|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 11, 2007 8:41:05 GMT -5
Blondie, are you hiding from actual debate? Your responses don't make any sense. I'm trying to have a civil debate regarding what we each believe yet all you can do is try to insult me. I guess I should ask you this. Do you feel strong enough in what you believe to enter into a debate and, if so, would you rather do it in emails so that we don't have to worry about others jumping in? It's incredibly arrogant and doesn't make any sense for someone to criticize what others believe yet not allow them the chance to defend themselves and show you why they believe what they believe and why they think your beliefs are wrong. I guess you could say I'm calling you out. You consistently try to paint me as being ignorant and misguided but you are the one who won't answer questions.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 11, 2007 9:20:32 GMT -5
You consistently try to paint me as being ignorant and misguided but you are the one who won't answer questions. Hence....he/she is the THERAPIST: "Therapist attempts to shift the focus of the conflict to the combatants' psychological motivations and problems. He will freely speculate about other Warriors' insecurities, personalities and relationships, but he will almost never directly engage the subject of the dispute."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 9:32:26 GMT -5
Blondie, are you hiding from actual debate? Your responses don't make any sense. I'm trying to have a civil debate regarding what we each believe yet all you can do is try to insult me. I guess I should ask you this. Do you feel strong enough in what you believe to enter into a debate and, if so, would you rather do it in emails so that we don't have to worry about others jumping in? It's incredibly arrogant and doesn't make any sense for someone to criticize what others believe yet not allow them the chance to defend themselves and show you why they believe what they believe and why they think your beliefs are wrong. I guess you could say I'm calling you out. You consistently try to paint me as being ignorant and misguided but you are the one who won't answer questions. Theology is a subcategory of Metaphysics. Nobody does that kind of philosophy anymore. They haven't for a long time. Metaphysics involves meaningless, vague words.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 11, 2007 9:50:03 GMT -5
"I pnwd Phinehas with my great brain. He gave up trying to hold his hillbilly Evangelicalism against my vast knowledge of religion. Now he just pops in occasionally to shoot insults at me."
Pnwd me? Please.
Your posts on religious matters, which are the bulk, are troll posts due to the fact that you only ask questions in the framework of an insult and the purpose of your questions are not to receive an answer. You have admitted several times that all answers are just rationalizations and therefore are not valid. That is why you are a troll, inflammatory posts for the purpose of the reaction.
I gave up CORRECTING you on your lack of biblical understanding because it became painfully obvious that there is no point in it.
Matt 10:14 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. KJV
Consider the dust has been shaken off.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 11, 2007 9:53:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 11:27:38 GMT -5
"I pnwd Phinehas with my great brain. He gave up trying to hold his hillbilly Evangelicalism against my vast knowledge of religion. Now he just pops in occasionally to shoot insults at me." Pnwd me? Please. Your posts on religious matters, which are the bulk, are troll posts due to the fact that you only ask questions in the framework of an insult and the purpose of your questions are not to receive an answer. You have admitted several times that all answers are just rationalizations and therefore are not valid. That is why you are a troll, inflammatory posts for the purpose of the reaction. I gave up CORRECTING you on your lack of biblical understanding because it became painfully obvious that there is no point in it. Matt 10:14 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. KJV Consider the dust has been shaken off. Matthew 10 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. Get to work. cleanse some lepers and raise some dead already. Be sure to give all your stuff away first.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 11, 2007 11:31:18 GMT -5
Matthew 10 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. Get to work. cleanse some lepers and raise some dead already. Be sure to give all your stuff away first. You would do well to read Matt. 10:1-5.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 11, 2007 11:35:47 GMT -5
espy, you had your relapse, that was mine.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 11:59:23 GMT -5
You would do well to read Matt. 10:1-5. Thanks, I forgot about that. The author of Matthew and the author of Luke contradict each other on their lists of 12 disciples. The author of Luke has Judas the son of James instead of the author of Matthew’s Thaddaeus. (Luke apostles:) Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Matthew apostles:) These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 11, 2007 12:04:31 GMT -5
Did someone feed a Leprechaun?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 11, 2007 12:12:37 GMT -5
You would do well to read Matt. 10:1-5. Thanks, I forgot about that. The author of Matthew and the author of Luke contradict each other on their lists of 12 disciples. The author of Luke has Judas the son of James instead of the author of Matthew’s Thaddaeus. (Luke apostles:) Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Matthew apostles:) These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him. Ok. You're trying to change the subject but I'll play along. The reason I said you forgot to read verses 1-5 is because there it clearly shows who Jesus is speaking to and that He's giving those powers to the 12 apostles. It's called context. As for the difference in the list of apostles, I'll ask you two questions. How many Judas's are there? Between Matthew and Luke, which one was actually an apostle?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 13:31:34 GMT -5
Ok. You're trying to change the subject but I'll play along. The reason I said you forgot to read verses 1-5 is because there it clearly shows who Jesus is speaking to and that He's giving those powers to the 12 apostles. It's called context. As for the difference in the list of apostles, I'll ask you two questions. How many Judas's are there? Between Matthew and Luke, which one was actually an apostle? I know, I was just making fun of Phinehas for his random quote above. Be careful with that "in context" stuff, it can come back to bite you. The 12 apostles contradiction is a fact. It's two different lists in two different books. This is from Wikipedia: "The identity of the other apostle of the twelve, traditionally called St. Jude, varies between the Synoptic Gospels and also between ancient manuscripts of each gospel: Mark names him as Thaddaeus; Different manuscripts of Matthew identify him as either Thaddeus or Lebbaeus (some later Latin manuscripts name him "Judas the Zealot", but this is regarded as an unlikely reading); Luke names him as Judas, son of James (translated in the KJV as: "Judas the brother of James" Luke 6:16)." There is no way to reconcile this with an inerrant Bible. They are just different. Even more damning are the two genealogies of Jesus. Also from Wikipedia: "Since antiquity, scholars have disagreed about the significance of two genealogies."
|
|
|
Post by mamawolf on Apr 11, 2007 14:37:57 GMT -5
Again you need to read the bible as a whole and not just pieces out of context. I do geneology research and it gets confusing if you only look at one name and none of the history and documents connected to that name. My family is FILLED to overflowing with Nathan's as far back as the 1600's. I know someone who has 7 siblings with two of the brothers having the same name of John...the difference being that one's first name and the other's middle name are different. John Sylvester and Alton John. But their friends (in different states)all call them both John!! Thaddeus is Judas of James. I say of James because it is uncertain if he was a son or a brother. This link should help with the confusion: www.middletownbiblechurch.org/12disc/12dis.htmAs to Jesus lineage, I showed why it looks confusing in another post: attackmachine.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=onair&action=display&thread=1176192847&page=1#1176257022Oh and as far as Wikipedia.....I don't consider it a valid source since anyone and his brother can access, add, delete to any post there. It is simply a HUGE vat of differing opinions.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 15:16:14 GMT -5
Again you need to read the bible as a whole and not just pieces out of context. I do geneology research and it gets confusing if you only look at one name and none of the history and documents connected to that name. My family is FILLED to overflowing with Nathan's as far back as the 1600's. I know someone who has 7 siblings with two of the brothers having the same name of John...the difference being that one's first name and the other's middle name are different. John Sylvester and Alton John. But their friends (in different states)all call them both John!! Thaddeus is Judas of James. I say of James because it is uncertain if he was a son or a brother. This link should help with the confusion: www.middletownbiblechurch.org/12disc/12dis.htmAs to Jesus lineage, I showed why it looks confusing in another post: attackmachine.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=onair&action=display&thread=1176192847&page=1#1176257022Oh and as far as Wikipedia.....I don't consider it a valid source since anyone and his brother can access, add, delete to any post there. It is simply a HUGE vat of differing opinions. I specifically chose wikipedia quotes to show how the names of the 12 apostles and the 2 genealogies of Jesus are understood by an objective source. Wikipedia's not bad. If somebody puts something crazy in there it's not there for long. I've read the various attempts to reconciled them. I also realize that it's much easier to believe the books are not supernatural at all. That they were written by different people. So really there's no problem. A quick google search on Jesus' genealogy and the first objective link is to a genealogy company. Here's what they say: "There are two accounts of the genealogy of Jesus in the New Testament – one in Matthew and one in Luke. However, there are a number of apparent discrepancies in the accounts that have been the subject of debate and speculation for centuries." About.com says this: "Many scholars today accept that one or both Gospels are not presenting literal history in their genealogies, though scholars are divided on which is more likely to be accurate, if either is accurate at all." So all you can say is nobody knows. It's possible one or both of them were just made up. Maybe the whole story was made up. Maybe it was half made up. I'm virtually certain that any ancient tales of the supernatural are fiction. All contemporary tales of the supernatural are fiction. And there were a lot more back then. Jesus isn't the only man/god we know about from that time period.
|
|
|
Post by mamawolf on Apr 11, 2007 15:23:22 GMT -5
The lineages described have nothing to DO with supernatural. It is simply that they are for two different people from the same tribe. Mary and Joseph's connecting link in their lineage were brothers making them far removed cousins many generations down and both from the line of David. The Jewish people have always been extremely meticulas in record keeping of family lineage. Hence there are two accounts in the Gospels, one for Mary and one for Joseph..... No discrepency.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 16:04:38 GMT -5
one for Mary and one for Joseph..... No discrepency. You don't know this. Nobody knows. There are lot's of reasons to be suspicious of the idea that one of the genealogies is from Mary. "First, Jewish genealogy charts are paternal, not maternal. Second, this claim does not address the 15 generation gap between the two genealogies, which is a serious problem regardless of whether one or both actually refer to the lineage of Mary. Finally, even if both genealogies did refer to Mary, and there was some way to reconcile the differences between them, the text still says Joseph, not Mary." Also the Catholics, who've had to deal with this longer than anybody, don't even consider the Mary hypothesis: www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm
|
|
|
Post by mamawolf on Apr 11, 2007 16:35:12 GMT -5
At this point I will agree to disagree with you because this is proving to be a massive waste of energy on my part. It will remain between you and God eventually and nothing I would say would change that anyway. As I have said before, there is no debating or arguing religion or faith. You either believe or you don't. I for one believe. Have a good evening.
|
|
cw
Cog in Training
Posts: 60
|
Post by cw on Apr 11, 2007 16:47:47 GMT -5
I have to say that I am personally more suspicious of modern so called "scholars" than I am of the veracity of the bible. And I'm certainly not going to allow what I do not understand about jewish record keeping and their reasoning behind emphasising certain heritage above others to keep me from being loved by God and loving Him and my neighbors today.
Blondie, God does indeed love you very much and I am certain that He is actually glad that you are using all your critical thinking skills as He draws you into seeing Him for yourself. Intelligence and the resulting volition are attributes He has put into us for this very reason. I myself came to be a radically saved, born again Christian after an exhaustive study into sub-atomic particle physics. My quest was for the truth and my assumtion was that if I could find out what the very smallest bit of stuff was that the universe was made of then that was truth and everything else would be built from that. As it turns out, there is no such thing! ;D
However, I was honest in my quest and after a few days of mulling it over God saved me. He satisfied my hunger for truth because He IS Truth.
I would just encourage you to be honest in your quest as well.
Be blessed today.
|
|
syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 11, 2007 17:25:23 GMT -5
Let me get this right.
There are 3 reporters that write about the same event from different perspectives. They go to this event and part of the story is about a man named Charles. One of the reporters talks to a police officer who refers to Charles as being Charles from Bessemer and not the criminal from Montgomery. One of the reporters talks to an individual who refers to him as Allen. Another reporter talks from a person who calls him Len. All the reporters go back to their offices and write about the event and Charles Allen Head from Bessemer is referred to by each reporter in the manner they are aware of and one of the reporters also writes a follow up article.
So, when I read all four articles later on, my assumption has to be that some of the reporters are wrong?
I don't think you can rule out that all four reporters are 100% right and are indeed talking about the same person.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Apr 11, 2007 19:05:34 GMT -5
Charles Allen Head from Bessemer gong
|
|
|
Post by mamawolf on Apr 11, 2007 19:35:26 GMT -5
Charles Allen Head from Bessemer gong ROFL !!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 21:07:06 GMT -5
I myself came to be a radically saved, born again Christian after an exhaustive study into sub-atomic particle physics. I find this hard to believe. What has Christianity got to do with sub-atomic particle physics?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 21:14:48 GMT -5
Let me get this right. There are 3 reporters that write about the same event from different perspectives. They go to this event and part of the story is about a man named Charles. One of the reporters talks to a police officer who refers to Charles as being Charles from Bessemer and not the criminal from Montgomery. One of the reporters talks to an individual who refers to him as Allen. Another reporter talks from a person who calls him Len. All the reporters go back to their offices and write about the event and Charles Allen Head from Bessemer is referred to by each reporter in the manner they are aware of and one of the reporters also writes a follow up article. So, when I read all four articles later on, my assumption has to be that some of the reporters are wrong? I don't think you can rule out that all four reporters are 100% right and are indeed talking about the same person. It depends on if someone is trying to look for the truth or trying to rationalize their presuppositions. There are a lot more gospels than the ones in the Protestant Canon: www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark_home.htmlwww.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.htmlwww.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htmetc. etc.
|
|
syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 12, 2007 0:05:50 GMT -5
"It depends on if someone is trying to look for the truth or trying to rationalize their presuppositions."
Depends, eh. It would be logical to conclude, by this type of statement, that you will always assume the latter if the opinion differs from yours. Does this mean you go through life always being the "customer" even when you are not talking to a salesperson?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 12, 2007 8:40:22 GMT -5
I agree with mamawolf, "there is no debating or arguing religion or faith. You either believe or you don't."
But, If you read the above posts you will see how I approach the genealogy issue with an open, questioning mind and she has just tried to rationalize the American Evangelical cliches.
You can have faith in anything.
I look for real answers about religion the same way I look for real answers about anything.
As far as rejecting scholars. That's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but to reject the people who study something objectively in favor of people who just make stuff up or try to rationalize established dogma is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 12, 2007 9:09:35 GMT -5
As far as rejecting scholars. That's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but to reject the people who study something objectively in favor of people who just make stuff up or try to rationalize established dogma is crazy. And we have certainly come to learn that YOU can tell us which are which...and always tell us in such an objective way....
|
|
cw
Cog in Training
Posts: 60
|
Post by cw on Apr 12, 2007 9:56:35 GMT -5
I myself came to be a radically saved, born again Christian after an exhaustive study into sub-atomic particle physics. I find this hard to believe. What has Christianity got to do with sub-atomic particle physics? Firstly, you missed the point. My quest wasn't to learn all I could learn about physics, my quest was for truth. Secondly, the following is an absolutely true statement: Heb 11:3 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. NKJV That's pure physics, but how did this guy know that two thousand years ago?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 12, 2007 10:00:43 GMT -5
As far as rejecting scholars. That's ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but to reject the people who study something objectively in favor of people who just make stuff up or try to rationalize established dogma is crazy. And we have certainly come to learn that YOU can tell us which are which...and always tell us in such an objective way.... You can believe in magic or not. But if you are going to believe in magic and you chose to believe in a selective magic it's subjective. We all know what objective means. I hope. People that think science supports Christianity or any other religion are simply wrong. By ANY objective measure. If you want to arbitrarily believe in a magical system that's your prerogative. But realize it's no more valid than any other magical system. This will be the end of fundamentalism in America. Anybody can research this stuff for themselves. If your religion depends on willful ignorance in a day and age when information is so readily available you can't hope to hold out for too long. I'm amazed at how so many Christians know nothing of their religion beyond a very naive fundamentalism.
|
|
syme
Cog in Training
Posts: 52
|
Post by syme on Apr 12, 2007 10:18:43 GMT -5
I didn't know it was magic. Thanks for informing us, Morpheus. Does this now mean that you will present us with an option of a red pill or a blue pill?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 12, 2007 12:28:21 GMT -5
irstly, you missed the point. My quest wasn't to learn all I could learn about physics, my quest was for truth. Secondly, the following is an absolutely true statement: Heb 11:3 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. NKJV That's pure physics, but how did this guy know that two thousand years ago? That's absolutely ridiculous. It's just a line of bronze age poetry. I'm sure there are plenty of lines you could pull from the Aeneid that would sound much more convincing. www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+physics&btnG=Google+Search
|
|