Protestantism

» HeadZenCards - Bottom line

In response to Bottom line posted by Migisi:

People of faith are people in chains, telling us how comfortable they are. I do enjoy hearing their testimony, not unlike a person running past a man with no legs.

But it is such a nasty pleasure. OoooOOOOooo! I love it!

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» pink101 - Bound & Coerced

In response to Bottom line posted by HeadZenCards:
.
Read the Bound Man by Ilse Aichinger
.
Here's some information:
.
http://www.violetbooks.com/REVIEWS/rbada...
.
If you key in its title, you'll get a large number of hits. It is an excellent story about how much some of us love bondage to a superior authority.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Jesus is God

In response to Faith distinctions posted by Migisi:

Migisi, what you say is correct about the biblical references to Jesus' deity. However, were I to entertain doubts about the OT passages, it would probably be along PaperTurtle's lines.

PaperTurtle is taking the position that the OT authors incorrectly justified their actions by attributing certain commands to God.

She talked earlier about these folks being mistaken, and you responded that that lets the Israelites who carried out the genocidal campaigns "off the hook." I think this was an unfortunate misunderstanding between the two of you. When PT says "they" were "mistaken," I don't think she's talking about the Israelites who actually carried out the conquests. I recall her describing those Israelites as committing reprehensible acts.

I think she's more referring to the AUTHORS of the OT Scriptures which talk ABOUT those conquests.

We know that oral tradition was a major deal in ancient Jewish culture. I would imagine that the oral tradition passed down through the generations from the Canaanite conquests was basically: "God told us to do it - so we did it." PaperTurtle is arguing that this is how the OT authors recorded it - based on oral tradition.

While I can't fully embrace her position, I do respect and understand it. And were I to start doubting the canonization and infallibility of the Bible, I would probably wind up in her camp.

I think you, Ollie, and Pink are presenting Christians with a false, exaggerated choice here -- Embrace the whole Bible or be an atheist or agnostic.

There are many, many, many Christians who believe in God, believe in Jesus, and yet don't fully embrace the complete infallibility of the Bible. (Martin Luther, for example, rejected the book of James. Yet I doubt many Christians today would question Luther's commitment to Jesus Christ).

Paul makes clear that salvation comes from trusting Christ as Savior, not in embracing the full biblical canon.

Now, I want to make clear for my readers that I myself DO embrace the biblical canon. But I respect the fact that there are millions of Christians, including PaperTurtle, who have some reservations about it. (She has a right to be wrong. )

» pink101 - Our Ability To Think

In response to Jesus is God posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I think your comments in this post are very expressive of the fact that we have come to a place in our society where religion is taking a larger share of our attention than it has for longer than any of us can remember.
.
Is that good or bad?
.
The questions with which we are dealing in these threads are important to our culture far more so than they are important to any particular denomination of religion. I think we are dealing with the overall question whether America will be a totally dedicated Christian nation or not--ultimately, if we will allow religion to control the directions in which our society will go next. It is a crucial point in reality.
.
So, I--personally--believe it is important that we come to a position regarding the authenticity of biblical scripture in so far as its being the Revealed Word of the God of All That Is or if it is merely the founding script of the religion we call Christianity. This issue is--in and of itself--the critical point that isolates and finds us in the line of history. Will we move forward further believing that the Bible is the authentic guide for civilization or will we for once and for all time reject it as such?
.
To me, that is the question regarding where humanity will go as these days unfold.
.
But, it is curious to note who has pushed the issue to its present crescendo. Like Sampson, they will bring the temple down on their own demise. It always works out that way.
.
I heard some comments on television yesterday explaining how important religious conviction has come to be in the ones we choose as candidates for the office of president. The Catholic Church has made the point that it has authority in the life of each of its memebers. Our Constitution is side lined in favor of religious doctrine. And, the point was made that it is acceptable that Romney carry his religious beliefs into the White House. If that is the case, America is up Sh*t's Creek without a paddle.
.
We MUST teach religion in our public schools. It has to be exposed for what it is before it takes our ability to think away from us.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - The Bible Trumps The Constitution

In response to Our Ability To Think posted by pink101:
.
Brian, in the Socialism thread, you asked some questions about government's responsibilities; food, care, taxes, work, etc.,
.
Here's a question for you: Should the Bible be allowed to trump our Constitution?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - The Bible Trumps The Constitution

In response to The Bible Trumps The Constitution posted by pink101:
.
What about the Koran or Torah?
.
Do we live in a theocracy or not?
.
I don't think religionists are very bright.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Jesus is God

In response to Jesus is God posted by BrianTubbs:
.
the position that the OT authors incorrectly justified their actions by attributing certain commands to God.
.
As you know, the OT authors wrote "...the LORD GOD commanded ..." and outlined God's detailed instructions in God's own words. As devout and superstitious Jews (Isrealites, whatever), would they have DARED to insert God quotes in their writings if God had not spoken? Surely, they'd have God's wrath upon them for adding to/subtracting from the scriptures! Would God's champions, who were equally devout and superstitious, have DARED to claim that God ordered them to commit genocide if God hadn't? If either the authors or those who carried out the atrocities did indeed falsify (as suggested), then they were liars and nothing they said or wrote can be trusted.
.
If one believes that God did NOT speak to and give specific instructions to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, etc., then how can one believe that God spoke to Jesus, or anyone at all?
.
From where I sit, the rationalizations I'm hearing are mere attempts to excuse EVERYONE involved in the Bible atrocities....
--- God (it's not God's fault that his people behaved badly)
--- the writers (they were only writing down what they were told - and/or they wrote it down incorrectly)
--- those who carried out the atrocities (they were following God's orders, and were punished severely if they didn't).
Let's get real here. Like it or not, SOMEBODY's accountable for the Bible crimes.
.
There are many, many, many Christians who believe in God, believe in Jesus, and yet don't fully embrace the complete infallibility of the Bible.
.
One either believes what's written in the Bible or he doesn't. If one admits that he does not believe in any part, then he can't call himself a 'believer'.

-- posted by Migisi

» HeadZenCards - Bound & Coerced

In response to Bound & Coerced posted by pink101:

Pinky, let's assume there is the LORD GOD that Brian and some other people who call themselves Christians imagine.

What did it mean to Him to tell His followers to go and utterly destroy infants and sucklings in the olden days of biblical yore?

The LORD GOD would have known that knives got dull: that, after slashing through the skin, muscles, bones and sinew of infants, after ripping babies away from their dead mother's tit, that picking them up and crushing their heads on the hard stone would have become his followers' preferred way of murder.

The LORD GOD had not inspired man to invent easier and, therefore, more pleasant ways of killing yet. There were no triggers to pull from a safe distance, no buttons to push that sent rockets to do who cares what.

The LORD GOD would have known that infants would try to escape and run away. He would have been aware that infants were to spend horrific moments knowing that bad people with dull knives and their sisters and brothers infant and baby blood covering them, would get tired of sawing skin and muscle that would spill more dying infant blood all over them.

The LORD GOD would know that, before the infants died, they would see other infants picked up and would have seen other little heads smashed against hard stone walls before their eventual demise.

The LORD GOD would have known, threw the eyes of infants, the abject terror in His demands to his followers. The LORD GOD would have known that the blood of babies who, moments before, were gently and cozily snuggled with their mothers, would cover their followers and change them forever.

Today, when modern man sees other human beings cutting and hacking away at infants, they put them away in jail for the rest of their lives.

They do not balance the good that they may have done in their lives against a SINGLE act of infanticide. They would not care if their excuse was that the LORD GOD told them to do it.

Ripping the heads off babies, causing infants who are one moment happily playing games and the next moment are nothing but blood and torn up skin, muscles and excrement, is today, tomorrow AND YESTERDAY an intolerable horror.

Believers in the positive influence of the LORD GOD must either deny that He inspired infanticide or consider themselves guilty through association.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» pink101 - Bound & Coerced

In response to Bound & Coerced posted by HeadZenCards:
.
Pinky, let's assume there is the LORD GOD that Brian and some other people who call themselves Christians imagine.
.
Such an assumption makes any rational person turn away from such a god.
.
That god should be zapped like a bug in one of those blue light electrocution traps.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Jesus is God - P.S.

In response to Jesus is God posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Migisi, what you say is correct about the biblical references to Jesus' deity.
.
(Referring to my post #131.)
.
Do you agree with those bible references - that 'Jesus IS God'? And that Jesus-IS-God existed from the beginning? I assume you do. You did change the subject line to 'Jesus is God'. But please correct me if I'm mistaken.
.
But, from your admissions, you can't believe that the OT God (who IS 'Jesus-IS-God') committed and ordered atrocities. If you can't believe that, then how can you believe what's written in the NT about what Jesus-IS-God did and said?
.
Simplified:
In the OT, God said and did XX - you have difficulty believing it.
In the NT, Jesus (who IS the OT God) said and did XX - you believe it.
.
How?

-- posted by Migisi