Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Baptism does refer to lots of things in the NT.Another unsubstantiated claim. just saying it doesn't prove it!
I did express what the NT says - you reject it. Well good for you. If you like lying to yourself - go for it.
The word baptism is one which has many aspects. It means to wash. It means to dip. It is used in many ways in the NT and even in the OT LXX. John used it for his own purposes - so did others. The water barrels at the Wedding of Cana were baptismal water barrels. I don't care that it does not fit your narrative - your narrative is one you make up and which has no support from any credible sources - that you are prepared to acknowledge.
Get out a concordance, do your own work.I am not here to prove fkn claims that YOU make and have made!
You are such a child. You started this post. You never clarify what you want - because you have your own agenda. Well I am not here to fulfil your agenda.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, it always starts with a premise. I have seen the studies which is why I acknowledged that many might disagree. But having seen the studies - I was not persuaded by the science nor of the theories behind them.You cannot start with a conclusion and work backwards and expect to reliably arrive at truth. That is called confirmation bias and is the reason for your self inflicted scientific ignorance.
This is why evolutionists only ever end up thinking evolution is correct. It is also why they ignore every other bit of information elsewhere. Confirmation Bias.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, it always starts with a premise. I have seen the studies which is why I acknowledged that many might disagree. But having seen the studies - I was not persuaded by the science nor of the theories behind them.You cannot start with a conclusion and work backwards and expect to reliably arrive at truth. That is called confirmation bias and is the reason for your self inflicted scientific ignorance.
So tell me - why do think logic and reason is a good place to start? And please do so without using any logic or reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
To rely on faith alone is simply backward thinking for the lazy the weak minded and the desperately lonely and insecureLOL! You believe evolution on faith alone.I haven't said that. Stick to putting words into the biblical authors and characters mouths, and not mine.
You don't need to say it - it exudes from you in every word you write. Given you don't believe in God, there is only one potential theory for life.
You believe in the big bang theory on faith alone.I haven't said that either. Stick to putting words into the mouths of biblical authors & characters and not mine
Again - your every word exudes from this premise. Although there are potentially only two theories for the origin of life, the origin of the universe does not necessitate a Big Bang theory. But I notice that in your response there is no denial. So it is fair and reasonable to assume it is true.
You believe there is no God on faith alone.I haven't said that either. My, you are one confused little silly man aren't you? I think it best that you stick to putting words into the mouths of biblical authors & characters and not mine.
You have said you don't believe in God. The only logical conclusion for such an inference is faith. Blind faith at that.
You ignore the realities of life.it is not often you'er right....... but you are wrong again.
And yet you ignore the realities of life with almost every breath you breathe.
And you call us lazy.I do. Along with backward thinking , weak minded, desperately lonely and insecure.I suppose I will got to the fires of hell for saying that about believers , although, Jesus' blood sacrifice tells me I am saved or has god changed his mind on that too?
You won't go to Hell because you call believers lazy. See how lazy you think by throwing out ridiculous comments. Jesus' blood is only good for you if you trust him. Do you trust Jesus as the savior of the world. As the Messiah. As LORD. ? If you do, then you surely have a strange way of showing it. I would hope that it were true. God does not change his mind - he just never promised that everyone was going to heaven. In fact heaven is a place for those who love God and who love his people. It is a place for people who recognize that Jesus is GOD. If that is you - and you trust him, well let it show itself in the things you write. Otherwise, stop fooling yourself - Bob Hope was wrong. You cannot have a bet on each religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not try and prove your version of things, wrong..... I can simply see the obvious holes in it, and I point them out...Obviously, such is the nature of the biblical stories that it's easy to cover up the holes.....Nonetheless the holes are still there.
Everyone can always see the holes in other's arguments. I see the absolute implausibility of evolution from a statistical point of view. Impossible. It is just sheer nonsense. Yet I know why evolutionists cannot dismiss it - the alternative is for them a more crazy idea. They can only believe in evolution by faith. But once their faith is established then everything they see supports that faith belief. And they cannot see anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What didn’t you understand through Hebrew tradition in this era that the family heritage is always through the father, and NEVER through the 2nd class woman mother, therefore disqualifying Luke 3: 23-38 altogether as Mary’s genealogy! Get it, Bible fool?
And what you seem to miss on every occasion because of your sheer cleverness is that Luke was not a Jew and was not writing to Jews. So the Hebrew Tradition in that era was not relevant. He was writing to Gentiles. So this refutes entirely your argument. Surely even you in all of your cleverness can see this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
God chose the people of Israel to be his people of destination for the messiah.Indeed, and they would be Jews ?Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel. 2 Samuel 7:10For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.Deuteronomy 14:2For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession. Psalm 135:4Nope, not a sniff of the words - Christians my chosen people.
It is an interesting thing the way you word things - almost as though you are trying to get a rise out of me whenever you say the Messiah was to the Jews - and not to Christians.
Honestly, I think it is more of a bugbear for you than for me.
The original Christians were Jews. And even today there are thousands of Jews who consider themselves Christians as well as Jews.
My take on the Messiah is in line with the promise God made to Eve and then to Abraham. All the nations shall be blessed through you. Abraham was not a Jew. Nor was Eve.
God sent the Messiah to save both the Jew and the Gentile. This had nothing to do with race, save for the destination, and everything to do with faith.
Hence, everytime you bag the Christian it is not a slight on me or my thinking. Jesus was the savior of the World, not just the Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. Fortunately the camera obscura had been invented by then.
Nonetheless my points are wholly valid and you seem to have ignored them.
I am sorry - I thought you were suggesting that people with dodgy backgrounds are either made up or not credible. My Bad.
At the time of Jesus's birth (If we are to accept such as factual) the Earth was well populated and humankind well distributed. So terms like Levite and Judahite are only locally relevant....So Jesus being the son of a universal god and only the adopted son of a local carpenter is surely of universal heritage....The fact that gullible Joe's heritage is uncertain is probably just reflective of poor record keeping....Point of fact: My Great Grandfather according to official records has 4 different surnames, and that was record keeping from only 120 years ago....All down to misinterpretation and misspelling. So the chances of biblical accounts being accurate are practically zero.Joseph who?
Not sure why the earth being populated is relevant. The Messiah had to be born somewhere. A little backwater place is as likely a place as anywhere else. God chose the people of Israel to be his people of destination for the messiah. Hence the local names like Levite and Judahite are relevent as you point out for them. Hence Mathew was written to a Jewish people. Luke was written to a Gentile people. not sure really what you mean by universal heritage. Perhaps you could explain that better?
I don't think Joseph was gullible. He was a righteous man - and the carpenter in town. He was not just a carpenter. He was a businessman. His righteousness led him to initially want to put aside the marriage quietly after he learned of Mary's pregnancy. Most men would have ridiculed and shamed her. But not Joseph. I think this speaks volumes about his character. Poor record keeping of course was not an option for Jewish people. In fact they kept meticulous records of every family and line. IT was all recorded and kept in the Jewish Temple, prior to its destruction in AD 70. So a suggestion of poor keeping is not credible.
Both Matthew and Luke's narratives were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem's temple - and they both had access to the records. If they both recorded their particular genealogy lines for Jesus differently - then it must have been for a purpose. And I think this is clearly the case when we read the two books. Luke clearly had Mark's gospel in his possession. Luke was meticulous in his research and his reporting. He was an educated man. As indicated they both had different audiences and were painting different pictures. Matthew was clearly a Jewish audience - with a clear point of establishing Joseph's blood lines back to David. It is unreasonable to suggest that most people in his time would have not known most of these lines in the first place - and would not have not known Joseph as part of the line of David. Bethlehem was only a small town - everyone would have known each other. To write this book to Jews if he had not done his homework in relation to Joseph and David would have produced a lot of response from other people. This silence of such material is relevant.
In relation to Luke, as I said he was meticulous - and did his homework as well. He would have researched the records in Jerusalem. But his point was about the fact that the messiah was from Adam and not just adopted into the family of man - but was man with real blood lines to Adam. Hence - why the line goes back through Mary, although attributed to Joseph through Heli. There is a reason females are referred to in Matthew and not Luke.
