Total posts: 3,520
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm merely addressing the contention between you and Stephen.Stephen is correct in his observations, and in this instance you cling to "John", because that is all you have to cling to in this instance.
I am puzzled as to what you are suggesting here?
I am not clinging to John. Although I in my previous posted suggested that correct. In view of what I said - I meant to say - that I don't disagree with Stephen's position in relation to the gospel of Mark. In that gospel Jesus clearly and immediately is driven into the desert. I totally agree with that point. So it is NOT like I am avoiding what Stephen is saying about Mark. In fact I am on board with that position - because not only is that my position - it is the Christian position and historical position.
What Stephen is attempting to do is suggest that John contradicts that point of view. And this is why I constantly bring Stephen back to John because Stephen is misreading John on purpose and deliberately despite the evidence against his position. He runs away to Mark and says - is this true? OF course it is true. But then avoids the questions I have for him on the gospel of John.
After all if Stephen cannot demonstrate from the book of John exactly when Jesus was baptized - his entire argument falls over and he knows this. This is why he keeps trying to lead me away from John - and why I keep going back there. It is not me clinging onto John - it is my focusing our attention there - to see if what Stephen is saying here is correct. And so far - he avoids answering the question. The basis of his argument is "the next day". That is it in a nutshell. John uses the term the next day and so Stephen - thinks to himself - not based on the text by the way but to himself - "what is this the next day after"? And he comes up with Jesus' baptism. Why? There is no reason to do so from the text.
The text as I explained above tells us what happened the previous day. A pretty big event occurred - The Jewish Leaders had sent an official delegate to go and talk with John the Baptist. There is not even a mention of Jesus' baptism. then the writer of the gospel - after this meeting - says - on the next day in v 29, John sees Jesus. Now - what is this first "next day' talking about? Firstly, it is the next day after the meeting with the Jewish leaders. Then from v 29 John the Baptist proclaims - that this Jesus is the messiah and he then talks about a past event. The past event being Jesus' baptism. But does he say when it was? No. Only in the past.
The previous day was a conversation. no baptism is mentioned at all. The next day - John is talking about a past event. Stephen then jumps to a conclusion - not based on the text - but from himself. There is no church tradition that says Jesus was there the day after his baptism or went to a wedding within a couple of days. So where does Stephen come up with the idea? He just made it up. He either read it from his little favourite book or he misread the text. Why do I keep going back to John, because Stephen is wrong and he is totally avoiding the fact that he is wrong. He knows it. He just cannot admit it - especially to me - who he sees as a complete idiot and fraud. Imagine Stephen being able to acknowedge that? Not possible. For me - it just demonstrates his intellectual dishonesty. And not for the first time.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I did already explain the after. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3293/post-links/233441
You should take some time and read it.
It refers to "after" the conversation between the official visit from Jerusalem by Jewish authorities with John the Baptist. Not after the baptism. They were wanting to know whether he was the messiah or not. And he denies it. That Stephen is big news. And worthy of a visit from the Religious leaders. And certainly worthy of note by the writer of this gospel.
John does not set out for us the baptism of Jesus. The most that occurs is a testimony of John the Baptist of Jesus' baptism in the past. And given the evidence of the other gospels - this seems to have take place at least 40 days before this delegation arrives from Jerusalem.
There is NOTHING in John's gospel which would hinder this from the case. In fact everything points towards it.
You are grasping at straws. Trying to find contradictions where there are none. Now if John the apostle actually wrote in his gospel here in these verses - that the next day after Jesus' baptism that he went to a wedding then that would, I concede, bear further investigation because I can see how that might be inconsistent with the other gospels. Yet, John does not say that. In fact, in your original post - you ADD words - and put them in brackets. Why? Because you so desperately want to believe that its true - you must be finding it difficult to find any inconsistencies in the bible. Your faith must be wearing thin. You had better be careful dear Stephen. History is full of people who try and prove the bible wrong - only to become convinced of its truth - and then fall to their knees in repentance before the holy and gracious God of mercy.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But you are ignoring that BIBLICAL fact that John wasn't much older than Jesus when Herod ordered the massacre of all children under the age of two. .
Not true.
If Jesus is almost 2 - say 1 year and 10 months - then John is over 2. Not once have I ignored it. The whole point of me saying Jesus was almost 2 was to demonstrate that point. Your ignorance is astounding. Not only do you want to rewrite the bible - you want to rewrite what you think I said.
You are one of the most deluded people I have met in a while. You almost come to the closeness of Harikrish.
And even in that particular point about John, because I gave two different reasons, that was not the primary one. The primary one was that John was not in the region of Bethlehem. Therefore his life was not in danger.
You don't read very well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Yes. I agree.
So I hear what you are saying. The way we interpret the word Elohim will depend upon the context. It is not always singular. It is not always plural. It sometimes refers to gods, to the GOD, to angels, to judges, to humans.
Thanks Rosends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It was nothing to do with making a point. It was because this was the only SOLUTION to the problem of sin. He did himself what he knew no one else could do.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ you are desperate.
Come on produce the verse - quote it and don't add your brackets. LOL @ you.
You know I am right - and you hate it. Squirm, squirm, squirm. LOL@ you.
Even Zed man admits my observation of John is correct. And that means you are wrong even from his point of view in relation to John. LOL when even your friends cut you lose.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You did not even read what I wrote.
I quoted the verse in relation to the hill country. Duh. And I also said Jesus was almost 2 years of age when the Soldiers were sent to him and that John was over two. I knew the difference in their ages and I accounted for it in my words above. The fact that you don't read my posts - reiterated why it is a waste of time communicating with you.
Being first born is totally irrelevent. You need to prove John was in danger because he was in the region of Bethlehem and was under 2. You can't do either of those things - back to the drawing board Stephen. Let's see what piece of bogus material you will attempt to bring out next time.
And by the way - when does John tell us Jesus was baptised? chapter and verse please.
And where do I assume that a barren woman is an old woman? PLease link to the spot please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ Stephen
The Hebrew religion takes the view as does the Christian religion that the elohim word used here refers to ONE GOD, not many. Sometimes Christians use the plural term to suggest Trinity. I think that is an incorrect usage of it.
I reject your interpretation of the term elohim here to refer to gods. And this is not because I dislike it, but because that is how it has historically been interpreted it in this context by the Jews and by others. I take the view that persons such as yourself - who want to somehow rely on the word number as the overriding interpretative factor as a matter for yourself. Others like the Jewish Scholars and Christian Scholars and even atheistic scholars typically take other factors including the context itself to interpret the word.
You can go and argue it with the Hebrew Scholars. That is a problem for you - not me. I will agree with them and not you.
I also don't take the view that words here image and likeness is referring to how humanity looked or even acted. Nor do the Hebrews. And neither does the Christian religion.
God is invisible. Hence - to say it is used to describe what we look like is absurd and inconsistent with all of the understandings of it. Again - you can go and argue with the Jewish scholars. It is no skin of my nose.
But hey thanks for the thoughts.
You still have not back to us about John.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In constantly trying to concentrate on "John", you are attempting to distract from the real issue.The contention as you are well aware is not in "Johns" version of events...But the obvious contradictions between separate versions of events.Separate contradictory versions that come together to therefore make a flawed whole....A flawed whole that you put so much faith and belief into.For my part, the flawed whole is simply indicative of, various versions of folktales rendered to a mythical status and purely of historical and social interest.Stephen for his part is perhaps a tad more zealous, but nonetheless his observations of the literal presentation of the bible are correct.
