Contributors

Sunday, March 10, 2013


59 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

I don't put any stock in the Bible. Funny how people pick and choose, isn't it?

Mark Ward said...

What's even more interesting, juris, is how early Christians decided to pick and choose as well to attract more followers. I look at those earlier times and note the decision to celebrate Christ's birthday on Dec 25th in an attempt to steal away sun worshipers or I look at the simple fact that they stole the idea of having a ceremony from the Mitharists and then I chuckle at your taunts:)

The Bubba T said...

Mark, as far as the dialect on this blog I think Juris only puts stock in what Juris thinks.

Anonymous said...

You have frequently accused conservatives of never assimilating new information. Yet this post is a perfect proof of your projection. We've gone over this before. The first time, in October 2011. Then again this past November. Yet you blunder on as if that information doesn't even exist.

Heck, there's even another question Mark has now refused to answer for more than 119 days:

What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written?

----------

The following is reposts of information Mark has willfully ignored:

Anonymous said...

And now I'm taking things out of context…?

Yes you are. My question, "Who were these laws given to?" was an attempt to get you to look at that context. Since you have REFUSED to do so, I will have to do it for you.

Every single one of those laws you quoted was given to one particular group of people, with only one minor variation. And in every case (with one minor exception) who that group is was explicitly stated just prior to each set of laws. So let's look at those references you gave. (Note: I am changing the order of the references you gave to match their order in the Bible.) Can you spot the pattern?:

Exodus 21:7 (selling a daughter)

Context: “Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:”
— Exodus 21:1

Who is "them"? Check the context: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,”
— Exodus 20:22

BTW, there are extra details on this one, specifically, the specific meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "female slave":

In Exod 21:7–11 it is clear that the Hebrew father sells his daughter as an hDmDa specifically in order for her to marry her new master or his son.
— New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis

(Oh look, there's that Exegesis word again!)

So once you look at the details and get the meaning from the text, you see that this is not "slavery" as practiced in pre-Civil War America, it is something very different. Once you realize that, the purpose of rest of the context (verses 8-11) becomes clear: these laws were to keep the daughter from being treated as less than a wife acquired through other means.

Exodus 35:2 (Sabbath)

Context: Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do:”
— Exodus 35:1

Leviticus 1:9 (burnt offerings)

Context: Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 1:1–2

Leviticus 11:6-8 (eating unclean animals)
and
Leviticus 11:10 (eating shellfish)

Context: The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying,”
— Leviticus 11:1–2

BTW, you said:

eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.

English translations can hide some of the subtlety of the original language here. But even in English there is a significant clue in understanding the context. Look at the actual verse:

‘But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,’
— Leviticus 11:10

Compare that to the Levitical law against homosexuality:

‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’
— Leviticus 18:22

Do you see something missing in that description as an "abomination"? Those two little words, "to you," define the scope of who is to apply that definition of "abomination". For shellfish, it limits that definition to "the sons of Israel." There is no such limitation to "abomination" when applied to homosexuality, which makes it a universal judgement.

Also, most English translations use "detestable" in the passage about shellfish. (The KJV and WEB are the only exceptions I found.) This is because the Hebrew word usually translated "detestable" in Leviticus 11:10 & 11 is different than the word usually translated as "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22.

Anonymous said...

Leviticus 15:19-24 (menstruating woman)

Context: The LORD also spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them,”
— Leviticus 15:1–2

Leviticus 19:19 (not mixing two kinds)
and
Leviticus 19:27 (beard trimming)

Context: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
“Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them,”

— Leviticus 19:1–2

Leviticus 20:14 (penalties for sexual sins)

Context: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
— Leviticus 20:1–2

Leviticus 21:20 (no defects)

Context: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them:”
— Leviticus 21:1

This is the exception in who the law applies to, which I mentioned at the beginning. The restrictions given in Leviticus 21 apply to a much more restricted group than all the other laws you mentioned. In this case, it's not "the sons of Israel", but only the priests giving the offerings in the temple.

You said:

Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear glasses and contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Do I need to plunk down the dough for lassic surgery?

Did you keep reading the context?

‘No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.’
— Leviticus 21:21

Are you a descendent of Aaron who is taking care of butchering and burning the sacrifices prior to Jesus' crucifixion? Then you have a problem.

Leviticus 24:10-16 (the woman who blasphemed)

This is the other exception I mentioned. In this case, the law was given after the incident occurred. In fact, the giving of that law, and it's context was given in the range of verses you referenced:

Context: “You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying,”
— Leviticus 24:15

Leviticus 25:44 (slaves)

Context: The LORD then spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 25:1–2

Did you spot the pattern yet? Do you recognize the context? Every single one of these laws was given to the nation of Israel as part of the Mosaic Covenant; with the exception of the one which was for a subset of Israel—the priests. Not one of them was given to anyone outside of that nation, either during that time period, or today. But you are trying (and failing miserably) to rip them out of their context and apply them to Christians today. That's like trying to prosecute someone in Minnesota for violating one of Florida's laws, or one of France's laws.

So heck yeah, you ARE ripping things out of context.

Anonymous said...

BTW, here is the entry concerning slavery from "Hard Sayings of the Bible" which gives important background info:

Does God Approve of Slavery?

Does God approve of slavery? If not, why do we find so much legislation in the Old Testament on how to treat slaves?

There were basically two types of slaves in the Old Testament: the fellow Hebrew who sold himself in order to raise capital (Lev 25:39–55; Deut 15:12–18) and the foreign prisoner of war. In the postexilic days, during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, there was a third type known as the ne tinim. Their origins were probably the same as those Gibeonites of Joshua’s day who became cutters of woods and carriers of water rather than risk losing their lives in further miliary opposition to Israel.

Never, however, did Israel ever enter into the capture and sale of human life as did the Phoenician and Philistine traders and later the European nations. The third class of slaves called the ne tinim never were real serfs, but instead formed a clerical order attached to the temple with positions ranking just below that of the Levites, who also assisted in the services at the temple.

A fellow Israelite who needed to raise money to pay for debts or the like could not borrow against his property (for that was owned by the Lord according to Leviticus 25:23) but had to sell the only asset he possessed: his labor power. However, there were strict rules that governed his or her treatment during the maximum of six years that such a relationship could be entered into with another Israelite. Should any master mistreat his slave with a rod, leaving an injury, the owner forfeited his whole investment (Ex 21:20–21, 26) and the slave was immediately released, or if the master caused the slave’s death, the master was subject to capital punishment.

What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean that they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20–21, 26 applied to them as well. One evidence of a mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14).

A female slave who was married to her captor could not be sold again as a slave. If her master, now her husband, grew to hate her, she had to be liberated and was declared a free person (Deut 21:14).

The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war. Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale. This type of slavery was voluntary for the Hebrew and the ne tinim; only the war prisoner was shackled involuntarily. But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.

Juris Imprudent said...

Mark, as far as the dialect on this blog I think Juris only puts stock in what Juris thinks.

Well I outgrew imaginary friends around age 9 or 10.

I don't tend to proselytize my skepticism. We all have to figure out our own way in this world.

Mark Ward said...

there's even another question Mark has now refused

Wow. These types of posts really fuck you up, don't they? I mean, you haven't posted here in days and now 1...2...3...4...5 comments falling all over yourself to "prove me wrong?"

Anonymous said...

Juris, out of curiosity, did you ever get to see "The Book of Eli"?

Anonymous said...

Clearly, Mark didn't bother reading anything at all.

Anonymous said...

He is incurious and revels is ignorance.

Juris Imprudent said...

Juris, out of curiosity, did you ever get to see "The Book of Eli"?

Yes.

Anonymous said...

My take on Mark's approach to the Bible is that it's very much like Gary Oldman's character. It seems that to him it's just a tool to use against others to get his way, but not something that's actually true or applies to him.

As an an atheist, what do you think? Accurate? Not?

Mark Ward said...

Considering that early Christians took elements of a "pagan" faith to make their religion more appealing to the masses, I'd say your assertions about me are pretty much full of shit. Go to a church service on Sunday? Well, guess what? You are a Mitharist:)

I also think juris ought to tell you exactly what he thinks about Christianity and after he does, perhaps you might want to "save" him instead of finding a way to prove me wrong and avoid uncomfortable truths about your individual faith.

Anonymous said...

As usual, Mark has his history backwards:

Mithraism

Mithraism is a Roman mystery religion that flourished in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Much is still unknown about this secretive sect, but scholars have generally been able to determine that it involved the worship of the ancient Persian god Mithras in caves, a communal meal and initiation through seven stages of an astrologically-themed hierarchy.

The origins of Mithraism as a Roman cult are not fully understood. It clearly derives from ancient Persia in some way, but scholars are divided on whether the Roman cult is a westernized Persian religion or an essentially western religion with Persian trimmings.

