Bible discussions

[Mister D]

Now that I am where a serious religion section is possible I think it would be interesting and informative to discuss some biblical books, chapters, themes etc. I will get the ball rolling in the morning unless someone beats me to the punch tonight. I'm not sure what to offer up for discussion yet but I will think of something soon. I've been reading a theology of the Old Testament for a couple months now and feel like discussing some of what I've learned and some of the theories/interpretations I've recently been exposed to.

[wingrider]

Thanks D this nshould be a good thread, hopefully we can branch out and do different studies simultaneously. I would enjoy participatimg in different aspects of thought..

I will start if you don't mind to much and we can expand as we go..

Mathew 24:1-8


1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8All these are the beginning of sorrows.

here Jesus is giving the prophecy for the end times and his ultimate return . in vs 1 and two Jesus tells the diciples that the temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left standing .. this happened by Titus in 70 AD.. and for 2000 years there has been no temple for the jews to worship in, now in Revelation we find that there will be a third temple built in the last days. interestingly The Jews have already begun plans for its construction and have already made the instruments and furniture that will be in the third temple..
vs 3,4 and 5

Jesus is telling the iciples that many shall come saying they are the the Christ but not to be decieved, this has happened periodically since Jesus ascension but most notably in the last 50 to 60 years we have had men like Jones ( Guyana masacre) and the fellow Moon, I have heard of a fellow in Texas or Florida that is claiming to be the second comeing of christ he is a spanish fellow but I don't remember his name.
only thing is we got to remember that Jesus is a Jewish rabbi, therefor unless these others can prove to be jewish I doubt there veracity,

remember what the angels told the diciples " just as you have seem him depart you shall see him return.. in otther words he will be the same person./

any way guys lets expand on this and see what develops ..

[Mister D]

I'm not sure about the third temple interpretation. One of the themes of the NT is that Jerusalem has been emptied of its important in salvation history. The NT writers speak of a heavenly Jerusalem but Israel, as a geopolitical entity, and earthly Jerusalem simply do not have the importance attached to them that they do in the OT.

[wingrider]

then how do you account for these passages.. now remember this the temple was destroyed in 70 ad.. the excerpt I am quoting was written in about 94 AD so ....

Revelation chapter 11
I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles.

. Daniel 9:27 (NIV84)
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

so the question begs to be answered . how can the Antichrist desecrate the temple if it isn't built for him to do so?

[Mister D]

The passage in Daniel may refer to the plundering of the temple in 168-169 B.C. by Antiochus. The "abomination that causes desolation" is something this Syrian king constructed when he renamed the temple "Olympian Zeus".

As for Revelation, the temple is the church (i.e. us as Christian people).

[wingrider]

The passage in Daniel may refer to the plundering of the temple in 168-169 B.C. by Antiochus. The "abomination that causes desolation" is something this Syrian king constructed when he renamed the temple "Olympian Zeus".

As for Revelation, the temple is the church (i.e. us as Christian people).

Daniel was taken captive when the first temple was destroyed by the babylonians, so when he wrote about the temple being destroyed in daneil chaper 9 and takeing the vs in context . it would have been after cyrus had given the decree for the 2nd temple to be rebuilt,

if Christians are the " temple " why would you need to measure them.. and besides that Revelation after chapter 4 is God dealing with Isreal and unrepentant gentiles.. for the Church to claim that they have taken the place of Isreal is in my opinion misreading scripture. Nowhere that I can find in scripture has such an event happened,, in fact Paul says that Gentiles are grafted onto the branch, Isreal is the branch not Christians.

if you can find one passage of scripture that denys Gods promises to Isreal and has transfferred that promise to Christians I would love to read it... There is a reason the Church is not spoken of after the 4th Chapter of Revelation. it is called the rapture.

[Mister D]

Daniel was taken captive when the first temple was destroyed by the babylonians, so when he wrote about the temple being destroyed in daneil chaper 9 and takeing the vs in context . it would have been after cyrus had given the decree for the 2nd temple to be rebuilt,

if Christians are the " temple " why would you need to measure them.. and besides that Revelation after chapter 4 is God dealing with Isreal and unrepentant gentiles.. for the Church to claim that they have taken the place of Isreal is in my opinion misreading scripture. Nowhere that I can find in scripture has such an event happened,, in fact Paul says that Gentiles are grafted onto the branch, Isreal is the branch not Christians.

if you can find one passage of scripture that denys Gods promises to Isreal and has transfferred that promise to Christians I would love to read it... There is a reason the Church is not spoken of after the 4th Chapter of Revelation. it is called the rapture.

The second temple was sacked in 168-169 by Antiochus long after Cyrus had decreed that a new temple could be built.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature. It's not meant to be interpreted literally. In any case, one of the primary themes of the NT is that the church is true Israel. We are the heirs of Abraham. We are his spiritual descendants regardless of any blood relationship. If you think that's misreading scripture I'm not sure what to tell you.

[wingrider]

ok.. if it was antiochus that daniel was talking about and he sacked the temple in 168 BC then why did Jesus prophecy that the temple would be destroyed , His probhecy was told in 33 AD and the temple was destroyed by Titus and the Romans in 70 AD nearly 40 years later.

you still havent told me whaere you get the bibical authority to displace isreal and put Christians in the place of Gods chosen people..

let me ask you one thing do you follow the preterist point of view?

[Mister D]

ok.. if it was antiochus that daniel was talking about and he sacked the temple in 168 BC then why did Jesus prophecy that the temple would be destroyed , His probhecy was told in 33 AD and the temple was destroyed by Titus and the Romans in 70 AD nearly 40 years later.

Why are the two prophecies mutually exclusive?


you still havent told me whaere you get the bibical authority to displace isreal and put Christians in the place of Gods chosen people..

I don't have any authority. I just read the Gospels and Paul's letters. We haven't displaced Israel. We are true Israel regardless of our racial heritage. I am as much a descendant of Abraham as any ethnic Jew.


let me ask you one thing do you follow the preterist point of view?

I don;t know what a preterist is.

[wingrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T8Kyyz1jds


if you like this video and want to see the rest of the series let me know

[Mister D]

I can't listen to it here. No speakers. I'll check it out in the AM.

[Mister D]

You like Creflo Dollar, Wing?

[wingrider]

You like Creflo Dollar, Wing?

I don't believe I ever heard him speak so I cannot have an opinion.. you must realize i am an independant Baptist and a die hard believer in the inerrant word of God. I take the bible litereally. and believe revelation is to be taken exactly as it is written, why else would there be aspecial blessing given to those who read it and hear it.

if you have a vid of dollar I would be intersted in hearing it.. just so I can make an opinion.

[Mister D]

I don't believe I ever heard him speak so I cannot have an opinion.. you must realize i am an independant Baptist and a die hard believer in the inerrant word of God. I take the bible litereally. and believe revelation is to be taken exactly as it is written, why else would there be aspecial blessing given to those who read it and hear it.

if you have a vid of dollar I would be intersted in hearing it.. just so I can make an opinion.

I'll post one up tomorrow. He's a black southern preacher. Independent as well.

I don't always take the bible literally. Sometimes I don't think it is meant to be. I respect your POV. You are a lot like my mom. She's a born again minister, actually.

[Mister D]

BTW, I said tomorrow on the video because I'm not dealing with the finest PC here. I don;t want to go searching for a video now because this PC slows down to a crawl when I launch videos and I don;t want this to turn into a project. I'll use my work PC in the AM.

[wingrider]

I'll post one up tomorrow. He's a black southern preacher. Independent as well.

I don't always take the bible literally. Sometimes I don't think it is meant to be. I respect your POV. You are a lot like my mom. She's a born again minister, actually.


congrats to your mom sounds like someone I can respect and admire..

[spunkloaf]

I have questions for you both. I'm a recovering Catholic.

If the bible depicts the literal word of God, is it safe to assume that God's word has survived entirely intact through history despite translations and power struggles over religious differences? I have lots of trouble with this.

[wingrider]

I have questions for you both. I'm a recovering Catholic.

If the bible depicts the literal word of God, is it safe to assume that God's word has survived entirely intact through history despite translations and power struggles over religious differences? I have lots of trouble with this. yes .. after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls they found that the copies of scripture when translated matched our current interpretations to within 99 percent. the only diiferences were in a few areas of punctuation.

here is a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RsYyZIeako

[Mister D]

I have questions for you both. I'm a recovering Catholic.

If the bible depicts the literal word of God, is it safe to assume that God's word has survived entirely intact through history despite translations and power struggles over religious differences? I have lots of trouble with this.

I'm unaffiliated but I love and respect the RCC. You should recover from your liberalism.

What Wing said. Moreover, the differences in the canon are actually quite small.

[spunkloaf]

@D

I don't have a problem with the Roman Catholic Church. Like so many people do when they don't understand something, I rebelled against the teachings of it while my youthful rebellion was in full swing. Speaking of people not understanding things...you should not judge liberalism so harshly by your limited knowledge of it.

So let's assume the word of the bible is 100% preserved. The next question is, is it safe to assume that those who wrote the bible did so with 100% integrity and a complete understanding of whatever they were experiencing?


I'm not attacking religion, these are legitimate questions.

[Mister D]

What don't I understand about liberalism?

You either believe the bible is the inspired word of God or you do not. You either believe that God effected his message to the world properly or you do not.

No one suggested you were attacking religion. Please come down off your cross. =)

[Mister D]

Dude, would you change that sig?

[Conley]

Dude, would you change that sig?

What's wrong with it? It's a lot better than the old one. BTW good to see you Spunk! :grin:

[Mister D]

What's wrong with it? It's a lot better than the old one. BTW good to see you Spunk! :grin:

It's far too large, IMO. Whatever. Just sayin'.

[spunkloaf]

@D in regards to the comment on liberalism.

And besides, I've lost most respect for the debate between political types. We both know that people who label themselves as liberals and conservatives are doing so with a huge probability that they've been conditioned by society and the media to identify themselves as such, and a small probability that they've done any research into the political identities they assume.

[spunkloaf]

What don't I understand about liberalism?

You either believe the bible is the inspired word of God or you do not. You either believe that God effected his message to the world properly or you do not.

No one suggested you were attacking religion. Please come down off your cross. =)

You fail to recognize that's what your point of view is. Your POV is personal to you, and restricted by your limited means of communicating it. Furthermore none of us can trust that you completely understand it. That's how it is for everybody's beliefs, including mine.

[spunkloaf]

Thanks, Conley. :)

[Mister D]

@D in regards to the comment on liberalism.

And besides, I've lost most respect for the debate between political types. We both know that people who label themselves as liberals and conservatives are doing so with a huge probability that they've been conditioned by society and the media to identify themselves as such, and a small probability that they've done any research into the political identities they assume.

Thank you!

I often don't find those labels, at least how they are used in the American context, particularly useful. I agree with you there.

[Mister D]

You fail to recognize that's what your point of view is. Your POV is personal to you, and restricted by your limited means of communicating it. Furthermore none of us can trust that you completely understand it. That's how it is for everybody's beliefs, including mine.

If that wasn't my POV I wouldn't have said it. Isn't that implicit? :huh: Again, you either believe or you do not. It's up to you to decide. All I can say is try it out and see how it works for you.

[Mister D]

Thanks, Conley. :)

Fuck Conley. :grin:

[spunkloaf]

Thank you!

I often don't find those labels, at least how they are used in the American context, particularly useful. I agree with you there.

It's embarrassing as hell, isn't it?

[Mister D]

It's embarrassing as hell, isn't it?

It's the culture we live in.

[wingrider]

@D

I don't have a problem with the Roman Catholic Church. Like so many people do when they don't understand something, I rebelled against the teachings of it while my youthful rebellion was in full swing. Speaking of people not understanding things...you should not judge liberalism so harshly by your limited knowledge of it.

So let's assume the word of the bible is 100% preserved. The next question is, is it safe to assume that those who wrote the bible did so with 100% integrity and a complete understanding of whatever they were experiencing?


I'm not attacking religion, these are legitimate questions. it is my understanding and belief that tthe Bible was writtten by men who were inspired by God to write down His plan for the Human race and its history from the Creation to its final outcome in the book of revelation, it has been proven over and over to be historically accurate, and archeologically accurate.

[spunkloaf]

If that wasn't my POV I wouldn't have said it. Isn't that implicit? :huh: Again, you either believe or you do not. It's up to you to decide. All I can say is try it out and see how it works for you.

I didn't explain myself well enough. The way I see it...you can have a close spiritual friend who might agree with you that you both have the exact same ideas of God. Yet if your ideas would be somehow compared exactly as they are manifested in your mind, God would be a very different entity in each person's mind. That's what I meant by POV.

I think sometime in the past, D, you asked me that question of belief differently. If I remember correctly it was something like "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior?" Is there a difference?

[Conley]

Fuck Conley. :grin:

Dude, Spunk's new sig is 1/4 the size of the old one! :laugh:

[Mister D]

I didn't explain myself well enough. The way I see it...you can have a close spiritual friend who might agree with you that you both have the exact same ideas of God. Yet if your ideas would be somehow compared exactly as they are manifested in your mind, God would be a very different entity in each person's mind. That's what I meant by POV.

I think sometime in the past, D, you asked me that question of belief differently. If I remember correctly it was something like "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior?" Is there a difference?

That may be true but we are talking about a specific text. I understand and appreciate that said text is often interpreted slightly differently and sometimes much differently. I will always respect that as long as those interpretations are plausible and appropriate.

I don't remember the context at all but accepting Christ as your savior is, IMO, what makes a Christian a Christian. For example, those who call themselves Christians but lack a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ are not Christians. But I'm not sure what exactly we were discussing at the time.

[Mister D]

Dude, Spunk's new sig is 1/4 the size of the old one! :laugh:

Mister Dictator. Yeah...:afro:

[spunkloaf]

it is my understanding and belief that tthe Bible was writtten by men who were inspired by God to write down His plan for the Human race and its history from the Creation to its final outcome in the book of revelation, it has been proven over and over to be historically accurate, and archeologically accurate.

I won't deny for a second there are many historical, geographical and archeological consistencies in the Bible. (sorry I've not been capitalizing) Additionally I won't doubt that there are some great stories and lessons which have stood the test of time as an influence on human conduct. That's what makes the book so interesting to believers and nonbelievers. Let me also point out, however, there are lots of elements which do not make sense which require a leap of faith. These parts are the ones I'm having trouble with.

[Mister D]

I don't always take the bible literally so the search for archaeological evidence is sometimes, IMO, a fool's errand. I've learned not to dispute the details with fellow believers.

[spunkloaf]

That may be true but we are talking about a specific text. I understand and appreciate that said text is often interpreted slightly differently and sometimes much differently. I will always respect that as long as those interpretations are plausible and appropriate.

Fair enough. But who decides if those interpretations are plausible and appropriate? Is that why we have different kinds of Christian churches? If so, then a person could not possibly be absolutely sure of the most plausible interpretation of the written word of God until they have sampled an interpretation from every church. If the purpose of religion was to find real answers (which I'm not saying it is) then this would create a huge problem.


I don't remember the context at all but accepting Christ as your savior is, IMO, what makes a Christian a Christian. For example, those who call themselves Christians but lack a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ are not Christians. But I'm not sure what exactly we were discussing at the time.

I'm not a Christian then, and I don't believe the Bible correctly portrays the word of God....in the same way as other people do.

[Mister D]

Fair enough. But who decides if those interpretations are plausible and appropriate? Is that why we have different kinds of Christian churches? If so, then a person could not possibly be absolutely sure of the most plausible interpretation of the written word of God until they have sampled an interpretation from every church. If the purpose of religion was to find real answers (which I'm not saying it is) then this would create a huge problem.

Human beings can be absolutely sure of essentially nothing. Religion is not about achieving absolute certainty. What is a "real answer"?


I'm not a Christian then, and I don't believe the Bible correctly portrays the word of God....in the same way as other people do.

That's cool. In what way do you think it does portray the word of God?

[spunkloaf]

I don't always take the bible literally so the search for archaeological evidence is sometimes, IMO, a fool's errand. I've learned not to dispute the details with fellow believers.

I've learned not to argue against religion at all. If I am to call myself agnostic, which is to mean that I accept no knowledge of a truth other than what can be reproduced and/or verified, then I should believe that any religion is as plausible as the next. I used to act like an atheist and reject all religion, although my actions did not reflect my spiritual intentions. I think many atheists are just as confused as their religious counterparts. Confusion is good from anybody however, because it means that logic is being attempted. In my opinion, those who are confident in something without logically challenging it have a different agenda in their beliefs, and it has nothing to do with understanding.

[spunkloaf]

Human beings can be absolutely sure of essentially nothing. Religion is not about achieving absolute certainty. What is a "real answer"?


A real answer (or as I mindlessly meant to refer to as an answer to the question about the meaning of life) would be one which directly and unmistakably explains our observable existence. Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Religion doesn't really answer those questions to a logical satisfaction....but nothing else does, either. So I think the main purpose of religion is not exactly meant for finding those kinds of answers. Maybe at some point religion provided a fable to fill in the gaps of our understanding...but once we started discovering that such a simple 7-day creationist solution doesn't logically suffice--especially with the discovery of other worlds, stars, planetary systems and galaxies--creationism became much more spiritual rather than literal as an definitive answer for most logical believers.


That's cool. In what way do you think it does portray the word of God?


Thanks for asking.

Long story short, I used logic--not texts--to attempt to define God. I realized that since God (defined by most as omnipotent and omnipresent) must be everywhere and all powerful, that consequentially we are all part of God--as well as everything else living and not living, seen and not seen, fathomable and unimaginable. I explored deeper to realize that as compared to everything else that appears dead in the universe, humans are special because we're such a rare and complex form of organized matter which can learn, discover and change things at our will. Since we are just complex carbon life forms and inseparable from the rest of the universe, I realized that the entire universe is a living entity which is discovering itself and changing itself, especially through the physical ability and intelligence of humans. Nothing I knew of the universe changed, it had been like that all along. In our heads we separate ourselves from the ground we walk on, and the sun which lights our world and gives us warmth, and the sparkly lights in the sky which seem significant only as a visual spectacle to us. Look at the things we are able to discover and build and imagine, and yet our smallest pieces were forged in the bellies of stars! I realized this when I was 15, and I thought I had made some kind of spiritual revelation. :laugh:

But then came the rest of the questions:
Where do stars come from? "By the sheer force of gravity, massive clouds of gas and dust converge. When they get massive enough, their cores build so much gravitational pressure that they ignite in a process called fusion."
Where did the gas and dust come from? "Stars made of hydrogen make helium in their cores by means of fusion, helium stars fuse and make lithium, and so-on. Everything except hydrogen came from other dead stars. "
Where did hydrogen come from? "Hydrogen atoms formed from highly energized plasma when the universe had cooled enough to allow it, after the intense energy settled from the big bang."
Where did the big bang come from? "...uh...well....it just....happened."
Kinda like creationism in the Bible, right? "...NO...well...uh..."

So... To get back to the point and answer your question, the word of God to me is as apparent in the form of English words in the Bible as it is in some beautiful music, or in a hard and frustrating day at work, or in a beautiful sunset, or in a conversation between me and a stranger online, or anything else in the depths of my imagination. Again, that's only me, and I have no problem with people disagreeing, or even thinking I'm crazy.

[Mister D]

Too much to respond to in my current condition. :grin: I'll chime in again on this tomorrow.

[spunkloaf]

Too much to respond to in my current condition. :grin: I'll chime in again on this tomorrow.

It's cool, I did make that kinda lengthy. Could have trimmed it down a little, sorry.

In short, I prefer logic over ancient texts in my search for God, but in my journey I found that it's useless to try to disprove any religion. My interpretation of the written word of God equates to anything else I observe, in that it all came from the same place and nothing has more truth than anything else--written or otherwise observed.

[Mister D]

I'll put together a response for you tomorrow. Just don't disappear on me. I'm relaxing on a pain killer and some beer. :wink:

[spunkloaf]

K I'm here but probably for only a while today.

[Mister D]

@Spunkloaf


Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Religion doesn't really answer those questions to a logical satisfaction....but nothing else does, either. So I think the main purpose of religion is not exactly meant for finding those kinds of answers.

What would lead to logical satisfaction, in your opinion? A verifiable scientific proposition? One of the functions of religion is to give meaning to the reality we experience so religions do seek to "answer" all of those questions. I think the problem may be that you want them answered in a specific way (i.e. a scientific way) to satisfy a peculiarity of your cultural mindset. That's unfortunate because science does not deal in meaning or in the question of why as you appear to realize. Moreover, the creation myth in Genesis is a statement about our ultimate origins. It is not an attempt to explain the how but to explain the why. Mind you, I am using the term "myth" in an academic sense (i.e. a story with culturally forming power or a story that conveys a higher truth about human beings and their world) not the popular sense (i.e. something that did not happen).

I'm off to church soon. I have to make meatballs too. :grin: Well, I'm actually watching church on TV because I have to make the meatballs. It's complicated...

[spunkloaf]

@Spunkloaf



What would lead to logical satisfaction, in your opinion? A verifiable scientific proposition? One of the functions of religion is to give meaning to the reality we experience so religions do seek to "answer" all of those questions. I think the problem may be that you want them answered in a specific way (i.e. a scientific way) to satisfy a peculiarity of your cultural mindset. That's unfortunate because science does not deal in meaning or in the question of why as you appear to realize. Moreover, the creation myth in Genesis is a statement about our ultimate origins. It is not an attempt to explain the how but to explain the why. Mind you, I am using the term "myth" in an academic sense (i.e. a story with culturally forming power or a story that conveys a higher truth about human beings and their world) not the popular sense (i.e. something that did not happen).

I'm off to church soon. I have to make meatballs too. :grin: Well, I'm actually watching church on TV because I have to make the meatballs. It's complicated...

I acquire a formula for "meaning" from all doctrines I experience, including religion where it is applicable. To answer your question, I am never logically satisfied. I think if people would embrace uncertainty...or to take that leap of faith in logic at least as much as they have taken the leap of faith in myths...they might be more open-minded. To me, it is much better to recognize what you are uncertain of rather than to accept a myth to plug up the logical gap, so to speak. I can't expect that from or dictate that to anybody though.

[Mister D]

I acquire a formula for "meaning" from all doctrines I experience, including religion where it is applicable. To answer your question, I am never logically satisfied. I think if people would embrace uncertainty...or to take that leap of faith in logic at least as much as they have taken the leap of faith in myths...they might be more open-minded. To me, it is much better to recognize what you are uncertain of rather than to accept a myth to plug up the logical gap, so to speak. I can't expect that from or dictate that to anybody though.

I think that the formation of meaning is part and parcel of religion. Some sociologists of religion would say it's the very essence of religion. We are always trying to make sense of the world we are born into. Would our lives be possible otherwise? Anyway, myth is not a substitute for logic. We're thinking of "myth" in two very different ways but I tend to agree with you that uncertainty is a fact of human existence. Rather than embrace it, however, one should merely acknowledge it.

[spunkloaf]

I think that the formation of meaning is part and parcel of religion. Some sociologists of religion would say it's the very essence of religion. We are always trying to make sense of the world we are born into. Would our lives be possible otherwise? Anyway, myth is not a substitute for logic. We're thinking of "myth" in two very different ways but I tend to agree with you that uncertainty is a fact of human existence. Rather than embrace it, however, one should merely acknowledge it.

When I say that people should embrace uncertainty instead of substituting logic with myth, for the most part I am referring to people who practice religion for the sole purpose of community and tradition, and who do not try to make sense of their practice. Let's face it. There are many naive people in both the religious and the atheist realms who ritualistically do and say things without thinking. While I will defend that it is their right to do so, I think it is an ignorance that confuses our culture, cripples our understanding, and slows our prosperity.

[Mister D]

When I say that people should embrace uncertainty instead of substituting logic with myth, for the most part I am referring to people who practice religion for the sole purpose of community and tradition, and who do not try to make sense of their practice. Let's face it. There are many naive people in both the religious and the atheist realms who ritualistically do and say things without thinking. While I will defend that it is their right to do so, I think it is an ignorance that confuses our culture, cripples our understanding, and slows our prosperity.

I was one of those people when I was younger but that's true of all of us with regard to one practice or another. One generation has to transmit it's collective experience, it's values etc. to the next in some manner and while children don't truly understand or appreciate the traditions passed onto them that's how a civilization, a culture, or a community survives. I wasn't serious about Christianity until my 30s. I'm tremendously grateful to my mother for having raised us with that tradition because it became ingrained even if I wasn't a serious practitioner for many years. I think at some point we all make decisions in life about who we are, what we aspire to be, what we believe etc.

[spunkloaf]

Hear, hear.

[spunkloaf]

New question. The Christian lesson of "love thy enemy." Observe this hostile cultural climate, which is participated in and escalated by plenty of Christians as well as many others. What gives?

[Mister D]

New question. The Christian lesson of "love thy enemy." Observe this hostile cultural climate, which is participated in and escalated by plenty of Christians as well as many others. What gives?

Christians, like all human beings, have failings. That should be obvious.

[Scotty]

New question. The Christian lesson of "love thy enemy." Observe this hostile cultural climate, which is participated in and escalated by plenty of Christians as well as many others. What gives?

I believe it they teaching from pastors whom are very bright...well intended and love God...just not very well informed themselves.

[spunkloaf]

Christians, like all human beings, have failings. That should be obvious.

If Christians are human beings which I do believe they are indeed, then I do expect them to fail at times. That is entirely forgivable, and most who identify with failure will agree. But there are natural consequences which accompany failure. In this case, when (some) Christians show contempt for their enemies while simultaneously attempting to promote their religious values, the consequence is that they are perceived as hypocrites. It is only human error, but I think it's the most damaging and largely unchecked failure a Christian OR non-Christian can happen upon. The unfortunate disadvantage for Christians failing to love their enemies, as opposed to the same failure committed by non-Christians, is that people assume Christians should "know better." This begs of another question. Does ignorance and naivety excuse failure? Does intelligence increase one's responsibility of avoiding failure?

I thought of this the other day while driving. I randomly had the radio tuned in to an inspiring sermon about loving one's enemy, given by an Irish priest. I didn't catch the name. Any idea who it might have been?

[Mister D]

If Christians are human beings which I do believe they are indeed, then I do expect them to fail at times. That is entirely forgivable, and most who identify with failure will agree. But there are natural consequences which accompany failure. In this case, when (some) Christians show contempt for their enemies while simultaneously attempting to promote their religious values, the consequence is that they are perceived as hypocrites. It is only human error, but I think it's the most damaging and largely unchecked failure a Christian OR non-Christian can happen upon. The unfortunate disadvantage for Christians failing to love their enemies, as opposed to the same failure committed by non-Christians, is that people assume Christians should "know better." This begs of another question. Does ignorance and naivety excuse failure? Does intelligence increase one's responsibility of avoiding failure?

I thought of this the other day while driving. I randomly had the radio tuned in to an inspiring sermon about loving one's enemy, given by an Irish priest. I didn't catch the name. Any idea who it might have been?

I do think Christians should be careful in that regard because, right or wrong, Christianity will be judged by some based on their behavior. I tend to agree with the observation that many of those who rail against church are really railing against people in the church.

Not sure. It's been a long time since I've listend to anything onh the radio. I've caught a few snippets of Rush here and there on my way to get a sandwich but that's about it.

[Alias]

The "Church" is made up of people who are sinners. The head of the Church is perfect, Jesus Christ. Christians are only saved by the good work of the head of the church, not by their good works. That is not a license to sin, but a responsibility to admit our failings and strive to do better. That's all anyone can expect from sinners.

[wingrider]

you all know that I am a christian,, but here is the clincher , I am also human with all the problems that come with it.. I have feelings, and when some people denigrate me for what I believe it touches a button that makes me want to retailiate, I shouldn't do it I know its wrong and I feel terrible after I have done it.. does that make me a hippocrit?/ I don't think so.. in my opinion it just makes me lose part of my testimony,, yes it is difficult to be a christian at times especially when dealing with people who are just looking for an reason or an excuse to cut you down even further,, it seems that the unbelievers expect christians to be more than what they really are.. a sinner saved by the Grace of God, nothing more , nothing less.

[spunkloaf]

you all know that I am a christian,, but here is the clincher , I am also human with all the problems that come with it.. I have feelings, and when some people denigrate me for what I believe it touches a button that makes me want to retailiate, I shouldn't do it I know its wrong and I feel terrible after I have done it.. does that make me a hippocrit?/ I don't think so.. in my opinion it just makes me lose part of my testimony,, yes it is difficult to be a christian at times especially when dealing with people who are just looking for an reason or an excuse to cut you down even further,, it seems that the unbelievers expect christians to be more than what they really are.. a sinner saved by the Grace of God, nothing more , nothing less.

I don't entirely believe with what I think you're saying. Even as a non-Christian, I believe that through my failings I still have to face consequences. If I am to avoid those consequences, I am to learn to avoid failure. If I knowingly commit an error, it becomes a bigger error for me to try and excuse it with the notion that I am not perfect. By that kind of logic, I give myself permission to continue to fail, and it becomes a downward spiral of "sin."

Each passing moment is an opportunity to adapt, improvise, and overcome. That's a gift we are blessed with as intelligent beings. If a person chooses not exercise that kind of talent to the best of their ability in order to better themselves as well as their community, then what the hell are they doing here?

[Alias]

you all know that I am a christian,, but here is the clincher , I am also human with all the problems that come with it.. I have feelings, and when some people denigrate me for what I believe it touches a button that makes me want to retailiate, I shouldn't do it I know its wrong and I feel terrible after I have done it.. does that make me a hippocrit?/ I don't think so.. in my opinion it just makes me lose part of my testimony,, yes it is difficult to be a christian at times especially when dealing with people who are just looking for an reason or an excuse to cut you down even further,, it seems that the unbelievers expect christians to be more than what they really are.. a sinner saved by the Grace of God, nothing more , nothing less.

The unbelievers are attacking Christ in you. Don't take it personally, although I fully understand the need to fight back. They are the weak ones. They attack you because you're stronger. If you were weak they would not feel threatened by your presence.

[Alias]

I don't entirely believe with what I think you're saying. Even as a non-Christian, I believe that through my failings I still have to face consequences. If I am to avoid those consequences, I am to learn to avoid failure. If I knowingly commit an error, it becomes a bigger error for me to try and excuse it with the notion that I am not perfect. By that kind of logic, I give myself permission to continue to fail, and it becomes a downward spiral of "sin."

Each passing moment is an opportunity to adapt, improvise, and overcome. That's a gift we are blessed with as intelligent beings. If a person chooses not exercise that kind of talent to the best of their ability in order to better themselves as well as their community, then what the hell are they doing here?

A common belief among the unbelievers is that Christians think they're better than the unbeliever. That's a fallacy. We just believe we are going to a better place.

[Mister D]

I don't entirely believe with what I think you're saying. Even as a non-Christian, I believe that through my failings I still have to face consequences. If I am to avoid those consequences, I am to learn to avoid failure. If I knowingly commit an error, it becomes a bigger error for me to try and excuse it with the notion that I am not perfect. By that kind of logic, I give myself permission to continue to fail, and it becomes a downward spiral of "sin."

Each passing moment is an opportunity to adapt, improvise, and overcome. That's a gift we are blessed with as intelligent beings. If a person chooses not exercise that kind of talent to the best of their ability in order to better themselves as well as their community, then what the hell are they doing here?

Go Army! :grin:

[spunkloaf]

Go Army! :grin:

My old supervisor said that alot. He was in the MC, and served during Vietnam.

[Mister D]

My old supervisor said that alot. He was in the MC, and served during Vietnam.

It's an military mantra.

[wingrider]

I don't entirely believe with what I think you're saying. Even as a non-Christian, I believe that through my failings I still have to face consequences. If I am to avoid those consequences, I am to learn to avoid failure. If I knowingly commit an error, it becomes a bigger error for me to try and excuse it with the notion that I am not perfect. By that kind of logic, I give myself permission to continue to fail, and it becomes a downward spiral of "sin."

Each passing moment is an opportunity to adapt, improvise, and overcome. That's a gift we are blessed with as intelligent beings. If a person chooses not exercise that kind of talent to the best of their ability in order to better themselves as well as their community, then what the hell are they doing here?


maybe I should have expressed myself better, you see its not that being a christian is a lisence to sin, on the contrary we are held accountable for it in many ways, first of all there is the loss of testimony, second there are always consequences for our actions, God will chastise us in various ways when we do commit them, it is a never ending battle to overcome the world in us and strive to become more like Christ as we grow in our faith. As paul put it :

We are becoming more like Christ and less like the passions of this world. But this is not simply happening by practicing good behavior. The Christian life is lived because of the work of the Spirit. God Spirit produces love, joy, peace, patients, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control (Gal 5:22-23). We live a life pleasing to God because we have been given new life!
6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (ESV)
http://www.wolcma.org/sermons/2008/06/should-we-sin-more-so-grace-may-abound-pastor-will

this pastor says it better than I can

[spunkloaf]

The unbelievers are attacking Christ in you. Don't take it personally, although I fully understand the need to fight back. They are the weak ones. They attack you because you're stronger. If you were weak they would not feel threatened by your presence.

That's a bunch of bull. If certain Christians didn't act self-righteous and all-knowing...if they were just a bit more open minded and stop acting like everybody who challenges them is their enemy...then they wouldn't get so much crap.

Here's some real advice. Stop IGNORING the non-believers and brushing them off as somehow different and threatening to you, and start having some empathy when they are "attacking Christ in you." Isn't that something Jesus would do? Would Jesus build up a bunch of walls around himself and label the rest of the world as his enemy? No. And neither should any Christian.

[wingrider]

That's a bunch of bull. If certain Christians didn't act self-righteous and all-knowing...if they were just a bit more open minded and stop acting like everybody who challenges them is their enemy...then they wouldn't get so much crap.

Here's some real advice. Stop IGNORING the non-believers and brushing them off as somehow different and threatening to you, and start having some empathy when they are "attacking Christ in you." Isn't that something Jesus would do? Would Jesus build up a bunch of walls around himself and label the rest of the world as his enemy? No. And neither should any Christian. while this may be true of some christians it is not the norm, christians are righteous because the one who saved us is righteous, as far as all knowing?? not so much, we just know and believe what the Bible tells us and most of us try very diligently to live up to it, of course some of us fail from time to time but that is the sin nature that is always present

it seems to me that once a person says they are a Christian the non christians expect that person to live up to their standards of what a christian is, why this is I don not know but i do know that a lot of non christians are ready to drop the hippocrit label if a christian does anything that does fit with a non christians viewpoint, they seem to forget that except for the Grace of God Christians are no different than anyone else. We have pride, we have feelings, and we have aspirations the same as anyone else, but we are expected to be a doormat.

[Alias]

That's a bunch of bull. If certain Christians didn't act self-righteous and all-knowing...if they were just a bit more open minded and stop acting like everybody who challenges them is their enemy...then they wouldn't get so much crap.

Here's some real advice. Stop IGNORING the non-believers and brushing them off as somehow different and threatening to you, and start having some empathy when they are "attacking Christ in you." Isn't that something Jesus would do? Would Jesus build up a bunch of walls around himself and label the rest of the world as his enemy? No. And neither should any Christian.

I have no idea who you are speaking of, but I don't have any walls around myself and I don't know who you mean.

How do you know what Jesus would do and why do you care what Jesus would do if you dislike Christians so much?

[spunkloaf]

You're building up your wall right now by taking offense to my comments, when none is intended. I do not dislike Christians, but I disagree with the way many (but not all) Christians insincerely, unquestionably and sometimes hypocritically embrace their tradition. I'm also sick of them turning around and taking outside criticism of their insincerity as an attack on their religion. I'm sick of the prejudice that is also displayed. That's not a Christ-like way of behaving. I do have grounds for saying it because I'm more Christian than I care to admit. I was raised by the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, and I experienced it first hand.

[Mister D]

Can we get back to discussing the bible? Thanks. Not singling any of you out. Please stay on topic out of respect.

[spunkloaf]

Sorry D when somebody takes my posts out of context, it simply must be addressed. I cannot contain myself.

We were discussing...?


I forgot and I'm not going to page back and lose what I've already typed here.

K new discussion then.

How much of the Bible do you take literally? Which parts? Why, why not?

[wingrider]

it seems I may be the culprit in this derailing so I will butt out of the conversation.. sorry

[Mister D]

Sorry D when somebody takes my posts out of context, it simply must be addressed. I cannot contain myself.

We were discussing...?


I forgot and I'm not going to page back and lose what I've already typed here.

K new discussion then.

How much of the Bible do you take literally? Which parts? Why, why not?

It's a large work, Spunkloaf. Did you have any specific books or stories in mind?

[Mister D]

it seems I may be the culprit in this derailing so I will butt out of the conversation.. sorry

The "conversation" you were all having is thankfully over. No need to butt out.

[spunkloaf]

It's a large work, Spunkloaf. Did you have any specific books or stories in mind?

What comes to mind as something you've read that makes no practical real-world sense, but that you can absorb as a metaphoric lesson?

For me, the story of Noah's Ark makes little sense to me, even metaphorically. Why would God kill all his creatures, except for one family and a pair of every animal? Seems harsh.

[Mister D]

What comes to mind as something you've read that makes no practical real-world sense, but that you can absorb as a metaphoric lesson?

For me, the story of Noah's Ark makes little sense to me, even metaphorically. Why would God kill all his creatures, except for one family and a pair of every animal? Seems harsh.

Considering the depths of utter depravity to which humankind descends it doesn't seem harsh to me at all. God is merciful and gives Man plenty of opportunities/time to repent and turn from his ways but the God of the bible is also a God of justice. The two are not incompatible.

[wingrider]

also on the Noahs ark thing.. God gave man an additional 120 years from the time he told noah he was going to send a flood, and instead of repenting and turning back to God, the human race went further and further into depravity

also consider this Genesis tells us that fallen angels were having intercourse with humans and producing offsprng that changed the dna basically creating mutants,,

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.'

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'

"But Noah found favor [grace] in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

"Now the earth was [thoroughly] corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled [continually] with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." (Genesis 6:1-12)

http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml

[spunkloaf]

Considering the depths of utter depravity to which humankind descends it doesn't seem harsh to me at all. God is merciful and gives Man plenty of opportunities/time to repent and turn from his ways but the God of the bible is also a God of justice. The two are not incompatible.

Fairly stated. But then a paradox comes into play. I hear from everybody who believes in the biblical God that he is perfect, all-knowing and justified in his ways. For God to create a human race which is imperfect enough so that he has to wipe them out with a worldly flood and start over, it seems to defy that claim completely.

On a side note, it's interesting that a global flood is mentioned. Historically, floods have engulfed the entire planet as suggested by science. However those were caused by fluctuations in climate, and they happened long before humans became part of the picture.

[spunkloaf]

also on the Noahs ark thing.. God gave man an additional 120 years from the time he told noah he was going to send a flood, and instead of repenting and turning back to God, the human race went further and further into depravity

also consider this Genesis tells us that fallen angels were having intercourse with humans and producing offsprng that changed the dna basically creating mutants,,

"When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the LORD said, 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.'

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'

"But Noah found favor [grace] in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

"Now the earth was [thoroughly] corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled [continually] with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." (Genesis 6:1-12)

http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml

Yeah that's definitely one of the weird spectacles of the bible.

[dattaswami]

God (Holy Spirit) and Human Incarnation
STATEMENT: - MATHEW 10: 40

Lord Jesus was the human incarnation of the Holy Spirit. The human body of Holy Jesus is like the metallic wire, which was all over, pervaded by the Holy Spirit. Veda says ‘Antarbahischa’ which means that the Holy Spirit pervades all over the body of Human Incarnation. Wherever you touch the wire the electric shock is given. Similarly the entire human body of Holy Jesus is holy. The holiness is the nature of Holy Spirit just like the shock is the property of electricity.

As the electricity cannot be separated from the wire, the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Holy Jesus. So here the Holy Spirit is the Holy Jesus. Holy Jesus refers this Holy Spirit as His Father. He tells that He was sent by His father as a messenger. Though He and His father are one and the same, He speaks like this for which there is a practical reason i.e., every human being repels with another human being. A man cannot accept another man as God due to Jealousy and Egoism. Bhagavatgita says, “A man will insult Me when I come here in human form (Avajananti mam….)”. For this purpose Holy Jesus wants Himself to be called only as the messenger of the Holy Spirit by the disciples whenever He is introduced to the public. If He tells the truth the egoistic public will not hear even what He preaches and will reject Him. Therefore He is telling His disciples to introduce Him as a messenger only. Ofcourse, the disciples are really the messengers of Holy Jesus.

Holy Spirit has taken over the human body of Holy Jesus and pervaded all over the body to preach the divine knowledge to this world. The same Holy Spirit is sending the disciples for the propagation of the Divine knowledge. Both the body of Holy Jesus and the disciples are instruments of the Holy Spirit chosen for different purposes. The Holy Spirit is preaching through the body of Holy Jesus and is propagating the divine knowledge through disciples. Therefore if you respect the disciple you are respecting the Holy Spirit indirectly. Though both the instruments exist like this, the Holy Spirit is present in Jesus and is not present in the disciples.

Due to this difference the disciple is an indirect instrument and the direct instrument is Holy Jesus. The disciple propagates the divine knowledge after hearing from the Holy Jesus. Therefore when such disciple is respected, Holy Jesus is respected first and then the Holy Spirit. But among the disciples there may be some person who cannot repeat what Holy Jesus exactly preached. In such a case the Holy Spirit will take over the body of that disciple and preaches (Mathew 10: 20). Such a disciple differs from Holy Jesus because the Holy Spirit resides in that disciple for some time only where as the Holy Spirit resides in Jesus all the time.

Holy Jesus is telling that He is the messenger of the Holy Spirit and He is also telling that the disciple is His messenger. He is giving the same status to Himself and the disciple by telling like this. The reason is that some disciple may become jealous in future if He says that He Himself is the Holy Spirit where as the disciple is His messenger only. The difference in the status may bring jealousy. Therefore He is maintaining the equal status so that no devotee becomes jealous of Jesus in the future. Due to jealousy the disciple may slip from Holy Jesus.

When He says that He is only the messenger, this shows the humble and submissiveness of Holy Jesus. He wants His disciples to be humble and submissive to the Holy Spirit through out their lives. For this purpose He sets Himself as an ideal. The Holy Spirit present in the human body of Holy Jesus is the essence of true and infinite knowledge as Veda says “Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma….” Humbleness and submissiveness are the fruits of the Divine Knowledge. Therefore the humbleness and submissiveness are the qualities of the Holy Spirit itself. This means whatever Holy Jesus speaks is the statement of the Holy Spirit only.

[spunkloaf]

I just want to reiterate that I have respect for religion, even as a non-believer. Anything which survives the test of time in our culture certainly has some legitimacy in one form or another. I should point out again, though, that the collective perception of God is severely fragmented. In some cases, the perception of God is even biased or narcissistic. What I mean by that is some (but not all) believers tend to make their perception of God work in their favor, rather than to search for truth. A great example of this is when certain people proclaim that God hates fags. No, God does not hate fags. You hate fags, and you're creating an perception of God to reflect your opinions, rather than to really understand what God is about.

I can't even find it in myself to have disdain for these types of anti-homosexuality believers, because again--their perception of God is only influenced by what is in front of them.

[wingrider]

I just want to reiterate that I have respect for religion, even as a non-believer. Anything which survives the test of time in our culture certainly has some legitimacy in one form or another. I should point out again, though, that the collective perception of God is severely fragmented. In some cases, the perception of God is even biased or narcissistic. What I mean by that is some (but not all) believers tend to make their perception of God work in their favor, rather than to search for truth. A great example of this is when certain people proclaim that God hates fags. No, God does not hate fags. You hate fags, and you're creating an perception of God to reflect your opinions, rather than to really understand what God is about.

I can't even find it in myself to have disdain for these types of anti-homosexuality believers, because again--their perception of God is only influenced by what is in front of them. while it is true that God doesn't hate " fags " he does hate what they do read exodus 18 and you will find it.. God loves everyone.. but he hates sin.

[spunkloaf]

while it is true that God doesn't hate " fags " he does hate what they do read exodus 18 and you will find it.. God loves everyone.. but he hates sin.

I'm familiar with what it says in the bible. I'm unconvinced that the bible directly conveys that homosexual activity is a sin, per the word of God. I think that it's easy to interpret it as such, but I think it is interpreted poorly. Here's a question for you. Why would God design people to be attracted to the same sex, and then condemn them for acting upon it?

I'm a homosexual, and I can attest that it is impossible for me to find women attractive. I have tried relentlessly, because I was raised to believe that homosexuality is a sin. So when I discovered my own feelings, I tried to convert myself, hide my feelings, fake an interest in women hoping that it will become the real thing, and I tried praying to become "normal." It was hopeless and I hated myself. I can't count the number of times I thought about suicide. I once came close to trying it, but never really attempted it. Others have attempted and succeeded with suicide. And for what?

With that said, I have my urges like everybody else. It's normal for everybody to have sexual urges. I won't hold back from physically expressing that just because others think it's a sin. It can damage anybody's mental health to suppress their urges and refrain from activity they feel is right. That goes fort gay or straight sex.

I don't mind that you believe homosexual activity is a sin. I've grown to accept that people will be people, and I have no hard feelings about it. Keep in mind, it's hard to grasp any concept of what God really wants for each individual. If you truly feel in your heart that homosexual activity is a sin, perhaps it's because you personally find it to be disgusting--and that's completely fine. If so, it's easy to embrace that as a social standard because many others feel exactly the way you do.

Ask yourself if that is a truly original feeling which you have come to accept on your own terms, or if it was more or less inspired by your community. If it was not socially deplorable for people of the same sex to engage in sexual activities, would you truly believe it is a sin? Why? Please don't use procreation as an answer. We both know that men and women aren't consciously thinking about making babies when they get the urge to do the nasty. :grin:

[spunkloaf]

I can't imagine a God which hates anything.

[wingrider]

I'm familiar with what it says in the bible. I'm unconvinced that the bible directly conveys that homosexual activity is a sin, per the word of God. I think that it's easy to interpret it as such, but I think it is interpreted poorly. Here's a question for you. Why would God design people to be attracted to the same sex, and then condemn them for acting upon it?

I'm a homosexual, and I can attest that it is impossible for me to find women attractive. I have tried relentlessly, because I was raised to believe that homosexuality is a sin. So when I discovered my own feelings, I tried to convert myself, hide my feelings, fake an interest in women hoping that it will become the real thing, and I tried praying to become "normal." It was hopeless and I hated myself. I can't count the number of times I thought about suicide. I once came close to trying it, but never really attempted it. Others have attempted and succeeded with suicide. And for what?

With that said, I have my urges like everybody else. It's normal for everybody to have sexual urges. I won't hold back from physically expressing that just because others think it's a sin. It can damage anybody's mental health to suppress their urges and refrain from activity they feel is right. That goes fort gay or straight sex.

I don't mind that you believe homosexual activity is a sin. I've grown to accept that people will be people, and I have no hard feelings about it. Keep in mind, it's hard to grasp any concept of what God really wants for each individual. If you truly feel in your heart that homosexual activity is a sin, perhaps it's because you personally find it to be disgusting--and that's completely fine. If so, it's easy to embrace that as a social standard because many others feel exactly the way you do.

Ask yourself if that is a truly original feeling which you have come to accept on your own terms, or if it was more or less inspired by your community. If it was not socially deplorable for people of the same sex to engage in sexual activities, would you truly believe it is a sin? Why? Please don't use procreation as an answer. We both know that men and women aren't consciously thinking about making babies when they get the urge to do the nasty. :grin:
I like your response , spunk , it was civil, forthright and honest, i really appreaciate it.. you see, personally I am ambivlent about homosexuality for me it is whatever floats your boat after all who am I to judge, I have my own sins to worry about, one of them is lust of the eyes, really hard to control, but I try, sometimes I even think that
god should make me blind so I won't be tempted that way,, but of course he doesn't do that.. I really don't know what to say to you I do know that God calls a man being with another man an abomination and that is found in leviticus chapter 18, but I think that your sins are between you and your creator and not for me to judge or even to comment on, again I really appreciate you not going off and calling me a homophobe and stuff cause really I don't care.. I am trying my best to live like Christ would have me do, .. love, patience long suffering etc,, most of the time it works well until someone really ticks me off then my old sin nature kicks in and I lash out,,

[Conley]

I like your response , spunk , it was civil, forthright and honest, i really appreaciate it.. you see, personally I am ambivlent about homosexuality for me it is whatever floats your boat after all who am I to judge, I have my own sins to worry about, one of them is lust of the eyes, really hard to control, but I try, sometimes I even think that
god should make me blind so I won't be tempted that way,, but of course he doesn't do that.. I really don't know what to say to you I do know that God calls a man being with another man an abomination and that is found in leviticus chapter 18, but I think that your sins are between you and your creator and not for me to judge or even to comment on, again I really appreciate you not going off and calling me a homophobe and stuff cause really I don't care.. I am trying my best to live like Christ would have me do, .. love, patience long suffering etc,, most of the time it works well until someone really ticks me off then my old sin nature kicks in and I lash out,,

Great reply Wing.

I'm no bible scholar, but I've read that Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork. Is that right?

I just googled and I have other questions about Leviticus, but I will hold off.

[spunkloaf]

I like your response , spunk , it was civil, forthright and honest, i really appreaciate it.. you see, personally I am ambivlent about homosexuality for me it is whatever floats your boat after all who am I to judge, I have my own sins to worry about, one of them is lust of the eyes, really hard to control, but I try, sometimes I even think that
god should make me blind so I won't be tempted that way,, but of course he doesn't do that.. I really don't know what to say to you I do know that God calls a man being with another man an abomination and that is found in leviticus chapter 18, but I think that your sins are between you and your creator and not for me to judge or even to comment on, again I really appreciate you not going off and calling me a homophobe and stuff cause really I don't care.. I am trying my best to live like Christ would have me do, .. love, patience long suffering etc,, most of the time it works well until someone really ticks me off then my old sin nature kicks in and I lash out,,

Thanks. I know alot of people do take others' beliefs personally. I have come to realize there is no need to. If we were all meant to believe the same things, we would have to live the same lives. I can't expect people to abandon their beliefs out of empathy for my circumstances. That's extremely selfish, and too much to ask from anybody.

[spunkloaf]

Great reply Wing.

I'm no bible scholar, but I've read that Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork. Is that right?

I just googled and I have other questions about Leviticus, but I will hold off.

That ties back in with my question of what things are taken literally in the bible.

[Mister D]

That ties back in with my question of what things are taken literally in the bible.

The prohibition against pork for the Hebrew community should be taken quite literally. IMO, its intention, like that of most Jewish law, was to separate God's people from their Canaanite neighbors many of whom loved their swine.

[wingrider]

one of the main reasons for the ban on pork well a couple of them were

1. pork spoils real easy and God was basically protecting them from food poisoning.

2. I have heard that the flesh of pork is very similar to the flesh of man, in texture and taste, so maybe the prospect of cannibalism had a play here also..

there is a reason why some refer to man as long pork..

[Conley]

So even though it was wrong to eat pork back then, many now go against Leviticus and eat pork regardless.

I also saw that it bans using a field for two crops, or making a garment from two types of cloth.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-19.htm

I am not trying to nitpick, it all just seems somewhat arbitrary. To be honest, these kinds of passages make it harder for me to take every word literally.

[Mister D]

one of the main reasons for the ban on pork well a couple of them were

1. pork spoils real easy and God was basically protecting them from food poisoning.

2. I have heard that the flesh of pork is very similar to the flesh of man, in texture and taste, so maybe the prospect of cannibalism had a play here also..

there is a reason why some refer to man as long pork..

Many peoples of the ancient Near East ate pork and the pig was first domesticated in that region. I don't buy the food poisoning theory and cannibalism is totally unrelated, IMO.

[Conley]

That ties back in with my question of what things are taken literally in the bible.

Right, but going back to your earlier point I believe there is more in the Bible than just Leviticus that speaks against homosexuality. I don't remember the passages but I've heard them quoted before.

[Mister D]

So even though it was wrong to eat pork back then, many now go against Leviticus and eat pork regardless.

I also saw that it bans using a field for two crops, or making a garment from two types of cloth.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-19.htm

I am not trying to nitpick, it all just seems somewhat arbitrary. To be honest, these kinds of passages make it harder for me to take every word literally.

It makes more sense when you think of it as a way of separating one community from another.

[Conley]

It makes more sense when you think of it as a way of separating one community from another.

So it's a metaphor?

[Mister D]

So it's a metaphor?

Not at all. IMO, it means exactly what it says. Don't behave as your neighbors.

[Conley]

Not at all. IMO, it means exactly what it says. Don't behave as your neighbors.

Sorry, I'm lost. Is wearing a garment made of cotton and polyester is a sin? What is wrong with behaving like my neighbor?

[Mister D]

Sorry, I'm lost. Is wearing a garment made of cotton and polyester is a sin? What is wrong with behaving like my neighbor?

The point, as I see it, is to keep God's people separate from the peoples around them through the cultivation of a distinct ethos (i.e. don't adopt the values, customs etc. of your Canaanite neighbors). The separation of God's elect is major theme of the bible and of the Old Testament in particular.

[Conley]

The point, as I see it, is to keep God's people separate from the peoples around them through the cultivation of a distinct ethos (i.e. don't adopt the values, customs etc. of your Canaanite neighbors). The separation of God's elect is major theme of the bible and of the Old Testament in particular.

Thanks D. I think I understand better, but please bear with me.

So that makes sense for the time period then, but are we still to practice these commands or is it obvious now that we are worshippers of God. I still don't know if in present times the two bans above are considered sins. Personally I wouldn't see a problem with either the planting (crop rotation) or the garments. I suppose it depends on who you ask.

[Mister D]

Thanks D. I think I understand better, but please bear with me.

So that makes sense for the time period then, but are we still to practice these commands or is it obvious now that we are worshippers of God. I still don't know if in present times the two bans above are considered sins. Personally I wouldn't see a problem with either the planting (crop rotation) or the garments. I suppose it depends on who you ask.

Of course. No worries, my friend. :smiley:

Yes, it makes sense for that period of time and the Jewish covenant with God. For Christians, that covenant has been replaced by a better one through the death and Resurrection of Christ Jesus and all men who accept Jesus Christ participate in that covenant regardless of their ancestry. With very few exceptions (Seventh Day Adventists do not eat pork, apparently) Christians do not follow the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant.

[Mister D]

I'm off to bed but I wanted to say that I've tried to explain this to several people online before who as unbelievers presume to tell me what I as a Christian need do in order to be consistent. :laugh: Oh, but it's in the bible so you can't say it doesn't apply! It's in the bible so you have to believe it! :rollseyes:

[shaarona]

ok.. if it was antiochus that daniel was talking about and he sacked the temple in 168 BC then why did Jesus prophecy that the temple would be destroyed , His probhecy was told in 33 AD and the temple was destroyed by Titus and the Romans in 70 AD nearly 40 years later.

you still havent told me whaere you get the bibical authority to displace isreal and put Christians in the place of Gods chosen people..

let me ask you one thing do you follow the preterist point of view?

Exactly a generation... 40 years from the crucifixion.

[shaarona]

So even though it was wrong to eat pork back then, many now go against Leviticus and eat pork regardless.

I also saw that it bans using a field for two crops, or making a garment from two types of cloth.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-19.htm

I am not trying to nitpick, it all just seems somewhat arbitrary. To be honest, these kinds of passages make it harder for me to take every word literally.

Many of the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were to keep the Jewish people separate.. so their identity wouldn't be subsumed by their neighbors or another culture, like th Babylonians.. These were not laws given by Moses.

[shaarona]

Fair enough. But who decides if those interpretations are plausible and appropriate? Is that why we have different kinds of Christian churches? If so, then a person could not possibly be absolutely sure of the most plausible interpretation of the written word of God until they have sampled an interpretation from every church. If the purpose of religion was to find real answers (which I'm not saying it is) then this would create a huge problem.



I'm not a Christian then, and I don't believe the Bible correctly portrays the word of God....in the same way as other people do.

What if ... the Adam and Eve were the mother and father of the Adamic line... thru Seth?

What if....the story of Adam and Eve is about when people stopped being hunter-gatherers and began to be herders and farmers? They no longer trusted in God's providence, but tried to live in groups and to provide for themselves.

What if the snake in the garden was to teach or warn people away from the snake cults of Arabia, the Indus Valley and the Levant.

God kicked them out of Eden, but he still protected them.... even Cain who went East of Eden, married and raised up a great city.

I think these are teaching narratives.. didactic literature some would call them.

[AZFlyFisher]

It sure would help discussion if Christians could agree on what parts of the Bible to take literally.

[Calypso Jones]

It sure would help discussion if Christians could agree on what parts of the Bible to take literally.

all of them.

[Carygrant]

all of them.


Even the authors did not write literally most of the time . That's the way things were done .
But Calypso knows better than the authors .

[Calypso Jones]

obviously.

[shaarona]

obviously.

Didacticism is a philosophy that emphasizes instructional and informative qualities in literature (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Literature) and other types of art (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Art).

The term has its origin in the Ancient Greek (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Greek) word διδακτικός (didaktikos), "related to education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Education)/teaching," and signified learning in a fascinating and intriguing manner.

Didactic art was meant both to entertain and to instruct. Didactic plays, for instance, were intended to convey a moral theme or other rich truth to the audience.

Wiki

[head of joaquin]

all of them.

You mean like this:


Matthew 6:19 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Matthew-6?highlight_verse=19#19) Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,

Matthew 6:20 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Matthew-6?highlight_verse=20#20) but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 6:21 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Matthew-6?highlight_verse=21#21) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

or this:

James 2:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/James-2?highlight_verse=6#6) But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?

James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.

or this:


Romans 13:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Romans-13?highlight_verse=6#6) For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Romans 13:7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Romans-13?highlight_verse=7#7) Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Let's all watch Calypso start to get all metaphorical suddently

[Calypso Jones]

Are you having some problem with rich people?

[Peter1469]

Are you having some problem with rich people?

Let me correct your question: Are you having some problems?

[Calypso Jones]

Didacticism is a philosophy that emphasizes instructional and informative qualities in literature (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Literature) and other types of art (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Art).

The term has its origin in the Ancient Greek (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ancient_Greek) word διδακτικός (didaktikos), "related to education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Education)/teaching," and signified learning in a fascinating and intriguing manner.

Didactic art was meant both to entertain and to instruct. Didactic plays, for instance, were intended to convey a moral theme or other rich truth to the audience.

Wiki

We're talking Bible here. Not Emily Post.

[Calypso Jones]

You mean like this:


Matthew 6:19 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Matthew-6?highlight_verse=19#19) Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,

Matthew 6:20 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Matthew-6?highlight_verse=20#20) but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 6:21 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Matthew-6?highlight_verse=21#21) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

or this:

James 2:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/James-2?highlight_verse=6#6) But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?

James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.

or this:


Romans 13:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Romans-13?highlight_verse=6#6) For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
Romans 13:7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Romans-13?highlight_verse=7#7) Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Let's all watch Calypso start to get all metaphorical suddently

I'm sorry? What are you getting at here. Let me just say, I take the bible literally. You don't have to. It's your choice. But Christ treated persons and events in the OT as actual people so then so do i. Of course there are some statements in the bible.....oh.....like...it's raining cats and dogs. (Before you get out your concordance, that phrase is not in the Bible. I used it as an example.) You know it is NOT actually raining cats and dogs but rather it is an analogy. Not many secularists are able to grasp that concept.

[shaarona]

I'm sorry? What are you getting at here. Let me just say, I take the bible literally. You don't have to. It's your choice. But Christ treated persons and events in the OT as actual people so then so do i. Of course there are some statements in the bible.....oh.....like...it's raining cats and dogs. (Before you get out your concordance, that phrase is not in the Bible. I used it as an example.) You know it is NOT actually raining cats and dogs but rather it is an analogy. Not many secularists are able to grasp that concept.

Of course they can grasp the concept of analogy or metaphor.

[Calypso Jones]

Of course they can grasp the concept of analogy or metaphor.

it doesn't appear so.

[shaarona]

it doesn't appear so.

Your ego is on the line....

[Carygrant]

You know it is NOT actually raining cats and dogs but rather it is an analogy. Not many secularists are able to grasp that concept.


The arrogance of too little knowledge .
Your so called Secularists have rammed this very point down Literalists throats for hundreds of years .
The books which were arbitrarily brought together as the Christian Diary ( Constantine's Bible )were not written literally . They had not fully arrived at that idea in those times .

[Stuck_In_California]

Now that I am where a serious religion section is possible I think it would be interesting and informative to discuss some biblical books, chapters, themes etc................

I go here to talk religion: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/


........I will get the ball rolling in the morning unless someone beats me to the punch tonight. I'm not sure what to offer up for discussion yet but I will think of something soon. I've been reading a theology of the Old Testament for a couple months now and feel like discussing some of what I've learned and some of the theories/interpretations I've recently been exposed to.

If you ever are of a mind, I recommend this book:

http://static.trinityroad.com/prod/250/father-who-keeps-his-promises-1001148.jpg

[head of joaquin]

Are you having some problem with rich people?

Are you addressing this to James?

[head of joaquin]

I'm sorry? What are you getting at here. Let me just say, I take the bible literally. You don't have to. It's your choice. But Christ treated persons and events in the OT as actual people so then so do i. Of course there are some statements in the bible.....oh.....like...it's raining cats and dogs. (Before you get out your concordance, that phrase is not in the Bible. I used it as an example.) You know it is NOT actually raining cats and dogs but rather it is an analogy. Not many secularists are able to grasp that concept.

Deflection.

Do you take what James says literally, that the rich are doomed to hell?

Do you take what Jesus says literally, that if you are greedy and horde wealth you are doomed to hell?

Let me know. I dislike heretical rightwingers using my religion for their odious social agenda of greed, so you're been called out on the carpet. What the heretical religious right does is take literally what isn't intended literally, and take metaphorically what is intended literally.

God has darkened their minds so they can't even get the plain sense of the gospel anymore.

[Mister D]

Deflection.

Do you take what James says literally, that the rich are doomed to hell?

Do you take what Jesus says literally, that if you are greedy and horde wealth you are doomed to hell?

Let me know. I dislike heretical rightwingers using my religion for their odious social agenda of greed, so you're been called out on the carpet. What the heretical religious right does is take literally what isn't intended literally, and take metaphorically what is intended literally.

God has darkened their minds so they can't even get the plain sense of the gospel anymore.

The possession of wealth and greed aren't the same thing, son.

[shaarona]

The possession of wealth and greed aren't the same thing, son.

Very true... My brothers were first on the scene with two flatbeds and a bullnose straight truck full of emergency supplies after Katrina. They provided everything from food to diapers for a whole block.

Money can be a blessing that allows people to do wonderful things.

Someone once explained to me that everyone has a gift.. Some have the gift of comfort and healing.. some have the gift of song or teaching. Some have the gift of service like chopping wood or repairing a roof for the widow... and some have the gift for making money.

My 2 cents........

[Calypso Jones]

I'm sorry. Will you post the link for the remarks of James please. And really i don't know why you are so concerned with this. Do you think only republicans are rich? There are many democrat and secularist wealthy people. And they will no doubt be going to hell themselves for particular actions.

[head of joaquin]

The possession of wealth and greed aren't the same thing, son.

According to James and Jesus it is.

Let's see, whom shall I believe, them or you?

[head of joaquin]

I'm sorry. Will you post the link for the remarks of James please. And really i don't know why you are so concerned with this. Do you think only republicans are rich? There are many democrat and secularist wealthy people. And they will no doubt be going to hell themselves for particular actions.

Already did. READ!

But thanks for admitting you haven't read the gospel and the epistle. Religious right heretics never do. If they try God darkens their minds and won't let them.

[Calypso Jones]

Already did. READ!

But thanks for admitting you haven't read the gospel and the epistle. Religious right heretics never do. If they try God darkens their minds and won't let them.

Oh yes, i see that now but still he doesn't say in those quotes what you say he says. Regardless. I am not sure at this point, what YOUR point is? Can someone explain what this young man is getting at?

[Carygrant]

The possession of wealth and greed aren't the same thing, son.


Life gets more amazing every day .
So that idea that one and three are identical is fact not fiction ?

Get me another beer , Peregrine .

[Stuck_In_California]

Deflection.

Do you take what James says literally, that the rich are doomed to hell?

Do you take what Jesus says literally, that if you are greedy and horde wealth you are doomed to hell?

Let me know. I dislike heretical rightwingers using my religion for their odious social agenda of greed, so you're been called out on the carpet. What the heretical religious right does is take literally what isn't intended literally, and take metaphorically what is intended literally.

God has darkened their minds so they can't even get the plain sense of the gospel anymore.

Why don't you shut up, moron

[Mister D]

According to James and Jesus it is.

Let's see, whom shall I believe, them or you?

Before you can believe them you'll need to understand what they actually wrote. Again, wealth does not equal greed. That's true for the bible as it is in English.

[Carygrant]

Why don't you shut up, moron


Is that text New Testament or from the Acts ?
I detest pretend Christians who insult like demented Hilly Billy people .



Great advertisement for the American teens culture and way of life : " Why don't you shut up , Moron "

[head of joaquin]

Is that text New Testament or from the Acts ?
I detest pretend Christians who insult like demented Hilly Billy people .



Great advertisement for the American teens culture and way of life : " Why don't you shut up , Moron "


Yes, it's easy to flush out the religious right heretics. Just force them to address the gospels and they turn into fuming harpies of hatred. They should be ex communicated. No real Christian should ever allow a religious right heretic into their church.

[KC]

Yes, it's easy to flush out the religious right heretics. Just force them to address the gospels and they turn into fuming harpies of hatred. They should be ex communicated. No real Christian should ever allow a religious right heretic into their church.

Psst. The word you're looking for I think is hypocrite. Heretic is a little bit different...

[head of joaquin]

Before you can believe them you'll need to understand what they actually wrote. Again, wealth does not equal greed. That's true for the bible as it is in English.

Go for it, greedhead. I want to see you spin this. It's more evidence of how the religious right's minds have been darkened by God due to their heresy.


James 2:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/James-2?highlight_verse=6#6) But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?


James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you.


Luke 12:33 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Luke-12?highlight_verse=33#33) Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

Luke 12:34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Luke-12?highlight_verse=34#34) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Proverbs 17:5 He who mocks the poor insults his Maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.

Now, let's all watch the market evangelists spin and gloss and lie about the bible.

[head of joaquin]

Why don't you shut up, moron

Because I like to force heretics like you to curse the gospel, since God has darkened your greedy minds.

You are living proof that God condemns tea partiers and their hatred of the gospel message.

[head of joaquin]

Oh yes, i see that now but still he doesn't say in those quotes what you say he says. Regardless. I am not sure at this point, what YOUR point is? Can someone explain what this young man is getting at?

Spin little heretic, spin:

Proverbs 17:5 He who mocks the poor insults his Maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.


James 2:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/James-2?highlight_verse=6#6) But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?


James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you.


Luke 12:33 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Luke-12?highlight_verse=33#33) Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

Luke 12:34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Luke-12?highlight_verse=34#34) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[Mister D]

Go for it, greedhead. I want to see you spin this. It's more evidence of how the religious right's minds have been darkened by God due to their heresy.


James 2:6 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/James-2?highlight_verse=6#6) But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats?


James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you.


Luke 12:33 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Luke-12?highlight_verse=33#33) Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

Luke 12:34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Luke-12?highlight_verse=34#34) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Proverbs 17:5 He who mocks the poor insults his Maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.

Now, let's all watch the market evangelists spin and gloss and lie about the bible.

We've already seen these, son. Again, greed and wealth are not synonymous. You're a dfeeply confused young man. Let me me put it this way. Do you think Jesus wants you to be poor? If so, stop whining! :laugh:

[head of joaquin]

We've already seen these, son. Again, greed and wealth are not synonymous. You're a dfeeply confused young man. Let me me put it this way. Do you think Jesus wants you to be poor? If so, stop whining! :laugh:

James says the rich will be punished.

Jesus says don't store up wealth.

Keep spinning! It's hilarious to watch the religious right heretics dance and curse God.

By the way, what do you think of the poor? Like we don't already know.

[KC]

James says the rich will be punished.

Jesus says don't store up wealth.

Keep spinning!


Morality without choice is meaningless. If I am not allowed to accumulate wealth, I have not made the choice to act righteous. Do you think people should be prevented from accumulating wealth to stop them from defying the words Jesus said in the gospel?

[Mister D]

James says the rich will be punished.

Jesus says don't store up wealth.

Keep spinning!

Son, Jesus addresses idolatry. That is, the tendency of men to trust in wealth and put material gain before God. James is addressing the rich oppressors of his flock.

If you need help understandin the bible just ask. :smiley:

[Mister D]

Morality without choice is meaningless. If I am not allowed to accumulate wealth, I have not made the choice to act righteous. Do you think people should be prevented from accumulating wealth to stop them from defying the words Jesus said in the gospel?

I'm curious if he thinks he should be poor. Based upon his exegesis yyou might think so.

[head of joaquin]

Morality without choice is meaningless. If I am not allowed to accumulate wealth, I have not made the choice to act righteous. Do you think people should be prevented from accumulating wealth to stop them from defying the words Jesus said in the gospel?

That's not what James and Jesus said. So if you are interpreting their plain language metaphorically, that's OK with.

The issue is the religious right says the bible must be taken literally. Taken literally, ALL the rich are damned to hell.

By they way, why do you take issue with this saying of Jesus. It's meaning is perfectly clear and unambiguous to me. What sense exactly are you giving it.

MATTHEW 6

19Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,
20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[head of joaquin]

Son, Jesus addresses idolatry. That is, the tendency of men to trust in wealth and put material gain before God. James is addressing the rich oppressors of his flock.

If you need help understandin the bible just ask. :smiley:

Spin spin spin.

So we're supposed to take the bible symbolically and not literally:

James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.

So you see the word "Idolotry" there? I see the word "you rich".

Seems like God has darkened your understanding, like the idolators of Romans 1

[Mister D]

Spin spin spin.

So we're supposed to take the bible symbolically and not literally:

James 5:1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/James-5?highlight_verse=1#1) Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.

So you see the word "Idolotry" there? I see the word "you rich".

Seems like God has darkened your understanding, like the idolators of Romans 1

This has nothing to do with literalism versus symbolism. What do you think it means to put wealth before God? It's an idol, silly.

[KC]

That's not what James and Jesus said. So if you are interpreting their plain language metaphorically, that's OK with.

The issue is the religious right says the bible must be taken literally. Taken literally, ALL the rich are damned to hell.

By they way, why do you take issue with this saying of Jesus. It's meaning is perfectly clear and unambiguous to me. What sense exactly are you giving it.

MATTHEW 6

19Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal,
20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
First of all I am unconvinced of the divinity of Jesus. Second, regardless of how you interpret Jesus' words, my statement still stands. Coercion and morality do not necessarily follow.

[Mister D]

First of all I am unconvinced of the divinity of Jesus. Second, regardless of how you interpret Jesus' words, my statement still stands. Coercion and morality do not necessarily follow.

There is no morality at all if it's coerced. Similarly, there is no morality per se if it's merely a biological trait.

[KC]

There is no morality at all if it's coerced. Similarly, there is no morality per se if it's merely a biological trait.
Your first point: Agreed.

Your second point: not so sure. If we understood morality the way we do because of biological origins, it does not necessarily follow that we do not make those choices. If biology compelled us to behave moral (which we know it does not), then those choices would not be moral, as you say.

[Mister D]

Your first point: Agreed.

Your second point: not so sure. If we understood morality the way we do because of biological origins, it does not necessarily follow that we do not make those choices. If biology compelled us to behave moral (which we know it does not), then those choices would not be moral, as you say.

The question is why are our choices moral. What does that mean? Are those choices moral because they helped us survive in past and perhaps continue to in certain ways? Why is that good? In order to make such a determination we have to refer to something external to the subject (i.e. humanity). Otherwise, it's circular reasoning: morality is useful to human survival and that's good because human survival is good.

[KC]

The question is why are our choices moral. What does that mean? Are those choices moral because they helped us survive in past and perhaps continue to in certain ways? Why is that good? In order to make such a determination we have to refer to something external to the subject (i.e. humanity). Otherwise, it's circular reasoning: morality is useful to human survival and that's good because human survival is good.

Humans mostly behave in a self interested manner. Most of us believe that pure self interest is immoral (some do not, of course). If our biology leads us to believe morality is the negation of self interest in favor of putting others first, then we have a system of morality that rewards selflessness in order to promote the survival of other humans.

Is that reasoning necessarily circular?

All things that promote human survival are good.

Moral behavior promotes human survival.

∴ Moral behavior is good.

Maybe I'm being really dense (it wouldn't be the first time) but this seems like a logically valid proposition.

[head of joaquin]

First of all I am unconvinced of the divinity of Jesus. Second, regardless of how you interpret Jesus' words, my statement still stands. Coercion and morality do not necessarily follow.

That's a totally consistent position and I'm not quarreling with it. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and incoherence of the religious right and their view that the bible is intented literally -- all while they ignore the plain meaning of passages like the above, and spin and gloss and deflect.

[KC]

That's a totally consistent position and I'm not quarreling with it. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and incoherence of the religious right and their view that the bible is intented literally -- all while they ignore the plain meaning of passages like the above, and spin and gloss and deflect.

Can't you see that someone can consistently hold the view that greed is morally wrong but that government shouldn't make any attempts to control it, as some in the GOP do?

[head of joaquin]

This has nothing to do with literalism versus symbolism. What do you think it means to put wealth before God? It's an idol, silly.

Spin spin spin.

I love to watch the religious right heretics contort.

James says the rich will be punished. Period. No exceptions. No conditions. The rich are against God.

Now, what does that have to do with idolatry?

(Watch the guy go on a cherry picking expedition!)

[Peter1469]

Spin spin spin.

I love to watch the religious right heretics contort.

James says the rich will be punished. Period. No exceptions. No conditions. The rich are against God.

Now, what does that have to do with idolatry?

(Watch the guy go on a cherry picking expedition!)

Which translation of the Bible do you use?

[head of joaquin]

Can't you see that someone can consistently hold the view that greed is morally wrong but that government shouldn't make any attempts to control it, as some in the GOP do?

Sure I can. What does that have to do with the topic: biblical literalism as abused by the religious right (who are exclusively conservatives shills)

[head of joaquin]

Which translation of the Bible do you use?

Any and all. Actually I'm happen to use the original greek of the NT if you want. I understand enough koine greek to translate for you. N

But none of these passages are ambiguous.

But nice try.

[Peter1469]

Any and all. Actually I'm happen to use the original greek of the NT if you want. I understand enough koine greek to translate for you. N

But none of these passages are ambiguous.

But nice try.


Nice try? What does that mean? I asked a simple question. I assumed that you were quoting from a more modern version and not the King James version.

If you tried to translate from the Greek, would you come to some different conclusions that what is in the King James version? From what I understand it is hard to directly translate some words (many meanings could be correct).

[head of joaquin]

Nice try? What does that mean? I asked a simple question. I assumed that you were quoting from a more modern version and not the King James version.

If you tried to translate from the Greek, would you come to some different conclusions that what is in the King James version? From what I understand it is hard to directly translate some words (many meanings could be correct).

King James is early modern English so it's at times difficult for a modern English speaker to understand.

But that's not the issue. The passages in question are in plain koine greek, easy to translate into modern English. There is no ambiguity, no scholarly disagreements. Just ignoring by the religious right.

James says the rich will be punished. He says it in plain Greek. There is no ambiguity. There is no difficulty in translating it. There is no conditionality.

The religious right, being heretics, have to ignore or spin this easy to understand passage.




1
• (http://biblos.com/james/5-1.htm)
ἄγε (http://concordance.biblos.com/age.htm)
age • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/71.htm)
be
νῦν (http://concordance.biblos.com/nun.htm)
nun • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3568.htm)
now
οἱ (http://concordance.biblos.com/oi.htm)
oi • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm)
the
πλούσιοι, (http://concordance.biblos.com/plousioi.htm)
plousioi • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4145.htm)
rich
κλαύσατε (http://concordance.biblos.com/klausate.htm)
klausate • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2799.htm)
weep
ὀλολύζοντες (http://concordance.biblos.com/ololuzontes.htm)
ololuzontes • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3649.htm)
howl
ἐπὶ (http://concordance.biblos.com/epi.htm)
epi • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1909.htm)
for
ταῖς (http://concordance.biblos.com/tais.htm)
tais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm)
the




ταλαιπωρίαις (http://concordance.biblos.com/talaipo_riais.htm)
talaipōriais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5004.htm)
miseries
ὑμῶν (http://concordance.biblos.com/umo_n.htm)
umōn • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5216.htm)
your
ταῖς (http://concordance.biblos.com/tais.htm)
tais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm)
the
ἐπερχομέναις. (http://concordance.biblos.com/eperchomenais.htm)
eperchomenais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1904.htm)
coming

[Peter1469]

King James is early modern English so it's at times difficult for a modern English speaker to understand.

But that's not the issue. The passages in question are in plain koine greek, easy to translate into modern English. There is no ambiguity, no scholarly disagreements. Just ignoring by the religious right.

James says the rich will be punished. He says it in plain Greek. There is no ambiguity. There is no difficulty in translating it. There is no conditionality.

The religious right, being heretics, have to ignore or spin this easy to understand passage.




1
• (http://biblos.com/james/5-1.htm)
ἄγε (http://concordance.biblos.com/age.htm)
age • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/71.htm)
be
νῦν (http://concordance.biblos.com/nun.htm)
nun • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3568.htm)
now
οἱ (http://concordance.biblos.com/oi.htm)
oi • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm)
the
πλούσιοι, (http://concordance.biblos.com/plousioi.htm)
plousioi • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4145.htm)
rich
κλαύσατε (http://concordance.biblos.com/klausate.htm)
klausate • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2799.htm)
weep
ὀλολύζοντες (http://concordance.biblos.com/ololuzontes.htm)
ololuzontes • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3649.htm)
howl
ἐπὶ (http://concordance.biblos.com/epi.htm)
epi • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1909.htm)
for
ταῖς (http://concordance.biblos.com/tais.htm)
tais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm)
the




ταλαιπωρίαις (http://concordance.biblos.com/talaipo_riais.htm)
talaipōriais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5004.htm)
miseries
ὑμῶν (http://concordance.biblos.com/umo_n.htm)
umōn • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5216.htm)
your
ταῖς (http://concordance.biblos.com/tais.htm)
tais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3588.htm)
the
ἐπερχομέναις. (http://concordance.biblos.com/eperchomenais.htm)
eperchomenais • (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1904.htm)
coming




I truly appreciate the effort, despite the ad hom added in gratuitously.

So that is part of one sentence. Can you give it to us in context?

If it is a lot of work, I withdraw my request.

[Mister D]

Spin spin spin.

I love to watch the religious right heretics contort.

James says the rich will be punished. Period. No exceptions. No conditions. Therich are against God.

Now, what does that have to do with idolatry?

(Watch the guy go on a cherry picking expedition!)

You categorize people obsessively. Dude, I'm not a Republican, a tea partier, or a member of the so called "Religious Right".

Peter mentioned something called context. When we seek to understand theintended meaning of a passage context becomes very important. Passages from thebible, like passages from any other text, are not self-contained capsules ofmeaning. That I need to explain this to an adult is somewhat troubling but Idigress. Now who is “James” writing to and why? Hint: he’s writing to acongregation in distress in order to bolster their faith. The letter opens:

1 James, aservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among thenations:
Greetings.
2 Consider it pure joy, mybrothers and sisters,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30269a)] whenever you face trials of many kinds,3 because you know that thetesting of your faith produces perseverance.4

Why would the letter begin this way? What’s going on here? It sounds likethey had made their complaints and concerns known to the author. Oh oh! Lookslike we have some internal issues too! I wonder if they are based on economics.

2 My brothers and sisters,believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into yourmeeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy oldclothes also comes in.3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say,“Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or“Sit on the floor by my feet,”4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomejudges with evil thoughts?

Looks like it! Now if the rich are against God why would James admonish his congregation not to favor rich Christians? But let’s take alook at what is actually going on with the passage you’ve isolated (always astupid thing to do) and tried to derive meaning from.

5 Now listen,you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.2 Your wealth has rotted, andmoths have eaten your clothes.3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion willtestify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth inthe last days.4 Look!The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying outagainst you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the LordAlmighty.5 Youhave lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselvesin the day of slaughter.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30360a)]6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

What’s going on here? It appears that some of the membersof this church are being oppressed by rich non-Christians. “James” reminds the brethrenthat these people hope vainly in their perishable riches. They are going toface judgment like everyone else and their wealth will be worthless on the dayof God’s wrath. The author also exhorts his flock to be remain patient for the Lord will avenge them.

7 Be patient, then, brothers andsisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land toyield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains.8 You too, be patient andstand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.9 Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters,or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

Oh, and to answer your question about idolatry: putting anything before God is idolatry. Jesus was referring precisely to that.

I should get paid for this.

[Mister D]

Humans mostly behave in a self interested manner. Most of us believe that pure self interest is immoral (some do not, of course). If our biology leads us to believe morality is the negation of self interest in favor of putting others first, then we have a system of morality that rewards selflessness in order to promote the survival of other humans.

Is that reasoning necessarily circular?

All things that promote human survival are good.

Moral behavior promotes human survival.

∴ Moral behavior is good.

Maybe I'm being really dense (it wouldn't be the first time) but this seems like a logically valid proposition.

How are you establishing the goodness of promoting human survival? How is that good or bad?

[Mister D]

I truly appreciate the effort, despite the ad hom added in gratuitously.

So that is part of one sentence. Can you give it to us in context?

If it is a lot of work, I withdraw my request.

Peter, judging by his difficulties with modern English he's about as familiar with Koine Greek as he is with Sanskrit. :smiley:

[head of joaquin]

You categorize people obsessively. Dude, I'm not a Republican, a tea partier, or a member of the so called "Religious Right".

Peter mentioned something called context. When we seek to understand theintended meaning of a passage context becomes very important. Passages from thebible, like passages from any other text, are not self-contained capsules ofmeaning. That I need to explain this to an adult is somewhat troubling but Idigress. Now who is “James” writing to and why? Hint: he’s writing to acongregation in distress in order to bolster their faith. The letter opens:

1 James, aservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among thenations:
Greetings.
2 Consider it pure joy, mybrothers and sisters,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30269a)] whenever you face trials of many kinds,3 because you know that thetesting of your faith produces perseverance.4

Why would the letter begin this way? What’s going on here? It sounds likethey had made their complaints and concerns known to the author. Oh oh! Lookslike we have some internal issues too! I wonder if they are based on economics.

2 My brothers and sisters,believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into yourmeeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy oldclothes also comes in.3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say,“Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or“Sit on the floor by my feet,”4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomejudges with evil thoughts?

Looks like it! Now if the rich are against God why would James admonish his congregation not to favor rich Christians? But let’s take alook at what is actually going on with the passage you’ve isolated (always astupid thing to do) and tried to derive meaning from.

5 Now listen,you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.2 Your wealth has rotted, andmoths have eaten your clothes.3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion willtestify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth inthe last days.4 Look!The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying outagainst you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the LordAlmighty.5 Youhave lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselvesin the day of slaughter.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5&version=NIV#fen-NIV-30360a)]6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

What’s going on here? It appears that some of the membersof this church are being oppressed by rich non-Christians. “James” reminds the brethrenthat these people hope vainly in their perishable riches. They are going toface judgment like everyone else and their wealth will be worthless on the dayof God’s wrath. The author also exhorts his flock to be remain patient for the Lord will avenge them.

7 Be patient, then, brothers andsisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land toyield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains.8 You too, be patient andstand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.9 Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters,or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

Oh, and to answer your question about idolatry: putting anything before God is idolatry. Jesus was referring precisely to that.

I should get paid for this.

Look at the glossing!

[KC]

How are you establishing the goodness of promoting human survival? How is that good or bad?

Well, I think the premise is that we know this because of some innate human characteristic due to our biology.

So, if the question is "how?" I suppose the answer is "because we are predisposed to think in terms of right or wrong by biology." In religious terms the question of "how?" would be "because we are predisposed to think in terms of right or wrong because of our creator."

(again, to be clear, this isn't where I propose morality comes from but merely what I consider a possibility. I am an agnostic when it comes to the issue of where exactly morality comes from)

[head of joaquin]

I truly appreciate the effort, despite the ad hom added in gratuitously.

So that is part of one sentence. Can you give it to us in context?

If it is a lot of work, I withdraw my request.

The context is the end of a letter where James has consistently denounced the rich, saying they are destroying the harmony of the church. He points out the rich will be punished:


10But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.

James then goes on to say in the last chapter (remember there are no graphotactics in the original mss -- it's just one letter, no chapters, no verses, which were added later), that the rich will suffer judgment because they didn't heed Jesus' admontion not to store up treasure on earth (i.e., they became rich). He then points out that the rich are exploiters of the poor and ultimately murderers (associating them with Satan, whom Jesus called a murderer from the beginning)

3Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days.
4Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
5You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
6You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you.

All along here James is drawing on the Sayings of Jesus, and indeed suggesting that it was the rich who killed Jesus (which of course is true).

Now, James has other things to say, but one thing is clear: he condemns the rich because they are rich. The rich are inherently evil, inherently oppressors, inherently anti-Christs.

This isn't the message the religious right, with there market evangelism, want to hear -- but it is unambiguous and forthright (which is why religious right heretics like Mister D above are compelled to gloss the plain language).

[head of joaquin]

Peter, judging by his difficulties with modern English he's about as familiar with Koine Greek as he is with Sanskrit. :smiley:

Poor religious right heretics and their darkened minds:

Ephesians 4:18 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ephesians-4?highlight_verse=18#18) they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;

[roadmaster]

Poor religious right heretics and their darkened minds:

Ephesians 4:18 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ephesians-4?highlight_verse=18#18) they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;

Instead of quoting the Bible and taking ones out of context, if you knew Him then things would be clear as to what He was saying.

[Calypso Jones]

Poor religious right heretics and their darkened minds:

Ephesians 4:18 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ephesians-4?highlight_verse=18#18) they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;

Proverbs 30:5–6 (ESV)
5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

[head of joaquin]

Proverbs 30:5–6 (ESV)
5 Every word of God proves true;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.



Proverbs 17:5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Proverbs-17?highlight_verse=5#5) He who mocks the poor insults his Maker.

Thus all conservatives are alienated from God.

[head of joaquin]

Instead of quoting the Bible and taking ones out of context, if you knew Him then things would be clear as to what He was saying.

I thought quoting the bible out of context is what the religious right celebrated daily.

Ezekiel 16:49 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ezekiel-16?highlight_verse=49#49) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

translated: conservatives are sodomites.

[Peter1469]

Proverbs 17:5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Proverbs-17?highlight_verse=5#5) He who mocks the poor insults his Maker.

Thus all conservatives are alienated from God.

Conservatives don't mock the poor. They just don't think that making them dependent upon the government dole is in their best interests. The cycle of poverty is an evil deliberately created by your ilk.

[Peter1469]

I thought quoting the bible out of context is what the religious right celebrated daily.

Ezekiel 16:49 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ezekiel-16?highlight_verse=49#49) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

translated: conservatives are sodomites.

Stop trolling tiger. Your translation is what your mother would describe as a lie. And a filthy one at that. She would wash your mouth out with soup over that one.

[Calypso Jones]

Is it mocking the poor to keep your money in your pocket but force your neighbor to contribute to YOUR favorite causes.

[Mister D]

Look at the glossing!

Look at the rebuttal! Oh wait...there isn't one. My points stand uncontested.

[Mister D]

Well, I think the premise is that we know this because of some innate human characteristic due to our biology.

So, if the question is "how?" I suppose the answer is "because we are predisposed to think in terms of right or wrong by biology." In religious terms the question of "how?" would be "because we are predisposed to think in terms of right or wrong because of our creator."

(again, to be clear, this isn't where I propose morality comes from but merely what I consider a possibility. I am an agnostic when it comes to the issue of where exactly morality comes from)

What we know thenis merely the result of a selected psychological trait that has been useful for survival. Nothing more. That is the problem with anchoring morality in human biology. Human dignity and human survival then become neutral. How can we assign a moral value them? We just know they're good? We know nothing of the kind. We are driven to survive but that's not good or bad. It just is.

I think we're discussing two separate issues: the human capacity for moral reasoning and morality itself. The former allows us to distinguish good from evil while the latter is the reality to be distinguished.

[Mister D]

The context is the end of a letter where James has consistently denounced the rich, saying they are destroying the harmony of the church. He points out the rich will be punished:



James then goes on to say in the last chapter (remember there are no graphotactics in the original mss -- it's just one letter, no chapters, no verses, which were added later), that the rich will suffer judgment because they didn't heed Jesus' admontion not to store up treasure on earth (i.e., they became rich). He then points out that the rich are exploiters of the poor and ultimately murderers (associating them with Satan, whom Jesus called a murderer from the beginning)

All along here James is drawing on the Sayings of Jesus, and indeed suggesting that it was the rich who killed Jesus (which of course is true).

Now, James has other things to say, but one thing is clear: he condemns the rich because they are rich. The rich are inherently evil, inherently oppressors, inherently anti-Christs.

This isn't the message the religious right, with there market evangelism, want to hear -- but it is unambiguous and forthright (which is why religious right heretics like Mister D above are compelled to gloss the plain language).

Again with the religious right meme! :shocked: :grin:

Did you really just tells us that the context of the passages you cited are the passages themselves? The context of Statement X is Statement X? You don't find that problematic? The historical context of this letter has already been explained but I will do so again. At this time, two things are occuring: one specific to the congregation "James" is writing to and the other a general development we also see in Paul's letters. Regarding the latter, Christianity is no longer the religion of Galilean Jewish peasants. It's now attracting individuals from different social strata and from different nations. No, the rich themselves are not "destroying the harmony of the church" but rather the social differences themselves are presenting a difficulty because they simply did not exist before. This has nothign to do with "market evangelism" (whatever that is) but an understanding of the historical context of James.

I think Joaquin may be some kind of liberation theology loon.

[Mister D]

The irony here is that it is Joaquin who has grossly politicized the text.

[KC]

What we know thenis merely the result of a selected psychological trait that has been useful for survival. Nothing more. That is the problem with anchoring morality in human biology. Human dignity and human survival then become neutral. How can we assign a moral value them? We just know they're good? We know nothing of the kind. We are driven to survive but that's not good or bad. It just is.

I think we're discussing two separate issues: the human capacity for moral reasoning and morality itself. The former allows us to distinguish good from evil while the latter is the reality to be distinguished.

Well then it is clear then that I need to this one through more. I'm a little bit confused, so maybe we can continue this discussion at a later point.

[Carygrant]

I have no idea how James has come into the thread because he is a NT mystery man --- nobody is certain who he was , and his only claim to fame are the words he wrote on faith and salvation . No wonder they arbitrarily included his epistle in the NT . They had no real reasons to show Gentiles why on earth they should support and adopt their sayings of a failed king _- Jesus the man who was crucified .
But fortunately James said -- as far as popular belief has it , that Faith covers every thing and is God's way of rewarding his punters ---letting them think that Faith is the ultimate weapon .
Of course , James said nothing of the sort , but as most Christians ( about 99%) don't justify their faith through works , it is far easier to pitch the childish argument that Faith is a special kind of knowledge .
Effectively , James is used as a prop for poorly educated people to justify their belief in anything by the simple expedient of divine revelation -- be it from some wandering lunatic like Paul or from schizo disciple or hanger- on who always tells you he writes as God's servant and from divine illumination .
It's mumbo jumbo . But while the gullible people are welcome to believe whatever they choose , providing they do not upset rational people , it is insulting to have to listen to the dogmatism of weak people who need a crutch that magically turns opinions and beliefs into real world facts .

[roadmaster]

I use to think my Grandmothers were crazy especially my Dads mother. They are the ones who would take me to Church and I was hard-headed and would roll my eyes. The thing that bothered me most is both could tell when a person died before we were called. They would tell me “well they just passed by”. One also told me that everyone of her children would come back to God before they died and she stood on His promises. Well they all did. My girl cousins when we would spend the night at my Dads mother would laugh in the other room when we would hear Grandma call our names out to God. All I can say is THANK GOD for Godly Grandmothers.

[Mister D]

I have no idea how James has come into the thread because he is a NT mystery man --- nobody is certain who he was , and his only claim to fame are the words he wrote on faith and salvation . No wonder they arbitrarily included his epistle in the NT . They had no real reasons to show Gentiles why on earth they should support and adopt their sayings of a failed king _- Jesus the man who was crucified .
But fortunately James said -- as far as popular belief has it , that Faith covers every thing and is God's way of rewarding his punters ---letting them think that Faith is the ultimate weapon .
Of course , James said nothing of the sort , but as most Christians ( about 99%) don't justify their faith through works , it is far easier to pitch the childish argument that Faith is a special kind of knowledge .
Effectively , James is used as a prop for poorly educated people to justify their belief in anything by the simple expedient of divine revelation -- be it from some wandering lunatic like Paul or from schizo disciple or hanger- on who always tells you he writes as God's servant and from divine illumination .
It's mumbo jumbo . But while the gullible people are welcome to believe whatever they choose , providing they do not upset rational people , it is insulting to have to listen to the dogmatism of weak people who need a crutch that magically turns opinions and beliefs into real world facts .

I can't tell if this was posted in good faith but I will assume the best. Where to begin?

1. You have no idea why James came up in a thread entitled "Bible discussions?" Really?

2. What was arbitrary about the inclusion of the Epistle of James in the canon?

3. The Epistle of James was added to the canon in the mid 4th Century. Christianity was a majority Gentile religion before Paul's death in c. 67 AD and split from Judaism altogether shortly thereafter so it doesn't seem likely (I'm being kind) that this Epistle would be needed to convince Gentiles of anything.

4. The "popular beliefs" about faith you refer to are made up out of whole cloth.

5. Worse still, the canon's function was to delimit Christian horizons of meaning. The idea that James was included in the canon to allow Christians "to justify their belief in anything by the simple expedient of divine revelation" is patent nonsense. That is precisely NOT the function of the canon but it's opposite.

[Carygrant]

Clearly you have no idea .
What a load of waffle .

[Calypso Jones]

Clearly you have no idea .
What a load of waffle .

clearly. the problem is yours. I just love it when bible hating God denying atheists think they understand the gospel.

[Mister D]

Clearly you have no idea .
What a load of waffle .

Clearly you have no rebuttal. Until you do why bother posting a response?

[Mister D]

clearly. the problem is yours. I just love it when bible hating God denying atheists think they understand the gospel.

I gave Cary the benefit of the doubt. I too get the feeling he really believes he knows what he's talking about.

[Peter1469]

Clearly you have no idea .
What a load of waffle .

So provide us the full version of your rebuttal.

[Mister D]

So provide us the full version of your rebuttal.

Damn crickets...

[head of joaquin]

Again with the religious right meme! :shocked: :grin:

Did you really just tells us that the context of the passages you cited are the passages themselves? The context of Statement X is Statement X? You don't find that problematic? The historical context of this letter has already been explained but I will do so again. At this time, two things are occuring: one specific to the congregation "James" is writing to and the other a general development we also see in Paul's letters. Regarding the latter, Christianity is no longer the religion of Galilean Jewish peasants. It's now attracting individuals from different social strata and from different nations. No, the rich themselves are not "destroying the harmony of the church" but rather the social differences themselves are presenting a difficulty because they simply did not exist before. This has nothign to do with "market evangelism" (whatever that is) but an understanding of the historical context of James.

I think Joaquin may be some kind of liberation theology loon.

Suddenly the cherry picking religious right wants context for a biblical quote.

Oh the irony.

As to the context for James and Jesus -- the rich are condemned. Period. They have no part in the kingdom of heaven.

All you can do is gloss -- like Romney explaining his 47% comment.

[Captain Obvious]

Suddenly the cherry picking religious right wants context for a biblical quote.

Oh the irony.

As to the context for James and Jesus -- the rich are condemned. Period. They have no part in the kingdom of heaven.

All you can do is gloss -- like Romney explaining his 47% comment.

Heh - I'm not a bible nut, but I know this much at least.

You is wrong.

I'll let D knock this one down, he'll do a better job than I could.

[Calypso Jones]

Suddenly the cherry picking religious right wants context for a biblical quote.

Oh the irony.

As to the context for James and Jesus -- the rich are condemned. Period. They have no part in the kingdom of heaven.

All you can do is gloss -- like Romney explaining his 47% comment.

King David was very wealthy. Solomon even more so. AND God GAVE HIM extreme wealth as reward for asking for Wisdom. So. I don't think it is necessarily true that the rich can't go to heaven. I do believe David and Solomon are there. I think the scripture you're trying to condemn christians with has a much different meaning than you think it does.

[Peter1469]

King David was very wealthy. Solomon even more so. AND God GAVE HIM extreme wealth as reward for asking for Wisdom. So. I don't think it is necessarily true that the rich can't go to heaven. I do believe David and Solomon are there. I think the scripture you're trying to condemn christians with has a much different meaning than you think it does.

Well that is clear....

[head of joaquin]

King David was very wealthy. Solomon even more so. AND God GAVE HIM extreme wealth as reward for asking for Wisdom. So. I don't think it is necessarily true that the rich can't go to heaven. I do believe David and Solomon are there. I think the scripture you're trying to condemn christians with has a much different meaning than you think it does.

Another rightwing Christian who doesn't read the bible. Solomon is condemned vigorously for his wealth, which violated the law:

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Don't you guys ever read this stuff?

As to David, he was a murderer, who was punished for his sins by having his own son rebel against him. READ!

Maybe you should start with the gospels and work you're way backwards.

[roadmaster]

Another rightwing Christian who doesn't read the bible. Solomon is condemned vigorously for his wealth, which violated the law:

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Don't you guys ever read this stuff?

As to David, he was a murderer, who was punished for his sins by having his own son rebel against him. READ!

Maybe you should start with the gospels and work you're way backwards.

It is not wealth that will send your soul to hell. But He does say a rich man that loves his money more than Him it would be like a camel going threw an eye of the needle. I know what CJ was saying.

[head of joaquin]

It is not wealth that will send your soul to hell. But He does say a rich man that loves his money more than Him it would be like a camel going threw an eye of the needle. I know what CJ was saying.

Watch the rightwingers gloss. Suddenly the bible isn't to be taken literally. But if it suits their homophobe agenda, it must be.

Hypocrites.

The irony is this is the law -- it IS intended literally. Solomon and David violated the law and were punished -- the law said kings cannot accumulate wealth. Period.

[roadmaster]

Not to go off subject but I have read Darwin and company but don't go into what they claim in detail. Why do you insist on questioning the Bible if you don't believe?

[Calypso Jones]

Another rightwing Christian who doesn't read the bible. Solomon is condemned vigorously for his wealth, which violated the law:

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Don't you guys ever read this stuff?

As to David, he was a murderer, who was punished for his sins by having his own son rebel against him. READ!

Maybe you should start with the gospels and work you're way backwards.


took ya long enough. That passage in deuteronomy was written by Moses and he was giving advice to future rulers of the Chosen People. And the kings, Saul, David, Solomon and the rest ignored it. Polygamy was after all the accepted practice of kings in those days. And so what of it. These 3 specific kings disobeyed Moses suggestions. Not just on the wives but on the chariots, horses, gold and silver. and YET God told David his house would endure forever. And it is and will thru Christ. Still, David, the man after God's own heart IS with his God as is Solomon in spite of their failings and their wealth. Why would God bless these kings with wealth if the rich cannot enter heaven.

It's is likely that David's sons rebelled against their father as God's punishment for David's sins of seducing Bathsheba and putting Uriah in danger of certain death. But don't you think it more likely that God's punishment for David's sin was the death of his and Bathsheba's newborn son. Did ya miss THAT one? Its more likely that David was just a poor father since he was so busy running the nation and his harem. David sinned far many more times than just that one. But in order to find those sins you might actually have to do some reading. I wouldn't want to put you thru that degree of trauma.

[roadmaster]

He clearly says a man should not lay with a man. Yes, I believe the Bible to be the living Word of God.

[Calypso Jones]

He clearly says a man should not lay with a man. Yes, I believe the Bible to be the living Word of God.

hmmm. let's see where that goes. I'm thinking total avoidance.

[head of joaquin]

He clearly says a man should not lay with a man. Yes, I believe the Bible to be the living Word of God.

So when Deuteronomy says not to accumulate wealth, it's literal. Or not. Then why are you spinning this?

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Or this:

Ezekiel 16:49 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ezekiel-16?highlight_verse=49#49) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

So what was the sin of Sodom?

But the real funny thing is why would a Christian follow the Law. You poor religous righties, you're totally confused about the gospel.

[head of joaquin]

hmmm. let's see where that goes. I'm thinking total avoidance.

Pssst: yeah, as a Christian I don't follow the law. Do you? Do you eat shrimp or keep the Sabbath on Saturday?

Hypocrite.

[Conley]

That's Leviticus right? What about the part about not wearing a garment from two cloths? Or not using the same field for different crops? Why do so many Christians pick and choose which parts of Leviticus to follow and which to ignore? D and I had a good discussion about this but I'm curious for other opinions too.

[head of joaquin]

Not to go off subject but I have read Darwin and company but don't go into what they claim in detail. Why do you insist on questioning the Bible if you don't believe?

Uh, I don't believe your bizarre and hypocritical interpretation of it. Neither did Paul. He condemned literalists like you and the religious right, who are clearly heretics.

So why do you not believe Paul?

[Captain Obvious]

That's Leviticus right? What about the part about not wearing a garment from two cloths? Why do so many Christians pick and choose which parts of Leviticus to follow and which to ignore?

Zactly.

http://www.atruechurch.info/sexduringmenstruation.html

I noticed those little light-blue slips of paper in the trash bin in the bathroom, so I guess I'm lobbying for a weekend blowjob.

It's gonna cost me also.

[head of joaquin]

That's Leviticus right? What about the part about not wearing a garment from two cloths? Why do so many Christians pick and choose which parts of Leviticus to follow and which to ignore?

James knew about fake Christians like the religious right, who used the Old Testment in a self-servng way. He condemned them:

James 2:

But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?7Is it not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked over you?
8If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.
9But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

[Conley]

Zactly.

http://www.atruechurch.info/sexduringmenstruation.html

I noticed those little light-blue slips of paper in the trash bin in the bathroom, so I guess I'm lobbying for a weekend blowjob.

It's gonna cost me also.

So you're being a good Christian by not having sex while Aunt Flo is visiting? :laugh:

[Calypso Jones]

the reasons christians don't follow levitical law is that we aren't Israelites. How many times do you guys have to be told that those laws were to separate the Israelites from other people.

[Peter1469]

So when Deuteronomy says not to accumulate wealth, it's literal. Or not. Then why are you spinning this?

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Or this:

Ezekiel 16:49 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ezekiel-16?highlight_verse=49#49) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

So what was the sin of Sodom?

But the real funny thing is why would a Christian follow the Law. You poor religous righties, you're totally confused about the gospel.

Is Deuteronomy discussing rich people, or is Deuteronomy discussing the King and his use of the wealth of the nation? Perhaps Deuteronomy is telling the king that this money belongs to the people, so don't keep it for yourself. Help the people with their own money.

That says nothing about rich people who make their own money.

[Conley]

the reasons christians don't follow levitical law is that we aren't Israelites. How many times do you guys have to be told that those laws were to separate the Israelites from other people.

So then how come "you guys" (your term :grin:) always cite Leviticus to bash gays?

[head of joaquin]

the reasons christians don't follow levitical law is that we aren't Israelites. How many times do you guys have to be told that those laws were to separate the Israelites from other people.

Bogus. There is no distinction in the Law. The Law is the Law, and unless it says otherwise it applies to all Jews.

So do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday or not?

If not, you are invoking the law against gays but not keeping the rest, you are condemned.

James 2:10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

[Captain Obvious]

So then how come "you guys" (your term :grin:) always cite Leviticus to bash gays?

If the Bible were prime time TV, Leviticus would be South Park.

[roadmaster]

the reasons christians don't follow levitical law is that we aren't Israelites. How many times do you guys have to be told that those laws were to separate the Israelites from other people.

He just wants to argue. Maybe he should go see a preacher. I never put pearls on a swine.

[Conley]

If the Bible were prime time TV, Leviticus would be South Park.

Looks like I needs to read me some Leviticus then!


:icon_study:

[Conley]

He just wants to argue. Maybe he should go see a preacher. I never put pearls on a swine.

My church (Episcopalian) is more about a loving, forgiving God than fire and brimstone...and we promote free thinking. I love it.

[head of joaquin]

Is Deuteronomy discussing rich people, or is Deuteronomy discussing the King and his use of the wealth of the nation? Perhaps Deuteronomy is telling the king that this money belongs to the people, so don't keep it for yourself. Help the people with their own money.

That says nothing about rich people who make their own money.

In this case, just the king. So anybody who says the Bible supports the accumulation of wealth by pointing to David or Solomon's riches doesn't get it. They were in violation of the law.

But of course, I'm not an iron age Jew but a modern Christian who isn't under law. The gospel is what I follow and the gospel condemns wealth outright.

[head of joaquin]

He just wants to argue. Maybe he should go see a preacher. I never put pearls on a swine.

Another religous rightie confused and bruised by the text they want to use against others.

It's like taking candy from Paul Ryan.

[head of joaquin]

If the Bible were prime time TV, Leviticus would be South Park.

More like America Idol -- lots of judging and meanspirited criticism.

[Peter1469]

In this case, just the king. So anybody who says the Bible supports the accumulation of wealth by pointing to David or Solomon's riches doesn't get it. They were in violation of the law.

But of course, I'm not an iron age Jew but a modern Christian who isn't under law. The gospel is what I follow and the gospel condemns wealth outright.

Focus: the King doesn't make money. The money essentially belongs to the nation. The King is entrusted with using it to help the people. That is what the quoted verse is about. If the King had a side business, I am sure God wouldn't begrudge him keeping that money for himself.

You err when you try to bring Marxism into biblical scholarship.

[roadmaster]

My church (Episcopalian) is more about a loving, forgiving God than fire and brimstone...and we promote free thinking. I love it.

Then you talk to him. And yes God is a forgiving God.

[Captain Obvious]

More like America Idol -- lots of judging and meanspirited criticism.

Don't forget the plethora of crappy content.

[Captain Obvious]

My church (Episcopalian) is more about a loving, forgiving God than fire and brimstone...and we promote free thinking. I love it.

What's the fun in that?

:grin:

[Calypso Jones]

It's too bad your pastor or whatever won't tell you the truth. God IS loving. But he's also holy. And HOLY cannot be in the presence of sin.

[Conley]

Then you talk to him. And yes God is a forgiving God.

I asked him and he said he's got no problem with butt pirates. :piratetongue:

[Conley]

It's too bad your pastor or whatever won't tell you the truth. God IS loving. But he's also holy. And HOLY cannot be in the presence of sin.

All mankind sins sweetie.

[Calypso Jones]

In this case, just the king. So anybody who says the Bible supports the accumulation of wealth by pointing to David or Solomon's riches doesn't get it. They were in violation of the law.

But of course, I'm not an iron age Jew but a modern Christian who isn't under law. The gospel is what I follow and the gospel condemns wealth outright.

I don;t think Moses made this law. It was more along the line of guidelines.

but i like your attitude. You're pro-traditional marriage and pro-life. that's good. I'm glad.

[Calypso Jones]

In 2 Samuel 12:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Samuel%2012.8), God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more.

[Captain Obvious]

I asked him and he said he's got no problem with butt pirates. :piratetongue:

Trying to tell us something?

:bananabutt:

[Calypso Jones]

In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deuteronomy%2017.14-20), God states that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives, horses, chariots, gold/silver. While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must not take multiple wives, it is generally understood that having multiple wives causes problems. A heart that is divided, problems among the siblings, problems among wives, just generally making the king's life miserable. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Kings%2011.3-4)).

[Conley]

Trying to tell us something?

:bananabutt:

No, I'm not attracted to fruit. Hey I never realized that's a smiley of fruits acting fruity...then again could be a female banana there, hard to tell. :harrr:

[roadmaster]

I have taken in over four teens in my past without families. It is not a requirement to go to a Church Building for them. God plants seeds, you can't force them to believe what you do. If they cannot see God in me than I have failed them. We still talk and they still call me mom. It is important for me to be the same in the building and at home. Show them the way to go that one day they may come back.

[Calypso Jones]

hmmm. Doesn't anyone have anything else to say about following the letter of Biblical law?

[roadmaster]

http://youtu.be/l3NWLu6g4U4

[Mister D]

Suddenly the cherry picking religious right wants context for a biblical quote.

Oh the irony.

As to the context for James and Jesus -- the rich are condemned. Period. They have no part in the kingdom of heaven.

All you can do is gloss -- like Romney explaining his 47% comment.


The religious right meme again. Oh the irony... :wink: :grin:

Again, do you realize how silly you sound when you say the context of a statement is the statement itself? I'm trying to be nice about this...if you have no rebuttal to the points I've made about the Epistle of James then we may dismiss your claims. If you haven't noticed, that's what everyone is now doing. You can refute my position...or not. The consequence of the latter is that no one will take you seriously.

How does Romney figure into this? :laugh: Do you politicize everything?

[Mister D]

Heh - I'm not a bible nut, but I know this much at least.

You is wrong.

I'll let D knock this one down, he'll do a better job than I could.

I thought introuducing the fact that many biblical characters were wealthy including Abraham the father of our faith but I see that someone already has. Oh well...if Joaquin refuses to address my arguments all I can do is let it stand unrefuted. Oh well. :smiley:

[shaarona]

The religious right meme again. Oh the irony... :wink: :grin:

Again, do you realize how silly you sound when you say the context of a statement is the statement itself? I'm trying to be nice about this...if you have no rebuttal to the points I've made about the Epistle of James then we may dismiss your claims. If you haven't noticed, that's what everyone is now doing. You can refute my position...or not. The consequence of the latter is that no one will take you seriously.

How does Romney figure into this? :laugh: Do you politicize everything?

James wanted all Christians to follow Jewish law .. or for Gentiles to first become Jews.

[Mister D]

King David was very wealthy. Solomon even more so. AND God GAVE HIM extreme wealth as reward for asking for Wisdom. So. I don't think it is necessarily true that the rich can't go to heaven. I do believe David and Solomon are there. I think the scripture you're trying to condemn christians with has a much different meaning than you think it does.

Exactly. What Christ warns us about is idolatry and putting our trust in wealth instead of the Father. That temptation is what makes it difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, the bible is chock full of such admontions.

[Mister D]

Another rightwing Christian who doesn't read the bible. Solomon is condemned vigorously for his wealth, which violated the law:

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Don't you guys ever read this stuff?

As to David, he was a murderer, who was punished for his sins by having his own son rebel against him. READ!

Maybe you should start with the gospels and work you're way backwards.

Where is Solomon condemned for his wealth? Hint: No where. Solomon's wealth and wisdom were signs of God's favor. So was Abraham's wealth.

The story of Bathsheba and David is irrelevant. Please stop trying to sound biblically literate. It's not working.

[Mister D]

So when Deuteronomy says not to accumulate wealth, it's literal. Or not. Then why are you spinning this?

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Or this:

Ezekiel 16:49 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ezekiel-16?highlight_verse=49#49) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

So what was the sin of Sodom?

But the real funny thing is why would a Christian follow the Law. You poor religous righties, you're totally confused about the gospel.

What was the sin of Sodom? Not aiding the poor and needy. I mean really, bro. :laugh:

[Mister D]

So when Deuteronomy says not to accumulate wealth, it's literal. Or not. Then why are you spinning this?

Deuteronomy 17:17 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/ASV/Deuteronomy-17?highlight_verse=17#17) Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Or this:

Ezekiel 16:49 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/bible/RSV/Ezekiel-16?highlight_verse=49#49) Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

So what was the sin of Sodom?

But the real funny thing is why would a Christian follow the Law. You poor religous righties, you're totally confused about the gospel.

that his heart turn not away

Let that sink in...

[Mister D]

In this case, just the king. So anybody who says the Bible supports the accumulation of wealth by pointing to David or Solomon's riches doesn't get it. They were in violation of the law.

But of course, I'm not an iron age Jew but a modern Christian who isn't under law. The gospel is what I follow and the gospel condemns wealth outright.

So God violated his own laws by blessing David, Abraham, Solomon etc etc? Fascinating.

[Mister D]

Focus: the King doesn't make money. The money essentially belongs to the nation. The King is entrusted with using it to help the people. That is what the quoted verse is about. If the King had a side business, I am sure God wouldn't begrudge him keeping that money for himself.

You err when you try to bring Marxism into biblical scholarship.

What's truly amusing is that he reads the bible like a fundamentalist.

[Mister D]

In 2 Samuel 12:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2 Samuel 12.8), God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more.

:smiley:

[Calypso Jones]

I like this:

Psalm 115:3 3 Our God is in heaven;[/URL] he does whatever pleases him.[URL="http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-2"] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-1)

[Calypso Jones]

Focus: the King doesn't make money. The money essentially belongs to the nation. The King is entrusted with using it to help the people. That is what the quoted verse is about. If the King had a side business, I am sure God wouldn't begrudge him keeping that money for himself.

You err when you try to bring Marxism into biblical scholarship.

well. if you don't mind Peter. David and his army defeated many nations and took spoils. With God's blessing. So, in this case i'd say that David did earn his own money. It was God's punishment on wicked nations around israel too. Solomon put a heavy tax burden on his people. And when he died, the kingdom split partly because of the heavy burden placed on the people. Rehoboam promised to make it even heavier and that was that.

[shaarona]

well. if you don't mind Peter. David and his army defeated many nations and took spoils. With God's blessing. So, in this case i'd say that David did earn his own money. It was God's punishment on wicked nations around israel too. Solomon put a heavy tax burden on his people. And when he died, the kingdom split in a substantial part because of the heavy burden placed on the people. Rehoboam promised to make it even heavier and the nation split.

Not quite true...

Solomon if he was real was noted for trade and diplomacy... and politicl marriages.

[Morningstar]

I'm curious if he thinks he should be poor. Based upon his exegesis yyou might think so.

That is the Christian Way. A life of poverty.

Only the destitute are blameless.

[Calypso Jones]

Not quite true...

Solomon if he was real was noted for trade and diplomacy... and politicl marriages.

Oh really. Which part is not quite true.....Miss 'solomon if he was real'?

[shaarona]

Oh really. Which part is not quite true.....Miss 'solomon if he was real'?

If Solomon was real, scripture teaches that it was time of peace, prosperity, diplomacy and trade... and that Solomon made many political marriages towards that end.

[Calypso Jones]

If Solomon was real, scripture teaches that it was time of peace, prosperity, diplomacy and trade... and that Solomon made many political marriages towards that end.

so your main objective is to put into question the 'if solomon was real' part? Or the taxation part? 1 kings 12.

[shaarona]

so your main objective is to put into question the 'if solomon was real' part? Or the taxation part? 1 kings 12.

There is no evidence for Solomon.. and you hav to understand that what you are calling kings, were petty chieftains.. Hiram of Tyre was not conquered but a friend..