Biblical inerrancy

[Abramelin]

4 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks cormac and Abramelin,    I just don’t know!    

You're sending the wrong signals with that smiley.

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I know the etymology of the Germanic word "hell" or "hel".

But the ancient missionaries most probably adopted that word from the pantheon of the people of Northern Europe:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(mythological_being)

Hi Rob

Yes and that was my point to Larry that hell was not in the Dead Sea scrolls .

[Abramelin]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rob

Yes and that was my point to Larry that hell was not in the Dead Sea scrolls .

I know that thàt was your point, but I only wanted to stress the fact that these evil blackrobes tried to convert the pagans by twisting their pagan religion into something that would fit the Christian faith, and by that to make it acceptable for these heathens.

I have witnessed their 'tactics' in South America.

 

Edited to correct:

I have witnessed the evil way of converting the South American natives to the Christian faith, not by Catholic priests or missionaries, but by North American protestants.

I forgot their name, but Norman Lewis wrote a nice book about these religious missionary demons.

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Abramelin

[psyche101]

On 8/11/2022 at 7:03 PM, larryp said:

^^^

YHWH

You mean the Catholic church that teaches my father supports a torture chamber (Hellfire), and I'm supposed to believe the above fantasy too. You ask a lot.  LOL . . .

I mean a stringent religion bound by the same book you preach from. Who had to flex to allow for overwhelming evidence in order to save face by illustrating a modicum of honesty.

Do you think your god would be happy with you belittling his creation? Is it up to you to judge your gods work? 

Do you think your god would approve of your behaviour? 

[jmccr8]

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I know that thàt was your point, but I only wanted to stress the fact that these evil blackrobes tried to convert the pagans by twisting their pagan religion into something that would fit the Christian faith, and by that to make it acceptable for these heathens.

I have witnessed their 'tactics' in South America.

 

Edited to correct:

I have witnessed the evil way of converting the South American natives to the Christian faith, not by Catholic priests or missionaries, but by North American protestants.

I forgot their name, but Norman Lewis wrote a nice book about these religious missionary demons.

 

Hi RoB

I both understood and appreciate why you made you post and thanks for expanding on it for clarification. Got back from Kananaskis a couple of hours ago and got distracted with “ Thor Love and Thunder”  No one is home tonight downstairs and have the subwoofer turned on so I can feel the thunder.

 

 

[Alchopwn]

On 8/14/2022 at 1:23 PM, cormac mac airt said:

I would say no for two reasons:  1)  It goes against the idea of “separation of church and state” and 2)  Many/possibly most of our Founding Fathers were Deists and NOT Christian. 

cormac

Firstly, thanks for addressing the topic Cormac.

Now in answer to point 1), I am not advocating for the involvement of actual organized churches, but rather some means of trying to redress the impasse and increasing divide between the urban/Dem and rural/GOP political divide, where neither side seems to even understand what the other is saying these days as they increasingly lack a common language of moral values.

As to point 2), the beliefs of the Founding Fathers don't really feature in this debate.  Were we specifically interpreting the Constitution then the intentions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers would be immensely important, but I'm more interested in simply trying to find a common language of ethical values that can bridge the present political divide before we get a civil war breaking out because people can't talk to each other.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Firstly, thanks for addressing the topic Cormac.

Now in answer to point 1), I am not advocating for the involvement of actual organized churches, but rather some means of trying to redress the impasse and increasing divide between the urban/Dem and rural/GOP political divide, where neither side seems to even understand what the other is saying these days as they increasingly lack a common language of moral values.

As to point 2), the beliefs of the Founding Fathers don't really feature in this debate.  Were we specifically interpreting the Constitution then the intentions and beliefs of the Founding Fathers would be immensely important, but I'm more interested in simply trying to find a common language of ethical values that can bridge the present political divide before we get a civil war breaking out because people can't talk to each other.

Hi Al

I would think that because the religious landscape of American is changing by both Christians and none Christians that imposing a Christian ideology on a country based on religious freedoms would create more pro Latham it solve by looking for solely based on Christian ideology. The enforcement of such precept’s would alienate a large percentage of the population 

[Piney]

17 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I know that thàt was your point, but I only wanted to stress the fact that these evil blackrobes tried to convert the pagans by twisting their pagan religion into something that would fit the Christian faith, and by that to make it acceptable for these heathens.

I have witnessed their 'tactics' in South America.

 

Edited to correct:

I have witnessed the evil way of converting the South American natives to the Christian faith, not by Catholic priests or missionaries, but by North American protestants.