Of course I am concentrating on John's account. Why would I not? I think that the representation that Stephen provided about the Mark Gospel was apt. Yet, then he suggested that John's account was inconsistent. All I have requested is that he prove it. And so far, he has not. He went back to Mark - and AVOIDED my question. It seems you want him to run away from the question as well.
I cannot see the contradiction and I obviously cannot assert a negative. Stephen has asserted - he must be prove. John does not provide us with a date on Jesus' baptism. All my point is that removes any so called inconsistency that Stephen is suggesting. I don't know of any Christian who would suggest there are different versions of the same folk tales. You too are asserting - without providing evidence.
Is that just part of the typical MO for the atheist these days?
Once more I note you did not even address any of my points. I will take that as a concession. At least it is nice that Stephen prepared to support him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
God created humanity very good. There were no flaws.Well clearly God didn't try hard enough. Think, if there was a perfect, flawless and good humanity, where does the bad come from? If everything was good and big man God made sure of it, surely bad is an impossible state to achieve.
Says you!!!! LOL! All it really seems is that you don't want to accept responsibility for your own actions. You make me so pleased I am not an atheist. I have indicated that the bible declares humanity in their initial created state to be very good. Your notion that bad is impossible to arise from such a state has no basis to it. The story of the creation story provides clearly that humanity in their very good state - and I would add non-flawless state, had the capacity - to choose good or to choose evil. I would suggest that if having a free will does not provide both choices - then it is flawed. Hence, after the fall, where the human free will is flawed, it cannot choose to do good. (Good defined as in accordance with God's will). Only a flawed free will would potentially prevent a choice to do good or bad. Only a non-flawed free will enable people to choose either good or bad. Otherwise - freedom means nothing. Hence - it is my position that humanity was not flawed in the beginning. Their choice to do evil - caused them to be flawed.
Evil or bad is not a thing as such. It is an action. And actions come from choices.
Your reasoning is faulty. God did not created flawed people. Show me in the bible - where God created unfaithful people - where God made faulty people.Here, I'll present my argument better.P1. If humans are flawless, they are good.P2. Humans are not flawless, as they commit adultery.C1. God didn't create people good.
P.1 - humans initially were created flawless. Without sin. And with free will. That is what the bible declares and what I hold too.
P.2 humans after the flaw did become flawed. Or sinful. This is why they commit adultery.
The question of course is how did the initial human in his unflawed state sin? And the answer is - free will. Free will gave him a choice and he chose poorly. He believed a lie - that he could be like God if he ate of the fruit of which he was forbidden.
If God created people to be good, then where did the bad come from?
Explained above. I never said God created people to be good. This might be true - but that is not what I said. God created people very good. He created humanity to worship God and to love him freely. Not as robots. Evil or bad came about - because Satan tempted humanity to ditch being human and try being God. Humanity - in its free will ditched humility and chose pride.
Free will is not a flaw. Free will might lead to people sinning. Yet, free will is not a flaw.Well that's rather awkward because I don't believe in free will. The following is an exert from something which I have heard Sam Harris say.
Yeah - - that does not surprise me. Yet it is terribly inconvenient for you as well. After all, if no one has free will, no one is responsible for their actions. Pedophiles sexually assaulting little children do so - not out of free will - but obviously something else. According to your view. No one should have courts - no laws - just people doing stuff with no responsibility.
And in that view - God is also not responsible. He does not have free will after all. So all of your taunts about God being evil - come to nothing. Either you believe in free will or you don't. interestingly, if you don't believe in free will - then you being on site attempting to find resolution for anything - is well superflous to anything and a waste of time for me.
1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists.2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them3)You can only choose what occurs to youThe first option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. You are not free to choose it, so to speak.The second option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers know about Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were not functioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what can you think about?The third option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The first thing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you. But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring to you is unsolicited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you.Secondly, say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose for these two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why did you choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subject usually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way that they did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, this isn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has been hypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizarre reasons forwhy the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convinced of their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an American hotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is no justification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if you asked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". So why choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't you think "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China". This process of "choosing" because of your apparent "justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision for you and you being aware of this decision.You cannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you "chose" the option of which you did.
I actually thought you were going somewhere with this. But you did not. It is nonsense.
It is obvious that you cannot choose something you did not know about - although it is also true that sometimes you choose things which you think you did know only to find out it was not what you chose in the first place. But I do not see how this at all refutes free will.
The question of free will is interesting. After all free will does not mean we have freedom to do whatever we want. It does not mean that we can suddenly do absurd things like fly. I want to fly - but I cannot. I want to speak in Russian but right now I cannot. So free will is not just doing whatever you want. Yet - people are responsible for their actions. Or do you disagree with this? DO you think it is fair that people who rape people should be put in prison or do you think they can justifiably say - I don't know why it happened - like your example above?
Why do people choose one thing over another? I reckon this answer is not as important as recognising that the choice is made and has implications attached to it.
IF a robot - without a free will - killed a human being - it still killed a human being. Even without a choice it is responsible. And if we don't have a reason for its action- then we all the more ought to destroy it.
A dog chooses to eat a chop of the table? What makes it do it? Instinct. IT is not necessarily hungry - although it might be. But instinct - primal instinct makes things do other things. Evolution tends to teach that life survives because there is a natural instinct for flight or fight - or natural selection. Even that is choice.
As reformed in my thinking I tend to argue against free will most of the time. I think free will is flawed and that humans cannot choose to believe in God.
Yet I do not believe in fatalism. Nor do I believe that such a view negates our responsibilities.
I do thank you for this conversation. Yet I am puzzled why you bother to engage with people if you don't believe in free will. Surely your attempts to engage with people and to obtain their ideas is an engagement with free will and an implied belief in it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Mopac
One wonders why you bother keep coming back to this site with your dilemmas.
If you don't understand why the Scriptures seem to have certain "buzz words" throughout it, that is your loss. The barren woman - who gives birth to life is an extremely beautiful picture of God' power. Still, it has not finished either. I am surprised you did not bother looking to the book of Revelation where it again becomes part of the picture that God is portraying.
Still - given that you attempt to read the Scriptures like a 21st century book with a 21st Century brain - this does not surprise me at all.
Hi Mopac, that was an interesting piece of history that I had not heard before. Thanks for that. I am admitting my ignorance of it - although I know Stephen will delight in my ignorance to demonstrate how dumb I am.
I, personally would have taken a different tack. But I have quite comfortable with that tradition - although I have not heard it before.
I would have suggested that King Herod had ordered the deaths of all boys from two down in the specific region of Bethlehem as Matthew 2: 16 declares - and perhaps expanded the region out somewhat. The two notions that occurred to me was that 1, either John the Baptist was over 2 and so not under threat. I think that Jesus was probably almost 2. Joseph and Mary were now living in a house - not in a stable - 2:11 and this gives us evidence to suggest it was some time after Jesus' birth. Certainly, when the wise men were with the king - Jesus had already been born - and they still needed time to find the child and travel to Bethlehem.
The second option and probably more plausible in my view is that John the Baptist's family did not live in the specific region of Bethelehem. They were not of the line of David - so had no reason to be in that area - - although we are told it was in the hill country of Judah that they lived. Luke 1:39. Yet it was not Bethlehem.