You religious guys just have a personally stylised version of biblical stuff , irrespective of the obvious inaccuracies and contradictions the bible contains. Whereas a sceptic accepts the bible, for what it actually is. A compilation of various versions of tales, relative to certain events that may or may not have occurred in a narrowly defined region, some 2000 or more years ago.
No - we just come at it with a different perspective. Skeptics come trying to prove it wrong. they never come just wanting to read it for it what it says. This is why despite the various ways of showing such things to harmonise skeptics simply keep their eyes shut. They will keep their eyes open for things they believes such as evolution - but for things they dont they will use it to dismiss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And does not Jesus then throw the question back to them? Mark 11:27-33.No. What Jesus does is not answer the question. Instead, Jesus thought that he had answered the question by posing one of his own in response. And never did he answer the original question, a bit like yourself.
Please read what I said? Does not Jesus throw the question back at them. I never said he answered it. But hey don't let the facts get in the road of pointscoring.
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?Well I suppose it depends upon what baptism is? Whether there is only one reason for baptism, or whether there are various reasons for baptism?So you want to go through all that shite again. The bible makes it clear the reason for baptism as I have shown you multiple times here on this thread here #13.The bible doesn't even mention any other reason for baptism. So lets not go down the rout of what the bible doesn't say.
LOL! I have said before that baptism refers to lots of things. You rejected that - never proved it of course but rejected it. I don't agree with your rejection just because you make an assertion. Baptism does refer to lots of things in the NT. Get out a concordance, do your own work.
In the NT the word baptism is used in different sensesNo they are not and there are no different reasons for it either. Whether it be baptised in spirit or water, the sole reason for this ritual as far as the scriptures are concerned is all to do with sinner, sin, sins or sinning;" repentance for the forgiveness of sins"(Mark 1:4-5) ."a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" . (Luke 3:3)"in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". (Acts 2:38)"baptized and wash your sins away". (Acts 22:16)
Yes it does. And very often so.
sometimes it is used for ceremonial washing of the hands.Really! and the biblical evidence for this is where?
Matthew 15: 1-2. Look at the Greek dear Stephen and not just the English. The greek word here is baptism where we see the word wash in English.
Sometimes it is used as an example of something more.And you have a biblical example of this do you?
Hebrews 9:10. Mathew 28:18-20. 1 Cor 10:1-5.
Sometimes it is connected with the heart.
Mark 1:8
I ask questions of you because your questions are vague. Speak more plainly and perhaps we might decipher what answer you are looking for.It is a straight forward enough question. What qualifies one to baptise another? Or to put it simpler for you, what qualifications does one need to be able to perform the sacred ritual of baptism?
No not really. This is why I asked the question. In the NT we know that John and his disciples baptized. Jesus' disciples did not baptize prior to his ascension. Nor did Jesus personally baptize prior to his ascension. Jesus instructed his apostles in Matthew 28 to go out and baptize - and then in Acts we have examples of the apostles baptizing and then those set apart for ministry - such as Philip and Timothy - and Barnabas and Paul and Apollos. We don't see just anyone doing it. And we never see any females doing it.
We don't have any NT examples of any Pharisee baptizing although clearly performing cleansing ceremonies.
We certainly don't see any non-believers baptizing.
Jesus ultimately baptized the church with the Holy Spirit - Pentecost. This is what John the Baptist was referring to in his message.
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.
For the Jewish religion - the OT is the reference we would have to use. And the understanding of baptism would need to be understood through the lens of water ceremonies - clearly at least from Aaron's time it would have given to the priests - Levites - who by the way are not just Levites by blood but by an offering from other tribes. Hence John the Baptist may well fall under that category.
How do you keep missing it? I am asking about >>>>>>>QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED <<<<<<<, are you blind??????? I am asking at post #1 above _ Does the bible teach us the requirements that are needed that gives one authority to cleanse one of his or her sins as the baptist did? #1
Sorry - I don't agree that baptism with water was ever used as a means to cleanse people of their sins. Water with water was only ever symbolic of a greater truth to be fulfilled by the messiah. Even John recognized that he only could wash the outside - but something more was required to wash the heart. The Holy Spirit. This of course was his reference to Jesus - who baptized with the Holy Spirit all those who belong to him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
To rely on faith alone is simply backward thinking for the lazy
LOL! You believe evolution on faith alone. You believe in the big bang theory on faith alone. You believe there is no God on faith alone.
You ignore the realities of life. And you call us lazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before.Yes, I can believe that.Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two). And I thought that it was common knowledge to know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant, the biblical covenant given by god to Aaron and his descendants only? In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).
I explained I knew that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. No problem with that. Elizabeth was married to Zechariah. Zechariah was a Levite. No Problem with that either. Joseph was from tribe of Judah. Again no problem with that. But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite? I surely cannot think of any passage in the Bible which forbids one tribe marrying someone from another tribe. Marrying someone from outside of Israel was a problem - but not cross -tribally. It may well be that Mary and Elizabeth are from the tribe of Benjamin - although as I believe because Luke seems to indicate - that she was from the tribe of Judah.
And none of my arguments for Jesus being a priest are weakened by Jesus not being from the Tribe of Levi nor of Mary not being from the tribe of Levi.
Jesus was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness. The word righteousness here has a very clear definition - and is used often in the book of Romans, it has nothing to do with holiness but to do with keeping the law because it a legal term. Jesus is saying - I must be baptized in order to fulfull the law. The question which needs to be addressed is which law was Jesus keeping in his baptism. I have already said I take the view that his baptism was his ordination as a priest. Numbers 8:5-7 is the commandment and the law he is fulfilling.
But Jesus was not a Levite. Hebrews 7:13-14 makes this clear. Christian thinking has NEVER claimed Jesus to be a Levite - but one - like Melchisadek - another priest of God from before the time of Aaron. So you suggestion that all Christians held to a view to be a priest one had to be a Levite is not correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
At the time of Jesus's birth (If we are to accept such as factual) the Earth was well populated and humankind well distributed. So terms like Levite and Judahite are only locally relevant....So Jesus being the son of a universal god and only the adopted son of a local carpenter is surely of universal heritage....The fact that gullible Joe's heritage is uncertain is probably just reflective of poor record keeping....Point of fact: My Great Grandfather according to official records has 4 different surnames, and that was record keeping from only 120 years ago....All down to misinterpretation and misspelling. So the chances of biblical accounts being accurate are practically zero.Joseph who?
Wow! It is not everyday we have some one attempt to make their point by referring to their own dodgy ancestry. I guess that means you are not real and have no official status or standing anywhere. I guess there is no point in responding to your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If the universe is deterministic - does that not imply a determiner?Cause and effect does not require any conciousness, plan or purpose. If you mean something other than that please clarify.
Says you? And even if I agree that cause and effect as a general principle does not require consciousness, plan or purpose, this does not mean that a first cause and first effect did not require so.
And there is significant reason to separate the first cause and effect from all others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes. I do not believe you know where the coin is and you are unable to show your coin to me.
There is no coin. I cannot show you what is not there.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would take the view that monotheism is the original and that polytheism is the later.At the risk of wasting my time explaining when you clearly have no interest in scientifically accuracy there is no archeological or sociological evidence that this is the case and quite a bit of evidence that the exact opposite is true.
Again, it always starts with a premise. I have seen the studies which is why I acknowledged that many might disagree. But having seen the studies - I was not persuaded by the science nor of the theories behind them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.Absolutely and that is why it is majorly flawed. People become atheists and in doing so reject previous worldviews - leaving a big hole in their thinking.This is a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that recognizing a lack of sufficient evidence in some claim would leave a hole in ones thinking. Does not believing in big foot leave a sasquatch shaped hole?
It does leave a hole in your thinking. You admit as much when you say there is no overarching goal or spirit. Big Foot is a red herring. And not relevant.
Atheists have no capacity to offer comfort in death. They have nothing to offer in hope. They might think that they have the truth - which I would refute. Yet even if they were correct- they reduce life to nothingness with no meaning - and no purpose. IT is a cruel worldview. And i am not trying to be mean - but when you take away hope from people - you need to replace it with something of at least equal worth. Otherwise - it is a spirit of meanness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion.No I did not. I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong. I think you had better reform your argument with this in mind.
I was of the view that you did make this claim. Nevertheless, I cannot be bothered going back to check it out - so will accept you are correct about what you suggest you said.
You used the term "exclusively right". I assumed the same.
I thought that was meant to ascertain why I thought they were not the one true religion. Nevertheless, I don't see why it necessarily means I ought to reform my argument.
I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong.
I take the view that absolute right and wrong exists as a matter of logic. Hence, if a religion or worldview declares ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion. This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world. Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity. You have yet to refute this logically.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?
Give me some examples of what you are trying to clarify.
Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith.I think with this statement you have proven yourself scientifically illiterate enough that you should avoid using any allusions to science in future discussions with me.
No not at all. It only demonstrates that I like to think and do not accept something just because some one told me it was true. And it is one of those doctrines which is endlessly changing depending upon who you talk to and read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Atheism has no way of dealing with comfort. Atheism is cruel and mean spirited.Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.
Absolutely and that is why it is majorly flawed. People become atheists and in doing so reject previous worldviews - leaving a big hole in their thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Furthermore, why are there allegedly "grieving people" since this lost one is supposed to go to heaven, correct? Why would anyone be grieving, whereas they should be joyful in the fact that the loss of the person in question is now walking around our 1400 square mile heaven with its 60 foot high walls for ETERNITY with Jesus, whereas the additional caveat is the biblical fact that there is NO WOMEN in heaven!
The difference between your trip away and my preparation for a funeral is that I did not lie and say I had no internet. I had internet - I simply had other things to do which required a substantial part of my time. I was not running away.
As for grieving people - I guess you live in a world which is perfect. Have you never read that "Jesus Wept"? Grief is a normal part of life when people die. It is death which is the intruder - a cruel intruder into our life - and the reason is because of sin. Death is the proof of sin. Sin is a proof that God exists. If God did not exist - then sin would have no meaning. And if sin did not exist - then death would not exist either.
Every person is going to die. The question is why? What is it about every person that requires them to die - what is the common factor? Things wear out? Ok. Why?
Things are born and die? Why? You have no satisfactory answer for death. Nor for evil. Nor for why good exists?
Christians grieve because they will miss their loved ones who trust in Jesus while they are on earth. Yet on the hand they also rejoice - because they know they will see them again. Christian have hope - Atheists have nothing of the like.
Oh and for the record - the grieving people I was dealing with were ATHEISTS. They were the ones who could not hold themselves together and could not be comforted. Death had robbed them of their loved one - and they did not know how to cope. Atheism has no way of dealing with comfort. Atheism is cruel and mean spirited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks Secular Merlin,
I appreciate the sentiments. Preparing a funeral for people is not an easy thing to do at the best of times.
Now where were we?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Christians can't be bothered repeating the same things over and over. What is the point when persons such as you just write your own rules dismissing the the evidence before your eyes.
As I have said before the unscientific endeavor of the critic is as astounding in its stupidity as it is in its failure to understand simple logic.
Created:
-->
@Castin
For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Formal dogmatic atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher."Dawkins: "It is not clear why the change from polytheism to monotheism should be assumed to be a self-evidently progressive improvement."I must say it isn't clear to me either. Do you believe polytheism is somehow less evolved than monotheism? If so, why? And if not, why do you think others do?
I would take the view that monotheism is the original and that polytheism is the later. Yes, I know current thinking rejects this for all sorts of reasons. But the Biblical picture commences with ONE GOD and humanity made in God's image. As man learned more and more wisdom they started seeing gods everywhere and behind everything. And ironically, enough the gods started looking more and more like man. Hence - it went from ONE GOD with humanity made in God's image to many gods all made in the image of humanity and its variants.
Oh the wonder of human wisdom.
In Biblical Wisdom - Things devolve over time due to the taint of sin. And only after Jesus came - did the curse start to reverse - in respect of the way the world began to mature. In this sense it follows the second law of thermodynamics but then in Christ - starts something wonderful and new.
The wisdom of humanity - perceived in things like evolutionary theory - dismiss science - particularly the second law of dynamics - in terms of the bigger picture. They would rather talk about the ascent of humanity. Rather than its descent. Ah the wisdom of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Indeed, a man, a Jewish man. A man that believed he was rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem. king of the Jews, not Christians.
I smile at your attempt to try and get under my skin.
Jesus is the king of the universe. Hence he is king of all people - whether they believe in him or not.
Ignorance is not an excuse in our lifetime - and it won't be either on judgment day.
Still that is a matter for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Hi SecularMerlin,
It was nice of someone to bring this topic up again.
It was also nice to read what I wrote a while ago. Do you have any comments?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Lots of commentators raise various distinctions. I have provided a mix of ancient and modern scholars. All respected by the vast majority of academics throughout the world.
Curse seems to more than mere words. As you would understand the OT blessing and curse systems. It would appear that curse was within the same ilk. Yes, there seems to be a link to the third commandment, but also to the 5th and the 6th commandments. Jesus in the NT indicated in the sermon on the mount that calling someone a name was akin to murdering them - as he did with striking. Cursing someone however is more than just calling them a name. When GOD curses - it is a removal of his blessing. Hence the term "light" comes into play. He removes his hand from them allowing the system to complete its ordinary deterministic cause and effect in respect of them. I would suggest you get hold of Gordon J Wenham - and his Leviticus commentary, probably the foremost authority on OT Hebrew in the academic world presently. His comments are quite helpful here. Gordon persuasively demonstrates that the legal system of OT used a maximum penalty system - quite like ours actually. And that very often - the maximum penalty was never carried out - the more minimum sentences doing the work that they were required to do to reform persons. Interestingly, Blackstones Legal Commentaries - used extensively even now in the legal world - at least those who use common law systems - attempt to persuade us of the same.
What both note is that cursing your parents - is an offence deserving a maximum death penalty - not that every offender received it - it is however worthy of a strike - which again Jesus reminds us - is akin to murder or from the state's point of view - the death penalty. So interestingly enough, I have learned something from this discussion. That just as we talk about Jesus saying that striking or cursing is akin to killing someone else - there is also the reverse part of this as well. And that is that a strike of a parent onto their child is an equivalent picture of the death penalty. Not that death occurs - but it is symbolised in it. Quite fascinating really. It is something I had directly considered prior to our discussion .So thanks Stephen.
2. Children’s abusing their parents, by cursing them, v. 9. If children should speak ill of their parents, or wish ill to them, or carry it scornfully or spitefully towards them, it was an iniquity to be punished by the judges, who were employed as conservators both of God’s honour and of the public peace, which were both attacked by this unnatural insolence. See Prov. 30:17, The eye that mocks at his father the ravens of the valley shall pick out, which intimates that such wicked children were in a fair way to be not only hanged, but hanged in chains. This law of Moses Christ quotes and confirms (Mt. 15:4), for it is as direct a breach of the fifth commandment as wilful murder is of the sixth. The same law which requires parents to be tender of their children requires children to be respectful to their parents. He that despitefully uses his parents, the instruments of his being, flies in the face of God himself, the author of his being, who will not see the paternal dignity and authority insulted and trampled upon.
Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 175). Peabody: Hendrickson.
9 ¶ For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; phis blood shall be upon him.
For, or, surely, as that particle, chi, is oft used, as Job 8:6; 20:20. So there needs no dispute about the connexion, or what this is a reason of. Curseth; which is not meant of every perverse expression, but of bitter reproaches or imprecations. Or his mother; Heb. and put for or, as hath been noted before. His blood shall be upon him; he is guilty of his own death; he deserves to die for so unnatural a crime.
Poole, M. (1853). Annotations upon the Holy Bible (Vol. 1, p. 241). New York: Robert Carter and Brothers.
Still harder will it be for most of us to understand why the death-penalty should have been also affixed to cursing or smiting a father or a mother, an extreme form of rebellion against parental authority.
Kellogg, S. H. (1903). The Book of Leviticus. In W. Robertson Nicoll (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible: Genesis to Ruth (Vol. 1, p. 344). Hartford, CT: S.S. Scranton Co.
The commandment is now sanctioned by the denunciation of capital punishment for its violation, yet not so as to comprehend all who have in any respect sinned against their parents, but sufficient to shew that the rights of parents are sacred, and not to be violated without the greatest criminality. We know that parricides, as being the most detestable of all men, were formerly sewn up in a leathern sack and cast into the water; but God proceeds further, when He commands all those to be exterminated who have laid violent hands on their parents,2 or addressed them in abusive language. For to smite does not only mean to kill, but refers to any violence, although no wound may have been inflicted. If, then, any one had struck his father or mother with his fist, or with a stick, the punishment of such an act of madness was the same as for murder. And, assuredly, it is an abominable and monstrous thing for a son not to hesitate to assault those from whom he has received his life; nor can it be but that impunity accorded to so foul a crime must straightway produce cruel barbarism. The second law avenges not only violence done to parents, but also abusive words, which soon proceed to grosser insults and atrocious contempt. Still, if any one should have lightly let drop some slight reproach, as is often the case in a quarrel, this severe punishment was not to be inflicted upon such an inconsiderate piece of impertinence: and the word קלל, kalal, from which the participle used by Moses is derived, not only means to reproach, but also to curse, as well as to esteem lightly, and to despise. Whilst, therefore, not every insult, whereby the reverence due to parents was violated, received the punishment of death, still God would have that impious pride, which would subvert the first principles of nature, held in abhorrence. But, inasmuch as it might seem hard that a word, however unworthy of a dutiful son, should be the cause of death; this objection is met, by what is added by God in Leviticus, “his blood shall be upon him, because he hath cursed his father or mother:” as if He would put a stop to what men might otherwise presume to allege in mitigation of the severity of the punishment.
Calvin, J., & Bingham, C. W. (2010). Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (Vol. 3, pp. 13–14). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
Other sins that required capital punishment were blaspheming God’s name, cursing one’s parents, murder and worshipping another god. Respect for parents was the Fifth Commandment. A sentence of death hung over those who cursed their father or mother (Lev. 19:3, 32; 20:9).
Leviticus 19:32 shows mother and father is a metonymy for the elderly. The verb for cursing (√qll) means to make light of. To make light of, i.e. to curse, appears in Leviticus 19:14 in regards to insensitivity to the deaf and, in 24:1, regarding the son of an Israelite woman who cursed the name of God.
The clause signifies blatant disrespect for someone who is due respect. The act of putting obstinate children to death is not a sentence that must make one feel guilty. The phrase added to the death sentence for the blatantly disrespectful his blood will be on his head (Lev. 20:9) demonstrates that the responsibility rests solely upon the guilty and not the prosecution.
Vasholz, R. I. (2007). Leviticus: A Mentor Commentary (pp. 320–321). Fearn, Tain, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor.
To curse one's parent's is not merely to use condescending vocabulary towards them but refers to a serious breach of filial duty. The verb means to make light of something. in the sense of dishonoring and disrespecting .
Currid, D. John (2004) Leviticus: An EP Study Commentary pp 269-70
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?
Well I suppose it depends upon what baptism is? Whether there is only one reason for baptism, or whether there are various reasons for baptism?
In the OT. the word baptism is not used. In the NT the word baptism is used in different senses - sometimes in relation to a water ceremony, sometimes in reference to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. sometimes it is used for ceremonial washing of the hands. Sometimes it is used as an example of something more. Sometimes it is connected with circumcision. Sometimes it is connected with the heart.
I ask questions of you because your questions are vague. Speak more plainly and perhaps we might decipher what answer you are looking for.
If you are asking merely about John the Baptist, then say so? If you are asking about Jesus then say so? If you are asking about the ceremonial cleanings that occurred both in the OT and the NT, then say so? If you are asking about the Christian teachings as identified in the NT, then say so? If you are asking about a general understanding of what the BIBLE says about ALL the DIFFERENT KINDS of BAPTISMS, then say so?
Does the bible teach us the requirements that are needed that gives one authority to cleanse one of his or her sins as the baptist did?
The Baptist never cleansed sins. That was the point of his message. Surely even you understand that? Preparing the way was not about cleansing people of their sins. The Baptist knew that only GOD can cleanse sins. And this is because GOD is the one against whom sin is. WE might be offended by sin. But it is not against us. We might be the victim of the sin. But sin by its nature is an affront to God, not to us. This is one of the reasons that humanity downplays sin. We really do not understand it.
The Priests in the OT did not have the power to remit sins. This is the point of the book of Hebrews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What does the bible say about being qualified to baptise someone?Does the bible teach us the requirements that are needed that gives one authority to cleanse one of his or her sins as the baptist did?
Don't the Pharisees ask a similar question about Jesus? And does not Jesus then throw the question back to them? Mark 11:27-33.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The universe would appear to be deterministic. At the very least it is partially deterministic and we cannot prove that it is anything more. Not a promising prognosis.
If the universe is deterministic - does that not imply a determiner?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
1. Relative to the genealogy of our serial killing Jesus the Christ, the book of Matthew becomes MOOT because Joseph, being from the "Fruit of the Loins" of King David, which is a prerequisite for Jesus to become the Messiah, WAS NOT Jesus' paternal father to pass this linage on to Jesus (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30).
Joseph was not Jesus' biological parent. Joseph was Jesus' adopted parent. Joseph adopted Jesus into his family. This gave Jesus all of the rights and inheritances and titles that belonged to Joseph. This is the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of Christianity. The greater point is that Jesus by being adopted into the family of David is entitled and welcome to the title Son of David. Christian teaching is similar in accord to "the people of God". The Jews originally were the people of God, but according to Paul in Romans 11 the Gentiles through Jesus were adopted into the family of God. Paul uses a different term - ingrafted. But it basically means the same thing in the context. If you understood covenant theology you might understand this simple teaching.
2. The book of Luke is also to be discarded for the same reasoning because Mary was a LEVITE and not in any way through the “fruit of the loins” of King David, as once again, is a prerequisite to Jesus being the Messiah (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30)!
Was Mary a Levite? I have not heard this thought before. It is true that John's the Baptist was a Levite - and his auntie was clearly related to Mary. Elizabeth was certainly married to a Levite. But was Mary a Levite? Interesting question. Being married to a Levite may well make you a Levite - but if so - then Mary married Joseph who was clearly a Judahite. Would this make her a Judahite? Or would the fact that she conceived - whilst betrothed but not yet formally married - make the child that was conceived Levite or Judahite or perhaps even divine?
Given that the biblical record declares that Jesus is the Son of David, hence assuming his titles - it is clear Jesus was considered Judahite. Mary however did come from the fruit of David, just from a different line than Solomon. She was not making a claim of being descended from David, but rather from Adam. Luke is not claiming Jesus as the Son of David - that was Matthew's point - Luke's was that he was a Son of Adam. Mary clearly is a human. The point of both books together - is that Jesus is son of David and Son of Man and Son of God. He is uniquely placed as messiah.
When you read a book with an agenda as you do - you will always miss the point of the book. This is unfortunate because it means you can't see the trees for the sake of the woods. That is ok. At least you are reading the bible. That is always a good thing.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Don't expect anytime in the near future for this question to be answered. Even though it is the proverbial elephant in the room, the question obviously hits too close to home to be answered and therefore I never expect it to be answered. I do however believe that by not answering the question - he has no right to actually expect others to answer his questions. And this is a very telling and revealing scenario about a particular writer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, ... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.It differs going forward or backward as to who Joseph's daddy was. Luke also traces the exact number of generations back to Adam, but that's not an issue here.
Hi Ragnar,
It is good question. Matthew and Luke are two books - both written about Jesus but for different purposes and different immediate audiences. Matthew's book as Dr Franklin indicated is one that goes up the chain - with the intent of validifying Jesus' ancestry lone through Joseph and up to David. Jesus was adopted by Joseph into his family - assuming all of the rights and privileges of this family. It goes back as far as Abraham - because Jesus is the child of the covenant. When you read the book of Matthew - you will see it distinguishes itself from the other three gospels - because it recognized Jesus as the Son of David - through the seed Solomon, who would be the messiah and rightful king.
Luke's version is intended to demonstrate that Jesus is a child of humanity - with his ancestry dating right back to Adam and Eve. It was not about him being the Son of David, so much, or even a child of the covenant - but was infact the seed of the woman from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Hence It is considered that Heli or Eli was the father of Mary whom was betrothed or married to Joseph. In Luke it is reference back to Adam. In Matthew it is about adoption into David's line which is why Jesus is said to be born of Mary and not Joseph. So In Matthew David's line is more pertinent to Joseph, himself - whereas Luke is about the line of humanity back to Adam - which obviously goes through Mary.
There are other explanations as well. Yet this is a good one to start with.
I don't agree that this was a situation of inbreeding - although there were cases as such in the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok.
I have to run away for a couple of days. I need to prepare a funeral for one of my congregation - talk to the family, and the funeral parlour, organise the service, write a message, help deal with grieving people. After that I will be back and return to our topic. Please keep your thoughts in mind. Cheers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Other religions have detailed accounts of what they claim are miracles and prophecies that have nothing to do with luck. Are you saying that these religions, some of them eastern religions, are likely correct?
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion. I indicated that if a religion or worldview does not even believe that you can believe in objective truth or that exclusiveness is essential, then they effectively rule themselves out. Most if not all Eastern Religions subscribe to inclusiveness or to relativity and subjectivism in their core - hence I would deduct them from a list when I am seeking objective truth. But please don't forget that I indicated that all of of these religions and worldviews have some good things about them. I don't necessarily reject everything about them. But that of course does not mean that I cannot deduct them from a list that arises to pursue objective truth.
In respect to other religions and their particular view on miracles and prophecies, what they believe or don't believe is a matter for them. You asked me to distinguish from what I believe superstition is and what I consider miracles and prophecies. That I have. Since I do hold to the view that Christianity is correct - in principle - then I would have to sit down and ask myself - if other religions are making prophecies - and miracles - then I would need to examine them more closely to determine whether they fit within my parameters - to see whether I ought to change my views - or adapt them - or reject them. I don't take the view that just because some one says "miracle" that this means a miracle took place. Nor do I have an issue if a demoniac spirit does a miracle or makes a prophecy. The Book of Acts describes a girl predicting the future to make money for her masters. It was not a gift from God and it ceased immediately upon the demon spirit being cast out of her. Similarly Jesus described people who healed people and utter prophecies which did not equate as Godly gifts but had a source of power from elsewhere.
I described superstitions as we mostly understand them - as related to luck good or bad.
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position. Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith. Is that superstition? Understanding God exists is neither absurd nor blind faith. Believing in God per se is not superstitious. Believing that luck is somehow related to whether a cat crosses the road - is quite different to praying to God and asking for his help. One is an attempt to beat the system around you by a formula of some kind - the other is relying utterly on the source of all to good. I take the view that God's blessings and curses in the bible - are cause and effect situations. I don't think they are random or vindictive. Mostly, God's curses are the result of humanity not wanting God to continue to watch over them. And basically God says - ok then if you don't want me to watch over you - I won't - live under your own steam. And the curses therefore reflect this situation. Cause and effect. Hence - if you say God - I dont want to be faithful in my marriage and I will commit adultery - the curse will be that your marriage will probably end - which in my understanding is a covenantal death sentence. If you kill someone - disregarding God's law not to murder - you will probably end up going to prison or copping the covenantal death sentence If you disregard God's commandment not to steal - you will reap the curse of getting caught and having to pay that back somehow - often 4 or 5 times that you took.
The way that God works however is through his institutions of State, church and family. And if we disregard these - then it is possible that God will take things into his direct control. If we don't look after the land and let it rest - then what happens - eventually it causes problems - If we don't care for the poor in our land - what will eventually happen ? People will die - and people will rebel - When the state is corrupt - it will last for a while - but eventually a corrupt power will get overthrown somehow. Even if it replaced by another corrupt government.
Again I dont expect you to get any of this - I just think that the skepticism never really realises exactly the extent of its skeptism - and misses the entire and comprehensive worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we tell the difference between prophecies and miracles and what you are calling superstition?
What is a superstition? Think of some. Crossing a line brings bad luck. Seeing a black cat brings bad luck. Not wearing a particular item brings bad luck but wearing the item brings good luck.
a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
Top 10 superstitions
Friday the 13th: Bad Luck
Itchy Palm: Good Luck
Walking Under a Ladder: Bad Luck
Breaking a Mirror: Bad Luck
Finding a Horseshoe: Good Luck
Opening an Umbrella Inside: Bad Luck
Knock Twice on Wood: Reverse Bad Luck
Tossing Spilled Salt Over Your Shoulder: Good Luck
Black Cats: Bad Luck
Saying “God Bless You”: Good Luck
Now what are the common connections here: It is that doing something brings either good luck or bad luck. These are all so called supernatural occurrences - not necessarily attributed to God or the divine. Fate for instance comes into this.
Miracles - on the other hand have nothing to do with good luck or bad luck. The Bible does not teach such a thing. It teaches you that if you are sick - you need to go to a doctor, and / or ask for the elders to pray for you and ask God if he is willing to heal you. The Bible teaches that luck is nonsense. Whether it is good luck or bad luck. God rules history and nothing is left up for chance - even the roll of the dice is according to his determination. Hence I think it is easy to differentiate superstition from miracles. Superstitions have to do with good or bad luck and therefore doing some sort of formula or avoiding certain things. This is why I call it magic. Magic requires formulas. On the other hand we cannot put God into a box - or under a microscope or expect him to perform in a particular way or do something because we do a particular rite or formula or incantation. Superstition is a manipulation of the forces around us. God on the other hand cannot be manipulated.
Prophecies - I say the purpose of ALL prophecy is to bring about an ethical response to people hearing them. I don't think it is primarily about predicting the future. For me - a prophecy might be prediction of a future if people do not change their behaviour - hence it is a warning. On the other hand - it might simply be the calling of people to repentance. John the Baptist was considered the greatest prophet by Jesus and yet he hardly predicted anything in the future - just that the one coming after him was the messiah - most of his life was about calling people to repentance.
The Story of Jonah is an example of prophecy to produce response. He made a prophecy - which by the way did not come true. Why was he not stoned? Because the primary purpose of prophecy is not prediction but to produce a response. This response was produced -and therefore God did not bring that predicted future course- but because of the implied promise within Jonah's prophecy to repent of their sins - would produce forgiveness - this is what happened. And we know this was part of it - because Jonah the whole way through the book is grumbling and complaining that God would show mercy to Nineveh even though Jonah hated them and did not want God to show mercy.
Prophecy is not superstition because it is not manipulating God - it is God warning people to change their behaviour. It is not magic. Miracles - fall into the same category - they are not random events based upon humans attempting to manipulate God. Just for clarity's sake - many so called Christians in the Charismatic and pentecostal circles are superstition in the way they attempt to produce miracles today - because they are not following Biblical practicese - but manipulating everything - it is like they think they have God on a string - manipulation. But I would say - not God - not biblical - it is superstition because it is manipulation. We cannot get God to do anything by formula, incantation, special little prayers, boldly speaking words, etc, that is superstitious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think sometimes you argue for the sake of arguing not for the sake of learning or reasoning. No offence meant in that by the way. Just an observation.
I think that you are missing tr akin g what is actually happening here. Male and female are biological and/or structural distinctions. Masculine and feminine are artificial constructs that we identify with certain traits. Now some make may identify as a female meaning they identify with feminine traits (subjective) or after reassignment surgery (structurally arguably objective) and of course because biological sex is not as cut and dry as we tend to imagine someone may have male internal structures and external female structures or done combination of both. Hopefully thos helps you to clear up your confusion over this mostly subjective distinction.
No. It does not help. Male and female are biological facts. Good to know we both agree with this notion. Masculine and Feminine - you suggest as artificial constructs with certain identifiable traits - that of course is where we differ. If people are identifying with a particular artificial construct then the notion of it being artificial really needs to be explored further. If on the other hand - they are not artificial - and in fact are part of what it means to be male or feminine then that too needs to be explored. in either event, there is no need for gender reassignment based either / especially if it is artificial or on the other hand it is not artificial.
I also disagree with you about biological sex being cut and dry. I think it is. Not every male has to be a fighter. Males can work at home and desire to have children. Not all females can have or desire children. I said above that there are some people - a small amount of course- but there are some people who are born with both sets of genitalia. Whether they choose to be male or female will I have no issue with.
But the idea that some males suggest that they don't feel male enough or that they feel female - so they identify that way - is a nonsense. Just because my brother wants to wear dresses does not mean he identifies as a female - just that he likes to wear dresses. Just because my father wished that he could have babies like a female does - does not mean he identifies as a female - it simply means he wished he could experience that part of life - something that males are excluded from.
Feelings and this is mostly what we are talking about - when people talk about identifying as something - empathy perhaps - but feelings - are subjective. We cannot really get away from that fact. Again I agree this is another conversation. But I do think that the modern world has attached itself to feelings as something objective -and has distorted the notion of objective science with subjective thinking.
Reasoning and deduction can begin with philosophical statements - have you never read Plato or Aristotle? Tautologies are useful.
Atheism is a worldview. I know it is common for atheists to deny this. Often it suggests it is about a lack of belief - or a lack of a claim. I see that as putting your head in the sand and denying what everyone else sees. Again no offence. What is a worldview? It is the way people see the world. Atheists see the world somehow - and despite the fact that they say they don't have a common worldview - there is an amazing similarity about their non-beliefs that can be observed. Do they all believe the same thing? No - sometimes they have vastly different political views - but the differences that exist within Atheism exist in every other worldview. Now I am not saying it is a comprehensive worldview - but so what? Many worldviews are not necessarily comprehensive. Many borrow from other worldviews where they might have a vaccuum. But overall there are many parts of their worldview which tie all Atheists together. And one of those is their unified belief that "there is not enough or any evidence for the existence of God". And from this non-belief - all of their other beliefs - are either enhanced or called into question.
I just think it is a nonsense to say it is not a worldview. And the evidence I see for that is that I can pretty much know which doctrines you say don't believe in - which can get up your goat. You might not call them doctrines - but that is what they are - we are not allowed to criticise them. We are not allowed to compare them to really evil things like Hitler or Pedaphilia. We are pretty much told to accept them - and one catchcry which always makes me laugh - is "this is what the science says". OR it is the consensus of scientific thinking - which I take a significant warning. (As an aside - the consensus of science is not the consensus of scientists. It is mostly the consensus of scientists which have an ideology or a paypacket which makes them say that) Take climate change as a really interesting example. The consensus of scientists - is not total scientists in the world - no - it is publically paid scientists - most of whom work for organisations who get paid their salaries or tenures from UN grants. On the other hand - those scientists who tend to disagree are from the private sector - who believe it or not are being paid by businesses who have a different agenda. And when the scientist with the proper pedigree makes a statement against the consensus of public scientists - he or she gets shafted - as being a moron - obscure - out of touch with real science, obviously being paid to say what he does by a big business corporation who has an agenda to discredit climate change. For the record - I do believe in climate change - but I am not oblivious to the very strong bias and agenda of climate change scientists who are being paid for and who do have a conflict of interest to exagerate the data and make things appear more serious than they are. And although not every athiest holds to the doctrine of climate change and in fact many are very skeptical - it is an example of a doctrine which for many is simply untouchable.
As far as I can tell or remember there has never been a proper conversation on climate change. In fact has been discouraged from the beginning - at least in Australia.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I answered your questions. You do not want to accept my answers and you always turn and twist what I say into something else. You are the parody. I noticed you omitted Jesus' clarification. Gee I wonder why?
When I contextualise it with the 21st century - I do so to demonstrate a valuable point. That is the area you avoid like the plague. How many times did I insist that you justify the evilness of our own context before you go and demand a justification from another? You NEVER discuss these points. You don't like to answer questions. This is because you are the one who has no answers. Yes, you ask a lot of questions, But you don't really want answers - unless those answers conform with your own prejudices. Your intention is not about learning - it is about tearing others down.
I don't have to play your games. And I won't unless I feel like doing so. You can repeat ad nauseum that I omit to answer questions or that I can't justify my positions - but I do over and over again. It is like you forget how to read.
There is no indication that this statute written refers to anyone but adults. I have - as I said in another place - accepted that the word "anyone" could possibly by some be interpreted to mean what you think it means. Yet, just because it might be interpreted that way by some - does not mean that it is what it means. Jesus clarified it about adults. The OT never in any place that I can think of - in any of their statutes ever against infants. OF course I am referring specifically to Israel - not to non-covenanted persons - where a different legal application of the law was applicable.
Anyone - in many ways simply reflects the fact that Israel considered the family unit sacrosanct.
Oh by the way - if cursing your mother and father is not tantamount to threats to kill, what is it? If you suggest it is just swearing at them or calling them names, prove it. Don't just bring in your 21st century contextualisation.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The other thing is which you always conveniently leave out - is that the death sentence in Israel was never carried out simply by people who think they have been wronged. The law required a court hearing. And then after the hearing the sentence if required was carried out - perhaps by the family. But nevertheless by proper authority.
It was not vigilante justice - it was court convened and proper legal justice - with judges.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Would you kill your daughter or son if they "cursed " you, as the bible instructs and your god commands?"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. ."Leviticus 20:9
I think firstly this is talking about adult children. Not infants. Jesus clarifies this because he is directly talking to the Pharisees who are adults and he accuses them of dishonoring parents and refers to this verse. And there are no specific examples of anyone in the OT nation of Israel where infants were put to death for dishonoring their parents.
I reject that the verse is talking about anything apart from ADULT Children.
Secondly, the intent of the statute in Leviticus is to protect the family unit. Cursing their mother is not swearing at them or calling them names. It is more or less attempting to practice a form of spiritual evil against them - pointing the bone as such - with the intent that their parents are to die. It is effectively a death threat. Even in our culture - we have maximum penalties for people found guilty of threating to kill. Here it is even more significant because the threat is against the family unit. The penalty or sanction as I have said in other places signifies how serious the offence is. The heavier the penalty the more serious the offence. In any event - even in that culture - where an eye for an eye was common - meaning by the way - that the penalty should always equal the offence - a death threat and death amount to the same. Even as it does in our legal systems.
If my children - as adults threatened to kill my wife - or cursed her in that sense - would amount to domestic abuse. In our culture - that is almost anathema these days - and it would hardly be up to me to make any decision - the police would become involved and they would insist upon the maximum penalty - whether they got it or not is a different matter. And me - if my adult children threatened to kill me or my wife - I would insist that the law be carried out. I would also ask for mercy for them - but then again it would depend upon how serious their offence was against me or my wife.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The biblical mythologies justify everything for some people.Advanced species hey?We haven't really left the cave.Whatever do you mean by such a broad and generalised statement?In our modern world we justify the murder of millions of unborn babies on the basis that it is inconvenient to some.But we are talking biblical aren't we? We are talking about a god that loves us aren't we? A god that tells us to turn the other cheek and orders _ "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" _. Stop trying to contextualise vile actions of an ancient god with the 21st century practices of modern man. Muslims do this persistently to excuse and justify the vile commands of Muhammad and Allah.
As I said, I don't have to justify anything to you or to anyone in this modern world - because the 21st century is the most vile and murderous evil killers of unborn babies - more so than any in the biblical times.
For me to justify what God is before you justify yourself is like Hitler asking me to justify why the Americans killed german soldiers.
The Americans might have done evil - but compared to Hitler, they were saints - and it does not matter how you attempt to spin the bible - none of the deaths in that come close to what the 21st century progressive does to justify the slaughter of unborn babies every year. You simply have no leg to stand on. Until you admit that abortion is evil - and murderous - then I will never feel the need to justify any of the horrors in the bible that you think are there.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The biblical mythologies justify everything for some people.Advanced species hey?We haven't really left the cave.Whatever do you mean by such a broad and generalised statement?In our modern world we justify the murder of millions of unborn babies on the basis that it is inconvenient to some.But we are talking biblical aren't we? We are talking about a god that loves us aren't we? A god that tells us to turn the other cheek and orders _ "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" _. Stop trying to contextualise vile actions of an ancient god with the 21st century practices of modern man. Muslims do this persistently to excuse and justify the vile commands of Muhammad and Allah.
No you are. I am saying that the modern mind has no justifiable or moral right to condemn anyone from any other age when it justifies the murder of millions unborn babies on the basis that it is an inconvenience. While the modern person can justify such a vile crime every year, it simply does not have any moral stands about any other culture or age.
