Protestantism

» redback - The Chief Warden

In response to The Chief Warden posted by pink101:

"I just believe in humanity and I think Jesus was a human being--if he really existed as explained in the Bible or not."

still trying to keep up here, Pink.

I know Hedzencards flogs the OT to make his points and if I read Brian correctly, he's saying that was then, this is now ie the NT.

I read the newspapers, listen to the news etc and my mindset is that much is truth-in-waiting simply waiting for the next edition to print a retraction or correction or time to pass to find Paris really is innocent after all and you guys should sign her petition for a pardon. And further research toinght suggests you guys argue over which American woman really started mothers Day. There are some 'very naughty boys' about, not just Brian, methinks. (OOPS..not the Brian here!) ABC

OK, a bit of poetic licence re Paris but the Pope recently created another saint we can keep paraying to for direct results...and it distracts from the main game here.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The Chief Warden

In response to The Chief Warden posted by redback:
.
?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Post #210

Here is a site that provides some good reading if a person wants to get into the history of the bible and the Amalekites. It is rather long, so I am going to post it. I did read it a few times and am prepared to discuss the article. The final issue of the 'lifeboat' is not one that I think applies to the problem of why God involved Himself in Holy Wars.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutc...
It is critical for a person to attempt to understand Old Testment history especially if they are going to use this incident with the Amalekites to deny the goodness of God, and the life of Christ.
I am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» HeadZenCards - Post #210

.
The article states: "To actually create a logical contradiction here, we would have to prove that God (1) clearly did something clearly unjust in this action, and as a consequence, (2) we could never find a reason no matter how long we thought about it, that would provide some justification for this action."
.
First of all, the LORD GOD's existence has never been proved.
.
I am arguing that the EXAMPLE of the LORD GOD in the fiction that is the Bible has inspired well-meaning people who were conned into believing in a LORD GOD to justify infanticide in the real world.
.
In 1 Sam. 15, the LORD GOD as written (I'll use LGAW from now on) inspires his followers to utterly destroy the infants and sucklings of people who did bad things.
.
When a human being makes a suggestion like that, we never seriously consider that human being's advice ever again.
.
Why should believer's in the LGAW listen to any of his suggestions ever again?
.
The writer shows his true stripes when he opines: "Just saying that it seems 'always unjust to kill a child' is not enough - we would have to show that even the cases in normal human experience in which someone has to do this (e.g. the horrible, but all too frequent, situation in which a father is forced to decide in the labor room of a hospital between the life of his child OR the life of his wife...many/most bio-medical ethics experts will side with killing the child, to save the life of the mother/wife) the actions of the father would be 'unjust' as well. For, if we even allow ONE EXCEPTION to this 'always unjust' statement, we open up the possibility that whatever ethical principle allowed that exception MIGHT ALSO BE operative in other/this case..."
.
Trying to equate the mercy killing of one fetus with the LGAW's demand that his followers utterly destroy INFANTS AND SUCKLINGS is dishonest.
.
Any sane human being will figure out another way to react when some dunce inspires them to "kill all the infants and babies sucking at their mother's tit!"
.
The LGAW is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful but lacks the imagination to see to it that HIS OWN CREATION is spared the nightmare of HIS DEMAND to utterly destroy infants and sucklings.
.
Some "God"!
.
The article later says: "What this means is that an individual's personal moral intuitions, if they run counter to moral intuitions of other experts and peers, may need further analysis and qualification, before they could function plausibly in constructing a logical argument of God's non-existence."
.
The burden of proof is on those who believe in God's EXISTENCE to prove it. An individual's personal moral intuitions are not subject to the analysis of an idiot who does not understand logic.
.
The article continues to infer that killing children can be justified. Very depressing gift you bring us on Mother's Day, Brother Jones.
.
The article drones on but makes a pretty good argument for abortion in certain circumstances.
.
So what is the author suggesting?
.
"What I AM SUGGESTING, however, is that it is not the only moral rule or moral consideration that applies here (and/or in the cases I mentioned above), and that before applying it so absolutely to this biblical case, someone may need to apply the same level of skepticism they have about historical documents to their own moral beliefs first."
.
IMHO, the author is suggesting that he is a DEVIL, tempting you to question your humanity, tempting you to UNDERSTAND WHY KILLING INFANTS AND SUCKLINGS MAY BE OK.
.
Specifically, Brother Jones, he is trying to soften YOU up for the EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT that comes to those who inspire others to utterly destroy infants and sucklings!
.
Beware of such slippery tongued devils! .
.
Keep a tight hold on your humanity!
.
And repent!

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Brother_Jones - Post #210

In response to Post #210 posted by HeadZenCards:

First of all, the LORD GOD's existence has never been proved.

I provided that link basically for Christians to mull over. I'm glad you read it and responded, but I don't see any good can come from trading accusations and insults with you. At some point in the life of a believer, a person has to come to terms with major difficulties in their life and why God didn't intervene in some specific way. You have chosen atheism to reflect that you feel it is the best way to represent the idea that some outside force is not in control of the Universe.

Folks are always going to disagree somewhat on God and His nature as revealed in the Old Testament. The value of Jesus is that He brings unity to all people. And He brings a purpose for life, even in the midst of the most horrible of situations. I look to Him as a better testimony about the nature of God than you have given here, despite the enormous difficulty of understanding tribal warfare.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» Migisi - Post #210

In response to Post #210 posted by Brother_Jones:

.
The value of Jesus is that He brings unity to all people.
.
Really? That's not what he said:
.
Matthew 10:34-36 - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw- 36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brother_Jones - Post #210

In response to Post #210 posted by Migisi:

Really? That's not what he said:

I was reflecting on the idea of unity not peace. He has brought unity and peace to my extended family, but I would acknowledge that other families are in discord over Christ. You are right about that.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» Brian Tubbs - Response to Pink re: Bible

In response to Faith posted by pink101:

My position is that everyone has a right to believe whatever they believe on this issue of Jesus and the resurrection; but, I think it is an obfuscation of the reality that IS Jesus.

And I think ignoring the resurrection and changing the meaning of Jesus' teachings is an obfuscation.

In America every person has the right to judge the authenticity of any evidence for anything.

Thank God (sorry, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Oliver) for religious freedom.

My position on the Bible is that it is the result of some powerful leaders of ancient times--men who did their best to strike fear into the hearts of the people through any means at their disposal.

Well...you have a right to that POV, but it's a very narrow, cynical view. Not even the most liberal Bible scholars would limit the Bible to this kind of classification alone. There are many passages, stories, portions of the Bible - including the OT - that are inspiring and uplifting. You know this.

I don't think the "god" of the Old Testament is any more a god than the ones the Incas and the Aztecs sacrificed their innocent victims to.

Okay. I don't agree. But okay.

Instead, that "god" is the justification the primitive rulers of the ancients used to keep the common people in bondage.

Now, you're taking it upon yourself to articulate the motives, feelings, and intentions of people who have been dead for thousands of years. Very impressive that you would know their thoughts and motives so well.

The ancient religions are all about bondage.

A wide, sweeping generalization, but you're known for those.

And, Christianity turned into a religion of bondage very soon after the apostle Paul disappeared from the scene.

Tell that to Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and so many other early church leaders who were brutally tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus.

Christianity didn't start to become a religion of "bondage" (as you put it) until Church and State were intertwined in the 4th century AD -- starting with Constantine. Of course, by then, it would be grossly unfair to blanket-categorize ALL Christians as being in favor of using the power of the state to coerce belief.

» pink101 - Response to Pink re: Bible

In response to Response to Pink re: Bible posted by BrianTubbs:
.Christianity didn't start to become a religion of "bondage" (as you put it) until Church and State were intertwined in the 4th century AD -- starting with Constantine.
.
Then what was the apostle Paul talking about in the first paragraph of Galatians, chapter 5?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Response to Pink re: Bible

In response to Response to Pink re: Bible posted by pink101:

.
Galatians 5:1 - It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

-- posted by Migisi