I forgot their name, but Norman Lewis wrote a nice book about these religious missionary demons.

 

American Evangelical missionaries are a horror story. 

 

[lightly]

20 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yeah, for some the only real morality is predicated on their belief that someone, ie. God, is watching. Without their God they’re no different than animals in a zoo. 
 

cormac

Yeah,   …  I guess that idea can and has had a positive effect on how people treat each other?..  but then again, they also can find ‘religious’ justification for all sorts of ungodly!  doings unto others ,while god watches…especially when religion gets twisted together with politics and economics!*? . .    I dunno, but , morality and justice and compassion are still needed, somehow, if we are to survive each other!    What can we root those concepts and practices IN?   Spirituality?  Sociology?  Common sense?    Shopping? 

[+Desertrat56]

On 8/13/2022 at 8:30 PM, Alchopwn said:

Of course as an atheist, and despite knowing the Bible very well indeed, this also makes me uncomfortable as the Bible is an intensely irrational document.  What do other people think?  I raise this idea more as a point of discussion than because I really think I am correct or have a point to make, in fact I suspect (and perhaps even hope) I am wrong.

I think my description of my friend's family arguing using bible quotes had nothing to do with using it as inspiration on how to live, they were using it as a way to clumsily chastise, judge and condem each other.    My friend was using her knowledge in self defense.   It is totally different from the writers of the 19th century that you  mention.

As for using the bible as inspriation on how to live a good life, no, it is not coherent enough and there are already too many people metaphorically bashing each other over the head with what they think is written in the bible.   I noticed most people who use bible quotes to make a point cherry pick and almost always choose incomplete sentences which have no meaning, and when the whole sentence is quoted it means exactly opposite from what the manipulator is claiming.    It is the worst document on the planet to use as inspiration for anything but insanity and sociapathy.  And by a christian's veiwpoint I am an atheist, I don't adhere to any religion, though I find Zen Budhism more rational, I don't feel the need to study or embrace it.   Even though I know (believe if you insist) that we are more than the sum of our physical parts.  But I am not going to ever try to shove that down anyone's throat and insist that people believe as I do, because it is my belief based on my experience and my biggest complaint about the juadic religions (including christians and muslims) is that they think they are special because of embracing someone else's beliefs and the extremsits think it is their job to either cleanse the planet of "non-believers" or "save non-believers" for brownie points to get into heaven.

I will state my opinion in these discussions but I have no attachment to anyone believing anything I believe.    I am attached to chastising the bible thumpers for hitting other over the head with their beliefs.   It is one of my triggers that I am working on.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

On 8/13/2022 at 9:02 PM, SHaYap said:

Burn the Magic books, then burn the magicians next... 

~

 

And the question I have is why the imaginary Roman who changed his name to Paul is a saint?   It seems obvious he didn't exist or if he did, he did not write all those books in the bible attributed to him.  And the ones I remember reading were letters from jail.  Many jails, so even if he did exist, what leads people to believe he was someone worth following if he got arrested in almost every town he entered.   One thing I know is that the judaic god (and christians quote it often) give Ceasar what is his and I interprete that as the romans want their taxes and want the followers of their new religion to obey the law of the land.   That makes sense, obey the law of the land.  If you don't like that law go somewhere else or integrate into the society and work on changing that law.   Paul obviously was not even a good roman, much less a good christian.

[cormac mac airt]

23 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

And the question I have is why the imaginary Roman who changed his name to Paul is a saint?   It seems obvious he didn't exist or if he did, he did not write all those books in the bible attributed to him.  And the ones I remember reading were letters from jail.  Many jails, so even if he did exist, what leads people to believe he was someone worth following if he got arrested in almost every town he entered.   One thing I know is that the judaic god (and christians quote it often) give Ceasar what is his and I interprete that as the romans want their taxes and want the followers of their new religion to obey the law of the land.   That makes sense, obey the law of the land.  If you don't like that law go somewhere else or integrate into the society and work on changing that law.   Paul obviously was not even a good roman, much less a good christian.

It’s pretty much proof positive IMO that given enough time and conviction people can rationalize most anything as being true. Religion and politics both have that in spades. 
 

cormac

[larryp]

21 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rob

Yes and that was my point to Larry that hell was not in the Dead Sea scrolls .

I agree; that's what I've been saying all along.   It will help if you read the text. 

[larryp]

On 8/12/2022 at 3:02 PM, Piney said:

Any Rabbi or Jewish scholar will tell you Moses was fictional and Job was written between 700 to 400 BCE.

YHWH

It sounds like a convenient lie, as long as it fits your narrative - Right?

[larryp]

On 8/14/2022 at 6:24 AM, Piney said:

No it wasn't. 

It was a historical lie promoted in 19th Century America.

 

YHWH

Whether it was a myth, lie, or fantasy, it was the thought of that era; that was the point, Piney.

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

And the question I have is why the imaginary Roman who changed his name to Paul is a saint?   It seems obvious he didn't exist or if he did, he did not write all those books in the bible attributed to him.  And the ones I remember reading were letters from jail.  Many jails, so even if he did exist, what leads people to believe he was someone worth following if he got arrested in almost every town he entered.  

One thing we can be sure of is that he got into heaps of trouble all over the Roman Empire, even from the days when he was just plain old Saul of Tarsus. 

~

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

One thing I know is that the judaic god (and christians quote it often) give Ceasar what is his and I interprete that as the romans want their taxes and want the followers of their new religion to obey the law of the land.   That makes sense, obey the law of the land.  If you don't like that law go somewhere else or integrate into the society and work on changing that law.  

Problem is, there wasn't much of anywhere else to go to, all roads tends to lead to Rome in those days. 

~

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Paul obviously was not even a good roman, much less a good christian.

Oh, there were plenty more that were worse... 

Quote

Christian historians celebrated the murder of Hypatia by comparing her death to Cyril's uncle's destruction of the Serapeum: “all the people surrendered to the patriarch Cyril and named him 'the new Theophilus'; for he destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city.” Cyril was venerated with the rare title “Doctor ...16 Jan 2019

https://www.laphamsquarterly.org › ...

The Killing of Hypatia - | Lapham's Quarterly

~

But of course nowadays, St Cyril is deemed not responsible because all he did was to teach his flock to be good God loving Christians...

~

Who shall weep for Hypatia... Surely not the Christian god...

~

[Abramelin]

4 hours ago, Piney said:

American Evangelical missionaries are a horror story. 

 

I met them in Peru, Iquitos, and let's say, we had a heated discussion...

[Abramelin]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

And the question I have is why the imaginary Roman who changed his name to Paul is a saint?  

He had an agenda, or he wanted to 'get even' with the Romans.

 

First: he changed the Jewish rules like the one about circumcision. Even goyim could become member of this new cult.

Second: he changed dietary rules. Christians could eat anything they wanted. But no meat on Fridays (not sure about that one).

Third: he never met Jesus in the flesh and made up a lot of stuff that became rule in the Roman Catholic Church.

Fourth: the guy was a devious rat. But that's just me, heh.

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

He had an agenda, or he wanted to 'get even' with the Romans.

 

First: he changed the Jewish rules like the one about circumcision. Even goyim could become member of this new cult.

Second: he changed dietary rules. Christians could eat anything they wanted. But no meat on Fridays (not sure about that one).

Third: he never met Jesus in the flesh and made up a lot of stuff that became rule in the Roman Catholic Church.

Fourth: the guy was a devious rat. But that's just me, heh.

He didn't do that, that pope (new Roman emperor) did that.  Paul did not change anything except for his hate of women, that was a message I got in all of his "books" I read, he wanted to perpetuate the roman version of misogyny.

[Abramelin]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

he wanted to perpetuate the roman version of misogyny.

Nah.

The Romans didn't HATE women. At least not as much as Paul did.

I guess he had a small pecker, and was laughed at by the women he dated.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Abramelin

[+Desertrat56]

Just now, Abramelin said:

Nah.

The Romans didn't HATE women. At least not as much as Paul did.

But they were a misogynistic society, women either had to scrub floors and have sons or they were put on pedastals and not allowed to do anything.

[Abramelin]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

But they were a misogynistic society, women either had to scrub floors and have sons or they were put on pedastals and not allowed to do anything.

I assume you watched too many movies about Romans and the Roman Empire.

Just a guess.

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

I assume you watched too many movies about Romans and the Roman Empire.

Just a guess.

Nope I read a lot of history books, I did not watch a lot of movies.

[Piney]

5 hours ago, larryp said:

YHWH

It sounds like a convenient lie, as long as it fits your narrative - Right?

The burden of proof is on you to provide the names and studies of the archeologists and historians to prove he existed.

[Piney]

5 hours ago, larryp said:

YHWH

Whether it was a myth, lie, or fantasy, it was the thought of that era; that was the point, Piney.

No it wasn't. Europe knew the world was round.