The time period in which Mithraism flourished is better known, thanks to the archaeological evidence. The cult of Mithras appears suddenly in the 2nd century AD - hundreds of inscriptions begin appearing after 136 AD. It then died out with the rest of Greco-Roman paganism after the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century. Its sudden emergence in the Roman world has not been explained. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica,

The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world.

In considering claims for Mithraism's influence on Christianity, it is important to remember that Mithraism was a very secretive, initiatory cult whose beliefs, practices and imagery were not known to the outside world. So it would not have been as easy for Christianity to borrow ideas from it as one might assume.

It is also worth noting that two faiths developing in the same area of the world at the same time are likely to have similar ideas and practices, regardless of their level of interaction. Ritual communal meals and the theme of sacrifice for salvation, for instance, were common not only to Mithraism and Christianity but much of the ancient world.

Anonymous said...

Did Christianity Steal From Mithraism?

Because of the lack of textual evidence for early Mithraism, there is no way to positively assert that the ideas that seem to correspond to Christianity were ever taught prior to the second century A.D. after all of the Christian texts that make up the New Testament had been in wide-spread circulation. In fact, most scholars take a dim view of that idea. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi dismisses this hypothesis in stating "Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west."

In fact, Mithraism seems to change drastically from its Persian roots when it becomes a Roman cult. Romans adapted the military cult into something much more comfortable and understandable for their form of worship. Scholars Beard, North and Price agree stating, "The form of the cult most familiar to us, the initiatory cult, does not seem to derive from Persia at all. It is found first in the west, has no significant resemblance to its supposed Persian 'origins', and seems largely to be a western construct."

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages.... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook.... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."

Nash goes on to assert that instead of Christianity borrowing form Mithraism, it was the other way around. Mithraism tried to make its pagan rituals look and feel more Christian.

When studying the ancient Mithraism, the one that came before western influence, we see that it reads much more like other ancient myths rather than early Christianity. Norman Geisler summarizes this by saying "We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race." In comparison, Geisler points out that "the foundation stones of Christianity are patently taken from the Old Testament, Judaism generally, and the life of a historical figure named Jesus."

Juris Imprudent said...

As an an atheist, what do you think? Accurate? Not?

Not particularly. That character knew how to wield it effectively for that purpose, M does not.

Mark Ward said...

I take comfort in the fact that I'm in good company with all the churches and various denominations that have gay members as well as individuals that...um...think:) I guess they are all heretics, manipulators and blasphemers as well, eh NMN?

As I have said previously, your faith is weak.

Anonymous said...

.. instead of finding a way to prove me wrong and avoid uncomfortable truths about your individual faith.

and

As I have said previously, your faith is weak.

That makes no sense. You are wrong and it was shown to you. And you say his faith is weak, why? I would bet that NMN is also comfortable with churches having gay members just like there are liars, thieves, fornicators, etc. Church is not for the perfect. I am starting to sense that your 'Christianity' is shaded in progressive dogma more so than the Word. NMN's 3rd takedown of this meme wasn't hard to even find answers via Google, let alone already have this presented to you.

Just like every other topic you blog about, you are off by a mile and too incurious to find out why.

Anonymous said...

And as you have previously refused to answer:

Faith in what? (12 days and counting)

Anonymous said...

I would bet that NMN is also comfortable with churches having gay members just like there are liars, thieves, fornicators, etc. Church is not for the perfect.

You are correct.

Church is for those who want to "press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:12-14), which is "to be conformed to the image of [Jesus]" (Rom. 8:29). Or in other words, for those who want to become more like God in character, which includes love, righteousness (doing the right thing), wisdom, knowledge, etc. and learning what those are. The technical term used in the Bible for this process is "sanctification".

To put it another way, church isn't supposed to be an "I'm okay, you're okay" club. It's supposed to be like a professional sports training camp where we learn what God's standard is and encourage each other towards achieving that standard, like coaches encourage athletes, and athletes encourage each other.

Another analogy is that church is like a hospital. It isn't there for the healthy, but the sick. (Mark 2:17)

Mark Ward said...

your 'Christianity' is shaded in progressive dogma

Right, that would be that whole helping the poor and healing the sick thing....doing His works and greater than these...

But nice try, once again, at the whole heading off at the pass meme. There's no such thing as Republican Jesus.

NMN, your faith is weak because you have to have everyone else have the same relationship with God that you do. Everyone has to think the same way....odd, as you are against collectives...otherwise, insecurity sets in and you need to "save" people. YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the RIGHT interpretation. There can be no other way. Never mind the fact that you are just as fallible as the men who wrote the Bible.

Since I don't have the titanic hubris that you do, I don't feel the need to claim my interpretation is the right one. Nor do I push my relationship with God on others. In many ways, I am a libertarian when it comes to Jesus. I don't need someone inserting themselves between me and the Lord, least of all, someone like you, a card carrying member of the American Taliban.

The Bubba T said...

I love to love!

Anonymous said...

There's no such thing as Republican Jesus.

Nope, and there no argument about healing the sick and helping the poor either. YOU conflate that individual challenge from Jesus to be at the society level and want to FORCE everyone, even atheists to conform to your views. As if you are projecting....

Mark Ward said...

Who says I want to force anyone to conform to my views? Oh, right, the fantasy about how taxes aren't constitutional...even though they are in the Constitution.

My conversation here with NMN reminds me quite a bit of Martin Luther's reaction to the Copernican Hypothesis. Luther pointed to Bible verses that said that the sun moves around the earth, citing Psalm 98 and Joshua's commanding of the sun to stand still. Yet the Bible ended up being wrong just as it is on a few other issues. That does not mean that ALL of it is wrong nor does it mean that one must lose his ability to reason and think:)

Anonymous said...

Oh, right, the fantasy about how taxes aren't constitutional...even though they are in the Constitution.

Nonsensical as ever. You are good at strawman arguments as you practice them more than anyone I have ever seen.

Larry said...

He's a kung-fu straw-fightin' fool, our Markie is.

Anonymous said...

…your faith is weak because…

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

faith:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

You seem to think the definition stops after three words. But that word "IN" is a crucial part of the definition. So let's examine your claims:

In response to pointing out that history has numerous examples of tyranny and democide being enabled by gun control and yet another instance of asking "Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country?", your response was "It's because his faith is weak."

Question: Why?

Response: Faith!

Counter-question: IN what?

Response: …

Apparently your idea is just "have confidence! It'll be okay. Stick your head in the sand! Bad things are not possible because… because… well, they're just not possible. I'm totally confident about that!"

In other words:

Charles Darwin once said, 'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than knowledge,' and Dunning and Kruger seem to have proven this point.

And now you're claiming that I lack "faith" because I have confidence that God is capable of doing what any human can do (ghostwriting, see Mark's "fallible men" statement) and then some. My "faith" is weak because I think that God actually means what he says.

But by contrast, your "faith" is strong because you think God is less capable than human beings, or wishy-washy and unable to make up his mind.

Just… wow…

My faith is IN God, that He is capable of doing what He chooses to do and means what He says. And IN the Bible, that it accurately tells us what He wanted us to know. (Note: Parts of the Bible can be tested—the history parts—thus we can know that those parts are true. Other parts—such a prophecies about the future—are not testable, thus require trust to accept. Blind faith is not required.)

What is YOUR faith IN? Apparently, it's yourself.

Anonymous said...

YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the RIGHT interpretation. There can be no other way.

You've heard this many times, Mark. Words. Mean. Things.

Some things in the Bible are written very, very, VERY clearly. For example:

“You shall not murder.”
— Exodus 20:13

Where is there room for any "other way" of interpretation here?

Or when in Leviticus it says over and over and over and over again, "say to the Sons of Israel", where is there room for any "other way" of interpretation which allows for this things being said to someone who is not a "son of Israel"?

Yes, there are areas where the Bible is unclear. For example, will there be a Rapture before the seven years of Tribulation in Revelation? In the middle? After? I lean towards a particular view, but there are good arguments for other views which are made by honest men who are also striving to accurately understand the Author's intent. So yes, in that case, there is room for "other ways" of interpretation.

Here's another case where the meaning is vague:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”
— John 14:12

What works does He mean? Miracles? (They basically stopped during the Apostle's lifetime.) Works of service? Teaching? Preaching? Leading people to salvation? Rising from the dead by our own will? And who did He mean? Only the Apostles? (miracles) Every believer? But there are a couple of things we can be sure He did not mean: He clearly did not mean "unbelievers" (see "whoever believes in me"). It's also clear that by "works" He did not mean doing things He said not to do. (That would be imposing a contradiction when there are valid interpretations where there is no contradiction.)