Hence, why no angel came to protect John the Baptist is most likely - because he was not in danger - since he was over 2 or he was not in the specific area of Bethlehem where the soldiers of King Herod were sent.
Either provide excellent reasons why God did not need to send an angel to protect John.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Why is it atheists are scared of judgment?Do you not find it stupid that, according to you, God created human beings imperfectly so that He can then get the pleasure of punishing them? If you are omnipotent, why create a flaw in the first place? Why create a "bad" human being? All of our immoral acts can be traced back and blamed on God, if he really did create us. If God created us a certain way, then all of our flaws are due to God being a bad creator, something which we have no control over, and yet we are being sent to eternal flames for God's poor construction.
That old chestnut really?
God created humanity very good. There were no flaws. God does not get pleasure out of punishing people. God gave humanity free will. He gave them the ability to do good or not. He could have made robots - but he did not.
Knowing the future does not mean necessarily that you would prevent it. If I knew without a shadow of a doubt that my children would turn out to be say Hitler, would I have prevented their birth? And the answer is no. God does not judge people on the basis of future sins. God is not going to judge someone for something they do in the future. That would not be justice. Yet, that is what you are suggesting,. That because God knows the future he could have prevented it if he chose. Well so what is what I say to that?
Why do you think it is God's responsibility to stop evil? To blame God for your free will is simply cowardly. IT avoids personal responsibility. It really is not even worth engaging with. I repeat God made humanity without any flaws. Free will is not a flaw. In fact some might add that it is the perfect design. A human without free will is just an automaton. A robot. Free will - artificial intelligence is what humans are trying to create in their science of computers - are they searching for a flaw? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that the capacity to think and to make a choice is a flaw? Would you prefer for someone else to tell you how to live your life. To give you no freedom?
The principle on adultery is clear.But think, why did the person commit adultery in the first place? Answer: because God created unfaithful people. If God had not created unfaithful people, then unfaithful people would not be exist.
Your reasoning is faulty. God did not created flawed people. Show me in the bible - where God created unfaithful people - where God made faulty people. You can't because it is not there. God created people with free will.
Free will is not a flaw. Free will might lead to people sinning. Yet, free will is not a flaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Marx was talking about organized religion - not spiritualism and not unorganised religion.
He was opposed to institutions like the church, the state and the family. Hence why he allowed his children to starve while attending university.
Marx was a child abuser and ought to have been put to death for the cruelty he exacted on humanity - or even on his own family.
He is one of the most evil people who have ever lived - making Hitler look like a sunday school choir boy. (And I think Hitler should have died a 1000 deaths)
His policies have led to more people dying and being persecuted and more families being destroyed than any other philosophy in the world.
And his view on the history of economics is observably wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
there is no point in providing context for you. If I do, then you will go looking for other verses.
The first verse provided is in the context of judgment. God is judging the entire nation of Amalek. You find this difficult because you live in the Western World of individualism. The Ancient World was a context of covenantalism. In the Eastern World today - say China, the emphasis of judgment is not on the individual but on the many.
Hence - you find God's judgment on the individuals as unjust - yet the ancient world and perhaps half of the modern world sees judgment on the whole as totally justified.
The second passage from Ezekiel is one of judgment as well. Why is it atheists are scared of judgment? They hate it whenever God speaks the truth and carries out what he says he will do. But then get all upset because there is evil in the world. LOL @ the inconsistency in the atheist understanding.
Here, as in most places in the OT, God uses his prophet to warn these people. Do you even notice the warning? God does not just judge them without proper notice - without giving them an opportunity to stop being so wicked - but by warning them. Putting them on notice. They can stop - they refuse to. God says - you have brought this upon yourself.
The principle on adultery is clear. The context is covenantal. Unfaithfulness is unacceptable. The maximum penalty is death. This is evidence of how highly God values marriage and faithfulness. The death penalty was not carried out in every example. In fact - for a covenant death to be applied - the offending parties had to be taken to the gate for a trial - and then if found guilty - the sentence could be carried out. And this could be anything up to and including death. It was a maximum penalty - not the only possible penalty.
We in our nation have maximum penalties for stealing bread. You would probably get a good behaviour bond. But the maximum penalty is 15 years in prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
So if you agree context is important and so do I, what is your problem?
I simply asked for you provide context to horrendous bible verses.
I did with your initial post.
As I said - now that it is established that each verse has a context, - and demonstrably so. The ball is now in your court.
You must show that by not ripping verses out of context that atheists assertion about God being nasty is correct.
I actually don't believe you know how to read something in context. So why don't you prove me wrong?
Take your first verse - put it context properly - and then answer your own question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That because Einstein was an intelligent man he was infallible. It is a typical appeal to authority. Or in this case - celebrity. Since Einstein was not an authority on religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
just goes to show that it does not matter how smart you are to be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
This is why we need one religion which has the underlying basis for our society.
And this is why the secular worldview is unable to be this underlying basis. Secular thinking is too fluid. It has no objective points of stability - and is effectively a religion of polytheistic persuasions. That is not calling it a religion (although I think it is) but is noting that the implications of the secular position is polytheistic. Only a monotheistic religion - whatever that might be - is capable of forming an underlying basis for the morality of a nation.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Stephen was pointing out the obvious contradictions between different texts.....That is to say the obvious differences in interpretation of the same folklore... Emphasising that the bible is simply a collection of hearsay tales, rather than a conclusive whole.
Yes, I can see what he is attempting to do. Yet have you noticed he is refusing to tell us specifically in John when Jesus baptism took place. And the other thing which you omit to mention is that despite claiming there is different interpretations in the folklore - there is simply no evidence for such different interpretations in the folklore. In fact - Stephen's position here is at odds with all the current folklore - except those who are in the skeptics camp.
And another thing you fail to produce - even after I asked you to produce it as well - is where in John is Jesus' baptism presented as taking place.
It is not mentioned in v. 1-18, although v. 15 of chapter 1 refers to John's reference to him. How soon was these words of John said prior to the wedding or any of the alleged days? the silence from Stephen is telling.
v. 19 - 28 describes a conversation between John and the religious leaders who had been sent from Jerusalem. John declares he is not the messiah - but adds that is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Now we know from all of the gospels that this message of John the Baptist was something he did for months before Jesus came along and then for months after Jesus was baptized. How many months was John baptizing for? Many scholars indicate it was probably anywhere from 6 - 9 months.
V. 29-34 tells us that the next day after this conversation between the religious leaders and John took place that John saw Jesus coming towards him. It is not and cannot be referring to the next day after Jesus was baptized because he had not mentioned the baptism prior to that time. And there is nothing in the context which demands or even asks us to consider this possibility. Now in the verses 19-28 John does not baptize him then and there - because he testifies that he had already baptised him prior to this time. The question is how much prior to this time?
My view based on the obvious omission of a baptism taking place here of Jesus and the fact that v. 15 provides ample evidence that the baptism was prior to this conversation and the testimony of the other gospels that Jesus baptism had taken place at least - 40 days prior to this time. Perhaps what John is testifying to here in v. 29 is Jesus actually returning from the Desert. The fact is - he went in - he had come out again. But "next day" here is clearly referring to the day after the conversation between the religious leaders and John.
In v. 32 - 34 John clearly testifies that he saw the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus. But what is also evident from the text is that this is in the past tense. Past tense indicates it was before this time, not at that time.
