Religion — Page 15

Bingowings said:

No he is clearly saying 'don't come all high and mighty about me and my friends when you are corruptly profiteering from selective scriptural interpretation'.

Does that sound to you like he is complaining that they are no killing enough kids? 

here is the are verses from the 1984 NIV

"1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’^a and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’^b 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father^c’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

Bingowings said:

"...whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward but are within full of dead men's bones and and of all uncleanness."

what version, chapter and verse is this from? 

It sounds like Jesus reflecting petty criticism of himself by pointing out the hypocrisy and corruption of the Pharisees.

The law says kill kids who fail in their obligations to their parents (something Jesus himself does by swanning off preaching but I digress).

The Pharisees however have introduced a loop hole so they can squeeze more cash for themselves by telling young people that the money they should provide for their parents can be given to them instead.

I mentioned the passage in response to Darth Ender's talk about laws not being introduced for the benefit of God (one example being Jesus picking and eating corn on the Sabbath, someone else's corn no less).

As for your last question.

Ted said:

Matthew 23:27

EDIT: Nevermind, Bingo beat me to it.

Matthew 23:27, KJV

I apologise for the 'double and' error, which may have complicated a word search.

We don't all cut and paste these things.

Bingowings said:

It sounds like Jesus reflecting petty criticism of himself by pointing out the hypocrisy and corruption of the Pharisees.

The law says kill kids who fail in their obligations to their parents (something Jesus himself does by swanning off preaching but I digress).

The Pharisees however have introduced a loop hole so they can squeeze more cash for themselves by telling young people that the money they should provide for their parents can be given to them instead.

but your original accusation was that Jesus was complaining that the High Priests were not killing enough kids, and my point was that is not what he was complaining about.   

No I said he countered their moaning about him not washing his hands with a quip about them not killing enough kids.

Ted said :

quip |kwip|nouna witty remark.• archaic a verbal equivocation.verb ( quipped |kwipt|, quipping |kwipin) [ intrans. ]make a witty remark : [with direct speech ] “Flattery will get you nowhere,” she quipped.DERIVATIVESquipster |-ster| |'kwipster| nounORIGIN mid 16th cent.: perhaps from Latin quippe ‘indeed, forsooth.’

I didn't suggest he actual wanted kids killed, unlike the Old Testament version of his spiritual father who killed 42 boys for calling Elisha a spamhead.

Ted said :

That'll be 2 Kings 2:23

Luke 17:33 is appealing heavily to me right now.

Suicidal ideations, Dur?

I'm too much of a coward to take the initiative.

Well, sir, I say that is a good thing. Life has all sorts of great stuff to offer. If what you're doing now isn't working, just change it up a bit. We have so much freedom and can do so much, a lot of people just let themselves get trapped in the only way of life they've ever known and they are miserable for it. You're not the only one that has felt this way. I get that way a lot, and when I do, I tend to bail and start something new. Because of this, I have many good friends scattered all over the place for visiting on road trips, and I've gotten to live in a bunch of really cool places.

Ever since I read Moby-Dick as a kid, this section has stuck with me. I honestly may well have checked out long ago, had I not realize how viable an option this is. The end is the end, why not try new beginnings, or at least temporary drastic change of scenery and life-style. I anticipate that eventually, I'll land on a place I like enough I won't want to leave. Or at the very least, I have connections all over now and someday can choose to return to the one I have the fondest memories of.

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world.

It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.

This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

I have felt like giving up, a lot.  Right now I do, but like DuracellEnergizer, I am too much a coward, and it is against my religious beliefs to kill myself. 

Jesus did suicide by proxy but he knew it was just a three day death.

those were very unique circumstances. 

Paul talked about committing suicide, and never mentioned it being against his religion. His reason for not doing it was because he felt God was still using him.

Well, I had a nice lengthy post all typed up, but I forgot that the proxy I use at work resets itself after a while, and lost the whole post. Arg! I'll have to type it up again, as I was rather proud of it, but it'll have to wait till later, maybe much later (like tonight or tomorrow). But I will say that what once started as the noble goal of encouraging critical thinking seems to have digressed into talking about crumbling houses of cards and the foibles of even believing what we do. Now I am a person who is willing to have this sort of conversation, and truthfully I welcome it; I had a coworker who was an atheist and we had all sorts of conversations of this nature...quite stimulating. Ironically, I ran into him a couple of weeks ago and learned that he had since converted to Christianity, and this is a very intellectual person so no one can accuse him of being a simpleton). My point is that the motives now seem less altruistic, and perhaps there are others not wanting to have their faith directly challenged, as there is a difference between encouraging a little more critical thinking and actually downright saying, "You're dead wrong."

darth_ender said:

I had a coworker who was an atheist and we had all sorts of conversations of this nature...quite stimulating. Ironically, I ran into him a couple of weeks ago and learned that he had since converted to Christianity, and this is a very intellectual person so no one can accuse him of being a simpleton).

Sounds a bit like C.S. Lewis who didn't convert very easy.

darth_ender said:

But I will say that what once started as the noble goal of encouraging critical thinking seems to have digressed into talking about crumbling houses of cards and the foibles of even believing what we do. 

...

My point is that the motives now seem less altruistic, and perhaps there are others not wanting to have their faith directly challenged, as there is a difference between encouraging a little more critical thinking and actually downright saying, "You're dead wrong."

Whoa, digressed? We're still on the exact same subject! No digressions have been made. This isn't even deep discussion, all this is barely on the surface, and it is basically just me asking a simple question that continues to go unaddressed:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions, how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

It is such a basic question, if somebody's faith cannot withstand it, I daresay they had no faith to begin with. Seriously, how do you believe something so unbelievable, when the only source of this unbelievable tale is a book that you admit to being untrustworthy?

This isn't even an atheist/theist discussion. I just find it really interesting how the Bible repeatedly claims it is the perfect word of God, which you disagree with, but still find merit in it anyway and chose to believe bits and pieces of it.

Also unaddressed was the verse in Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Does it lie?

Is this a corruption?

Or does this predate all Biblical corruptions, a remnant of a time before the Bible couldn't be trusted?

Is this just Paul talking about the scripture prior to its corruption, back when it really was God-breathed? (If so, the majority of the texts we've translated the Old Testament from predate Paul and even the time of Christ, they are from all different time periods, and besides a few misplaced grammatical marks and an added or subtracted word here or there, they all say the exact same thing, which indicates changes HAVE NOT been made through the centuries. It is actually very remarkable, there is no other ancient text with such an abundance of sources).

Perhaps poor Paul was fooled into eating dog poop brownies himself. The man claims to be inspired by God, maybe that is true,  but God simply didn't relay to him the important details about scripture not always being from God).

You and Warbler paint a very fickle picture of Christiandom from its source material on up. If the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy, then by extension, this must put everything Christianity teaches at question. You can't very well say that it is full of error, then say, well, we know for sure this part isn't erroneous. A leaky boat isn't water-worthy, no matter how small the percentage of leaks are in ratio to the portions that are impermeable, if it leaks, then its going to sink.

Of course, Mormonism is a very different animal that believes in a very different take on the nature of God and Christ, to be a Mormon, you'd have to accept that most of the things the Bible teaches us about God and Christ are utterly false. So naturally, it would be much easier (actually, necessary) for you to accept the fact that the Bible is some percentage bunk, than it would be for members of more traditional denominations to do so.

CP3S said:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions,

believing the Bible may not be 100% perfect is not the same as believing it is full of falsehoods and corruption.

CP3S said:

how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

I take it upon faith that it is not. 

I believe Christ is the son of God, that he died to save us from our sins, and that 3 days after he died, he rose from the grave.   I do not think that believing this means I have to believe that children that curse their parents, must be put to death.  Not sure was else to say.   If you want to think I am silly/crazy or whatever.  fine.

CP3S said:

Paul talked about committing suicide, and never mentioned it being against his religion. His reason for not doing it was because he felt God was still using him.

I do hope you are not trying to talk me into something. ; )

Of course not!!!

I don't even really know what to say to the fact that you thought I might have been.

:(

I didn't say I thought you might have been.  

perhaps I should have added  ; ) to the end of that post.

No time for lengthy replies. CP3S, I actually did respond to 2 Timothy 3:16 and many of the issues you brought up. Sadly, that was part of the proxy-erased message. I will respond again, but it took me 1/2 hour to write it, and I'm at work taking part in an internal audit, so I don't have the time to rewrite it at present.

Here, let me pause, just to ensure neither of us misinterprets the other by letting you know that if I say anything that sounds overly defensive, hyped up, or anything, that is not my intention. I also am aware that you are not trying to sound over the top either in your criticisms. Just getting that out of the way :)

But I will add that your argument has several holes of its own. That is not to say that there are at times points where one must forgo logic in favor of faith to believe in the Bible. But what you are doing is incorrectly ascribing beliefs and statements to myself and the Bible that are not actually held by it or me. I truly hope to clarify later today, or tomorrow at the latest.

darth_ender said:

Here, let me pause, just to ensure neither of us misinterprets the other by letting you know that if I say anything that sounds overly defensive, hyped up, or anything, that is not my intention. I also am aware that you are not trying to sound over the top either in your criticisms. Just getting that out of the way :)

Very good. I mean no harm in my posts either.

But I will add that your argument has several holes of its own. That is not to say that there are at times points where one must forgo logic in favor of faith to believe in the Bible. But what you are doing is incorrectly ascribing beliefs and statements to myself and the Bible that are not actually held by it or me. I truly hope to clarify later today, or tomorrow at the latest.

No doubt my arguments are absolutely riddled with holes. I can't speak for you and your beliefs, but as for all things I attribute to the Bible, I can reassure you they are there. If you choose to airbrush them out, remove their meanings from context, or attribute a hidden context to them, well, then I guess that shows you've got it all worked out. But yeah, perhaps I should start quoting scripture more liberally.

*sigh*

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions,

believing the Bible may not be 100% perfect is not the same as believing it is full of falsehoods and corruption.

That stuff was addressed at Ender, he mentioned something about the grubby hands of man. Mormons believe that the Bible has lost many "plain and precious truths" via the translation process, and many believe that it has been corrupted in other ways, explaining the discrepancies between the Bible and the Books of Mormon.

CP3S said:

how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

I take upon faith that it is not. 

I believe Christ is the son of God, that he died to save us from our sins, and that 3 days after he died, he rose from the grave.   I do not think that believing this means I have to believe that children that curse their parents, must be put to death.  Not sure was else to say.   If you want to think I am silly/crazy or whatever.  fine.

That is good enough for me.

No, I don't think you are silly/crazy/whatever.

Well... maybe a little whatever. ;) But not silly or crazy.