Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
T'was the serpent, not Satan, that tempteth Eve...
It was probably John Milton's 'Paradise Lost' that made the confusion wide spread. Great poem!
Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
@Dr.Franklin
A theory I quite like is that Sodom and Gomorah are cities that were already ruins when the Hebrews discovered them and over time a legendary explanation of them developed - ie that they were destroyed by god because the people who lived there were wicked. It woudn't take long for people to forget it was a just a story or theory and consider it to be the truth. The towns identified in the article (Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira) were destroyed before 2000 BCE, ie 5-600 years before the Hebrews occupied the area.
Similarly, cities are recorded in the bible as being destroyed by Joshua's invasion of Canaan but their ruins have been dated to much a much earlier time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
@Dr.Franklin
I hope there isn't anyone here who thinks Job is a 'true story'!
Other than a passing reference in Zechariah this is the only OT book with Satan in it and its plain that Satan is a loyal servant of God, albeit a high-status one and he and god are almost matey!
As a mere servant, Satan can only act against Job because God grants him the power to do so, which God does seemingly for no reason other than the bragging rights.
I suppose it's intended to show how a good yhwhistic Hebrew should behave in the face of ill-fortune.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Strangely nothing like that is mentioned in Exodus! A few extra frogs does get a mention but not a 400mph tsunami......Computer simulations show that the Santorini eruption could have triggered a 600ft-high tidal wave, travelling at about 400 miles an hour, which would have been 6ft high and a hundred miles long when it reached the Egyptian delta...
Did an exiled yhwhist scribe draw on a folk memory of the effects of an eruption a thousand years before? The effects descibed in the article are rather conectural,and if (as seems likely) the Hebrews weren't even there at the time that seems unlikely to me that it would part of the exiles collective knowledge.
I'm sure that Egypt was not unaffected by the santorini eruption, but I'm not convinced that the plagues decscibed in Exodus are based on those effects. But as I have annoyed you, Stephen, many times by saying, there is no way to know for sure. But I'm sticking with my 'totally made up' theory for now at least!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It may well be that not identifying the UR with the God of Abraham damns my soul to eternal hell, but that doesn't alter the fact that you haven't proven that the UR is that god. Is it really foolish to not believe what is not proven?
Created:
Posted in:
The OT probably began to be a written scripture in exilic times. Over time it became - amongst other things - a saga of the Hebrew people from the begining of the world to the time of the second temple. It was a vast undertaking, probably unprecedented in scale.
One problem was how to weave together slightly (or sometimes very!) different traditions and versions into a single story, and on the whole the editors and redactors did a good job, but there are still clear signs of the OT being 'cobbled' together.
The first and best known is gen 1 and gen 2, which are different accounts of creation, clumsily(?) linked by Gen 2:4. Just as well known is the ambiguity between the number of animals on Noahs ark - was it 2 of each, or 2 of some and 7 of others?
The story of Abraham passing his wife off as his sister appears 3 times, gen 12:10, gen 20:1 and gen 26:6.
There are 3 different accounts of Saul's ascent to kingship, and Goliath is killed by David in 1 Sam 17 and by Elhanan in 2 Sam 21.
2 kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are word-for-word identical chapters!
There are loads other 'doublets' in the text, even if you ignore Chronicles, because that was a later rewrite of the material.
More thorough analysts than me identified 4 'strands' (JED and P) which are intertwined in the OT we have today. I can't think of a good reason to doubt that is essentially true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Our complaint is that you seem to think that your argument to 'prove' that something (an 'ultimate reality') underpins ordinary reality also proves all the other things about the abrahamic god.
You incorrectly assert that atheists deny reality when the real problem is that equating the UR with God (in the full sense of the capital-G word) is a leap of faith, not logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'd be the last to deny it. I usually link to wikipedia, but not to say what I post is true (it doesn't do that) but to indicate it's a fairly standard and mainstream stuff.
I've not read a mainstream scholar explicitly saying the plagues of Egypt were made up to bolster the morale of the babylonian exiles so I can't use an appeal to authority about that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I mean only that Petrie's views may not represent the latest thinking based on the most recent research and discoveries.
As usual, one can always find an 'expert' that supports any view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't think he does... he's been dead for nearly 80 years.The famed British Egyptologist Sir Matthew Flinders Petrie holds the reverse view:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It found this:
I don't know if that is what you had in mind.