V. 35 - the next day here is used in an interesting way. The "again" which is attached to it - may refer to events taking place on the same day as in v. 32 -34 if the next day is referring to the conversation between the religious leaders and John or it may be referring to the next day after 32-34 if the author of this book is attempting to be chronological in his story.
I don't see how either explanation is a problem. Either take place well after Jesus' baptism - which must have been at least 40 days prior to this time. We don't know how early in the day - events took place in v. 32-34. V. 39 indicates that the two disciples stayed with Jesus until or from the 10th Hour.
v. 43 the next day - after the conversation or after meeting the disciples - v. 40 indicates one of the two disciples was Andrew - Peter's brother. v. 41 tells us that Andrew went to find Simon. What is not said here is when and where this finding Peter took place. If we were reading post-Gutenburg books we might assume chronologically. This is how books are written today. Pre - Gutenburg - before the printing press - books were written quite differently - and not chronologically as we understand them today in the West. Books were written to be read and re read - and linked from one page and sentence to another - even on their scrolls. My point is we cannot automatically presume or assume that the meeting between Andrew and his brother about the Messiah took place on the same "next day", or in the same location - or that Jesus met Peter prior to going back to Galilee. The language of the text does not mean that this is impossible - but nor does it make it certain - unless we just want to disregard completely all the philosophies attached to the differences between the post and pre - Gutenburg ways of understanding literature.
But let us say it does mean that Andrew went and got Peter prior to Jesus going to Galilee - it changes nothing. It only infers that Peter and Andrew like thousands of people in Israel were making a pilgrimage to see John Baptizing in the Jordan river. Would this have been an impossible situation? Clearly they were looking for the Messiah - so when John the Baptist popped up at the Jordan River - and given the comments we have already ready about from the religious leaders who had been specially instructed and appointed to talk to John the Baptist - there is strong reason to believe that this is plausible.
v.43 - it tells us that Jesus - the next day decided to go to Galilee. Does that mean that Jesus went on the next day or that he decided he was going to go - and started planning when he would leave, what he would take, how long he was going for, how long it would take to get there, what would be his agenda etc. It might mean that he went on that day - or that as the text ACTUALLY says - he decided he would go.
It goes on and says - that he found Philip. Was this in Galilee that he found Philip or was it at the place he was staying when he decided to leave to go to Galilee. Did he need Philip to help carry stuff or to direct him? Nothing in the vs 43-51 make us must believe that Jesus was in Galilee already or was on his way there. Yes, Philip was from Bethaida -the hometown of Peter and Andrew. Nathananiel says a couple of verses later that Jesus was from Nazerath. No one says that they traveled to Nazarath. Jesus is from Nazarath and Philip was from Bethaida. Now for me - nothing rests of consequence upon whether Jesus found Philip in Bethaida or in the place he was preparing to go to Galilee. The context is not trying to give us an up to day account of Jesus' whereabouts - it is talking about the people who were to become Jesus disciples. That is the point of these passages.
Chapter 2 begins with on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee.
Now what is this third day talking about? Is it the third day of creation? No. Is it the third day since Jesus baptism? No. Is it the third day since the conversation between the religious leaders and John? No. Was it the third day of the Wedding? Weddings typically went for 7 days in Israel. This is possible - and plausible - because the wine has started to run out. Or is it the third day of the week? Again quite plausible and is used in many places in the NT and OT.
Personally I don't know if it was talking about the wedding or the weekday - I think more likely the third day of the wedding - because it helps us to realise that this wedding is a signficant wedding - and had been going for some time. Chapter 2: 2 also indicated that JEsus had been invited along with his disciples to this wedding. Now I don't know about you - but wedding invitations typically get sent out a long time before the event. And if these passages of John were meant to be chronological - then Jesus only picked up the disciples in the past couple of days. To suggest that he would get an invitation along with his disciples in such a short time is nonsense. My view would be that the wedding was many months after Jesus Baptism - many months - after he had started calling his disciples and there is nothing in this text which indicates otherwise.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
We all know what Mark said. That is not the issue.That is exactly the issue. One gospel is telling us that he immediately went into the wilderness and stayed for 40 days. While another say he was wandering around just days after and yet another says he was making sure wedding guests got themselves drunk .Its your dilemma reverend, not mine. Do your research.
Well actually Stephen, I have no dilemma. It is you who had inserted stuff into the John passage which is not there.
Again, let me repeat - Mark states that Jesus went immediately into the desert. John does not tell us when Jesus' baptism was. I notice that you are intentionally dodging my question to you. Where specifically in John does it tell us when Jesus was baptized? Please point out the verse or verses that you are declaring is the baptism of Jesus.
From the readings of the gospels - it is clear that Jesus went into the desert for 40 days.
Stop making stuff up.Are those biblical verses wrong then? That is a yes or no question.
The verses you quote from Mark are not incorrect. Your addition of brackets with the insertion of baptism in John is incorrect. It is not there.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Who are you talking to? Me or Ethang?
Ethang can answer for himself.
We all know what Mark said. That is not the issue. The question is Stephen, where in John's gospel is Jesus baptized?
You still have not pointed that out. You make an assertion and AGAIN you come up with nothing. Pointing us back to Mark where the writer talks about immediately.
We are in agreement - Jesus went into the desert immediately following his baptism.
And John's gospel DOES NOT contradict this.
And you have not shown how it has. Firstly, you must show us when Jesus was baptized in John's gospel. This you have not done. This is the starting fact you must produce.
Otherwise - just admit that you cut and paste one more paragraph from your text book without actually checking the bible out for itself.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
LOL at the Zed man. Are you serious?
This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of facts as outlined in the passage. Stephen has yet to provide the verses for Jesus' actual baptism in John. Perhaps you can help him?
I cannot see it mentioned there. Can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
You asserted CONTEXT is unimportant.When did I say this? When did anyone say this? No one is saying that context is unimportant. It is the religious people who make a fuss about context when confronted with challenging verses from their book.
Your challenge to us - the three you named in your so called challenge. It suggested that context was irrelevant. I challenged that viewpoint because I take the view as most thinking people that context is important. Many people - Atheists in particular rip things in the bible out of context often to try and mock Christians. I don't make a point of making a fuss except when such people intentionally misuse a verse to mock the Christian God.
Or rather you suggested that theists call out "context" whenever they feel like they are being beaten. Yet, I have completely and utterly demonstrated that context is important and that it provides significant understanding to each verse.Clearly, you did not see the extensive reply that I have given you, of which I have personally checked with biblegateway to see if everything was accurate. I have shown how God is a murdering filth and the only thing you were able to reply with is "the ball is in your court". In fact, I shall address that now.
Yes I did see your reply to me. Yet your reply did not address even one of the matters I raised in respect of context. In fact you agree you were simply cutting and pasting without thought from the internet and then in the same context indicated you were going to spend perhaps one minute with your next jab. Who do you think you are fooling with such arrogant prattle. Perhaps all of your atheist friends find such simplistic thinking amusing - even entertaining - I suppose for them it is a step up after all - to do any research at all. But if your position is that context is important then we have no further need to discuss anything. After all, if you accept that context important and then in the next breath - simply rip it all out again to try and prove something which the book nor the context expects or communicates or demands - then we have nothing further to discuss. After all, you prove my point. Context is important and pulling verses out of context is what atheists do. Well thanks for proving my point. The only way you could come up with something like "God is a murdering filth" is IF you rip things out of context.
The ball is in your court - now.Play ball.Your reaction time must be astoundingly slow as I have already replied to you 29 hours ago.I thank you for dropping all point, hence alluding to a concession. Whatever happened to "But as for the verses you have asked for a context. I will respond to your challenge. And I do so eagerly. "
The ball remains in your court - whenever you want to pick up your racquet and hit it. Until then, your ad hominin attacks are also expected. I have responded to your challenge. And I did it eagerly because I thought you were wanting to know in good faith. Only after I noticed that you simply cut and paste did I realize that it was all a game for you. I won't play your games. If you are serious about this conversation - then explain why you think context is important. Otherwise. Go home and play with your cricket bat there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Even in instances where there is no privilege at all? For example, if your friends tell you they robbed a bank and someone died, but they're pretty sure they got away with it, you don't think it's right that you're under legal obligation to report it, or be considered an accessory of some sort? I know that's not really the topic, but I'm curious.
IT would not be anything more than hearsay evidence in a court of law. Police could not charge someone on the basis of such flimsy evidence.
True, you can certainly report it. But the police would require more than just your evidence of what you heard someone did. That would not even be enough for a search warrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Why should I do your homework for you? This is not a pissing contest. You made some rudimentary comments in your prior post about context - and I amply demonstrated the need for understanding context - I even addressed the verses you provided - despite them being a very bad cut and paste job by you. It is not for me to continue to show context for these verses - it is for you to show why context is NOT important.
And I certainly am not interested in elevating myself up some arbitrary system of levels that you are providing. What an arrogant thing of you to do.
You asserted CONTEXT is unimportant. Or rather you suggested that theists call out "context" whenever they feel like they are being beaten. Yet, I have completely and utterly demonstrated that context is important and that it provides significant understanding to each verse.
The ball is in your court - now.
Play ball.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But there is it again. You make an assertion that John says Jesus went straight to a wedding after his baptism. And yet you cannot even show when Jesus was baptized in John.
Stop making stuff up. The other gospel writers clearly say - he went straight way out to the desert after he was baptizes. John does not say that - in fact John does not even provide an account of Jesus' baptism, let alone what he does straightway afterwards.
What it does provide an account about is John the Baptist - seeing Jesus. And telling others that Jesus is the Lamb of God. And it does not say how many times Jesus went near John. And nor does it tell us what period of time occurred between the baptism and the wedding at Cana.
The gospels are not inconsistent when you cannot provide such simple events. You need to show in John when Jesus' baptism ACTUALLY occurred. Yet you can't and you won't. You will simply try and rewrite what the gospels - to establish something perverse. You cannot prove inconsistency here unless you rewrite what the gospels actually say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Before I respond, let me ask you a few questions. Suppose someone raped your mother. The perpetrator confessed their crime to their Scientology auditor (the person who hears Scientologist confessions -- and by the way sometimes auditors are children). The auditor advises the perp to live a better life going forward. Does that qualify as justice to you? Why do we send people to law enforcement instead of clergy when they do wrong?
Firstly, justice to me is ensuring that the law is kept and if not that appropriate penalties and remedies are put into place to ensure that the breach has been as repaired as much as possible. Sometimes this means trying to put people back into the position prior to the breach. Sometimes this is impossible - such as hypothetically a person being raped. In that instance - appropriate remedies can be negotiated. And if the breach committed is one which the perpetrator is likely to do again then appropriate penalties or rehabilitation ought to be put into place to try and ensure it never happens again.
If someone raped my mother, then nothing is ever going to repair the damage to her. Compensation will probably pay for some psychological sessions and perhaps enable her to try and find some happiness somehow. But it won't repair her. An appropriate punishment for the perpetrator also won't repair the damage to my mother. Yes, depending upon what the punishment is - it may well provide her a sense of vengeance or recrimination. But it won't repair her damage. Like compensation - punishment can only do so much. But both fail in their endeavors to repair the damage. Rehabilitation for the perpetrator may well assist in making sure the criminal won't do it again. But 99.9% of reform programs don't actually deal with the underlying issues and so it is very likely that the offender will continue to breach into the future. If they are put in prison - they form friendships with other criminals who will teach them how to get away with their crimes or whom they can brag to in the future. Prisons are the no. 1 education facility in the world for teaching criminals and we poor sucker taxpayers are making sure they get a very sophisticated and free education.
I do not know how scientologists confessions work. For me it is not a Christian religion in the first place. It is a cult and pretty dangerous one at that. Nevertheless, if their practice is to hear confessions - and if people in their organization on the basis of privilege - are confident that their confessions are not reported - then the only reason that any person or auditor will ever hear a confession is because of that privilege. BUT FOR the doctrine of privilege - no one will provide such a confession. Without privilege there is ABSOLUTELY no incentive to confess, unless that person is so guilt ridden that they are seeking forgiveness from God. And if the latter situation is why they are there - then once the priest or auditor tells them to go to the police - then they would. When people are in such a guilt ridden state that they require God's forgiveness - they will do everything they are told - in order to get that forgiveness.
In your situation, the auditor tells the person to live a better life. Is that good advice or not? Certainly, it would be worse if they said to the criminal - don't worry about son - God loves you - go and do whatever you want. There are no rules in life - just do what makes you feel good". True, the auditor in my view should tell this person to go and give himself into the police. That is what I would do. And moreover I would move to discuss with the appropriate persons in my organization - who also maintain the same privilege with me, that there will need to be strategies in place to make sure this person would be monitored in all circumstances. I would also ensure that there was counseling put into place - for this person to follow up and follow up and follow up. If the person identified the person he raped - then there would also be strategies put into place to assist in whatever fashion could be done for that person without letting her or him know that we had any idea about what was going on. Probably anonymous donations provided to that person - (not out of guilt or even responsibility - but out of care and compassion for her and in accord with justice)
As a lawyer, people often confess crimes to me - many by the way which are not actually crimes but a bad application of their understanding of the law. Too many people are what I call bush lawyers. They don't understand the law - and so immediately miss that crimes require two elements - the act and the intention behind it. Unless both elements are proved in court - the alleged perpetrator will walk without guilt. That is justice. So - given that most clergy are not lawyers - for someone to confess to them they have committed a crime - the clergy does not know whether it is a crime or not because such is not their role as clergy. For them to be made mandatory reporters in these situations will also put them into serious litigious scenarios. And whether the person confessing is doing it as a prank - which many teenage boys and girls do - or whether it is someone who does not have the mental capacity to realize that they are putting themselves in trouble when they really are not - the church and the clergy will be the one sued.
Interestingly in that respect - in Victoria Australia, churches have the power to be sued - but do not have the power to sue. They have had all of their rights ripped away. Is that justice? I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is a failure of justice and it is clearly being done with an intent to hurt the churches.
We send people to law enforcement - because the STATE demands that it is satisfied. I don't send people to clergy for punishment - that would be absurd. This is why the place of clergy privilege is so important. It is not the police. It is not the state. The church and the state should remain separate - yet - for some dumb reason people want to get rid of the separation and let the state tell the church what to do. This in some ways - gives the church the right to tell the state what to do because it opens the door to the church and the state not being separate. But that is the implication of making it mandatory reporting or clergy from confessions. And personally I think that is unjust.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
This after all is just another classic example of you trying to invent contradictions within the bible. I wonder which book you are copying and pasting from?
