It's a fairly tough read, but well worth the time and effort. He's considered one of the world's foremost biblical scholars. The New Testament and the People of God is the first in a series of books that covers the historical Jesus, Paul, and the early church. He argues for an epistemology and holistic approach to biblical studies that incorporates history, literary criticism, and theology. His major point that he argues throughout the first book is that you have to understand 1st century Judaism and its worldview in order to understand how Jesus undermined and reinterpreted that worldview. Basically...in order to understand just how controversial and norm changing Jesus was...you have to understand 2nd Temple Judaism, it's own expectations (particularly for deliverance from Roman oppression), and its own way of looking at the world. Wright offers an explanation based on a new concept of "story". Check it out on Amazon. Like I said: not an easy read, but extremely informative and a necessary intro to the 2nd book which focuses entirely on Jesus and the 3rd which focuses entirely on the resurrection.
Right now, I'm reading the second volume of an old edition of The Life of Jesus Critically Examined by Strauss. It is the second volume because the library only got in the second volume instead of the first volume when I ordered it on the interlibrary loan system. Straus died in 1874 so it is obviously really outdated with plenty that modern scholars don't agree with like thinking that Mark wasn't the first Gospel.
Strauss has decent points on the naturalistic tendencies on interpreting some Biblical miracles that are still sometimes seen. For example, interpreting the plagues as mostly being natural in origin. Sure, it might be that some of the plagues are half remembered natural events, but the Bible makes it clear they are miraculous events in the eyes of the authors.
That has always seemed like a hard thing to pin down since the writers of exodus (or all of the bible really) had different ideas about what and why they were writing.
So you have people like the Deuteronomist changing normal events (losing a battle or something) to make it supernatural. Did that person think they were making history or making stuff up or just providing commentary?
Or Jonah, its obviously satire but the writter of Matthew has Jesus quoting it as history. So which is it?
NT Wright speaks to that very point Rock. I had the same sorts of questions, particularly when it comes to Daniel. Wright's argument on is based on a concept of "story" that you may find compelling. I'd recommend that book I referenced earlier: The New Testament and the People of God. His epistemological approach makes sense to me.
Yep, declaring this the best possible world is a consequence of dogma. It's not a provable claim, like a lot of things discussed in this thread.
I think it's pretty clear that this is (at least currently) definitively not the best possible world. In the best possible world people would not starve to death, for example
Uh...
This is clearly the best possible world because God has the power to create anything possible, and the wisdom to know what the best possible world is.
This is the one he created so it must be the best possible world.
Not to mention all the modal ontology you got going on here...
Even granting the first two, the third does not necessarily follow. Why must it have created the best possible world. Why would a god even care? Particularly the Abrahamic god who is really quite a dick, especially to non-believers
If you are stating omnibenevolence, what is your solution to the problem of evil? If you're not, then there's no particular reason to think that this is the best possible world (for us; the "best possible world" from the perspective of a timeless ineffable being might be very different)
Well, I never claimed it was the best possible world for us, just the best possible world.
And, of course, my argument presupposes two things:
1) God is not a dick
2) God knew what he was doing
I always saw the purpose of creation as a test of whether us as free thinking human beings would accept God or reject God. The purpose of life is to be judged at the end of it.
Yep, declaring this the best possible world is a consequence of dogma. It's not a provable claim, like a lot of things discussed in this thread.
I think it's pretty clear that this is (at least currently) definitively not the best possible world. In the best possible world people would not starve to death, for example
Uh...
This is clearly the best possible world because God has the power to create anything possible, and the wisdom to know what the best possible world is.
This is the one he created so it must be the best possible world.
Not to mention all the modal ontology you got going on here...
Even granting the first two, the third does not necessarily follow. Why must it have created the best possible world. Why would a god even care? Particularly the Abrahamic god who is really quite a dick, especially to non-believers
If you are stating omnibenevolence, what is your solution to the problem of evil? If you're not, then there's no particular reason to think that this is the best possible world (for us; the "best possible world" from the perspective of a timeless ineffable being might be very different)
Well, I never claimed it was the best possible world for us, just the best possible world.
And, of course, my argument presupposes two things:
1) God is not a dick
2) God knew what he was doing
I always saw the purpose of creation as a test of whether us as free thinking human beings would accept God or reject God. The purpose of life is to be judged at the end of it.
Then the obvious question is what was the point of creation for all those people that existed that were never exposed to the concept of a monotheistic God.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Yep, declaring this the best possible world is a consequence of dogma. It's not a provable claim, like a lot of things discussed in this thread.
I think it's pretty clear that this is (at least currently) definitively not the best possible world. In the best possible world people would not starve to death, for example
Uh...
This is clearly the best possible world because God has the power to create anything possible, and the wisdom to know what the best possible world is.
This is the one he created so it must be the best possible world.
Not to mention all the modal ontology you got going on here...
Even granting the first two, the third does not necessarily follow. Why must it have created the best possible world. Why would a god even care? Particularly the Abrahamic god who is really quite a dick, especially to non-believers
If you are stating omnibenevolence, what is your solution to the problem of evil? If you're not, then there's no particular reason to think that this is the best possible world (for us; the "best possible world" from the perspective of a timeless ineffable being might be very different)
Well, I never claimed it was the best possible world for us, just the best possible world.
And, of course, my argument presupposes two things:
1) God is not a dick
2) God knew what he was doing
I always saw the purpose of creation as a test of whether us as free thinking human beings would accept God or reject God. The purpose of life is to be judged at the end of it.
Then the obvious question is what was the point of creation for all those people that existed that were never exposed to the concept of a monotheistic God.
It could be an experiment as to what kind of gods would be accepted more? Ancestors, animal spirits, pantheons, polytheistic systems, nature, single god, etc. At one point or another we have probably worshiped just about anything and everything. Of course, that could imply that all religions are equally wrong
Yep, declaring this the best possible world is a consequence of dogma. It's not a provable claim, like a lot of things discussed in this thread.
I think it's pretty clear that this is (at least currently) definitively not the best possible world. In the best possible world people would not starve to death, for example
Uh...
This is clearly the best possible world because God has the power to create anything possible, and the wisdom to know what the best possible world is.
This is the one he created so it must be the best possible world.
Not to mention all the modal ontology you got going on here...
Even granting the first two, the third does not necessarily follow. Why must it have created the best possible world. Why would a god even care? Particularly the Abrahamic god who is really quite a dick, especially to non-believers
If you are stating omnibenevolence, what is your solution to the problem of evil? If you're not, then there's no particular reason to think that this is the best possible world (for us; the "best possible world" from the perspective of a timeless ineffable being might be very different)
Well, I never claimed it was the best possible world for us, just the best possible world.
And, of course, my argument presupposes two things:
1) God is not a dick
2) God knew what he was doing
I always saw the purpose of creation as a test of whether us as free thinking human beings would accept God or reject God. The purpose of life is to be judged at the end of it.
Then the obvious question is what was the point of creation for all those people that existed that were never exposed to the concept of a monotheistic God.
I believe it is possible for a Buddhist (enter faith) that was never exposed to the idea of a monotheistic God or Jesus to go to heaven. Once again you are being judge by a perfect God who knows everything and is just. In fact I believe that the people alive today and that have the internet are going to be held even more accountable than the Buddhist in a remote area of Tibet.
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1st Corinthians 6
6 If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter? 2 Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life! 4 If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church? 5 Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians. 6 Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
I've always interpreted those as to apply (in modern society) to civil cases, rather than criminal ones.
Overall, it's good advice. You just need to watch some daytime TV (e.g. Judge Judy) to see what happens when small disagreements get escalated to outside intervention.
The real problem is that people forget that the Epistles were written to specific people with specific problems. Just because Corinth needed that advice, it doesn't mean that every case has to be handled precisely that way.
All this talk about free will and choice and so forth is only serving to highlight the disconnect between science and theology.
Specifically, the universe is spacetime, in creating the universe God creates the universe as a whole and the past and present are simple features of the 4D (or more) (meta-)object ; the past or future are like the top left or back right corners of a cube, simply part of the structure.
The solutions, such as they are, are not particularly helpful for modern theology - God as a part of the universe, creating matter but not the whole shebang, not being omnipotent or omniscient and a range of other things.
This isn't something that can be logic-ed out of by simply asserting dogma or declaring differences of priority or value. The question of "what makes a perfect world" is polishing brass on the Titanic.
Well, all you can do it take assumptions and see if they contradict each other. If they do, then something needs to be modified or a new premise added that reconciles it. A majority of people accept omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but everyone has a different set of premises to reconcile that with the reality we face everyday.
Its fun realizing that you're probably having the same conversation people in the forums of Rome and Constantinople did two thousand years ago.
And then it becomes less fun when you realize that you're completely missing out on the conversations that ended with something being modified or a new premise added, most people agreeing with it, the rest of the people being killed or banished, and then everyone forgetting that the contradiction ever existed.
You could say their flame wars were more literal than ours.
Actually those are pretty well documented, and many of those documents still exist in the Vatican library. There's also histories of the Jewish tradition of rabbinic review of the old testament, which created many var
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1st Corinthians 6
6 If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter? 2 Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life! 4 If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church? 5 Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians. 6 Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
Doesn't especially apply to this kind of thing. We don't live by religious laws we live by government ones. If you don't follow the laws of the state, then you don't get to claim that religious beliefs hindered that.
The first laws that apply to disputes are state ones. Religious laws are optional.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
edited April 2014
Whaaaat. I did not know that there was a scandal at PCC. Interestingly, there's a knockoff called the "Pensacola Bible Institute" in town too. It was founded by a horrendous racist that Jack Chick loves and they occasionally send their students over to the evil university to save us.
Not that we need saving-
"Do you know where you're going when you die?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist."
"Are you suuuuuuure?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist. I'm Christian."
They're real fundies. Earth is 6000 years old and all that.
edit- to tie this into Christian Theology, there is a difference between Methodism and evangelicalism (think fundamentalists). Both believe that one must be converted and "born again" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but evangelicals view it as a one-time experience while Methodists view it as more of a life-long process.
Interestingly, Methodism (as an offshoot of Anglicanism) also does not share the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (the Bible is the only authority). Instead, it uses a form of "prima scriptura" (or Bible first) called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral after John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. This includes the Bible, reason, church tradition, and personal experience.
All this talk about free will and choice and so forth is only serving to highlight the disconnect between science and theology.
Specifically, the universe is spacetime, in creating the universe God creates the universe as a whole and the past and present are simple features of the 4D (or more) (meta-)object ; the past or future are like the top left or back right corners of a cube, simply part of the structure.
The solutions, such as they are, are not particularly helpful for modern theology - God as a part of the universe, creating matter but not the whole shebang, not being omnipotent or omniscient and a range of other things.
This isn't something that can be logic-ed out of by simply asserting dogma or declaring differences of priority or value. The question of "what makes a perfect world" is polishing brass on the Titanic.
Well, all you can do it take assumptions and see if they contradict each other. If they do, then something needs to be modified or a new premise added that reconciles it. A majority of people accept omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but everyone has a different set of premises to reconcile that with the reality we face everyday.
Its fun realizing that you're probably having the same conversation people in the forums of Rome and Constantinople did two thousand years ago.
And then it becomes less fun when you realize that you're completely missing out on the conversations that ended with something being modified or a new premise added, most people agreeing with it, the rest of the people being killed or banished, and then everyone forgetting that the contradiction ever existed.
You could say their flame wars were more literal than ours.
Actually those are pretty well documented, and many of those documents still exist in the Vatican library. There's also histories of the Jewish tradition of rabbinic review of the old testament, which created many var
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1st Corinthians 6
6 If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter? 2 Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life! 4 If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church? 5 Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians. 6 Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
Doesn't especially apply to this kind of thing. We don't live by religious laws we live by government ones. If you don't follow the laws of the state, then you don't get to claim that religious beliefs hindered that.
The first laws that apply to disputes are state ones. Religious laws are optional.
To play devils advocate (if you don't mind) purity culture and being horrible to rape victims isn't against the law.
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
Whaaaat. I did not know that there was a scandal at PCC. Interestingly, there's a knockoff called the "Pensacola Bible Institute" in town too. It was founded by a horrendous racist that Jack Chick loves and they occasionally send their students over to the evil university to save us.
Not that we need saving-
"Do you know where you're going when you die?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist."
"Are you suuuuuuure?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist. I'm Christian."
They're real fundies. Earth is 6000 years old and all that.
edit- to tie this into Christian Theology, there is a difference between Methodism and evangelicalism (think fundamentalists). Both believe that one must be converted and "born again" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but evangelicals view it as a one-time experience while Methodists view it as more of a life-long process.
Interestingly, Methodism (as an offshoot of Anglicanism) also does not share the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (the Bible is the only authority). Instead, it uses a form of "prima scriptura" (or Bible first) called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral after John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. This includes the Bible, reason, church tradition, and personal experience.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
Whaaaat. I did not know that there was a scandal at PCC. Interestingly, there's a knockoff called the "Pensacola Bible Institute" in town too. It was founded by a horrendous racist that Jack Chick loves and they occasionally send their students over to the evil university to save us.
Not that we need saving-
"Do you know where you're going when you die?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist."
"Are you suuuuuuure?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist. I'm Christian."
They're real fundies. Earth is 6000 years old and all that.
edit- to tie this into Christian Theology, there is a difference between Methodism and evangelicalism (think fundamentalists). Both believe that one must be converted and "born again" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but evangelicals view it as a one-time experience while Methodists view it as more of a life-long process.
Interestingly, Methodism (as an offshoot of Anglicanism) also does not share the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (the Bible is the only authority). Instead, it uses a form of "prima scriptura" (or Bible first) called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral after John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. This includes the Bible, reason, church tradition, and personal experience.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
It's one of those things that's a matter of degrees.
You call a person who believes in biblical inerrancy a fundy then what do you call a King James only IFB person.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
True. Evangelicalism is another name for "spreading Christianity by telling people about Jesus". Technically, the Methodist Church is evangelical, but it's not "evangelical".
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
I was talking to one of them and they said that Matthew 25:34-36 (the "feed the hungry, minister to the sick, clothe the naked, visit those in prison" quote) actually only applied to Christians, since apparently that's what "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" means.
When given a direct injunction to help your fellow man by someone whom Christians believe is God, they weasel out of it. What jerks.
All this talk about free will and choice and so forth is only serving to highlight the disconnect between science and theology.
Specifically, the universe is spacetime, in creating the universe God creates the universe as a whole and the past and present are simple features of the 4D (or more) (meta-)object ; the past or future are like the top left or back right corners of a cube, simply part of the structure.
The solutions, such as they are, are not particularly helpful for modern theology - God as a part of the universe, creating matter but not the whole shebang, not being omnipotent or omniscient and a range of other things.
This isn't something that can be logic-ed out of by simply asserting dogma or declaring differences of priority or value. The question of "what makes a perfect world" is polishing brass on the Titanic.
Well, all you can do it take assumptions and see if they contradict each other. If they do, then something needs to be modified or a new premise added that reconciles it. A majority of people accept omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but everyone has a different set of premises to reconcile that with the reality we face everyday.
Its fun realizing that you're probably having the same conversation people in the forums of Rome and Constantinople did two thousand years ago.
And then it becomes less fun when you realize that you're completely missing out on the conversations that ended with something being modified or a new premise added, most people agreeing with it, the rest of the people being killed or banished, and then everyone forgetting that the contradiction ever existed.
You could say their flame wars were more literal than ours.
Actually those are pretty well documented, and many of those documents still exist in the Vatican library. There's also histories of the Jewish tradition of rabbinic review of the old testament, which created many var
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1st Corinthians 6
6 If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter? 2 Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life! 4 If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church? 5 Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians. 6 Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
Doesn't especially apply to this kind of thing. We don't live by religious laws we live by government ones. If you don't follow the laws of the state, then you don't get to claim that religious beliefs hindered that.
The first laws that apply to disputes are state ones. Religious laws are optional.
To play devils advocate (if you don't mind) purity culture and being horrible to rape victims isn't against the law.
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
True. Evangelicalism is another name for "spreading Christianity by telling people about Jesus". Technically, the Methodist Church is evangelical, but it's not "evangelical".
Due to the Methodist Church embracing theological diversity, it gets a wide range of people - all the way from borderline fundamentalist to doesn't believe Jesus actually existed. If every Methodist strictly believed in the official doctrine, they'd all be Evangelicals.
It's one of those things that's a matter of degrees.
You call a person who believes in biblical inerrancy a fundy then what do you call a King James only IFB person.
A girl once broke up with me because she was KJV only and I was not. It was, of course, more complicated than that, but it's what got the ball rolling on our relationship ending fight.
My personal definition for "evangelical" has three requirements:
* Must believe Jesus literally rose from the dead
* Must believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation
* Places an emphasis on a "born-again" conversion experience
On a different topic, I get really ticked off when someone suggests that we should change theological beliefs because they're unpopular in society. It's like they've never read the book of John.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Popular opinion is not one of the sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
I was talking to one of them and they said that Matthew 25:34-36 (the "feed the hungry, minister to the sick, clothe the naked, visit those in prison" quote) actually only applied to Christians, since apparently that's what "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" means.
When given a direct injunction to help your fellow man by someone whom Christians believe is God, they weasel out of it. What jerks.
Yeah, verses like that are the reason I'm not a die-hard Conservative/Libertarian anymore. As I got older and more mature, I began to realize my political beliefs contradicted my religious beliefs and one of them had to give.
So now I'm for all kinds of things I used to be against, because I sincerely believe that Jesus would be for them. I went from being a registered Libertarian to, essentially, a Blue Dog Democrat!
All this talk about free will and choice and so forth is only serving to highlight the disconnect between science and theology.
Specifically, the universe is spacetime, in creating the universe God creates the universe as a whole and the past and present are simple features of the 4D (or more) (meta-)object ; the past or future are like the top left or back right corners of a cube, simply part of the structure.
The solutions, such as they are, are not particularly helpful for modern theology - God as a part of the universe, creating matter but not the whole shebang, not being omnipotent or omniscient and a range of other things.
This isn't something that can be logic-ed out of by simply asserting dogma or declaring differences of priority or value. The question of "what makes a perfect world" is polishing brass on the Titanic.
Well, all you can do it take assumptions and see if they contradict each other. If they do, then something needs to be modified or a new premise added that reconciles it. A majority of people accept omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but everyone has a different set of premises to reconcile that with the reality we face everyday.
Its fun realizing that you're probably having the same conversation people in the forums of Rome and Constantinople did two thousand years ago.
And then it becomes less fun when you realize that you're completely missing out on the conversations that ended with something being modified or a new premise added, most people agreeing with it, the rest of the people being killed or banished, and then everyone forgetting that the contradiction ever existed.
You could say their flame wars were more literal than ours.
Actually those are pretty well documented, and many of those documents still exist in the Vatican library. There's also histories of the Jewish tradition of rabbinic review of the old testament, which created many var
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1st Corinthians 6
6 If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter? 2 Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life! 4 If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church? 5 Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians. 6 Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
Doesn't especially apply to this kind of thing. We don't live by religious laws we live by government ones. If you don't follow the laws of the state, then you don't get to claim that religious beliefs hindered that.
The first laws that apply to disputes are state ones. Religious laws are optional.
To play devils advocate (if you don't mind) purity culture and being horrible to rape victims isn't against the law.
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
Generally it's called harassment. It is illegal.
Not a lawyer but near as I can tell they would have to have a restraining order against them or do it repeatedly with malicious intent. So probably not applicable if they did it because do their religion.
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
But suppose for the sake of argument it wasn't illegal.
My personal definition for "evangelical" has three requirements:
* Must believe Jesus literally rose from the dead
* Must believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation
* Places an emphasis on a "born-again" conversion experience
These are good. I would probably add something about a more emotional argument rather than strictly theological argument in the main line of sermons as well.
All this talk about free will and choice and so forth is only serving to highlight the disconnect between science and theology.
Specifically, the universe is spacetime, in creating the universe God creates the universe as a whole and the past and present are simple features of the 4D (or more) (meta-)object ; the past or future are like the top left or back right corners of a cube, simply part of the structure.
The solutions, such as they are, are not particularly helpful for modern theology - God as a part of the universe, creating matter but not the whole shebang, not being omnipotent or omniscient and a range of other things.
This isn't something that can be logic-ed out of by simply asserting dogma or declaring differences of priority or value. The question of "what makes a perfect world" is polishing brass on the Titanic.
Well, all you can do it take assumptions and see if they contradict each other. If they do, then something needs to be modified or a new premise added that reconciles it. A majority of people accept omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but everyone has a different set of premises to reconcile that with the reality we face everyday.
Its fun realizing that you're probably having the same conversation people in the forums of Rome and Constantinople did two thousand years ago.
And then it becomes less fun when you realize that you're completely missing out on the conversations that ended with something being modified or a new premise added, most people agreeing with it, the rest of the people being killed or banished, and then everyone forgetting that the contradiction ever existed.
You could say their flame wars were more literal than ours.
Actually those are pretty well documented, and many of those documents still exist in the Vatican library. There's also histories of the Jewish tradition of rabbinic review of the old testament, which created many var
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1st Corinthians 6
6 If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter? 2 Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life! 4 If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church? 5 Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians. 6 Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
Doesn't especially apply to this kind of thing. We don't live by religious laws we live by government ones. If you don't follow the laws of the state, then you don't get to claim that religious beliefs hindered that.
The first laws that apply to disputes are state ones. Religious laws are optional.
To play devils advocate (if you don't mind) purity culture and being horrible to rape victims isn't against the law.
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
Generally it's called harassment. It is illegal.
Not a lawyer but near as I can tell they would have to have a restraining order against them or do it repeatedly with malicious intent. So probably not applicable if they did it because do their religion.
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
But suppose for the sake of argument it wasn't illegal.
You left out the most important part of Corinthians.
"The very fact that you have legal disputes among yourselves shows that you have failed completely."
- Corinthians 6, 7
"As the scripture says "Remove the evil person from your group"".
- Corinthians 5, 13
Pretty much the entirety of Romans 13 which is about duty to uphold the state law.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
True. Evangelicalism is another name for "spreading Christianity by telling people about Jesus". Technically, the Methodist Church is evangelical, but it's not "evangelical".
Due to the Methodist Church embracing theological diversity, it gets a wide range of people - all the way from borderline fundamentalist to doesn't believe Jesus actually existed. If every Methodist strictly believed in the official doctrine, they'd all be Evangelicals.
It's one of those things that's a matter of degrees.
You call a person who believes in biblical inerrancy a fundy then what do you call a King James only IFB person.
A girl once broke up with me because she was KJV only and I was not. It was, of course, more complicated than that, but it's what got the ball rolling on our relationship ending fight.
My personal definition for "evangelical" has three requirements:
* Must believe Jesus literally rose from the dead
* Must believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation
* Places an emphasis on a "born-again" conversion experience
Gjaustin I had a similar transformation. Jesus was much more of a dirty hippie than my southern baptist upbringing wanted me to believe.
Also living in Socialist Scotland for a while changed my mind about some stuff.
It would be interesting to find out how much of the what we now think of socialist teaching of Jesus was social justice and how much was apocalyptic.
Parable of the unjust Steward
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
Of course the modern interpretation is that you should spend your earthly goods to buy favors in heaven but it could just as easily be "spend your money now because this mothers burning down"
For the last several centuries, people have generally understood that the Earth orbits our sun, along with several other planets that make up a solar system. This, in turn, is part of a larger galaxy, which is part of a vast universe with lots of galaxies. It’s known as the heliocentric model.
But there’s a group of religious activists for whom this doesn’t sit well – they believe the Bible puts the Earth as the center of the universe and argue that our sun orbits us. It is, to be sure, a small, fringe group of folks, but my friend Rob Boston reported this week that the “geocentrists” are making a movie, which caused a larger-than-expected stir this week.
[The geocentric] movement, led by an ultra-conservative Roman Catholic named Robert Sungenis, is making a play for the big time with a “documentary” they claim will soon appear in U.S. theaters.
The film is titled “The Principle,” and you can watch a trailer here. You’ll note that actual scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku – both of whom I’m sure accept the heliocentric model – appear in this film. I don’t know how it happened, but I’m guessing that the producers didn’t tell them upfront that it was a geocentricity film. (You’ll note that the trailer doesn’t either; very sneaky of them.)
By all appearances, the film is a pretty slick production, narrated by Kate Mulgrew (yes, Captain Janeway from “Star Trek: Voyager”). It wasn’t long before lots of confused people started asking why notable figures from the worlds of science and entertainment would want anything to do with this fringe “documentary.”
The answer, it turns out, is that they didn’t do so knowingly. Krauss, for example, wrote a Slate piece this week explaining, “I have no recollection of being interviewed for such a film, and of course had I known of its premise I would have refused. So, either the producers used clips of me that were in the public domain, or they bought them from other production companies that I may have given some rights to distribute my interviews to, or they may have interviewed me under false pretenses, in which case I probably signed some release. I simply don’t know.”
Several other actual scientists featured in the film soon followed, saying they had been misled into participating in the project. For her part, Mulgrew this week issued a statement through Facebook, forcefully rejecting geocentrism and explaining that she’d been “misinformed” about the true nature of the film. The actor added that she “would most certainly have avoided” the project if she knew the truth about the filmmakers’ intended agenda.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Geocentrism is an even smaller niche than Young Earth Creationists, but I'm sure the number of people who authentically believe in it are higher than I'd hope. We probably just don't know about most of them because they refuse to participate in secular society.
On a different topic, I get really ticked off when someone suggests that we should change theological beliefs because they're unpopular in society. It's like they've never read the book of John.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Popular opinion is not one of the sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!
No, but reason is, and you may wish to consider whether the world has a point instead of dismissing it because of a clobber verse.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Anyone here read NT Wright? I just got done with The New Testament and the People of God. Was a fascinating read and it really speaks to the current discussion. About to start up Jesus and the Victory of God. It seems a little daunting.
My preferred biblical critic Robert M Price refers to NT Wright as NT Wrong. Which is very droll.
Anyone here read NT Wright? I just got done with The New Testament and the People of God. Was a fascinating read and it really speaks to the current discussion. About to start up Jesus and the Victory of God. It seems a little daunting.
My preferred biblical critic Robert M Price refers to NT Wright as NT Wrong. Which is very droll.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
On a different topic, I get really ticked off when someone suggests that we should change theological beliefs because they're unpopular in society. It's like they've never read the book of John.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Popular opinion is not one of the sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!
No, but reason is, and you may wish to consider whether the world has a point instead of dismissing it because of a clobber verse.
Yes, you can examine the basis of the world's assertion, but the world having that position doesn't in and of itself mean anything.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
On a different topic, I get really ticked off when someone suggests that we should change theological beliefs because they're unpopular in society. It's like they've never read the book of John.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Popular opinion is not one of the sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!
No, but reason is, and you may wish to consider whether the world has a point instead of dismissing it because of a clobber verse.
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
True. Evangelicalism is another name for "spreading Christianity by telling people about Jesus". Technically, the Methodist Church is evangelical, but it's not "evangelical".
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
I was talking to one of them and they said that Matthew 25:34-36 (the "feed the hungry, minister to the sick, clothe the naked, visit those in prison" quote) actually only applied to Christians, since apparently that's what "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" means.
When given a direct injunction to help your fellow man by someone whom Christians believe is God, they weasel out of it. What jerks.
Did you punch him over and over and over and over and over again
Because I'm not sure I'd have been able to resist
Edit: People using Christianity as an argument against charity makes me angrier than just about anything else.
Salvation122 on
+3
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Did you punch him over and over and over and over and over again
Because I'm not sure I'd have been able to resist
Edit: People using Christianity as an argument against charity makes me angrier than just about anything else.
I'm afraid I didn't punch him.
What was really annoying is after I'd given my support of gay marriage (based on it being a natural condition like cystic fibrosis or blue eyes so why should the law punish gay people, and that America isn't a theocracy, etc.)
he starts pulling out all the verses on how thou shalt not change one word of the Bible and has just the smuggest look on his face, because we should totally base secular law on the three thousand year-old religious laws of Bronze Age nomads.
I love Easter. It's my favourite time of year (Apart from Christmas, obv). It's sunny today, but a bit too warm. I wanted to do something that would make me think about Jesus a bit more this week. So I'm going to get in a small boat, go out onto a lake and spend a long time probably getting cross and failing to catch any fish. I can't stay at home, it's full of carpenters making a mess.
All I saw through the haze of hayfevery eyes was 'do something... make me... Jesus... cross... carpenters...'
Then I blinked and it was 75% less weird.
Fun fishing/Jesus related fact:
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whaaaat. I did not know that there was a scandal at PCC. Interestingly, there's a knockoff called the "Pensacola Bible Institute" in town too. It was founded by a horrendous racist that Jack Chick loves and they occasionally send their students over to the evil university to save us.
Not that we need saving-
"Do you know where you're going when you die?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist."
"Are you suuuuuuure?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist. I'm Christian."
They're real fundies. Earth is 6000 years old and all that.
edit- to tie this into Christian Theology, there is a difference between Methodism and evangelicalism (think fundamentalists). Both believe that one must be converted and "born again" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but evangelicals view it as a one-time experience while Methodists view it as more of a life-long process.
Interestingly, Methodism (as an offshoot of Anglicanism) also does not share the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (the Bible is the only authority). Instead, it uses a form of "prima scriptura" (or Bible first) called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral after John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. This includes the Bible, reason, church tradition, and personal experience.
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
It's one of those things that's a matter of degrees.
You call a person who believes in biblical inerrancy a fundy then what do you call a King James only IFB person.
King James only is a lot more common than really realized by people not familliar with fundamentalist circles. IMHO its a method of obfuscating the text and making it more difficult for laity to understand the bible, much like the latin only doctrine of the pre reformation catholics. At least in my experience kjv only is strongly correlated with churches that deemphasize the teachings of Christ and are pretty far afeild from scriptual gospel centered christian doctrine.
There's a story about Pythagoas where he comes across to fishermen and bets them that if he can "guess" the number of fish they have caught in their net then they have to let them all go. He guesses 153, and is right and they throw them all back. Pythagoras was so motivated because he/the cult that surrounded him were vegetarians.
This story is reproduced twice in the gospels but Jesus replaces Pythagoras, and instead of having them release the fish he simply causes them to catch a lot but they count and they have caught the same number of fish 153.
153 was considered a sacred number to the Pythagoreans and relates to the mystic/mathematical symbol the Vesica Pisces aka the measure of the fish.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Geocentrism is an even smaller niche than Young Earth Creationists, but I'm sure the number of people who authentically believe in it are higher than I'd hope. We probably just don't know about most of them because they refuse to participate in secular society.
The irony being that the Bible has more passages and direct statements about the earth being both geocentric (Universe) and the earth being entirely flat that it says about the world being young. The young earth is never mentioned in the bible whatsoever: It's an inference drawn from adding up the genealogies in the Bible.
True biblical literalism would involve not only the traditional YEC nonsense, but arguing that the Universe is geocentric and that the Earth itself is flat. It shows how YEC is so ridiculous, that not even they will attempt to literally interpreted the geocentrism and flat earth passages of the Bible. If you know this, it can be a great tool in the anti-YEC arsenal as you demonstrate to an audience just how "Literally" the YEC takes the Bible and that is "Literally" only when convenient to them.
And when you meet someone who is consistent enough to think those passages are literal? Well they lose most of the audience right there as well.
Posts
White: 1721-3651-2720
Strauss has decent points on the naturalistic tendencies on interpreting some Biblical miracles that are still sometimes seen. For example, interpreting the plagues as mostly being natural in origin. Sure, it might be that some of the plagues are half remembered natural events, but the Bible makes it clear they are miraculous events in the eyes of the authors.
So you have people like the Deuteronomist changing normal events (losing a battle or something) to make it supernatural. Did that person think they were making history or making stuff up or just providing commentary?
Or Jonah, its obviously satire but the writter of Matthew has Jesus quoting it as history. So which is it?
White: 1721-3651-2720
I always saw the purpose of creation as a test of whether us as free thinking human beings would accept God or reject God. The purpose of life is to be judged at the end of it.
Then the obvious question is what was the point of creation for all those people that existed that were never exposed to the concept of a monotheistic God.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It could be an experiment as to what kind of gods would be accepted more? Ancestors, animal spirits, pantheons, polytheistic systems, nature, single god, etc. At one point or another we have probably worshiped just about anything and everything. Of course, that could imply that all religions are equally wrong
I believe it is possible for a Buddhist (enter faith) that was never exposed to the idea of a monotheistic God or Jesus to go to heaven. Once again you are being judge by a perfect God who knows everything and is just. In fact I believe that the people alive today and that have the internet are going to be held even more accountable than the Buddhist in a remote area of Tibet.
http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/blessed-are-the-peacemakers/
The actual scandal is outside the scope of the thread but it brings up some interesting stuff about how (fundamentalist) Christians are expected to handle disputes.
Mathew 18
1st Corinthians 6
Overall, it's good advice. You just need to watch some daytime TV (e.g. Judge Judy) to see what happens when small disagreements get escalated to outside intervention.
The real problem is that people forget that the Epistles were written to specific people with specific problems. Just because Corinth needed that advice, it doesn't mean that every case has to be handled precisely that way.
Actually those are pretty well documented, and many of those documents still exist in the Vatican library. There's also histories of the Jewish tradition of rabbinic review of the old testament, which created many var
Doesn't especially apply to this kind of thing. We don't live by religious laws we live by government ones. If you don't follow the laws of the state, then you don't get to claim that religious beliefs hindered that.
The first laws that apply to disputes are state ones. Religious laws are optional.
Not that we need saving-
"Do you know where you're going when you die?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist."
"Are you suuuuuuure?"
"Yes, I'm a Methodist. I'm Christian."
They're real fundies. Earth is 6000 years old and all that.
edit- to tie this into Christian Theology, there is a difference between Methodism and evangelicalism (think fundamentalists). Both believe that one must be converted and "born again" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but evangelicals view it as a one-time experience while Methodists view it as more of a life-long process.
Interestingly, Methodism (as an offshoot of Anglicanism) also does not share the doctrine of "sola scriptura" (the Bible is the only authority). Instead, it uses a form of "prima scriptura" (or Bible first) called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral after John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. This includes the Bible, reason, church tradition, and personal experience.
To play devils advocate (if you don't mind) purity culture and being horrible to rape victims isn't against the law.
Edit: There are people who are more conservative than PCC? Like what beef could they even have?
Evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different. Sure, there are fundamentalist evangelicals, but there are also evangelical Methodists.
Here's a good rule of thumb. If someone on the TV says "evangelical", mentally replace it with "fundamentalist".
It's one of those things that's a matter of degrees.
You call a person who believes in biblical inerrancy a fundy then what do you call a King James only IFB person.
True. Evangelicalism is another name for "spreading Christianity by telling people about Jesus". Technically, the Methodist Church is evangelical, but it's not "evangelical".
I was talking to one of them and they said that Matthew 25:34-36 (the "feed the hungry, minister to the sick, clothe the naked, visit those in prison" quote) actually only applied to Christians, since apparently that's what "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" means.
When given a direct injunction to help your fellow man by someone whom Christians believe is God, they weasel out of it. What jerks.
Generally it's called harassment. It is illegal.
A girl once broke up with me because she was KJV only and I was not. It was, of course, more complicated than that, but it's what got the ball rolling on our relationship ending fight.
My personal definition for "evangelical" has three requirements:
* Must believe Jesus literally rose from the dead
* Must believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation
* Places an emphasis on a "born-again" conversion experience
And the pithiest definition of "evangelical" I've ever seen:
* Must like Billy Graham
Popular opinion is not one of the sides of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral!
Ok, rant over
Yeah, verses like that are the reason I'm not a die-hard Conservative/Libertarian anymore. As I got older and more mature, I began to realize my political beliefs contradicted my religious beliefs and one of them had to give.
So now I'm for all kinds of things I used to be against, because I sincerely believe that Jesus would be for them. I went from being a registered Libertarian to, essentially, a Blue Dog Democrat!
Not a lawyer but near as I can tell they would have to have a restraining order against them or do it repeatedly with malicious intent. So probably not applicable if they did it because do their religion.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
But suppose for the sake of argument it wasn't illegal.
These are good. I would probably add something about a more emotional argument rather than strictly theological argument in the main line of sermons as well.
You left out the most important part of Corinthians.
"The very fact that you have legal disputes among yourselves shows that you have failed completely."
- Corinthians 6, 7
"As the scripture says "Remove the evil person from your group"".
- Corinthians 5, 13
Pretty much the entirety of Romans 13 which is about duty to uphold the state law.
Also living in Socialist Scotland for a while changed my mind about some stuff.
It would be interesting to find out how much of the what we now think of socialist teaching of Jesus was social justice and how much was apocalyptic.
Parable of the unjust Steward
Of course the modern interpretation is that you should spend your earthly goods to buy favors in heaven but it could just as easily be "spend your money now because this mothers burning down"
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
On the other hand, it's not so niche that they couldn't trick some scientists and Kate Mulgrew into participating in their movie, even inadvertently.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
No, but reason is, and you may wish to consider whether the world has a point instead of dismissing it because of a clobber verse.
My preferred biblical critic Robert M Price refers to NT Wright as NT Wrong. Which is very droll.
A variant of "good people go to heaven" seems to be the majority belief in the United States. But if someone suggested to me that I should change my beliefs to match that, I'd laugh in their face. So why do people think that doing that on other topics is going to work?
For example, it took deep scriptural analysis and personal experience for me to soften my position on female clergy. Being mocked and called a misogynist did absolutely nothing.
Sounds interesting.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Did you punch him over and over and over and over and over again
Because I'm not sure I'd have been able to resist
Edit: People using Christianity as an argument against charity makes me angrier than just about anything else.
I'm afraid I didn't punch him.
What was really annoying is after I'd given my support of gay marriage (based on it being a natural condition like cystic fibrosis or blue eyes so why should the law punish gay people, and that America isn't a theocracy, etc.)
he starts pulling out all the verses on how thou shalt not change one word of the Bible and has just the smuggest look on his face, because we should totally base secular law on the three thousand year-old religious laws of Bronze Age nomads.
King James only is a lot more common than really realized by people not familliar with fundamentalist circles. IMHO its a method of obfuscating the text and making it more difficult for laity to understand the bible, much like the latin only doctrine of the pre reformation catholics. At least in my experience kjv only is strongly correlated with churches that deemphasize the teachings of Christ and are pretty far afeild from scriptual gospel centered christian doctrine.
Whoa, I've read that story often, but I never thought there might be a significance to the number of fishes... or even that there was a number given! I was about to post and say the Bible just says "many fish" but fortunately I double-checked first and found you're right, John really does give a fish count.
I love those little details hidden throughout the Bible.
That said, I kept checking, and there is far from a consensus on the significance of the 153 value. It was a significant number for other schools of philosophy besides Pythagoras (including Plato, and if we are to trust random mathematical operations on the dimensions of the Great Pyramid even the Egyptians). And while this story does have echoes of that story about Pythagoras, there are other instances of 153 in the Bible (both in the OT and NT) that cannot be linked to that. Or, as one person noted, "fishermen count their fish".
The irony being that the Bible has more passages and direct statements about the earth being both geocentric (Universe) and the earth being entirely flat that it says about the world being young. The young earth is never mentioned in the bible whatsoever: It's an inference drawn from adding up the genealogies in the Bible.
True biblical literalism would involve not only the traditional YEC nonsense, but arguing that the Universe is geocentric and that the Earth itself is flat. It shows how YEC is so ridiculous, that not even they will attempt to literally interpreted the geocentrism and flat earth passages of the Bible. If you know this, it can be a great tool in the anti-YEC arsenal as you demonstrate to an audience just how "Literally" the YEC takes the Bible and that is "Literally" only when convenient to them.
And when you meet someone who is consistent enough to think those passages are literal? Well they lose most of the audience right there as well.