As for what the muslims do, I can hardly care because it is the so called modern and progressive morality of today - of those that you agree with that are vile and evil. And as such it means you are hardly fit to stand there and judge anything else. You are the proverbial person who sits there and attempts to pull out the splinter of someone else - while the whole time you have this great big log in your eye. It is you who has to justify why anyone should care what you say about morality - when our modern society leaves everyone else for dead when it comes to justifying evil.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The biblical mythologies justify everything for some people.Advanced species hey?We haven't really left the cave.
Whatever do you mean by such a broad and generalised statement?
In our modern world we justify the murder of millions of unborn babies on the basis that it is inconvenient to some.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
God said that all the first borns in Egypt would die, including the israelites, unless they sacrificed a lamb and smeared the blood on their door frame.
Isn't the purpose clear? It is asking the people of Egypt and the people of Israel a question of loyalty. Many in the nation of Israel wanted to be out of slavery and others were not sure. God was going to release his people who wanted to be freed - and he was making it very clear - a line in the sand. As such it was not a random killing despite your suggestion. Inherited sin is a realistic thing. You might think it is nothing - but it an important consideration - especially when the inherited sin is treason - and loyalty.
People in the West today are thrown into prison when they are disloyal to the state. In fact this is what it is like all around the world. The fact was back in those days and really up until very recent in human history - everywhere in every state - the death penalty was the only remedy for treason - although sometimes the interpretation of the death penalty equaled exile or life in prison or transportation. And it a fact that when people were disloyal to the crown - that not only were the individuals killed but all of their family and friends. Again - this was not unusual. In fact in China it still happens - and Russia and North Korea. The bible is not the product of 21st Century morals - thank God. It is the product of the times it was written in. God is eternal and his moral principles are timeless. What we think is moral in the 21st century will not be constant for the rest of eternity. I for instance agree with the death penalty and I am a criminal lawyer. Yet, I don't think as a society we are mature enough or evolved enough to deal with it properly.
what was the purpose of this? is it cool for God to kill in such a random way because of inherited sin? or what is the basis for God's decision? why would God even orchestrate this system? was this a literal story that happened? what is the skeptic and atheist view of all this?
I don't care what the atheistic skeptic position is.
also why do you go to lengths to deny whether God really does kill infants in some instances, when there are so many other examples of God doing just that that aren't debateable?
Actually I don't go to any particular lengths at all. What I do think is that when God kills infants it is justified - and that it is never random. There are places where God clearly indicates to his people to kill infants - but also there are other places where infants are killed that God is not pleased with. Think of the slaughter of Jewish babies in the time of Moses birth and then later on in the time of Jesus' birth.
I think that all things are debatable - especially if it is going to be used as a means of destroying God's character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we identify an objective truth (other than a mathematical truth or a tautology)?
ah yes - now that is a good question. I don't know why it needs to be differentiated from a mathematical truth or a tautology.
Also it was meant to read objective. Phylisphical "truths" are subjective.
Ok - I disagree. I think philosophical truths may be subjective and may be objective depending upon how the truth is formulated.
E.G. It is self evident that we exist here in the 21st century. I know this objectively. Although admittedly it is also subjective. But how I can be sure that I am not a person in another person's dream? How can I be sure I am not merely a character in someone's book? How can I be sure that the Matrix movie is incorrect in its assumptions? How do I know for sure that I am not having some psychological episode and am sitting in a mental hospital? I cannot conduct scientific tests to determine this -
I take the position therefore that it is an objective truth, knowing full well that perhaps another situation is occurring, that I am sitting at my computer here in the 21st Century.
Some things we know instinctively - or from experience - or from knowledge that we are told. I am a male - how do I know? Well I look at my physical body and identify certain parts of my anatomy that are male parts. Do I feel male? ????? What does that even mean? Some identify as a male - even though they are in a female's body. Honestly, I find that difficult to understand. Why? Because what does a male feel like in the inside? is it that we desire sex more than females? Is it that we feel more likely to be protective? Is it because we are attracted to females? What is it? Is it because I like to fight? Or to argue? Or because I can only do one thing at a time? Or because I like to eat meat? How does someone feel male? Or female? See I think that what is objective has got lost in our society.
It is an objective fact that males are males and females are females. Of course some people are born with two sets of genitals. A very small part of society. Yet they exist. Do they feel both male and female? Again, what does a female feel like? Is it because they can cry for no discernable reason? Or they are more likely to nurture? Or they like wearing dresses? Or they like to cook? Or they want someone to protect them? Or because they can do a dozen things at once? I think the most rational reason is because they have female parts. But again objectively - this has got lost in the subjective.
Our world has changed. I said this in another topic and I think it is true. We no longer value objective truths - we give lip service to science - but no one really uses it anymore except to say - look at the science - whatever that means. The science says - males are males and females are females. Yet this is not satisfactory for people who see gender as a means of racism.
You asked at the OP - a subjective question - because you asked individuals to explain to you their reasoning for why they dismiss other religions. Now on one hand this was a subjective posit - because you were trying to ascertain why people arrive at different places and that is fine. Yet on the other hand you wanted to use it as an exercise to demonstrate how dumb all of these methodologies were.
I suggested to you that the methodology I in part use is reason and deduction. and I provided a rationale for why I can without too much difficulty dismiss 90 % of the world's religions and worldviews simply on the basis of their own positions. Now to be consistent with your OP, that is all I need to do. I also managed to put within that 90% atheism and secularism. I think that they as worldviews ought to be dismissed for exactly the same reason as the others. Yet, this is because I am committed to objective science and its methodologies and I take the view that those 90% cannot commit fully to them. And despite sometimes giving lip service to it - our society demonstrates over and over again - its rejection of science which is objective in favour of a science which permits subjectiveness to rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Phylosyphical "truths" are rarely if ever subjective. There are enough different and often mutually exclusive denominations of christianity that I'm not sure it can be said to have one objectively correct standard interpretation.
For whatever reason I misread your first sentence. I read "objective" rather than "subjective". In other words I agree with the view that philosophical truths are objective.
In relation to Christianity and the different denominations - I am not saying that any or even all correct - but they are making the claim of objective truth as opposed to subjective truth and therefore deserves further attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
o offence - But I did identify a methodology. It is reason and logic. I even went so far as to demonstrate the logical self-contradiction within eastern religions very premises. Any religion or worldview that suggests there is no objective truth is therefore false. And it is false objectively as a matter of logic.Many religions claim to be revealed objective truth. None has so far as I know met their burden of proof for this claim. In fact it would seem that the o ly objective truths human beings can know are either mathematical truths or self constructed tautology.
LOL! But I am not claiming anything to be an objective religion or worldview. I am merely identifying a methodology of deductive reasoning based on reason. And if a religion claims it does not believe in objective truth - it is therefore not worth pursuing to see whether it is truth objectively. If a religion or worldview claims that it does have objective truth then it is worth pursuing the question. Your view that no one has met your burden of proof is unfortunately your subjective position, not objectively so.
I disagree with your doctrine about scientific theory being the closest thing to fact. That is simply an assertion. Just because scientific theory is useful does not make it infallible - not does it make it the right tool for finding truth.How are you communicating with me right now? Is a god, demon or angel carrying our messages magically to each other? Or are we using devices engineered by observing and using scientific principles learned through the rigorous application of the scientific method? I will not trust the supernatural for answers at the very least until its efficacy in discovering, describing and most importantly utilizing facts for the betterment of mankind is shown to he equal with the scientific method's track record. That being said if we cannot use fine method of testing religions to falsify their claims we cannot arrive at any sensible conclusions about their claims unless we start with skepticism and simply dismiss all untested/untestable claims equally.
I am communicating to you because I have faith that reason and logic are part of this world we live in. I don't take the view that it is god or angels or other things carrying it to you. Although as an aside- I would take the view that if God did not exist - then we would not exist and therefore we would not be communicating.
Our devices perhaps went through some application of some form of a method - scientific - that is not something you can prove. I have so far in our discussion not attempted to rely upon supernatural for answers. And given my definition of supernatural - I probably wont either. But I do believe in the concept of REVELATION, both special and general. But for the record since I believe logic and reason exist because objective truth exists - revelation will not contradict either.
I don't believe it is possible to test religions to falsify claims. Just as we cannot falsify atheism to prove its falseness.
Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic.Phylosyphical "truths" are rarely if ever subjective. There are enough different and often mutually exclusive denominations of christianity that I'm not sure it can be said to have one objectively correct standard interpretation.
Nonsense. Philosophical truths are truths that have been rigorously tested because they are based in logic and reasoning. If the above philosophical argument is not true, then science and its methodologies are untrue. If reason cannot be used for deduction then there is no point using science.
Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic. I suspect the real issue here is that atheism is fundamentally a worldview which promotes subjective truth and rejects objective truth.
Eastern Religions promote subjective truth and relativism, such as superstition, magic, and deception as virtuesSuperstition and magic... like miracles and prophecies?
The difference between miracles and prophecies from superstition and magic is the difference between objective truth and subjective truth.
It is the same difference in many respects between determinism and free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok - but just to be clear - I do not think you are neutral. And the reason is because neutrality is a myth that presumes superiority. And that means basically, a presumption that refuses to provide a mechanism to disprove yourself.Whether you are right or wrong about this it does not apply in this case as I have not actually made any claim that needs to be addressed. I have only asked questions and clarified some of the terms used in those questions.
Excuse me for noting, but you have an implied position - which must exist in order for you to ask questions in relation to other religions. It is not an express claim - yet for you to respond to any person's claims requires implicitly a position which you are standing upon. You do not live in a vacuum. Your questions arise from your unexpressed claim. Again I am not trying to be difficult - but in my opinion, even this kind of denial implies you think you are on a higher mountain and can see more clear than the rest of us.
As for your previous (and much longer post) you said a lot but you never actually gave a particular methodology for making the determinations you did about eastern religions. What is the standard being used here?
No offence - But I did identify a methodology. It is reason and logic. I even went so far as to demonstrate the logical self-contradiction within eastern religions very premises. Any religion or worldview that suggests there is no objective truth is therefore false. And it is false objectively as a matter of logic.
I would go further - any religion or worldview which claims non-exclusivity is false. As a matter of logic. This leaves by deduction only worldviews which claim exclusivity. Which one of course is a different matter.
How do we actually falsify the claim? Because that is how one actually goes about seeking the truth. You try to eliminate all possible hypotheses and though you may never be 100% certain of anything if a testable hypothesis stands up to independent scrutiny (in the spiritual community that would have to be by competing religions which is why your help could be particularly valuable in this respect) then it graduates into scientific theory which is the closest thing to a fact that science can support. For example few people doubt the germ theory of medicine because it is easily independently verifiable. It would seem that infections are caused by viruses and bacteria rather than by demons, gods or space rays for example.
No offence - but now you are expressing doctrines. I understand what it means to falsify a claim. That is why I said what I did to you in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1600/post-links/202944.
Nevertheless, there are different ways to go about seeking the truth. If I want to find out what a particular calculation is - I go to my calculator. DO I know it is truth for sure? No - but I trust in faith that the people who made the calculator is correct. I am not a mathematician. But I am comfortable it is the truth - and objectively so. I don't think for instance it is simply subjective truth.
Deduction is a methodology. I don't have a problem with that - question is - where do we start and with what questions. I started above with the question of truth and objective truth. I think it is a fair place to start - not the only one. and perhaps I started before that - with other premises. Do all people need to start at the same place?
I honestly do not understand what you mean within the brackets. What is a spiritual community? Many people who identify a spiritual do not identify as religious. Many identify as atheists.
I disagree with your doctrine about scientific theory being the closest thing to fact. That is simply an assertion. Just because scientific theory is useful does not make it infallible - not does it make it the right tool for finding truth.
This in particular is questionable to me.Hence I do not like superstition, magic and deception.The reason it is untrue is that ot is a deception is a circular argument. I need a better modus operandi for eliminating false positives than that or we can't really discount any gods at all.
Sorry - but you will have to demonstrate why it is circular argument. The way I put it - was in essence
Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic.
Eastern Religions promote subjective truth and relativism, such as superstition, magic, and deception as virtues
Therefore I am not attracted to these kinds of things.
My position is - again - any worldview which asserts at its core that there is no such thing as objective truth is self-contradictory in logic and therefore as such can be dismissed as the one true religion or worldview. Deductively, this leaves religions and worldviews which assert objective truth as a reality. I also assert therefore logically that any religion or world view that does not assert exclusivity as a self contradiction and therefore can be deducted from the possibility of being the one true religion or worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am neutral in regards to any supernatural claim that has not met its burden of proof. I'm afraid you aren't being persecuted here. I would approach a mormon or a hindu or a rastafarian just the same.
Ok - but just to be clear - I do not think you are neutral. And the reason is because neutrality is a myth that presumes superiority. And that means basically, a presumption that refuses to provide a mechanism to disprove yourself. Also I don't feel as though I am being persecuted. Stop saying things like that. I dont see myself as a maryr or being persecuted or a victim. I just want us to be on the same floor - but you keep putting yourself on a higher mountain. until you see that your worldview is not neutral - then we cannot reach a common place of agreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It comes down to how you understand or determine what is right and what is wrong. What is the measure of these things? And why?Since this is what it really comes down to I thought we could begin here. Firstly I am not talking about right or wrong as in ethically but only as in based on observably true fact or not based on obssrvably true fact. Impricice language is unhelpful since meaning is not always as implicit as we think. That clarification out of the way and ignoring Christianity entirely for the moment how do you eliminate the Vishnu as the true divine? How have you eliminate taoism as the best path to spiritual truths? How do you know that some as yet unproposed god(s) whose message is not yet revealed to us did not create the world with his word? What methodology are you using to evaluate these claims in as unbiased a manner as possible?
For me I am a rational person. I like logic and reason. Culturally I going to be attracted to things that make sense - have design and can be observed and have concrete applications. The Far eastern religions tend towards an experiential understanding of truth. Things like mysticism, relativism, secret initiation rites. Hence I do not like superstition, magic and deception. Probably, at least in one sense, because of my distaste for such things I would not go looking for an objective understanding of truth in a melting pots of religious views that do not actually believe in objective truth. And nor does it seem rational to do so. If someone only believes in subjective truth and not objective truth - then it makes no sense to seek objective truth there - unless of course the objective reality is there is no objective truth. And if that is the case - then logically it produces a self-contradiction which at least from my cultural perspective is nonsense and therefore can be discounted.
Of course however, this is not to suggest that within the realms of reason that subjective truth is not helpful nor correct. As a determiner of objective truth, not helpful, but in the realms of other things quite helpful. The Far East mystics have some redeeming features - for instance they have not yet divorced religion from everything else. Unlike the West, they still worldview and religion as the same. This is why they still see atheism as religious - and that the notion of secular has a far narrower definition than in the West. Since their world view is at least holistic - not so individualistic they can also at times appreciate the concept of covenant. Although they lose sight of the individual within this due to their worldview.
This is a start of a conversation. It is not comprehensive. Nevertheless, I don't want to write a book - let's address some of these issues - or ask others if satisfied. But please - there are many worldviews - and my starting point is always going to be with reality from where I sit.
I look at the world and I see evil and I see good. I see some people doing things selfishly. And others doing things altruistically. I take the view that most if not all people are sincerely trying to the right thing according to their understanding of the world. I don't think people tend towards doing evil things for the sake of being evil. But there are evil people who do evil things. And there are good people who do evil things. Is a pedophile evil because of what he does to one child? Even if everything else he does is magnificent? Is someone good because although they might rob banks all their lives and spend 80 % of their life in prison - but never hurts a woman or a child?
What explains human nature best as we look around? Is it really about survival of the fittest? Or do laws and cultural norms come into what helps us survive? Is there purpose for a life or is there not? Do we just find our own purpose? Is Adam Smith correct about "people who do things for self interest? Is Karl Marx correct in that every religion is just an opium for the masses? Are we fundamentally good or evil? OR a mix? And why? Environment - nurture - biology - genetics - deterministic - free will - randomness - choice.
Every worldview - including secular worldview (yes in all of its very non-belief and non-unified forms) seeks questions to these answers - why? Because I think in sense - because we are human - and not merely an animal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I did not think that you were intentionally trying to have a go at someone else. I think it arose however, quite naturally and that perhaps is because you do hold certain prejudices. Even if you do think you are neutral.
Created: