a belief system. There are no rules or anything to believe in. It's simply disbelief. Now there are atheists that act similarly to devout religious people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #108 April 21, 2011 QuoteConsidering that there has never been a consensus as to what the proper interpetation is there is no way pin down what the actual "Gods Laws" are! So with out knowing exactly what those laws are how can anyone say they haven't changed? That is simply not true. I say something is true. You ask why. I say, because that's what the Bible says. A Jehovah's Witness also says something is true. You ask why. He says, because that's what the Bible says. Then, what we need to do is look into a historical context. Now if my interpretation of what the Bible says matches up with what the vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history (who have done all the heavy lifting of translation from the original languages) have come up with, then I have great cause to think that what I am reading is reliable. On the other hand, for example, if the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation (produced by the Watchtower Society) doesn't match up with what anyone else is saying (e.g. with regard to the Trinity, deity of Jesus, etc.), then I have great cause for concern. With regard to the Moral Law in the Pentateuch (1st 5 books of the Bible or the books of the Law). I believe there has been consensus on that for a very very long time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #109 April 21, 2011 QuoteTo be fair atheism really isn't a belief system. There are no rules or anything to believe in. It's simply disbelief. Now there are atheists that act similarly to devout religious people. Emphasis mine. The ones that are "militant atheists" are as bad as the devout religious. That's why I included it. I have my beliefs. They are simply my best understanding of God. They certainly aren't complete, and are more than likely wrong in a number of areas. But they don't involve me forcing them on others, or hurting others in God's name. Or even trying to "save" others by convincing them that my beliefs are the "One True Belief System" and anything else will get you a ticket to hell. Far, far too "Santa Claus" for me. Think about that one. "Do as we say and you go to Heaven. Don't do as we say and you go to Hell." "Be good and the fat guy in the red suit brings you presents. Be bad and he brings you coal." Notice any similarity??"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #110 April 21, 2011 Quote Considering that there isn't even consensus in any major religion, or even the individual sects of any religion, getting people of different religions to agree is impossible. Throw in the entirely different belief systems (monotheism, polytheism, atheism, et al) and you have a discussion like this: "I'm right!" "No. I'm Right!" (repeat ad infinitum) And anybody who questions the belief system simply doesn't understand God. And is going to Hell. If there is one: Time Magazine Regardless of your denomination, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." (Augustine). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #111 April 21, 2011 QuoteRe-posting from previous comment: Not trying to minimize the wrongdoing, however, it's interesting to note that, as much attention that is brought to the Salem Trials, there were only about 20 executions. You'd think it was on par with the Holocaust. Witchhunts in early modern Europe killed thousands--I've seen estimates as low as 20,000 and as high as 250,000. Most are in the 50-100,000 range. Europeans didn't stop killing witches because they suddenly got more moral, they stopped killing them because they stopped believing in the mythical powers that witches supposedly had."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #112 April 21, 2011 QuoteTo be fair atheism really isn't a belief system. There are no rules or anything to believe in. It's simply disbelief. Now there are atheists that act similarly to devout religious people. Come on dude. Everyone believes in something. An atheist believes in him/herself. Just because you claim to not believe in God doesn't mean that you don't have a belief system of your own. Be honest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #113 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteConsidering that there has never been a consensus as to what the proper interpetation is there is no way pin down what the actual "Gods Laws" are! So with out knowing exactly what those laws are how can anyone say they haven't changed? That is simply not true. I say something is true. You ask why. I say, because that's what the Bible says. A Jehovah's Witness also says something is true. You ask why. He says, because that's what the Bible says. Then, what we need to do is look into a historical context. Now if my interpretation of what the Bible says matches up with what the vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history (who have done all the heavy lifting of translation from the original languages) have come up with, then I have great cause to think that what I am reading is reliable. On the other hand, for example, if the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation (produced by the Watchtower Society) doesn't match up with what anyone else is saying (e.g. with regard to the Trinity, deity of Jesus, etc.), then I have great cause for concern. With regard to the Moral Law in the Pentateuch (1st 5 books of the Bible or the books of the Law). I believe there has been consensus on that for a very very long time. Which translation of the bible do you use? There are so many! Since there are so many different translations of the bible how can there be a consensus on what the bible says? The Jehovahs Witnesses believe that their translation is the only correct translation and that their interpretation is the only correct one. Just like every other religion out there! The Roman Catholics believe that their translation is the only correct one and their interpretation is the only correct one. So where is the is consensus?? I only put forth two examples of conflicting translations and interpretations of the bible. There are many many more! I don't see any consensus! btw I am very familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #114 April 21, 2011 QuoteWitchhunts in early modern Europe killed thousands--I've seen estimates as low as 20,000 and as high as 250,000. Most are in the 50-100,000 range. Europeans didn't stop killing witches because they suddenly got more moral, they stopped killing them because they stopped believing in the mythical powers that witches supposedly had. What's Europe got to do with the Salem Witch Trials brought up as an example earlier? Anyway, all of this is beside the point. None of those occurances were justifiable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #115 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteConsidering that there has never been a consensus as to what the proper interpetation is there is no way pin down what the actual "Gods Laws" are! So with out knowing exactly what those laws are how can anyone say they haven't changed? That is simply not true. I say something is true. You ask why. I say, because that's what the Bible says. A Jehovah's Witness also says something is true. You ask why. He says, because that's what the Bible says. Then, what we need to do is look into a historical context. Now if my interpretation of what the Bible says matches up with what the vast majority of scholarly folks throughout history (who have done all the heavy lifting of translation from the original languages) have come up with, then I have great cause to think that what I am reading is reliable. On the other hand, for example, if the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation (produced by the Watchtower Society) doesn't match up with what anyone else is saying (e.g. with regard to the Trinity, deity of Jesus, etc.), then I have great cause for concern. So when almost everyone thought the world was flat ... you would have thought it was flat and would have had great cause for concern in regards to those who thought otherwise."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #116 April 21, 2011 QuoteWhich translation of the bible do you use? There are so many! Since there are so many different translations of the bible how can there be a consensus on what the bible says? The Jehovahs Witnesses believe that their translation is the only correct translation and that their interpretation is the only correct one. Just like every other religion out there! The Roman Catholics believe that their translation is the only correct one and their interpretation is the only correct one. So where is the is consensus?? I only put forth two examples of conflicting translations and interpretations of the bible. There are many many more! I don't see any consensus! btw I am very familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs. Firstly, you're talking about two different things...differences in translation and differences in canonicity (e.g. Catholics adding the Apocryphal books). That aside, I use several. I own an NIV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I like the NASB the best because, in my opinion, it is one of the best scholarly word for word translations from the original Greek. However, the ESV is another excellent translation and is easier to read sometimes. The others are good for casual reading but when I really want to get to the meat of a particular matter, I regard the first ones I mentioned more reliable. But what's good is to compare side-by-side. The books of the Bible were originally in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic....then translated into Latin...German...English...and so on...and so forth. That does not mean that those translations aren't reliable. As a matter of fact, the vast number of translations actually establishes reliability. Of course, there are differences of opinion on some things. There are even mistakes in translation in some places...but those are extremely few and far between. As far as translation is concerned, however, none of those "mistakes" have anything to do with the essentials of the faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #117 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteWitchhunts in early modern Europe killed thousands--I've seen estimates as low as 20,000 and as high as 250,000. Most are in the 50-100,000 range. Europeans didn't stop killing witches because they suddenly got more moral, they stopped killing them because they stopped believing in the mythical powers that witches supposedly had. What's Europe got to do with the Salem Witch Trials brought up as an example earlier? Anyway, all of this is beside the point. None of those occurances were justifiable. Because the Salem Witch Trials were simply transplanted European beliefs. The Puritans had only been in the "New World" a few years (decades anyway) and were still using the same techniques. And they were perfectly justifiable under the beliefs of the time they occurred Beliefs based on interpretations of the very same Bible you read (presuming you use the standard KJV). Doens't it say in there somewhere about not suffering a witch to live?"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #118 April 21, 2011 QuoteSo when almost everyone thought the world was flat ... you would have thought it was flat and would have had great cause for concern in regards to those who thought otherwise. "Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #119 April 21, 2011 QuoteTWO WOLVES One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, there is a battle between two wolves inside us all.”One is Evil - It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. "The other is God - It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed." I've always heard this as the two wolves being good and evil. I suppose the word "God" can be substituted for "good," if it is a word that has more meaning to you. Though I'm thinking the Cherokee would refer to "Great Spirit" rather than "God," but perhaps they mean the same thing when translated from their language. I've also heard the same idea as having a good seed and a bad seed, and each one can only grow if watered. I like the idea, and it works whether one believes in a god or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #120 April 21, 2011 Quote What's Europe got to do with the Salem Witch Trials brought up as an example earlier? Anyway, all of this is beside the point. None of those occurances were justifiable. Well, you said (paraphrasing) the Salem Witch Trials were getting too much attention as an example of Christians doing the wrong thing, since only 20 people were killed. Perhaps the witch trials in Europe should get more attention as an example, since there were many, many times the number of people killed."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #121 April 21, 2011 Quote Firstly, you're talking about two different things...differences in translation and differences in canonicity (e.g. Catholics adding the Apocryphal books). That aside, I use several. I own an NIV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I like the NASB the best because, in my opinion, it is one of the best scholarly word for word translations from the original Greek. However, the ESV is another excellent translation and is easier to read sometimes. The others are good for casual reading but when I really want to get to the meat of a particular matter, I regard the first ones I mentioned more reliable. But what's good is to compare side-by-side. The books of the Bible were originally in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic....then translated into Latin...German...English...and so on...and so forth. That does not mean that those translations aren't reliable. As a matter of fact, the vast number of translations actually establishes reliability. Of course, there are differences of opinion on some things. There are even mistakes in translation in some places...but those are extremely few and far between. As far as translation is concerned, however, none of those "mistakes" have anything to do with the essentials of the faith. Do you accept the canonicity of the story of the woman caught in Adultery in John? (7:53-8:7, or thereabouts?) Do you accept the canonicity of the longer ending of Mark's Gospel?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #122 April 21, 2011 Doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me. The difference in translations can sometimes be a lot. Where you get huge variations is in the interpretations. Not just in current denominations but in same denomination over time. Five hundred years ago the Roman Catholics interpreted their Bible much differently then today. So where is this consensus?? You can't even settle on one translation. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity! They base that on their interpretation of their translation of the Bible. The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no consensus! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #123 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo when almost everyone thought the world was flat ... you would have thought it was flat and would have had great cause for concern in regards to those who thought otherwise. "Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp I'm not accusing you of believing the world is flat ... I'm accusing you of believing the majority is right because they're the majority."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 24 #124 April 21, 2011 QuoteBecause the Salem Witch Trials were simply transplanted European beliefs. The Puritans had only been in the "New World" a few years (decades anyway) and were still using the same techniques. And they were perfectly justifiable under the beliefs of the time they occurred Beliefs based on interpretations of the very same Bible you read (presuming you use the standard KJV). Doens't it say in there somewhere about not suffering a witch to live? Not the case: "This episode as a whole, despite its notoriety, does little to elucidate the Puritan mind of the age; but it did lead to chagrin and public remorse, which in turn reduced respect for the colony's religious leadership, especially in the eyes of the merchant class whose social and political importance were notably increased under the new charter." - Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, pg. 161. I had to read this book for a class. Ahlstrom does not strike me as an evangelical Christian. He is an excellent historian nevertheless. This was absolutely an isolated event in the colonies and did not represent the widespread beliefs of the Puritans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #125 April 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteTWO WOLVES One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, there is a battle between two wolves inside us all.”One is Evil - It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. "The other is God - It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed." I've always heard this as the two wolves being good and evil. I suppose the word "God" can be substituted for "good," if it is a word that has more meaning to you. Though I'm thinking the Cherokee would refer to "Great Spirit" rather than "God," but perhaps they mean the same thing when translated from their language. I've also heard the same idea as having a good seed and a bad seed, and each one can only grow if watered. I like the idea, and it works whether one believes in a god or not. You know, now that I think of it, you are correct.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