Quite simply, where the meanings of words and the structure of the language is simple and fits well known grammatical rules, there is essentially no room for "interpretation". When meanings of words used are broad and language structure is complex or imprecise, then there is more room for interpretation, but that room is not unlimited. You cannot make a vague statement mean something that bears no linguistic or logical connection (or contradiction!) to the original statement or its context.

For example, the language describing "The Rapture" in scripture is imprecise in describing the timing relative to the "Tribulation". That means there is room for varying guesses about the future. But that does not mean there is room to legitimately "interpret" such imprecision to claim that the Bible does not teach there is a seven year "Tribulation". That there will be such a period is a very clear teaching.

Juris Imprudent said...

Words. Mean. Things.

HumptyDelphia truly believes he is the master of such things, and that words need never mean other than what he wants in that moment.

Mark Ward said...

So, the Bible got it wrong on the earth and the sun, then?

Anonymous said...

Why do we use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" today even though we know the sun doesn't actually rise and set?

So, nothing on the actual topic? ("Say to the Sons of Israel") Are you running away again?

Mark Ward said...

Not at all. The Bible got it wrong on the earth and the sun. That's because it was written by very fallible men. It's also wrong on other things which means your assertions about me using the Bible and only paying attention to the parts with which I agree is also wrong. I don't agree that the earth is at the center of the universe because that's a fact.

Given that they were wrong about that, what other things could try be wrong about?

Mark Ward said...

yet you ignored both things

And we're back to the psychotic bullshit again. You answer my questions with questions and then accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. The Bible is wrong about some things, NMN, and a great example of this is its view on the heavens. Its words do, in fact, mean something and that is something you are ignoring because then you would have to admit that it is wrong. And if it's wrong about this, then what else could it be wrong about? That's the problem when you set yourself up with an ideology so rigid that it has no room for growth.

It must be extremely difficult for you to make sense of your faith and your insistence on adhering to science. In some ways, the Bible contradicts science. Saying that it's clear or vague is also a dodge, really, and a fine example of who is really avoiding engagement here.

Getting back to something you said above...

When meanings of words used are broad and language structure is complex or imprecise, then there is more room for interpretation, but that room is not unlimited.

Right, let's not get too crazy with doing greater works than Christ or God. After all, every parent wishes for their child to remain subservient, never exceeding their skills or standing in life.

I'd say the verse you quoted means a healing the sick and caring for the poor on a worldwide level. It doesn't matter if it is the government doing this or private organizations. Honestly, these are just mechanisms. Essentially, I read this verse to mean that Jesus is happy that Social Security has reduced poverty in the elderly:)

Juris Imprudent said...

The Bible is wrong about some things

And you are the one who will decide what parts are right and which are wrong eh?

Mark Ward said...

I think Copernicus pretty much decided that for all of us. And it's pretty clear that slavery was declared bad by most humans.

As for the rest, it's up to each person to decide how God comes to them. It's not the place of anyone else to insert themselves between the Lord and his believer.

Anonymous said...

As for the rest, it's up to each person to decide how God comes to them. It's not the place of anyone else to insert themselves between the Lord and his believer.

Absolutely. But......

If a person had decided that God has come to them via the profit Mohammed then that person would probably not be accurate if they were to call themselves a Christian.

And if a person, such as nmn, were to point that inaccuracy out, would he be correct or would you consider him to be forcing his faith upon others?

Juris Imprudent said...

As for the rest, it's up to each person to decide how God comes to them. It's not the place of anyone else to insert themselves between the Lord and his believer.

So I take it you will stop complaining about how others preach the gospel, since it would be wrong for you to come between them and God as they see Him.

Mark Ward said...

GD, you are correct. It would not be accurate to call that person a Christian. If you simply made that statement to such a person, I wouldn't look at that as forcing faith. Yet, if you told that person he was going to burn in hell, then you are judging and starting to get pushy. Who are we to say how God comes to people? Interestingly, they all come from Abraham and Jesus certainly wasn't a slouch in the Islamic faith.

Your mention of Muslims, though, made me think about how similar that faith is to Christian conservatives. They believe in different saviors, to be sure, but have exactly the same level of fervor when it comes to pushing their faith. Granted, I am very biased when it comes to both belief systems but the similarities are striking. Both seem to genuinely want a theocracy.

Juris Imprudent said...

Both seem to genuinely want a theocracy.

The irony of such a false equivalence from the one who moans like a whore when such comes from his opposition. Well, not really all that ironic - hypocrisy is your stock in trade.

Anonymous said...

I recently came across a fascinating point about where the Bible does explicitly talk about cosmology. In the book of Job (thought to be the oldest of any book in the Bible) God challenged Job by asking him if he could do what God does. Here are some of those questions:

“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades
or loose the cords of Orion?
Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
or can you guide the Bear with its children?”

— Job 38:31–32

The behavior of those stars could not be known at the time Job was written. In fact, the techniques needed to examine those stars weren't available until sometime in the last century or so, thousands of years after this was written.

It turns out that Pleiades is actually a group of 250 stars all travelling in the same direction. Figuratively speaking, they're bound together as if by chains.

Orion's belt is three stars that appear to be in a straight line. But all three stars are travelling in different directions. Eventually the two right hand stars will appear close enough that they'll seem like one star to the naked eye and the third will appear to exit the formation. Figuratively speaking, loosening Orion's belt.

Arcturus ("The Bear") is one of a handful of stars that's, figuratively speaking, a law unto themselves. It's one of the largest stars in the universe and it's travelling at about 257 miles per second. (Compared to our sun which travels at about 12.5 miles per second.) Due to its mass and velocity, it can't be slowed or redirected by any other known star. Again, compare that to the language of "guide".

Source: The Bible Foreshadows Scientific Discoveries

So your contention is that the Bible is "wrong" because it uses the same kind of metaphorical language modern people use in the exact same descriptive situations. Yet when it explicitly discusses cosmology, it accurately describes the motion of stars that wouldn't be confirmed for thousands of years. (Not to mention the other scientific accuracies described at that link.)

The only "wrong" I see here is you imposing a "wrong" though how YOU choose to interpret what's written.

That's the problem when you set yourself up with an ideology so rigid that it has no room for growth.

Checked the mirror lately?

When one has solid facts and sound, tested reasoning to believe a thing is actually so, that is called "knowledge". Abandoning "knowledge" because it's "too rigid" is called "idiotic".

Anonymous said...

And you are the one who will decide what parts are right and which are wrong eh?

I've asked him a version that question many times before over the years. He has always refused to answer it. You seem to be correct. HE is the one who will decide, imposing himself between God and the rest of humanity.

Anonymous said...

Markadelphia: It's not the place of anyone else to insert themselves between the Lord and his believer.

Markadelphia: Essentially, I read this verse to mean that Jesus is happy that Social Security has reduced poverty in the elderly

Nice self-contradiction you've got going there.

Mark Ward said...

. It also gives the askee a face saving opportunity to self-correct if necessary.

That would be nice if this wasn't a one way street. Or, when I answered your questions, you didn't blow a bowel and reject my answers and obsessively ask more questions. Your ensuing comments below are at least a step in the right direction. Let's see if this is just a fluke or you have actually turned over a new leaf.

So your contention is that the Bible is "wrong" because it uses the same kind of metaphorical language modern people use in the exact same descriptive situations.

It's much simpler than that. The Bible is simply wrong about some things. Period. Those would be the makeup of the solar system, slavery, treatment of women and children, and homosexuality. By accepting the Bible as "solid facts and sound" throughout...a document written in a different language, in a different culture, by people less evolved than us in a number of ways...is what is idiotic. There are great many fundamental spiritual elements in the Bible that still apply to today. Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins and was resurrected. In my view, he is our savior. I believe this so it's a matter of faith, not logic. That's the whole point and the only other thing you need to do is live your life the way Christ did and help the sick, poor, and less fortunate. Love thy neighbor...those sorts of things...they are indeed timeless...

Here's a question for you and I don't really care if you answer it or not. If your child were sick, which doctor would you rather have treat her/him? A doctor from today or a doctor from the time the Bible was written? I would choose the former and likely you would as well. So why would you trust your immortal soul to these people, especially on the smaller issues they discuss like sin and homosexuals?

You don't have to believe everything in the Bible is 100 percent literally true to be a Christian.

Anonymous said...

Those would be the makeup of the solar system,

Why? You didn't do any reading did you?

slavery

Why? Again, you didn't do any reading, did you?

treatment of women and children

Why? I didn't address this one here, but it's the same thing. You can only claim this if you ignore the details of what the Bible actually says and history. Pretty much, you didn't do any reading on this topic, did you?

homosexuality

Why? Because YOU say so. No further explanation required. You supersede God. Period. Oh, and there are no negative consequences to homosexuality because the great and powerful Markadelphia knows more than the CDC.

With you it always, always, always boils down to "Damn the facts, Mark is always right!"

Remember this thread?

Anonymous said...

(Part 1 of 2)

You don't have to believe everything in the Bible is 100 percent literally true to be a Christian.

That is true. But can you be a Christian if you make yourself an active enemy of God and His word? Don't be ridiculous!

So why would you trust your immortal soul to these people, especially on the smaller issues they discuss like sin and homosexuals?

Let me rephrase the question slightly. Who do you believe when they claim to speak for God? Or, on what basis do you decide?

Speaking for God is not like asking someone about physical sciences. Physical sciences cannot know the MIND of God. Heck, they can't even know the MIND of an average human being. They can tell you what the general pattern of electricity is in someone's brain. But they can't tell you what that person is thinking about, or what they want to say. The only way to know that is to listen to what that person actually says.

Speaking for God is more like being an ambassador. They are someone who is charged with accurately communicating a message from the being they represent. When someone approaches the rulers of Country A claiming to be an ambassador from Country B, how do you recognize whether or not they are telling the truth?

By examining their credentials. You check out the documentation they bring with them. You check the signatures, the seals, and what it says. You make sure they're actually the person named in the document. And in this modern age, you can make a quick call to verify that yes, we did send an ambassador and everything seems to match up.

Now suppose it's a year later (or 10). A different person shows up claiming to be the ambassador. This person doesn't have any credentials. But they claim they're the new ambassador. And they're saying things that contradict the verified ambassador. Do you accept this person as a genuine representative? Heck no! You toss them out on their keister.

Those who wrote the Bible provided credentials that they were speaking on God's behalf. Those credentials included 100% accurate prophecy (for example, Ezek 31:1-14 came true in 1948) and miracles that no human being could do. Moses fit both of these. I just pointed out Ezekial. Isaiah and many of the other prophets wrote clear prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. Of course, Jesus also provided His own credentials through miracles (see Mark 2:1-12), especially rising from the dead. He also stated that the Old Testament scriptures were authentic. (The Jews called them the "Law, Prophets, and Writings", which is the term Jesus used.)

The Apostles also were given credentials to authenticate their writings. They performed miracles, prophecy, and stated true things to people (of their day) who were able to verify their claims. They were also the ones who were directly taught (or were confronted by in Paul's case) Jesus.

Anonymous said...

(Part 2 of 2)

In fact, that criteria is what was applied in the debate over what was legitimate scripture and what was not. For all books, if they were known to contain factual errors, they were out. If one book contradicted authenticated scripture, it was out. For the Old Testament, they were considered valid if Jesus quoted them as valid. For the New Testament they had to be written by actual Apostles or under the authority of an actual Apostle. (Mark was under Peter's authority. Luke was under Paul's.)

You have made claims that the Bible contains errors, but every "error" you have claimed is the result of YOU imposing YOUR interpretation to create an "error" or even the much more transparent imposition of YOUR supposed authority. (Homosexuality is a clear example of the latter.)

And you blew right past evidence I did provide for the Bible's reliability with nary a comment. Heck, I bet you barely even glanced at it.

So where are YOUR credentials, Mark? Have you performed miracles? How about 100% accurate prophecy? Heck, you can't even accurately understand what I write, which blows your credibility of speaking for God right out of the gate.

Note that I do not claim to speak for God. All I can do is point to the Bible, point out that there are reasons to believe it is the accurate word of God, and repeat what it says. That's why I keep quoting it.

For example, "say to the Sons of Israel". Most of those things you complained that Christians "ignore" were things said to the Sons of Israel because that's what the Bible actually says they were to. No one else. Is it "putting myself between you and God" to say, "See! There it is. Look for yourself!"? Only if you have a truly bizzare NewSpeak definition for "between".

Anonymous said...

GD, you are correct. It would not be accurate to call that person a Christian. If you simply made that statement to such a person, I wouldn't look at that as forcing faith. Yet, if you told that person he was going to burn in hell, then you are judging and starting to get pushy


Ahhh, but there's the rub.

What if that person who claimed to be a Christian but in actual practice followed Islam tried to claim that his soul was saved by Jesus. Would NMN pointing out that he had not followed the requirements of the Christian faith for that to happen and as laid out by the 'rulebook' of the Christian faith he in actuality was not saved but rather would burn in hell - that does not appear to be 'forcing his faith upon others' but rather pointing out the obvious, or perhaps not so obvious.

Mark Ward said...

Because YOU say so.

Of course not. Their views on homosexuality came from the same place that that Muslim views on homosexuality came from-ignorance and fear. That was THEIR culture, not our culture. If you think about it, saying homosexuals are going to burn in hell really isn't very American.

I have several Bibles and one of them is the King James. The words of Jesus are written in red. There isn't a single word about homosexuals in any of His words. Nor is there one word about abortion (that's actually true of the rest of the Bible save for Exodus 21:22-23) for that matter. Since He was silent on the subject, He obviously had more important things on his mind for us.

The other thing to consider is how their culture viewed homosexuality and how ours does today. Back then, there were Roman pedophiles buggering little boys in disgusting orgies. They didn't have Steve and Neil adopting a little child from Russia and running their B and B. It's no wonder they thought it was evil.

And this doesn't even bring in the idea that sexuality was defined in the Bible by MEN, not women. Let's face it, these people were really backwards when it came to women. It makes sense that they would freak out about sex as much as they did and issue orders "from God" that says that homosexuality was a sin.

can you be a Christian if you make yourself an active enemy of God

An active enemy of God...in your opinion...given that God will "forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (that's a direct quote, btw), it's clear that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

Who do you believe when they claim to speak for God?

I don't need to have anyone speak on behalf of God. We're all equal in the eyes of the Lord and I have no problem whatsoever speaking to Him, more specifically Jesus, myself. But you are right, no one can know the mind of God and that includes the men who wrote the Bible. It's up to us to decide and (ahem) critically examine its contents.

Mark Ward said...

So where are YOUR credentials, Mark?

No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Mark Ward said...

What if that person who claimed to be a Christian but in actual practice

That's not for me or NMN to decide. Ultimately, that person will have to face God. I would think that NMN's time would be spent more wisely worrying about himself rather than others. I know mine would.

Anonymous said...

I would think that NMN's time would be spent more wisely worrying about himself rather than others. I know mine would.

But NMN didn't come here and start arguing Ecclesiastical subjects in the middle of a thread about something else. YOU posted a subject directly relative. You made a post essentially posting how others view the Bible is wrong - then YOU criticize NMN for arguing THAT VERY SAME SUBJECT with you. You are the other half of the same coin in this argument - so getting all 'holier than thou' is a bit misplaced.

Anonymous said...

No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

So you're claiming that this prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yawheh as his/her God (previous verse), even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?

Riiiiiigggggghhhhhtttt…

Anonymous said...

Ultimately, that person will have to face God.

And when God says "this is how I will judge", don't you think it makes sense to think, "Gee, that might actually be the standard He is going by"?

You must really be fun to listen to when you get pulled over for a traffic violation.

Anonymous said...

The words of Jesus are written in red. There isn't a single word about homosexuals in any of His words.

Here's what he did say:

And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
— Mark 10:5–9

Notice two things here:

1) His definition of marriage is one man, one woman. Or are you saying that "man" doesn't mean, well, "man"? And that "woman" means "gendermorph of uncertain sexuality"? Get real, Mark!

Sin, by definition, is "any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature." (From Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.) Why does Jesus have to list every possible deviation from God's law when all He has to do is simply state the law?

2) In this passage He is not loosening the restrictions of the Mosaic Law, He's TIGHTENING them! Moses allowed for divorce because people are willful idiots. But Jesus says that not how He designed things; divorce is not supposed to be an option. But YOU magically claim that He did the opposite of this:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
— Matthew 5:17–18

He also said this:

And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
— Mark 7:20–23

So tell me, what is Jesus' definition of "sexual immorality" and "sensuality" given that he made a distinction from adultery and He said He did not come to overturn the Old Testament?

The other thing to consider is how their culture viewed homosexuality and how ours does today.

Aaaaaaaand here we go. Once again, we come around to this idea you have that the God who could create the universe with a word, can keep track of every single star by name without missing one, knows all that will ever happen before it does, who can defeat death even when He has died—this mighty and powerful God is totally unable to do what any mere human can do: have someone write what HE wants written. Your argument can ONLY work if God has all the power of a toadstool.

Gee, look. That's one of the questions you refuse to answer:

What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? (122 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)

Anonymous said...

Test:

"say to the Sons of Israel…"

Response?

Anonymous said...

As I thought. Apparently "Sons of Israel" is invisible to Mark.

Anonymous said...

Now that Mark has officially run away…

Juris, you started out by commenting on the pick and choose thing Mark was attacking. Did the explanation that the "shaving, Sabbath, lobster, pork, mixed fabric, etc." laws were only given to the nation of Israel make sense to you?