But eh if you makes you feel better at night.
One would have thought that someone of your age would have learnt by now. But I guess not.
Do you ever have an original thought? Or do you borrow all of your ideas from others?
John DOES not record Jesus' baptism. Did you notice that?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And that is just on this one thread.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But there is a difference.
Stephen just invents things up - makes them right out of his mind - because he has a motivation which is to prove the bible wrong.
I don't have an agenda. I really don't.
You on the other hand - don't seem so zealous as does Stephen.
so who knows what you are thinking.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ Stephen,
look and you will see - whatever you want to see. LOL@ you.
There is no baptism of Jesus in John, is there? In fact - all we have in this gospel of John is John testifying of what his role and of Jesus, the Lamb of God.
1.29 The next day; 1:35, the next day; 1:43; the next day and 2:1 on the third day. I reckon that 1 + 1+ 1+ 1 = 4. Not three.
I cannot figure out why you say the next day - refers to the day after Jesus baptism.
I think you are dreaming. Inventing stuff again.
Why is that ALL atheists are so untruthful? Yes, Ethang5 - it is because they keep reading things into the text that are not there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Karl Marx was a spiritualist. He totally was hooked on non-organised religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You said if priests are required to turn people over to the authorities, people would not confess illegal sins.I'm asking why it matters if they don't confess their sins. They are not held culpable for the illegal activity anyway.
My point was that if people know that priests are not bound by privilege they will not confess their sins to them. This means that priests will not be able to give advice to them about how to deal with it. This means more problem people will be doing whatever they want without getting assistance of any description.
Your second line still does not make sense to me. Who are you talking about when you say - it does not matter? I think it matters when people are encouraged not to confess their sins. And this is what you are proposing. You are proposing that people who commit these awful crimes keep it to themselves and never reveal it to anyone.
I think people should be culpable for illegal activity - whether it be pedophilia or dodging taxes. Or smoking dope.
Priests are only bound to privilege within the context of the confessional. It does not exist outside of the confessional. Yet, if a person confesses to them outside of the confessional the priest would be obliged to report it. This is far less than the lawyer- I have had people confess to me heaps of stuff as a lawyer - but I have no obligation to report it to anyone - in fact if I did I would be disbarred. Lawyers hear much worse confessions that priests do. I can vouch for this because I know what they say to me as a lawyer - and as a pastor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
“God himself will kill tens of thousands if it pleases him”Samuel 6:19
1 Samuel 6:19 - not sure which translation you are using. The NIV explains firstly what God did. He struck down seventy men because they looked inside the Ark of the Covenant. The context is - Israel pre-king. It was written probably by Samuel - describing the events when Israel had rebelled against the Lord, and the Ark had been captured by the Philistines. And now God had brought it back to Israel. Not because Israel had repented of its rebellion - but because the Philistines could not handle the awesome God in their midst. It was written to the people of Israel - and it was informing them of the awesomeness and holiness of the Lord God Almighty. The first five books of the OT had provided very specific details about how to handle the Ark of the Covenant - because God has chosen to use it as his representation on earth. One rule was don't touch it. Only Levites were allowed to carry it and by particular poles. The Holiness of God is not something to mess with. Here ordinary men - not even priests looked into the ark of God - this was immediate death - and they should have known it. These people disregarded God's laws and so God - carried out the just punishment on these people. the verse you quoted - is either not this verse or it does not reflect what this passage is about.
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, She will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are”Peter 2:18
Again - the verse you quote is not this verse. 1 Peter 2:18 - is post Christ. IT is written by Peter to Christians who are scattered about the known world - a world where slavery is normal. Christians of course - were taking the view that in Christ, they did not need to be slaves and were insisting to their masters that Christ had released them from slavery the moment they became Christians. In doing so - they were not demonstrating humility and submissiveness as they ought to. Peter's point was that if you are going to suffer - make sure you suffer for doing good - not for being bad. Christians in that sense were demonstrating - our own humility and submissiveness to Christ and God. - v. 16 of that chapter says - live as freemen but do not use freedom as a cover up for evil. If slaves had been bought for a price - then slaves ought to figure out a way to make sure the owners were repaid. It has nothing to say about females and not being released.
“Their little ones will be dashed to pieces before their eyes. Their houses will be looted, and their wives will be raped”.Isaiah 13:19
Where did you get these verses and their references from? Did you just do a cut and paste job from a book that you had read - but never checked out whether or not the bible actually says what you are saying?
" Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms,
the glory of the Babylonians’ pride,
will be overthrown by God
like Sodom and Gomorrah." Is 13:19.
The verse you are actually referring to is in v. 16 . You can go and find it. Do your homework before you ask others to do the same.
This is a book written by Isaiah while Israel was in captivity in relation to Babylon. It is a chapter about God's judgment on the land because of their evilness and wickedness. It is describing God's judgment on them for their wickedness. It is a picture of de-creation with many symbols inter alia. Yet in the verse you expressed - it is the Medes who - at the time were merciless and running amok in the world - living as the heathen nations did - and warring as they did - who attack Babylon. So, it is a prophecy by Isaiah of what would happen to Babylon because they were a wicked and sinful nation. They were judged and found wanting. The means of attack was the Medes who did whatever they wanted.
This is therefore descriptive - not prescriptive. It is not God saying to Israel or to Christians - go and kill children and rape their women. It is not even God condoning such a thing. It is God saying - when you are evil - someone more evil will come and destroy you in due course - who live according to their own rules and who do things in their own way. The warring people of the Medes probably saw it as acceptable to rape woman and kill children. Men in Israel were not permitted to rape woman and nor were they to kill people. Yet the situation is war.
“See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”Genesis 19:8
The situation is in Abraham's time. Pre Israel. Pre Moses Law. Lot has already made a choice to leave Abraham and head off to Sodom for his own selfish reasons. The men who were visiting were angels who in the previous chapter had indicated they were coming to destroy Sodom for its wickedness. Lot did offer his daughters to these wicked men. Thankfully, they were not taken. Lot should never have done this. It is not condoned in the passage and it is a description of what took place. It is not prescriptive. The angles then destroyed these wicked and depraved men - and then the entire city - was killed. It was judged by God. A just destruction.
"Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!"Psalm 137:9
This is a haunting psalm and song - or poem that described people's emotions. It is not prescription for people - but a description of how the people in Israel felt in their slavery in Babylon. And it is expressing real anguish and pain and anger and emotions at their captors. Israel had been captured by Babylon - and were made slaves. They had been ravished - their husbands killed before their eyes - and their sisters raped in front of them and then slaughtered. This song reflects their anguish and their feelings towards their captors. There is no indication that this is anything more than simply a reflection of the messiness of human suffering. It is not suggesting that God condoned babies being dashed against rocks. It is the people of Israel describing their pain.
"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves"Leviticus 25:44-45
The context is Moses relating laws of prescription for Israel and a description for us of what was expected at that time. Every nation had slaves - Israel's slaves could not be kidnapped. They came either from people selling themselves as indentures - or as captives taken in war. Very specific ways are explained as how slaves were to be treated. Hence the context is the world - thousands of years ago where slavery was normal - but in a nation where slaves were treated as humans. It is not prescriptive for us. But was written to people in that time.
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him"Levitivus 20:9
I have answered this before on this site. I take the view that the context is about relationships. In the time of Israel - written to Israelites about how they were to live at that time. It is not written to us as anything more than descriptive - not prescriptive. The substance of this statute - was about threatening to cause harm to another. Blessing was a good thing - cursing was its counter - action. To cause harm. The essence of the law was about protecting families - and the sentence expressed the value Israelites were to put on families. the part of the verse which says - "his blood shall be upon him" - is particular idiom of Israel which indicated it was a covenant situation.
"Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths"2 Kings 2:23
This is the time of prophets. Prophets were those who spoke the Words of God and represented God. When people mocked the prophets - it was the same as mocking God. Elisha cursed them - and God judged them. IT is a description of what happened. It is not prescriptive for people today to curse people. It reveals that God controls and rules over nature - and that people should not mock God and his prophets. Yet - the situation here was descriptive. And written for people in Israel to respect the Prophecies of God and not to mock God.
In the Old Testament, God murdered 203834 people, now compare that to Satan who killed 10.
Says you without any evidence for such a weird number.
I must say - that it is disapointing that you expect us to do our homework - yet you could not even be bothered to check out the passages you quote.
I thought you were acting in good faith. My bad. You simply cut and paste - and did not even check the footnotes or the accuracy of where you cut and paste.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Hi Wagyu,
great questions. Before I go into each verse which I fully intend to do when I have more time. Hopefully by the end of the day, i just want to talk about context.
Firstly, when I talk about context - I don't just talk about the so called bad verses but also some of the so called good verse. For instance - many Christians do unfortunately take the verse in Jeremiah - which talks of God knowing our futures and our plans and that he has a good thing for our lives completely out of context. This is one of those good verses which is often taken out of context.
Secondly when we talk about context we are talking on many different levels. Which period of time was the text written - was it pre- flood, pre people of Israel. During the so called time in Egypt, the period of time in the desert, the period of time when Israel the people are starting to occupy the land of Canaan. The time when they start having kings - the time when the kingdom is divided into Israel and Judah. The time when they are being judged in Babylon and Assyria - the time in their return to Jerusalem = the silent years - the time of the Messiah - the time after the messiah - the time of the Christians - and also the end times. These are all particular times and different contexts when the bible was being written.
Not only is the time period significant and has a context - but who was writing - prophet historian - king - someone else - where were they writing from - in the sense of location = were they in the desert - were they in Epygt or Babylon or Israel or somewhere else - and to whom were they were writing - and why were they writing. Was it to encourage - was it to list a whole lot of statutes laws - was it conveying a warning or a judgment? And was it specific to people or was it a general warning or encouragement to all.
Also was the writing written to convey a particular truth - for example all of the gospels - although very similar in nature - all had different purposes and different audiences.
Thirdly, the type of genre used by the author also provides context as well. The same story for example of the Egyptians being submerged under the red sea is communicated in at least two different ways very closely together. One is a narrative of what happened and one is the poetical retelling of that story. One is used to convey facts and one is used to convey emotion. Both tell the same story using different language.
This is what talk about when I talk about context. I don't take the view that specifics written to Israel for instance are directly written to me - to dictate how I do things. Yet, I will look at what is written and see what the underlying principles are being said - and see if it applies to me.
But people rip things out of context - one context is judgment. God kills people or orders people to be put to death - out of judgment. That is the context whereby his people through legitimate means are permitted to in law - lawfully people people to death. mostly it is in the context of war where such a situation takes place. There are other examples as well.
Each of these verses you have provided - have a context. Not using the context - attempts to put our reading of the passage into our culture. That is in my view culturally insensitive and an incorrect way of understanding what is going on.
But as for the verses you have asked for a context. I will respond to your challenge. And I do so eagerly.
Created:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I can only speak for myself.The only reason why I Identify as an agnostic is because people like putting names to things, I personally would rather be unaffiliated with any word or belief. I personally have no idea if Good exists or not, nether the atheist nor the theist have successful arguments.I guess It's possible a God exists, however, when I look at the world, I really see no evidence for a God.I rather not be called anything, however since there is no "none" or "I don't know if there's a God or not" in the religion category, I choose agnostic, because even though it doesn't describe me 100% accurately, it's the closest one, and I didn't want to leave the category blank.
hi Jarrett_Ludolph,
I do find it intriguing when people identify as agnostic. It is a matter for you though. Interestingly, I am constantly amused when people want to identify themselves at all. What is the point of that? And although it is possibly correct that neither the atheist or the theist have successful arguments, is the argument for agnostic any more successful? Personally I find any argument for agnostic - as potentially less successful than either of the other two position.
I wonder if we asked a separate question whether it might reveal more about your beliefs. For instance, I find that most agnostics I know live their lives like God does not exist. Would that represent you or not? After all, atheists, mostly live their lives according to a moral scheme of some kind. They try to live well and treat others well as well. I think that they are not necessarily consistent with their position that there is no god. Yet, they seem to think - without any particular reason, not one that is articulated anyway, that living a good life - and for others is a good thing to do.
I suppose on some level they take the view - like agnostics - that despite the fact that they have not seen any evidence for God's existence, that if they are wrong about God existing, then they want to give them selves a fighting chance by being at least a half decent human being. Surely if God did exist, he would recognize their attempts at being a decent human being and not send them to destruction.
Yet, from my perspective, living like God does not exist yet attempting to live a half decent life is contradictory or inconsistent. Yes, I know there are streams of philosophy that talk about the great benefits for humanity when we all exist well together and look after the common good. And there seems to be no particular reason why atheists or agnostics would not want to serve the greater good of the planet. Well except that it enables them to live in a half decent safe place on the planet. Some kind of social contract I imagine.
The interesting thing from my perspective is that if there was a question about God's existence - and God really did care about whether people lived good lives or not - then by being invisible to most people and then rewarding everyone who does a good thing whether they believe or not - seems a rather obtuse way of going about it. It makes even less sense than the religions which talk about "good works" as a means of getting to whatever heaven they particularly believe in.
If living a half decent life was all that we had to do - then what would be the point of religion. And what would be the point of God? After all, what is the process once we die? Do we leave our bodies here and now - and go somewhere? OR do we wait for someone? Or what? Is God required to send an angel or to miraculously lift us from earth to some netherland? What does God have to do with any of it? Would not heaven be a nicer place if God did not exist?
Living a good life may well be what humanity thinks is required by God. But what does a good life look like? And who determines it? Does it include all your childhood or is only from when you really get to make decisions? Is it before you have a life changing surgical procedure? Or is it just one moment that changes everything - just before you die? Or does what you think just before you die irrelevant?
What kind of evidence are you looking for - when you say you have not seen any evidence for God? Would you have to be convinced on a scientific level or an emotional level, or on the balance of probabilities - or on a no lingering doubt level or beyond reasonable doubt - or what? If God appeared before you in the next 10 minutes how would you know it was God?
If he said he was God? Would that be enough? If he did some magic tricks - would that satisfy you? If he took you to the red sea and parted it, would that convince you? If he gave you powers would that convince you?
One of the things that convinced me - was an overwhelming sense of forgiveness for my sins after I repented. I went from being an angry and introverted person who judged everyone and anything to a completely different type of person. All my family and friends noticed a real significant change in my life. I went from being angry with life and God and everything - to not being angry. But thankfulness. People went from hiding from me - to seeking me out. Now lots of people will put whatever spin they like on this change in my life. And all of it can probably be explained without God for them.
