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.
Which is a dogmatic claim for which you can adduce no evidence. You're doing exactly what I predicted you would be forced to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I mean...to anyone that claims to be a Christian, it would be.
Actually, for the majority of self-identified Christians in this world, that's not true. Sola scriptura is a Protestant innovation, and they don't constitute the majority of Christians in this world. Now you're not only being dogmatic, but naively sectarian as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I've noticed you don't seem to place a lot of stock in that, though.
Naive dogmatism and sectarianism? No stock at all.
But he lowered the status of the Egyptian Gods to that of Aten's angels (there but for the grace of Aten).
Not so much angels as emanations. They were his manifestations, not his messengers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Also, what about the Hyksos (shepards/hicks) they worshiped one God, Setesh, and destroyed all the other idols...
They didn't destroy all other idols, they just worshipped Seth to the exclusion of others. They didn't deny their existence or actively persecute them or their constituents. They practiced monolatry, which was what the Israelites originally practiced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
could it be that Setesh of the desert was a jealous God? Did the Hyksos believe Setesh was the Original Creator? If not, why worship Setesh only?
The Semitic nations generally had a single patron deity, rather than a number of competing regional deities, like Egypt. This lent itself more frequently to monolatrous inclinations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
And what about Zoroastrianism and Brahmanism, were they not monotheist?
There is still some debate regarding whether Zoroastrianism was monotheistic or dualistic, although the majority of scholars see it as dualistic, and I agree. Brahmanism wasn't monotheistic.
Which is a dogmatic claim for which you can adduce no evidence. You're doing exactly what I predicted you would be forced to do.
Actually, for the majority of self-identified Christians in this world, that's not true. Sola scriptura is a Protestant innovation, and they don't constitute the majority of Christians in this world. Now you're not only being dogmatic, but naively sectarian as well.
Naive dogmatism and sectarianism? No stock at all.
I've never known a Christian that didn't hold the Bible in high regard. You don't seem to. I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate.
I've never known a Christian that didn't hold the Bible in high regard. You don't seem to. I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate.
You need to get out more often Vizio. There are lots of 'em out there. On your side of Christianity, I don't think you would consider them Christians though.
I've never known a Christian that didn't hold the Bible in high regard. You don't seem to. I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate.
Oh, I hold it in high regard, as I have directly and explicitly told you. I don't hold to the demonstrably false notion that it is without error, though. I appreciate it with its errors. I don't bury my head in the sand and say "La, la, la, I'm not listening!" when it comes to the human factor in the Bible's composition and transmission.
Oh, I hold it in high regard, as I have directly and explicitly told you. I don't hold to the demonstrably false notion that it is without error, though. I appreciate it with its errors. I don't bury my head in the sand and say "La, la, la, I'm not listening!" when it comes to the human factor in the Bible's composition and transmission.
Do you believe the scripture is divinely inspired?
You need to get out more often Vizio. There are lots of 'em out there. On your side of Christianity, I don't think you would consider them Christians though.
Example? Catholics and Protestants both hold the Bible as the Word of God. These two groups combined most certainly constitutes a vast majority of Christianity.
Do you believe the scripture is divinely inspired?
Not to step on Daniel's toes, but he has said that he believes that scripture is divinely inspired to you and Vizio before. He went further to say that he, obviously, feels that you and he have very different notions as to what "divinely inspired" means. Divinely inspired, but with demonstrable errors, as it was ultimately written and compiled by men.
This is the viewpoint of many Christians I know who have also delved into the Bible and seen the obvious inconsistencies and errors. But their faith remains.
Example? Catholics and Protestants both hold the Bible as the Word of God. These two groups combined most certainly constitutes a vast majority of Christianity.
- Protestant religions are The Re-Form-Mation of Catholicism's Trinity Doctrine.
- What we've been taught about this word Inspiration is not what it means.
God breathed? God can breathe without Commanding anything.
God breathed into Adam and it didn't make him Infallible nor Inerrant.
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.
