Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just stumbled on your reply, above, to my earlier post. My response is:
And what is Genesis?
Also, may I ask you to read John 1:1
I thought you were a Christian? Perhaps I was wrong. This is pretty basic.
You were wrong. I am not a Christian. Like any reasonably well-educated person, however, I have some understanding of the Christian faith and I respect its sincere practitioners as I do the practitioners of other faiths.
Perhaps I am missing something basic, but I don't think so. Please show me a passage in Genesis or anywhere else in the Old Testament which refers to Jesus Christ -- not some exegetic code word, but Jesus, the son of God -- as having created the earth in six days.
The Bible is an accurate account of historical events, and cannot be compared to fictional stories based on historical events.
It is simply not possible to claim with any credibility that the Bible is not an accurate historical account.
As the kids say, LOL!
Also, I figured out my abortion stance, in order to remain "intellectually honest". I think they're fair game until their soft spots close or they turn eighteen, whichever comes first. That makes Mr. Nonsense safe, assuming he's a legal adult.
Also, I figured out my abortion stance, in order to remain "intellectually honest". I think they're fair game until their soft spots close or they turn eighteen, whichever comes first. That makes Mr. Nonsense safe, assuming he's a legal adult.
I still think it is the age of reason - Which might be a stretch in your case
I still think it is the age of reason - Which might be a stretch in your case
I might be borderline-Asperger and I'm certainly misanthropic to the core, but I don't see how I've displayed an inability to reason.
Unless that isn't what you meant.
Once and for all, if Jesus ever did exist (which "He" probably didn't), he sure sounded like a liberal, which I am not. I can't understand how the conservatrons claim him as one of their own. There's nothing less Christ-like than your average christian.
Edit- maybe "misanthropic" is a stretch. I hate certain types of people, but it's a lot of types.
As if the Bush administration were the be all and end all of the government's limited ability to deal with -- well, rational reality, after so many Democrat regimes, whose rubber-stamps were calloused with age. Really. You are the one reduced to whining -- and it seems comically rooted in contemporary (and transitory) phenomena.
So, it's a case of blind faith in government then, except for objections being raised to any mistaken and misguided policy or action taken by any particular government, and this is not at all a contradiction in terms. It seems that bizarro-planet is quite a bizarre place indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Oh, you mean like "endowed by their Creator" and all that jazz? Investigate that for a while, touchin on the all-so-actual facts of the men who gave their lives for such absurd and ridiculous expressions of metaphysical faith...
That's a joke. In context, the Declaration is not some profession of esoteric belief or principle, but rather a poltical paean addressed to those whose aid we would need in accomplishing our independence. It is a carefully crafted appeal to a liberal continental ear, still ringing with the words of the Enlightenment, explaining the legitimate nature of the right and duty of those in an abused colony to declare themselves free men. The words "their Creator" are not put there as any profession of religious faith or belief. They would have been the weakest possible choice for that purpose, and indeed recommendations for stronger language were rejected. Rather the words are there to put the claims of the colonists onto the same level as those of the Crown in invoking the concept of the divine right of kings. This was an already faded philosophy on the continent, but one still favored by George III, who had cited it often in rebuking the claims of the colonists. The authors of the Declaration rightly felt that they needed to address this claim on its own terms, thereby creating a logical equivalence for their own cause and opening a pathway for potential sympathizers eventually to become full-fledged supporters. Not one of the signers of the Declaration was pledging his life, fortune, and sacred honor to any of your metaphysical expressions. Theirs was a poltical and economic cause, one pursued by practical men in the most practical manner they could devise. You diminish them and their effort by suggesting otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
There is nothing fabulous or superstitious in the notion that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your feather-light burden...
No one questions the majestic and still in part unfathomable scope of the universe. It is rather the range of contorted and confabulated efforts by certain human beings to explain all this in terms that plainly cannot apply that are regularly ridiculed as being childish and unsophisticated. Unanswered questions are not an open invitation to any answer at all. A God of the Gaps is, after all, no god at all.
The Bible is an accurate account of historical events, and cannot be compared to fictional stories based on historical events.
Quoting from, A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell, Chapter 8, Archaeological Evidence For the Reliability of The Old Testament
Note: Josh McDowell was an ubeliever and Bible skeptic, untill challenged by some of his Christian college friends. He set out to disprove the Bible as an accurate historical account. What he discovered changed his mind.
Quote:
William F. Albright , known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, states: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition".
Albright adds:
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important histoical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain pahses of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history"
McDowell has done more exhaustive study in this area than anyone else I know of. Of course, there is much, much more than merely that short paragraph. McDowell sites many other sources as well, with quotes and references.
It is simply not possible to claim with any credibility that the Bible is not an accurate historical account.
You're basing your analysis of the Bible "on historical events". You're trying to prove that Jesus existed and that all of the events of the Bible must've occurred because of the accuracies of some of the historical events in the Bible. Could we not make the same argument that Rhett Butler existed and that he didn't give a damn because Sherman's March is an accurate account of the Civil War?
If I wanted to press it further, I could provide a list of events in the Bible that did NOT occur, diminishing the credibility of the Bible entirely.
I might be borderline-Asperger and I'm certainly misanthropic to the core, but I don't see how I've displayed an inability to reason.
Unless that isn't what you meant.
Once and for all, if Jesus ever did exist (which "He" probably didn't), he sure sounded like a liberal, which I am not. I can't understand how the conservatrons claim him as one of their own. There's nothing less Christ-like than your average christian.
Edit- maybe "misanthropic" is a stretch. I hate certain types of people, but it's a lot of types.
LOL - I meant its a stretch (of opinion) from 4-5 years old to 18 years old.
So, it's a case of blind faith in government then, except for objections being raised to any mistaken and misguided policy or action taken by any particular government, and this is not at all a contradiction in terms. It seems that bizarro-planet is quite a bizarre place indeed.
Please. Katrina. School buses. Government response:
Quote:
That's a joke. In context, the Declaration is not some profession of esoteric belief or principle, but rather a poltical paean addressed to those whose aid we would need in accomplishing our independence. It is a carefully crafted appeal to a liberal continental ear, still ringing with the words of the Enlightenment, explaining the legitimate nature of the right and duty of those in an abused colony to declare themselves free men. The words "their Creator" are not put there as any profession of religious faith or belief. They would have been the weakest possible choice for that purpose, and indeed recommendations for stronger language were rejected. Rather the words are there to put the claims of the colonists onto the same level as those of the Crown in invoking the concept of the divine right of kings. This was an already faded philosophy on the continent, but one still favored by George III, who had cited it often in rebuking the claims of the colonists. The authors of the Declaration rightly felt that they needed to address this claim on its own terms, thereby creating a logical equivalence for their own cause and opening a pathway for potential sympathizers eventually to become full-fledged supporters. Not one of the signers of the Declaration was pledging his life, fortune, and sacred honor to any of your metaphysical expressions. Theirs was a poltical and economic cause, one pursued by practical men in the most practical manner they could devise. You diminish them and their effort by suggesting otherwise.
The diminishment is all yours, if you are suggesting that the Founders were little more than real estate speculators and that religious faith was not and does not remain a central concern to the citizens of a democratic republic. If the words "by their Creator" were so laughably objectionable, then why were they used? Why not "endowed by their intelligence or "endowed by their Sovereign", or even -- to follow your logic "endowed by Parliament"? To argue that something aside from cold-blooded greed is a fatuous way to live one's life is one thing; to content that that something expresses in some way a reduction in one's humanity is quite another.
Quote:
No one questions the majestic and still in part unfathomable scope of the universe. It is rather the range of contorted and confabulated efforts by certain human beings to explain all this in terms that plainly cannot apply that are regularly ridiculed as being childish and unsophisticated. Unanswered questions are not an open invitation to any answer at all. A God of the Gaps is, after all, no god at all.
The range of contortion and confabulation to which you refer encompasses attempts to apply quantifiable and rational explanations for phenomena which lie outside the ken of such explanation: a child's innocent smile; the light in the eye of a woman which inspires our lifelong devotion; the compassion we feel for the plight of those less fortunate than us. No one knows what the question is, but the answers are what mark us as angels, and identify us as something more than rational self-interested bipeds...
You were wrong. I am not a Christian. Like any reasonably well-educated person, however, I have some understanding of the Christian faith and I respect its sincere practitioners as I do the practitioners of other faiths.
Perhaps I am missing something basic, but I don't think so. Please show me a passage in Genesis or anywhere else in the Old Testament which refers to Jesus Christ -- not some exegetic code word, but Jesus, the son of God -- as having created the earth in six days.
Here is the problem: If you are not willing to study the Bible, but only want to give it a cursory reading, and you are not willing to take the Bible as a whole, but want to separate the New Testament from the Old, you will never understand it, and you will always be confused.
In order to understand the New Testament, you have to have a good basic understanding of the Old Testament. You cannot separate the New Testament from the Old, because without the Old Testament, the New simply cannot be understood, and virtually makes no sense.
There are many references in the New Testament to Old Testament prophesies, traditions, feasts, etc. If you do not know what these are, their meaning, and why they were important to the Jews, you cannot possibly understand the meaning of the text.
Jesus refered to the Old Testament often (there was no "New Testament"; it hadn't been written!). So, you cannot understand some of the teachings of Christ without going back to the Old Testament to see what He was talking about.
There are numerous prophesies concerning Christ, his comming, and his death on the cross in the Old Testament. I gave you at least one. Did you read it? Then read about the crucifiction.
That Christ is God incarnate is without question. Christ Himself claimed equality with God (I gave you that), but if you are not willing to delve into the Old Testament, and find out what it says (and why Christ's words were a clear claim to equality with God, causing the Pharisies to rip their garments), Christs words, "Before Abraham was, I AM", are meaningless and confusing at best. One is forced to ask, "What does He mean". Time to break out the Old Testament.
I told you to read John 1:1. Did you? It is a clear reference to Christ as creator of all things. "Through Him all things were made; without him nothing was mad that has been mde." — John 1:3
In verse 1, he says "in the begining was the Word, ..." The Jews knew what he was talking about; Jews used "the Word" as a way of refering to God.
He goes on to say that "...and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is a clear reference to the deity of Christ.
But you cannot understand that if you are not willing to do the study.
Lastly, I would like to point out that in the many years I have been a Christian, and attended various churches, I have had the honor and pleasure of knowing many Jewish believers (Messianic Jews) that attended our church. They will be the first to tell you that these verses do indeed refer to Christ as creator of all things.
Jewish believers are in a distinct position to help us understand the New Testament, because they are so intimately familiar with the Hebrew Bible.
I cannot help you further, but I can tell you that your understanding is sadly lacking, and very much in error if you are not willing to take the time to study the Bible. You may even have to learn some Greek, though there are good reference books that will explain the meanings of passages based on the meaning of the Greek words used. Simple English is not enough to fully understand much of the text. You must go back to the original languages. This is not practical for most of us, which is why we rely on study guides etc., written by people who have already done the hard exegesis (there is no such thing as "creative exegesis" — there is only exegisis).
One final word. The Old Testament prophesies concerning Christs coming as Messiah call his name "Emanuel", which means, "God with us".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is pretty basic.