I didn't see that program, and it's not available to watch anymore AFAIK. I suppose it's possible my imaginative scribe (himself a product of my imagination!) was inspired by tales traceable to a natural disaster a thousand years before the exile, but the interpreation as plagues imposed on the Egyptians by yhwh to force the release of their hebrew slaves is pure fiction, as there do not appear to have been any Hebrew slaves in Egypt amongst other problems.
If the plagues were not mentioned in the bible there would be nothing to suggest any such disaster happened. There is no sign of disruption or dislocation in Egyptian records or those of their neighbours, although it has to be said such records are scant! The only evidence for the egyptian plagues is the OT, written in babylon a thousand years after the alleged events.
There have been several eruptions since santorini that do not seem to have generated much in the way of long-lived legends. The eruption of vesuivuis destroyed two entire cities but was soon completely forgotten for one and a half millennia. I think the volcano theory has more to do with selling books than being a very credible scenario.
IMO!
Created:
There is good and 'mediocre' instances of all genres.
Most classical music that is still played is played because it's good.. the ordinary stuff and its less inspired composers get forgotten except by speciaist music historians. No doubt some 'pop' music will stand the test of time, but most won't.
'Because i got high' is not as good as Bach's Toccata in d-minor, 'Bridge over troubled water' is better than some Schubert lieder...
Created:
Posted in:
The priestly scribes who wrote the OT weren't concerned with accuracy or truth - they were writing propaganda, their aim being to maintain the existence of the Jewish people.Then it would have been much easier and accurate and truthful to write about their curran state instead of inventing what you call a "parallel". And if it were "paralel" this goes even further to indicate a possibility that there were Israelites in Egypt slaves or not. i.e it had to be "parallel" with something. They did go to Egypt after all on the invite of Pharaoh at one point; as long as they were 'herdsmen' and not 'shepherds'.
The priests fired up the exiles by telling them they were a 'kick ass 'people with a kick ass god - things only went wrong when they strayed from that god. The exile was presented as a punishment for apostasy - the egyptian episode promised it was only temporary and would end with a triumphant return to the promised land.
Of course I don't have the minutes of the editorial meetings where what went in and what didn't was thrashed out... maybe at one such meeting obviously the priests couldn't agree on which version of the creation myth to include so they both went in, as chapters 1 and 2 of genesis, as a compromise!
Do I know all that's true? No! But I think it's a highly likely scenario,given what we know of history and human nature. Re the
OP, I don't think it's worth trying to explain how the plagues of Egypt could be natural phenomenon - they, like the whole egyptian episode, are most likely completely fictional.
IMO, of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
You said what I said - only shorter and better!
I don't think it will have the slightest effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Obviously you didn't read the article linked to or you would have noticed that I lifted that sentence from the end of it. It was a straight copy and paste job.
I wanted to see if anybody would notice and I looked forward to saying it's not my opinion - it was the author of the artice saying it doesn't 'prove exodus' as the OP claimed.
I don't base my views on what it says in wikipedia. I think I've made it clear in previous posts that I think the 'history' in the OT is essentially fiction until near the very end. I base that on long - if sporadic - study of such things. I gave my personal take in post #18 which I'm fairly sure is not in wikipedia!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.So what is atheism towards this God?Denial of reality. The embrace of delusion. It is foolishness.
I think no atheists deny 'this god'. The god denied by atheists is any sort of intelligent or conscious entity that hears prayers and judges the souls of the dead, sending some to heaven and the others to hell.
You conflate reality with God (capital-G) because you can 'prove' that reality exist (as if anybody denied it!). But reality isn't disputed by atheists. What atheists dispute is - or instance - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.".
Atheists don't deny the existence of reality. We deny the existence of an entity 'that so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.'
So your argument is irrelevant, which is why we find your incessant repetition of it so annoying. We aren't arguing about the underpinning of reality - we are arguing about 'gods', particularly the Arahamic, capital-G God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Dr.Franklin
It is widely accepted that the Egyptian captivity eoisode is mythical. Wlkipedia states:
"there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Ancient Egypt, or even lived there.[5][6][7]Scholars broadly agree that the Exodus has no historical basis and that the Israelites originated in Canaan and from the Canaanites.[5][8]"
Hence I view the plagues as pure fiction, as I wrote in a post yesterday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My theory is that the Egyptian episode was written (or re-written) during the babylonian exile to serve as a parallel to the Israelites current state, ie prisoners in a foreign land.
The story offers the hope that what had befallen the Egyptians in the time of Moses would also befall their current, Babylonian captors. That was of course, conditional on the exiles remaining loyal to yhwh and his priests! To maintain morale (and national identity)the priests promised that a Moses-like Messiah would arise, defeat the babylonians and the Exiles would return to their homeland, as had (they said) happened before.
Some Jewish scribe had a field day, wishing a series of disasters to beset the hated Babyonians via their Egyptian proxies! In fact the Babylonians did fall - to the Persians, and the Persian king Cyrus is honoured as a Messiah in the late books of the OT (eg Isaiah 45:1). Although the Babylonians did not suffer any plagues, Cyrus permitted the Exiles to return to Jerusalem which became a theocratic province of the Persian empire as described in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Dunno. I just copy/pasted the last sentence of the article, just above where it says
"To learn more about evidence for Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, read the full article “Exodus Evidence: An Egyptologist Looks at Biblical History” in the May/June 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
However, while this evidence certainly adds weight to the historical accuracy of elements of the Biblical account, it can’t be used to “prove” that every detail of the Exodus story in the Bible is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Umm, glad to be of help? If that the right response?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Dunno. I don't read his posts that often and when I do it's usually just a skim.
I suppose I'd block someone who bombarded me with unwanted PMs (I assume blocking prevents PMs going through)but I don't see the point of blocking otherwise. I prefer 'blanking'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If wasn't there then I can only suggest you join the Calvinists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
To state the obvious, have you checked between the cushions on the sofa?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Indeed, but the natural supposition is that it is an idiom derived from Jesus' crucifixion, but Matthew has Jesus saying it well before there is any hint of his death.
I don't think there was anyone recording Jesus' words in shorthand at the time. Surely what we get in the text are reconstructed paraphrases, not verbatim transcriptions of his precise words. I think Matthew may have slipped up and inserted an anachronistic idiom - but it doesn't matter one bit tothesense of the passage so I'm not going to read too much into it. It's ust somerthing I noticed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
" wahaabist Islam" is still Islam They (wahaabists) are not a different sect of Islam as much as the western governments,leaders, media and now you like to push it. Yes, Saudi Arabia is funding all the above as is Iran funding terrorism, and our western governments are not doing anything about it, are they. They appear to be encouraging it and we, the indigenous people, are called "islamophobic" and racist for airing our concerns that they keep importing more people from Islamic countries disguised are 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees' who have no intention of integrating with the "dirty animal pagan unbelieving kuffar".
I'm glad we have established a little common ground! I think some of the posters here are being a little complacent about the consequences of the increasing impact of Islamism on British life. Muslims make up only 1% of America's popution and the US has other, more pressing social issues sotheir perspective is different. Here in the uk traditional race/colour xenophobia is almost a thing of the past but tension between the idigenous population and Muslims - including second and third generation Muslims - has ratcheted up alarmingly over the last few decades and doing so at an increasing rate.
While spectacular and violent attacks are still rare, low level petty stuff (name calling, Mosque windows being smashed etc) is a constant background hum. There aren't no-go areas, but there area places where wearing a mini-skirt or wearing a burqa is 'non-neutral'.
It's no practical use to blame one side or the other, or for one side to blame the other. What we have is a classic 'vicious spiral' of mutual distrust and suspicion.
My concern is that we get into a situation where we no longer consider people as individuals but as undiferntiated members of a group. That is we don't worry if a person is a law-abiding regular guy or a anti-social psychopath but whether they are a muslim or not. Prejudice is pre-judice, that is 'judging before'. It is perhaps odd that it is the left that supports individualism and the right that supports bee-hive mentality in this regard!
I don't think Britain is ever going to be an Islamic state under Sharia law. But in the meantime a sizeable number of british citizens are coming under the thrall of an odious ideology. Islam does not have to be homophobic, misogynistic or intolerant any more than Christianity has to be Creationist.
Ideally, I would prefer Muslims dropped Islam altogether and adopted rationalist humanism. But that is too idealistic, even for an optimist like me! But there are 'softer' forms of Islam than wahaabism - unfortunately they don't have Saudi billions promoting them and westerners like Stehphen and Tommy Robinson agreeing that only the most egregious forms of Islam are legitimate - they should ask to be on the Saudi's pay roll!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
An interesting reference to a cross occurring at a point in the story months or years ahead of Jesus' crucifixion. I wonder what the apostles would have made of 'take up his cross' at the time.Matthew 10:38 and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I'm the boss so I only define policy - it is for others to implement it!
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Why worry?
Matthew 15:11 "A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.”
and 17-18:"Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It is and I happen to agree with you and the muslim parents protesting. My point was and still is, the hypocrisy of the left wing libtards such as prossser. If these were Christian parents protesting, there would be every homosexual in the land ( and prosser) turning out to confront these parents and supporting the teachers. And there would be accusations of them being "homophobic" and spitting and in their faces and worse. And I don't doubt for one minute that many of the Christian parents would be arrested charged and imprisoned or fined for "hate crime", which has happened to christians on a few occasions now. And the clear point that these muslim parents have made is that one cannot be a muslim and homosexual, so it is their religious beliefs they are pushing here.
Hang on... I strongly support the teachers on this and I'm sure I've never posted anything to indicate otherwise. My support and advocacy for islam is all in your head, Stephen. I'd love it if Muslims gave up Islam and took up rationalist humanism (or the CofE, which is almost the same thing). But that isn't realistic in any reasonable frame yet social tensions are bad now and likely to deteriorate further.
The populist right's quick-fix solution is to get rid of Muslims. Merely halting immigration is of course not sufficient to do that, whether they are truly prepared to take the steps required is open to question.
I think there is a better way forward than deporting or forcibly sterilsiing a signiicant number of British citizens and that is to encourage Muslims to reject conservative forms of Islam and adopt more progressive forms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Says who? you? Do not kid yourself. Muslims believe the quran is the true unalterable and last word of Allah and cannot be altered because it is "perfect".
That doesn't mean they agree on how the text is to be interpreted! Whether Q8:12 (for example) commands muslims to be violent towards infidels depends on which scholars interpretation you take. Violent or pacifist, they all claim their interpretation is the true one!
In Sunni Islam there is no central authority to rule on what is orthodox and what is heretical. What has happened over the last few decades is that conservative/fundamentalist interpretations of Islam have become increasingly influential. But unless Allah is real and has plans for us there can be no such thing as a correct interpretation.
It is alleged - with some credibility - that the rise of fundamentalist intrerpretations of Islam is at least partly due to Saudi Arabia using its great oil wealth to export 'wahaabist' Islam, for instance by building and funding mosques, schools and madrasas worldwide. Or is that sectarian propaganda? I can't be sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not a framer of laws but it is illegal for a parent to smack their child, so why not a law about over-controlling what a child wears? You are in error if you think that I think things can be fixed without upsetting anybody. I fully accept that some hard-line Muslims are not going to accept any compromise, but then again neither will some non-Muslms. Such a law would not forbid traditional dress but would provide a legal remedy for anyone who is being oppressed by their parent or spouse.How do you believe we go about telling a muslim father that his daughter will be allowed to wear miniskirt whether he likes it or not and whether it is against his religion of culture or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You never asked but I don't approve of religious dogma influencing what is taught in schools. I am not sure how important it is to introduce matters of sexual orientation to primary school kids, but it sets a bad precedent for, say, the teaching of Darwinian evolution.They are not asking though are they. They are demanding and forcing their strict religious practice onto others. Just like they are demanding that (in this instance rightly so) these schools abolish these lessons that go against their religion. This would be the 'tolerance' 3RU7AL and the prossers are alway spouting about.
I have not and will not ever advocate appeasement - but I recognise how hard it is to balance non-appeasement and riding rough-shod over dissenting sensibilities.
I think the correct attitude to Islam is 'tough love'! I think the Muslim community can have sharia courts, but on the model of the Jewish Beth Din. The wearing of hijab and burqa should be neither enforced by self-appointed muslim 'religious police' by nor banned by secular law. Liberal secularism will win because it is a bettersystem than religious conservatism. The hard part is to remain liberal and secular and not seccumb to illiberal sectarian intolerance.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It is also interesting that Eusebius said this in his History of the Church. "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages”when referring to the bloodline lists of Matthew 1:2-17 and and Luke 3:23-38.
I looked this up. Eusebius is 4th century and the line quoted introduces his preferred resolution of the discrepancies between the genealogies, so this debate has been going on a long time!
As I see it, one chooses between a) Matthew and Luke independently 'creatively' expanding on Mark or b) one of several convoluted resolutions that preserves the inerrancy of the text.
I don't understand the psychology that makes anyone take the latter course - but then again I doubt they understand the psychology of unbelievers!
I think very few people sit down to write something with the intention of being completely objective and unbiased. 'Everything is propaganda' (especially posts on DArt!)... assuming an author is out to persuade (not to inform) is a good guideline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"So that as to those that are regenerated [in Baptism], although they must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens, what concerneth regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, but rather impossible, that all should know what the Holy Spirit manifesteth to those alone who are exercised in wisdom and holiness."So the conclusion here is that it is not fit for unbelievers and heretics to interpret scripture. Scripture belongs to The Orthodox Church, and it is what The Church teaches about scripture and its meaning that matters.
Actually, what it says is that ordinary, rank and file believers only need to know the essentals, i.e. "Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens, what concerneth regeneration and judgment" but the deeper meaning of scripture is for "those alone who are exercised in wisdom and holiness.", which I suppose means properly trained priests.
I wonder what secrets your church is keeping away friom you, mopac. Of course, you can't know!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
“Now Jesus himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph”. Luke 3:23.KJVThe son of Joseph? Not the son of God? Luke is not only explicit in what he says; he is adamant about what he says and is sure of his sources:
KJV in full reads "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed)[sic] the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
So Jesus was only supposed to be the son of Joseph! Of course if Joseph was not Jesus' father that makes a nonsense of the genealogy linking him to David in the following verses!
I think that sort of thing is inexplicable. As Luke was obviously not stupid I doubt he didn't spot the inconsistency, so why didn't he fix or hide it? Or at least try to? I have no idea, but lots of other people have had ideas of varing complexity and credibility. I'm think it likely that luke wanted to to write that a) Jesus was virgin born and b) a descendant of David, through the traitional male line. Luke couldn't think of way to recocile the two so simply didn't bother, relying on the absence of much critical analysis in those days! Or people can choose one of the many other conjectural reconciliations - there's loads on the 'net.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It was a subtle flame, but only Mopac responded to the suggestion David was gay.
There almost certainly was a king david, but I don't think we can treat the Bible's account of him as reliable history.
David and Jonathan were often portrayed homoerotically in art (cf Michaeangelo's David and Donatello's David, also
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Frederic_Leighton_-_Jonathan_token_to_David_-_c.1868.jpg) but there's no guarantee Jonathan even existed.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
In luke, an angel speaks to Mary:
Lk 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
In Matthew, an angel speaks to Joseph:
Mt 1:20 “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
It seems clear enough that the Holy Spirit had the role of father to Mary's child.
Jesus was the Son of God. The more generic 'sons of god' was used for believers. Believers were sons, but they weren't the son.
In Jn 3:16 the gospel writer avoids ambiguity: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
The alternative view - that Jesus was adopted rather than fathered by God - was declared heretical in the 2nd century.
I better add that the above is my understanding of mainstream theology - I don't believe in gods!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The David and Jonathan verse is the closest the Bible gets to not condemning homosexuality, and it's not that close!
In reality, the bible consistently condems homosexuality. Nor does it condemn slavery. The bible reflects the moral viiews of its human authors from 2-6000 years ago. We have moved on ethically, but the written word can't change. Scripture-based religions suffer because the 'letter' becomes more important than the 'spirit' and orthodoxy rules over reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Don't mistake anyone who is not right-wing a 'leftwing fawning libtard' nor anyone who is not cruedely anti-Islam an apologist. I am not aware of any example of a country being islamified by the methods you gave. I am not sure if you are suggesting it is a conscious process - you can clear that up later.It has gained traction because of muslims immigrating to foreign lands and setting up "communities " of their own. They elect other muslims to represent them. They gain positions in high office in their adopted country and they out breed the indigenous population. That is why it has "gained traction" and anyone Except an leftwing fawning libtard apologist such as yourself can see it!
But none of that would happen if people were not attracted to conservative Islam more than they are attracted to more liberal ideologies. If we understood that it would beeasier to know how to counter it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We both know that is like asking if I have stopped beating my wife. You will get tired of asking long before I get tired of not answering - after all, not answering takes no effort at all!
The issue is not whether they are 'moderate' but what are the forces shaping attitudes within and between Muslims and non-Muslims. My target is a situation where -this is only an example - a woman can walk down any street anywhere in Britain wearing a burqa or a mini-skirt and nobody minds.
I am not happy at all that a sizeble chunk of the british population is getting sucked into a form of religion that is homophobic and misogynistic. You,Stephen, don't accept that Islam can be anything but homophoic and misogynistic, but I think religions depend entirely on interpretation and there are geo-political reasons why it is backward-looking (not progressive) forms of Islam that have gained traction over the last few decades, not just in the UK but worldwide. I don't idealise the Muslim community - we are talking compromise, not appeasement or capitualtion by either side.
I get the impression Stephen wants a world divided into hermetically sealed compartments,one for each race and religion. Even if that was desirable it is not possible. The UK is going to be multi-ethnic and multi-faith forever - we better get used to it!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
30 instead of 31 'and a bit' is an error of only about 3%.... IMO it's probably the most accurate thing in the whole bible!
I don't do hidden stuff in the Bible. I remember the fuss over 'ELS' a while back. It sold few books, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't know what you mean. I would only get your context if I understood your context whereas if you simply gave me your argument there is less chance of me missing out on the context since I am talking about slavery right now not used car salesman.
The verse gives a list of sinner-types:
"lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"
Putting slave traders in that list shows that those involved the slave trade were considered to be on the same level as liars and murderers. I think the that the nearest modern equivalent would be the stereotype of dodgy car salesmen, who operate legally but are not noted for their moral rectitude nor held in high regard.
As I said, I couldn't find a verse against slavery per se, but slave trading was equated to other immoral acts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Is it ludicrous that David was a murderer and an adulterer, crimes also punishable by death? Did not David have Uriah the hittite killed because he (David) lusted for Uriah's wife, Bathsheeba?Homosexuality was punishable by death in ancient Israel, so the idea that David and Johnathan were involved in that way is ludicrous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Obviously homosexuality is not condoned by the bible.Go to an Orthodox Priest. Ask questions. Read recommend books. Sit through some liturgies.
I don't need a priest to tell me that the bible does not condone homosexuality.
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death"
is pretty clear even to me.
In the NT paul advises Christians to be celibate, so he wasn't in favour of heterosexual sex either.
"I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me." (1 cor 7:8)
Of course early Christians like Paul believed the world was about to end so there was no point having children so his advice made sort of sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is this referring to a man and another man loving each other?
Well, David and Jonathan were definitely both men! Hey, if there was a verse explicitly praise of mano-a-mano rumpy-pumpy I'd have posted it. 2 sam is as close as I can find.
Simple call them bondservants so that Christians is outlawed from that punishment.
I rather think that it was more that while slavery was accepted, those in the business of buying and selling slaves were considered to be low status and semi-criminals - a bit like used car salesmen today! I doubt many used car salesmen get to heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Quote me a verse that the Bible is for homosexuality.
David to Jonathan:
"...very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
2 Samuel 1:26 (kjv)
Quote me a verse that the Bible states they are against slavery.
I can't find one against slavery per se, but slave trading is equated to other immoral acts.
"lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"
(1 Tim 9-10, niv).
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's lifted from answersingenesis.com
Well, you can believe that if you like, but I believe what the bible says. I reckon fractions are the work of satan, like telephones.
Created:
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
@Dr.Franklin
1 kings 7:23 makes it quite clear pi is exactly 3.
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the identifiable "winners" of recorded history
What is a 'winner'? Millions of people have died peacefully after a pleasant but unremarkable quiet life that left no mark on history. Then there is, say the Emperor Valerian. Becoming a Roman Emperor perhaps makes him a 'winner', but accrding to one account he was killed by havin molten gold poured down his throat. Is that a 'win'? There are countinless other examples of course - Hitler, Mussolini, Sadam Hussein...
I suspect many 'winners' are over-driven and rarely experience peace. Mediocrity may not be glamorous, but what is a good life?
Created: