Reading The Bible Properly Can Improve One's Reasoning Skills.

But there is a "Santa" that since Christ has grown into a series and body of Charities that will "feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the prisons, welcome the strangers," as we see happening in America.

Charity was the one saving grace we read about in Matthew 25, which the churches and independent organizations render so well today.
Catholic Charities was first in aiding Haiti, for instance, while the government agencies were still bogged down with various delays.

 

Fine, fine,...
But what about the secular people who have used the media, the TV< the Movies, magazines and every way to communicate promiscuity to the public in general and the kids and teens of the next generation?
No doubt you accept that as fine, yet you ridicule the church and stoic people who oppose these immoral attitudes and the avoidance of discussing the social problems of Abortion and Child Abuse to the fatherless kids that we end up raising.

 

Christ does none of those things, money and people do those things

faith based initiatives uses tax payer dollars to pay the church to do good works, though I am not so sure we always get our monies worth

if Christ provided for the church, the church would not need non-Christians to pay them to do good works

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
- Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780"

.

 

LOL

The tithes people pay into the church are not taxed in America, and it is from these payment from Christians that the churches pay for Charity.

 

LOL, faith based initiatives is not money people voluntarily gave to the church

"Bush's Faith-Based Initiative Gave Obama's Former Church $1.5 Million"

http://cnsnews.com/node/34655

"Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Ill. &#8211; where Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama worshipped for two decades &#8211; has received more than $1.5 million in federal tax money since 2003 through the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives"

that was as of August 26, 2008, and just for that one church.....





.

 

Oh, right.
That too was money given to churches to do the work they had been doing since 32AD.

 

The church refused to help young widows.

 

Apologetics against Jesus portrayal as mean spirited megalomaniac.

Tks for the question, I have just done a bible study on Luke 4 and I can now inform U that it was FIRSTLY the Nazareth
people's fault for rejecting Jesus teachings in the first place (U ?deliberately? omitted Luke 4:22 to obfuscate this point???!). For the avoidance of doubt, miracles are just the vehicle that Jesus used, the REAL purpose of Jesus appearance (dah dah dah) was to teach (preach) good news (i.e. the forgiveness of sin) etc: as seen in Luke 4:43: " But he said, 'I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.'" (NIV)
Luke 4:22 as follows: "And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, 'Is not this Joseph&#8217;s son?'"(ESV) .
I do not dispute that Luke4:22 warrants elaboration: " Surprise and admiration soon gave place to a spirit of unbelief. Is not this who speaks to us such words... ... the young Carpenter we have known so long in our village? " [ http://biblehub.com/luke/4-22.htm ]: basicilly, Jesus was able to descern the futility (at that moment) in his efforts at "proclaim the good news ..."(Luke 4:43) and the people of Nazareth violent reaction to His his quotation of old testament text (Elijah feeding Widow @Zarephath ,Elisha healing Naaman OT history) simply confirmed their deep seated bigotry. As you rightly included Luke 4:29: "They dragged him to the edge of the cliff on which the town was built, because they wanted to throw him down from there." Jesus was prevented from operating in Nazareth by the natives (Jesus hometown folk) themselves who looked down on Jesus Christ because they identified Him as just an illiterate carpenter and violently rebelled against His honest and scholarly interpretation of OT scripture.

I am no expert about the exact reason why Jesus spoke in parables incidents although I do appreciate that the verses U have quoted do somewhat reflect on Jesus in a less than flattering manner by modern day public relations (PR) standards. In any case, I think teaching in parables is BETTER compared to just giving curt orders for the simple reason that they will be better understood (and remembered) once the moral of the story is discovered- which isn't difficult as long as one pays a modicum of attention (most are to the point anyway IIRC).

WRT the perfume incident, as mentioned, Jesus (being God incarnate whose purpose was to preach 'good news' (or as I call it: after sales service: so people reading OT can understand it even as technology had now progressed: stone age to bronze to iron age etc...))one must appreciate (respect) Jesus as firstly a leader/teacher. Poverty is contextual and much is also due to ignorance (waste $ on wants whilst neglecting needs etc: smoking, alcoholism etc): so the solution is intellectual: the miracles were just the advertisements/freebies really... Perhaps Jesus really needed a spa/bath treatment at that time (due to his hectic schedule) and by past records: Jesus had healed physical infirmities in an instant: it could be argued that $$$ had limited value to the immediate problem at that time: the principle cause being the Pharisees selfish interpretation of old testament text which was doing society more harm than good (misleading people): (E.g. the President of USA has his OWN aeroplane (AirForceOne although it could be argued that selling the plane (and shutting down secret service) could provide for welfare handouts to many people): still I believe many Americans support providing the USA president with his own private plane.
Jesus Christ came to correct these mistaken interpretations and given the growth of Christianity ever since, I believe that Jesus Christ has made His presence very well felt (and I am eternally grateful that He indeed did).

 

Adam and Eve (A&E) were ashamed of their nakedness just as a policeman who has misused his firearm (unauthorised discharge/ used for robbery etc) is now afraid of the law when ordinarily: he is the enforcer of the law.

Like wise, a shamed politician is now afraid of public spotlight when previously, he would have always sought media attention to promote his campaign / ideas etc. the shame felt is natural inbuilt instinct for doing something (very) immoral/ wrong. Perhaps A&E actually knew of the dire consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge (punishment, death etc), their subsequent act of wearing clothes was thus a natural reaction to the expected eventuality of their having tested God's limits in this regard.

Perhaps God allowed A&E to wear clothes because perhaps the sin wasn't an easily solvable one: thus, in a new (degraded) environment full of other wild people and animals, people have to wear clothes to protect themselves against the elements, each other and wild animals (insects) etc...quite a long, interlinked story I do not deny, but definitely not "simplistic and platitudinous..." as U described...

 

Ref: Post #208: You've done what other people seldom do. Thanks for your well-reasoned explanation of your studies. Congratulations.

In the story where the townspeople refer to Jesus as a carpenter other stories in the Bible use that term to say that such a person makes idols out of scrap wood. Considering that Jesus was nailed to wood and that people wave around the image like a magical idol they might have had something.

 

This doesn't answer the questiong of how they knew to be ashamed, when previously they hadn't.

PS, your politician etc analogies don't wash, because they're not innocents. A & E were. So, how did they stop being innocents?

 

I would appreciate it if you will explain how searching out and reading this conglomeration of horse (*)(*)(*)(*) can improve anything:

Old Testament Death Penalty Sins:

&#8226;Murder - Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14,20,23; Lev. 24:17,21; Num. 35:16-34; Deut. 19.
&#8226;Failing to circumcise - Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24,25.
&#8226;Eating leavened bread during feast of unleavened bread - Ex.
&#8226;2:15,19.
&#8226;Smiting Parents- Ex. 21:15.
&#8226;Kidnapping - Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7.
&#8226;Cursing Parents - Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9.
&#8226;Negligence with animals that kill - Ex. 21:28-32.
&#8226;Witchcraft - Ex. 22:18.
&#8226;Bestiality - Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23-29; 20:15,16.
&#8226;Idolatry - Ex. 22:20.
&#8226;Making holy anointing oil - Ex. 30:33.
&#8226;Putting holy anointing oil on strangers - Ex. 30:33.
&#8226;Making the holy perfume - Ex. 30:38.
&#8226;Defiling the Sabbath - Ex. 31:14.
&#8226;Working on the Sabbath - Ex. 35:2.
&#8226;Eating the flesh of the peace offerings in
&#8226;uncleanness - Lev. 7:20,21.
&#8226;Eating the fat of sacrifices - Lev. 7:25.
&#8226;Killing sacrifices other than at the door of the tabernacle - Lev. 17:1-9.
&#8226;Eating blood - Lev. 17:10-14.
&#8226;Incest - Lev. 18:6-29; 20:11-22.
&#8226;Eating sacrifices at the wrong time - Lev. 19:5-8.
&#8226;Consecration of children to idols - Lev. 20:1-5.
&#8226;Spiritualism - Lev. 20:6,27.
&#8226;Adultery - Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-30.
&#8226;Sodomy/Homosexuality - Lev. 20:13.
&#8226;Relationship with a menstruous woman - Lev. 20:18.
&#8226;Whoredom - Lev. 21:9; Deut. 22:21,22.
&#8226;Sacrilege - Lev. 22:3.
&#8226;Refusing to fast on day of atonement - Lev. 23:29.
&#8226;Working on atonement - Lev. 23:30.
&#8226;Blasphemy - Lev. 24:11-16.
&#8226;Failure to keep the Passover - Num. 9:13.
&#8226;Presumptuous - Num. 15:30,31.
&#8226;Gathering firewood on the Sabbath - Num. 15:32,36.
&#8226;Failure to purify self before worship - Num. 19:13,20.
&#8226;False prophecy - Deut. 13:1-18; 18:20.
&#8226;Leading men away from God - Deut. 13:6-18.
&#8226;Stubbornness and rebelliousness - Deut. 21:18-23.
&#8226;Gluttony - Deut. 21:20-23.
&#8226;Drunkenness - Deut. 21:20-23.
&#8226;Backbiting - Deut. 17:2-7.
&#8226;False dreams and visions - Deut. 13:1-18.

 

The gained knowledge. They knew good and evil. They became like God. Prior they didn't know anything about good and evil. So says the book.

 

I agree with you that people who idolise Jesus figurines have their faith misplaced since such figurines are just man made creations which ought merely serve as reminders about the glory of God just as a photograph of ones family is no where near the real thing: it remains only to commemorate the event where family members were photographed together.

People who believe that such idols/images have super-powers are either misled or clasping at straws in their efforts at drawing associations premised upon mere coincidence. Possibly, such persons faith is merely premised upon herd instinct (i.e. very superficial): it will shift as fashion trends change.

 

PS: at this moment in time, I do not strictly insist that the main issue was one of physical clothes or the lack thereof but an allegory for the feeling of guilt: i.e. being exposed/ vulnerable to penalty/ punishment etc.
Prior to the fall, A&E were innocents (where eating of tree of knowledge of G+E was concerned): BUT that DOES NOT mean that they were ignorant since God did tell Adam in Gen 2:16-17: " And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; [17] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'" (NIV). (PS: Genesis 3:2 shows that the woman was to a large extent AWARE of the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit but chose to act against better judgement for the sake of immediate (~illicit~) gratification).
Your assumption "when previously they hadn't." (appended in bold for your convenience) is thus misplaced(/misled).

Put it in a more extreme way (than the more flimsy politician example I previously used), if I were to steal the neighbour's valuables (and neighbour finds about it): I would suddenly feel very vulnerable too (many crimes are committed due to lack of forethought about the consequences: only the immediate benefits (immediate gratification) of whatever yielded through criminal(/immoral) methods).

'Wearing of clothes' I thus perceive was in its immediacy a natural instinct towards some form of self correction: e.g. changing address to avoid confrontation with aggrieved neighbour, obtaining a gun to protect oneself whilst one is on the run; defending an army vehicle better (+adding extra sheet armour) as the perceived level of hostile threat is increased.

 

Read somewhere that eating the forbidden fruit was man's first forray into criminal activity: e.g. if a policeman used his revolver to commit crime, the police force would usually be very concerned since this constitutes a serious breech of police discipline and the wayward policeman is very likely to strike again in his search for (criminal) instant gratification.

Before the fall (Genesis 3) Adam Eve (A&E) did not have the audacity to rebel against God (i.e. Sin): after consuming the forbidden fruit: humans discovered new found knowledge/ confidence to use underhand (immoral) techniques to obtain what they wanted: unfortunately, these immoral techniques come at great costs to themselves and to society.

Even if God has the know withal about immoral acts/methods: I believe that He is far too honourable to stoop that low. I have read somewhere (Jewish Rabbi (speculative) exegesis) that A&E were either too immature or that the proper sequence of consuming from the tree of life BEFORE consuming from the tree of Knowledge was not properly followed: thus the current fallen state of man.

Hope my personal theological interpretation helps clarify some doubts.
(The best things in life are 'FOC')...

 

IIRC, even the way Singapore etc (common) law is written, many laws specify the MAXIMUM possible penalty for criminal offences: few except the most recalcitrant receive the maximum penalties. Even the decision to prosecute (for lighter offences) may be based upon discretion (not everyone who parks car illegally/ shoplifts gets fined etc: police have their priorities: some perpetrators only receive written warnings): even Judges exercise some discretion: e.g. sentences are much lighter if mitigating circumstances are significant/ sentences are harsher if a message of deterrence is intentioned.

In conclusion, I believe that OT laws of yesterday (stone-bronze-iron age etc) are likely to have been written/ interpreted as they are today: only inscribing in law the MAXIMUM penalty is compulsory (some crimes attract minimum penalties but all laws state the max). I believe that it is the duty of every learned and honourable Judge (not to mention police/law enforcers) in a court to exercise discretion so that the social good is ultimately the end purpose.

PS: I am unable to confirm categorically all verses U quoted, however, one U quoted: &#8226;Failure to keep the Passover - Num. 9:13. , NLT translates it as: "But those who neglect to celebrate the Passover at the regular time, even though they are ceremonially clean and not away on a trip, will be cut off from the community of Israel.: this isn't a death penalty although death/ misery might on instance occur due to the exile nature of the punishment enforced: to state that this directly equates a death penalty is thus very much exaggerated/ hyperbole.

 

The real saying is: you get what you pay for.

My version is how 'the book' says it went down.

 

If you're going to discuss the old testament I suggest you get down and dirty. Crucifixion and beheadings have always been the vogue in the middle east:

Revelation 20:4

Verse Concepts







Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Matthew 14:10
He sent and had John beheaded in the prison

2 Samuel 4:5-7
So the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, departed and came to the house of Ish-bosheth in the heat of the day while he was taking his midday rest. They came to the middle of the house as if to get wheat, and they struck him in the belly; and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped. Now when they came into the house, as he was lying on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him and killed him and beheaded him. And they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night.

Luke 9:9
Herod said, "I myself had John beheaded; but who is this man about whom I hear such things?" And he kept trying to see Him.

1 Samuel 17:46
"This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel

1 Samuel 17:51
Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

1 Samuel 31:9
They cut off his head and stripped off his weapons, and sent them throughout the land of the Philistines, to carry the good news to the house of their idols and to the people.

2 Samuel 4:7
Now when they came into the house, as he was lying on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him and killed him and beheaded him. And they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah all night.

2 Samuel 2,22
Then the woman wisely came to all the people And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri and threw it to Joab So he blew the trumpet, and they were dispersed from the city, each to his tent. Joab also returned to the king at Jerusalem.

2 Kings 2-68
Then he wrote a letter to them a second time saying, "If you are on my side, and you will listen to my voice, take the heads of the men, your master's sons, and come to me at Jezreel tomorrow about this time." Now the king's sons, seventy persons, were with the great men of the city, who were rearing them. When the letter came to them, they took the king's sons and slaughtered them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When the messenger came and told him, saying, "They have brought the heads of the king's sons," he said, "Put them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until morning."

2 Samuel 16:9
Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now and cut off his head."

The Romans were not the only people to practice crucifixion in antiquity. The history of crucifixion extends as far back as the Assyrians, Phoenicians and Persians of the first millennium B.C., as well as some Greeks throughout the Hellenized world. Even so, the most detailed accounts are of Roman crucifixion methods.

Initially the practice served only as a punishment and humiliation, usually for slaves, and did not necessarily result in death. As Roman crucifixion methods evolved, however, it became a means to execute foreign captives, rebels and fugitives. During times of war or rebellion, crucifixions could number in the hundreds or thousands. The convicted could sometimes hang in agony for days before expiring.


Oh well....you get the idea.

 

"Reading The Bible Properly Can Improve One's Reasoning Skills."

so can teaching a child to believe in Santa, it teaches them that sometimes what adults say is not always true, sometimes they are just myths

.

 

And then the child grows up and abandons his/her childish ways. But they are and can be Christians in adulthood till the day they die.

 

not all children believe in all myths when they become adults, some believe in some and not others, but the questioning ones beliefs is good, for one, if there is no way to prove or disprove a belief, and one realizes that, then there is no reason to force others to believe like they do as their beliefs are only based on faith and could be wrong, even though they hope they are true

take Christians for instance, most eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics, because they questioned their beliefs and realized that made no sense and if it doesn't make sense, no reason to believe it

.

 

Being religious is a childish way.

 

True....with absolution. People who believe they are on a first name basis with the creator of the universe have to be among the most arrogant, egotistical humans in the world....PERIOD.

Hi Jesus...Could I just get your autograph? Big fan here. Most of these numbnuts couldn't get an audience with their local mayor.

 

That is a pretty big presumption on your part. Are you acquainted with "most of these numbnuts" in such an intimate way that you know what they have involved themselves with in their local politics?