Yet, in my particular case - I know it was God.
This is why I ask - what particular type of evidence are you looking for? By the way I was not looking for evidence. It ended up hitting between the eyes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You don't know how we understand or believe things because you are leaning on your own understanding. Your reasoning is not the church's reasoning. Nor is your reasoning what the church teaches.You certainly don't understand how authority in our church works.My submission to the church is certainly less vain glorious than starting my own church.
My reasoning is that of the church through the years. I probably don't know how authority in your church works. Yet it seems from the way you present things - it is top down - obey me or else you are considered a heretic. Certainly you come across as someone who is unable to demonstrate grace - which is the fundamental tenant of the Christianity.
I did not start a new church. Yet, submission to the church by the OC was certainly lacking when it came to the Split. Your church refused to submit and as such was excommunicated. It was so lacking in submission that it then decided to excommunicate the pope. So sad - that this is the legacy of the OC. to be unable to submit and also to make itself out to be God. The arrogance is breathtaking.
Of course - if the OC understood covenant - then it might actually understand how its stance is legitimate but it refuses to acknowledge covenant - and the process of how a church is able to be both submissive and appeal to a higher authority at the same time. Therefore - it remains divisive - and proud. This is one reason the OC is failing as denomination. And will continue to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not confident that you know what our church teaches. You certainly do not demonstrate that you do - in your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My reasoning is not faulty. I am simply following the reasoning of your church and the catholic church and indeed the Baptist church.
Why is it - you think that the catholic church annuls marriages. IT does not believe in divorce so - it conveniently finds a loophole - in its understanding of legitimacy of authority. It would consider that you, if you were married in the Orthodox Church, to be living in a de facto relationship. Living in sin. It certainly holds this view to all protestants. And it would also hold this view towards Muslims.
I take the view that this is because they - like you - and the Baptist church have a faulty view of authority. And of legitimacy. You misunderstand the gospels and the Word of God and you are all too arrogant to consider that real power comes in humility, like the Lord Jesus Christ when he left his throne in heaven to become a man.
We are not to lord it over others. That is the way of the Catholic church and the way of the Baptists - and from what I read of your church, it is the same with your lot. You have forsaken humility in favor of authority in a top down system.
Jesus led as a servant. That is his system of leadership. Not arrogance. Not isolating people. Not telling others that they are not legitimate followers. He - simply said - "follow me". And so far as his people follow him, they will be on a much safer path of assurance than all the trappings of tradition and religion that many churches around the world want to put onto them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And for the record, we consider your church heretical. Yet this would not invalidate it in terms of its authority.
And just so you don't think I am somehow suggesting your church is better than others, I would put the Baptists and the Lutherans, and The catholics into this situation as well.
All of these churches are heretical in the sense of not perfectly in accord with the truth, yet, each teach the common tenants of the Gospel as understood in the bible from the early church on - and in respect of the the important creeds from the legitimate ecumenical councils.
By the way - this is not claiming that my church is perfect - it has many flaws - some which probably are heretical. Yet, it has a valid authority from God. Covenantal - with two or three witnesses.
I would accept your church's legitimacy in respect of its authority over its congregation. I would do the same for the Baptist and for the Catholic. Each of these however - like yours fails to appreciate the unity in Christ that all true believers have.
This is to your detriment. But nevertheless, God is bigger than all of us and he will do as he pleases. SO please have a good Christmas - praising God in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is my point. So you would then see our marriages as illegitimate and that we live in sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And it is still more than you have. LOL!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Truly - you are not explaining yourself.
I cannot see why Jesus was introduced to Peter in John and then later on saw him again.
I think the book you are reading - your textbook on biblical mistakes - has misled you again. And this time - you have fallen hook line and sinker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And why not?
Your church does not believe our church has any legitimate authority. So why would you consider our ceremonies valid?
It seems inconsistent to me if you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
John seems to indicate a time before Jesus was known to Peter. None of the other passages necessitate they were first meetings. In other words, the Mark passage and the Luke passage both seem to have occurred after the events in John.Just because Jesus calls Peter to follow him on two or more separate occasions is not inconsistent. I often tell my children to do something more than once. If you were to suggest that every time I repeated myself to them - was indicative that it was always the first time, then you would be incorrect. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5378/post-links/231861
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting stats and source.
I certainly am not going to argue the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think churches reflect to a greater extent the community they are in.
It would be an interesting statistic to see the correlation between local churches and the communities they are placed in. I suspect that we would find that every community group in the world, religious and non-religious - more or less - reflects their local community.
It would be different for larger congregations and community organisations which pull from a great distance.
My local tennis club has pretty much the same demographics as my church. And my local little athletics is pretty much the same.
The shopping area has lots of multi-cultural shops - mainly food.
And if I were to travel a little out of town, I think the same holds true as well. Country towns seem to be more likely to be white people. Yet a growing number of other cultures are starting to move in. They would prefer to stay closer to the big cities of course. Yet the government is giving incentives to move into the country. And the churches in the country towns typically have the non-whites attend church - before they start their own congregations.
As I said culture play a large part. People like to sing and listen in their own native tongue. Using a second or third language can become very tiring. Also - the cultural differences and traditions can be quite upsetting on both sides. Africans have a different clock. They see time as an idol of the west. On the other hand - the Western Cultures value time. Music is a huge issue as well. Not just for different nationalities but for different generations. It can be very divisive. Not in the sense that people hate each other - but in the sense of comfortableness. My brother for instance - is unable to listen to much of the modern music - it sends his arrhythmia into overdrive.
Yet my son, prefers the modern music - and tolerates to some extent - the older hymns. I personally prefer singing Psalms.
I have not found -overt racism to be part of any congregation I have been part of. There are different traditions - which has caused some issues - but predominantly, the biggest issues which have divided the congregation and caused splits has been over personality splits. When people come in and expect every person to simply say yes - and not express an opinion. And typically the split is not earthshattering. Normally, the person has come with one or two people - and then when they find that the rest of the congregation like to think and express their opinions, the newcomer and their one or two friends leave and head of to the next church in the street.
Racism in Australian churches - at least from my anecdotal experience over several denominations and decades is almost totally non-existent. It really is not an issue.
My closest friend growing up was a young Aboriginal man. At times I saw him racially abused - but never at church. It occurred at school and by people I know were quite anti-religious. Or it occurred when we were at the local pub or some party. Yet, it is true this friend of mine would also call whiteys "white trash" sometimes as a form of endearment and at other times as a total insult.
Although clearly racism existed in the community - I do not recall it every being a problem in the church. Yet, I would not say it did not occur. I just never saw it - and if I believe as I do that the church reflects to some extent more or less the local community - I expect there would have been some. However, my church as most other churches are not intrinsically racist. I think racist churches are anomalies, not the norm. The Gospel is for all nations. Not just one and in Christ - the church teaches all are one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Culture.
People congregate with people they are comfortable with.
Our church in Australia is multi-cultural. We have over 20 different nationalities - who all come from the suburb we live in.
Lots of African and Asian, Islander, a few Europeans, a couple of local indigenous folk and even a couple of South Americans. Given many of these families are large - they make up over 75% of the congregation.
And this is not unusual here in Australia.
Interestingly, it is the local whites that see religion as an old hat thing. Whites tend to hate religion. I think it is part of their culture. Perhaps your hatred of religion is because you are white.
Created: