The Bible

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Oct 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't exist. Anyway, it was acceptable for Pharaohs to marry their sisters and even mothers when necessary. 4,000 years ago.morals were different than today. Even the Romans married within the family. Herodias had a daughter by an uncle to whom she was married. And there is a thought that Agrippa II had a relationship with his sister Berenice.
     
  2. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This post got immediately buried, so I'll try it here: The admonition of globalism as narrated in the Bible
    Whether or not you ascribe to the Bible, the story is an archetype that holds wisdom. Basically Nimrod aspired to create a one world government, which is what imperialist over the centuries always do. What Nimrod also sought was to build an artificial mountain to the heavens, create a portal to the "gods", bypassing the one God. Neither of the endeavors benefit mankind. So God destroyed the tower and confused the languages, He then assigned the governance of the nations to seventy of Satan's rebels, known to the humans of the time as gods, and kept one nation for himself, the Hebrews, everafter known as God' chosen people.
    So the question remains, what was the objection to a one world government?
     
    usfan likes this.
  3. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    28,208
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who cares what other people did? The religious twits base three religions off of the evil old crazy coot Abraham. That is stupidity in action.
     
  4. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Odd, isn't it? You would think that if you chose an archetype for your made up scripture you'd at least use a more virtuous figure than Abraham
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,234
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    God makes a law "Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents" ... this same God then tells the Israelite's to go out and kill children and babies - because of the sins of their parents.

    This depict's God as a flip flopping irrational genocidal xenophobic maniac with the most petty of human characteristics and flaws.

    You are welcome to believe in this depiction if you like. IMO this is "false witness".
     
  6. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113


    140 years have passed since this. We have more knowledge and understanding than he did. I find it interesting that you put credence in something from the 19th century when you have already, earlier, laughed at other 18/19th references as old and unreliable because they didn't fit your beliefs.

    According to the Roman law, all country-people were to be registered in their ' own city ' —meaning thereby the town to which the village or place, where they were born, was attached.

    This wasn't a Jewish registration. It was a Roman one. In one place we're told it was done according to Jewish registration and then according to Roman law. Which is it? This was a 'world wide' census. If everyone had to go to their birth city there would have been chaos in the Middle East .Many people, not just Jews, had dispersed for various reasons. Long distance travel round the Med. was by ship. But all the sailors would have gone home.

    In the case of Joseph and Mary, whose descent from David was not only known, but where, for the sake of the unborn Messiah, it was most important that this should be distinctly noted, it was natural that, in accordance with Jewish law, they
    should have gone to Bethlehem.
    Perhaps also, for many reasons

    Perhaps for many reasons. AGREED. To make Jesus a deity.

    Even if no actual order to that effect had been issued during the lifetime of Herod, we can understand that
    he would deem it most expedient, both on account of his relations to the Emperor, and in view of the probable excitement which a heathen Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a registration, and that rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner
    .

    That's just nonsense. Do you think the people, especially the religious leaders, would not be aware that this was ordered by Rome - a Roman Census. He could not cover that up. Censuses were for taxation. Herod taxed his own people regularly without any form of census.
    Contnued below

     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  7. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    28,208
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As crazy as Moses was he is a better role model than Abraham. Moses actually created a religion.
     
  8. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many historical scholars maintain the traditional view that the two accounts are historically accurate and do not contradict each other, pointing to the similarities between the two accounts,[118] such as the birthplace of Bethlehem and the virgin birth. George Kilpatrick and, separately, Michael Patella state that a comparison of the nativity accounts of Luke and Matthew show common elements in terms of the virgin birth, the birth at Bethlehem, and the upbringing at Nazareth, and that although there are differences in the accounts of the nativity in Luke and Matthew, a general narrative may be constructed by combining the two.[119][120]

    Neither Luke nor Matthew claims their birth narratives are based on direct testimony.[121] James Hastings and, separately, Thomas Neufeld have expressed the view that the circumstances of Jesus' birth were deliberately kept restricted to a small group of early Christians, and were kept as a secret for many years after his death, thus explaining the variations in the accounts in Luke and Matthew.[122][123]

    Daniel J. Harrington expresses the view that due to the scarcity of ancient records, a number of issues regarding the historicity of some nativity episodes can never be fully determined, and that the more important task is deciding what the nativity narratives meant to the early Christian communities.[124]

    Harmonization[edit]
    A number of biblical scholars, have attempted to show how the text from both narratives can be interwoven as a gospel harmony to create one account that begins with a trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born, followed by the flight to Egypt, and ending with a return to Nazareth.[125][126][127][128][129]

    Critical analysis[edit]
    Many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts.[130][131] For instance, they point to Matthew's account of the appearance of an angel to Joseph in a dream; the wise men from the East; the massacre of the innocents; and the flight to Egypt, which do not appear in Luke, which instead describes the appearance of an angel to Mary; the Roman census; the birth in a manger; and the choir of angels.[132]
    Most modern scholars accept the Marcan priority hypothesis, that the Luke and Matthew accounts are based on the Gospel of Mark, but that the birth narratives come from the evangelists' independent sources, known as M source for Matthew and L source for Luke, which were added later.[133]

    Scholars consider the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus and probably not historical.[130][134][135][136][137] While Géza Vermesand E. P. Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction, Raymond E. Brown sees them as having been constructed from historical traditions which predate the Gospels.[138][139][140] According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin.[141] Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have proposed a birth at Bethlehem of Galilee, a site located seven miles from Nazareth at which remains dating to the time of Herod the Great have been excavated.[142][143] Armand P. Tarrech states that Chilton's hypothesis has no support in either the Jewish or Christian sources, although Chilton seems to take seriously the statement in Luke 2:4 that Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem.[144]

    Sanders considers Luke's census, for which everyone returned to their ancestral home, not historically credible, as this was contrary to Roman practice; they would not have uprooted everyone from their homes and farms in the Empire by forcing them to return to their ancestral cities. Moreover, people were not able to trace their own lineages back 42 generations.[135]

    Many scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual.[134][135][145] Many view the discussion of historicity as secondary, given that gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines.[146][147][148][149]

    For instance, Matthew pays far more attention to the name of the child and its theological implications than the actual birth event itself.[150] According to Karl Rahner the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age.[151] As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information.[130][136] Nevertheless, they are considered to contain some useful biographical information: Jesus being born near the end of Herod's reign and his father being named Joseph are considered historically plausible.[130][152] WIKI.


    Paul was the first to write about Jesus. He says Jesus was the Son of God BECAUSE HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD. Nothing about Jesus birth
    (Romans 1:3-4) He got all his information during his contact with the disciples etc. They don't seem to have mentioned Jesus birth to him as being the proof of his divinity. Pro bably the disciples hadn't yet thought about it. Their |Gospels came later.
     
  9. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    28,208
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is an interesting analysis. I have never seen it before. Thanks for sharing.
     
  10. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Christian view of the Bible is based on not understanding the background on which the Bible is written and the history of the time. . And the way they read it. Knowing the background, history etc gives a very different Bible. The Nativity stories contradict each other and don't follow Roman Laws of the time. They place Jesus in Nazareth and Egypt at the same time. They also 'steal' prophecies from the OT that have nothing to do with Jesus. It is an attempt to make Jesus the Jewish preacher divine. Some of the Psalms are adapted from Ugarit literature. Isaiah may have written part of the book attributed to him, but the rest was by other authors. Daniel is authored by unknown authors and the prophecies fit the Antiochus Epiphanes period if you study Judaism.

    Interestingly the Gospels were written after Paul's Epistles. Paul was familiar with the disciples and got much of his information from them. Strangely they failed to mention Jesus 'miraculous' birth to him because he says that Jesus was confirmed Divine because he rose from the dead. (Romans 1) Did the disciples forget or decide to add their 'divinity' story when they reach wrote their Gospels.

    The Bible is just a book containing some Jewish History (book of Kings) and 'wisdom' literature. But then wisdom literature is found in many different sources.
     
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,234
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One does not need Tacitus to corroborate an anti Bible position. One only needs read the Bible !

    Whats not to dislike about a flip flopping, xenophobic genocidal God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics ?

    I mean really now ... This God makes a rule - Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents. Good rule ! This is similar to the rule of law principle - one person is not to be punished for the actions of another.

    A few pages later this God is ordering the Israelite's to kill children and babies - "because of the sins of their parents"
    In another place this God says that should a few people in a town be worshiping other Gods - the whole town is to be killed. - again violating the previous rule.

    Now seriously - do you really expect someone to believe that an all knowing, all powerful God - who has been around forever - would behave this way.

    "I am a jealous God" - Jealous of what ? Jealous of that which you created - and can destroy in the blink of an eye ? This simply does not pass the giggle test. If God did not want to be jealous he should not have created jealousy .. ... yes/no ? crazy talk ?

    So God creates the earth and humans. He then realizes it was a mistake - So much for the idea of God being perfect. Perfect God's do not make mistakes .. or do they ?

    In any case - God then decides to erase this mistake - Kill all the humans in a great flood - rather than snapping his fingers and wishing these bad humans out of existence.

    The reason God gives is:
    God then second guesses himself and decides to spare Noah and family. Well hey God - why would you kill all these humans "because they are wicked" if you know that these humans that you spare will propagate and the same wickedness will spring forth ?

    This is like saying - I am going to wipe out this nasty virus because it kills people - but I will not wipe out all of the virus - knowing that the virus will spread and kill people. How is this not dumb and dumber ?








     
    trevorw2539 likes this.
  12. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Blah, blah, blah..

    Arguments of authority, without even quoting the authority!

    Sure, it us easy to find hostile critics of the bible. They are legion, and have been for centuries. But there is only smears, false accusations, innuendo, and anti-christian propaganda, to further the Narrative.

    You can believe this crap, if you want, but 'scholarly!' does not apply, to these fallacy filled smears..

    The historical Christian position has centuries.. no, millennia of ACTUAL scholarship and textual criticism. Christian scholars are a lot more critical and scrutinizing of the manuscripts, the translations, and the accuracy. They do not just look for 'gotcha!' words or phrases.

    The outpouring of anti-bible propaganda in this thread has reached fever pitch. I cannot keep up with the flood of lies, smears, and false accusations, here. If anyone would follow the requested systemology of quoting the passage, defining the alleged error, and providing evidence, i could address it, and refute it in a scholarly manner. But pages and pages of false accusations, lies, and bogus charges can only be dismissed as ravings from anti-christian propagandists.

    The anti-christian bigotry from progressive indoctrinees, and the increasingly hostility and lies toward the ideology that brought freedom and equality to human governance amazes me.
     
  13. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about you believe whatever you want.. but why promote your unevidenced assertions as 'scholarly facts!', when they are just phony caricatures from anti-christian bigots?

    I did not quote Eidersheim as a counter to any authority you presented, as you did not credit anyone in your pages of anti-bible propaganda. It was a presentation of an alternate perspective, from a historical, proven biblical scholar, whose works still stand in modern biblical scholarship. But this is not a competition of authorities, but a critical examination of the evidence. Any claims of 'error!' must be substantiated with evidence, else i can only dismiss it as lies and false accusations from anti-christian bigots.

    The anti-bible hostility expressed in this thread is over the top, without any factual basis. What else can i conclude, but that it is hostile rants from enemies of Christianity, and religious bigotry?
     
  14. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems that some posters here are only interested in venting their rage and hatred toward God, or some symbol of God. The 'shock jock' hyperbole might elicit cheers from your anti-christian cronies, but it is a pathetic display of reasoning and factual debate.
    :roll:
     
  15. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're not venting rage against God. He doesn't exist except in minds of believers. . The idea of a god, maybe.

    It is OK for you to quote people you approve of but not those who disagree with you. Especially when the quotes you post are full of conjecture. Eidersheim suggests, and then takes his suggestions for granted.

    And you really don't pay attention, do you. The post from WIKI, to whom I gave credit, gives you the names of the authorities for the points made.

    .
    In my search for new insights that year, I came across an article by Kenneth Bailey, "The Manger and the Inn: The Cultural Background of Luke 2:7" reprinted in ABR’s Bible and Spade. Bailey has written a new book, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (2008), which expands on these insights and others. This book can be purchased in the ABR bookstore.

    Initially, I was appalled by Bailey’s suggestion that our traditional view of the Christmas story (which I had preached some 12 years, myself!) was all wrong. In fact, I dismissed his ideas on the basis of my life principle – “don’t confuse me with the facts!”

    But a few years later, after doing the research for my master’s thesis on domestic architecture in Iron Age I Palestine (the time of the biblical Judges), I finally gave in. From his own background and training, Bailey had been able to view both the biblical text and the biblical world from a non-Western world perspective. Growing up in Egypt and teaching for 40 years in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Cyprus and Jerusalem, Bailey was able to make application from the Middle Eastern culture, with which he was so familiar, to the Scriptures which he studied and taught.

    That year, not only did my Christmas sermons change, but I began to look at the whole Bible from a new perspective. Now I tried to read it without my own preconceptions (which I had learned at home, church, college, seminary and graduate school) and let the words of the text say what they mean. When I did that, I began to see customs and practices in the text that fit both modern Middle Eastern practices (a field of scientific research known today as anthropological or ethnographic studies) as well as archaeological research. It changed my appreciation of the biblical text forever.

    Since that first year, I have continued to share the Christmas story somewhere (I have been away from that church for almost 18 years now), always and only from this view of the story. There is no doubt in my mind that a careful reading of the biblical text combined with current archaeological and anthropological research absolutely supports these insights. On top of all that, this new understanding leads to exciting applications of the text for our lives.

    Not that everyone embraces my insights. I have actually made some people mad! But most folks are interested in truth and a greater appreciation of what the Bible actually says. They can also embrace the practical application that comes from this new understanding of the Christmas story.

    In reality, there are many views which we hold as sacred but are not well supported in Scripture. Many of us actually believe something because we have heard a text explained that way so many times. Or, far worse, we developed our views from a television documentary or even a movie. While each of these can offer some insights, we simply must take an honest look at the biblical text for ourselves and honestly ask: 1.) What does it say; 2.) What does that mean; and 3.) How can I apply it to my life? http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/08/The-Pastor-and-the-Christmas-Story.aspx.

    Try it.
     
  16. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    46,234
    Likes Received:
    8,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not venting either rage or hatred. I am not the one who wrote the Bible ... It is not my fault that God is depicted as a flip flopping xenophobic genocidal God with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

    This is just the fact. You trying to demonize the messenger in an attempt to avoid the message - will not change this fact.

    It is this type of ad hom denial response that is pathetic and an affront to rational thought.
     
    trevorw2539 likes this.
  17. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For 2000 years the Catholic Church has maintained its stand on certain things but is now conceding they were wrong. Modern understanding/knowledge is part of the reason. Anyone denying this is Luddite.

    Take Noahs Ark and the Flood. No longer a factual event as the Bible declares. Nor is the fact that many events - Adam and Eve etc - are from earlier stories
    The author of Genesis may have also used popular storytelling devices found in other flood narratives in order to show how the God of the Israelites was superior to pagan deities. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods are afraid of the flood and flee to higher ground, but in the Genesis story God is in complete control of the disaster and is unaffected by it.

    The Epic of Gilgamesh seems to have been derived from an even older story called the Epic of Atrahasis. In this story, a pantheon of gods floods the earth because human beings had become too numerous and noisy. The author of the Genesis account may even have been purposefully subverting this anti-life attitude in his own narrative in which God commands that Adam and Eve “be fruitful and multiply.” God’s decision to send the flood in judgment of sin instead of as a population control measure would be a further subversion of this theme. Pope Pius XII acknowledged that:

    If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents (Humani Generis, 38).

    Just as the Creation story communicated spiritual truths about God and the significance of humanity through figurative language, the story of Noah’s flood in Genesis 6–8 (as well as the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11) uses similar language to communicate truths about God’s attitude toward sin and redemption. The fact that the author chose to model his stories after existing narratives and literary conventions does not disprove the message he was communicating: that it was the true God and not any of his pagan competitors who intervened to save the survivors of the flood that devastated the land.https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction.

    Study of Judaism denies Substantiation. Jesus would never have said literally 'This is my blood'. The disciples would have thought he had gone mad. Jews do not drink blood. At least Protestants have understood this.

    Study of Judaism will deny the Passover meal, and place it as a friendship meal. In either story there was not time to prepare a Passover meal, there was no meat mentioned - which was part of the point of a Passover meal, and we don't even know on what day Jesus died becaise we don't know what day Passover was that week.

    Knowing the OT and its background we now know 'Lucifer' does not appear in the OT (Isaiah).

    Archaeology shows that the Jericho walls fell - several times. But it does not confirm Joshua. Evidence shows that earthquakes are the likely cause - as in 1926 earthquake = although there were no walls at the time. Prior to that 12th century history reports another earthquake.

    Stories have been written around ancient events throughout history as fiction.

    These are just some of the things which have changed in religious belief down the years.

    .
     
  18. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,384
    Likes Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What does the bible say happens to still born babies... i mean, obviously they are human beings...who should be consigned to hell if they have not been baptized or accepted christ...they can hardly have been baptized or acceped christ... so i guess all still born babies are going to hell...unless maybe they get a pass based on their parents religious status... what happens if only one parent is saved?... does it matter if the saved parent is mother or father?

    It is all so very confusing
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  19. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    28,208
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The biblical fairy tale says nothing about babies, children, or women getting into the golden cube.
     
  20. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The anti-bible propaganda is still running hot and heavy, but since it is Christmas, i thought something a little more positive would be appropriate. :)

    Belief in the INSPIRATION of the scriptures is a gift. It is not something empirical, that you arrive at by dry facts. The Pilgrim, set on the path of following Jesus, discovers this Treasure, and it helps him navigate the dangers in this hostile world.

    It makes no sense, that an unbelieving skeptic would see the richness and power of this gift, though many, over the millennia, have.

    'Faith', in the Christian sense, is not, 'believing what you know ain't so.' It is the RESULT of a life changing encounter with the Living God. It is not a 'leap in the dark', but a realization of another reality.. a 'blind but now i see', enlightening.

    So i cannot 'prove!' the inspiration of the scriptures to anyone. It remains my personal opinion and conviction, from experience and personal revelation.

    To a skeptical unbeliever, i would not expect a belief in the inspiration of the bible, but neither do i see the rationality in blind hostility, and anti-bible lies and false accusations.

    From a rational human perspective, i would expect an unbelieving skeptic to dismiss the miraculous events described in the bible, while esteeming the broad base of wisdom and insight into the human condition.

    THAT has been the case, with many personal skeptics of Christianity, over the centuries. Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin, and numerous others did not believe in the Christian message, but they esteemed the bible, as a book of wisdom
     
  21. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible’s teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. ~Ronald Reagan

    I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from The Savior of the world is communicated to us through this Book. ~Abraham Lincoln

    As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see. ~Benjamin Franklin

    The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. ~Thomas Jefferson


    Contrast this now, to the anti-christian sentiment that pervades the culture. Instead of esteeming the bible, Jesus, and Christian principles, they are mocked, distorted, caricatured, and despised.

    America is in the grip of post Christian decline, and the departure from the principles upon which She was founded has not yielded any benefit for society.

    It is why you almost always see anti Christian and anti American venom from the same source. The Indoctrination of revisionist history, mandated science, and false narratives, promote the anti Christian, anti American ideology that pervades the culture.

    Merry Christmas in Progresso World. ;)
     
  22. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So i cannot 'prove!' the inspiration of the scriptures to anyone. It remains my personal opinion and conviction, from experience and personal revelation.

    So you accept that God, the Father of Jesus, ordered millions of men women and children in the Bible stories to be murdered. Many who had never had the chance to hear of Jahweh or Jesus. Hmm. Perhaps that's one reason why people disregard the Bible. Perhaps the Bible telling us that Jesus was in Egypt while he was really in Nazareth doesn't help your 'inspiration' theory.
     
  23. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Wrong. Deuteronomy 1:39, 2 Samuel 12:23, Romans 7:9, Matthew 18:3, Matthew 19:14, Psalm 32, Mark 10:13. And more. Children too young to understand and adults who cannot understand (such as mental illness) are saved.

    Read the Bible. At least take a minute to do an internet search before making such a ridiculous claim.
     
  24. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jesus said 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven'

    Jesus said 'Let little children come unto me, and do not hinder them for the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these' When he had placed his hands on them he sent them away.

    God said 'Now go, attack the Amalekites and destroy everything belonging to them. Do not spare them, put to death every man and woman, children and infants............'

    .Seems double standards to me. The Israelite children are favoured while innocent children of other nations are destroyed.

    From a purely worldly standard the destruction of a complete nation eliminates future opposition. From a religious point of view it doesn't give the other children a chance. From the Christian original sin idea even the Israelite children of Jesus day were not innocent.

    Is it even human to allow a child to be torn from its mother's arms and slaughtered in front of it. If you think it was then - why not now? It was barbaric - if it indeed did happen.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2018
  25. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    28,208
    Likes Received:
    3,317
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember the primary rule was to kill everyone who didn't believe in the Jealous deity. Of course if you happened to belong to the wrong ethnic group you couldn't become a member of the homicidal cult even if you wanted to.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page